OT - Karl Rove Named as CIA Agent Leak

[SunDevil]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071001000.html

Rove Told Reporter About Plame But Didn't Name Her, Attorney Says

By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 11, 2005; A01

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove spoke with at least one reporter about Valerie Plame's role at the CIA before she was identified as a covert agent in a newspaper column two years ago, but Rove's lawyer said yesterday that his client did not identify her by name.

Rove had a short conversation with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper on July 11, 2003, three days before Robert D. Novak publicly exposed Plame in a column about her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV. Wilson had come under attack from the White House for his assertions that he found no evidence Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger and that he reported those findings to top administration officials. Wilson publicly accused the administration of leaking his wife's identity as a means of retaliation.

The leak of Plame's name to the news media spawned a federal grand jury investigation that has been seeking to find the origin of the disclosure. Cooper avoided jail time last week by agreeing to testify before the grand jury about conversations with his sources, while New York Times reporter Judith Miller was jailed for refusing to discuss her confidential sources.

To be considered a violation of the law, a disclosure by a government official must have been deliberate, the person doing it must have known that the CIA officer was a covert agent, and he or she must have known that the government was actively concealing the covert agent's identity.

Cooper, according to an internal Time e-mail obtained by Newsweek magazine, spoke with Rove before Novak's column was published. In the conversation, Rove gave Cooper a "big warning" that Wilson's assertions might not be entirely accurate and that it was not the director of the CIA or the vice president who sent Wilson on his trip. Rove apparently told Cooper that it was "Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip," according to a story in Newsweek's July 18 issue.

Rove's conversation with Cooper could be significant because it indicates a White House official was discussing Plame prior to her being publicly named and could lead to evidence of how Novak learned her name.

Although the information is revelatory, it is still unknown whether Rove is a focus of the investigation. Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, has said that Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has told him that Rove is not a target of the probe. Luskin said yesterday that Rove did not know Plame's name and was not actively trying to push the information into the public realm.

Instead, Luskin said, Rove discussed the matter -- under the cloak of secrecy -- with Cooper at the tail end of a conversation about a different issue. Cooper had called Rove to discuss other matters on a Friday before deadline, and the topic of Wilson came up briefly. Luskin said Cooper raised the question.

"Rove did not mention her name to Cooper," Luskin said. "This was not an effort to encourage Time to disclose her identity. What he was doing was discouraging Time from perpetuating some statements that had been made publicly and weren't true."

In particular, Rove was urging caution because then-CIA Director George J. Tenet was about to issue a statement regarding Iraq's alleged interest in African uranium and its inaccurate inclusion in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address. Tenet took the blame for allowing a misleading paragraph into the speech, but Tenet also said that the president, vice president and other senior officials were never briefed on Wilson's report.

After the investigation into the leak began, Luskin said, Rove signed a waiver in December 2003 or January 2004 authorizing prosecutors to speak to any reporters Rove had previously engaged in discussion, which included Cooper.

"His written waiver included the world," Luskin said. "It was intended to be a global waiver. . . . He wants to make sure that the special prosecutor has everyone's evidence. That reflects someone who has nothing to hide."

Cooper had indicated he would go to jail rather than expose a confidential source, but he agreed last week to cooperate with the grand jury after getting clearance from his source to testify. Luskin said Cooper had been clear to testify all along -- because of the waiver signed 18 months ago -- but that the waiver was "reaffirmed" on Wednesday, the day of a hearing to decide whether he and Miller would go to jail.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

A - Plame was "outed" as a CIA operative - a crime

B - The journalists wouldnt release the name of the source

C - Rove is admitetd to being the source

A+B+C = Rove is the source of plame's outing. See if you remember FROM THE BEGINNING, someone outed her. Remember the big brouhaha over it. and see then the journalists wouldnt give up their source. remember how they were threatened with jail time. You can remember that, it wasnt too long ago. Then remember when Rove's Lawyer admitted it was Rove that did it? That was earlier today I think. See if your memory allows you to hold thoughts for awhile you can start to correlate these things. Perhaps thats your problem...you forget what happened int he past so every day you start fresh. I applaud you for that but it still doesnt absolve someone from perjury...remember about 10 years ago. you liked Perjury then, but not now, eh? hmmm, convenient.

In the Newsweek article YOU posted and Arles highlighted, it doesn't give any direct proof of wrong doing. THE key line from that article is: Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative.

Unless it can be proven Rove DID know she was a covert operative and that he intentionally outed her, this story is about to die.

Personally, I think Rove is a slimeball and it wouldn't bother me in the least if he went away. But in this country, you need more proof than "I think the guy is a dirtbag, he's therefore guilty of high treason" to lay a conviction on someone.

Again, the key line there is in Newsweek's own article. The key will be if the prosecution can prove that Rove really did know she was an undercover operative before he leaked the name. (and there is no doubt he leaked the name, intentionally or not) If he did know she was undercover and it was an intentional move on his part, he should fry.

[Arles]

Again, if Rove would have mentioned to Cooper that Plame was a CIA agent, you would think atleast one reference to Plame being a CIA agent would have been in Cooper's notes regarding his conversation with Rove. As it stands now, there is no mention of Plame being associated with the CIA in any of Cooper's notes.

If I am a reporter and a key White House aide tells me that the wife of a guy sent to investigate WMD is an agent in the CIA, I sure as heck would have written that down in my notes. So, either Cooper decided to write everything down from the conversation except the fact that Rove stated Plame was in the CIA (certainly the most newsworthy item), or Rove didn't state that. Those are the two conclusions one can take from the Newsweek article.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by Arles

Again, if Rove would have mentioned to Cooper that Plame was a CIA agent, you would think atleast one reference to Plame being a CIA agent would have been in Cooper's notes regarding his conversation with Rove. As it stands now, there is no mention of Plame being associated with the CIA in any of Cooper's notes......

