It depends on what the meaning of "name" is...
· Rove and his lawyer's denials that he was involved in telling reporters about Plame now appear to be at best based on Clintonian hairsplitting about whether he literally used her name and identified her as covert or he simply described her as the CIA-employed wife of Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, the administration critic that White House was eager to discredit at the time.
Am I
reading this right? Rove is saying he didn't name Valerie Plame to a reporter, he just said "Joe Wilson's wife"? I mean, unless Mr. Wilson was a polygamist, doesn't that narrow the field a bit?
Or am I missing something here?
Or am I missing something here?
No, I don't think so!
If Karl Rove, Bush's top political strategist, longtime friend and deputy chief of staff is actually indicted by Fitzgerald -- which now appears to be a possibility
I swear I heard angels humming when I read this. Time will tell if PowerNerdBoy has any mojo left...
Maybe they're going by his "intent" to harm her vs. intent to just be "truthful" and clear Cheney? But even then, being caught being unintentionally stupid with classified info is not so swell for the big guns. Why would Rove clear Cooper to reveal him? This is weird.
hmmmmmmmmm... let's see here.
· Does Rove's current position pass the smell test?
let me think.......
Maybe they're going by his "intent" to harm her vs. intent to just be "truthful" and clear Cheney? But even then, being caught being unintentionally stupid with classified info is not so swell for the big guns. Why would Rove clear Cooper to reveal him? This is weird.
It could be that the information would have come out in another few weeks. Most of the worst damages to the White House since Watergate have been cover-ups, not actual acts.
Rove might survive the damage, but not if he helps send a reporter to jail for months to cover his ass. If he knew that he was the source being protected, and did not come forward, that might be considered obstruction.
Isn't it still treason (I'm not trying to be melodramatic. I'm serious.) to identify an undercover CIA agent? Isn't the death penalty one of the possible sentences for treason?
Why are the Democrats only asking that he be fired? Why isn't Rove sitting in a cell right now, being interrogated by the FBI?
Because getting asked to resign and then hired by a conservative think tank and/or lobbying firm is the maximum punishment for a disgraced Republican operative.
Its sick to think that Rove would undermind CIA wmd intelligence operatives (not just Plame but those she worked with that were made useless and/or placed at greater risk by association) at a time of war. That sounds like treason.
Because getting asked to resign and then hired by a conservative think tank and/or lobbying firm is the maximum punishment for a disgraced Republican operative.
be fair, the same is true of any DC player. R or D.
At least Traficant and Rostenkowski served some prison time, first.
I would still rather indulge Traficant over Rove any freakin' day. Traficant was a simple megalomaniac. Rove thinks he's god.
Traficant forced people to work on his farm. Rove wants a rapture.
He's filthy.
Rove wants a rapture.
Actually, I doubt Rove is that particular brand of nut. But he does know how to use them.
I'm happier than a pig in mud over all of this. The exact same sort of BS tap dancing that went on in the Clinton administration will now proceed in the Bush II administration. Bush I once said that anyone who revealed the identity of an operative was guilty of treason. Thanks a lot, Dad! :lol:
The reason Rove gave up the operative was because her husband had reported that there was no evidence that Saddam had ever tried to buy uranium (which we now know to be pretty much true, as the accusation was based on fake documents - looks like CBS and Admin Bush II are tied 1-1 in this department, huh?). In other words, Rove ratted her out to punish people for saying that his boss was either a liar or a moron.
I can't wait to find out how they're going to spin this so that it was okay for him to do it. I think it is pretty much going to come down to someone having to say, "We *are* the government, and what we say is okay *is* okay...okay?" :eek:
I would still rather indulge Traficant over Rove any freakin' day. Traficant was a simple megalomaniac. Rove thinks he's god.
Traficant forced people to work on his farm. Rove wants a rapture.
He's filthy.
Rove has rock star's disease. He's been so successful for so long at what he does, that he thinks himself above everyone and everything else, and therefore need not abide by the same rules as the peons.
I wonder what color of M&M's he likes?
One thing I've never understood about the Plame story is how her CIA role affected the facts of the Niger case. I can understand that destroying her career could be retribution for Wilson's whistleblowing, but news coverage has often characterized the outing as an attempt to discredit the facts of the case. Does anyone know how that was supposed to have worked?
Super-secret government source: You know Joe Wilson's Niger story? Pure bunk! His wife's CIA!
Reporter: CIA, huh? I guess I can't believe anything Wilson says!
Were they trying to say that the CIA was trying to undercut the administration?
Wait a minute ... did I miss something along the line ... I thought that Plame was named by Bob Novak in a story that ran prior to the Time reporter's conversation ... has Novak named his source?
another perspective
That's it? The other perspective is that because she sometimes worked out of Langley, she wasn't covert?
I work in DC. I have known 1 person who is covert CIA - fake ID's and all (When you are close friends with someone, they tell you secrets. They are not supposed to, but they do.) I've also known a few people who openly work at the CIA, but don't talk about it much. Covert people go to Langley too.
I have read that Plame's cover was that she was an energy analyst for the private company Brewster Jennings & Associates, which was subsequently acknowledged by the CIA as a front. Why would they go through the trouble of creating a cover for her, if she wasn't undercover? Just because some people knew she was undercover, doesn't mean it was a widely known secret.
Looks like the leakage happened before Mr. creepy Novak broadcast it, and one of the ooopses is that Rove initially publically stated that he learned about Plame's identity and work from Novak's piece, even though his email to Cooper predates that publication.
What I *think* I understand:
Via the memo, Rove was trying to debunk the idea that Cheney sent Wilson to Niger. (?) (by saying it was directed by Wilson's agency wife who works on wmd) (and therefore derail the idea that Cheney knew about the fakery before it was info used in the State of the Union address.) By doing that, he revealed that Wilson's wife (implied Plame) worked for the agency(implied CIA) and specifically on wmd issues (implied covert). This was viewed by Wilson as payback for his public criticism and statement about the fakery that was getting press at the time.
