home

Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me

Update: Craig Crawford also believes Fitzgerald has new leakers from within his camp to investigate. Evan at Alternet highlights my theory.

***************
Original Post 6:35 am

Karl Rove's loyalists are promoting a new version of the Valerie Plame leak to the New York Times. Now, they say, Novak called Rove on July 8 and told him about Valerie Plame, and Rove merely said, "I heard that too.."

How dumb do they think we are?

Mr. Rove has told investigators that he learned from the columnist the name of the C.I.A. officer, who was referred to by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and the circumstances in which her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, traveled to Africa to investigate possible uranium sales to Iraq, the person said.

After hearing Mr. Novak's account, the person who has been briefed on the matter said, Mr. Rove told the columnist: "I heard that, too." The previously undisclosed telephone conversation, which took place on July 8, 2003, was initiated by Mr. Novak, the person who has been briefed on the matter said. The person who provided the information about Mr. Rove's conversation with Mr. Novak declined to be identified, citing requests by Mr. Fitzgerald that no one discuss the case. The person discussed the matter in the belief that Mr. Rove was truthful in saying he did not disclose Ms. Wilson's identity.

Then, there's this:

Asked by investigators how he knew enough to leave Mr. Novak with the impression that his information was accurate, Mr. Rove said he heard portions of the story from other journalists, but had not heard Ms. Wilson's name.

The key clue that it is spin? Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, isn't endorsing it. Which, to me, says it's a public relations ploy, coming from one of Rove's lawyer/p.r. friends who thinks he or she is helping Rove by this disclosure. Defense lawyers and public relations people often do not see eye-to-eye. One is trying to protect a client's liberty. The other is trying to protect the client's reputation. In a criminal investigation, the lawyer is usually right. The less said in public, the better.

Robert D. Luskin, Mr. Rove's lawyer, said Thursday, "Any pertinent information has been provided to the prosecutor."

Update: The unidentified Rove supporter has moved on to the AP which identifies him as working in the legal profession. The source again claims Rove heard about Plame's identity from a reporter. Is this source a government lawyer or employee of one, and is he or she violating the law by disclosing matters that occurred before the grand jury?

Presidential confidant Karl Rove testified to a grand jury that he learned the identity of a CIA operative originally from journalists, then informally discussed the information with a Time magazine reporter days before the story broke, according to a person briefed on the testimony.

The person, who works in the legal profession and spoke only on condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, told The Associated Press that Rove testified last year that he remembers specifically being told by columnist Robert Novak that Valerie Plame, the wife of a harsh Iraq war critic, worked for the CIA.

It's only a crime for a Government attorney or someone associated with one to disclose matters occurring before the grand jury. Witnesses before the grand jury and their attorneys are not under a secrecy rule. Only Government attorneys and personnel are allowed in the grand jury room. Transcripts of grand jury proceedings are not available to witness' lawyers before Indictment. Yet this source seems to be quite familiar with Karl Rove's grand jury testimony. Karl Rove's lawyer wasn't in the grand jury room.

Maybe Fitzgerald needs to add another subject to his investigation - this source in the legal profession who claims to be privy to Karl Rove's grand jury testimony and is now leaking it. He seems to be (now or in the past) on the government's team.

One more point: The source tells the AP that Rove testified that Novak told Rove about Valerie Plame on July 8 and Rove had already heard it from another journalist. But Rove can't remember which one. How convenient.

Update: The Washington Post has this account, mostly confirming the New York Times account, and reporting that the source is a lawyer. It does not say the source is working for Luskin. The source also seems to be familiar with Lewis Libby's grand jury testimony.

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, has also testified before the grand jury, saying he was alerted by someone in the media to Plame's identity, according to a source familiar with his account. Cooper has previously testified that he brought up the subject of Plame with Libby and that Libby responded that he had heard about her from someone else in the media, according to sources knowledgeable about Cooper's testimony.

And, the article references "Republican lawyers working with Rove" which I also interpret as meaning lawyers not from Luskin's office.

Then there's this:

Sources who have reviewed some of the testimony before the grand jury say there is significant evidence that reporters were in some cases alerting officials about Plame's identity and relationship to Wilson -- not the other way around.

So now there are multiple sources familiar grand jury testimony who are talking. Again, the only persons who are allowed to review grand jury testimony at this stage are government lawyers and personnel, and if they disclose it to those not authorized to have it, they can be found in contempt of court.

Update: I suspect this e-mail I received presents a view that is shared by many readers:

I enjoy your analysis of the Rove matter but I think your latest posting is off the mark. the source in the NYT, WP and AP is Luskin himself. think about it. he would be in a position to know what Rove said in the grand jury room and is attempting to save Rove's reputation. He has resorted to this means because Fitzgerald has asked witnesses and their attorneys not to speak about their testimony. I think that you will agree that this is not an implausible hypothesis. Thanks again for the insights.

My response:

It seems logical but I don't buy it. And Luskin is not allowed to see Rove's testimony, he only knows what Rove told him he was asked and what Rove told him he answered.

See the Wash Post article, there are multiple sources now disclosing grand jury testimony. Luskin wouldn't use an anonymous source, he'd come right out and say it. It's not a violation for the witness and his lawyer to do so. But yes, your theory is plausible.

Luskin is an experienced criminal defense attorney. I don't think he'd get this specific with the media about what his client's grand jury testimony was, when he has only his client's oral recollection of it to go by. He's sticking to the modern equivalent of "no comment" - "Any pertinent information has been provided to the prosecutor."

< Justice Sunday II: Return of the Extremists | Fact Sheet on Karl Rove's Non-Disclosure Agreement >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#1)
    by jarober on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:14 PM EST
    I guess you missed Wolf Blitzer interviewing Wilson today on CNN: off topic quote deleted.