The Newsweek article quotes Cooper's email as saying, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd issues who authorized the trip."

Then again, in the eyes of a dedicated apologist that probably doesn't qualify as a mention of Plame being associated with the CIA.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by yabanci

The Newsweek article quotes Cooper's email as saying, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd issues who authorized the trip."

Then again, in the eyes of a dedicated apologist that probably doesn't qualify as a mention of Plame being associated with the CIA.

But the article also states "Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative." So, stating she "works at the agency" isn't akin to knowingly outing a covert CIA agent (the crime being insinuated). Not everyone that works at the CIA is a covert agent (I know this is a tough concept for people to grasp). The key here, once again, is did Rove willfully outed Plame as a covert CIA agent? And, if you believe Newsweek, the answer to that is "No". The article stated as much in two separate areas.

Both Rove and Cooper are on the record as saying the above. So, if I am wrong and what Rove stated is a crime - then he will be easily convicted given the record above.

[Cringer]

how about everyone wait until the grand jury is done and see who has charges filed against them...... 5 pages about speculation, gees.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by Arles

But the article also states "Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative. So, stating she "works at the agency" isn't akin to knowingly outing a covert CIA agent (the crime being insinuated)."

First, that's not the issue I was addressing. I was addressing your patently false statement that "[a]s it stands now, there is no mention of Plame being associated with the CIA in any of Cooper's notes." To the contrary, that's exactly what Cooper's email says and you are spreading misinformation by stating otherwise.

Second, it doesn't matter whether or not he used her name. Joe Wilson's marriage to Valerie Plame wasn't a secret. Consequently, saying that Joe Wilson's wife is a CIA agent is the same thing as saying Valarie Plame is a CIA agent. This game of "he didn't identify her by name" is intellectually dishonest.

Third, you assume that because Cooper didn't say in his email that Rove knew she was a covert op, Rove must not have known. That's a false assumption and does not logically follow. Maybe he knew or maybe he didn't know. We (the public) don't have enough facts to make any kind of determination on that issue. That's what the investigation is for. As someone else pointed out, it's all speculation at this point.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Personally, I think the Clinton administration letting China gain 20+ years of progress in their ICBM technology was a lot more "ominous" than this non-event.

I think the Dems are making the same mistakes with Bush that the Repubs made with Clinton. They are just flinging mud at in the hopes that something, anything sticks. But people are so tired of the petty politics that surround the efforts of both sides that even if some legitimate ethical lapses are revealed, the public is desensitized to it. They figure it all boils down to partisan politics.

Woah, I had to duck that curveball since it came out of left field. Lets stick on point and try not to start diverting attention to things that are completely irrelevent. Rove gave up Plame. His defense, according to Arles, is that he didnt know she was covert. Perhaps he was just outing, and "out" Cia Agent...well done sir. Well worth your time in an effort to shut her husband up...wouldnt work if she was not undercover but apparently some of the right believe there might be some frut there.

Im now going to out my 4th grade teacher as a 4th grade teacher because I didnt like her...Mrs. Cebeck, you are out!!


ROve is a genius and a mastermind. Is eriously doubt at any point Rove didn't know exactly what he was doing.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Woah, I had to duck that curveball since it came out of left field. Lets stick on point and try not to start diverting attention to things that are completely irrelevent. Rove gave up Plame. His defense, according to Arles, is that he didnt know she was covert. Perhaps he was just outing, and "out" Cia Agent...well done sir. Well worth your time in an effort to shut her husband up...wouldnt work if she was not undercover but apparently some of the right believe there might be some frut there.

Im now going to out my 4th grade teacher as a 4th grade teacher because I didnt like her...Mrs. Cebeck, you are out!!


ROve is a genius and a mastermind. Is eriously doubt at any point Rove didn't know exactly what he was doing.

Look, I lean right, but the above is a bunch of BS.

It would still work if she wasn't an undercover agent. The reason being is that it's Rove's insinuation that she authorized the trip. That has nothing to do with her being an undercover operative.

There are many faces at the CIA who make critical decisions. Not all of them are undercover operatives. I'm someone from the right who despises Karl Rove. That doesn't mean I get to avoid looking at the facts to convinct and fry him before he has the right to a fair trial. If he did know (and if it's so easy to prove, it shoud be a slam dunk case), he should fry.

My guess is that it isn't as slam dunk as you are making it out to be Flasch. The first indication of that is how Rove apparently has been the one allowing Cooper to give his notes up and in the final case, letting him testify.

Cooper, like any journalist worth his salt, would go to jail before he'd allow a court to view his notes or before he'd give up his source. Most of the time the court throws the reporter into jail and lets him sit for about three months before giving up. Even WITH the notes, there is nothing fully damning without the actual testimony of the reporter.

Were this case to be so open and shut, there is no way in hell Rove gives the OK for Cooper to testify. Rove would either:

1) Wait until he testified and then slam Coopers credibility and go on the offensive.

or more likely

2) Keep his mouth shut and wait until people got sick of Cooper not talking and then moved on. As has been said in this thread from the start, the American public would probably move away from this story in a few weeks anyway. There is surely a new celebrity crime about to happen. There are a lot more "important" things to think about.

Instead he gives the OK for both the notes and the testimony. Why?

The left will say it's because he's a devious bastard who is pulling strings as usual.

The right will say it's because he's innocent of all wrong doing.

And most of the middle won't give a damn or will wait until there is an actual trial that convicts/acquits Rove.