I wonder if Novak has been off the hook because he drew his info from the work of other writers, unpublished stories that were in the works? Who knows?
What I *think* I understand:
Via the memo, Rove was trying to debunk the idea that Cheney sent Wilson to Niger. (?) (by saying it was directed by Wilson's agency wife who works on wmd) (and therefore derail the idea that Cheney knew about the fakery before it was info used in the State of the Union address.) By doing that, he revealed that Wilson's wife (implied Plame) worked for the agency(implied CIA) and specifically on wmd issues (implied covert). This was viewed by Wilson as payback for his public criticism and statement about the fakery that was getting press at the time.
That actually makes a lot of sense. It's the first time I've heard that theory. It fits all the pieces, and is well within the realm of possibility.
Let me edit this.
Why would Cheney send Wilson to Niger to possibly poke holes in the one piece of evidence that would take us to war?
here's my amateur guess:
Cheney didnt (and wouldnt), and that's what Rove was trying to correct the press about (and zing Wilson at the same time). It was a pitch to maintain that Cheney knew nothing about any suspicion or question about the veracity of this info before using it on the public. A pitch to show that revelations from Wilsons trip didnt reach the powers- blame the CIA disfunction.
Maybe. :)
here's my amateur guess:
Cheney didnt (and wouldnt), and that's what Rove was trying to correct the press about (and zing Wilson at the same time). It was a pitch to maintain that Cheney knew nothing about any suspicion or question about the veracity of this info before using it on the public. A pitch to show that revelations from Wilsons trip didnt reach the powers- blame the CIA disfunction.
Maybe. :)
It's weird that would Rove go that far to "prove" that Cheney didn't authorize the trip, just to zing Wilson and blame the CIA. He could have told Cooper it was someone from the agency, not specifically Wilson's wife...that probably would have been sufficient. How could he not know that what he was doing was a federal offense?
I thought that Wilson reported his findings to the administration BEFORE Dubya's speech. I might have it mixed up.
The one source I know who is intimately familiar with this kind of thing did his work during the early 80s, and has been retired for many years, so current policy might be different. But in those days, he was utterly disassociated with anything "official." Completely off the radar -- he couldn't even get married, or join any kind of organization (civic or otherwise), while he was active. Going to Langley would be tantamount to painting a bullseye in neon orange paint in the middle of his back. And other than the occasional mission, he was private-sector all the way. Wasn't even on the official government timecard until after his covert "retirement," and then they justified his pension by hiring him to teach training classes.
Even now, the only info you will get out of him is that he has experience HALO jumping into jungles, and can open a can of peaches from 1000 yards away with a rifle. I'd be surprised if we know him by the name he was born with.
I'm nervous even writing this...glatt can relate, I'm sure. But my point is this: from my very limited knowledge of such things, someone who is truly operating under deep cover has no ties (other than a handler) to CIA proper. If the woman went to Langley regularly, her mission wasn't likely to be the kind the media are alluding to.
I thought that Wilson reported his findings to the administration BEFORE Dubya's speech. I might have it mixed up.
Yup. That's the thing. Wilson did and still, the debunked info was used in the State of the Union speech. How is it that this corrrect info, old news, not reach the top dog as Bush claims? Did the administration knowingly select/adapt intel to provide justification and proof that Saddam had to go, now? This is where Cheney's and other neocons unprecedented presence in CIA operations comes into question. This is a big fall for Tenet. This seems to be about selective adaptation or supression of intelligence. Maybe even (badly) planted information.
And regarding if Plame's covert operations were covert enough...If it damaged or delayed in anyway our national effort to assess the threat of wmds, it strikes me as criminal. It put her out there as a target, and further corupted or threatened all covert contacts/info channels she would have had.
But my point is this: from my very limited knowledge of such things, someone who is truly operating under deep cover has no ties (other than a handler) to CIA proper. If the woman went to Langley regularly, her mission wasn't likely to be the kind the media are alluding to.
If it is no big deal, then why did Rove say adamantly that he did not reveal Valerie Plame by name? And why has the administration considered her outing a leak? All the hoopla is not just coming from the media.
To fully understand it, you practically have to read the
Senate Intelligence Report on the US Intelligence Community's Pre-War Intelligence on Iraq, page 46.
Wilson's report included the fact that "Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had travelled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium."
That section of the report was used to back up the notion "that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- the infamous "16 words" in the SotU speech.
Wilson also reported he hadn't found that they actually bought it -- as far as he could tell. They were seeking to buy. At least one vendor met with the Iraqis but refused to sell them anything since Iraq was under sanctions.
If it is no big deal, then why did Rove say adamantly that he did not reveal Valerie Plame by name? And why has the administration considered her outing a leak? All the hoopla is not just coming from the media.
Whether or not there were any operational ramifications (as if the CIA handles operational issues within earshot of ANYone in the public eye) is an entirely seperate issue from the obvious political brouhaha. This is part of a political game. Rove may or may not have spoken inappropriately, but my (biased) opinion is that it's another swipe at Bush, and nothing more.
Fact A: Someone talked to Rove for some deep background info. Fact B: The left wants Rove's ass in a sling to tarnish Bush. Fact C: Plame has been outed as a CIA operative (though her level of cover is in dispute). Now we see the media reverse-engineering a case against Rove by cobbling together connections from C back to A. I think it'll backfire, but who knows.
Juan Coletakes a shot:
Ambassador Joe Wilson, who once dared Saddam to hang him while wearing a rope around his neck while acting ambassador in Baghdad in fall of 1990, was the first to let the American people know that the Bush administration lied about Iraq's alleged attempt to purchase uranium yellowcake from Niger. Wilson went to that country, investigated the structure of the uranium industry (which is mainly in French hands anyway), and concluded it was impossible. Bush and Cheney had believed a set of forged documents manufactured by a former employee of Italian military intelligence. (In the US, the only major public intellectual with close ties to Italian military intelligence is pro-war gadfly Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute)....