    Uh, James, Wilson is quite clearly saying that when Novak outed his wife in a national newspaper, she ceased to be clandestine. Which, you know, is a fair point. Anyway, back to the topic. What on earth has Rove's supposed conversation with Novak got to do with the legality or morality of his leaking Plame's identity to Cooper?

    Seems clear to me. His wife ceased to be undercover once Novak blew her cover. Hence not posing for pictures after that fact would be like closing the barn door after the cows had gotten out. This is what Blitzer asked about, right? Whoever leaked Plame's identity is a traitor who burned vital US assets, as not just Plame but also Plame's CIA front company was outed. S/He should be deported, and people should spit after they say her/his name. Rove is either that person or an accomplice after the fact. Either way, not someone any patriotic American should defend.

    The leftcoaster website has a column rebutting all of the RNC "talking points" that have been floated out to discredit Wilson. It's very thorough. Link.

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#5)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:14 PM EST
    The story is steadily, inevitably, and - as predicted - ultimately turning against the NYT. Who is Judith Miller really protecting? It sure ain't Rove, so who? A boss? A co-worker? Herself? Reap the whirlwind, guys. You earned it.

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#6)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:14 PM EST
    Who is Judith Miller really protecting? It sure ain't Rove, so who? A boss? A co-worker? Herself? Yes, go to prison to protect yourself. Ras, you need to get some sleep.

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#8)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:14 PM EST
    Wow, It's fun to watch the Left refuse to believe! Believe it, guys. The contrary evidence - which ol' ras predicted, not cuz he's so smart but simply cuz it was so obvious - has arrived. And there's more to come. Your insults at me sure don't change that. Your denial sure don't. And your regrets will arrive too late. Oh, and Che, Judith Miller is taking a little prison time now to protect herself, or someone else, or perhaps both, against a whole lot more later. Not every prison sentence is for the same length of time. I wouldda thought you'd'a known that? Oh well, you're young; don't worry about it, man.

    I think all of the focus on Karl Rove is mighty convenient, and that he's only one of the bit players in this case. Maybe the real culprits are hiding behind all the flak on him. That's the way this administation works.

    Look at the Judges' opinions after they saw what Fitzgerald's case looks like. The blacked out pages are the case, and we know nothing about that.

    I'd better clarify that I do believe Rove is guilty of leaking the information about Joe Wilson's wife. But there is much more to this case than that, and the fact that the Rep. spin machine doesn't mind talking about Rove tells me they're even more worried about others who are involved in this, than they are about him.

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#11)
    by Mreddieb on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:14 PM EST
    I think it's important to begin debunking this nonsense about the MSM is now the Source and is responsible for Rove outing Valerie. First, Reporters don't have access to TOP Secret info.If they did they got it from someone in the Gov't who leaked it to them, full circle. Rove has top secret clearances and if a reporter gave him the info it doesn't absolve him from his obligation NOT to Leak the info. No matter what. The reason he HAS a Clearance is he is to be intrusted by his Govt and his President to keep a Secret no excuses. Now anyone who thinks Rove was somehow obligated to protect his source the one who devulged top secret info to him is dead wrong. If someone outed a CIA Operative to Rover it was his sworn duty to do everything in his power to protect the agent and prosecute the offender. So you see this is all just another part of the wing nut smoke and mirror compaign. Rav Sorry, you have to find another line Bu'l Sh't. This one doesn't hold piss either.

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#12)
    by jarober on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:14 PM EST
    TL, your editing rules are getting "interesting". You claim that this exchange between Wilson and Blitzer is "off topic": " 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. " How is that off topic? We are discussing the supposed "outing" of Plame, and this makes it clear that there was no outing. The only way this is off topic is if the truth hurts.

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#13)
    by Mreddieb on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:14 PM EST
    James You seem to have a real strange grip on reality. The moment Noval Publicized her SECRET it wo NO LONGER A SECRET. Now how you extract that there was "NO OUTING" is beyond reason and logic! Doesn't Context mean anthing to you? You can't Take a few words ("My wife was not a clandestine officer") out of CONTEXT and convert it into an admission.

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#14)
    by jarober on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:15 PM EST
    Ed, The way I interpreted it is the only reasonable way to read it. Add in the now fairly well reported fact that Plame hadn't been on overseas assignment since 1994 (it looks likely that her identity was actually blown before 1994, by Aldrich Ames) - and you have exactly zip here.

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#15)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:15 PM EST
    Sure they did Karl. Still trying to sell that beach front property in the everglades?

    From Josh in the Hill The first newspaper article written about Novak’s role in exposing a covert agent was a July 22, 2003, Newsday article by Timothy Phelps and Newt Royce. That’s about a week after Novak’s column ran and well before the story caught fire in Washington. The article focuses squarely on the controversy over and damage caused by the exposure of covert agent. Phelps and Royce interviewed Novak for the column, too. And he said nothing about any misunderstanding about Plame’s status. What he told them was this: “I didn’t dig it out. It was given to me. They thought it was significant. They gave me the name and I used it.”

    JR,

    Your comments show how far down the well you will drop that bucket to try and cover for your preznit. Sad and pathetic.

    The fact is, this whole case comes down to how willing and able the bush-gang were, and still are, to lie, cheat and steal their way into an illegal war.

    And the fact that you are willing to overlook and deny the criminal nature of their acts? Indefensible.

    Here's an important question I don't hear anyone asking: What did Bush know? Anyone think he wasn't in on this?

    Right on! This egg wasn't hatched out in the backyard of the whitehouse. This thing was well planned, and had to involve the whole team. And even if it didn't, the boss is still responsible.

    Ed B..... Doesn't Context mean anthing to you? I was big time LOL over this.... Context didn't seem to matter to the left when big "dick" Durban compared our troops to Nazis...did it? All you lefties argued that wording didn't you?