As of now, in this specific case, I want to see some proof Rove knew she was an undercover operative. We know where the leak came from, now we need to know if it was an intentional outing of a CIA undercover operative. As of now, there is none of that information available. When you find it, please let me know. That's the point I'll join you in screaming that Karl Rove be put in prison.

[Chubby]

I don't see how it matters if he knew she was undercover or not, he still outed an undercover CIA person which is a crime. Saying "whoops I didn't know she was undercover" isn't going to fly.

[flere-imsaho]

Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip."

Originally Posted by Arles

Not sure how that equals "outing a CIA agent". But maybe I am missing something.

Here's the crux of the matter, above. You assume Cooper (& Novak, et. al.) already knew that Plame was CIA, and thus Rove wasn't telling them any information (about her status) that they didn't already know.

I'd like to point out that your assumption hasn't been proven.

Furthermore, if the CIA classified her as "undercover & confidential" and Prosecutor Fitzgerald feels they did enough to support that status, then Cooper & Novak publishing such info, and Rove talking to whomever (whomever didn't have clearance) about such info, are both crimes.

At this point, anything else continues to be pure speculation until Fitzgerald makes his report.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Chubby

I don't see how it matters if he knew she was undercover or not, he still outed an undercover CIA person which is a crime. Saying "whoops I didn't know she was undercover" isn't going to fly.

Agreed. Although it may save Rove's bacon in a technically legal manner, the "I didn't know she was undercover" defense strategy is not, in my opinion, a comfortable precedent to set.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Agreed. Although it may save Rove's bacon in a technically legal manner, the "I didn't know she was undercover" defense strategy is not, in my opinion, a comfortable precedent to set.

I doubt it will do that, does saying "oh I didn't know the speed limit was 35" work?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by TroyF

As of now, in this specific case, I want to see some proof Rove knew she was an undercover operative. We know where the leak came from, now we need to know if it was an intentional outing of a CIA undercover operative. As of now, there is none of that information available. When you find it, please let me know. That's the point I'll join you in screaming that Karl Rove be put in prison.

Again, I have a real problem with this "intentions" argument.

"The Leaker", who we can now assume to be Rove, gave Plame's name to reporters, notably Novak, in order to discredit Wilson.

What was the "intention" there?

Now, that's not criminal, technically. Slimy, and smeary, but certainly consistent with Presidential campaign tactics.

Whether or not it's criminal rests on Fitzgerald's assessment of whether or not Plame was a "true" undercover agent with the CIA supporting her undercover status. We'll have to wait and see on that.

However, back to the subject of "intention". If it's only a crime to reveal the name of an undercover CIA operative when revelation is your intent, then it's presumably not a crime to reveal the name of an undercover CIA operative for any other reason (mentioned in passing, mentioned in praise, mentioned by mistake, etc...). Do people really think that's a good precedent to set when we're talking about the safety of our CIA operatives?

Look, you can go to jail for doing something wrong by accident (some instances of manslaughter spring to mind). If Fitzgerald concludes that Plame was "undercover and confidential" and that the CIA was supporting that status, then "The Leaker" committed a crime, even if it was by accident (though still with an undercurrent of malicious political intent).

Which leads me to my final point:

Let's take two assumptions:

1. "The Leaker" leaked the information out of malicious political intent.

This is pretty well supported by the events surrounding Iraq-Niger-Yellowcake-etc....

2. "The Leaker" didn't know of the confidential nature of Plame, and so made a mistake this way.

Question (rhetorical): How do we feel, as Americans, to have someone in a position of such power and influence acting in such a cavalier manner for political gain?

Let's see some of you step up to the plate and answer that.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by Chubby

I don't see how it matters if he knew she was undercover or not, he still outed an undercover CIA person which is a crime. Saying "whoops I didn't know she was undercover" isn't going to fly.

Read the act again, which I think was posted on page four or page five. There is a degree of knowledge about her status required in order for it to be a crime under the act.

Edit: And to address something raised in the preceding post, it does not appear to matter what the intent is in terms of whether a disclosure is legal under the act.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

Read the act again, which I think was posted on page four or page five. There is a degree of knowledge about her status required in order for it to be a crime under the act.

Edit: And to address something raised in the preceding post, it does not appear to matter what the intent is in terms of whether a disclosure is legal under the act.

which would then be exactly why he's saying "I didn't know she was undercover" not because he actually didn't know but because he doesn't want to go to jail.

If he truly didn't know, why the drawn out stupidness about not revealing the source? Obviously he didn't know so he should have allowed them to talk long ago, right?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Which leads me to my final point:

Let's take two assumptions:

1. "The Leaker" leaked the information out of malicious political intent.

This is pretty well supported by the events surrounding Iraq-Niger-Yellowcake-etc....

If you read every story on this (including Cooper's notes), the reason for "the leak" was to refute a false claim made in the media that Tenet and Cheney were behind sending Wilson to investigate WMD. Rove's comments were specifically made to refute that idea. His comments had nothing to do with Plame or her identity. He was simply stating that "Wilson's wife" may have had more to do with the assignment than Tenet or Cheney since she worked for the agency.

2. "The Leaker" didn't know of the confidential nature of Plame, and so made a mistake this way.

Question (rhetorical): How do we feel, as Americans, to have someone in a position of such power and influence acting in such a cavalier manner for political gain?

Welcome to US politics. It's been the same under Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Kennedy,... It's a dirty game and I think the public has enough skepticism for the entire process by now to understand that. Rove probably should have done more homework and not mentioned even a reference to Plame. But, until some evidence comes out that he knowingly outed a covert agent, there's not a whole lot that can be done on the situation.

If you really are upset that someone in a position of power in the US government acted "in such a cavalier manner for political gain", then my advice is to stay clear of US politics - regardless of the party in power. All you will end up with is an ulcer and a great deal of frustration.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

Welcome to US politics. It's been the same under Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Kennedy,... It's a dirty game and I think the public has enough skepticism for the entire process by now to understand that.