But Rove's revenge on Wilson was the ultimate. Plame was undercover as an employee of a phony energy company. She was actually investigating illegal proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. When Rove blew her cover to the US press, everyone who had ever been seen with her in Africa or Asia was put in extreme danger. It is said that some of her contacts may have been killed. Imagine the setback to the US struggle against weapons of mass destruction proliferation that this represents. Rove marched us off to Iraq, where there weren't any. But he disrupted a major effort by the CIA to fight WMD that really did exist....
Rove can only have thought it would discredit Wilson to associate his mission with the CIA if he viewed the CIA as the enemy. This is the Richard Perle line. If Wilson was sent to Niger on the recommendation of a CIA operative, then he was not an objective ex-ambassador but a CIA plant of some sort, attempting to undermine the Bush administration and the military occupation of Iraq.
This theory is that of a crackpot. The actions are those of a traitor.
The CIA says she was covert. Any attempts to say that maybe she wasn't covert enough are silly. A Grand Jury was set up to indict the person who outed a covert CIA agent, because a covert CIA agent was outed.
Wilson went to that country, investigated the structure of the uranium industry (which is mainly in French hands anyway), and concluded it was impossible.
He had 6 days to do that.
And along with previous investigative reports filed by the US ambassador living in Niger, and second report reaching the same conclusion by military personel, Wilson's investigation came to same conclusion. All reports were filed. And the documents that raised questions have been found to be fake.
Rove's only hope is to trash Wilson. But even then, there was a leak.
I'm nervous even writing this...glatt can relate, I'm sure. But my point is this: from my very limited knowledge of such things, someone who is truly operating under deep cover has no ties (other than a handler) to CIA proper. If the woman went to Langley regularly, her mission wasn't likely to be the kind the media are alluding to.
I think you are confusing 'covert' and 'deep cover'. My knowledge is also limited, but anyone who the CIA creates a cover for, deep or not, is covert. This means anyone who reports to the CIA and does not share that fact with anyone outside the agency.
By outing Ms. Plame, the person who did so has forcibly retired her. Much of her value as a covert source is lost. Assuming it would even be safe for her to travel, many of her sources would probably no longer associate with her for fear of retribution.
One estimate of the value to train and replace an infantry soldier can be as high a $250,000. If Ms. Plame was a WMD expert, the question becomes how much will it cost to find and train a replacement to have the same amount of experience.
Having enough CIA WMD experts is sort of critical right now. We already started one war because of faulty WMD intelligence. Losing a qualified analyst because someone was playing politics and couldn't keep his mouth shut hurts us. The question also becomes did he have clearance to know that she was CIA? If not, who told him?
It's ironic that when it comes to issues the public has a right to know, this is a very closed administration. When it comes to information that legitimately should be kept secret, suddenly the loose lips are flapping.
Poor Scott McClellan pretty much destroyed any shred of credibility he had left with the press on this.
From
here
Sep 29, 2003
Q All right. Let me just follow up. You said this morning, "The President knows" that Karl Rove wasn't involved. How does he know that?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I've made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place. I saw some comments this morning from the person who made that suggestion, backing away from that. And I said it is simply not true. So, I mean, it's public knowledge. I've said that it's not true. And I have spoken with Karl Rove --
We already started one war because of faulty WMD intelligence.
I'm not real sure I even buy that anymore. I think we were headed to kick some Iraqi ass with or without WMDs. The "belief" that they were there was just the final selling point. Kind of like when Lumberjim throws in the premium stereo with CD changer instead of the single disc jobbie.
another perspective
Yet another, from one of Plame's CIA classmates.
A few of my classmates, and Valerie was one of these, became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed.
The lies by people like Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, and P. J. O'Rourke insist that Valerie was nothing, just a desk jockey. Yet, until Robert Novak betrayed her she was still undercover and the company that was her front was still a secret to the world. When Novak outed Valerie he also compromised her company and every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company and with her.
Point taken, as long as she was covert at the time the info came out. Still, for Rove to be criminally liable, he had to know she was undercover and have deliberately outed her with the intent to do harm.
There are still more sides to the story though. Washington is a small place, and the press corps there is incredibly lazy -- one radio guy yesterday likened them to zoo animals waiting to be thrown scraps. The place runs on rumor and off-the-record conversations. One of the current tidbits going around is that Rove found out that Plame was undercover from a reporter, which means that the leak had already occurred. Also, the reporter who is in jail for protecting her source is still in jail, even though Rove has released her from confidentiality. Who is she still protecting, if Rove is the leak?
Rove should be done for high treason, end of story. He outed, for pure revenge politics, a covert CIA operative in the process undermining directly the US's efforts to find who really has WMD. There are no two ways about it.
I hate repeating myself ... Novak broke the story ... WHO TOLD NOVAK??
Point taken, as long as she was covert at the time the info came out.
No, even if she were no longer performing covert actions, the fact that she had ever been covert was still classified. The cover company that she was working for was still a secret, and there were still covert people working for it in the field. Outing Plame destroyed that cover, and put everyone involved in danger, not to mention the money and effort wasted.
One of the current tidbits going around is that Rove found out that Plame was undercover from a reporter, which means that the leak had already occurred. Also, the reporter who is in jail for protecting her source is still in jail, even though Rove has released her from confidentiality. Who is she still protecting, if Rove is the leak?
That's what the grand jury is all about, and the eventual trial. It's good to see, though, that the tidbits going around are now of the "maybe Rove didn't commit the crime" variety rather than "maybe no crime was committed". Even so, that tidbit jars a bit with Rove's "I didn't mention her
by name" defense.
And finally, no matter who the initial leak was, it was a leak designed to punish someone for speaking out against the administration, and Rove discussed classified information with at least one reporter, without official approval to do so. Laws can be tricky things, so he may squeeze by without actually having committed a crime, but he definitely proved himself unworthy of a clearance.