    One little issue is left unresolved in this mess of trying to figure out who's the source for this new article, whether Rove spoke of all this to Bush, etc. -- everything that's come out (so far) backs up Rove's contention that he did nothing wrong, legally or otherwise. I know this will be met with howls of laughter from many posters here but really, what have you got? Cooper's email (the only thing out so far from him) says only that Rove said Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. This Novak story, if true, corroborates this, and adds that not only did Rove not tell Novak, but Novak told Rove. Which would point to someone else altogether (and may lend credence by some's contention that her status was much more known than many say). Miller's not talking at all; we need to hear what she has to say. I know people hate Rove, Bush, etc. but right now there's nothing here. The part about Rove not saying Plame's name is a red herring. If he outed her as a covert agent, it doesn't matter if he used her name or not. The Left/Liberal/truthseekers are absolutely right about that. But the issue was supposed to be whether he outed a covert CIA agent. There are, to me, still questions about her status, but let's argue for the moment she's James Bond in heels. If he didn't know and actually -- gasp -- told the truth, and said she was with the CIA and recommended him for the job -- which she did, regardless of her status -- he's innocent. I myself on this site the other day called for his firing/resignation, but I jumped the gun. There's just nothing resembling proof of Rove's wrongdoing. All that's known for sure is that Rove talked to reporters (who both said they contacted him, though I don't know if that even matters) to discredit somebody he felt was peddling junk to embarrass and discredit his administration. They have a name for that, and it's not treason. It's called politics, and has been done by every politician in every position since another George chopped down a cherry tree. This isn't over and if Rove is implicated, fine, but right now there's nothing to fire or try him for.

    Posted by BB Doesn't Context mean anthing to you? I was big time LOL over this.... Context didn't seem to matter to the left when big "dick" Durban compared our troops to Nazis...did it? All you lefties argued that wording didn't you?
    I agree with the poster above that you have almost no concept of what the word "context" means. But to get back to the topic at hand, here is a link that may be of use in this thread: Buzz Flash's reprint of Ambassador Joe Wilson's Letter to the Senate Select Intelligence Committee

    Scott, Normally, a resonsible reporter (ack, Novak?) will require confirmation from a second source. That's Rove. Whether Roves discovery of classified info comes from a non-cleared source exempts him from criminal liability, I don't know. But, surely, as a supposed "grown-up" in government, he should be aware that confirming Plame's status, regardless of how he gained such information, puts her and her operations at risk. My question is, if Judith Miller was a source for the White House, should she continue to enjoy the support of her fellow journalists for standing on principal? She seems to be more of a snitch than a reporter. That is, of course, if she was journalist in question.

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#24)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:15 PM EST
    Scott, you are mostly correct. Fitzgerald has done an excellent job of not allowing leaks in this case which has caused a ton of speculation. Kudos to Fitzgerald and his team for for keeping a tight seal on the investigaion. In light of your comments I will refrain from asking for a resignation or a firing. But I still think Rove was complicit.

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#25)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:15 PM EST
    Back in the day, when I held an SCI clearance (as high as clearances get), we were told, in no uncertain terms, that even if a story was front page news, we couldnt talk about it. That would be "official confirmation" of a story. We were told that we could be prosecuted. If Novack told Rove, and Rove confirmed it, Rove would be a criminal. Nice try guys

    Maybe I'm a little lost here. Two posts above discuss Rove comfirming Plame's status. Where was this?

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#27)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:15 PM EST
    Razz, I wouldda thought you'd'a known that? Oh well, you're young; don't worry about it, man. Wrong again. Ras, are you using the same method to estimate my age as you are to form your conclusions? It sure seems so. Because you're consistently wrong. From JR: Ed, The way I interpreted it is the only reasonable way to read it. Wow. I guess that settles THAT. Scott says: If he didn't know and actually -- gasp -- told the truth, and said she was with the CIA and recommended him for the job -- which she did, regardless of her status -- he's innocent. Dead wrong bucko. Dead wrong. Ignorance is and never has been an excuse for breaking the law. Scott, I realize that context is a difficult concept for you to understand. Let me help. The big hand is for minutes, the little hand is for hours... Cannon fodder. Thanks wingers. Trying to blame the messengers again. It's getting old and worn. Just like your spinning. LOL.

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#28)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:15 PM EST
    Sorry, the last reference was for BB, not Scott. (Scotty has enough damage control on his hands.)

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#29)
    by nolo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:15 PM EST
    This recent post at talking points memo pretty much sums it up, as far as I'm concerned.

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#30)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:15 PM EST
    Actually, with this particular law, ignorance is a specific excuse. If Rove confirmed Plame's status, what status did he confirm? She couldn't have been in covert status, as has been generally agreed. She had a Langley parking sticker on her car, hardly a disguise. To confirm, or even state, that she worked for the CIA is not illegal, unless it's a knowing statement of a person known to be covert knowing the CIA is taking active steps to maintain the covert nature of the status. If she's not covert...game over. Interesting Miller/Fitzgerald nexus earlier: Fitzgerald's office was doing an investigation of one of the numerous Islamic charities whose charitable nature equals Noraid's. Miller got wind of it and called the place for comments, thus sparking a shredding party. Fitzgerald tried to find out from her who the source in his office was, and was stymied by some moron judge. Thus, Miller is not likely to get any doubt-benefitting from Fitzgerald. And, who on earth is left to be providing cover for, considering Miller's employer says there is no crime? I don't suppose the journalist-source relationship protection depends on the crime or not-crime issue, but she's protecting somebody who told her that Plame worked for the CIA, which, apparently, lots of people knew. Something screwy here.