So that makes it OK? Besides, I don't think the Bush I, Clinton or Carter administrations approach the level of dirty politics found in the Nixon, Reagan or Bush II administrations.

If you really are upset that someone in a position of power in the US government acted "in such a cavalier manner for political gain", then my advice is to stay clear of US politics - regardless of the party in power. All you will end up with is an ulcer and a great deal of frustration.

You sound tired and world-weary, Arles. Is the provision of apologies for every action of this Administration starting to wear you out?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

So that makes it OK? Besides, I don't think the Bush I, Clinton or Carter administrations approach the level of dirty politics found in the Nixon, Reagan or Bush II administrations.

Then you are being extremely nieve. As to whether it "makes it OK", it all depends on what Rove knew. If he willingly outted a covert CIA agent for political gain then he will get just punishment. I just don't know if that is the case given what I have read to this point.

You sound tired and world-weary, Arles. Is the provision of apologies for every action of this Administration starting to wear you out?

Nah, I'm just a realistic and don't get my blood pressure up everytime one of these claims comes out. Plus, I'm not the one screaming outrage every time someone in the Bush administration forgets to put the toilet seat down. If anyone should be weary, I would think it is you. All that outrage has to be downright depressing and exhausting to keep up.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Arles

If he willingly outted a covert CIA agent for political gain then he will get just punishment.

Not exactly. It should read "If it can be proven that he willingly outted a covert CIA agent for political gain then he might get just punishment."

I'm not taking a stand on this issue either way, because I have no idea whether or not he outed her. But even if he did, he may very well get away with it.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Not exactly. It should read "If it can be proven that he willingly outted a covert CIA agent for political gain then he might get just punishment."

I'm not taking a stand on this issue either way, because I have no idea whether or not he outed her. But even if he did, he may very well get away with it.

If comments from Cooper and other journalists, along with Cooper's full set of notes on the Rove conversation are not enough to prove a violation of the law, then Rove certainly didn't do a very good job of willingly outting her. The prosecutor will have access to all the information on this issue, so we will see if what Rove did is indeed a violation of the law.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

Then you are being extremely nieve. As to whether it "makes it OK", it all depends on what Rove knew. If he willingly outted a covert CIA agent for political gain then he will get just punishment. I just don't know if that is the case given what I have read to this point.

Naive?

In the realm of "Abuses of Position & Power":

Kennedy: Bay of Pigs, probably "stole" the election (well, Daley stole it for him)
Johnson: Plenty of Congressional arm-twisting
Nixon: Watergate
Ford: Pardons for Watergate
Carter: I'm sure you Right-Wingers have something here
Reagan: Iran-Contra
Bush I: Pardons for Iran-Contra (hmm, see a pattern?)
Clinton: Sex with an intern
Bush II: No need to rehash this

See what you want to see, Arles.

Nah, I'm just a realistic and don't get my blood pressure up everytime one of these claims comes out. Plus, I'm not the one screaming outrage every time someone in the Bush administration forgets to put the toilet seat down. If anyone should be weary, I would think it is you. All that outrage has to be downright depressing and exhausting to keep up.

I gotta say, though, your delusions clearly serve you well.

[JW]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Clinton: Sex with an intern

An example of your lack of objectivity. You forgot Sudan. You forgot Kosovo. And we haven't even gone into Janet Reno's abuses of power on Clinton's watch. Bill Clinton was no saint who simply had a momentary lapse with an intern.

And, btw, lest you lump me in as a conservative Bush-lover, I'm a Democrat who did not vote for Bush in 2000 or 04. Nor did I vote for the weak-ass candidates the Democrats ran against Bush and gave us possibly the worst two choices for president we have ever had in America. I voted third party as a protest in each case.

I have little love for Bush but do believe his actions in the war against radical Islamic terrorism are more in keeping with the nature of this war to the death than what his opponents would have us do.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Chubby

I don't see how it matters if he knew she was undercover or not, he still outed an undercover CIA person which is a crime. Saying "whoops I didn't know she was undercover" isn't going to fly.

No, it is not a crime to accidently out an undercover agent. Rove knew she worked in the CIA. Thousands of people work at the CIA and are not undercover agents. In fact, as JIMG pointed out, the fact everyone knew she worked at the CIA in a desk position makes her position as an "undercover operative" pretty difficult to stomach.

If Rove assumed she was just a desk jockey who had the authority to make decisions, what he did isn't a crime. If he knew she was undercover, it is. Again though. . . if it is a crime as you guys are all saying, this will be the easiest court case in the history of juries. He's admitted what he said. The reporter has given up his notes and will testify.

If you guys are right, a Rove conviction is a certainty. (the question is if Bush would pardon him before he left office)

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by JW

An example of your lack of objectivity. You forgot Sudan. You forgot Kosovo. And we haven't even gone into Janet Reno's abuses of power on Clinton's watch. Bill Clinton was no saint who simply had a momentary lapse with an intern.

And, btw, lest you lump me in as a conservative Bush-lover, I'm a Democrat who did not vote for Bush in 2000 or 04. Nor did I vote for the weak-ass candidates the Democrats ran against Bush and gave us possibly the worst two choices for president we have ever had in America. I voted third party as a protest in each case.

I have little love for Bush but do believe his actions in the war against radical Islamic terrorism are more in keeping with the nature of this war to the death than what his opponents would have us do.

I was critical of Sudan at the time, but wasn't he going after Osama Bin Laden and his people? I know that mistakes were made there (like blowing up the medical building), but it doesn't strike me as a terrible idea to have gone after Bin Laden.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by TroyF

In fact, as JIMG pointed out, the fact everyone knew she worked at the CIA in a desk position makes her position as an "undercover operative" pretty difficult to stomach.