Not necessarily. Like I said, the Washington press corps is privy to all kinds of deep background info -- they're as much a part of the dance as the politicians themselves. It's looking more and more like Rove could've been simply trying to prevent the reporter from running a bad story (bad in the quality-of-source sense). It happens all the time, completely independent of political bias. It's a very inbred system there.
I suppose we'll see.
And from a purely moral standpoint, where's the journalistic responsibility? If [insert source name here] told the reporter the name of an undercover operative, wouldn't the reporter know that publishing that information could be a Very Bad Thing?
This is a very ugly moment in the jihad against Bush. If it works, Rove gets the axe. If it doesn't, the whole smear attempt looks as silly as the "who sucked Clinton's cock" debacle. (not the leak itself, but the angry mob driving Rove out of town).
edit: IMO, the panicked response from the WH wasn't so much evidence of guilt as it was a reflection of the inexperience of the press secretary. They went into X-treme Defense mode before they had all the facts themselves. Gee, wonder why they're so gun shy?
There will be no interruption of KR's role as GWB's chief advisor. He will also remain in his official capacity of Deputy Chief of Staff.
My perspective of reality and what happens in the WH (stays in the WH, I know I know) intersect at only a couple of points. The letter and spirit of the law do not happen to be any of those points, sadly.
Privately, it is likely that KR will be further rewarded for his actions, since they have produced the desired result in the first place (contributing to the discrediting of an opposition voice) and have additionally provided some distraction from other difficulties the administration is facing now: more grief in Iraq; SC nomination; etc.
It's looking more and more like Rove could've been simply trying to prevent the reporter from running a bad story (bad in the quality-of-source sense).
I've heard something like that before, but not an explanation. How would Plame's CIA employment negatively affect the quality of a story's sources?
And from a purely moral standpoint, where's the journalistic responsibility? If [insert source name here] told the reporter the name of an undercover operative, wouldn't the reporter know that publishing that information could be a Very Bad Thing?
They should indeed. And while, not having clearances, they can't be prosecuted for it, any reporter who published it should be ashamed.
edit: IMO, the panicked response from the WH wasn't so much evidence of guilt as it was a reflection of the inexperience of the press secretary.
Indeed. Scott McClellan is about the most pathetic spokesman I've ever seen. At least Ari Fleischer had some style when he avoided questions.
I've heard something like that before, but not an explanation. How would Plame's CIA employment negatively affect the quality of a story's sources?
As I understand it, the story goes like this:
Wilson was sent by the CIA to Niger to investigate the possibility of Iraq seeking yellowcake uranium from that country. He got the assignment because of his wife, Plame. Whether she assigned it directly or pulled strings, I don't know, but the senate intelligence committee report last week speaks of a Plame memo linking her to his assignment to Niger.
Wilson claims to have found no Iraq-Niger link vis-a-vis uranium sales. This has since been proven a lie -- several sources now reveal that some kind of deal was in the works, if never finalized. Wilson also made a name for himself as an anti-Bush partisan in a book and some newspaper stuff that he wrote.
Miller was writing some kind of story (about the Plame leak? about the Wilson report? not sure, haven't looked into that part of it) and Rove apparently said something along the lines of, "I wouldn't run with that story, Wilson's wife is CIA and got him that assignment, and he's got a partisan agenda." Or something like that.
This ball was taken by the left and a break was made for the opposing goal line. Whether or not they score or fall flat on their face is up in the air at this point. The leak had already happened at the time of Rove's conversation, it seems like.
Even granting all that, what does Wilson's wife being CIA and getting him the assignment have to do with anything? What was the point of mentioning it? How does that affect the quality of the report?
I think Rove was implying (maybe he said it directly -- I need to do some more reading on this, if my gall bladder will let me) that Wilson had been sent to Niger by his wife specifically to discredit the WH claim of an Iraq/Niger/uranium connection, and not to do actual fact-finding.
So he was saying that the CIA was actively working against the administration on WMD issues?
I don't think he went that far. I think he was implying that Wilson was a partisan attention whore, and his wife used her position to be an accessory. I'm cutting you off from X-Files reruns for 3 days. :P
edit: and flagellating myself for being a sloppy writer around HM. You guys are really chomping at the bit on this one, aren't you?
She wasn't in a position to send him to Niger. All she could do was recommend him, so someone higher than her in the CIA would have had to sign on.
I'll have to take your word on it.
The main point is, to leak the identity on a CIA agent under cover, especially one without diplomatic immunity, is to place that agent at risk if their identity is leaked while they are outside the US, say in Africa or the Middle East. While Cooper had the class to choose not to publish, Novak did.
Here is one take on this.
Outing a NOC is dangerous for them and the people who help them. There are already
83 stars at the CIA headquarters for fallen agents. Some of them understand the consequences of having a cover revealed. Agents have had their covers revealed before, but this might be the first time in history such a leak came from the White House.
Way to take care of national security, guys. :eyebrow:
Wilson claims to have found no Iraq-Niger link vis-a-vis uranium sales. This has since been proven a lie -- several sources now reveal that some kind of deal was in the works, if never finalized.
As far as I've seen, Wilson has been proven right.
On the Washington Post web site a few days ago, a story ran claiming that Wilson had reported to the CIA that Niger was approached by Iraq about a yellowcake deal. Then, the Post ran a correction, saying that is was Iran, not Iraq. (???)
And...it was reported that Plame did suggest her husband for the trip, based on his friendliness with Niger officials, but the actual decision to send him was made by the CIA Directorate, whoever that may be.
Actually, a (2004?) British report on prewar intelligence indicated that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999 (even Wilson concurs), and found that several intelligence sources indicated the purpose of the trip was to make a uranium deal. The same intelligence also indicated similar deal-making with the republic of Congo and (I think) one other African nation.