    Scott, there are anonymously sourced articles in the NYT and WaPo today, one citing 'someone briefed on Rove's testimony to the grand jury' and one citing 'a lawyer familiar with his testimony'. In other words, almost certainly Luskin, since I believe it's illegal to reveal grand jury testimony to anyone but your lawyer. Regardless, it could still be true, but bear the probable source in mind, given how Luskin's previous comments have borne out. Anyway, the stories claim that Rove testified that Novak called up Rove and asked him about Wilson's CIA wife sending him to Niger, and he said "I've heard that too". What this has to do with his conversation with Cooper, I don't know. "There are, to me, still questions about her status, but let's argue for the moment she's James Bond in heels. If he didn't know and actually -- gasp -- told the truth, and said she was with the CIA and recommended him for the job -- which she did, regardless of her status -- he's innocent." Even if that's true, it only means he's innocent of the IIPA charge. He's demonstrably guilty of lying to an official, since McClellan came out nearly two years ago and said Libby, Abrams and Rove told him they "had nothing to do with" the leak (if the right are going to bash Wilson over his similar claim about his wife...). He is almost certainly guilty of disclosing classified information under the espionage act, which does not require knowledge or intent. And he may have lied to the grand jury. He's certainly lied to someone. "Normally, a resonsible reporter (ack, Novak?) will require confirmation from a second source. That's Rove." Normally a responsible reporter wouldn't consider Rove a reliable second source.

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#32)
    by Mreddieb on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:15 PM EST
    BB Are you off your meds? It was the Repigs and all you wingnuts who when nuts because, as usual, you all spitefully took Senator Durbins comments OUT OF CONTEXT! I would encourage you would buy a Copy of "Reading comprehension for DUMMIES" and have someone explain it to you! :) LOL at you!

    "And, who on earth is left to be providing cover for, considering Miller's employer says there is no crime?" Of course Miller's employer says there is no crime. If there's no crime, there's no justification for forcing her to give up the source. The CIA, Fitzgerald, the judge and by inference the Supreme Court all disagree.

    We're forgetting about Matt Cooper. Link

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#35)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:15 PM EST
    Yeah, Ginger, but the NYT thought there was a crime until Miller got her registered letter. It would be different if the NYT had never thought there was a crime. I'm still puzzled about who's left to be a source, unless she's getting 'way too serious about confidentiality for a source who is so unimportant Fitzgerald hasn't noticed him, yet. If I understand the journos' views on the subject, that would still hold, regardless of how irrelevant the source and info are.

    Registered letter? To be honest, I have a feeling Miller's holding out has a lot to do with restoring credibility in the eyes of her colleagues/superiors/potential future employers after the whole Iraq WMD thing. She's gone from pariah to martyr. But you probably knew I'd say that.

    GY: "Normally a responsible reporter wouldn't consider Rove a reliable second source." So true.

    Another point, raised ironically enough by someone on redstate.org: The NYT article says this: "Mr. Rove has told investigators that he learned from the columnist the name of the C.I.A. officer, who was referred to by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and the circumstances in which her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, traveled to Africa to investigate possible uranium sales to Iraq, the person said." But Rove told CNN last year: "I didn't know her name." Even if the anonymously sourced, supposedly exculpatory report above is true, Rove must have known her name when he spoke to Cooper, because Novak had already told him. Now Rove lying to the press is nothing new to liberals, but here's some nice documentary proof.

    Can we put this "ignorance of the law is no excuse" stupidity to rest? It's got nothing to do with ignorance of the LAW. The LAW backs him up. It specifically says, among other things, that in order to break the LAW one has to knowingly leak a covert agents' status. IF HE DOESN'T KNOW SHE'S A COVERT SPY, HE CAN'T LEAK THAT SHE'S A COVERT SPY, AND THUS DIDN'T BREAK THIS LAW. Why is this so hard to understand? At least Ginger Yellow seems to understand this. But then says Rove's guilty of lying to an official, because he said he had nothing to do with the leak. Again, IF HE DIDN'T KNOW SHE'S A COVERT SPY, HE DIDN'T LEAK THAT SHE'S A COVERT SPY. Add to this the strong possibility (from everything out so far) that the people he supposedly leaked this to, said he didn't (Cooper's email) or not only said he didn't, but said they already knew it and were the ones who told him. Also, Ginger says the espionage act requires neither knowledge nor intent, when everything I've read says the opposite, that the espionage act requires knowledge and intent. Which makes sense. How can you be guilty of a federal crime for outing a covert agent if you have no idea they're an agent and have no intention of saying so.

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#40)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:15 PM EST
    Regardless of whether the investigation leads to Rove's arrest, he should been fired by the GOP years ago for the way he viciously slandered the war hero John McCain. He is beyond slimy, even for the politics racket. Frankly, the way the right has rushed to his defense is very troubling to me. Have we become so hopelessly partisan that outing a CIA agent can't be universally condemned? Understand righties...condemnation of Rove is not condemnation of conservative philosophy, just condemnation of a single unscrupulous man. If you believe in integrity and personal responsibility, demand his resignation, your party can do better than that sc*mbag.

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#41)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:15 PM EST
    I guess in Bizarro world if you want to find out if someone is a covert agent you should ask the press. Rove knew she was CIA. He should have STFU after that til he found out for himself if she was covert. Instead he used her to smear Wilson.

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#42)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:15 PM EST
    In Bush I's world, Rove was fired and Wilson was the ambassador to Iraq. Now we have entered Bizarro world.