JIMG has failed to produce actual evidence of this "fact", which he admits. Perhaps you have some? Don't waste my time with links to right-wing blogs.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JW

An example of your lack of objectivity. You forgot Sudan. You forgot Kosovo. And we haven't even gone into Janet Reno's abuses of power on Clinton's watch. Bill Clinton was no saint who simply had a momentary lapse with an intern.

Attempts to stop genocidal massacres in Sudan & Kosovo were abuses of power? That's a new one to me.

[kcchief19]

The defense that Rove didn't identify Plame by name because he referred to her as "Wilson's wife" is akin to President Clinton responding, "That depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

All you will end up with is an ulcer and a great deal of frustration.

...and so it is because Im not willing to stand aside when things are sour and say, "Oh well. thats just the way it is." Perhaps Im swimming upstream but when something is wrong i cannot abide.

[Arles]

I find it humorous that we are now arguing the "relative corruption" in US administrations over the past 30-40 years. The only thing that changed in regards to corruption in administrations over the past few decades is the level of media coverage.

As to your assertion that Clinton, Carter and Bush I were much better than others, that's certainly debatable - at a minimum. JW covered Clinton pretty well (add in China for good measure). Bush I was certainly tame compared to Carter, Reagan and Clinton, but he only had one term and did many things involving the Desert Storm war, Contras and others that have been discussed ad-nauseum. Now, to Carter..

In addition to Carter beginning the somewhat troubling practice of sustaining dicators and legitimizing fraudulent elections in his post-presidentcy, he had plenty of very questionable activities during his short reign as president. First, look at the way he handled Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza in the late 70s (privately supported him while feigning public outcry). More importantly, Carter (not Reagan) began the process of supporting Islamic Fundamentalists in Afghanistan against the Soviets. Carter originally armed the "Bin Ladens" and started the organization, financing and training of the Islamic uprising (with CIA help) that helped put Islamic terrorism on the map.
Just read some recent quotes by Carter's National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski:

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [integrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

Carter had to make some tough decisions and I don't know that I fault him a great deal in deciding between Islamic fundamentalists and the Russians. Still, Reagan has been tarred and feathered over this when it was Carter that instigated the process.

Each administration has a large number of skeletons in their closet. It just comes down to how many skeletons the media wants to spend time on revealing.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by JW

An example of your lack of objectivity. You forgot Sudan. You forgot Kosovo. And we haven't even gone into Janet Reno's abuses of power on Clinton's watch. Bill Clinton was no saint who simply had a momentary lapse with an intern.

And, btw, lest you lump me in as a conservative Bush-lover, I'm a Democrat who did not vote for Bush in 2000 or 04. Nor did I vote for the weak-ass candidates the Democrats ran against Bush and gave us possibly the worst two choices for president we have ever had in America. I voted third party as a protest in each case.

I have little love for Bush but do believe his actions in the war against radical Islamic terrorism are more in keeping with the nature of this war to the death than what his opponents would have us do.

Puhlease dont mention Kosovo r Sudan....that was a great thing and I hope we will continue to intercede in genocides that are occurring.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Arles

I find it humorous that we are now arguing the "relative corruption" in US administrations over the past 30-40 years. The only thing that changed in regards to corruption in administrations over the past few decades is the level of media coverage.

People are now arguing the relative corrupting in US administrations because YOU brought it up. Remember, 30 posts ago when you used it as your defense for this action? "Oh, it's just the way things are and have always been so accept it"

SI

[Flasch186]

White House won't comment on Rove and leak investigation

Monday, July 11, 2005; Posted: 2:28 p.m. EDT (18:28 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- For two years, the White House has insisted that presidential adviser Karl Rove had nothing to do with the leak of a CIA officer's identity. And President Bush said the leaker would be fired.

But Bush's spokesman wouldn't repeat any of those assertions Monday in the face of Rove's own lawyer saying his client spoke with at least one reporter about Valerie Plame's role at the CIA before she was identified in a newspaper column.

Rove described the woman to a reporter as someone who "apparently works" at the CIA, according to an e-mail obtained by Newsweek magazine.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan refused to discuss the matter at two news briefings Monday. He said he would not comment because the leak is the focus of a federal criminal investigation.

"The prosecutors overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference to us that one way to help the investigation is not to be commenting on it from this podium," McClellan said in response to a barrage of questions about Rove and the previous White House denials.

"I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said," McClellan said. "And I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time." He said the appropriate time would be when the investigation is completed.

[flere-imsaho]

From this morning (I've bolded my favorite bit):

QUESTION: Do you want to retract your statement that Rove -- Karl Rove was not involved in the Valerie Plame expose? -- involved?

McCLELLAN: This is -- no, I appreciate the question. This is an ongoing investigation at this point. The President directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, that means we're not going to be commenting on it while it is ongoing.

QUESTION: But Rove has apparently commented, through his lawyer, that he was definitely involved.

McCLELLAN: You're asking me to comment on an ongoing investigation.

QUESTION: I'm saying, why did you stand there and say he was not involved?

McCLELLAN: Again, while there is an ongoing investigation, I'm not going to be commenting on it, nor is --

QUESTION: -- any remorse?

McCLELLAN: -- nor is the White House, because the President wanted us to cooperate fully with the investigation, and that's what we're doing.

QUESTION: That's not an answer.

QUESTION: It's not an answer. And you were perfectly willing to comment from that podium while the investigation was going on, and try to clear Karl Rove. Why the double standard? Why were you willing to say Karl Rove was not involved when -- and talk at length about it, when the investigation was going on, and now that he's been caught red-handed, all of a sudden you've got a new line?

McCLELLAN: No, I don't think it is the way you characterize it, as new, because I have said for quite some time that this is an ongoing investigation, and we're not going to get into discussing it while it's an ongoing investigation. I've really said all I'm going to say on it.

QUESTION: But you did -- you did discuss it while it was an ongoing investigation. You stood there and told the American people Karl Rove wasn't involved.

McCLELLAN: I've said all I'm going to say on it.
Go ahead, April.


[...]


QUESTION: Scott, is the President aware of Karl Rove's role in leaking information about Joe Wilson's wife?

McCLELLAN: Again, this is a Question relating to an ongoing investigation, and you have my response.

QUESTION: Scott, without commenting on the investigation, you said in September of '03, if anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration. Does that standard still hold?

McCLELLAN: Again, I appreciate all these questions. They are questions relating to an ongoing investigation, and the President directed us to cooperate fully with that investigation. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than he does and --

QUESTION: -- the standard then still apply?

McCLELLAN: The investigation is ongoing, Peter, and we're just not going to -- we're not going to --

QUESTION: Did the President set a timetable --

QUESTION: It's not about the investigation, it's about the White House decision --

McCLELLAN: We're not going to talk about it further from this podium.

[Flasch186]

scott mclellan has the worst job in the country.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

People are now arguing the relative corrupting in US administrations because YOU brought it up. Remember, 30 posts ago when you used it as your defense for this action? "Oh, it's just the way things are and have always been so accept it"

Which was quickly chased with a "but Clinton and Carter were never that bad" - a laughable and completely untrue assertion. At any rate, it looks like the feeding frenzy has begun so we will see how it all ends up.

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

The defense that Rove didn't identify Plame by name because he referred to her as "Wilson's wife" is akin to President Clinton responding, "That depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

Yup. Both defenses are asinine.

[JW]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Attempts to stop genocidal massacres in Sudan & Kosovo were abuses of power? That's a new one to me.

I am heartened to see that you support attempts to stop 'genocidal massacres'. I would think then that you and others are glad we stopped Saddam before he had an opportunity to commit more 'genocidal massacres' than he did. Or is that different?

Sudan was the bombing of a pharmaceutical factory that was supposedly doubling as a chemical weapons plant. The consensus of current opinion is that it was just a pharmaceutical factory. And many believe that Clinton ordered it to divert attention away from Monica. The Sudan operation had nothing to do with the genocide being committed by the Muslim government against Christian and traditional tribal groups in the south of Sudan.

As for Kosovo, this was a remarkably botched operation, with Clinton ruling out the use of ground troops from the start and attempting to conduct a surgical bombing campaign at high altitude so no one would actually get killed, thus providing ample time for those committing 'genocidal massacres' to finish what they were doing. Clinton's decisions probably resulted in more deaths than would otherwise have occurred.

[Buccaneer]

I find it funny those that are bringing up the past as if they knew anything that went on more than 5 years ago. Flere's list of "corruptions" shows no understanding of history or events that went on at the time - just a rehash of recent blogs or chat rooms. Folks like JW should be listented to because more than me, he had lived through and understood events as they were happening in the past 30 years.

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by JW

I am heartened to see that you support attempts to stop 'genocidal massacres'. I would think then that you and others are glad we stopped Saddam before he had an opportunity to commit more 'genocidal massacres' than he did. Or is that different?

Sudan was the bombing of a pharmaceutical factory that was supposedly doubling as a chemical weapons plant. The consensus of current opinion is that it was just a pharmaceutical factory. And many believe that Clinton ordered it to divert attention away from Monica. The Sudan operation had nothing to do with the genocide being committed by the Muslim government against Christian and traditional tribal groups in the south of Sudan.

As for Kosovo, this was a remarkably botched operation, with Clinton ruling out the use of ground troops from the start and attempting to conduct a surgical bombing campaign at high altitude so no one would actually get killed, thus providing ample time for those committing 'genocidal massacres' to finish what they were doing. Clinton's decisions probably resulted in more deaths than would otherwise have occurred.

Clinton was going after terrorists in Sudan. Apparently there was bad intelligence about the pharmaceutical factory, but he was going after Osama.

They wanted Kosovo to be a NATO project, but the other NATO countries wouldn't agree to use ground troops. I agree that it was a flawed strategy, but there were diplomatic reasons. I personally disagreed with them and still do, but it's not like Clinton just randomly decided to only strike through the air. The real truth is that it was an attempt to make NATO relevant again, since it has had little use since the USSR dissolved.

In any case, those are hardly examples of corruption at all. Mistakes to varying degrees? Yes. Corruption? Not so much.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by JW

I am heartened to see that you support attempts to stop 'genocidal massacres'. I would think then that you and others are glad we stopped Saddam before he had an opportunity to commit more 'genocidal massacres' than he did. Or is that different?

Sudan was the bombing of a pharmaceutical factory that was supposedly doubling as a chemical weapons plant. The consensus of current opinion is that it was just a pharmaceutical factory. And many believe that Clinton ordered it to divert attention away from Monica. The Sudan operation had nothing to do with the genocide being committed by the Muslim government against Christian and traditional tribal groups in the south of Sudan.

As for Kosovo, this was a remarkably botched operation, with Clinton ruling out the use of ground troops from the start and attempting to conduct a surgical bombing campaign at high altitude so no one would actually get killed, thus providing ample time for those committing 'genocidal massacres' to finish what they were doing. Clinton's decisions probably resulted in more deaths than would otherwise have occurred.

Action in all cases is better than none. Yes, some of us on the left were and are for the actions in Iraq and will continue to be in times where genocides are occurring or on the cusp of occurring. I wish we would do more to stop ALL genocidal leaders, or rebels.

[TroyF]

2. "The Leaker" didn't know of the confidential nature of Plame, and so made a mistake this way.

Question (rhetorical): How do we feel, as Americans, to have someone in a position of such power and influence acting in such a cavalier manner for political gain?

Let's see some of you step up to the plate and answer that.


How do I feel about it? Pissed off. It's ridiculous for a man in his position to do some of the things he's done. But I'm not willing to support frying the guy until I see he knew. For me there is a major difference between knowingly outing an undercover operative and not knowing all of the facts.

As has been said earlier, this is a darned easy prosecution. They have everything they need. The reporters notes. The reporter. Rove giving the reporter the OK to do both of those things.

The thing I'm more worried about isn't a conviction of Rove, it would be Bush pardoning Rove on his last day. . . as Clinton did to Susan McDougal (his Whitewater partner), Henry Cisneros (who lied to the FBI), John Deutch (who was convicted of mishandling secret information at the CIA, the same charge I would guess Rove would be convicted of) and Fife Symington (who was convicted of bank fraud).

If you guys are correct and this is so open and shut, we'll find out when it gets to the courtroom. My guess is you are wrong, but that's only my opinion, nothing more/nothing less. As I've said before, I wouldn't shed a tear for Rove if he goes down. On the other hand, I think you'd have to be blind not to see some flaws with the record here. Based on the information given at this time, I fail to see how a charge of treason would stick. I'm doubtful that there could even be a charge of mishandled information unless it can be proven he knew she was undercover.

[JW]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

Clinton was going after terrorists in Sudan. Apparently there was bad intelligence about the pharmaceutical factory, but he was going after Osama.

They wanted Kosovo to be a NATO project, but the other NATO countries wouldn't agree to use ground troops. I agree that it was a flawed strategy, but there were diplomatic reasons. I personally disagreed with them and still do, but it's not like Clinton just randomly decided to only strike through the air. The real truth is that it was an attempt to make NATO relevant again, since it has had little use since the USSR dissolved.

In any case, those are hardly examples of corruption at all. Mistakes to varying degrees? Yes. Corruption? Not so much.

I think the topic was abuse of position and power rather than corruption.

Clinton failed to go after Osama on several occasions when he had good opportunities to do so. Sudan was about the supposed production of WMDs. The missile strike on the factory was not directed at Osama personally.

The motives for the Kosovo intervention were multi-fold. One reason is that Clinton wanted to appear strong. What you say is also correct.

[JW]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Action in all cases is better than none. Yes, some of us on the left were and are for the actions in Iraq and will continue to be in times where genocides are occurring or on the cusp of occurring. I wish we would do more to stop ALL genocidal leaders, or rebels.

And I can agree with that. However, military actions are rarely if ever done for purely altruistic reasons. There is always a political motivation, both a domestic and foreign motivation. I assume you would then criticize Clinton as well as Bush for not intervening in the sub-Saharan African genocide de jeur.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by JW

And I can agree with that. However, military actions are rarely if ever done for purely altruistic reasons. There is always a political motivation, both a domestic and foreign motivation. I assume you would then criticize Clinton as well as Bush for not intervening in the sub-Saharan African genocide de jeur.

yup, damn skippy. For standing aside and not intervening I criticize all able countries.

[JPhillips]

QUESTION: The Robert Novak column last week . . . has now given rise to accusations that the administration deliberatively blew the cover of an undercover CIA operative, and in so doing, violated a federal law that prohibits revealing the identity of undercover CIA operatives. Can you respond to that?
McCLELLAN: Thank you for bringing that up. That is not the way this President or this White House operates. And there is absolutely no information that has come to my attention or that I have seen that suggests that there is any truth to that suggestion. And, certainly, no one in this White House would have given authority to take such a step.

Scott McClellan
Press Briefing
July 22, 2003

QUESTION: Scott, has there ever been an attempt or effort on the part of anyone here at the White House to discredit the reputations or reporting of former Ambassador Joe Wilson, his wife, or ABC correspondent Jeffrey Kofman?
McCLELLAN: John, I think I answered that yesterday. That is not the way that this White House operates. That's not the way the President operates . . . No one would be authorized to do that within this White House. That is simply not the way we operate, and that's simply not the way the President operates.

QUESTION: In all of those cases?

McCLELLAN: Well, go down -- which two?

QUESTION: Joe Wilson and his wife?

McCLELLAN: No.

Scott McClellan
Press Briefing
July 23, 2003

QUESTION: Wilson now believes that the person who did this was Karl Rove . . . Did Karl Rove tell that . . .
McCLELLAN: I haven't heard that. That's just totally ridiculous. But we've already addressed this issue. If I could find out who anonymous people were, I would. I just said, it's totally ridiculous.

QUESTION: But did Karl Rove do it?

McCLELLAN: I said, it's totally ridiculous.

Scott McClellan
Press Briefing
September 16, 2003

This morning, ABC News producer Andrea Owen happened to find herself near Karl Rove (who was walking to his car), and an ABC camera.
Owen: "Did you have any knowledge or did you leak the name of the CIA agent to the press?"

Rove: "No."

At which point, Mr. Rove shut his car door as Ms. Owen asked, "What is your response to the fact that Justice is looking into the matter?"

ABC News
The Note
September 29, 2003
(courtesy of Think Progress)

QUESTION: Has the President either asked Karl Rove to assure him that he had nothing to do with this; or did Karl Rove go to the President to assure him that he . . .
McCLELLAN: I don't think he needs that. I think I've spoken clearly to this publicly . . . I've just said there's no truth to it.

QUESTION: Yes, but I'm just wondering if there was a conversation between Karl Rove and the President, or if he just talked to you, and you're here at this . . .