A U.S. senate report said that the CIA (who, I thought, were supposed to be against Bush? anyway.) didn't give Wilson's claim much credibility, particularly since their intelligence showed that uranium was the one ingredient Iraq needed to have full nuclear capability.
Wilson defended himself by pointing to a set of forged documents that were either created to "prove" a link between Iraq/Niger, or, specifically created and leaked to Wilson in order to discredit any other intelligence pointing to same link. Of course, the documents' purpose depends on which side of the congressional aisle you're talking to.
The upshot being, Wilson is a proven partisan; that, combined with a good deal of American and European pre-war intelligence (admittedly, much of it circumstantial or based on conversations) that Iraq wanted yellowcake uranium,
[inhale]
undermines his credibility. The left is carrying his water because he's anti-Bush.
Actually, a (2004?) British report on prewar intelligence indicated that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999 (even Wilson concurs)
I'm confused...did Wilson concur because he found that out on his trip?
Yep, the story's solid, mrnoodle. If you've got these other sources, cite them or drop it.
Wilson's Iraq Assertions Hold Up Under Fire From Rove Backers
The main points of Wilson's article have largely been substantiated by a Senate committee as well as U.S. and United Nations weapons inspectors. A day after Wilson's piece was published, the White House acknowledged that a claim Bush made in his January 2003 state of the union address that Iraq tried to buy "significant quantities of uranium from Africa" could not be verified and shouldn't have been included in the speech.
Wilson discounted rumors of an abortive transaction between Niger and Iraq. The documents suggesting the transaction turned out to be forgeries - an early set that the Italians provided summaries of to England and the US, and copies of to the US, and a later, extremely poorly forged set that mrnoodle already mentioned. Wilson's report said that there was no such transaction, but Nigerien (is that really how it's spelled?) officials assumed that an Iraqi delegation four years earlier was hoping to talk about uranium. The consensus in the intelligence community was that the Niger story wasn't strong enough to use, evidenced by the speeches from which it was deliberately excised. And in hindsight, after inspection of the actual nuclear capabilities in Iraq, that consensus turned out to have been correct.
In any case, all this is really irrelevant to the Plame issue. It's interesting back story and a fun debate, but it has no bearing on the case. No matter how politically biased Wilson was, no matter how involved Plame was in getting him sent, no matter how competently he handled the mission, the proper way to handle it is not to break the cover of a CIA agent to a journalist.
The forged documents appeared in October 2002. Wilson's trip happened in February/March 2002.
There were multiple sets of forged documents.
All such documents in the Senate Intel report appear well after Wilson's trip.
I find
Joe Scarboroughs take on the Rove affair interesting.
What amazed me was the attempt at spin by Rep Peter King (R,NY) on
Tuesday.
SCARBOROUGH: Now to the storm over the president's top adviser, Karl Rove. Did he leak classified information to a reporter, and should he be bounced from the White House?
With me now to talk about that is Congressman Peter King.
Thank you so much for being with us, Congressman.
It's a fascinating case. And I just got to start by saying, you and I served together during the Clinton administration. We attacked the Clinton administration for not taking national security more seriously. I got to just tell you, I mean, bottom line is, if Clinton's chief of staff or top adviser had leaked the identity of a CIA agent, you and I would be up in arms and say, Clinton had to fire that person immediately.
Should Karl Rove be treated at the same standard?
REP. PETER KING ®, NEW YORK: No, in fact, I think Karl Rove should get a medal, Joe. I really mean that.
I think this is much do about nothing, because let's look at the facts very clearly.
SCARBOROUGH: For revealing a CIA agent's identity?
KING: First of all, it's only a crime if she was undercover, if he knew she was undercover, and he did it deliberately.
I think, Joe, this thing was such a hoax. Joe Wilson was a shameless self-promoter. Everything about his story was either a lie or a hoax or he was incompetent. And when Karl Rove—even just looking at the e-mail. If you are talking to a reporter and you have someone like Joe Wilson, who was totally discrediting the president of the United States, unfairly and untruthfully, and you say, how come this guy was sent over to do this?
And to say, you know, looking at the fact that he is—was sent over
by his wife, who was in the CIA.
A medal? For outing a CIA agent whose only offense, according to King, was in not speaking to the press, when she probably couldn't?
So much for Republican=patriot. I still can't believe the spin he tried to put on this.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/14/wbr.01.html
WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.
That doesn't mean it's over, although Wilson could have mentioned this earlier.
Scarborough's stopped clock was right yesterday. The twisting and turning to get out of this has included downright anti-American anti-patriotic weaseling, and it's sick.
And it's why I'm a swing voter. Once you choose sides, the truth, and/or doing the right thing, becomes less important than having your side win the game.
He meant as of the day her cover was blown.
And I advertise myself as a professional psychic ...
And I advertise myself as a professional psychic ...
Come on.
They were trying to use the photo shoot to cast doubt on whether she was really clandestine. His response was that the photo shoot was after her cover was already blown, and he mentioned the explicit incident that blew her cover.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8577190/
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.
His wife’s “ability to do the job she’s been doing for close to 20 years ceased from the minute Novak’s article appeared; she ceased being a clandestine officer,” he said.
Either way Rove is a scumbag. :mad:
Either way Rove is a scumbag. :mad:
Is this supposed to be news? Even a Nixon 'dirty tricks' campaigner like
Donald Segretti seems like a guy running a hot dog stand compared to Rove, who has refined and almost institutionalized the process. Sort of a Mayor McSleaze.
It would be news to Bush since I heard him saying what a moral, upright, honorable man Rove is, just the other day. :vomitblu:
It would be news to Bush since I heard him saying what a moral, upright, honorable man Rove is, just the other day. :vomitblu:
Maybe Bush really is that clueless.
Bush: Karl, where have you been? My god, is that
blood on your hands?
Rove: I was just out for a walk Mr. President. The blood? Oh, I thought I would help out the cook and kill some, uh, chickens for dinner. Yeah, that's right - chickens.