    "At least Ginger Yellow seems to understand this. But then says Rove's guilty of lying to an official, because he said he had nothing to do with the leak. Again, IF HE DIDN'T KNOW SHE'S A COVERT SPY, HE DIDN'T LEAK THAT SHE'S A COVERT SPY." "The leak" and "leaking that she's a covert spy" are very different things. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Rove was the original leaker, but didn't know she was covert. It's still a leak. Even if it's not a legal offense (more on that later) it's demonstrably a sacking offense. Especially when you add the lying about it. Now to the legal issue. Almost everybody is focused on the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, 50 USC 421(b), which states:"Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identity of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $25,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both." Based on what we know now, I'd say it's around 30/70 that Rove breached that, but it's impossible to know without concrete info on Plame's status and Rove's conversations. But, again based just on what we already know, he is very likely to have breached the Espionage Act, 18 USC 793: "(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; ... (f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." And finally, even if he gets off on that, there's this, 18 USC 1001: "(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully— (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#44)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:15 PM EST
    At this pt, a few thing are clear: ... Plame was not an undercover agent. Her neighbors knew she worked for the CIA, her friends knew, the Washington cocktail ciruit knew and, apparently, umpteen reporters knew. ... The NYT, and the Left in general, wanted to use the smoke and confusion to take a run at Rove. It has failed miserably and even Partisan Joe Wilson seems to be trying to defuse the story, now. Too late. ... The NYT is the big loser here. The storm has passed for Rove, but it'll last a lot longer for the NYT, and rain a lot harder. I'm still shaking my head that, in the Blog Era, the NYT and the Left in general would think they could safely score points on this one, with no risk of downstream consequences or of the facts coming out. Did they learn nothing from Rathergate? Nope. Nothing at all.

    Ed B.... you all spitefully took Senator Durbins comments OUT OF CONTEXT! So says the left! We all know what Durbin meant. He just spinned it a little differently when he was called out on it. But I do understand that the left can spin & spin but the right can't..! Don't worry Ed... I get it. The "Reading comprehension" all depends on what party you are backing...doesn't it? Che'... I realize that context is a difficult concept for you to understand. No...as stated above, I understand perfectly. The concept is....the left can do it (it's ok) but the right can't. When a jag like Durbin goes on & on about the troops...we all just mistook his comments. But when Rove or someone on the right talks...it's taken literally (IE - out of context) by the left & that's ok

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:15 PM EST
    Good point Che...could you have ever imagined we'd look back fondly on the first George's term? GDub's loyalty to his buddies has really, really, REALLY gotten out of control. This is our govt., not some college frat.

    ras, where do you get this stuff?

    Robert Novak said

    I didn't dig it out, it was given to me. They thought it was significant, they gave me the name, and I used it.
    Somebody is lying!

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#48)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:15 PM EST
    Scott, The motive here was clear, I wouldn't doubt they knew how to precisely skirt the law and still get their smear on. I can't do anything but call for these guys' professional heads. The problem I have with all your arguments is that they are just as bereft of substance as those you argue against. The "jury" is out right now, none of us knows the real inside story. We are merely speculating. But I have trouble understanding how a motive so clear can seem to evade you. They were looking to destroy someone WHO SIMPLY DISAGREED WITH THEM by going after his wife WITH INFO ABOUT HER STATUS AT THE C.I.A.!! Even if they managed to skate the letter of the law, their intentions were as sleezy, underhanded, wretched, and deserving of a serious whoopin', that it cannot be countenanced. If these were real men, they'd step down for the good of their nation and let the chips fall legally where they may. But they aren't: they are typical, concerned more about their fat wallets, their fatter egos, and their infintesimely tiny members. Are these really the people we want in the White House. Imagine what they'd do to you if they thought you were messing with their power. Their intent was clear and malicious, it fits the Bush administration's thuggish pattern of smearing, and common decency -- if not honor, which I don't think they possess -- would dictate to a decent person that it's time to think beyond themselves to what is best for the nation.

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#49)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:15 PM EST
    Add Scott, Saying your arguments were just as bereft of substance as those you argue against was NOT the right way to say it. Just as speculative is what I meant to say. Sorry for the fritz.

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#50)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:16 PM EST
    Dadler. They can't smear Plame and Wilson by talking about Plame's employment. She's not a covert agent, was not at the time. Thus, not only is there no legal issue, there's no smear issue. Lots of people work for the CIA. She was not going to go back overseas, since she'd been brought back for fear Ames had outed her (and why doesn't the left get upset about HIM), and, absent cosmetic surgery and a completely new identity, she wasn't going back. No smear.

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#51)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:16 PM EST
    Ras, Plame was not an undercover agent. Her neighbors knew she worked for the CIA, her friends knew, the Washington cocktail ciruit knew and, apparently, umpteen reporters knew. Pure BS. Back it up.

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#52)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:16 PM EST
    RA, The CIA disagrees with you.

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#53)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:16 PM EST
    RA just making crap up or is it repeating todays GOP talking points?

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#54)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:16 PM EST
    Richard Aubrey, I'd say we have a disagreement about this seriousness of this matter on the order of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design. All I can suggest is check out the very comprehensive link Cheetah provided earlier, which I'll repost here. Rebutting the RNC Plame talking points Peace.

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#55)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:16 PM EST
    You guys did it again. The EEEEVIL genius, Rove, let you rope-a-dope yourselves. You and the MSM. Got enough rope?

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#56)
    by Mreddieb on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:16 PM EST
    It is just overwhelming the barrage of lies, deception, distraction, treason, propaganda, corruption, ranting, false charges, super secret disinformation, intimadition and super spin that would make a catagory 5 Tornado look like a safe haven from this repiglican madhouse! This is no simple wicked web they weave when they set out to deceive. These guys drop shoes by the truck load! No wonder most americans don't want to get involved! This is the same kind of bullshot they threw at Kerry except this time it's on steroids!

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#58)
    by Mreddieb on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:16 PM EST
    To save Rover these clowns would crucify Jesus again and over and over and over then blame the Jewish media, Dan Rather and the times for trying to blame on them just because they happen to have a the video of them nailing him to the cross and they still have the Hammer and some bloody nails in their hands!

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#59)
    by Kitt on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:16 PM EST
    This is something that has peaked my interest from Day One and I have followed at every twist & turn. I think primarily because Joe Wilson served both Republican & Democratic administrations; Wilson admits voting for Geo.H.W.Bush. Wilson also stated he donated to both party's campaigns. I thought that in itself was fairly interesting. Rove is sputtering to stay afloat. He is king of 'slime & grime' tactics. Not this time....not this time.
    Novak said "his sources had come to him with the information. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."


    Dadler, don't worry. I didn't take your saying my arguments lacked substance as an insult. No problem. You ask how a motive so clear (outing Plame as payback to Wilson) could evade me. It doesn't, not at all. I understand completely why they would do it. They certainly had motive, and opportunity; it's the proof I haven't been convinced of yet. I have no illusions regarding their ability and desire to do this. But we're talking about very messy stuff here. Compromising the identify of a covert spy, endangering national security, ruining investigations, blowing covers for other agents, destroying the front company Plame was supposedly working out of, and quite possibly getting people KILLED, all for the purpose of payback to somebody who disagreed with them. I need more before I'll sign on to that. As for the lack of substance, we're all speculating here. I just try to distinguish between facts, intelligent arguments with cogent thought, plausibility, and outright bs. I try to deal with facts whenever possible, back up my comments as best I can, and stay away from the bs.

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#61)
    by Kitt on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:16 PM EST
    Here's a bit more for those pipes.
    According to our sources, Miller shared Plame’s identity with her perfidious fellow neocon after deciding not to publish it herself; Novak then called his two White House sources—one of whom was Karl Rove—for confirmation and wrote the July 14, 2003 column that blew Plame’s cover. Soon after, Fitzgerald dispatched agents to question Novak about his sources and he promptly spilled the beans.


    Let's see. On one hand we have ras:
    Plame was not an undercover agent. Her neighbors knew she worked for the CIA, her friends knew, the Washington cocktail ciruit knew and, apparently, umpteen reporters knew.
    On the other hand, we have Ray McGovern, 27-year veteran of the CIA:
    Ray McGovern, who was for 27-years a senior analyst for the CIA, further confirms the status of Plame within the CIA. "I know Joseph Wilson well enough to know," said McGovern in a telephone conversation we had today, "that his wife was in fact a deep cover operative running a network of informants on what is supposedly this administration's first-priority issue: Weapons of mass destruction."
    ras:
    Plame was not an undercover agent. Her neighbors knew she worked for the CIA, her friends knew, the Washington cocktail ciruit knew and, apparently, umpteen reporters knew.
    Larry Johnson, former CIA undercover analyst:
    Let's be very clear about what happened. This is not an alleged abuse. This is a confirmed abuse. I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a CIA analyst.
    ras:
    Plame was not an undercover agent. Her neighbors knew she worked for the CIA, her friends knew, the Washington cocktail ciruit knew and, apparently, umpteen reporters knew.
    Jim Marcinkowski, former CIA case officer:
    The exposure of Valerie Plame — who I have reason to believe operated undercover — apparently by a senior administration official, is nothing less than a despicable act for which someone should be held accountable.
    Looks like a tossup to me.

    It is unthinkable, inexcusable, and indefensible, that anyone who has ever claimed to be a patriot of this country, would commit these acts, or condone these actions.

    Being ignorant or uninformed is no excuse. Believing a lie doesn't make it true. Especially if you believe it because you choose to.

    Ginger Yellow, great post about the differences between the Intelligence Identities Protection Act and the Espionage Act. Above I mentioned facts, intelligent discourse and backup. This is a perfect example. I admit I didn't read the subsections of the Acts; I printed them out and will read them later. And my apologies. When I said above that Rove wasn't guilty if he didn't know she was a covert agent, I was referring to the IIPA. I didn't even know about the Espionage Act. Thanks for setting me straight on the differences.

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#65)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:16 PM EST
    QIB, See here, for but one example: A former CIA covert agent who supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career yesterday took issue with her identification as an "undercover agent," saying that she worked for more than five years at the agency's headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee. "She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat," Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990, told The Washington Times. . . . In addition, Mrs. Plame hadn't been out as an NOC since 1997, when she returned from her last assignment, married Mr. Wilson and had twins, USA Today reported yesterday. ... Mr. Rustmann, who spent 20 of his 24 years in the agency under "nonofficial cover" -- also known as a NOC, the same status as the wife of Mr. Wilson -- also said that she worked under extremely light cover. In addition, Mrs. Plame hadn't been out as an NOC since 1997, when she returned from her last assignment, married Mr. Wilson and had twins, USA Today reported yesterday. She was no Jamie Bond, eh? This is the Left's great cause du jour? If the Left thinks that Rove, in the course of warning a reporter off a bogus story and casually mentioning that Wilson's wife got her hubbie a plum job, is an issue, they are doomed to flap in the wind. And now, with no issue left, the NYT becomes the focus. This is what happens when a bull chases any old cape.

    Espionage act, US Code: title 18, sec 792
    Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, has committed, or is about to commit, an offense under 793 or 794 of this title (18) shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.


    ras- Please, The Washington Times? It might as well be Fox. No wonder you're poorly informed.

    If the Left thinks that Rove, in the course of warning a reporter off a bogus story and casually mentioning that Wilson's wife got her hubbie a plum job, is an issue, they are doomed to flap in the wind.
    We'll be flappin' right alongside those knuckleheads from the CIA who also seem to think this is an issue. After all, they're the ones who referred this for criminal investigation.