McCLELLAN: He wasn't involved. The President knows he wasn't involved.

QUESTION: How does he know that?

McCLELLAN: The President knows.

Scott McClellan
Press Gaggle
September 29, 2003

QUESTION: Weeks ago, when you were first asked whether Mr. Rove had the conversation with Robert Novak that produced the column, you dismissed it as ridiculous. And I wanted just to make sure, at that time, had you talked to Karl?
McCLELLAN: I've made it very clear, from the beginning, that it is totally ridiculous. I've known Karl for a long time, and I didn't even need to go ask Karl, because I know the kind of person that he is, and he is someone that is committed to the highest standards of conduct.

QUESTION: Can you say for the record whether Mr. Rove possessed the information about Mr. Wilson's wife, but merely did not talk to anybody about it?

McCLELLAN: I don't know whether or not -- I mean, I'm sure he probably saw the same media reports everybody else in this room has.

QUESTION: When you talked to Mr. Rove, did you discuss, did you ever have this information?

McCLELLAN: We're going down a lot of different roads here. I've made it very clear that he was not involved, that there's no truth to the suggestion that he was.

Scott McClellan
Press Briefing
September 29, 2003

QUESTION: Yesterday we were told that Karl Rove had no role in it. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

QUESTION: Have you talked to Karl and do you have confidence in him . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action.

George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
September 30, 2003

McCLELLAN: Let me make it very clear. As I said previously, he [Karl Rove] was not involved, and that allegation is not true in terms of leaking classified information, nor would he condone it.
QUESTION: He does not condone people pointing reporters toward classified information that's been released; he would not condone that either? Is that what you're saying?

McCLELLAN: The President doesn't condone the activity that you're suggesting, absolutely he does not.

Scott McClellan
Press Briefing
October 1, 2003

QUESTION: Scott, you have said that you, personally, went to Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Elliot Abrams to ask them if they were the leakers . . . Why did you do that, and can you describe the conversations you had with them?
McCLELLAN: They're good individuals, they're important members of our White House team, and that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt of that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you, and that's exactly what I did.

QUESTION: So you're saying -- you're saying categorically those three individuals were not the leakers or did not authorize the leaks; is that what you're saying?

McCLELLAN: That's correct.

Scott McClellan
Press Briefing
October 7, 2003

QUESTION: Scott, earlier this week you told us that neither Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams nor Lewis Libby disclosed any classified information with regard to the leak. I wondered if you could tell us more specifically whether any of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?
McCLELLAN: I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that's where it stands.

QUESTION: So none of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?

McCLELLAN: They assured me that they were not involved in this.

Scott McClellan
Press Briefing
October 10, 2003

Rove also adamantly insisted to the FBI that he was not the administration official who leaked the information that Plame was a covert CIA operative to conservative columnist Robert Novak last July. Rather, Rove insisted, he had only circulated information about Plame after it had appeared in Novak's column.
The American Prospect
Plugging Leaks
March 8, 2004

I didn't know her name. I didn't leak her name.
Karl Rove
CNN Interview
August 31, 2004

"Karl did nothing wrong. Karl didn't disclose Valerie Plame's identity to Mr. Cooper or anybody else . . . Who outed this woman? . . . It wasn't Karl." Luskin said Rove "certainly did not disclose to Matt Cooper or anybody else any confidential information."
Rove attorney Robert Luskin
CNN Interview
July 4, 2005

Luskin confirmed that Rove and Cooper had spoken prior to the publication of the original Time article, but said that Rove “did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA” nor did he “knowingly disclose classified information.”
Newsweek
Turning Up the Heat
July 6, 2005

Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." Wilson's wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA's Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division . . . Rove was speaking to Cooper before Novak's column appeared; in other words, before Plame's identity had been published
Newsweek
Matt Cooper's Source
July 10, 2005

[NoMyths]

McCLELLAN: The President knows.

A fairly damning phrase...but sadly an accurate one.

[NoMyths]

"I can't take the lying anymore! Who wants to help me lynch the fuckers?"

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

Clinton was going after terrorists in Sudan. Apparently there was bad intelligence about the pharmaceutical factory, but he was going after Osama.

BAD INTELLIGENCE? There's no such thing. CLINTON LIED!

Going after Osama? Was he at the pharmaceutical company factory at the time?

In Clinton's corruption ledger you can add campaign "funny money" with Communist Chinese ties. Plus you can add all those quid pro quo pardons (140 pardons, 36 sentence commutations) at the end of his presidency, in particular billionaire Marc Rich -- whose wife Denise "donated" several hundred thousand dollars to the Clinton Library Foundation (and perhaps a presidential hummer to boot!).

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I find it funny those that are bringing up the past as if they knew anything that went on more than 5 years ago. Flere's list of "corruptions" shows no understanding of history or events that went on at the time - just a rehash of recent blogs or chat rooms.

Look, I didn't intend for this to derail into a discussion on the merits of previous presidents. I was responding to this:

Originally Posted by Arles

Welcome to US politics. It's been the same under Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Kennedy,... It's a dirty game and I think the public has enough skepticism for the entire process by now to understand that.

I'll make it very simple for you all. In response to Arles, I make the following two points, both of which are merely my opinion:

1. I think it's a gross overgeneralization to say that the politics of the White House have been uniformly dirty since Kennedy. Gross generalizations lead to sloppy conclusions (i.e. it's always been this way, we can't change it - which is essentially Arles' point).

2. In my (partisan) opinion, misuse of the power of the White House for partisan political gain, has been worse under Republicans (save Bush I), than under Democrats (save Kennedy).

Read #2 carefully, folks. It's a nuanced point, not a blinding gross overgeneralization. I don't want to have to come back here in 10 posts and re-explain it to you again, OK?