Actually, I always thought he resembled the Gestapo agent in "Raiders of the Lost Ark".
Is this supposed to be news? Even a Nixon 'dirty tricks' campaigner like Donald Segretti seems like a guy running a hot dog stand compared to Rove, who has refined and almost institutionalized the process.
And Bush's dad
fired rove for leaking information to Novak. Everyone knows Rove is dirty, Bush just doesn't care as long as it works.
Guy on NPR was chatting this case up this morning. He made an offhand comment that Plame donated 2k to the Al Gore campaign using her cover company as her place of work. That sounds like a violation of campaign funding laws to me. I know laws don't apply to folks inside the Beltway but I like to know when Fed Gov types contribute to those who steal the money that goes into their paychecks.
That sounds like a violation of campaign funding laws to me.
In what way?
She lied about her main source of income.
I still want Rove to fry.
She lied about her main source of income.
Wouldn't her checks and W-2 have the name of the cover company on them? ;)
Admittedly, I've always had this funny idea that if you get a gumint paycheck you shouldn't be allowed to vote. This would extend to folks who work for companies who do guv biz as well. Of course, the way our economy is structured we wouldn't have much of an electorate.
She lied about her main source of income.
She was undercover CIA! As far as the law was concerned, the cover company WAS her employer.
I don't care. :) I know laws are for the rest of us.
Ah, you weren't serious. Sorry. Sometimes it's hard to tell satire from the actual excuses.
I'm much more concerned with the CIAs snatching suspects on the streets of our allies than this stuff. It is worrisome when laws don't apply to folks in government, but the line probably shouldn't be drawn at something as irrelevent as campaign finance.
And the hits just keep on coming.
In an account of his testimony published yesterday, Mr Cooper said that neither Mr Libby nor Mr Rove revealed the name of the agent, nor did they mention her covert status. But the White House had previously denied that either man spoke to reporters about the issue. Mr Cooper also told NBC News yesterday that there might have been other sources as well for the stories.
Why is this story different? Is this an abberation of the normal behavior? Is this the odd time the WH made such remarks, or is this the odd time the WH has been "caught" or is this the odd time the WH is unable to spin it completely in their favor?
**news flash** This just on the radio right now
GWB has clarified his position on the investigation
"Now, I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we can know the facts, and if somebody committed a crime, they would no longer work in my administration."
Also:
"We have a serious ongoing investigation here, and its important that people wait."
EDIT: Got the quote right from another newsbreak.
<strike>ARRRGH. Sh*t. I was trying to type as I heard the item on the radio and missed the last part of the sentence, so don't quote me on quoting the President.</strike> The essence of the sound bite that I heard is that the WH is no longer content to let their previous stance on the issue go unqualified. Why do they feel the need to revise their remarks? <strike>(Hell, for that matter, what were the remarks. I have tried to scare up the quote and failed. I'm sure it'll be available soon, though.)</strike>
Bush said anybody in his administration who committed a crime would be out, unless they were part of the center ball of scum. ;)
Asked on June 10, 2004, whether he stood by an earlier White House pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked the officer's name, Bush replied: "Yes." On Monday, he added the qualifier that it would have to be demonstrated that a crime was committed.
:vomit:
GWB has clarified his position on the investigation
"Now, I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we can know the facts, and if somebody committed a crime, they would no longer work in my administration."
Funny, I don't remember a crime being commited by Dan Rather. He was never convicted of libel, because noone could ever prove intent on his part, either. And yet he was forced into retirement.
I'm not buying the 'Karl Rove set up Dan Rather' conspiracy theory. However, I would like to point out that most of Mr. Rove's most ardent defenders are the same people who demanded Rather's head when he screwed up, even though no 'crime' had been committed.
I've been hearing a few whines from Republicans lately that the anti-Karl rhetoric is 'just politics'. Well, duh. However, at the center of it is someone who used his position to attempt to nail a working CIA agent, declaring her 'fair game', with no regard for the importance of her work or her usefulness as an intelligence asset. Also, with no proof that she was in any way actively engaged in any activities against the President, other than her association with her husband. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, Ms. Plame has kept her mouth shut, which makes her seem to me to be the most professional individual in this whole circus.
For some reason, I keep flashing back to the
Army vs McCarthy hearings. Joe McCarthy finally tanked trying to make it appear the the Army was harboring Communists because one of his aides got drafted. It appears that Karl was picking on a publicly non-political CIA agent because he was in a snit over comments her husband made.
Will this be a bridge too far for Mr. Rove?
Will this be a bridge too far for Mr. Rove?
I sure hope so.
Rather did screw up, and thereby corroded his credibility, and fatally impugned his own judgement. WRT whether Valerie Plame was actually undercover or not, National Review Online thinks she was not, and had not been for some years' time.
National Review Online -- McCarthy, July 19Getting closer. Fitzgerald opens an
Official Website.Rather did screw up, and thereby corroded his credibility, and fatally impugned his own judgement. WRT whether Valerie Plame was actually undercover or not, National Review Online thinks she was not, and had not been for some years' time.
National Review Online -- McCarthy, July 19
Read the article and the article that it linked to and found this quote.
Mrs. Plame's identity as an undercover CIA officer was first disclosed to Russia in the mid-1990s by a Moscow spy, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Ok, so because the Russians think they have identified her, she is no longer undercover? That's not what the law says. Next.
Was Libby or Rove the anonymous sorce for that one Rich? :right:
We know, however, based upon what we have read and seen and heard that someone created fake documents related to Niger and Iraq and used them as a false pretense to launch America into an invasion of Iraq. And when a former diplomat made an honest effort to find out the facts, a plan was hatched to both discredit and punish him by revealing the identity of his undercover CIA agent wife. TomPaine
So far the Republican line on this is bad intel. If Fitzgerald proves the conspiracy we should throw a neck tie party for the whole bunch, but I'll settle for impeachment.