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#69)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:16 PM EST
    Scott, Do you think a reporter first came up with this story, about a CIA wife pumping her liberal-Bush-hating husband for the Niger mission, then merely went to the administration for confirmation? Just curious, because that is really the only plausible explanation they could give OTHER than purposeful outing. If, as they seem to be claiming, they didn't know her status, then in their positions in this administration they evidenced some reprehensibly irresponsible, unprofessional, unethical core to their political beings...and should resign out of honor (not a chance) or be canned out of the president's respect for the impaitence and intolerance he will have for leakers of national security info. Were Plame merely an administrative assistant or a janitor at the CIA, this would be moot, her position was that of operative. And you don't go there just to smear those WHOSE ONLY OFFENSE WAS TO DISAGREE WITH YOU PUBLICLY. The dots don't get connected for us in most criminal proceedings. It is up to those deciding the case to connect them with evidence, logic, motivation, opportunity, etc. You don't see that yet. I hardly see anything else. But technicalities abound for those with the power and resources to find or create them. Peace.

    ras, there are some other parts of that story I find interesting: Rustmann:
    "Her neighbors knew this, her friends knew this, his friends knew this. A lot of blame could be put on to central cover staff and the agency because they weren't minding the store here. ... The agency never changed her cover status."
    Neighbor:
    One neighbor of the Wilsons, who live in the affluent Palisades community in Northwest, said that he "absolutely didn't know" that Mrs. Plame was in the CIA. "We understood her to work as an economist," said David Tillotson, a 62-year old lawyer. He said he didn't know that Mrs. Plame commuted to CIA headquarters, but added that "they wouldn't be conducting an investigation if she hadn't been covert."


    Quaker, I don't disbelieve the people you quote to dispute Ras (who didn't seem to back up his statement about Plames's 'outness' with anything), but they don't exactly dazzle me, either. First you have Ray McGovern, 27-year analyst with the CIA. So far, so good. But the quote bases his knowledge of Plame's covert status on his relationship, not with Plame, but with Joe Wilson: "I know Joseph Wilson well enough to know ... that his wife was ...". What the hell does that matter. I know she's covert 'cause her husband said so? Then you have Ray Johnson, another CIA analyst, who actually knew her. Much better. But "I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been undercover for three decades ...". Great. But what does it mean that she 'started' training with him. Where was he for the next three decades. What knowledge does he have of her status at the time in question? Is, or was he covert? If not, he knows no more than us (unless the CIA shares its agents' status with all its employees). If he is, he wouldn't be saying anything -- he'd be pretending to work for the phone company, or whatever. If he used to be covert but isn't anymore, that shows how her status could've changed over time. Last we have Jim Marcinkowski, former CIA case officer. "Valerie Plame — who I have reason to believe operated undercover ..." Gee, that settles it. I'm honestly not trying to be a jerk. This is just an example of how I try to work through all the material I see in the posts. If you can provide better quotes to back up their assessments, I'd love to see them.

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#72)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:16 PM EST
    What people knew is secondary. Whether partisans can find dueling groups of people who knew, and people who didn't, is secondary. What's important is whether she was in covert status. Among other things, that runs out after five years of being out of the cold...so to speak. She was.

    I'm honestly not trying to be a jerk. This is just an example of how I try to work through all the material I see in the posts. If you can provide better quotes to back up their assessments, I'd love to see them.
    Was Plame undercover? How would I know? It just bugs me when commenters like ras make unqualified statements like "Plame was not an undercover agent." My point was not to argue that she was or wasn't undercover. However, there are several people on the record who are in a better position to say than ras.

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#74)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:16 PM EST
    Scott & Quaker, There was apost at the top of this thread whick looked like a Wilson quote from a CNN interview. If the quoate is accurate, it read to me that Wilson says his wife was not under cover at the time.
    WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.
    It's around the third post down at the top of this thread. What does Plame have to say about all this. Can anyone link to a public statement by her?

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#75)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:16 PM EST
    Yikes....Sorry for the typos

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#76)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:16 PM EST
    Patrick, I'm speculating here, but as an employee or even former employee of the CIA I don't think Plame is in a legal position to be yapping about her position, her operative status, her reaction to her "outing", etc.

    For anyone truly interested in how the CIA people see this leak, go here, down to "the ripple effect", and watch the video.

    You're not quite up to date, Patrick:
    In an interview Friday, Wilson said his comment was meant to reflect that his wife lost her ability to be a covert agent because of the leak, not that she had stopped working for the CIA beforehand.


    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#79)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:16 PM EST
    Quaker, OK, Didn't get that part, Dadler, You would think that, but the circumstances here are relatively extraordinary no? I think we should hear from her. Cheetah, Everything I see is, IMO, politically motivated. I doubt we'll ever get the full truth. I imagine the CIA has people on both sides of this issue as well.

    So even information from the source, CIA, on what the ramifications could be from leaks like this, is politically motivated. Interesting.

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#81)
    by Kitt on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:16 PM EST
    Patrick, Valerie Plame aka Mrs. Joe (Valerie) Wilson, has to yet publicly make or issue any statement regarding 'the situation' involving her or her husband in relation to her former(?) position at the CIA.

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#82)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:16 PM EST
    Cheetah, Yes, it could very easily be, you don't think so? Kitt, I thought so. Why are other CIA employees being allowed to speak (re Cheetah's comments) and Plame not? Is it her choice or a legal obligation? I think what she had to say would be very persuasive in how I viewed this incident.

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#83)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:16 PM EST
    *totally missing the point I think* Is there something out there that's not public?

    Patrick,
    Yes, it could very easily be, you don't think so?
    Well, I actually watched the video, so I can have an opinion. If you haven't seen it, then you actually cannot.

    I just have to say that if Valerie Plame in fact sent her husband to Niger to out the LIES of the Bushliar assministration, then based on the results of that supposed 'strategy,' she has to win, hands down, the Jamie Bond Award for genius. Everybody over to Ras' house for cake and cookies. This theory, that she is behind the outing of Roverer, credits her for being Superspy Chick of the Millenium, as well. Who better to take on Eeevil KKKarl Roverer than Superspy Chick of the Millenium? Still not having found a use for HIS superpower, Genghiz W Bush pouted. What CAN he use his superpower flames that come out of his arse for? Regrettably, his father Jorell forgot to tell him before he moved to Tahiti.

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#86)
    by Kitt on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:17 PM EST
    Patrick -
    I thought so. Why are other CIA employees being allowed to speak (re Cheetah's comments) and Plame not? Is it her choice or a legal obligation? I think what she had to say would be very persuasive in how I viewed this incident.
    Her choice or legal obligation: That, I don't know. The only CIA employee that I'm aware said anything regarding Valerie Plame was 'Larry Johnson'(?) - a classmate. It really could be a legal thing because this case has been ongoing for the past two years; it's not new.

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#87)
    by Kitt on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:17 PM EST
    Posted by ras at July 15, 2005 02:39 AM Wow, It's fun to watch the Left refuse to believe!
    So how is it up there in Canada, ras? I forget - British Columbia is it? Are you able to drive on your own or still needing a licensed driver in the car? Excited about middle school? I'm just ras'ing ya! No, seriously - aren't there any Canadian problems you could be focusing upon rather than lighting up these pages?

    I think Paul kicked off the weekend early.

    Kitt, it was Jack Rice. He's ex-CIA. He only talked about the ripple affect of outing someone with Valerie Wilson's background in the agency.

    Another Canadian trying to tell us how to handle our government problems? Come on ras, lighten up! This doesn't even affect your life. Well, I don't know. We did invade a sovereign country recently. Again.

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#91)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:17 PM EST
    Well, I actually watched the video, so I can have an opinion. If you haven't seen it, then you actually cannot.
    Never said you couldn't have an opinion, just said I thought they (The statements about the effects) could be politically motivated, and I think they still are, on both sides. P.S. I watched it, and former CIA Special Agent turned radio talk show host Jack Rice comes across as equivical as hell. Plus his little closing statement seems to indicate some political agenda, IMO. I can have an opinion now right? BTW, Is anyone else having problems refreshing this site? I keep getting older cached versions and it seems like comments are missing along the right side of the main page. I've cleared my cache but can't fix the problem.

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#92)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:17 PM EST
    Could someone please post a link to the law that states CIA agents are OK to be outed if they haven't been on overseas assignments for a number of years.

    Try restarting, Patrick. Let's recap: 1) Niger forgery a forgery. 2) Niger forgery a KNOWN forgery. 3) Niger forgery by Berlusconi operatives. 4) Niger forgery outed by CIA before SOTU. 5) Niger forgery outed by IAEA, once they were finally given it six months later, in 45 minutes. 6) Wrong paper, wrong signatures, wrong dates, wrong titles. 7) Hussein already had 93+ TONS of yellowcake. 8) Aluminum tubes lie flogged with Niger forgery lie. 9) Mushroom clouds. 10) Niger forgery came out of Bush's mouth as part of intentional, impeachable, propaganda for a pre-conceived conspiracy to take the country to war against a disarmed country, in order to install airbases, and against the Taliban to force pipelines through Afghanistan. 10a.) Wingers still busy trying to distract from the facts.

    That's GHWB's law passed back in 91(?). Of course, that law doesn't suggest it's OK to out spies; it just only applies to that time limit.

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#95)
    by Kitt on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:17 PM EST
    Cheetah - 'Kitt, it was Jack Rice.' Here, it was something I read at TPM Cafe
    Larry Johnson talks about Valeri Plame on KCRW-(Podcast) To the Point is Hosted by Warren Olney and he was joined by Johnson yesterday. Larry wrote the article, The The Big Lie About Valerie Plame for TPM Cafe. Johnson refutes statements made by Victoria Toensing saying that Valeri gave up her status as a covert agent. Johnson: That's not true, that's just a lie. Johnson calls Toensing's statements ignorant and criminal. He explains the nonsense of her being a pencil pusher. Johnson talks a bout the rippling effect which was discussed on yesterday's Countdown with Jack Rice. Not only was Valeri compromised, but everyone she ever worked with in the field.
    Okay - this is at Treason Incorporated about 2/3 of the way down, directly underneath 'Bill Clinton speaks in support of Joe Wilson.'
    Another Canadian trying to tell us how to handle our government problems? Come on ras, lighten up! This doesn't even affect your life. Well, I don't know. We did invade a sovereign country recently. Again.
    I was in Albertson's the other day talking to a clerk I always talk to when some 'little old lady' with a real cane came up to ask a question. We had been talking about instituting the draft - her son is 17 and the recruiters were badgering him & others at school AND home. This little old lady I swear said as she shuffled off - "of course they're going to institute the draft. How else are we going to take over the world?"

    Kitt, Yes I knew about that Larry Johnson story on tpmcafe. I was just explaining what my link was about. The Johnson story was very informative.

    I couldn't find the story on the TI list. Of course, it's now much later, and the Clinton story may be pulled. See if you could find it again for me, if you don't mind.

    Re: Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me (none / 0) (#97)
    by Kitt on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:17 PM EST
    See - I hadn't heard about Jack Rice, but knew I had heard Someone. {It's usually about me trying to reinforce my memory 'cuz I'm gettin' old than proving a point....although} It's on the Crooks & Liars site. There's no permalink or I'd link right to that. It is at Treason Inc., but you have to hunt. I did find it but it took a couple of minutes of convoluted sh*t. It's about one-third of the way scrolling down on C&L, past Jack Rice, past Sci-Fi Friday, just underneath an interview of Soledad O'Brien with Joe Wilson, & there's both stories I cited. I guess Treason Inc is more of a summary site of blog stories/sites.

    Kitt, Thanks. I just checked out the Johnson audio clip. I don't know how I had missed that. Everyone should listen to it, as it's very informative. His story on tpm cafe the other night, too.

    It's not 'cuz your gettin' old. It's 'cuz you know so much! Thanks again.

    How dumb do they think we are?
    51% of the country is actually that dumb! And this same 51% will profess Rove's innocence until their last breath, even though they will gain no spiritual or monetary compensation for doing so! Now that's stupid!