We know, however, based upon what we have read and seen and heard that someone created fake documents related to Niger and Iraq and used them as a false pretense to launch America into an invasion of Iraq. And when a former diplomat made an honest effort to find out the facts, a plan was hatched to both discredit and punish him by revealing the identity of his undercover CIA agent wife. TomPaine
So far the Republican line on this is bad intel. If Fitzgerald proves the conspiracy we should throw a neck tie party for the whole bunch, but I'll settle for impeachment.
Senate Intelligence Report, Niger section, page 11:
The reports officer [of Wilson's report on Niger] said that ... he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerian officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed that the Iraqis were interested in purchasing Uranium,...
Oops
There's still the fishy documents, weird timing, and even an Italian connection. How very Rovian!
Found it! David Corn taking on the interpretation of an Iraqi visit in the big scheme of things. Oops to you?
Now on to the claim that Wilson's report to the CIA actually provided more reason to believe Iraq had been seeking yellowcake uranium. In his debriefing Wilson reported that former Nigerian Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki had told him that in 1999 he had been asked to meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. Mayaki said he assumed the delegation wanted to discuss uranium sales. But he said that although he had met with the delegation he had not been interested in pursuing any commercial dealings with Iraq. The intelligence report based on Wilson's debriefing also noted that the former minister of mines explained to Wilson that given the tight controls maintained by the French consortium in charge of uranium mining in Niger, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to arrange a shipment of uranium to a pariah state.
What did this report mean to the intelligence community? A CIA reports officer told the Senate intelligence committee that he took it as indirect confirmation of the allegation since Nigerian officials had admitted that an Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999 and since the former prime minister had said he believed Iraq was interested in purchasing uranium. But an INR analyst said that he considered the report to be corroboration of INR's position, which was that the allegation was "highly suspect" because Niger would be unlikely to engage in such a transaction and unable to transfer uranium to Iraq due to the strict controls maintained by the French consortium. But the INR analyst added, the "report could be read in different ways."
Wilson's work was thrown into the stew. The CIA continued to disseminate a report noting that a foreign intelligence service had told U.S. intelligence that Niger had agreed to supply Iraq with hundreds of tons of uranium. And in the National Intelligence Estimate produced in October 2002, the intelligence community reported that Iraq had been trying to strike a uranium deal with Niger in 2001. But the NIE noted that INR strongly disagreed with this assessment. And when the National Security Council drafted a speech for Bush in October 2002 the CIA recommended the address not include the Niger allegation because it was "debatable" whether the yellowcake could be obtained from Niger. In a follow-up fax to the NSC, the CIA said "the evidence is weak" and "the procurement is not particularly significant to Iraq's nuclear ambitions because the Iraqis already have a large stock of uranium oxide in their inventory." Still, in late January 2003 -- after the INR's Iraq analyst had concluded that papers recently obtained by U.S. intelligence related to the supposed Iraqi-Niger uranium deal were "clearly a forgery" -- Bush went ahead and accused Iraq of seeking uranium in Africa.
Another angle here. (And a
Daily Kos thread discussing it)
There's also
this Post story: Check the correction box on the side.
I'm just glad we could get to the right part of the debate. Now we have everyone (except for the Post correction, which is a non-entity IMO) agreeing that:
1. Iraqi went to Niger.
2. They wanted uranium. (It's the only meaningful export Niger has.)
3. They were turned back.
The Crooks and Liars take, which I have seen before, concludes that (and I quote) the intelligence community discounted the notion that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger; but this is Monday morning, and given the 1-2-3 facts on the table, do you come to that conclusion? Isn't it a direct contradiction to #2? Why would Crooks and Liars do that?
It gets hard to follow; but how did Wilson get those 1-2-3 facts?
4. He was a former ambassador, and highly regarded, but not an ambassador to Niger. He was ambassador to Gabon. It was 10 years ago.
5. When he went to Niger, he was told not to speak with anyone currently in the government because it could hurt further negotiations about the restrictions of yellowcake sale.
6. He was only there a week, and all he did was talk with people; they assured him that all was well and even though the Iraqis had been there, no transfer could have happened because of those restrictions.
Here are the hard questions.
Given 4-5-6, and the 1-2-3 already established, do YOU believe that Wilson could come to a very complete and total conclusion that Iraq was not seeking uranium?
When Brit intelligence comes to the conclusion that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from Niger, does Wilson's trip negate that intelligence?
If you're Wilson, and the Pres makes his S.O.T.U. speech saying that Brit intel finds Iraq seeking uranium from Africa, do you then write to the New York Times about what you've found? Or do you wait six months until the war starts, the first invasion is over, and no stockpiles are found?
When you write to the Times, do you omit fact #2? How about #4? How about #5?
And finally, the biggest question for y'all: Is it OK that Iraq went to Niger in 1998 seeking uranium even though they were prohibited from having it? Are you copasetic with that because they did apparently get turned down? Do you think they wanted it for peaceful purposes?
(except for the Post correction, which is a non-entity IMO)
What does that mean?
It's a correction, there's no by-line, and it contradicts everything in the Senate Intel Report specifically mentioned in the story. I'm saying it's flat-out wrong.
Update on that: a poster in the dkos thread says that Iran has its own uranium mines. Some Googling around shows that to be true.
Do I want Iraq to buy uranium, make bombs and kill me? no.
Do I want the US to create manipulative intelligence to support their deadly move for regime change when they can't make a real case to put before the American people with fact? no.
Why is Colin Powell so ashamed of it all?
Why were these forgeries that supported the incorrect claim so ellusive, essential and crude? Would the British spread false intel, even for a little while? Would we? Why?
Why not make a real case for war? Who would think of such a thing? How about
Michael "Iran-Contra" Ledeenor one of his crowd? There's a track record of traitorous wheeling and dealing with national security secrets.
Upon his return, talking with whoever and for however long, Wilson's intel was deemed good by the CIA who sent him.
As the case for war was built, Wilson smelled a rat, and who knows what else he learned. That he came forward at all, well, that has proven to be a bold move.
I will be very interested to see what Fitzgerald make of all of this mess.
Here's a juicier link on
Ledeen. Who knows what's true? hmmm.
chek chek chek
testing 1 2 3
is this thread on?
uh... not since about a year ago...
Hitchens put the whole thing together Tuesday, in Slate:
As most of us have long suspected, the man who told Novak about Valerie Plame was Richard Armitage, Colin Powell's deputy at the State Department and, with his boss, an assiduous underminer of the president's war policy. (His and Powell's—and George Tenet's—fingerprints are all over Bob Woodward's "insider" accounts of post-9/11 policy planning, which helps clear up another nonmystery: Woodward's revelation several months ago that he had known all along about the Wilson-Plame connection and considered it to be no big deal.)
WaPo piece followed Friday, "End of an Affair":
We're reluctant to return to the subject of former CIA employee Valerie Plame because of our oft-stated belief that far too much attention and debate in Washington has been devoted to her story and that of her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, over the past three years. But all those who have opined on this affair ought to take note of the not-so-surprising disclosure that the primary source of the newspaper column in which Ms. Plame's cover as an agent was purportedly blown in 2003 was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage.
Mr. Armitage was one of the Bush administration officials who supported the invasion of Iraq only reluctantly. He was a political rival of the White House and Pentagon officials who championed the war and whom Mr. Wilson accused of twisting intelligence about Iraq and then plotting to destroy him.
Ya got that? The Plame "outer" is anti-Iraq war.
And it concludes:
Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.
Fred Barnes in righty Weekly Standard lists a Hall of Shame
I was right this time, as I am 50% of the time, and I am bending over backwards to pat myself on the back for it.
Congratulations. Batting .500 is also a fantastic average.
That shows if you read, research, cross check, ask the right questions, wade through the rhetoric and bullcrap, dedicate the time, trouble and resources to the quest...... you too can be as accurate as flipping a coin.
OK, I'm a smartass, but there has to be more to it. Personal satisfaction, dare I say even fun, like a hobby. One that's a hell of a lot cheaper and safer than most hobbies, too. I mean you still get only one vote at the polls unless you count people you influence or sway to your beliefs, your truth.
The question is why do we even bother? Why not wait till it all comes out in the wash? Or will it not come out in the wash, if we the people don't demand it? I suppose they wouldn't bother with all the lies, spin and pure bullshit if people didn't care..... if people didn't question.
I guess distracted or even dumb people don't really want to be sheeple. Even if they appear to be clueless or claim not to care about politics or international affairs, they don't want to be lied to, betrayed by the people they voted for.
The fact that I'm rambling, thinking on the keyboard, proves i don't have the answer. Sorry, carry on. :redface:
No, you've brought that up before and I agree. It's very much like a hobby to me. I could spend my time doing more productive things.
A lot of news stories are soap operas, and others are mystery stories, that play out in real time. But it holds my interest like a soap opera or mystery story.
I hate it when a perfectly good conspiracy theory dies. Now let's see how serious people are about retracting. Daniel Schorr on NPR's
Weekend Edition dedicated a segment to it.
[QUOTE=Undertoad Ya got that? The Plame "outer" is anti-Iraq war.[/QUOTE] One can only say that if a political agenda justifies the spin - lying by telling half truths. Armitage is a founding member of Project for New American Century. Does that sound like someone anti-Iraq war? He was Sec of State Powell's assistant and good friend. He was not anti-war as UT so intentionally misrepresents. Armitage was not a 'gun slinger' - somebody who would routinely and publicly lie to disparage others. UT, you knew that. Why then did you post that misrepresetation of Armitage – as only a ‘gun slinger’ would do?
I didn't remember Armitage was PNAC, that does change things. I wonder why Schorr gave him a pass?
Mr. Armitage was one of the Bush administration officials who supported the invasion of Iraq only reluctantly. He was a political rival of the White House and Pentagon officials who championed the war and whom Mr. Wilson accused of twisting intelligence about Iraq and then plotting to destroy him.
This is the WaPo point, I quoted it once, I can quote it again until you read it.
The United States Senate confirmed him as Deputy Secretary of State on March 23, 2001; he was sworn in on March 26 of the same year. A close associate of Secretary of State Colin Powell, Armitage was regarded, along with Powell, as a moderate within the presidential administration of George W. Bush. Armitage tendered his resignation on November 16, 2004, the day after Powell announced his resignation as Secretary of State. Armitage left the post on February 22, 2005, when Robert Zoellick succeeded the office.
No, you've brought that up before and I agree. It's very much like a hobby to me. I could spend my time doing more productive things.
A lot of news stories are soap operas, and others are mystery stories, that play out in real time. But it holds my interest like a soap opera or mystery story.
Nothing is more productive than doing something you enjoy.:thumb:
Enjoying it, being entertained by the way it unfolds, is a legitimate reason to do it. What I'm asking is, are there any other reasons to do it?
Are there any benefits to staying on top of the real time news?
I suppose stock analysts/brokers/speculators would do well to be informed, maybe? Anyone else?
One winter I saw my neighbor breaking up an ice dam that formed in front of our sewer grate. I thought, damn, I can hardly be bothered to shovel my walk. He's always the first guy to do his, and I'm usually the last to do mine. But it's not enough for him to do his; once his is done, he starts doing the street.
And what's the point? In a few days there will be a warm period and that ice dam will be taken care of by itself. And if not we can call the local township and they will salt it until it's fixed.
If I asked him, I know he'd say he enjoys doing it, and would rather get some exercise and get away from the wife by chipping up some ice.
No reason to do it, except for a miniscule civic benefit. Two things we need in our society: A) clear streets and B) informed citizens. Well, fuck if I'm going out in that cold.
...I was right this time, as I am 50% of the time, and I am bending over backwards to pat myself on the back for it.
So, your saying Karl Rove only gave away her first name (50%)?:rolleyes:
