ON POLITICS
July 19, 2005
The National Agenda
By Charlie Cook, National Journal
The political impact of the news that White House senior adviser Karl Rove leaked the identity, if not the name, of CIA officer Valerie Plame is impossible to predict with any certainty. But this strange development is a timely reminder that while close 2006 midterm contests may well hinge on the "micro" particulars of each race, they could end up hinging on some "macro" national factor.
One method of forecasting election outcomes is to focus on contests individually—assessing voting trends in a particular district or state, the candidates' strengths and weaknesses, and any issues or circumstances that loom as potentially decisive factors. While the year's general tone may be taken into account, this method largely agrees with the late House Speaker Tip O'Neill: "All politics is local."
The macro alternative is to assess the national issue agenda, the tilt of the national political terrain, and the parallels to previous election years. This is essentially a sophisticated way of licking one's finger to ascertain which way and how fast the wind is blowing, and making a guess based on historical patterns, national polls, and subjective judgment.
For House elections, the race-by-race micro method usually works best. But about every four elections, it simply doesn't. It just didn't in 1974, 1978, 1982, and 1994, and (to a lesser extent) didn't in 1998. (In big macro elections, when a tsunami develops, even the most sophisticated micro analyses prove useless, because first-rate candidates often lose to inferior ones simply because of party affiliation.) Micro analysis once worked reasonably well as a predictor of Senate outcomes, but that hasn't been true in the past four elections. Close Senate races have tended in recent years to break in one direction.
At this stage in the 2005-06 election cycle, just about any micro analysis would predict minimal changes in the House and Senate: Too few seats appear to be truly in play for either side to roll up a big win. Yet, history reminds us that the midterm election during a president's second term tends to deal a setback to the president's party—generally because that party's members felt discouraged and failed to show up at the polls while the opposition felt energized and turned out in large numbers. The presidential party can get into electoral trouble because it has run out of intellectual gas, grown lethargic, overreached, suffered a scandal, or hit economic hard times. Any of those factors could, at least theoretically, turn 2006 into a macro election.
The scandals surrounding Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his ties to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay are making a lot of Republican strategists very nervous. And Rove has a far higher public profile than DeLay. So, GOP strategists have a new reason to fret over whether Rove knowingly disclosed the identity of an undercover CIA operative. We don't yet know which reporters Rove talked to, what he said, or whether he realized that Plame was a secret agent.
Rove's involvement in the Plame case is already creating a political problem for the White House and the Republican Party. We just don't know whether the problem will escalate into a GOP nightmare capable of damaging the party in the 2006 midterm elections.
The irony, of course, is that the Rove story is developing just as President Bush has tipped back "right-side up," as pollsters say, with his job-approval rating higher, although just barely, than his job-disapproval rating. His uptick is most likely the result of the London bombings. The two Gallup/CNN/USA Today polls conducted in June had pegged the president's overall job-approval rating at 45 percent and 46 percent. Now it's 49 percent, with his disapproval score, which had been 53 percent and 51 percent in June, 48 percent. Pew Research Center polling showed a bit more of an upward jump—from 42 percent to 47 percent in approval, with disapproval dropping from 49 percent to 46 percent.
Obviously, hundreds of things will happen between now and the 2006 midterm elections. And the long-term political impact of the Rove/Plame affair and of heightened concerns about terrorism is impossible to know. But suffice it to say that Republicans certainly don't need another scandal right now. The current spotlight on Rove's behind-the-scenes maneuvering isn't something that heartens anyone in the GOP. The same can't be said, of course, for Democrats.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This column is published at http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0705/071905op.htm
Full Version: Karl Rove - Volume four
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...=la-home-nation
Rove's Troubles Expose Strategic Drawbacks of a United Front
Ronald Brownstein
The testimonials to Karl Rove that flowed from Republicans great and small last week were, above all, a testament to the kind of party that he and President Bush have constructed
For most of American history, the two major political parties have been ideologically ramshackle coalitions renowned for their resistance to central direction. Bush, with Rove as the "architect," has constructed a party that expects, and enforces, a heightened level of loyalty more commonly found in a parliamentary system. In Rove's GOP, preserving party unity has become the prime directive.
The reaction to Rove's troubles, ironically, testifies to his success.
Privately, a few Republicans seem concerned that Rove, whether or not he is charged with a crime, could become a distraction after the revelations that he told a reporter that the wife of administration critic Joseph C. Wilson IV worked for the CIA.
But in public, Republicans lined up last week to defend Rove as if they were constructing a human shield. Reporters had their pick of party leaders denouncing Democrats, the media and Wilson.
Partly that reflected the conviction among most GOP leaders that the disclosures so far hadn't damaged Rove too badly. Just as important may have been the powerful instinct of the GOP under Bush and Rove to close ranks under pressure — rather than fragmenting the way Democrats often did during President Clinton's time in office.
Republicans haven't achieved perfect agreement on all issues under Bush. Resistance from Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) derailed White House hopes of a smooth confirmation for John R. Bolton, Bush's choice as United Nations ambassador. Resistance from Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) has blocked GOP leaders from advancing a Social Security restructuring plan from the Senate Finance Committee. Resistance from seven GOP moderates and mavericks thwarted the drive by party leaders for a showdown vote on banning the filibuster against judicial nominees.
Yet the GOP solidarity evident over Rove last week has been much more common during Bush's presidency. Congressional Republicans are voting together more than congressional Democrats did under Clinton — and even more than congressional Republicans did under President Reagan. Despite grumbling from some GOP moderates, the party has mostly responded to the ethical allegations swirling around House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) with the same locked-arm defiance it has demonstrated with Rove.
By now, the benefits of this approach for Bush and congressional Republicans are familiar. By minimizing GOP defections, Bush has passed an ambitious agenda despite narrow congressional majorities and meager support from Democrats on his top priorities.
Bush's support from rank-and-file Republicans has rarely dipped below 90% in polls. Massive turnout from that base was the single most critical factor in his November reelection. And voters who poured out for Bush helped the GOP capture Democratic Senate seats in six states the president carried.
But the drive for party unity has always carried costs too, and they seem to be growing in Bush's second term.
By asking so few tough questions of Rove — and DeLay — congressional Republicans may be increasing their vulnerability to Democratic charges that the GOP is abusing its unified control over government to protect its own.
"They really have become so arrogant that they don't think the rules apply to them," Democratic consultant Joe Lockhart says — an argument likely to headline many campaigns by Democrats next year.
The emphasis on party cohesion also constricts Bush's maneuverability on issues. Bush and Rove have achieved such overwhelming agreement in part by advancing an agenda that, on most major decisions, responds to the demands of the GOP's hard-core supporters. But in pursuing such an ideologically aggressive course, Republicans risk antagonizing more moderate voters.
Indeed, the micro- and macro-politics of Rove's vision have often seemed at odds. With one hand, he has encouraged innovative efforts to court new voters, particularly African Americans and Latinos. With the other, he has promoted an agenda that polarizes the electorate and often provokes resistance from many voters, including minorities, outside of the GOP's core conservative coalition.
Bush slightly lost ground among independent voters in 2004 compared with 2000, although doubts about his Democratic foe, Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, helped the president hold the erosion to a level he could survive. This year, without that contrast to bolster him, Bush's approval rating among independent voters has rarely peeked much above 40%.
For the Republican Congress, this year's trends are more ominous. In an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released last week, the approval rating for Congress fell to 28%, with 55% disapproving. Numbers just a bit lower were the last poll figures congressional Democrats saw before the GOP's 1994 tidal wave swept them from the majority in the House and Senate.
Bush and congressional Republicans face a fundamental choice on how to rebuild toward the 2006 election. One approach would pursue more deals with Democrats to court moderate voters who recoil from partisan conflict. The other would detonate sharp ideological disputes in the hope of generating a big conservative-base turnout to overwhelm discontent in the center.
Last week's rallying around Rove sends a clear signal that most in the GOP still prefer a party that excites its base and gives no ground to critics. Revelations about Rove's role in the CIA controversy more damaging than those he's faced so far might diminish the party's willingness to defend him personally. But whatever happens to the architect, Republicans seem wedded to his combative strategy for maintaining power.
Rove's Troubles Expose Strategic Drawbacks of a United Front
Ronald Brownstein
The testimonials to Karl Rove that flowed from Republicans great and small last week were, above all, a testament to the kind of party that he and President Bush have constructed
For most of American history, the two major political parties have been ideologically ramshackle coalitions renowned for their resistance to central direction. Bush, with Rove as the "architect," has constructed a party that expects, and enforces, a heightened level of loyalty more commonly found in a parliamentary system. In Rove's GOP, preserving party unity has become the prime directive.
The reaction to Rove's troubles, ironically, testifies to his success.
Privately, a few Republicans seem concerned that Rove, whether or not he is charged with a crime, could become a distraction after the revelations that he told a reporter that the wife of administration critic Joseph C. Wilson IV worked for the CIA.
But in public, Republicans lined up last week to defend Rove as if they were constructing a human shield. Reporters had their pick of party leaders denouncing Democrats, the media and Wilson.
Partly that reflected the conviction among most GOP leaders that the disclosures so far hadn't damaged Rove too badly. Just as important may have been the powerful instinct of the GOP under Bush and Rove to close ranks under pressure — rather than fragmenting the way Democrats often did during President Clinton's time in office.
Republicans haven't achieved perfect agreement on all issues under Bush. Resistance from Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) derailed White House hopes of a smooth confirmation for John R. Bolton, Bush's choice as United Nations ambassador. Resistance from Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) has blocked GOP leaders from advancing a Social Security restructuring plan from the Senate Finance Committee. Resistance from seven GOP moderates and mavericks thwarted the drive by party leaders for a showdown vote on banning the filibuster against judicial nominees.
Yet the GOP solidarity evident over Rove last week has been much more common during Bush's presidency. Congressional Republicans are voting together more than congressional Democrats did under Clinton — and even more than congressional Republicans did under President Reagan. Despite grumbling from some GOP moderates, the party has mostly responded to the ethical allegations swirling around House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) with the same locked-arm defiance it has demonstrated with Rove.
By now, the benefits of this approach for Bush and congressional Republicans are familiar. By minimizing GOP defections, Bush has passed an ambitious agenda despite narrow congressional majorities and meager support from Democrats on his top priorities.
Bush's support from rank-and-file Republicans has rarely dipped below 90% in polls. Massive turnout from that base was the single most critical factor in his November reelection. And voters who poured out for Bush helped the GOP capture Democratic Senate seats in six states the president carried.
But the drive for party unity has always carried costs too, and they seem to be growing in Bush's second term.
By asking so few tough questions of Rove — and DeLay — congressional Republicans may be increasing their vulnerability to Democratic charges that the GOP is abusing its unified control over government to protect its own.
"They really have become so arrogant that they don't think the rules apply to them," Democratic consultant Joe Lockhart says — an argument likely to headline many campaigns by Democrats next year.
The emphasis on party cohesion also constricts Bush's maneuverability on issues. Bush and Rove have achieved such overwhelming agreement in part by advancing an agenda that, on most major decisions, responds to the demands of the GOP's hard-core supporters. But in pursuing such an ideologically aggressive course, Republicans risk antagonizing more moderate voters.
Indeed, the micro- and macro-politics of Rove's vision have often seemed at odds. With one hand, he has encouraged innovative efforts to court new voters, particularly African Americans and Latinos. With the other, he has promoted an agenda that polarizes the electorate and often provokes resistance from many voters, including minorities, outside of the GOP's core conservative coalition.
Bush slightly lost ground among independent voters in 2004 compared with 2000, although doubts about his Democratic foe, Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, helped the president hold the erosion to a level he could survive. This year, without that contrast to bolster him, Bush's approval rating among independent voters has rarely peeked much above 40%.
For the Republican Congress, this year's trends are more ominous. In an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released last week, the approval rating for Congress fell to 28%, with 55% disapproving. Numbers just a bit lower were the last poll figures congressional Democrats saw before the GOP's 1994 tidal wave swept them from the majority in the House and Senate.
Bush and congressional Republicans face a fundamental choice on how to rebuild toward the 2006 election. One approach would pursue more deals with Democrats to court moderate voters who recoil from partisan conflict. The other would detonate sharp ideological disputes in the hope of generating a big conservative-base turnout to overwhelm discontent in the center.
Last week's rallying around Rove sends a clear signal that most in the GOP still prefer a party that excites its base and gives no ground to critics. Revelations about Rove's role in the CIA controversy more damaging than those he's faced so far might diminish the party's willingness to defend him personally. But whatever happens to the architect, Republicans seem wedded to his combative strategy for maintaining power.
http://www.antiwar.com/eland/?articleid=6698
A Roving Ethical Problem
Ivan Eland
July 19, 2005
Much of Washington is abuzz about whether Karl Rove, the president’s deputy chief of staff and chief political operative, or perhaps other Bush administration officials, broke a law that prohibits government officials from disclosing the identity of CIA covert operatives. Ironically, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act—passed in 1982 after Philip Agee, a disaffected former CIA agent, divulged the names and positions of CIA agents worldwide—was heavily promoted by George W. Bush’s father as Vice President and is usually supported by hawks like those in the Bush administration.
Defenders of Rove maintain that he received the information that Valerie Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, worked for the CIA from reporters and not vice-versa. Also, they claim that Rove did not mention her by name and that his intent was not malicious, but merely to confirm that the CIA sent Wilson to Africa, at the suggestion of his wife, to determine whether Saddam Hussein had sought to buy yellow cake uranium to build nuclear bombs. These defenses are shaky, but even if they are true, Rove has still acted unethically and should be fired.
The claim that Rove merely learned that Plame worked for the CIA from reporters and was not initiating calls to them has been debunked. Although the possibility exists that conservative columnist Robert D. Novak told Rove that his sources said that Wilson had been sent on the mission at the suggestion of his CIA-employed wife, Rove volunteered—rather than confirmed—this information to Matthew Cooper of Time. According to Cooper, Rove did not mention her name and did not say that she was a covert agent. Cooper has noted that Rove said that she worked for the “agency” on “WMD” (weapons of mass destruction).
These latter details may keep Rove out of jail. The law is written narrowly and requires a high threshold of criminality: a government official who has disclosed an operative’s identity must have known that the agent had active covert status (which Plame did). But those legal technicalities should not keep Rove out of hot water.
Washington is a rough and tumble political town in which everyone, including journalists, has been socialized into accepting the culture of playing the game with hardball tactics. And Rove is the king of bare knuckle brawling. Remember, Rove had the chutzpah to smear two decorated war veterans—John McCain and John Kerry—to better the chances of George W. Bush, who didn’t even show up regularly during the Vietnam era for a safe, hard-to-get National Guard position that he got through political connections. (But George W. Bush is not the first president to hire a crack political hatchet man; remember Dick Morris during the Clinton administration?)
The problem with being socialized into such an “anything goes” culture is that it becomes hard for political operatives to know when they’ve crossed the line. And Rove has stepped way over it this time.
Even the best scenario—Rove and other administration officials, such as Vice President Cheney’s chief aide “Scooter” Libby, merely confirming that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA without mentioning her name or her covert status—is grounds for immediate termination. First, the excuse that they were merely providing a defense against Wilson’s charges that the administration was twisting intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat is bunk. Their lame defense consisted of mentioning that Plame suggested that her husband be sent on the mission. With his experience in both Iraq and Africa, it would have been hard to find a more qualified man for the mission to Niger than Ambassador Wilson. Rove and other administration officials were clearly trying to “out” Plame because Wilson’s mission challenged the administration’s claims about Saddam’s quest for uranium in Niger. In September 2003, an unnamed senior White House official told the Washington Post that before Novak’s piece appeared, at least six journalists were told about Plame “purely and simply out of revenge.”
Even merely confirming that Plame worked for the CIA without naming her violates ethical responsibilities for officials with government security clearances—which Rove, Libby and other senior administration officials possess. CIA employees, whether in covert status or not, do not usually advertise where they work, so as to protect themelves against being targeted by foreign espionage. Worse, covert agents who are exposed could face death or torture. In Plame’s case, however, the jeopardy to her was probably less than the danger to her cooperating informants in the autocratic nations trying to obtain WMD. If a reporter asked Rove about Plame working for the CIA, the proper response was “no comment,” not “I heard that, too.”
Allegedly, the United States invaded Iraq to stem the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Yet in retaliating against Wilson, an envoy who challenged the Bush administration’s claims on Saddam’s efforts to get WMD, Rove and perhaps others undermined the CIA’s efforts to get information on such proliferation by “outing” Plame. This contradiction is one more indication that the invasion of Iraq had little to do with Iraqi WMD programs.
It is fine for presidents to have aggressive political consultants, but those advisors shouldn’t be given government policy positions that require security clearances. The “Rove affair” is a confirmation of the mischief that arises when those two roles are merged.
President Bush has promised to fire any administration official who leaked the name of a CIA operative. This administration implicitly and unfairly accused opponents of the Iraq War of being “unpatriotic,” but now is the time for the president to keep his promise and fire his top political aide for engaging in real unpatriotic activities.
A Roving Ethical Problem
Ivan Eland
July 19, 2005
Much of Washington is abuzz about whether Karl Rove, the president’s deputy chief of staff and chief political operative, or perhaps other Bush administration officials, broke a law that prohibits government officials from disclosing the identity of CIA covert operatives. Ironically, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act—passed in 1982 after Philip Agee, a disaffected former CIA agent, divulged the names and positions of CIA agents worldwide—was heavily promoted by George W. Bush’s father as Vice President and is usually supported by hawks like those in the Bush administration.
Defenders of Rove maintain that he received the information that Valerie Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, worked for the CIA from reporters and not vice-versa. Also, they claim that Rove did not mention her by name and that his intent was not malicious, but merely to confirm that the CIA sent Wilson to Africa, at the suggestion of his wife, to determine whether Saddam Hussein had sought to buy yellow cake uranium to build nuclear bombs. These defenses are shaky, but even if they are true, Rove has still acted unethically and should be fired.
The claim that Rove merely learned that Plame worked for the CIA from reporters and was not initiating calls to them has been debunked. Although the possibility exists that conservative columnist Robert D. Novak told Rove that his sources said that Wilson had been sent on the mission at the suggestion of his CIA-employed wife, Rove volunteered—rather than confirmed—this information to Matthew Cooper of Time. According to Cooper, Rove did not mention her name and did not say that she was a covert agent. Cooper has noted that Rove said that she worked for the “agency” on “WMD” (weapons of mass destruction).
These latter details may keep Rove out of jail. The law is written narrowly and requires a high threshold of criminality: a government official who has disclosed an operative’s identity must have known that the agent had active covert status (which Plame did). But those legal technicalities should not keep Rove out of hot water.
Washington is a rough and tumble political town in which everyone, including journalists, has been socialized into accepting the culture of playing the game with hardball tactics. And Rove is the king of bare knuckle brawling. Remember, Rove had the chutzpah to smear two decorated war veterans—John McCain and John Kerry—to better the chances of George W. Bush, who didn’t even show up regularly during the Vietnam era for a safe, hard-to-get National Guard position that he got through political connections. (But George W. Bush is not the first president to hire a crack political hatchet man; remember Dick Morris during the Clinton administration?)
The problem with being socialized into such an “anything goes” culture is that it becomes hard for political operatives to know when they’ve crossed the line. And Rove has stepped way over it this time.
Even the best scenario—Rove and other administration officials, such as Vice President Cheney’s chief aide “Scooter” Libby, merely confirming that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA without mentioning her name or her covert status—is grounds for immediate termination. First, the excuse that they were merely providing a defense against Wilson’s charges that the administration was twisting intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat is bunk. Their lame defense consisted of mentioning that Plame suggested that her husband be sent on the mission. With his experience in both Iraq and Africa, it would have been hard to find a more qualified man for the mission to Niger than Ambassador Wilson. Rove and other administration officials were clearly trying to “out” Plame because Wilson’s mission challenged the administration’s claims about Saddam’s quest for uranium in Niger. In September 2003, an unnamed senior White House official told the Washington Post that before Novak’s piece appeared, at least six journalists were told about Plame “purely and simply out of revenge.”
Even merely confirming that Plame worked for the CIA without naming her violates ethical responsibilities for officials with government security clearances—which Rove, Libby and other senior administration officials possess. CIA employees, whether in covert status or not, do not usually advertise where they work, so as to protect themelves against being targeted by foreign espionage. Worse, covert agents who are exposed could face death or torture. In Plame’s case, however, the jeopardy to her was probably less than the danger to her cooperating informants in the autocratic nations trying to obtain WMD. If a reporter asked Rove about Plame working for the CIA, the proper response was “no comment,” not “I heard that, too.”
Allegedly, the United States invaded Iraq to stem the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Yet in retaliating against Wilson, an envoy who challenged the Bush administration’s claims on Saddam’s efforts to get WMD, Rove and perhaps others undermined the CIA’s efforts to get information on such proliferation by “outing” Plame. This contradiction is one more indication that the invasion of Iraq had little to do with Iraqi WMD programs.
It is fine for presidents to have aggressive political consultants, but those advisors shouldn’t be given government policy positions that require security clearances. The “Rove affair” is a confirmation of the mischief that arises when those two roles are merged.
President Bush has promised to fire any administration official who leaked the name of a CIA operative. This administration implicitly and unfairly accused opponents of the Iraq War of being “unpatriotic,” but now is the time for the president to keep his promise and fire his top political aide for engaging in real unpatriotic activities.
http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=6697
Why Plame Matters
Ray McGovern
July 19, 2005
The significance of the Plame affair is not about former U.S. ambassador Joseph Wilson; or his wife, Valerie Plame; or Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby; or even President George W. Bush's alter ego, Karl Rove. White House v. Wilsons is about Iraq, where our sons and daughters – and many others – are daily meeting violent death. And it's about manipulation.
It's about how our elected representatives were deceived into voting for an unprovoked war and what happened when one man stood up and called the administration's bluff. And it's about the perfect storm now gathering, as more lies are exposed (whether in journalists' e-mails or in the minutes of high-level meetings at 10 Downing Street), as guerrilla war escalates in Iraq, and as more and more American citizens find themselves agreeing with Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) that administration leaders seem to be "making it up as they go along."
It wasn't envisaged this way by the naïve "neoconservative" ideologues that got us into the quagmire in Iraq. They may still believe that all will be well if the Iraqi people can only get it into their heads that we are liberators, not occupiers.
So much smoke is being blown over White House v. Wilsons that it is becoming almost impossible to see the forest for the trees. Bewildered houseguests from outside the Beltway throw up their hands: "It's all just politics … and character assassination." And that may well be precisely the impression the media wish to leave with us. Otherwise, left to our own devices, we might conclude they served us poorly with the indiscriminate, hyper-patriotic cheerleading that helped slide us into the worst foreign policy debacle in our nation's history.
Our weekend guests had a hard time trying to understand why the White House two years ago blew the cover of CIA operative Valerie Plame, wife of former ambassador Joseph Wilson. Sure, Wilson had caught and exposed the Bush administration in a very serious lie. But almost immediately, top officials conceded that Ambassador Wilson was essentially correct in dismissing the flimsy report that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium in Africa.
Betrayal of Trust
So why the neuralgic reaction? Why go to such lengths to impugn Wilson's credibility; and what purpose would be served by harming his wife as well? At first blush, it does seem awfully petty. But dig a little deeper and you'll get a glimpse of what lies behind the White House campaign against the Wilsons.
Revenge? There was certainly a strong desire to retaliate. And Karl Rove did tell NBC's Chris Matthews at the time that wives were "fair game." Angry at White House dissembling, Wilson had doffed his ambassadorial hat and thrown down the gauntlet when he told the press that the Iraq-Niger caper "begs the question about what else they are lying about." And, indeed, how many more untruths have been uncovered over the past two years?
Was the relentless White House campaign to vilify the Wilsons aimed primarily at serving notice that a similar fate awaits any whose conscience might prompt them to expose still more of the lies used to "justify" the attack on Iraq? That, too, was surely part of it. And, sad to say, it has worked – at least until now. Yes, we have learned about the "Curveball" deception on Iraqi biological warfare, the misdiagnosed aluminum tubes, and the "unpiloted aerial vehicles" that congresspersons were told could threaten our coastal cities. But it was hard reality and the basic laws of physics that held administration arguments up to ridicule. None of the exposés came from the mouths of people like Joe Wilson, who could not abide crass deception in matters of war and peace.
The main motivation of the White House character assassins had more to do with the particular lie that Joseph Wilson exposed and the essential role it played in the administration's plans. For a nuclear-armed Iraq was the most compelling threat that could be peddled to our elected representatives and senators to deceive them into approving a war launched for reasons we now know were unrelated to any putative Iraqi WMD program.
The Big Lie
The Bush administration needed to assert that Iraq was on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. Taking that line posed a huge challenge. On the one hand, a new threat had to be created/hyped out of thin air; and, on the other, the pundits had to be too lazy to refresh their memories on what senior U.S. officials had said about Iraq's military capability before 9/11.
"Saddam Hussein has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."
- Colin Powell, Feb. 24, 2001
"We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."
- Condoleezza Rice, July 29, 2001
These statements went quickly down the memory hole. Immediately after 9/11, administration officials, with Vice President Dick Cheney in the lead, began to warn that Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" were just over the horizon. On Aug. 26, 2002, a month after senior U.S. officials had convinced their British counterparts that intelligence was being "fixed" around a policy of war, Vice President Dick Cheney was the first to use that fabricated and twisted intelligence to deceive Americans at large. In a major speech he claimed: "We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Among other sources, we've gotten this from the firsthand testimony of defectors – including Saddam's own son-in-law."
In fact, Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, had told us just the opposite: "All weapons – biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed," he told his debriefers in 1995. Everything else he told them was true. And so was that. Kamel had been in charge of those programs; the weaponry was destroyed at his command.
But no matter. Cheney's speech, and the subsequent National Intelligence Estimate cooked to his recipe, allowed the president to raise the specter of mushroom clouds over U.S. cities, to force a yes vote in Congress for war, and to win back the Senate the following month.
The Niger lie was thus both the cornerstone of the Bush agenda and the key to unraveling how the "fixing" worked. Rove, master of the administration's strategy yet only two years out of Texas, tried to scare reporters off the scent and crossed a major legal line, triggering the worst possible result: a special prosecutor with subpoena power and a grand jury.
So it is Rove himself who has invited the skunk to the neocon picnic: Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. He shows no penchant to join in the fun and games, and still less to speak prematurely. He appears to be a real pro, and as long has he can avoid being fired, he could potentially take all the fun out of things. Neocon pundit William Kristol no doubt was reflecting a growing sense of unease when he commented recently that Fitzpatrick is "the problem for the White House; we have no idea what he knows."
Reprinted courtesy of TomPaine.com.
Why Plame Matters
Ray McGovern
July 19, 2005
The significance of the Plame affair is not about former U.S. ambassador Joseph Wilson; or his wife, Valerie Plame; or Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby; or even President George W. Bush's alter ego, Karl Rove. White House v. Wilsons is about Iraq, where our sons and daughters – and many others – are daily meeting violent death. And it's about manipulation.
It's about how our elected representatives were deceived into voting for an unprovoked war and what happened when one man stood up and called the administration's bluff. And it's about the perfect storm now gathering, as more lies are exposed (whether in journalists' e-mails or in the minutes of high-level meetings at 10 Downing Street), as guerrilla war escalates in Iraq, and as more and more American citizens find themselves agreeing with Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) that administration leaders seem to be "making it up as they go along."
It wasn't envisaged this way by the naïve "neoconservative" ideologues that got us into the quagmire in Iraq. They may still believe that all will be well if the Iraqi people can only get it into their heads that we are liberators, not occupiers.
So much smoke is being blown over White House v. Wilsons that it is becoming almost impossible to see the forest for the trees. Bewildered houseguests from outside the Beltway throw up their hands: "It's all just politics … and character assassination." And that may well be precisely the impression the media wish to leave with us. Otherwise, left to our own devices, we might conclude they served us poorly with the indiscriminate, hyper-patriotic cheerleading that helped slide us into the worst foreign policy debacle in our nation's history.
Our weekend guests had a hard time trying to understand why the White House two years ago blew the cover of CIA operative Valerie Plame, wife of former ambassador Joseph Wilson. Sure, Wilson had caught and exposed the Bush administration in a very serious lie. But almost immediately, top officials conceded that Ambassador Wilson was essentially correct in dismissing the flimsy report that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium in Africa.
Betrayal of Trust
So why the neuralgic reaction? Why go to such lengths to impugn Wilson's credibility; and what purpose would be served by harming his wife as well? At first blush, it does seem awfully petty. But dig a little deeper and you'll get a glimpse of what lies behind the White House campaign against the Wilsons.
Revenge? There was certainly a strong desire to retaliate. And Karl Rove did tell NBC's Chris Matthews at the time that wives were "fair game." Angry at White House dissembling, Wilson had doffed his ambassadorial hat and thrown down the gauntlet when he told the press that the Iraq-Niger caper "begs the question about what else they are lying about." And, indeed, how many more untruths have been uncovered over the past two years?
Was the relentless White House campaign to vilify the Wilsons aimed primarily at serving notice that a similar fate awaits any whose conscience might prompt them to expose still more of the lies used to "justify" the attack on Iraq? That, too, was surely part of it. And, sad to say, it has worked – at least until now. Yes, we have learned about the "Curveball" deception on Iraqi biological warfare, the misdiagnosed aluminum tubes, and the "unpiloted aerial vehicles" that congresspersons were told could threaten our coastal cities. But it was hard reality and the basic laws of physics that held administration arguments up to ridicule. None of the exposés came from the mouths of people like Joe Wilson, who could not abide crass deception in matters of war and peace.
The main motivation of the White House character assassins had more to do with the particular lie that Joseph Wilson exposed and the essential role it played in the administration's plans. For a nuclear-armed Iraq was the most compelling threat that could be peddled to our elected representatives and senators to deceive them into approving a war launched for reasons we now know were unrelated to any putative Iraqi WMD program.
The Big Lie
The Bush administration needed to assert that Iraq was on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. Taking that line posed a huge challenge. On the one hand, a new threat had to be created/hyped out of thin air; and, on the other, the pundits had to be too lazy to refresh their memories on what senior U.S. officials had said about Iraq's military capability before 9/11.
"Saddam Hussein has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."
- Colin Powell, Feb. 24, 2001
"We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."
- Condoleezza Rice, July 29, 2001
These statements went quickly down the memory hole. Immediately after 9/11, administration officials, with Vice President Dick Cheney in the lead, began to warn that Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" were just over the horizon. On Aug. 26, 2002, a month after senior U.S. officials had convinced their British counterparts that intelligence was being "fixed" around a policy of war, Vice President Dick Cheney was the first to use that fabricated and twisted intelligence to deceive Americans at large. In a major speech he claimed: "We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Among other sources, we've gotten this from the firsthand testimony of defectors – including Saddam's own son-in-law."
In fact, Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, had told us just the opposite: "All weapons – biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed," he told his debriefers in 1995. Everything else he told them was true. And so was that. Kamel had been in charge of those programs; the weaponry was destroyed at his command.
But no matter. Cheney's speech, and the subsequent National Intelligence Estimate cooked to his recipe, allowed the president to raise the specter of mushroom clouds over U.S. cities, to force a yes vote in Congress for war, and to win back the Senate the following month.
The Niger lie was thus both the cornerstone of the Bush agenda and the key to unraveling how the "fixing" worked. Rove, master of the administration's strategy yet only two years out of Texas, tried to scare reporters off the scent and crossed a major legal line, triggering the worst possible result: a special prosecutor with subpoena power and a grand jury.
So it is Rove himself who has invited the skunk to the neocon picnic: Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. He shows no penchant to join in the fun and games, and still less to speak prematurely. He appears to be a real pro, and as long has he can avoid being fired, he could potentially take all the fun out of things. Neocon pundit William Kristol no doubt was reflecting a growing sense of unease when he commented recently that Fitzpatrick is "the problem for the White House; we have no idea what he knows."
Reprinted courtesy of TomPaine.com.
Just as revealed in his flip-flopping statements made on the Iraq War, Bush has again revealed his flip-flopping brain-cells - this is one President who never seems to remember what he has previously said:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=100...73WKxg&refer=us
Bush's Shift Offers Support for Rove in Probe of CIA Agent Leak
July 19 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush raised the threshold for ousting his top aide, Karl Rove, if he revealed the identity of a covert CIA agent.
Asked about the status of Rove -- a subject of a special prosecutor's inquiry into the leak -- Bush said yesterday that any administration official who committed a crime would be fired. Previously, Bush and White House spokesman Scott McClellan suggested the mere disclosure of the name of the agent, Valerie Plame, would warrant dismissal. On June 10, 2004, Bush answered ``Yes'' when asked whether he would fire anyone who leaked Plame's name.
``By saying the conduct must be criminal, the president is significantly backtracking,'' said Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University. ``This is especially so because the crime involved is so narrow.''
Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper on July 17 said Rove told him two years ago that the wife of former ambassador and Bush critic Joseph Wilson worked for the Central Intelligence Agency.
On July 8, 2003, syndicated columnist Robert Novak discussed Wilson and his wife with Rove, according to the New York Times. The Times quoted an attorney familiar with Fitzgerald's probe as saying that when Novak mentioned that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, Rove said, ``Yeah, I've heard that too.'' Novak published her name in a column on July 14, 2003.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is investigating based on a 1982 law that prohibits revealing the name of a covert operative knowingly and with the awareness that the government is trying to conceal the agent's identity. The disclosure is considered a criminal act only if the agent worked overseas in the past five years; Plame has lived in the U.S. since 1997.
Close Adviser
Rove, 54, is one of Bush's closest advisers and now serves as deputy chief of staff. Rove's office directed calls to White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. McClellan refused to comment on the involvement of administration aides in revealing the name or on statements from Cooper that he got some information on the matter from Rove.
``We don't know all the facts,'' McClellan said at the White House news briefing yesterday.
Wilson, a former diplomat who served in Iraq and in African countries, wrote an opinion article published in the July 6, 2003, edition of the New York Times saying the administration ``twisted'' some of the intelligence about Iraq's pursuit of nuclear weapons. Cooper said that Rove told him five days later that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and sent Wilson to Niger to investigate whether President Saddam Hussein's regime was seeking uranium to make nuclear weapons.
Cheney Aide
Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, later confirmed the information, Cooper said on NBC's ``Meet the Press,'' though neither Libby nor Rove identified Plame by name. Lea Anne McBride, a spokeswoman for Cheney, declined to comment.
Over the past two years, the White House has changed its language about potential consequences for leakers. On Sept. 29, 2003, McClellan told reporters that Bush set ``the highest of standards'' for his administration. Speaking of the Plame leak, he said, ``If anyone in this administration were involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.''
A day later, Bush said anyone who violated the law ``would be taken care of,'' and added, ``If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action.''
27 Questions
Yesterday, the first question to the president during a joint press conference with India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was about Rove. McClellan later was asked about the subject 27 times during his daily briefing for reporters. Asked repeatedly whether Bush's statement effectively raised the bar for a potential dismissal, he said: ``I would not read anything into it more than what the president said.''
According to an ABC News poll released yesterday, 75 percent of the 1,008 respondents questioned July 13-17 said Rove should be fired if he leaked classified information. In addition, only 25 percent of respondents said they believe the White House is fully cooperating in the investigation, down from 47 percent in September 2003, when the inquiry began.
The political reaction to the Rove controversy has split largely along partisan lines as Democrats assailed Rove and Republicans defended him.
The Ethical Standard
``The president has now lowered the ethical standard for White House employees,'' House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said in a statement. ```If indicted, you can serve.'''
She added that ``presidential advisers are not given access to classified information to play politics with the lives of intelligence sources or our national security.''
A ``war room'' operated by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid prepared a memo for Senate Democrats that raised additional questions about the leak of Plame's name. Posed as a series of questions and possible answers, the memo suggests that Novak may have used Plame's last name -- which she used in her covert operations -- rather than her married name, Wilson, because someone intentionally gave the columnist the name that would do the most damage to her career.
`Brazen Effort'
``Maybe going after a clandestine officer was intended as simply the latest and most brazen effort to intimidate and exert pressure on agency analysts and officers,'' the memo said. ``Only the leakers know their motives.''
Representative Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, sent a letter to Bush saying his comments yesterday reflected a new standard that isn't consistent with the president's obligation under an executive order governing the protection of national- security secrets.
``I urge you to act in compliance'' with the executive order and ``your responsibility to safeguard national secrets,'' Waxman said.
For the most part, Republicans rallied around Rove. ``If people don't think this is a political witch hunt, then they should go read a Nancy Drew novel,'' said Representative Mark Foley, a Florida Republican.
``It's all about politics,'' said Representative Roger Wicker, a Mississippi Republican. ``Karl Rove is as strong as he's ever been among rank-and-file House Republicans. He's lost absolutely no support.''
Rove's Defenders
Rove's defenders say the recent revelations in the case -- some of which have emanated from his camp -- serve to exonerate rather than implicate him. They say those revelations show that Rove was not the original source of Plame's identity for either Novak or Cooper.
A few Republicans, while supportive of Bush, were more reserved. ``The real issue is whether or not it's true,'' said Pennsylvania Representative Phil English, who said he's known Rove since 1976. Democrats ``have every right to insist this matter be fully investigated. It remains to be seen what kind of detail he knew,'' he said.
In any case, it's always possible that Rove will prove an embarrassment to Bush and be forced to step aside for political reasons, said Stephen Hess, a political scientist at the Washington-based Brookings Institution. Hess sees potential parallels with White House Chief of Staff Sherman Adams, who resigned under pressure in 1958 during the administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
``There are parallels in that both look like pretty petty scandals,'' said Hess, a speechwriter for Eisenhower. ``Neither Sherman Adams nor Karl Rove are Watergate; these are second-rate scandals.''
Adams resigned after revelations that he accepted gifts, including a vicuna fur coat, from a businessman with regulatory interests. ``He ultimately felt he was too big a liability to Eisenhower,'' Hess said. ``It is not out of the question that could happen with Karl.''
Note:
Bush has proven himself over and over again that he's a flip-flopper. It's no wonder that everything he does becomes as messy as his memory!
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=100...73WKxg&refer=us
Bush's Shift Offers Support for Rove in Probe of CIA Agent Leak
July 19 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush raised the threshold for ousting his top aide, Karl Rove, if he revealed the identity of a covert CIA agent.
Asked about the status of Rove -- a subject of a special prosecutor's inquiry into the leak -- Bush said yesterday that any administration official who committed a crime would be fired. Previously, Bush and White House spokesman Scott McClellan suggested the mere disclosure of the name of the agent, Valerie Plame, would warrant dismissal. On June 10, 2004, Bush answered ``Yes'' when asked whether he would fire anyone who leaked Plame's name.
``By saying the conduct must be criminal, the president is significantly backtracking,'' said Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University. ``This is especially so because the crime involved is so narrow.''
Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper on July 17 said Rove told him two years ago that the wife of former ambassador and Bush critic Joseph Wilson worked for the Central Intelligence Agency.
On July 8, 2003, syndicated columnist Robert Novak discussed Wilson and his wife with Rove, according to the New York Times. The Times quoted an attorney familiar with Fitzgerald's probe as saying that when Novak mentioned that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, Rove said, ``Yeah, I've heard that too.'' Novak published her name in a column on July 14, 2003.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is investigating based on a 1982 law that prohibits revealing the name of a covert operative knowingly and with the awareness that the government is trying to conceal the agent's identity. The disclosure is considered a criminal act only if the agent worked overseas in the past five years; Plame has lived in the U.S. since 1997.
Close Adviser
Rove, 54, is one of Bush's closest advisers and now serves as deputy chief of staff. Rove's office directed calls to White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. McClellan refused to comment on the involvement of administration aides in revealing the name or on statements from Cooper that he got some information on the matter from Rove.
``We don't know all the facts,'' McClellan said at the White House news briefing yesterday.
Wilson, a former diplomat who served in Iraq and in African countries, wrote an opinion article published in the July 6, 2003, edition of the New York Times saying the administration ``twisted'' some of the intelligence about Iraq's pursuit of nuclear weapons. Cooper said that Rove told him five days later that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and sent Wilson to Niger to investigate whether President Saddam Hussein's regime was seeking uranium to make nuclear weapons.
Cheney Aide
Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, later confirmed the information, Cooper said on NBC's ``Meet the Press,'' though neither Libby nor Rove identified Plame by name. Lea Anne McBride, a spokeswoman for Cheney, declined to comment.
Over the past two years, the White House has changed its language about potential consequences for leakers. On Sept. 29, 2003, McClellan told reporters that Bush set ``the highest of standards'' for his administration. Speaking of the Plame leak, he said, ``If anyone in this administration were involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.''
A day later, Bush said anyone who violated the law ``would be taken care of,'' and added, ``If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action.''
27 Questions
Yesterday, the first question to the president during a joint press conference with India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was about Rove. McClellan later was asked about the subject 27 times during his daily briefing for reporters. Asked repeatedly whether Bush's statement effectively raised the bar for a potential dismissal, he said: ``I would not read anything into it more than what the president said.''
According to an ABC News poll released yesterday, 75 percent of the 1,008 respondents questioned July 13-17 said Rove should be fired if he leaked classified information. In addition, only 25 percent of respondents said they believe the White House is fully cooperating in the investigation, down from 47 percent in September 2003, when the inquiry began.
The political reaction to the Rove controversy has split largely along partisan lines as Democrats assailed Rove and Republicans defended him.
The Ethical Standard
``The president has now lowered the ethical standard for White House employees,'' House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said in a statement. ```If indicted, you can serve.'''
She added that ``presidential advisers are not given access to classified information to play politics with the lives of intelligence sources or our national security.''
A ``war room'' operated by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid prepared a memo for Senate Democrats that raised additional questions about the leak of Plame's name. Posed as a series of questions and possible answers, the memo suggests that Novak may have used Plame's last name -- which she used in her covert operations -- rather than her married name, Wilson, because someone intentionally gave the columnist the name that would do the most damage to her career.
`Brazen Effort'
``Maybe going after a clandestine officer was intended as simply the latest and most brazen effort to intimidate and exert pressure on agency analysts and officers,'' the memo said. ``Only the leakers know their motives.''
Representative Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, sent a letter to Bush saying his comments yesterday reflected a new standard that isn't consistent with the president's obligation under an executive order governing the protection of national- security secrets.
``I urge you to act in compliance'' with the executive order and ``your responsibility to safeguard national secrets,'' Waxman said.
For the most part, Republicans rallied around Rove. ``If people don't think this is a political witch hunt, then they should go read a Nancy Drew novel,'' said Representative Mark Foley, a Florida Republican.
``It's all about politics,'' said Representative Roger Wicker, a Mississippi Republican. ``Karl Rove is as strong as he's ever been among rank-and-file House Republicans. He's lost absolutely no support.''
Rove's Defenders
Rove's defenders say the recent revelations in the case -- some of which have emanated from his camp -- serve to exonerate rather than implicate him. They say those revelations show that Rove was not the original source of Plame's identity for either Novak or Cooper.
A few Republicans, while supportive of Bush, were more reserved. ``The real issue is whether or not it's true,'' said Pennsylvania Representative Phil English, who said he's known Rove since 1976. Democrats ``have every right to insist this matter be fully investigated. It remains to be seen what kind of detail he knew,'' he said.
In any case, it's always possible that Rove will prove an embarrassment to Bush and be forced to step aside for political reasons, said Stephen Hess, a political scientist at the Washington-based Brookings Institution. Hess sees potential parallels with White House Chief of Staff Sherman Adams, who resigned under pressure in 1958 during the administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
``There are parallels in that both look like pretty petty scandals,'' said Hess, a speechwriter for Eisenhower. ``Neither Sherman Adams nor Karl Rove are Watergate; these are second-rate scandals.''
Adams resigned after revelations that he accepted gifts, including a vicuna fur coat, from a businessman with regulatory interests. ``He ultimately felt he was too big a liability to Eisenhower,'' Hess said. ``It is not out of the question that could happen with Karl.''
Note:
Bush has proven himself over and over again that he's a flip-flopper. It's no wonder that everything he does becomes as messy as his memory!
The Rove conspiracy is so well planned and it goes to show it can be used to make journalists as idiotic scapegoats for the Bushies to get away with crimes. In the end the real loser will perhaps be Miller. She will always be remembered as the gullible female who spent jail time for covering up someone else's crime.
It's so sad that for the past 5 years, America's so-called journalists are becoming more and more like the White House's puppets and knaves!
It's so sad that for the past 5 years, America's so-called journalists are becoming more and more like the White House's puppets and knaves!
Yes, in the same way Dr David Kelly, who committed suicide by all accounts, was used as the focal point of a scandal about the same thing (lying about WMDs) in Blair's government. What can we expect when the government is in charge of investigating itself in Britain, maybe things are different in the U S A.(?)
Just as the saying goes, Satan will always have his own demonic followers who are willing to burn in hell.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8619749/
Why was protecting Plame’s identity important?
“The fact that she had been undercover for many years,” says former CIA General Counsel Jeffrey Smith, “means that all of the operations she worked on over the years, all of the people she dealt with, were also at risk if it were to become known that she were a CIA covert agent.”
The law protecting Plame and other operatives was passed in 1982 — a response to the assassination of CIA station chief Richard Welch in Athens in 1975, shortly after he'd been exposed in a magazine.
In her 1994 memoir, former first lady Barbara Bush railed against the way Welch's cover had been blown.
Another reason this investigation has caught fire with Rove's critics: It's another way to reopen the debate over whether the White House hyped intelligence, like the claims about uranium from Africa, to justify the war. Depending on what the grand jury decides, that could make this spy story more than just the usual Washington scandal.
Note:
Just heard a repub nut on MSNBC. Is Rep. Jack Kingston ® Georgia joking by saying that exposing a CIA operative a trival issue? Gosh, who would dare work for dudes like him? Beware, if you should cross such a repub's path... and they will destroy you without even the slightest moral conscience as long as they can fledge their power maliciously.
Why was protecting Plame’s identity important?
“The fact that she had been undercover for many years,” says former CIA General Counsel Jeffrey Smith, “means that all of the operations she worked on over the years, all of the people she dealt with, were also at risk if it were to become known that she were a CIA covert agent.”
The law protecting Plame and other operatives was passed in 1982 — a response to the assassination of CIA station chief Richard Welch in Athens in 1975, shortly after he'd been exposed in a magazine.
In her 1994 memoir, former first lady Barbara Bush railed against the way Welch's cover had been blown.
Another reason this investigation has caught fire with Rove's critics: It's another way to reopen the debate over whether the White House hyped intelligence, like the claims about uranium from Africa, to justify the war. Depending on what the grand jury decides, that could make this spy story more than just the usual Washington scandal.
Note:
Just heard a repub nut on MSNBC. Is Rep. Jack Kingston ® Georgia joking by saying that exposing a CIA operative a trival issue? Gosh, who would dare work for dudes like him? Beware, if you should cross such a repub's path... and they will destroy you without even the slightest moral conscience as long as they can fledge their power maliciously.
QUOTE(Snuffysmith @ Jul 19 2005, 01:51 AM)
http://www.antiwar.com/eland/?articleid=6698
A Roving Ethical Problem
Ivan Eland
July 19, 2005
Much of Washington is abuzz about whether Karl Rove, the president’s deputy chief of staff and chief political operative, or perhaps other Bush administration officials, broke a law that prohibits government officials from disclosing the identity of CIA covert operatives. Ironically, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act—passed in 1982 after Philip Agee, a disaffected former CIA agent, divulged the names and positions of CIA agents worldwide—was heavily promoted by George W. Bush’s father as Vice President and is usually supported by hawks like those in the Bush administration.
Defenders of Rove maintain that he received the information that Valerie Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, worked for the CIA from reporters and not vice-versa. Also, they claim that Rove did not mention her by name and that his intent was not malicious, but merely to confirm that the CIA sent Wilson to Africa, at the suggestion of his wife, to determine whether Saddam Hussein had sought to buy yellow cake uranium to build nuclear bombs. These defenses are shaky, but even if they are true, Rove has still acted unethically and should be fired.
The claim that Rove merely learned that Plame worked for the CIA from reporters and was not initiating calls to them has been debunked. Although the possibility exists that conservative columnist Robert D. Novak told Rove that his sources said that Wilson had been sent on the mission at the suggestion of his CIA-employed wife, Rove volunteered—rather than confirmed—this information to Matthew Cooper of Time. According to Cooper, Rove did not mention her name and did not say that she was a covert agent. Cooper has noted that Rove said that she worked for the “agency” on “WMD” (weapons of mass destruction).
These latter details may keep Rove out of jail. The law is written narrowly and requires a high threshold of criminality: a government official who has disclosed an operative’s identity must have known that the agent had active covert status (which Plame did). But those legal technicalities should not keep Rove out of hot water.
Washington is a rough and tumble political town in which everyone, including journalists, has been socialized into accepting the culture of playing the game with hardball tactics. And Rove is the king of bare knuckle brawling. Remember, Rove had the chutzpah to smear two decorated war veterans—John McCain and John Kerry—to better the chances of George W. Bush, who didn’t even show up regularly during the Vietnam era for a safe, hard-to-get National Guard position that he got through political connections. (But George W. Bush is not the first president to hire a crack political hatchet man; remember Dick Morris during the Clinton administration?)
The problem with being socialized into such an “anything goes” culture is that it becomes hard for political operatives to know when they’ve crossed the line. And Rove has stepped way over it this time.
Even the best scenario—Rove and other administration officials, such as Vice President Cheney’s chief aide “Scooter” Libby, merely confirming that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA without mentioning her name or her covert status—is grounds for immediate termination. First, the excuse that they were merely providing a defense against Wilson’s charges that the administration was twisting intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat is bunk. Their lame defense consisted of mentioning that Plame suggested that her husband be sent on the mission. With his experience in both Iraq and Africa, it would have been hard to find a more qualified man for the mission to Niger than Ambassador Wilson. Rove and other administration officials were clearly trying to “out” Plame because Wilson’s mission challenged the administration’s claims about Saddam’s quest for uranium in Niger. In September 2003, an unnamed senior White House official told the Washington Post that before Novak’s piece appeared, at least six journalists were told about Plame “purely and simply out of revenge.”
Even merely confirming that Plame worked for the CIA without naming her violates ethical responsibilities for officials with government security clearances—which Rove, Libby and other senior administration officials possess. CIA employees, whether in covert status or not, do not usually advertise where they work, so as to protect themelves against being targeted by foreign espionage. Worse, covert agents who are exposed could face death or torture. In Plame’s case, however, the jeopardy to her was probably less than the danger to her cooperating informants in the autocratic nations trying to obtain WMD. If a reporter asked Rove about Plame working for the CIA, the proper response was “no comment,” not “I heard that, too.”
Allegedly, the United States invaded Iraq to stem the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Yet in retaliating against Wilson, an envoy who challenged the Bush administration’s claims on Saddam’s efforts to get WMD, Rove and perhaps others undermined the CIA’s efforts to get information on such proliferation by “outing” Plame. This contradiction is one more indication that the invasion of Iraq had little to do with Iraqi WMD programs.
It is fine for presidents to have aggressive political consultants, but those advisors shouldn’t be given government policy positions that require security clearances. The “Rove affair” is a confirmation of the mischief that arises when those two roles are merged.
President Bush has promised to fire any administration official who leaked the name of a CIA operative. This administration implicitly and unfairly accused opponents of the Iraq War of being “unpatriotic,” but now is the time for the president to keep his promise and fire his top political aide for engaging in real unpatriotic activities.
A Roving Ethical Problem
Ivan Eland
July 19, 2005
Much of Washington is abuzz about whether Karl Rove, the president’s deputy chief of staff and chief political operative, or perhaps other Bush administration officials, broke a law that prohibits government officials from disclosing the identity of CIA covert operatives. Ironically, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act—passed in 1982 after Philip Agee, a disaffected former CIA agent, divulged the names and positions of CIA agents worldwide—was heavily promoted by George W. Bush’s father as Vice President and is usually supported by hawks like those in the Bush administration.
Defenders of Rove maintain that he received the information that Valerie Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, worked for the CIA from reporters and not vice-versa. Also, they claim that Rove did not mention her by name and that his intent was not malicious, but merely to confirm that the CIA sent Wilson to Africa, at the suggestion of his wife, to determine whether Saddam Hussein had sought to buy yellow cake uranium to build nuclear bombs. These defenses are shaky, but even if they are true, Rove has still acted unethically and should be fired.
The claim that Rove merely learned that Plame worked for the CIA from reporters and was not initiating calls to them has been debunked. Although the possibility exists that conservative columnist Robert D. Novak told Rove that his sources said that Wilson had been sent on the mission at the suggestion of his CIA-employed wife, Rove volunteered—rather than confirmed—this information to Matthew Cooper of Time. According to Cooper, Rove did not mention her name and did not say that she was a covert agent. Cooper has noted that Rove said that she worked for the “agency” on “WMD” (weapons of mass destruction).
These latter details may keep Rove out of jail. The law is written narrowly and requires a high threshold of criminality: a government official who has disclosed an operative’s identity must have known that the agent had active covert status (which Plame did). But those legal technicalities should not keep Rove out of hot water.
Washington is a rough and tumble political town in which everyone, including journalists, has been socialized into accepting the culture of playing the game with hardball tactics. And Rove is the king of bare knuckle brawling. Remember, Rove had the chutzpah to smear two decorated war veterans—John McCain and John Kerry—to better the chances of George W. Bush, who didn’t even show up regularly during the Vietnam era for a safe, hard-to-get National Guard position that he got through political connections. (But George W. Bush is not the first president to hire a crack political hatchet man; remember Dick Morris during the Clinton administration?)
The problem with being socialized into such an “anything goes” culture is that it becomes hard for political operatives to know when they’ve crossed the line. And Rove has stepped way over it this time.
Even the best scenario—Rove and other administration officials, such as Vice President Cheney’s chief aide “Scooter” Libby, merely confirming that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA without mentioning her name or her covert status—is grounds for immediate termination. First, the excuse that they were merely providing a defense against Wilson’s charges that the administration was twisting intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat is bunk. Their lame defense consisted of mentioning that Plame suggested that her husband be sent on the mission. With his experience in both Iraq and Africa, it would have been hard to find a more qualified man for the mission to Niger than Ambassador Wilson. Rove and other administration officials were clearly trying to “out” Plame because Wilson’s mission challenged the administration’s claims about Saddam’s quest for uranium in Niger. In September 2003, an unnamed senior White House official told the Washington Post that before Novak’s piece appeared, at least six journalists were told about Plame “purely and simply out of revenge.”
Even merely confirming that Plame worked for the CIA without naming her violates ethical responsibilities for officials with government security clearances—which Rove, Libby and other senior administration officials possess. CIA employees, whether in covert status or not, do not usually advertise where they work, so as to protect themelves against being targeted by foreign espionage. Worse, covert agents who are exposed could face death or torture. In Plame’s case, however, the jeopardy to her was probably less than the danger to her cooperating informants in the autocratic nations trying to obtain WMD. If a reporter asked Rove about Plame working for the CIA, the proper response was “no comment,” not “I heard that, too.”
Allegedly, the United States invaded Iraq to stem the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Yet in retaliating against Wilson, an envoy who challenged the Bush administration’s claims on Saddam’s efforts to get WMD, Rove and perhaps others undermined the CIA’s efforts to get information on such proliferation by “outing” Plame. This contradiction is one more indication that the invasion of Iraq had little to do with Iraqi WMD programs.
It is fine for presidents to have aggressive political consultants, but those advisors shouldn’t be given government policy positions that require security clearances. The “Rove affair” is a confirmation of the mischief that arises when those two roles are merged.
President Bush has promised to fire any administration official who leaked the name of a CIA operative. This administration implicitly and unfairly accused opponents of the Iraq War of being “unpatriotic,” but now is the time for the president to keep his promise and fire his top political aide for engaging in real unpatriotic activities.
This is as it says ironic, isn't it?
http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=6701
July 19, 2005
'PlameGate' Hardly a Summer Squall
by Jim Lobe
While to people living outside the Washington Beltway, the current affair over the disclosure by top White House officials of the identity of a covert intelligence officer may seem somewhat esoteric, the stakes could not be higher.
It is not just that Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's top political adviser, and Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, may have violated a 1982 law to protect U.S. spies and could face criminal indictments, at least for perjury or obstruction of justice.
The case may also prove to be one more string – albeit a very central one – that, if pulled with sufficient determination, could well unravel a very tangled ball of yarn, and one that would confirm recent revelations in the British press – the so-called Downing Street memo – that the Bush administration was "fixing the facts" about the alleged threat posed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in order to grease the rails to war.
It may also expose how a close-knit group of neoconservatives and Republican activists both inside and outside the administration also waged war against professionals in the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the State Department in the run-up to war precisely because, as experts, they repeatedly came up with new "facts" that contradicted the propaganda of both the White House and its backers. Facts that somehow either had to be "fixed" or discredited.
If special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and his grand jury find that the White House and its "nongovernmental" supporters conducted a deliberate campaign to discredit Ambassador Joseph Wilson, in part by revealing the identity of his CIA spouse, Valerie Plame, many Republican lawmakers, who are increasingly nervous and tightlipped about the case, will be forced to distance themselves from Bush and the Iraq war, making it far more difficult for him to rally support for new adventures, such as air strikes or covert actions against Iran.
"This case is about Iraq, not Niger," wrote the New York Times' Frank Rich in a widely noted column Sunday entitled "Follow the Uranium," a reference to Wilson's trip in February 2002 to Niger to follow up on an intelligence document – since found to have been forged – that appeared to show that Hussein had bought a large quantity of yellowcake uranium from that African nation, presumably for his alleged nuclear weapons program.
"The real victims are the American people, not the Wilsons," Rich went on. "The real culprit … is not Mr. Rove but the gang that sent American sons and daughters to war on trumped-up grounds and in so doing diverted finite resources, human and otherwise, from fighting the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. That's why the stakes are so high…."
Wilson, of course, first suggested that "fixing facts" was precisely what the administration was doing when he wrote his July 6, 2003, Times op-ed. The article recounted how he had been sent by the CIA to Niger to investigate the yellowcake report, found that such a transfer was "highly unlikely," and reported his conclusions orally to CIA debriefers after his return.
He also wrote that he originally understood that Cheney had asked the CIA that such a mission be carried out and thus assumed it had been reported back up to the vice president's office.
The fact that references to Hussein's alleged acquisition of yellowcake kept popping up in Bush's and Cheney's speeches over the following months, however, prompted him to pose the key question in his article: "Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?" Eight days later, Chicago Sun-Times columnist Robert Novak, citing "two senior administration officials" as sources, not only publicly identified Plame as Wilson's wife, but also stressed that Plame, whose expertise in the agency was weapons of mass destruction (WMD), had proposed her husband for the mission in part because he had served in Niger. In fact, as a result of new information that has come to light over the past week, it is now known that both Rove and Libby told or confirmed to at least two other reporters before Novak's article appeared that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and that she had played a role in his selection.
That the aim of these contacts was to discredit Wilson also now appears beyond question. Indeed, citing sources close to the grand jury investigation, the Los Angeles Times reported Monday that Rove and Libby were "especially intent on undercutting Wilson's credibility," to the point where it caused some consternation in the White House.
The White House "off-the-record" campaign against Wilson was supplemented by a very loud "on-the-record" effort by prominent neoconservatives and their news media, including the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, The Weekly Standard, and National Review online.
The last kicked it off July 11 with an article by Clifford May, the president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) and the only person who was neither a journalist nor an administration official who claims to have known about Plame's relationship to Wilson before Novak reported about it.
While May, a former communications director for the National Republican Committee, did not identify Wilson's relationship with Plame, he included a litany of "talking points" about Wilson's objectivity. "[H]e's a pro-Saudi, leftist partisan with an ax to grind," May declared.
A week later, May published a second article in which he broadened his attack to the CIA in general, calling the selection of "a retired, Bush-bashing diplomat" for such a sensitive mission a "dereliction of duty," suggesting the choice showed either incompetence or a deliberate effort to derail the administration's march to war.
It was a familiar theme that he and other neoconservative critics of the agency, such as Richard Perle, James Woolsey, Frank Gaffney, Newt Gingrich, and the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol – all of whom serve on FDD's board of directors and were outspoken supporters of the war – have voiced frequently over the past several years, and particularly in the run-up to the war itself.
Indeed, just as lower level CIA officials were discussing sending Wilson to Niger, top agency officials several stories higher were already discussing how to implement a new top-secret intelligence order from Bush ordering the CIA to support the U.S. military in achieving regime change in Iraq, according to the Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack.
And just as the CIA debriefers were presumably compiling their assessment of the yellowcake report based in part on Wilson's mission after his return in March 2002, Cheney was declaring publicly for the first time that Hussein was "actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time."
With the CIA having been given its marching orders and Cheney squarely on the record, top agency officials saw that Wilson's "facts" would be unwelcome. Three months before the Downing Street memo, the "fix" was in, and it now appears that Wilson's conclusions were never passed along to the vice president's office.
(Inter Press Service)
July 19, 2005
'PlameGate' Hardly a Summer Squall
by Jim Lobe
While to people living outside the Washington Beltway, the current affair over the disclosure by top White House officials of the identity of a covert intelligence officer may seem somewhat esoteric, the stakes could not be higher.
It is not just that Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's top political adviser, and Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, may have violated a 1982 law to protect U.S. spies and could face criminal indictments, at least for perjury or obstruction of justice.
The case may also prove to be one more string – albeit a very central one – that, if pulled with sufficient determination, could well unravel a very tangled ball of yarn, and one that would confirm recent revelations in the British press – the so-called Downing Street memo – that the Bush administration was "fixing the facts" about the alleged threat posed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in order to grease the rails to war.
It may also expose how a close-knit group of neoconservatives and Republican activists both inside and outside the administration also waged war against professionals in the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the State Department in the run-up to war precisely because, as experts, they repeatedly came up with new "facts" that contradicted the propaganda of both the White House and its backers. Facts that somehow either had to be "fixed" or discredited.
If special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and his grand jury find that the White House and its "nongovernmental" supporters conducted a deliberate campaign to discredit Ambassador Joseph Wilson, in part by revealing the identity of his CIA spouse, Valerie Plame, many Republican lawmakers, who are increasingly nervous and tightlipped about the case, will be forced to distance themselves from Bush and the Iraq war, making it far more difficult for him to rally support for new adventures, such as air strikes or covert actions against Iran.
"This case is about Iraq, not Niger," wrote the New York Times' Frank Rich in a widely noted column Sunday entitled "Follow the Uranium," a reference to Wilson's trip in February 2002 to Niger to follow up on an intelligence document – since found to have been forged – that appeared to show that Hussein had bought a large quantity of yellowcake uranium from that African nation, presumably for his alleged nuclear weapons program.
"The real victims are the American people, not the Wilsons," Rich went on. "The real culprit … is not Mr. Rove but the gang that sent American sons and daughters to war on trumped-up grounds and in so doing diverted finite resources, human and otherwise, from fighting the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. That's why the stakes are so high…."
Wilson, of course, first suggested that "fixing facts" was precisely what the administration was doing when he wrote his July 6, 2003, Times op-ed. The article recounted how he had been sent by the CIA to Niger to investigate the yellowcake report, found that such a transfer was "highly unlikely," and reported his conclusions orally to CIA debriefers after his return.
He also wrote that he originally understood that Cheney had asked the CIA that such a mission be carried out and thus assumed it had been reported back up to the vice president's office.
The fact that references to Hussein's alleged acquisition of yellowcake kept popping up in Bush's and Cheney's speeches over the following months, however, prompted him to pose the key question in his article: "Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?" Eight days later, Chicago Sun-Times columnist Robert Novak, citing "two senior administration officials" as sources, not only publicly identified Plame as Wilson's wife, but also stressed that Plame, whose expertise in the agency was weapons of mass destruction (WMD), had proposed her husband for the mission in part because he had served in Niger. In fact, as a result of new information that has come to light over the past week, it is now known that both Rove and Libby told or confirmed to at least two other reporters before Novak's article appeared that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and that she had played a role in his selection.
That the aim of these contacts was to discredit Wilson also now appears beyond question. Indeed, citing sources close to the grand jury investigation, the Los Angeles Times reported Monday that Rove and Libby were "especially intent on undercutting Wilson's credibility," to the point where it caused some consternation in the White House.
The White House "off-the-record" campaign against Wilson was supplemented by a very loud "on-the-record" effort by prominent neoconservatives and their news media, including the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, The Weekly Standard, and National Review online.
The last kicked it off July 11 with an article by Clifford May, the president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) and the only person who was neither a journalist nor an administration official who claims to have known about Plame's relationship to Wilson before Novak reported about it.
While May, a former communications director for the National Republican Committee, did not identify Wilson's relationship with Plame, he included a litany of "talking points" about Wilson's objectivity. "[H]e's a pro-Saudi, leftist partisan with an ax to grind," May declared.
A week later, May published a second article in which he broadened his attack to the CIA in general, calling the selection of "a retired, Bush-bashing diplomat" for such a sensitive mission a "dereliction of duty," suggesting the choice showed either incompetence or a deliberate effort to derail the administration's march to war.
It was a familiar theme that he and other neoconservative critics of the agency, such as Richard Perle, James Woolsey, Frank Gaffney, Newt Gingrich, and the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol – all of whom serve on FDD's board of directors and were outspoken supporters of the war – have voiced frequently over the past several years, and particularly in the run-up to the war itself.
Indeed, just as lower level CIA officials were discussing sending Wilson to Niger, top agency officials several stories higher were already discussing how to implement a new top-secret intelligence order from Bush ordering the CIA to support the U.S. military in achieving regime change in Iraq, according to the Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack.
And just as the CIA debriefers were presumably compiling their assessment of the yellowcake report based in part on Wilson's mission after his return in March 2002, Cheney was declaring publicly for the first time that Hussein was "actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time."
With the CIA having been given its marching orders and Cheney squarely on the record, top agency officials saw that Wilson's "facts" would be unwelcome. Three months before the Downing Street memo, the "fix" was in, and it now appears that Wilson's conclusions were never passed along to the vice president's office.
(Inter Press Service)
She was a conduit for their pre-war propaganda. Let her rot.
From the Philly Inquirer:
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/12157726.htm
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/12157726.htm
QUOTE
Rove's backers deployed on defense
By Dick Polman
Inquirer Political Analyst
Jul. 18, 2005
The vaunted Republican message machine, built over the last five years by Karl Rove, is now being employed to defend Karl Rove.
Stung by evidence that President Bush's political guru may have participated in the leaking of classified information - by allegedly helping to blow the cover of an undercover CIA operative who is married to a prominent Iraq war critic - Rove's surrogates, armed with identical talking points, are arguing his innocence in orchestrated e-mails, on radio shows, the floor of Congress, conservative blogs, the Republican National Committee Web site, Fox News talkfests, and even the Sunday morning circuit.
Republican chairman Ken Mehlman, a top Rove protege, drew the NBC assignment yesterday. It did not go smoothly, which was no surprise, given the tricky nature of his mission.
Back in autumn 2003, the White House had declared it was "totally ridiculous" to suggest that Rove had any involvement that summer with leaking the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame, as possible retaliation against her husband, former Iraq Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had publicly (and accurately) disputed a key Bush rationale for war. Conservative columnist Robert Novak had used her name in print, and reporter Matt Cooper, writing in Time magazine, had identified her as Wilson's wife. But now, in the wake of disclosures over the last week, it is clear that Rove spoke to both Novak and Cooper.
Yesterday, Mehlman insisted on Meet the Press that these disclosures mean nothing. In fact, he said that this new information, which became public in connection with special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's probe into possible White House wrongdoing, "actually vindicates and exonerates" Rove. He said that Rove was never a source on Plame. He said that Rove basically learned about Plame from the journalists, and not the other way around.
But the record contradicts his arguments.
Cooper told NBC yesterday that when he testified last week to Fitzgerald's grand jury, he made it clear that he first learned of Plame's CIA employment from Rove. And Novak, who has dealt with Rove since the 1970s, has indicated in print that Rove confirmed information that Novak already had about Plame. (At the CIA, she was an NOC - "nonofficial cover" - sifting information on weapons of mass destruction. She worked with a front group, set up by the CIA, to make it appear that she was an energy analyst.)
Mehlman failed to address Cooper's sworn statement that he had learned the information from Rove. And when confronted with the fact that Rove had also spoken with Novak, Mehlman replied: "He was not Bob Novak's initial source." When it was pointed out that Rove had, at minimum, confirmed the Plame material as a second source, Mehlman dismissed the interaction between Rove and Novak as merely "a chat going on."
What's now on record, courtesy of pro-Rove leakers close to the Fitzgerald inquiry, is that Rove confirmed Novak's information by telling the columnist that he had heard the same stuff elsewhere. But that means Rove may have violated the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement, a document known as SF 312 that must be signed by any administration official who receives a national security clearance.
Here's a provision: "Information remains classified until it has been officially declassified... . Before disseminating the information elsewhere or confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not, further dissemination of the information, or confirmation of its accuracy, is also an unauthorized disclosure."
Mehlman, asked about this, said it's wrong to assume that Plame's CIA status was classified. But that remark is contradicted by the record.
In the summer of 2003, Attorney General John Ashcroft's Justice Department - acting on a request from the CIA - agreed to launch a probe of the leak because the department agreed with the CIA's argument that Plame's status, as an NOC staffer, had been classified. (This is the investigation that led to the hiring of Fitzgerald, who became a U.S. attorney in northern Illinois as a result of Republican sponsorship.)
On CBS's Face the Nation yesterday, another Rove surrogate took a whack at the same issue. Rep. Roy Blunt, a senior House Republican from Missouri, basically said that even if the Plame material is still classified, maybe it shouldn't be. He suggested that maybe the CIA is "overzealous" about keeping its information under wraps. "Often the CIA classifies things as top secret that really don't need to be top secret," he said.
In addition to defending Rove, the GOP message is aimed at shifting the spotlight from him to the Democrats who are calling for his head - which makes sense politically, because the Rove message machine has long been designed to attack, not to defend.
Mehlman said that Democrats in Congress owed Rove an apology. When Mehlman was asked how the GOP would react if the situation were reversed and the same national security controversy were unfolding in a Democratic White House, he insisted it was "unthinkable" to believe the GOP would behave the same way.
But the bottom line, among all the pro-Rove messaging, is that the White House is still laboring to extricate itself from a tough political dilemma. Mehlman was compelled yesterday to watch the video replay of a remark by press secretary Scott McClellan, who stated on Oct. 7, 2003, that he had talked with Rove and other administration aides and had concluded that "they were not involved. I have no doubt... . I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate."
Mehlman replied that McClellan, "an honest guy," was not available yesterday to defend himself, out of respect for the Fitzgerald probe. Mehlman said, "We should all take a breath and not rush to judgment."
When he was reminded, however, that the White House may have prejudged the probe at the outset by declaring Rove innocent, he replied: "Investigations have different phases," and autumn 2003 was an "early phase... with less activity."
But will he, as party chairman, accept Fitzgerald's findings if Rove or other Bush aides are indicted or reprimanded? After all, Mehlman stated yesterday that he had "confidence" in Fitzgerald.
"I'm not going to speculate," Mehlman replied. "... It would be inappropriate for me as Republican chairman to say what legal strategy people may take in the future."
Translation: The Rove message machine may just be warming up.
By Dick Polman
Inquirer Political Analyst
Jul. 18, 2005
The vaunted Republican message machine, built over the last five years by Karl Rove, is now being employed to defend Karl Rove.
Stung by evidence that President Bush's political guru may have participated in the leaking of classified information - by allegedly helping to blow the cover of an undercover CIA operative who is married to a prominent Iraq war critic - Rove's surrogates, armed with identical talking points, are arguing his innocence in orchestrated e-mails, on radio shows, the floor of Congress, conservative blogs, the Republican National Committee Web site, Fox News talkfests, and even the Sunday morning circuit.
Republican chairman Ken Mehlman, a top Rove protege, drew the NBC assignment yesterday. It did not go smoothly, which was no surprise, given the tricky nature of his mission.
Back in autumn 2003, the White House had declared it was "totally ridiculous" to suggest that Rove had any involvement that summer with leaking the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame, as possible retaliation against her husband, former Iraq Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had publicly (and accurately) disputed a key Bush rationale for war. Conservative columnist Robert Novak had used her name in print, and reporter Matt Cooper, writing in Time magazine, had identified her as Wilson's wife. But now, in the wake of disclosures over the last week, it is clear that Rove spoke to both Novak and Cooper.
Yesterday, Mehlman insisted on Meet the Press that these disclosures mean nothing. In fact, he said that this new information, which became public in connection with special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's probe into possible White House wrongdoing, "actually vindicates and exonerates" Rove. He said that Rove was never a source on Plame. He said that Rove basically learned about Plame from the journalists, and not the other way around.
But the record contradicts his arguments.
Cooper told NBC yesterday that when he testified last week to Fitzgerald's grand jury, he made it clear that he first learned of Plame's CIA employment from Rove. And Novak, who has dealt with Rove since the 1970s, has indicated in print that Rove confirmed information that Novak already had about Plame. (At the CIA, she was an NOC - "nonofficial cover" - sifting information on weapons of mass destruction. She worked with a front group, set up by the CIA, to make it appear that she was an energy analyst.)
Mehlman failed to address Cooper's sworn statement that he had learned the information from Rove. And when confronted with the fact that Rove had also spoken with Novak, Mehlman replied: "He was not Bob Novak's initial source." When it was pointed out that Rove had, at minimum, confirmed the Plame material as a second source, Mehlman dismissed the interaction between Rove and Novak as merely "a chat going on."
What's now on record, courtesy of pro-Rove leakers close to the Fitzgerald inquiry, is that Rove confirmed Novak's information by telling the columnist that he had heard the same stuff elsewhere. But that means Rove may have violated the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement, a document known as SF 312 that must be signed by any administration official who receives a national security clearance.
Here's a provision: "Information remains classified until it has been officially declassified... . Before disseminating the information elsewhere or confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not, further dissemination of the information, or confirmation of its accuracy, is also an unauthorized disclosure."
Mehlman, asked about this, said it's wrong to assume that Plame's CIA status was classified. But that remark is contradicted by the record.
In the summer of 2003, Attorney General John Ashcroft's Justice Department - acting on a request from the CIA - agreed to launch a probe of the leak because the department agreed with the CIA's argument that Plame's status, as an NOC staffer, had been classified. (This is the investigation that led to the hiring of Fitzgerald, who became a U.S. attorney in northern Illinois as a result of Republican sponsorship.)
On CBS's Face the Nation yesterday, another Rove surrogate took a whack at the same issue. Rep. Roy Blunt, a senior House Republican from Missouri, basically said that even if the Plame material is still classified, maybe it shouldn't be. He suggested that maybe the CIA is "overzealous" about keeping its information under wraps. "Often the CIA classifies things as top secret that really don't need to be top secret," he said.
In addition to defending Rove, the GOP message is aimed at shifting the spotlight from him to the Democrats who are calling for his head - which makes sense politically, because the Rove message machine has long been designed to attack, not to defend.
Mehlman said that Democrats in Congress owed Rove an apology. When Mehlman was asked how the GOP would react if the situation were reversed and the same national security controversy were unfolding in a Democratic White House, he insisted it was "unthinkable" to believe the GOP would behave the same way.
But the bottom line, among all the pro-Rove messaging, is that the White House is still laboring to extricate itself from a tough political dilemma. Mehlman was compelled yesterday to watch the video replay of a remark by press secretary Scott McClellan, who stated on Oct. 7, 2003, that he had talked with Rove and other administration aides and had concluded that "they were not involved. I have no doubt... . I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate."
Mehlman replied that McClellan, "an honest guy," was not available yesterday to defend himself, out of respect for the Fitzgerald probe. Mehlman said, "We should all take a breath and not rush to judgment."
When he was reminded, however, that the White House may have prejudged the probe at the outset by declaring Rove innocent, he replied: "Investigations have different phases," and autumn 2003 was an "early phase... with less activity."
But will he, as party chairman, accept Fitzgerald's findings if Rove or other Bush aides are indicted or reprimanded? After all, Mehlman stated yesterday that he had "confidence" in Fitzgerald.
"I'm not going to speculate," Mehlman replied. "... It would be inappropriate for me as Republican chairman to say what legal strategy people may take in the future."
Translation: The Rove message machine may just be warming up.
QUOTE(kindergarten teacher @ Jul 18 2005, 11:00 PM)
I looked back to yesterday on this post and didn't find Helen Thomas' questions and comments that I read today on The Huffington Post. Has anyone here seen them or commented on what she had to say? I found the comments people made afterward very interesting and fun to read there.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/...esidents-p.html
KT
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/...esidents-p.html
KT
Go to http://www.c-span.org to find the video of the WH press conferences.
Boston Globe op-ed:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...ate146_scandal/
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...ate146_scandal/
QUOTE
Link to Cheney deepens ‘leak-gate’ scandal
By Derrick Z. Jackson, Globe Columnist | July 19, 2005
THE NEWS that Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff was the second possible source in the leaking of the identity of a CIA agent to Time magazine elevates the scandal to a whole new level. It is bad enough for Karl Rove to be accused of being a leaker, since he is President Bush’s chief political strategist.
But if Time’s story holds, I. Lewis Libby’s involvement represents an even more insidious abuse of power. The Bush administration is being accused of leaking the name of Valerie Plame in retribution for a New York Times op-ed article written by her husband, diplomat Joseph Wilson. Wilson wrote that he never found any evidence in a 2002 trip to Africa, contrary to claims made by President Bush in his 2003 State of the Union address, that Saddam Hussein was procuring uranium from Niger for nuclear weapons.
Bush would invade Iraq over weapons of mass destruction that were never found. But Libby, Cheney, and the other influential right-wing hard-liners, such as Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Armitage, Richard Perle, and Douglas Feith, saw their dreams come true. Back in the administration of the senior President Bush, Cheney was defense secretary and Libby and Wolfowitz were two of his aides who, after the first Gulf War left Saddam in power, drafted a document advocating ‘‘preemptive’’ war against possible threats.
They said the United States should be ‘‘postured to act independently when collective action cannot be orchestrated.’’
Such provocation was kept at bay when President Clinton beat Bush in 1992 and took office for eight years. But when the junior Bush became president in 2000, the hard right on foreign policy took the helm. They used the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 as an excuse for invading Iraq, even though President Bush’s own 9/11 Commission found no tie between Saddam and 9/11.
Libby was in the thick of whipping up fear over the thinnest of evidence. The level to which Libby and Cheney stooped to get their war was highlighted by the momentous presentation of Saddam’s ‘‘threat’’ before the United Nations Security Council by then Secretary of State Colin Powell. Powell gave a presentation six weeks before the war where he said, ‘‘every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions.’’ Those assertions resulted in grudging acceptance of the war from many Democrats.
Virtually all of Powell’s solid sources fell apart when the United States turned Iraq upside down, killing thousands of Iraqi civilians in the process. He would have looked much worse had he listened to everything Libby and Cheney tried to feed him. It was Cheney’s staff who wrote the first draft of Powell’s UN speech. It was Libby who suggested, in strategy meetings at the White House, playing up every possible, conceivable threat of Saddam — with the emphasis on the word ‘‘conceive.’’
A US News and World Report story in the summer of 2003 quoted a senior administration official as saying Libby’s presentation ‘‘was over the top and ran the gamut from Al Qaeda to human rights to weapons of mass destruction. They were unsubstantiated assertions, in my view.’’
Powell, according to both US News and Vanity Fair, was so irritated by Libby’s hodgepodge of unsubstantiated facts that he threw documents into the air and said, ‘‘I’m not reading this. This is bull ...’’
Libby, whose nickname is Scooter, was particularly unhappy that Powell had thrown out sections of the presentation that would have attempted to link Al Qaeda to Saddam, including a discredited report that top 9/11 Al Qaeda airline hijacker Mohamed Atta had a meeting with an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague. According to Vanity Fair, ‘‘Cheney’s office made one last ditch effort to persuade Powell to link Saddam and Al Qaeda and to slip the Prague story back into the speech. Only moments before Powell began speaking, Scooter Libby tried unsuccessfully to reach [Larry] Wilkerson by phone. Powell’s staff chief, by then inside the Security Council chamber, declined to take the call. ‘Scooter,’ said one State Department aide, ‘wasn’t happy.’’’
According to Vanity Fair, Cheney himself urged Powell to go ahead and stake his national popularity on the nonexistent evidence by saying to Powell, ‘‘Your poll numbers are in the 70s. You can afford to lose a few points.’’
America and Iraq would go on to lose more than a few points. Libby may end up as a symbol of a government so driven to ignore the truth it was willing to resort to dirty tricks to stop anyone from telling it.
By Derrick Z. Jackson, Globe Columnist | July 19, 2005
THE NEWS that Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff was the second possible source in the leaking of the identity of a CIA agent to Time magazine elevates the scandal to a whole new level. It is bad enough for Karl Rove to be accused of being a leaker, since he is President Bush’s chief political strategist.
But if Time’s story holds, I. Lewis Libby’s involvement represents an even more insidious abuse of power. The Bush administration is being accused of leaking the name of Valerie Plame in retribution for a New York Times op-ed article written by her husband, diplomat Joseph Wilson. Wilson wrote that he never found any evidence in a 2002 trip to Africa, contrary to claims made by President Bush in his 2003 State of the Union address, that Saddam Hussein was procuring uranium from Niger for nuclear weapons.
Bush would invade Iraq over weapons of mass destruction that were never found. But Libby, Cheney, and the other influential right-wing hard-liners, such as Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Armitage, Richard Perle, and Douglas Feith, saw their dreams come true. Back in the administration of the senior President Bush, Cheney was defense secretary and Libby and Wolfowitz were two of his aides who, after the first Gulf War left Saddam in power, drafted a document advocating ‘‘preemptive’’ war against possible threats.
They said the United States should be ‘‘postured to act independently when collective action cannot be orchestrated.’’
Such provocation was kept at bay when President Clinton beat Bush in 1992 and took office for eight years. But when the junior Bush became president in 2000, the hard right on foreign policy took the helm. They used the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 as an excuse for invading Iraq, even though President Bush’s own 9/11 Commission found no tie between Saddam and 9/11.
Libby was in the thick of whipping up fear over the thinnest of evidence. The level to which Libby and Cheney stooped to get their war was highlighted by the momentous presentation of Saddam’s ‘‘threat’’ before the United Nations Security Council by then Secretary of State Colin Powell. Powell gave a presentation six weeks before the war where he said, ‘‘every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions.’’ Those assertions resulted in grudging acceptance of the war from many Democrats.
Virtually all of Powell’s solid sources fell apart when the United States turned Iraq upside down, killing thousands of Iraqi civilians in the process. He would have looked much worse had he listened to everything Libby and Cheney tried to feed him. It was Cheney’s staff who wrote the first draft of Powell’s UN speech. It was Libby who suggested, in strategy meetings at the White House, playing up every possible, conceivable threat of Saddam — with the emphasis on the word ‘‘conceive.’’
A US News and World Report story in the summer of 2003 quoted a senior administration official as saying Libby’s presentation ‘‘was over the top and ran the gamut from Al Qaeda to human rights to weapons of mass destruction. They were unsubstantiated assertions, in my view.’’
Powell, according to both US News and Vanity Fair, was so irritated by Libby’s hodgepodge of unsubstantiated facts that he threw documents into the air and said, ‘‘I’m not reading this. This is bull ...’’
Libby, whose nickname is Scooter, was particularly unhappy that Powell had thrown out sections of the presentation that would have attempted to link Al Qaeda to Saddam, including a discredited report that top 9/11 Al Qaeda airline hijacker Mohamed Atta had a meeting with an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague. According to Vanity Fair, ‘‘Cheney’s office made one last ditch effort to persuade Powell to link Saddam and Al Qaeda and to slip the Prague story back into the speech. Only moments before Powell began speaking, Scooter Libby tried unsuccessfully to reach [Larry] Wilkerson by phone. Powell’s staff chief, by then inside the Security Council chamber, declined to take the call. ‘Scooter,’ said one State Department aide, ‘wasn’t happy.’’’
According to Vanity Fair, Cheney himself urged Powell to go ahead and stake his national popularity on the nonexistent evidence by saying to Powell, ‘‘Your poll numbers are in the 70s. You can afford to lose a few points.’’
America and Iraq would go on to lose more than a few points. Libby may end up as a symbol of a government so driven to ignore the truth it was willing to resort to dirty tricks to stop anyone from telling it.
I don't have any sympathy for her either.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/857
Federal Leak Case Has Formidable Grand Jury
Its Mainly Black Women
Michael Cottman
Black America Web.com
In the new issue of Time magazine, reporter Matthew Cooper writes that he testified before a federal grand jury last week -- a panel that was predominantly black and overwhelmingly female.
"Grand juries are in the business of handing out indictments, and their docility is infamous," Cooper writes. "A grand jury, the old maxim goes, will indict a ham sandwich if a prosecutor asks it of them.
"But I didn't get that sense from this group of grand jurors. They somewhat reflected the demographics of the District of Columbia," he wrote. "The majority were African-American and were disproportionately women. ... These grand jurors did not seem the types to passively indict a ham sandwich. I would say one-third of my 2-1/2 hours of testimony was spent answering their questions, not the prosecutor's."
Cooper is now at the center of a recent disclosure that Karl Rove, President George W. Bush’s chief political advisor, and Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, were both sources for Cooper, who wrote an article that identified the wife of former ambassador Joseph Wilson as a CIA officer. The grand jury is investigating whether anyone in the administration -- including Rove and Lewis -- illegally leaked Valerie Plame's name in an effort to discredit Wilson, who had penned an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times suggesting that Bush overstated claims that Saddam Hussein was trying to acquire material from Niger to build a nuclear weapons arsenal.
Cooper's noting of the racial and gender makeup of the Washington, D.C. jury, may have been an important fact to note, but the jury’s understanding of the facts and their astute questions were not a surprise.
Jackie Jones, a black journalism professor at Penn State University who was raised in D.C., said Cooper may have seen a courtroom full of black women and didn’t know what to expect.
"He may have made the assumption that they weren’t focused on national news and the details of the case," Jones told BlackAmericaWeb.com Monday. "The questions they asked may have taken him by surprise, but their questions suggest they are paying a lot closer attention than people think. This was not a stereotypical group of jurors. And women are generally more detailed-oriented."
Cooper’s testimony comes as Republicans are circling the wagons in defense of Rove, while Democrats are calling for Rove’s resignation or, at the least, the revokation of his security clearance.
Jones said most of her female friends and family follow current news events. Her mother, Alice, a longtime D.C. resident, reads newspapers daily and watches television news to stay on top of local, national and international news.
"She and her girlfriends analyze which networks are more reliable and who covers the news best," Jones said. "She pays very close attention to the news."
The recent investigation involving Rove has caused a storm of controversy. Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee, appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press," Sunday and said Senate Democrats were "smearing Karl Rove" and urged them to apologize.
"Democrat partisans on the Hill have engaged in a smear campaign where they have attacked Karl Rove on the basis of information which actually vindicates and exonerates him, not implicates him," Mehlman said.
But Democrats said Rove should be stripped of his clearance for classified information.
"This is what is known as a cover-up," said Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) This is an abuse of power."
Cooper was questioned by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald last week. He agreed to testify after obtaining a personal waiver of confidentiality from Rove. New York Times reporter Judith Miller has been in jail in Alexandria for nearly two weeks for refusing to testify in the case.
The federal grand jury convened in D.C., a city that, despite intense gentrification, is still predominantly black.
Of the black female jurors, Cooper wrote: "Most sat in black vinyl chairs with little desks in rows that were slightly elevated, as if it were a shabby classroom at a rundown college. A kindly African-American forewoman swore me in, and when I had to leave the room to consult with my attorneys, I asked her permission to be excused, not the prosecutor's, as is the custom."
Kymberly Smith, a black California prosecutor, said America’s justice system is plagued by stereotypes, and those of black women are certainly no exception. She echoed Jones' contention that, although it’s noteworthy that a high-profile grand jury consisted of black women who were knowledgeable about the issue, it's not a huge revelation.
"But there’s no magic here," Smith told BlackAmericaWeb.com Monday. "When you give [black] people an opportunity, they rise to the challenge, and African American women have risen to the challenge again."
"Even though we have been systematically excluded from juries, the system still works," said Smith. "We’re getting access to the process, we’re more involved in the process -- and this is a good thing. Integrating and diversifying is a good because we bring a different and important point of view."
Federal Leak Case Has Formidable Grand Jury
Its Mainly Black Women
Michael Cottman
Black America Web.com
In the new issue of Time magazine, reporter Matthew Cooper writes that he testified before a federal grand jury last week -- a panel that was predominantly black and overwhelmingly female.
"Grand juries are in the business of handing out indictments, and their docility is infamous," Cooper writes. "A grand jury, the old maxim goes, will indict a ham sandwich if a prosecutor asks it of them.
"But I didn't get that sense from this group of grand jurors. They somewhat reflected the demographics of the District of Columbia," he wrote. "The majority were African-American and were disproportionately women. ... These grand jurors did not seem the types to passively indict a ham sandwich. I would say one-third of my 2-1/2 hours of testimony was spent answering their questions, not the prosecutor's."
Cooper is now at the center of a recent disclosure that Karl Rove, President George W. Bush’s chief political advisor, and Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, were both sources for Cooper, who wrote an article that identified the wife of former ambassador Joseph Wilson as a CIA officer. The grand jury is investigating whether anyone in the administration -- including Rove and Lewis -- illegally leaked Valerie Plame's name in an effort to discredit Wilson, who had penned an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times suggesting that Bush overstated claims that Saddam Hussein was trying to acquire material from Niger to build a nuclear weapons arsenal.
Cooper's noting of the racial and gender makeup of the Washington, D.C. jury, may have been an important fact to note, but the jury’s understanding of the facts and their astute questions were not a surprise.
Jackie Jones, a black journalism professor at Penn State University who was raised in D.C., said Cooper may have seen a courtroom full of black women and didn’t know what to expect.
"He may have made the assumption that they weren’t focused on national news and the details of the case," Jones told BlackAmericaWeb.com Monday. "The questions they asked may have taken him by surprise, but their questions suggest they are paying a lot closer attention than people think. This was not a stereotypical group of jurors. And women are generally more detailed-oriented."
Cooper’s testimony comes as Republicans are circling the wagons in defense of Rove, while Democrats are calling for Rove’s resignation or, at the least, the revokation of his security clearance.
Jones said most of her female friends and family follow current news events. Her mother, Alice, a longtime D.C. resident, reads newspapers daily and watches television news to stay on top of local, national and international news.
"She and her girlfriends analyze which networks are more reliable and who covers the news best," Jones said. "She pays very close attention to the news."
The recent investigation involving Rove has caused a storm of controversy. Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee, appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press," Sunday and said Senate Democrats were "smearing Karl Rove" and urged them to apologize.
"Democrat partisans on the Hill have engaged in a smear campaign where they have attacked Karl Rove on the basis of information which actually vindicates and exonerates him, not implicates him," Mehlman said.
But Democrats said Rove should be stripped of his clearance for classified information.
"This is what is known as a cover-up," said Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) This is an abuse of power."
Cooper was questioned by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald last week. He agreed to testify after obtaining a personal waiver of confidentiality from Rove. New York Times reporter Judith Miller has been in jail in Alexandria for nearly two weeks for refusing to testify in the case.
The federal grand jury convened in D.C., a city that, despite intense gentrification, is still predominantly black.
Of the black female jurors, Cooper wrote: "Most sat in black vinyl chairs with little desks in rows that were slightly elevated, as if it were a shabby classroom at a rundown college. A kindly African-American forewoman swore me in, and when I had to leave the room to consult with my attorneys, I asked her permission to be excused, not the prosecutor's, as is the custom."
Kymberly Smith, a black California prosecutor, said America’s justice system is plagued by stereotypes, and those of black women are certainly no exception. She echoed Jones' contention that, although it’s noteworthy that a high-profile grand jury consisted of black women who were knowledgeable about the issue, it's not a huge revelation.
"But there’s no magic here," Smith told BlackAmericaWeb.com Monday. "When you give [black] people an opportunity, they rise to the challenge, and African American women have risen to the challenge again."
"Even though we have been systematically excluded from juries, the system still works," said Smith. "We’re getting access to the process, we’re more involved in the process -- and this is a good thing. Integrating and diversifying is a good because we bring a different and important point of view."
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/856
Transcript: McClellan Defends President On Failure to Fire Rove
By E&P Press
NEW YORK -- It was another difficult press briefing for White House spokesman Scott McClellan today as reporters pounced on what appeared to be a changing presidential standard on what would prompt dismissal of Karl Rove or any other deputy: mere involvement in the Plame scandal or the committing of a crime? And if the latter, would an indictment be enough or would it take a conviction?
And why doesn't President Bush just walk down the hall and ask Rove for a full accounting?
Here's today's transcript of the relevant banter:
Q Scott, the President seemed to raise the bar and add a qualifier today when discussing whether or not anybody would be dismissed for -- in the leak of a CIA officer's name, in which he said that he would -- if someone is found to have committed a crime, they would no longer work in this administration. That's never been part of the standard before, why is that added now?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I disagree, Terry. I think that the President was stating what is obvious when it comes to people who work in the administration: that if someone commits a crime, they're not going to be working any longer in this administration. Now the President talked about how it's important for us to learn all the facts. We don't know all the facts, and it's important that we not prejudge the outcome of the investigation. We need to let the investigation continue. And the investigators are the ones who are in the best position to gather all the facts and draw the conclusions. And at that point, we will be more than happy to talk about it, as I indicated last week.
The President directed the White House to cooperate fully, and that's what we've been doing. We want to know what the facts are, we want to see this come to a successful conclusion. And that's the way we've been working for quite some time now. Ever since the beginning of this investigation, we have been following the President's direction to cooperate fully with it, so that we can get to the -- so that the investigators can get to the bottom of it.
Q But you have said, though, that anyone involved in this would no longer be in this administration, you didn't say anybody who committed a crime. You had said, in September 2003, anyone involved in this would no longer be in the administration.
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, we've been through these issues over the course of the last week. And I know --
Q But we haven't talked about a crime.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- well what was said previously. You heard from the President today. And I think that you should not read anything into it more than what the President said at this point. And I think that's something you may be trying to do here.
Q Is leaking, in your judgment of his interpretation, a crime?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'll leave it at what the President said.
Q What is his problem? Two years, and he can't call Rove in and find out what the hell is going on? I mean, why is it so difficult to find out the facts? It costs thousands, millions of dollars, two years, it tied up how many lawyers? All he's got to do is call him in.
MR. McCLELLAN: You just heard from the President. He said he doesn't know all the facts. I don't know all the facts.
Q Why?
MR. McCLELLAN: We want to know what the facts are. Because --
Q Why doesn't he ask him?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'll tell you why, because there's an investigation that is continuing at this point, and the appropriate people to handle these issues are the ones who are overseeing that investigation. There is a special prosecutor that has been appointed. And it's important that we let all the facts come out. And then at that point, we'll be glad to talk about it, but we shouldn't be getting into --
Q You talked about it to reporters.
MR. McCLELLAN: We shouldn't be getting into prejudging the outcome.
Q Scott, we don't know all the facts, but we know some of the facts. For example, Matt Cooper says he did speak to Karl Rove and Lewis Libby about these issues. So given the fact that you have previously stood at that podium and said these men did not discuss Valerie Plame or a CIA agent's identity in any way, does the White House have a credibility problem?
MR. McCLELLAN: No. You just answered your own question. You said we don't know all the facts. And I would encourage everyone not to prejudge the outcome of the investigation.
Q But on the specifics -- on the specifics, you made statements that have proven to be untrue.
MR. McCLELLAN: Let me answer your question, because you asked a very specific question. The President has great faith in the American people and their judgment. The President is the one who directed the White House to cooperate fully in this investigation with those who are overseeing the investigation. And that's exactly what we have been doing. The President believes it's important to let the investigators do their work, and at that point, once they have come to a conclusion, then we will be more than happy to talk about it.
The President wants to see them get to the bottom of it as soon as possible. I share that view, as well. We want to know what the facts are, and the investigators are the ones who are drawing those -- are pulling together those facts, and then drawing conclusions.
Go ahead, Bob.
Q Given the new formulation "if somebody committed a crime," would that be a crime as determined by an indictment, or a crime as determined by a conviction?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, Bob, I'm not going to add to what the President said. You heard his remarks, and I think I've been through these issues over the course of the last week. I don't know that there's really much more to add at this point.
Q But the importance is the question of would -- if it is the latter, the strategy would be to run out the clock?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I indicated to you earlier that everyone here serves at the pleasure of the President. And the White House has been working to cooperate fully with the investigators. That was the direction that the President set. That's what we've been doing. We hope they come to a conclusion soon.
Q Scott, going back to the President's statements from earlier -- if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration -- it makes me go back to the question I asked you last Wednesday, is there regret from this administration of what it has done to the Wilson family, with the CIA leak? And I talked to Mr. Wilson prior to going into the East Room, and he basically said, the American people deserve an apology, and that his family was basically collateral damage in a bigger picture.
MR. McCLELLAN: All these questions are getting into prejudging the outcome of the investigation, and we're not going to do that.
Q But if someone -- if the President acknowledged that there was a problem, and it could be a criminal problem, if he acknowledged that, isn't there some sort of regret?
MR. McCLELLAN: It's a criminal investigation. We don't know all the facts to it.
Go ahead.
Q Well, is there any regret from this White House that it has caused an American family who worked for this government --
MR. McCLELLAN: I heard what you had to say and I've already answered it.
Q No, you didn't.
MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead.
Q Scott, the President talked about if a crime were committed. But a year ago and beyond, he also talked about -- he denounced leaks out of this executive branch, other parts of Washington. He said, things are wrong. If it's only a leak, will he take some appropriate action?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think you should look back at what the President said again. I would not read anything into it more than what he said. The President has said for a long time that this is a very serious matter, and that's why he directed the White House to cooperate fully, so that the investigators can get to the bottom of it.
***
Q Scott, I just want to sort of go back over this. Insofar as you're telling us that we shouldn't read anything new into the President's comments today, should we then take that to mean that if there is criminal activity, that person would be fired, but this does not render inoperative those things that the President has said "yes" or responded in the affirmative to in the past when asked, for instance, if you would fire somebody if they were involved in a leak?
MR. McCLELLAN: I wouldn't read anything into it. You said, "new." I wouldn't read anything into it beyond what he said.
Q So the previous statements remain operative?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, look, once the investigation is concluded, then we can talk about it at that point. But those are decisions for the President to make.
***
Q Scott, back in October 2003, you did assure us that you'd spoken with Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Elliott Abrams, and they'd all assured you that they weren't involved in any of this. So with regard to Libby and Abrams, do you still stand by that?
MR. McCLELLAN: Last week I think I assured you that I want to do everything I can to help the investigators get to the bottom of this. I will be glad to talk about it once the investigation is complete. I've been stating that position for a long time now, and that's where it stands.
Q So with regard to that, how concerned is the President and you that, notwithstanding that you don't want to talk about it, that Ken Mehlman and other senior Republicans are all over the airwaves doing just that?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you can direct those questions to the Republican National Committee.
Ken, go ahead.
Q Scott, without asking about the content of the conversation, has the President asked Karl Rove to detail any involvement he might have had in any leaks?
MR. McCLELLAN: The President directed the White House to cooperate fully. This is a serious matter. As the President indicated, he doesn't know all the facts. And we all want to know what the facts are. He'll be glad to talk about it once the investigation is complete, and we hope that the investigators get to the bottom of it soon. And that's the -- I think that's the response to that.
Q Has the special prosecutor made any request to this White House that prevents the President from speaking to his top aides about any topic?
MR. McCLELLAN: You can ask the prosecutors those questions, if they want to comment more on it.
Go ahead, Richard.
Q Has anyone here in the White House been assigned with coordinating with the Republican National Committee and other Republican members of Congress speaking out about this issue, the Karl Rove issue?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think I've addressed these issues. Some of this came up last week and again today.
Go ahead.
***
Q Scott, I just wonder -- Scott, on a personal, human note, how are you holding out? Are you enjoying this? (Laughter.) Seriously. And are you consulting with any of your predecessors who have also gone through crises, Mike McCurry --
MR. McCLELLAN: There are so few things I enjoy more. (Laughter.) Connie, this is nothing personal. Everybody is doing their job here, and I respect the job that you all are doing in this room. And I look forward to having a continuing constructive relationship with everybody in this room.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E&P Press (letters@editorandpublisher.com)
Transcript: McClellan Defends President On Failure to Fire Rove
By E&P Press
NEW YORK -- It was another difficult press briefing for White House spokesman Scott McClellan today as reporters pounced on what appeared to be a changing presidential standard on what would prompt dismissal of Karl Rove or any other deputy: mere involvement in the Plame scandal or the committing of a crime? And if the latter, would an indictment be enough or would it take a conviction?
And why doesn't President Bush just walk down the hall and ask Rove for a full accounting?
Here's today's transcript of the relevant banter:
Q Scott, the President seemed to raise the bar and add a qualifier today when discussing whether or not anybody would be dismissed for -- in the leak of a CIA officer's name, in which he said that he would -- if someone is found to have committed a crime, they would no longer work in this administration. That's never been part of the standard before, why is that added now?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I disagree, Terry. I think that the President was stating what is obvious when it comes to people who work in the administration: that if someone commits a crime, they're not going to be working any longer in this administration. Now the President talked about how it's important for us to learn all the facts. We don't know all the facts, and it's important that we not prejudge the outcome of the investigation. We need to let the investigation continue. And the investigators are the ones who are in the best position to gather all the facts and draw the conclusions. And at that point, we will be more than happy to talk about it, as I indicated last week.
The President directed the White House to cooperate fully, and that's what we've been doing. We want to know what the facts are, we want to see this come to a successful conclusion. And that's the way we've been working for quite some time now. Ever since the beginning of this investigation, we have been following the President's direction to cooperate fully with it, so that we can get to the -- so that the investigators can get to the bottom of it.
Q But you have said, though, that anyone involved in this would no longer be in this administration, you didn't say anybody who committed a crime. You had said, in September 2003, anyone involved in this would no longer be in the administration.
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, we've been through these issues over the course of the last week. And I know --
Q But we haven't talked about a crime.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- well what was said previously. You heard from the President today. And I think that you should not read anything into it more than what the President said at this point. And I think that's something you may be trying to do here.
Q Is leaking, in your judgment of his interpretation, a crime?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'll leave it at what the President said.
Q What is his problem? Two years, and he can't call Rove in and find out what the hell is going on? I mean, why is it so difficult to find out the facts? It costs thousands, millions of dollars, two years, it tied up how many lawyers? All he's got to do is call him in.
MR. McCLELLAN: You just heard from the President. He said he doesn't know all the facts. I don't know all the facts.
Q Why?
MR. McCLELLAN: We want to know what the facts are. Because --
Q Why doesn't he ask him?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'll tell you why, because there's an investigation that is continuing at this point, and the appropriate people to handle these issues are the ones who are overseeing that investigation. There is a special prosecutor that has been appointed. And it's important that we let all the facts come out. And then at that point, we'll be glad to talk about it, but we shouldn't be getting into --
Q You talked about it to reporters.
MR. McCLELLAN: We shouldn't be getting into prejudging the outcome.
Q Scott, we don't know all the facts, but we know some of the facts. For example, Matt Cooper says he did speak to Karl Rove and Lewis Libby about these issues. So given the fact that you have previously stood at that podium and said these men did not discuss Valerie Plame or a CIA agent's identity in any way, does the White House have a credibility problem?
MR. McCLELLAN: No. You just answered your own question. You said we don't know all the facts. And I would encourage everyone not to prejudge the outcome of the investigation.
Q But on the specifics -- on the specifics, you made statements that have proven to be untrue.
MR. McCLELLAN: Let me answer your question, because you asked a very specific question. The President has great faith in the American people and their judgment. The President is the one who directed the White House to cooperate fully in this investigation with those who are overseeing the investigation. And that's exactly what we have been doing. The President believes it's important to let the investigators do their work, and at that point, once they have come to a conclusion, then we will be more than happy to talk about it.
The President wants to see them get to the bottom of it as soon as possible. I share that view, as well. We want to know what the facts are, and the investigators are the ones who are drawing those -- are pulling together those facts, and then drawing conclusions.
Go ahead, Bob.
Q Given the new formulation "if somebody committed a crime," would that be a crime as determined by an indictment, or a crime as determined by a conviction?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, Bob, I'm not going to add to what the President said. You heard his remarks, and I think I've been through these issues over the course of the last week. I don't know that there's really much more to add at this point.
Q But the importance is the question of would -- if it is the latter, the strategy would be to run out the clock?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I indicated to you earlier that everyone here serves at the pleasure of the President. And the White House has been working to cooperate fully with the investigators. That was the direction that the President set. That's what we've been doing. We hope they come to a conclusion soon.
Q Scott, going back to the President's statements from earlier -- if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration -- it makes me go back to the question I asked you last Wednesday, is there regret from this administration of what it has done to the Wilson family, with the CIA leak? And I talked to Mr. Wilson prior to going into the East Room, and he basically said, the American people deserve an apology, and that his family was basically collateral damage in a bigger picture.
MR. McCLELLAN: All these questions are getting into prejudging the outcome of the investigation, and we're not going to do that.
Q But if someone -- if the President acknowledged that there was a problem, and it could be a criminal problem, if he acknowledged that, isn't there some sort of regret?
MR. McCLELLAN: It's a criminal investigation. We don't know all the facts to it.
Go ahead.
Q Well, is there any regret from this White House that it has caused an American family who worked for this government --
MR. McCLELLAN: I heard what you had to say and I've already answered it.
Q No, you didn't.
MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead.
Q Scott, the President talked about if a crime were committed. But a year ago and beyond, he also talked about -- he denounced leaks out of this executive branch, other parts of Washington. He said, things are wrong. If it's only a leak, will he take some appropriate action?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think you should look back at what the President said again. I would not read anything into it more than what he said. The President has said for a long time that this is a very serious matter, and that's why he directed the White House to cooperate fully, so that the investigators can get to the bottom of it.
***
Q Scott, I just want to sort of go back over this. Insofar as you're telling us that we shouldn't read anything new into the President's comments today, should we then take that to mean that if there is criminal activity, that person would be fired, but this does not render inoperative those things that the President has said "yes" or responded in the affirmative to in the past when asked, for instance, if you would fire somebody if they were involved in a leak?
MR. McCLELLAN: I wouldn't read anything into it. You said, "new." I wouldn't read anything into it beyond what he said.
Q So the previous statements remain operative?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, look, once the investigation is concluded, then we can talk about it at that point. But those are decisions for the President to make.
***
Q Scott, back in October 2003, you did assure us that you'd spoken with Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Elliott Abrams, and they'd all assured you that they weren't involved in any of this. So with regard to Libby and Abrams, do you still stand by that?
MR. McCLELLAN: Last week I think I assured you that I want to do everything I can to help the investigators get to the bottom of this. I will be glad to talk about it once the investigation is complete. I've been stating that position for a long time now, and that's where it stands.
Q So with regard to that, how concerned is the President and you that, notwithstanding that you don't want to talk about it, that Ken Mehlman and other senior Republicans are all over the airwaves doing just that?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you can direct those questions to the Republican National Committee.
Ken, go ahead.
Q Scott, without asking about the content of the conversation, has the President asked Karl Rove to detail any involvement he might have had in any leaks?
MR. McCLELLAN: The President directed the White House to cooperate fully. This is a serious matter. As the President indicated, he doesn't know all the facts. And we all want to know what the facts are. He'll be glad to talk about it once the investigation is complete, and we hope that the investigators get to the bottom of it soon. And that's the -- I think that's the response to that.
Q Has the special prosecutor made any request to this White House that prevents the President from speaking to his top aides about any topic?
MR. McCLELLAN: You can ask the prosecutors those questions, if they want to comment more on it.
Go ahead, Richard.
Q Has anyone here in the White House been assigned with coordinating with the Republican National Committee and other Republican members of Congress speaking out about this issue, the Karl Rove issue?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think I've addressed these issues. Some of this came up last week and again today.
Go ahead.
***
Q Scott, I just wonder -- Scott, on a personal, human note, how are you holding out? Are you enjoying this? (Laughter.) Seriously. And are you consulting with any of your predecessors who have also gone through crises, Mike McCurry --
MR. McCLELLAN: There are so few things I enjoy more. (Laughter.) Connie, this is nothing personal. Everybody is doing their job here, and I respect the job that you all are doing in this room. And I look forward to having a continuing constructive relationship with everybody in this room.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E&P Press (letters@editorandpublisher.com)
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/850
Why Did the White House Attack Joe Wilson
Washington Monthly
Kevin Drum
July 18, 2005
NUKES AND THE BASE....Step back from Plamegate for a moment and ask yourself a broader question: why did the White House react so violently to Joe Wilson's suggestion that the story about Saddam Hussein trying to procure uranium from Niger was false? After all, as conservative apologists never tire of pointing out, Wilson didn't really debunk George Bush's words in the 2003 State of the Union address. Bush said only that Saddam "sought" uranium from Africa, while Wilson merely provided evidence that no uranium ever changed hands. The fact is, Wilson's report didn't invalidate Bush's statement.
So why did the White House go nuts? What were they so scared of that they went into full-blown smear-and-destroy mode?
One of the advantages of living in Orange County is that I have plenty of centrist and conservative acquaintances, and one thing I've learned from them is that even among Bush's own supporters it was the possibility of Saddam getting hold of nukes that really scared them. Chemical and biological weapons were a bit of a yawn. Without nukes, even Bush sympathizers were skeptical about the whole Iraq adventure.
Since Karl Rove has much more sophisticated means of gauging public opinion than my occasional lunches with friends, he obviously knew this full well. And that means that he was hellbent on making a case in the SOTU that Saddam had an active nuke program. The problem is that even after sifting through every available rumor, analysis, and unconfirmed report, they were only able to come up with two meager pieces of evidence:
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.
That's it. Uranium from Africa and aluminum tubes. It was pretty thin stuff.
But it turned out to be even thinner. Although conservatives insist with bilious disdain that the CIA was staffed by do-nothing bureaucrats afraid to follow the Iraqi WMD evidence where it led, the exact opposite was true. Although it's unclear how much of this was due to CIA culture and how much to White House pressure, the reality is that the CIA was far more bullish about Saddam's WMD programs than it should have been. They continued to report the uranium connection long after State Department analysts had made it clear that it was based on forged documents, and they continued to insist that the aluminum tubes were designed for centrifuges long after Department of Energy experts had conclusively debunked it.
Without those two things, there was no evidence left that Iraq was reconsituting its nuclear program aside from the procurement of a bit of dual use equipment and some hazy reporting of personnel movements. As the SSCI report concluded last year, "the judgment...that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, was not supported by the intelligence."
In other words, the White House political operation wasn't lashing out just because of Joe Wilson. They were lashing out because they believed their political lives depended on their own supporters continuing to believe that Saddam had been actively working on a nuke program. Without that belief, they'd lose support within their own base even if they eventually found evidence of chem and bio programs.
In Karl Rove's world, the base is sacred, and nukes were the key to their support. Joe Wilson threatened to open a crack in that support, and that's why he had to be destroyed.
Why Did the White House Attack Joe Wilson
Washington Monthly
Kevin Drum
July 18, 2005
NUKES AND THE BASE....Step back from Plamegate for a moment and ask yourself a broader question: why did the White House react so violently to Joe Wilson's suggestion that the story about Saddam Hussein trying to procure uranium from Niger was false? After all, as conservative apologists never tire of pointing out, Wilson didn't really debunk George Bush's words in the 2003 State of the Union address. Bush said only that Saddam "sought" uranium from Africa, while Wilson merely provided evidence that no uranium ever changed hands. The fact is, Wilson's report didn't invalidate Bush's statement.
So why did the White House go nuts? What were they so scared of that they went into full-blown smear-and-destroy mode?
One of the advantages of living in Orange County is that I have plenty of centrist and conservative acquaintances, and one thing I've learned from them is that even among Bush's own supporters it was the possibility of Saddam getting hold of nukes that really scared them. Chemical and biological weapons were a bit of a yawn. Without nukes, even Bush sympathizers were skeptical about the whole Iraq adventure.
Since Karl Rove has much more sophisticated means of gauging public opinion than my occasional lunches with friends, he obviously knew this full well. And that means that he was hellbent on making a case in the SOTU that Saddam had an active nuke program. The problem is that even after sifting through every available rumor, analysis, and unconfirmed report, they were only able to come up with two meager pieces of evidence:
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.
That's it. Uranium from Africa and aluminum tubes. It was pretty thin stuff.
But it turned out to be even thinner. Although conservatives insist with bilious disdain that the CIA was staffed by do-nothing bureaucrats afraid to follow the Iraqi WMD evidence where it led, the exact opposite was true. Although it's unclear how much of this was due to CIA culture and how much to White House pressure, the reality is that the CIA was far more bullish about Saddam's WMD programs than it should have been. They continued to report the uranium connection long after State Department analysts had made it clear that it was based on forged documents, and they continued to insist that the aluminum tubes were designed for centrifuges long after Department of Energy experts had conclusively debunked it.
Without those two things, there was no evidence left that Iraq was reconsituting its nuclear program aside from the procurement of a bit of dual use equipment and some hazy reporting of personnel movements. As the SSCI report concluded last year, "the judgment...that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, was not supported by the intelligence."
In other words, the White House political operation wasn't lashing out just because of Joe Wilson. They were lashing out because they believed their political lives depended on their own supporters continuing to believe that Saddam had been actively working on a nuke program. Without that belief, they'd lose support within their own base even if they eventually found evidence of chem and bio programs.
In Karl Rove's world, the base is sacred, and nukes were the key to their support. Joe Wilson threatened to open a crack in that support, and that's why he had to be destroyed.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/...7_17.php#006134
QUOTE
July 19, 2005 -- 08:08 AM
Over the last few days I've done several posts on how that classified State Department memo in the Plame case made its way through the State Department and then to then-Secy. Powell on the president's trip to Africa. Last night I got an email from a longtime reader who is a retired US ambassador, a career foreign service officer and Asia specialist ...
Josh, in your posting on talking points, you asked about the briefing books for Presidential trips. For your background info:
The State Department is responsible for preparing the briefing books for the President. The NSC often boils the big briefing books (very thick, usually one or two volumes) down into more concise memos and talking points for the President.
The Secretary of State has additional briefing books that consist of memos for any meetings that are his/her own and separate from the President.
In addition, the Secretary's staff often puts together an informal collection of materials for the Secretary to read while on the plane.
As you noted, on July 6 Rich Armitage asked Carl Ford to send a copy of the June INR memo to Powell. I read that the original memo in June was from INR to Marc Grossman. The way State works, someone on the 7th floor could have made a copy of the June memo for Armitage, or Grossman could have brought it to Armitage's attention. That's how he learned about it, and when he read Joe's op-ed on that July Sunday, he immediately remembered about it and called Ford and said to send Powell a copy.
The question is, did that memo end up in the President's briefing book, the Secretary's briefing book, or the Secretary's pile of reading material?
It doesn't really matter. When you're on Air Force One, you are in a confined space. If someone -- anyone -- read that memo, they could have walked 10 feet and shared it with anyone else. All the bureaucratic boundaries of Washington break down when you're in one of those situations. You're all together. Bloomberg said that Ari Fleischer was seen reading it. Plus according to other accounts, he started telling reporters on board that they should ask about how it was that Wilson got to go on the trip. Plus we know that Ari made phone calls from the plane -- they could have been to Rove, Libby, Novak, or whoever, to alert them to what he had just read. When Rove says "I never read anything/saw any memo," he could very well be right. But someone should have asked him, "did you hear about the memo? Did someone describe its contents to you?"
There is another way that Rove could have heard about Valerie Plame, and that is via Scooter Libby. I haven't seen anyone suggest this route, but we all know that Scooter and Cheney were deep into the intelligence. They went out to the Agency to meet with the analysts (and allegedly harrassed them). I am sure that Scooter participated in meetings in the White House/EOB where CIA analysts on WMD and Iraq were present. As we know, Valerie was one such analyst. Is it not possible that Scooter had met her on one or more occasions before Joe Wilson started going public? Since she's a looker, he certainly would have remembered her face and name. And then, once Joe writes his op-ed, Scooter realizes the connection between Valerie and Joe, or he asks around and quickly finds out. He then informs Rove. This is all speculation on my part. Joe would know whether Valerie had met Scooter before.
The third possibility is Bolton or his staff. (Remember that his chief of staff was from the CIA.) Again, Bolton was deeply into the intelligence on Iraq and WMD. When INR sent the memo to Grossman in June, Bolton's office no doubt got a copy of it, given the way the Department works. Given the neo-con circle in the Administration, it would not have taken long for Bolton to tip off Libby to the Wilson-Plame-CIA connection.
(ed.note: Later he added the following.)
As I reread my email, my guess is that the INR memo to Powell would have been put in his reading folder and not in the president's briefing book -- that's because the briefing books are usually printed up one week in advance, so if the memo was sent on July 6 or whatever, and they were flying to africa the next day or so, it would have been too late to put it in the official briefing book.
-- Josh Marshall
Over the last few days I've done several posts on how that classified State Department memo in the Plame case made its way through the State Department and then to then-Secy. Powell on the president's trip to Africa. Last night I got an email from a longtime reader who is a retired US ambassador, a career foreign service officer and Asia specialist ...
Josh, in your posting on talking points, you asked about the briefing books for Presidential trips. For your background info:
The State Department is responsible for preparing the briefing books for the President. The NSC often boils the big briefing books (very thick, usually one or two volumes) down into more concise memos and talking points for the President.
The Secretary of State has additional briefing books that consist of memos for any meetings that are his/her own and separate from the President.
In addition, the Secretary's staff often puts together an informal collection of materials for the Secretary to read while on the plane.
As you noted, on July 6 Rich Armitage asked Carl Ford to send a copy of the June INR memo to Powell. I read that the original memo in June was from INR to Marc Grossman. The way State works, someone on the 7th floor could have made a copy of the June memo for Armitage, or Grossman could have brought it to Armitage's attention. That's how he learned about it, and when he read Joe's op-ed on that July Sunday, he immediately remembered about it and called Ford and said to send Powell a copy.
The question is, did that memo end up in the President's briefing book, the Secretary's briefing book, or the Secretary's pile of reading material?
It doesn't really matter. When you're on Air Force One, you are in a confined space. If someone -- anyone -- read that memo, they could have walked 10 feet and shared it with anyone else. All the bureaucratic boundaries of Washington break down when you're in one of those situations. You're all together. Bloomberg said that Ari Fleischer was seen reading it. Plus according to other accounts, he started telling reporters on board that they should ask about how it was that Wilson got to go on the trip. Plus we know that Ari made phone calls from the plane -- they could have been to Rove, Libby, Novak, or whoever, to alert them to what he had just read. When Rove says "I never read anything/saw any memo," he could very well be right. But someone should have asked him, "did you hear about the memo? Did someone describe its contents to you?"
There is another way that Rove could have heard about Valerie Plame, and that is via Scooter Libby. I haven't seen anyone suggest this route, but we all know that Scooter and Cheney were deep into the intelligence. They went out to the Agency to meet with the analysts (and allegedly harrassed them). I am sure that Scooter participated in meetings in the White House/EOB where CIA analysts on WMD and Iraq were present. As we know, Valerie was one such analyst. Is it not possible that Scooter had met her on one or more occasions before Joe Wilson started going public? Since she's a looker, he certainly would have remembered her face and name. And then, once Joe writes his op-ed, Scooter realizes the connection between Valerie and Joe, or he asks around and quickly finds out. He then informs Rove. This is all speculation on my part. Joe would know whether Valerie had met Scooter before.
The third possibility is Bolton or his staff. (Remember that his chief of staff was from the CIA.) Again, Bolton was deeply into the intelligence on Iraq and WMD. When INR sent the memo to Grossman in June, Bolton's office no doubt got a copy of it, given the way the Department works. Given the neo-con circle in the Administration, it would not have taken long for Bolton to tip off Libby to the Wilson-Plame-CIA connection.
(ed.note: Later he added the following.)
As I reread my email, my guess is that the INR memo to Powell would have been put in his reading folder and not in the president's briefing book -- that's because the briefing books are usually printed up one week in advance, so if the memo was sent on July 6 or whatever, and they were flying to africa the next day or so, it would have been too late to put it in the official briefing book.
-- Josh Marshall
Senator Kerry is calling for full congressional hearings about the WH staff's involvement in the leak. 
QUOTE
Dear rox63,
How many more times will Karl Rove make President Bush eat his words and shred his credibility before Karl Rove does the honorable thing and leaves the White House?
Yesterday the President furiously backpedaled from his promise to fire anyone involved in leaking the identity of a covert CIA agent to the press. Now that it's known that Rove and Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis Libby were involved, the President has lowered the bar and now says he'll only fire someone who is convicted of a crime.
President Bush is setting a terrible standard of leadership in the White House by protecting insubordinate aides who refused to come forward when the President demanded to know who in his administration leaked Valerie Plame's identity -- and he's sending a disturbing message about our national security.
The President should not wait to find out whether Rove is convicted in the end for his leak. Either Rove lied to the President about this matter of national security, which means he should be fired immediately, or the President is not being straight with the American people about his own involvement in this case.
With all the dissembling coming out of the White House, it's clear that the only way the American people can get to the bottom of this is through full Congressional hearings. I will call for hearings this week -- and you can strengthen this call by adding your name to our petition today:
http://www.johnkerry.com/firerove
With both the House and Senate in Republican hands it will be difficult to force Congressional hearings on the Bush White House. Having as many statements as possible from people in every state will help my colleagues and me show that this is what America wants. According to a poll released yesterday by ABC News, 75% of Americans believe that Karl Rove should be fired if he leaked classified information.
More than 300,000 people have signed on so far -- help us double our numbers by forwarding this email to your friends asking them to sign:
http://www.johnkerry.com/firerove
Thank you,
John Kerry
How many more times will Karl Rove make President Bush eat his words and shred his credibility before Karl Rove does the honorable thing and leaves the White House?
Yesterday the President furiously backpedaled from his promise to fire anyone involved in leaking the identity of a covert CIA agent to the press. Now that it's known that Rove and Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis Libby were involved, the President has lowered the bar and now says he'll only fire someone who is convicted of a crime.
President Bush is setting a terrible standard of leadership in the White House by protecting insubordinate aides who refused to come forward when the President demanded to know who in his administration leaked Valerie Plame's identity -- and he's sending a disturbing message about our national security.
The President should not wait to find out whether Rove is convicted in the end for his leak. Either Rove lied to the President about this matter of national security, which means he should be fired immediately, or the President is not being straight with the American people about his own involvement in this case.
With all the dissembling coming out of the White House, it's clear that the only way the American people can get to the bottom of this is through full Congressional hearings. I will call for hearings this week -- and you can strengthen this call by adding your name to our petition today:
http://www.johnkerry.com/firerove
With both the House and Senate in Republican hands it will be difficult to force Congressional hearings on the Bush White House. Having as many statements as possible from people in every state will help my colleagues and me show that this is what America wants. According to a poll released yesterday by ABC News, 75% of Americans believe that Karl Rove should be fired if he leaked classified information.
More than 300,000 people have signed on so far -- help us double our numbers by forwarding this email to your friends asking them to sign:
http://www.johnkerry.com/firerove
Thank you,
John Kerry
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Jul 18 2005, 11:07 AM)
Should have known my New York Times swould not let me down...
Frank Rich puts the blame squarely on Bush...now we just have to get the Democratic party to start pushing this POV...
July 17, 2005
Follow the Uranium
By FRANK RICH
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/opinion/...agewanted=print
WELL, of course, Karl Rove did it. He may not have violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, with its high threshold of criminality for outing a covert agent, but there's no doubt he trashed Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame. We know this not only because of Matt Cooper's e-mail, but also because of Mr. Rove's own history. Trashing is in his nature, and bad things happen, usually through under-the-radar whispers, to decent people (and their wives) who get in his way. In the 2000 South Carolina primary, John McCain's wife, Cindy, was rumored to be a drug addict (and Senator McCain was rumored to be mentally unstable). In the 1994 Texas governor's race, Ann Richards found herself rumored to be a lesbian. The implication that Mr. Wilson was a John Kerry-ish girlie man beholden to his wife for his meal ticket is of a thematic piece with previous mud splattered on Rove political adversaries. The difference is that this time Mr. Rove got caught.
Even so, we shouldn't get hung up on him - or on most of the other supposed leading figures in this scandal thus far. Not Matt Cooper or Judy Miller or the Wilsons or the bad guy everyone loves to hate, the former CNN star Robert Novak. This scandal is not about them in the end, any more than Watergate was about Dwight Chapin and Donald Segretti or Woodward and Bernstein. It is about the president of the United States. It is about a plot that was hatched at the top of the administration and in which everyone else, Mr. Rove included, are at most secondary players.
Frank Rich puts the blame squarely on Bush...now we just have to get the Democratic party to start pushing this POV...
July 17, 2005
Follow the Uranium
By FRANK RICH
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/opinion/...agewanted=print
WELL, of course, Karl Rove did it. He may not have violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, with its high threshold of criminality for outing a covert agent, but there's no doubt he trashed Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame. We know this not only because of Matt Cooper's e-mail, but also because of Mr. Rove's own history. Trashing is in his nature, and bad things happen, usually through under-the-radar whispers, to decent people (and their wives) who get in his way. In the 2000 South Carolina primary, John McCain's wife, Cindy, was rumored to be a drug addict (and Senator McCain was rumored to be mentally unstable). In the 1994 Texas governor's race, Ann Richards found herself rumored to be a lesbian. The implication that Mr. Wilson was a John Kerry-ish girlie man beholden to his wife for his meal ticket is of a thematic piece with previous mud splattered on Rove political adversaries. The difference is that this time Mr. Rove got caught.
Even so, we shouldn't get hung up on him - or on most of the other supposed leading figures in this scandal thus far. Not Matt Cooper or Judy Miller or the Wilsons or the bad guy everyone loves to hate, the former CNN star Robert Novak. This scandal is not about them in the end, any more than Watergate was about Dwight Chapin and Donald Segretti or Woodward and Bernstein. It is about the president of the United States. It is about a plot that was hatched at the top of the administration and in which everyone else, Mr. Rove included, are at most secondary players.
QUOTE(rox63 @ Jul 18 2005, 11:13 AM)
I think that whole premise of a reporter telling Rove is a lie. Someone from the administration had to initially leak to a reporter. Rove and Libby violated their non-disclosure agreements by confirming Plame's identity to a reporter. I see plenty of indictments to go around. 
I agree. What happened is Libby probably told a reporter and then the Reporter called Rove who had told the reporter to talk to Libby and call him back...
We'll see if Fitzagerald really goes after Rove though...I doubt it which is why going after Bush is so important as Carl Bernstein said last night on the Daily Show...
It all goes back to the president...
FIRE ROVE NOW John Kerry
John Kerry will call hearings this week - and you can strengthen this call by adding your name to our petition today!
Help support our grassroots activities. Make a contribution to Friends of John Kerry.
John Kerry will call hearings this week - and you can strengthen this call by adding your name to our petition today!
QUOTE("Changing Stories")
Dear Friends,
How many more times will Karl Rove make President Bush eat his words and shred his credibility before Karl Rove does the honorable thing and leaves the White House?
Yesterday the President furiously backpedaled from his promise to fire anyone involved in leaking the identity of a covert CIA agent to the press. Now that it's known that Rove and Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis Libby were involved, the President has lowered the bar and now says he'll only fire someone who is convicted of a crime.
President Bush is setting a terrible standard of leadership in the White House by protecting insubordinate aides who refused to come forward when the President demanded to know who in his administration leaked Valerie Plame's identity -- and he's sending a disturbing message about our national security.
The President should not wait to find out whether Rove is convicted in the end for his leak. Either Rove lied to the President about this matter of national security, which means he should be fired immediately, or the President is not being straight with the American people about his own involvement in this case.
With all the dissembling coming out of the White House, it's clear that the only way the American people can get to the bottom of this is through full Congressional hearings. I will call for hearings this week -- and you can strengthen this call by adding your name to our petition today:
http://www.johnkerry.com/firerove
With both the House and Senate in Republican hands it will be difficult to force Congressional hearings on the Bush White House. Having as many statements as possible from people in every state will help my colleagues and me show that this is what America wants. According to a poll released yesterday by ABC News, 75% of Americans believe that Karl Rove should be fired if he leaked classified information.
More than 300,000 people have signed on so far -- help us double our numbers by forwarding this email to your friends asking them to sign:
http://www.johnkerry.com/firerove
Thank you,
John Kerry
SIGN THE LETTERHow many more times will Karl Rove make President Bush eat his words and shred his credibility before Karl Rove does the honorable thing and leaves the White House?
Yesterday the President furiously backpedaled from his promise to fire anyone involved in leaking the identity of a covert CIA agent to the press. Now that it's known that Rove and Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis Libby were involved, the President has lowered the bar and now says he'll only fire someone who is convicted of a crime.
President Bush is setting a terrible standard of leadership in the White House by protecting insubordinate aides who refused to come forward when the President demanded to know who in his administration leaked Valerie Plame's identity -- and he's sending a disturbing message about our national security.
The President should not wait to find out whether Rove is convicted in the end for his leak. Either Rove lied to the President about this matter of national security, which means he should be fired immediately, or the President is not being straight with the American people about his own involvement in this case.
With all the dissembling coming out of the White House, it's clear that the only way the American people can get to the bottom of this is through full Congressional hearings. I will call for hearings this week -- and you can strengthen this call by adding your name to our petition today:
http://www.johnkerry.com/firerove
With both the House and Senate in Republican hands it will be difficult to force Congressional hearings on the Bush White House. Having as many statements as possible from people in every state will help my colleagues and me show that this is what America wants. According to a poll released yesterday by ABC News, 75% of Americans believe that Karl Rove should be fired if he leaked classified information.
More than 300,000 people have signed on so far -- help us double our numbers by forwarding this email to your friends asking them to sign:
http://www.johnkerry.com/firerove
Thank you,
John Kerry
Help support our grassroots activities. Make a contribution to Friends of John Kerry.
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Jul 18 2005, 09:07 AM)
July 17, 2005
Follow the Uranium
By FRANK RICH
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/opinion/...agewanted=print
...Apparently this is finally beginning to dawn on Mr. Bush's fiercest defenders and on Mr. Bush himself. Hence, last week's erection of the stonewall manned by the almost poignantly clownish Mr. McClellan, who abruptly rendered inoperative his previous statements that any suspicions about Mr. Rove are "totally ridiculous." The morning after Mr. McClellan went mano a mano with his tormentors in the White House press room - "We've secretly replaced the White House press corps with actual reporters," observed Jon Stewart - the ardently pro-Bush New York Post ran only five paragraphs of a wire-service story on Page 12. That conspicuous burial of what was front-page news beyond Murdochland speaks loudly about the rising anxiety on the right. Since then, White House surrogates have been desperately babbling talking points attacking Joseph Wilson as a partisan and a liar...
Follow the Uranium
By FRANK RICH
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/opinion/...agewanted=print
...Apparently this is finally beginning to dawn on Mr. Bush's fiercest defenders and on Mr. Bush himself. Hence, last week's erection of the stonewall manned by the almost poignantly clownish Mr. McClellan, who abruptly rendered inoperative his previous statements that any suspicions about Mr. Rove are "totally ridiculous." The morning after Mr. McClellan went mano a mano with his tormentors in the White House press room - "We've secretly replaced the White House press corps with actual reporters," observed Jon Stewart - the ardently pro-Bush New York Post ran only five paragraphs of a wire-service story on Page 12. That conspicuous burial of what was front-page news beyond Murdochland speaks loudly about the rising anxiety on the right. Since then, White House surrogates have been desperately babbling talking points attacking Joseph Wilson as a partisan and a liar...
It was pathetic listening to Brit Hume last night. He acknowledged that a lot of damage has been done. Try as his spinmeisters could, there was no avoiding such an obvious conclusion. Hume even cited the ABC poll that only 25% of the population thinks the WH is telling the truth- he even sighed in a real lamentation as he read it! When Faux admits the President is in trouble- he's really in trouble.
And this is going to go on all summer!
Look out Jackson Distraction, Rove Rage is now the entertainment de jour! 
QUOTE(winston smith @ Jul 19 2005, 02:21 PM)
It was pathetic listening to Brit Hume last night. He acknowledged that a lot of damage has been done. Try as his spinmeisters could, there was no avoiding such an obvious conclusion. Hume even cited the ABC poll that only 25% of the population thinks the WH is telling the truth- he even sighed in a real lamentation as he read it! When Faux admits the President is in trouble- he's really in trouble.
And this is going to go on all summer! Look out Jackson Distraction, Rove Rage is now the entertainment de jour!
And this is going to go on all summer!
Look out Jackson Distraction, Rove Rage is now the entertainment de jour! Absolutely.
Why do you think Bush is nominating --- if everyone is right -- Clement from the 5th circuit to the post.
She is a good nomination. She would not be my first choice, but Bush can not afford a divisive nomination now. He is going through one of the worst years in presidential history.
He hopes to jump start his agenda with a nominee that will bring people together and I think the Democrats should let her go in a signal that if he nominates reasonable judges to the US Supreme Court -- this is the response he will get. IMHO
Today's poll on my ISP
Should President Bush fire deputy chief of staff Karl Rove?
68 % Yes
32 % No
Should President Bush fire deputy chief of staff Karl Rove?
68 % Yes
32 % No
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Jul 19 2005, 04:39 PM)
Why do you think Bush is nominating --- if everyone is right -- Clement from the 5th circuit to the post.
I heard just a short while ago on the evening news that Clement has been told she is NOT the nominee.
I personally think he will pick a right-wing extremist. I think he's hoping that it will take his opponents' minds off the leak scandal/investigation, because they'll be too busy mobilizing opposition to his SC nominee. It may be that he doesn't even expect that person to win approval in the Senate. He just wants to change the subject as quickly as possible.
Hmm, even the Wall Street Journal is says the memo stated that Plame's identity was not supposed to be shared.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB....html?mod=blogs
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB....html?mod=blogs
QUOTE
Memo Underscored Issue of Shielding Plame's Identity
By ANNE MARIE SQUEO and JOHN D. MCKINNON
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
July 19, 2005; Page A3
A classified State Department memo that may be pivotal to the CIA leak case made clear that information identifying an agent and her role in her husband's intelligence-gathering mission was sensitive and shouldn't be shared, according to a person familiar with the document.
A special prosecutor is investigating whether Bush administration officials broke the law by intentionally outing a covert intelligence operative. Investigators are trying to determine if the memo, dated June 10, 2003, was how White House officials learned that Valerie Wilson was an agent for the Central Intelligence Agency.
News that the memo was marked for its sensitivity emerged as President Bush yesterday appeared to backtrack from his 2004 pledge to fire any member of his staff involved in the leaking of the CIA agent's name. In a news conference yesterday that followed disclosures that his top strategist, Karl Rove, had discussed Ms. Wilson's CIA employment with two reporters, Mr. Bush adopted a different formulation, specifying criminality as the standard for firing.
"If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration," Mr. Bush said. White House spokesman Scott McClellan later disputed the suggestion that the president had shifted his position.
The memo's details are significant because they will make it harder for officials who saw the document to claim that they didn't realize the identity of the CIA officer was a sensitive matter. Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, may also be looking at whether other crimes -- such as perjury, obstruction of justice or leaking classified information -- were committed.
On July 6, 2003, former diplomat Joseph Wilson wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times, disputing administration arguments that Iraq had sought to buy uranium ore from Africa to make nuclear weapons. The following day, President Bush and top cabinet officials left for Africa, and the memo was aboard Air Force One.
The paragraph in the memo discussing Ms. Wilson's involvement in her husband's trip is marked at the beginning with a letter designation in brackets to indicate the information shouldn't be shared, according to the person familiar with the memo. Such a designation would indicate to a reader that the information was sensitive. The memo, though, doesn't specifically describe Ms. Wilson as an undercover agent, the person familiar with the memo said.
Generally, the federal government has three levels of classified information -- top secret, secret and confidential -- all indicating various levels of "damage" to national security if disclosed. There also is an unclassified designation -- indicating information that wouldn't harm national security if shared with the public -- but that wasn't the case for the material on the Wilsons prepared by the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. It isn't known what level of classification was assigned to the information in the memo.
Who received the memo, which was prepared for Marc Grossman, then the under secretary of state for political affairs, and how widely it was circulated are issues as Mr. Fitzgerald tries to pinpoint the origin of the leak of Ms. Wilson's identity. According to the person familiar with the document, it didn't include a distribution list. It isn't known if President Bush has seen the memo.
Mr. Fitzgerald has subpoenaed the phone logs from Air Force One for the week of the Africa tour, which precedes the revelation of Ms. Wilson's CIA identity in a column by Robert Novak on July 14. In that piece, Mr. Novak identified Valerie Plame, using Ms. Wilson's maiden name, saying that "two senior administration officials" had told him that Ms. Wilson suggested sending her husband to Niger.
Mr. Novak attempted to reach Ari Fleischer, then the White House press secretary, in the days before his column appeared. However, Mr. Fleischer didn't respond to Mr. Novak's inquiries, according to a person familiar with his account. Mr. Fleischer, who has since left the administration, is one of several officials who testified before the grand jury.
In an October 2003 article on the memo, The Wall Street Journal reported that it details a meeting in early 2002 in which CIA officials discussed how to verify reports that Iraq had sought uranium ore from Niger. Ms. Wilson, an agent working on issues related to weapons of mass destruction, recommended her husband, an expert on Africa, to travel to Niger to investigate the matter.
White House officials had been warning reporters off the notion that the trip to Niger was ordered by Vice President Dick Cheney, as Mr. Wilson had suggested. Emails and a first-person account published this week of his grand-jury testimony by Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper support this notion. The grand jury is set to expire in October in this case, though its tenure could be extended for six months.
It is possible that reporters learned Ms. Wilson's identity from government officials who hadn't seen the memo. Mr. Cooper has testified and written that he was first told of Mr. Wilson's wife by Mr. Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff. Mr. Rove didn't identify Ms. Wilson by name. Similarly, one of Mr. Cooper's other sources, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the vice president's chief of staff, said he had heard Mr. Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, but he didn't identify her any further, according to Mr. Cooper.
The fact that two top White House officials discussed a CIA agent with reporters has prompted a furor in Washington, with Democrats calling for the firing of Mr. Rove.
A new ABC News poll signaled how the matter has damaged the administration's credibility -- and the political peril Mr. Rove still faces. Just 25% of Americans say the White House is fully cooperating with the federal investigation into the leak of Ms. Wilson's identity, down from about half when the investigation began nearly two years ago. Moreover, 75% said Mr. Rove should lose his job if he leaked classified information. The poll of 1,008 adults, conducted July 13-17, has a margin of error of three percentage points.
By ANNE MARIE SQUEO and JOHN D. MCKINNON
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
July 19, 2005; Page A3
A classified State Department memo that may be pivotal to the CIA leak case made clear that information identifying an agent and her role in her husband's intelligence-gathering mission was sensitive and shouldn't be shared, according to a person familiar with the document.
A special prosecutor is investigating whether Bush administration officials broke the law by intentionally outing a covert intelligence operative. Investigators are trying to determine if the memo, dated June 10, 2003, was how White House officials learned that Valerie Wilson was an agent for the Central Intelligence Agency.
News that the memo was marked for its sensitivity emerged as President Bush yesterday appeared to backtrack from his 2004 pledge to fire any member of his staff involved in the leaking of the CIA agent's name. In a news conference yesterday that followed disclosures that his top strategist, Karl Rove, had discussed Ms. Wilson's CIA employment with two reporters, Mr. Bush adopted a different formulation, specifying criminality as the standard for firing.
"If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration," Mr. Bush said. White House spokesman Scott McClellan later disputed the suggestion that the president had shifted his position.
The memo's details are significant because they will make it harder for officials who saw the document to claim that they didn't realize the identity of the CIA officer was a sensitive matter. Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, may also be looking at whether other crimes -- such as perjury, obstruction of justice or leaking classified information -- were committed.
On July 6, 2003, former diplomat Joseph Wilson wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times, disputing administration arguments that Iraq had sought to buy uranium ore from Africa to make nuclear weapons. The following day, President Bush and top cabinet officials left for Africa, and the memo was aboard Air Force One.
The paragraph in the memo discussing Ms. Wilson's involvement in her husband's trip is marked at the beginning with a letter designation in brackets to indicate the information shouldn't be shared, according to the person familiar with the memo. Such a designation would indicate to a reader that the information was sensitive. The memo, though, doesn't specifically describe Ms. Wilson as an undercover agent, the person familiar with the memo said.
Generally, the federal government has three levels of classified information -- top secret, secret and confidential -- all indicating various levels of "damage" to national security if disclosed. There also is an unclassified designation -- indicating information that wouldn't harm national security if shared with the public -- but that wasn't the case for the material on the Wilsons prepared by the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. It isn't known what level of classification was assigned to the information in the memo.
Who received the memo, which was prepared for Marc Grossman, then the under secretary of state for political affairs, and how widely it was circulated are issues as Mr. Fitzgerald tries to pinpoint the origin of the leak of Ms. Wilson's identity. According to the person familiar with the document, it didn't include a distribution list. It isn't known if President Bush has seen the memo.
Mr. Fitzgerald has subpoenaed the phone logs from Air Force One for the week of the Africa tour, which precedes the revelation of Ms. Wilson's CIA identity in a column by Robert Novak on July 14. In that piece, Mr. Novak identified Valerie Plame, using Ms. Wilson's maiden name, saying that "two senior administration officials" had told him that Ms. Wilson suggested sending her husband to Niger.
Mr. Novak attempted to reach Ari Fleischer, then the White House press secretary, in the days before his column appeared. However, Mr. Fleischer didn't respond to Mr. Novak's inquiries, according to a person familiar with his account. Mr. Fleischer, who has since left the administration, is one of several officials who testified before the grand jury.
In an October 2003 article on the memo, The Wall Street Journal reported that it details a meeting in early 2002 in which CIA officials discussed how to verify reports that Iraq had sought uranium ore from Niger. Ms. Wilson, an agent working on issues related to weapons of mass destruction, recommended her husband, an expert on Africa, to travel to Niger to investigate the matter.
White House officials had been warning reporters off the notion that the trip to Niger was ordered by Vice President Dick Cheney, as Mr. Wilson had suggested. Emails and a first-person account published this week of his grand-jury testimony by Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper support this notion. The grand jury is set to expire in October in this case, though its tenure could be extended for six months.
It is possible that reporters learned Ms. Wilson's identity from government officials who hadn't seen the memo. Mr. Cooper has testified and written that he was first told of Mr. Wilson's wife by Mr. Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff. Mr. Rove didn't identify Ms. Wilson by name. Similarly, one of Mr. Cooper's other sources, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the vice president's chief of staff, said he had heard Mr. Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, but he didn't identify her any further, according to Mr. Cooper.
The fact that two top White House officials discussed a CIA agent with reporters has prompted a furor in Washington, with Democrats calling for the firing of Mr. Rove.
A new ABC News poll signaled how the matter has damaged the administration's credibility -- and the political peril Mr. Rove still faces. Just 25% of Americans say the White House is fully cooperating with the federal investigation into the leak of Ms. Wilson's identity, down from about half when the investigation began nearly two years ago. Moreover, 75% said Mr. Rove should lose his job if he leaked classified information. The poll of 1,008 adults, conducted July 13-17, has a margin of error of three percentage points.
Looks like Cheney's also been leaking classified information to the press.
Check out this press release from CREW, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
http://citizensforethics.org/press/newsrelease.php?view=70
Check out this press release from CREW, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
http://citizensforethics.org/press/newsrelease.php?view=70
QUOTE
For Immediate Release
July 19, 2005
Contact: Naomi Seligman, 202-588-5565
ADMINISTRATION LEAKS, NO CONSEQUENCES—NOT NEW IN BUSH WHITE HOUSE
Cheney Confirmed Classified Info on Connection between Iraq and Al-Queda -- Every Government Employee Must Sign Nondisclosure Agreement Prohibiting the Confirmation of Information Already Leaked
Washington, DC, — Long before the Karl Rove scandal grew into today’s political maelstrom, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington sent a letter to President Bush on January 28, 2004 asking that he call upon the White House Counsel to investigate Vice President Cheney's confirmation of leaked classified information in an interview with the Rocky Mountain News on January 9, 2004. As of today, no such investigation has taken place.
Federal law prohibits leaking classified information. In addition, every government employee must also sign a nondisclosure form which prohibits confirming information that has already been leaked. A briefing booklet explaining the form warns that “further dissemination of the [classified] information or confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure.”
In a Jan. 9, 2004 interview, Mr. Cheney referred to a story that appeared in The Weekly Standard's November 24, 2003 issue that discussed a Defense Department memo which included a list of CIA, NSA and Defense Intelligence Agency raw reports regarding possible links between Al Queda and Iraq.
Mr. Cheney, responding to a question regarding the relationship between Iraq and Al Queda, called the Standard's story "the best information out there." Mr. Cheney’s comments conflicted with the Pentagon's November 15, 2003 press release stating that news reports that characterized the contents of the memo were "inaccurate" and excoriated the leak as "deplorable and maybe illegal." The Pentagon also stated that leaking such information does "serious harm to national security."
"Mr. Cheney's reference to classified information and Mr. Rove’s confirmation of Ms. Plame’s identity, accompanied by the ensuing silence from the White House, shows a distinct pattern: leaking classified information that the administration deems beneficial, without any consequences for those who disclose, is standard operating procedure," Melanie Sloan, Executive Director of CREW said today. “White House officials are simply not abiding by federal law.”
***
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is a non-profit, progressive legal watchdog group dedicated to holding public officials accountable for their actions. CREW drafted the complaint against Tom DeLay, filed by former Congressman Chris Bell, for which DeLay was admonished last year.
July 19, 2005
Contact: Naomi Seligman, 202-588-5565
ADMINISTRATION LEAKS, NO CONSEQUENCES—NOT NEW IN BUSH WHITE HOUSE
Cheney Confirmed Classified Info on Connection between Iraq and Al-Queda -- Every Government Employee Must Sign Nondisclosure Agreement Prohibiting the Confirmation of Information Already Leaked
Washington, DC, — Long before the Karl Rove scandal grew into today’s political maelstrom, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington sent a letter to President Bush on January 28, 2004 asking that he call upon the White House Counsel to investigate Vice President Cheney's confirmation of leaked classified information in an interview with the Rocky Mountain News on January 9, 2004. As of today, no such investigation has taken place.
Federal law prohibits leaking classified information. In addition, every government employee must also sign a nondisclosure form which prohibits confirming information that has already been leaked. A briefing booklet explaining the form warns that “further dissemination of the [classified] information or confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure.”
In a Jan. 9, 2004 interview, Mr. Cheney referred to a story that appeared in The Weekly Standard's November 24, 2003 issue that discussed a Defense Department memo which included a list of CIA, NSA and Defense Intelligence Agency raw reports regarding possible links between Al Queda and Iraq.
Mr. Cheney, responding to a question regarding the relationship between Iraq and Al Queda, called the Standard's story "the best information out there." Mr. Cheney’s comments conflicted with the Pentagon's November 15, 2003 press release stating that news reports that characterized the contents of the memo were "inaccurate" and excoriated the leak as "deplorable and maybe illegal." The Pentagon also stated that leaking such information does "serious harm to national security."
"Mr. Cheney's reference to classified information and Mr. Rove’s confirmation of Ms. Plame’s identity, accompanied by the ensuing silence from the White House, shows a distinct pattern: leaking classified information that the administration deems beneficial, without any consequences for those who disclose, is standard operating procedure," Melanie Sloan, Executive Director of CREW said today. “White House officials are simply not abiding by federal law.”
***
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is a non-profit, progressive legal watchdog group dedicated to holding public officials accountable for their actions. CREW drafted the complaint against Tom DeLay, filed by former Congressman Chris Bell, for which DeLay was admonished last year.
Gee, no wonder they are announcing the Supreme court nominee
tonight. We wouldn't want anyone to find out that Rove should
be fired.
tonight. We wouldn't want anyone to find out that Rove should
be fired.
This is where the culprits are:
"Mr. Fitzgerald has subpoenaed the phone logs from Air Force One for the week of the Africa tour, which precedes the revelation of Ms. Wilson's CIA identity in a column by Robert Novak on July 14."
They looked at the memo that Powell had that day and called back to the reporters in the states.
"Mr. Fitzgerald has subpoenaed the phone logs from Air Force One for the week of the Africa tour, which precedes the revelation of Ms. Wilson's CIA identity in a column by Robert Novak on July 14."
They looked at the memo that Powell had that day and called back to the reporters in the states.
QUOTE(heritage @ Jul 19 2005, 06:56 PM)
This is where the culprits are:
"Mr. Fitzgerald has subpoenaed the phone logs from Air Force One for the week of the Africa tour, which precedes the revelation of Ms. Wilson's CIA identity in a column by Robert Novak on July 14."
They looked at the memo that Powell had that day and called back to the reporters in the states.
"Mr. Fitzgerald has subpoenaed the phone logs from Air Force One for the week of the Africa tour, which precedes the revelation of Ms. Wilson's CIA identity in a column by Robert Novak on July 14."
They looked at the memo that Powell had that day and called back to the reporters in the states.
But they're not that stupid and they know that phone logs would show the truth.
QUOTE(heritage @ Jul 19 2005, 06:37 AM)
Thank you heritage for providing me with this link. I would not have gotten to watch and listen to this WH press conference had you not read my yesterday's post about Helen Thomas' questions and comments that I read on The Huffington Post.
How many Americans do you think got to watch this WH press conference yesterday? 1% of the population?
KT
I watch C-span most of the day but I don't like the WH press conferences -- they are usually press releases and propaganda. McClellan doesn't answer questions.
QUOTE(heritage @ Jul 19 2005, 03:56 PM)
This is where the culprits are:
"Mr. Fitzgerald has subpoenaed the phone logs from Air Force One for the week of the Africa tour, which precedes the revelation of Ms. Wilson's CIA identity in a column by Robert Novak on July 14."
They looked at the memo that Powell had that day and called back to the reporters in the states.
"Mr. Fitzgerald has subpoenaed the phone logs from Air Force One for the week of the Africa tour, which precedes the revelation of Ms. Wilson's CIA identity in a column by Robert Novak on July 14."
They looked at the memo that Powell had that day and called back to the reporters in the states.
By African tour does that mean Wilson's trip to Niger?
I find it coincidental that Mrs. Bush was in Africa when the Rove matter got hot last week. Maybe she is also a covert operative. After all, the president has said about her many times that SHE IS HIS SECRET WEAPON! hmmmmmmm...makes me wonder......
(Wonder just what he means by that?)
KT
QUOTE(heritage @ Jul 19 2005, 05:42 PM)
I watch C-span most of the day but I don't like the WH press conferences -- they are usually press releases and propaganda. McClellan doesn't answer questions.
McClellan is boring.
KT
I believe that Bush's Africa Tour was for Aids support. Powell went with him. It had nothing to do with WMD. Neither did Mrs. Bush's trip last week.
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?sectio...articleId=10016
QUOTE
An Unlikely Story
Karl Rove's alibi would be easier to believe if he hadn't hidden it from FBI investigators in 2003.
By Murray Waas
Web Exclusive: 07.19.05
White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove did not disclose that he had ever discussed CIA officer Valerie Plame with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper during Rove’s first interview with the FBI, according to legal sources with firsthand knowledge of the matter.
The omission by Rove created doubt for federal investigators, almost from the inception of their criminal probe into who leaked Plame's name to columnist Robert Novak, as to whether Rove was withholding crucial information from them, and perhaps even misleading or lying to them, the sources said.
Also leading to the early skepticism of Rove's accounts was the claim that although he first heard that Plame worked for the CIA from a journalist, he said could not recall the name of the journalist. Later, the sources said, Rove wavered even further, saying he was not sure at all where he first heard the information.
Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, has said that Rove never knew that Plame was a covert officer when he discussed her CIA employment with reporters, and that he only first learned of her clandestine status when he read about it in the newspaper. Luskin did not return a telephone call today seeking comment for this story.
If recently disclosed press accounts of conversations that Rove had with reporters are correct, Novak and Rove first spoke about Plame on July 8, 2003. It was three days later, on July 11, that Rove also spoke about Plame to Time magazine correspondent Matthew Cooper. Three days after that, on July 14, Novak's column appeared in which he identified Plame as an "agency operative." According to Novak's account, it was he, not Rove, who first broached the issue of Plame's employment with the CIA, and that Rove at most simply said that he, too, had heard much the same information.
Novak's column came during a period of time when senior White House officials were attempting to discredit Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who was then asserting that the Bush administration had relied on faulty intelligence to bolster its case to go to war with Iraq. Wilson had only recently led a CIA-sponsored mission to Niger to investigate claims that Saddam Hussein was covertly attempting to buy enriched uranium from the African nation to build a nuclear weapon. Wilson reported back that the claims were most likely the result of a hoax. But President Bush had still cited them during a State of the Union address as evidence that Hussein had an aggressive program to develop weapons of mass destruction.
In the column, Novak called Plame an "agency operative," thus identifying her as a covert CIA agent. But Novak has since claimed that his use of the phrase "agency operative" was a formulation of his own, and that he did not know, or mean to tell his readers, that she had a covert status with the agency.
Rove, too, has told federal investigators he did not know that Plame had a covert status with the CIA when he spoke with Novak, and Cooper, about Plame.
The distinction as to whether Rove specifically knew Plame’s status has been central to the investigation of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald; under the law, a government official can only be prosecuted if he or she knew of a person's covert status and "that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent."
But investigators were also skeptical of Novak's claim that his use of the term "operative" was a journalistic miscue because it appeared to provide legal protection for whoever his source or sources were. And although Novak's and Rove's accounts of their conversations regarding Plame were largely consistent, they appeared to be self-serving.
It has been, in large part, for all of these reasons that Fitzgerald so zealously sought the testimony of reporters Cooper and Judith Miller of The New York Times, according to sources sympathetic to Fitzgerald. Cooper testified to Fitzgerald's grand jury last week, after earlier having been found in civil contempt for refusing to do so. In contrast, Miller has refused to testify, and is currently serving a sentence in an Alexandria, Virginia, jail.
Finally, also driving Fitzgerald's investigation has been Rove's assertions that he only found out about Plame's status with the CIA from a journalist -- and one whose name he does not recall. But as The New York Times first disclosed on July 16, senior Bush administration officials first learned that Plame worked for the CIA from a classified briefing paper on July 7, 2003, exactly a week before Novak's column naming Plame appeared and at the time that senior Bush administration officials were devising a strategy to discredit Wilson.
The classified memorandum, dated June 10, 2003, was written by Marc Grossman, then the undersecretary of state for political affairs, and reportedly made claims similar to those made by Wilson: that the Bush administration had relied on faulty intelligence to exaggerate the threat posed by Hussein to make the case to go to war with Iraq. The report was circulated to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell and a slew of other senior administration officials who were then traveling with President Bush to Africa.
Fitzgerald has focused on whether Rove might have learned of Plame's identity from one of the many senior White House officials who read the memo, according to the Times account and attorneys whose clients have testified before the federal grand jury.
-----
Murray Waas is an investigative reporter. He will be reporting further about the Plame grand jury on his blog, Whatever Already.
Karl Rove's alibi would be easier to believe if he hadn't hidden it from FBI investigators in 2003.
By Murray Waas
Web Exclusive: 07.19.05
White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove did not disclose that he had ever discussed CIA officer Valerie Plame with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper during Rove’s first interview with the FBI, according to legal sources with firsthand knowledge of the matter.
The omission by Rove created doubt for federal investigators, almost from the inception of their criminal probe into who leaked Plame's name to columnist Robert Novak, as to whether Rove was withholding crucial information from them, and perhaps even misleading or lying to them, the sources said.
Also leading to the early skepticism of Rove's accounts was the claim that although he first heard that Plame worked for the CIA from a journalist, he said could not recall the name of the journalist. Later, the sources said, Rove wavered even further, saying he was not sure at all where he first heard the information.
Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, has said that Rove never knew that Plame was a covert officer when he discussed her CIA employment with reporters, and that he only first learned of her clandestine status when he read about it in the newspaper. Luskin did not return a telephone call today seeking comment for this story.
If recently disclosed press accounts of conversations that Rove had with reporters are correct, Novak and Rove first spoke about Plame on July 8, 2003. It was three days later, on July 11, that Rove also spoke about Plame to Time magazine correspondent Matthew Cooper. Three days after that, on July 14, Novak's column appeared in which he identified Plame as an "agency operative." According to Novak's account, it was he, not Rove, who first broached the issue of Plame's employment with the CIA, and that Rove at most simply said that he, too, had heard much the same information.
Novak's column came during a period of time when senior White House officials were attempting to discredit Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who was then asserting that the Bush administration had relied on faulty intelligence to bolster its case to go to war with Iraq. Wilson had only recently led a CIA-sponsored mission to Niger to investigate claims that Saddam Hussein was covertly attempting to buy enriched uranium from the African nation to build a nuclear weapon. Wilson reported back that the claims were most likely the result of a hoax. But President Bush had still cited them during a State of the Union address as evidence that Hussein had an aggressive program to develop weapons of mass destruction.
In the column, Novak called Plame an "agency operative," thus identifying her as a covert CIA agent. But Novak has since claimed that his use of the phrase "agency operative" was a formulation of his own, and that he did not know, or mean to tell his readers, that she had a covert status with the agency.
Rove, too, has told federal investigators he did not know that Plame had a covert status with the CIA when he spoke with Novak, and Cooper, about Plame.
The distinction as to whether Rove specifically knew Plame’s status has been central to the investigation of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald; under the law, a government official can only be prosecuted if he or she knew of a person's covert status and "that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent."
But investigators were also skeptical of Novak's claim that his use of the term "operative" was a journalistic miscue because it appeared to provide legal protection for whoever his source or sources were. And although Novak's and Rove's accounts of their conversations regarding Plame were largely consistent, they appeared to be self-serving.
It has been, in large part, for all of these reasons that Fitzgerald so zealously sought the testimony of reporters Cooper and Judith Miller of The New York Times, according to sources sympathetic to Fitzgerald. Cooper testified to Fitzgerald's grand jury last week, after earlier having been found in civil contempt for refusing to do so. In contrast, Miller has refused to testify, and is currently serving a sentence in an Alexandria, Virginia, jail.
Finally, also driving Fitzgerald's investigation has been Rove's assertions that he only found out about Plame's status with the CIA from a journalist -- and one whose name he does not recall. But as The New York Times first disclosed on July 16, senior Bush administration officials first learned that Plame worked for the CIA from a classified briefing paper on July 7, 2003, exactly a week before Novak's column naming Plame appeared and at the time that senior Bush administration officials were devising a strategy to discredit Wilson.
The classified memorandum, dated June 10, 2003, was written by Marc Grossman, then the undersecretary of state for political affairs, and reportedly made claims similar to those made by Wilson: that the Bush administration had relied on faulty intelligence to exaggerate the threat posed by Hussein to make the case to go to war with Iraq. The report was circulated to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell and a slew of other senior administration officials who were then traveling with President Bush to Africa.
Fitzgerald has focused on whether Rove might have learned of Plame's identity from one of the many senior White House officials who read the memo, according to the Times account and attorneys whose clients have testified before the federal grand jury.
-----
Murray Waas is an investigative reporter. He will be reporting further about the Plame grand jury on his blog, Whatever Already.
The logs only show who was called, not what was said.
QUOTE(Dyan @ Jul 19 2005, 04:15 PM)
But they're not that stupid and they know that phone logs would show the truth.
Let's not forget our friend Karl with all the SCOTUS talk tonight! Quite the distraction, eh? Will anyone besides Keith Olbermann call this for what it is? Keith, Howard Fineman and John Dean are just the best when they get going on this. How prophetic that Dean's book from last year that got very little attention in the election season was called "Worse than Watergate" 
Al From and Bruce Reed
The Democratic Leadership council executives urge caution to Dems who
would overplay Rove. By David Cook
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0720/p04s01-usmb.html?s=hns
The Democratic Leadership council executives urge caution to Dems who
would overplay Rove. By David Cook
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0720/p04s01-usmb.html?s=hns
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a...nvestigation_37
State Dept. Memo Eyed in CIA Leak ProbeWASHINGTON - A State Department memo that has caught the attention of prosecutors describes a
CIA officer's role in sending her husband to Africa and disputes administration claims that
Iraq was shopping for uranium, a retired department official said Tuesday.
The classified memo was sent to Air Force One just after former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson went public with his assertions that the Bush administration overstated the evidence that Iraq was interested in obtaining uranium from Niger for nuclear weapons.
The memo has become a key piece of evidence in the CIA leak investigation because it could have been the way someone in the White House learned — and then leaked — the information that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and played a role in sending him on the mission.
The document was prepared in June 2003 at the direction of Carl W. Ford Jr., then head of the State Department's bureau of intelligence and research, for Marc Grossman, the retired official said. Grossman was the Undersecretary of State who was in charge of the department while Secretary
Colin Powell and his deputy, Richard Armitage, were traveling. Grossman needed the memo because he was dealing with other issues and was not familiar with the subject, the former official said.
"It wasn't a Wilson-Wilson wife memo," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is still under way. "It was a memo on uranium in Niger and focused principally on our disagreement" with the White House.
Armitage called Ford after Wilson's op-ed piece in The New York Times and his TV appearance on July 6, 2003 in which he challenged the White House's claim that Iraq had purchased uranium yellowcake from Niger.
Armitage asked that Powell, who was traveling to Africa with Bush, be given an account of the Wilson trip, said the former official.
The original June 2003 memo was readdressed to Powell and included a short summary prepared by an analyst who was at a 2002 CIA meeting where Wilson's trip was arranged and was sent in one piece to Powell on Air Force One the next day.
The memo said Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and suggested her husband go to Niger because he had contacts there and had served as an American diplomat in Africa. However, the official said the memo did not say she worked undercover for the spy agency nor did it identify her as Valerie Plame, which was her maiden name and cover name at the CIA.
Her identity as Plame was disclosed first by columnist Robert Novak and then by Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper. The leak investigation by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is looking into who in the Bush administration leaked Plame's identity to reporters and whether any laws were broken.
A 1982 law prohibits the deliberate exposure of the identity of an undercover CIA officer.
Wilson believes the Bush administration leaked the name as retribution for his criticism.
President Bush said Monday he would fire any member of his staff who "committed a crime," a change from his previous vow to fire anyone involved in the leak.
The past two weeks have brought revelations that top presidential aide Karl Rove was involved in leaking the identity of Plame to Novak and to Cooper.
The former State Department official stressed the memo focused on Wilson's trip and the State Department intelligence bureau's disagreement with the White House's claim about Iraq trying to get nuclear material. He said the fact that the CIA officer and Wilson were husband and wife was largely an incidental reference.
The June 2003 memo had not gone higher than Grossman until Wilson's op-ed column for The New York Times headlined "What I Didn't Find In Africa" and his TV appearance to dispute the administration. Wilson's article asked the question: "Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about
Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion?"
___
State Dept. Memo Eyed in CIA Leak ProbeWASHINGTON - A State Department memo that has caught the attention of prosecutors describes a
CIA officer's role in sending her husband to Africa and disputes administration claims that
Iraq was shopping for uranium, a retired department official said Tuesday.
The classified memo was sent to Air Force One just after former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson went public with his assertions that the Bush administration overstated the evidence that Iraq was interested in obtaining uranium from Niger for nuclear weapons.
The memo has become a key piece of evidence in the CIA leak investigation because it could have been the way someone in the White House learned — and then leaked — the information that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and played a role in sending him on the mission.
The document was prepared in June 2003 at the direction of Carl W. Ford Jr., then head of the State Department's bureau of intelligence and research, for Marc Grossman, the retired official said. Grossman was the Undersecretary of State who was in charge of the department while Secretary
Colin Powell and his deputy, Richard Armitage, were traveling. Grossman needed the memo because he was dealing with other issues and was not familiar with the subject, the former official said.
"It wasn't a Wilson-Wilson wife memo," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is still under way. "It was a memo on uranium in Niger and focused principally on our disagreement" with the White House.
Armitage called Ford after Wilson's op-ed piece in The New York Times and his TV appearance on July 6, 2003 in which he challenged the White House's claim that Iraq had purchased uranium yellowcake from Niger.
Armitage asked that Powell, who was traveling to Africa with Bush, be given an account of the Wilson trip, said the former official.
The original June 2003 memo was readdressed to Powell and included a short summary prepared by an analyst who was at a 2002 CIA meeting where Wilson's trip was arranged and was sent in one piece to Powell on Air Force One the next day.
The memo said Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and suggested her husband go to Niger because he had contacts there and had served as an American diplomat in Africa. However, the official said the memo did not say she worked undercover for the spy agency nor did it identify her as Valerie Plame, which was her maiden name and cover name at the CIA.
Her identity as Plame was disclosed first by columnist Robert Novak and then by Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper. The leak investigation by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is looking into who in the Bush administration leaked Plame's identity to reporters and whether any laws were broken.
A 1982 law prohibits the deliberate exposure of the identity of an undercover CIA officer.
Wilson believes the Bush administration leaked the name as retribution for his criticism.
President Bush said Monday he would fire any member of his staff who "committed a crime," a change from his previous vow to fire anyone involved in the leak.
The past two weeks have brought revelations that top presidential aide Karl Rove was involved in leaking the identity of Plame to Novak and to Cooper.
The former State Department official stressed the memo focused on Wilson's trip and the State Department intelligence bureau's disagreement with the White House's claim about Iraq trying to get nuclear material. He said the fact that the CIA officer and Wilson were husband and wife was largely an incidental reference.
The June 2003 memo had not gone higher than Grossman until Wilson's op-ed column for The New York Times headlined "What I Didn't Find In Africa" and his TV appearance to dispute the administration. Wilson's article asked the question: "Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about
Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion?"
___
http://www.thewgalchannel.com/news/4744996...sp=nationalnews
State Department Memo Could Be Key to CIA Leak Case
State Department Memo Could Be Key to CIA Leak Case
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?i...TC-RSSFeeds0312
Memo Gets Attention in Probe of CIA Leak
Memo Gets Attention in Probe of CIA Leak
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/u...gageinnigersaga
Plame is the Gear That Won't Engage in Niger Saga
Plame is the Gear That Won't Engage in Niger Saga
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/h...03_200507191606
Eric Boehlert: Scooter's Field TripEric Boehlert: Scooter's Field Trip
Eric Boehlert Tue Jul 19, 4:06 PM ET
Lots of chatter about a classified State Department memo that was distributed and read aboard Air Force One the day after Joseph Wilson's New York Times Op-ed outed the White House and its bogus Niger claim. The memo, dated June 10, 2003, included the name of Wilson's wife Valerie Plame, noting she worked for the
CIA and that that information should not be shared. The memo stands as a possible source for White House officials such as Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, both of whom were dishing to Time magazine's Matt Cooper about Wilson and Plame during the summer of 2003.
As the Wall Street Journal notes today, "The memo's details are significant because they will make it harder for officials who saw the document to claim that they didn't realize the identity of the CIA officer was a sensitive matter."
But there may be an easier explanation for how Libby, chief of staff to Vice President
Dick Cheney, found out Plame worked at the CIA—he simply visited her workplace.
During the run-up to the war, Cheney's office served as sort of a clearing house for phony
Iraq intel, with the VP pressuring the CIA to come up with better, stronger, more compelling intelligence to 'prove'
Saddam Hussein' posed an imminent threat. One way Cheney made his feelings known was through a series of unprecedented trips to Langley, VA., where he met with CIA analysts. Cheney's office said the visits were routine. Inside the Agency, where everyone understood that if Cheney really wanted to look over CIA intel reports all he had to do was ask and they'd be delivered to his desk within hours, the heavy-handed sit-downs were seen as obvious attempts to intimidate the work being done.
But that's how Libby could have first become aware of Plame. Because according to an Oct. 1, 2003 USA Today article, "Plame was assigned to the CIA's Non-Proliferation Center, an organization of analysts, technical experts and former field operatives who work on detecting and, if possible, preventing foreign proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."
The article continued: "Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, met with officials at the Non-Proliferation Center before the invasion of Iraq to discuss reports that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium in Africa. A U.S. official with knowledge of those meetings said Plame did not attend. But the former U.S. intelligence official said she was involved in preparing materials for those meetings."
The Non-Proliferation Center is one of 12 offices located in the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence. It's possible that's when Libby learned about Plame's identity.
Eric Boehlert: Scooter's Field TripEric Boehlert: Scooter's Field Trip
Eric Boehlert Tue Jul 19, 4:06 PM ET
Lots of chatter about a classified State Department memo that was distributed and read aboard Air Force One the day after Joseph Wilson's New York Times Op-ed outed the White House and its bogus Niger claim. The memo, dated June 10, 2003, included the name of Wilson's wife Valerie Plame, noting she worked for the
CIA and that that information should not be shared. The memo stands as a possible source for White House officials such as Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, both of whom were dishing to Time magazine's Matt Cooper about Wilson and Plame during the summer of 2003.
As the Wall Street Journal notes today, "The memo's details are significant because they will make it harder for officials who saw the document to claim that they didn't realize the identity of the CIA officer was a sensitive matter."
But there may be an easier explanation for how Libby, chief of staff to Vice President
Dick Cheney, found out Plame worked at the CIA—he simply visited her workplace.
During the run-up to the war, Cheney's office served as sort of a clearing house for phony
Iraq intel, with the VP pressuring the CIA to come up with better, stronger, more compelling intelligence to 'prove'
Saddam Hussein' posed an imminent threat. One way Cheney made his feelings known was through a series of unprecedented trips to Langley, VA., where he met with CIA analysts. Cheney's office said the visits were routine. Inside the Agency, where everyone understood that if Cheney really wanted to look over CIA intel reports all he had to do was ask and they'd be delivered to his desk within hours, the heavy-handed sit-downs were seen as obvious attempts to intimidate the work being done.
But that's how Libby could have first become aware of Plame. Because according to an Oct. 1, 2003 USA Today article, "Plame was assigned to the CIA's Non-Proliferation Center, an organization of analysts, technical experts and former field operatives who work on detecting and, if possible, preventing foreign proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."
The article continued: "Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, met with officials at the Non-Proliferation Center before the invasion of Iraq to discuss reports that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium in Africa. A U.S. official with knowledge of those meetings said Plame did not attend. But the former U.S. intelligence official said she was involved in preparing materials for those meetings."
The Non-Proliferation Center is one of 12 offices located in the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence. It's possible that's when Libby learned about Plame's identity.
QUOTE(winston smith @ Jul 19 2005, 12:21 PM)
It was pathetic listening to Brit Hume last night. He acknowledged that a lot of damage has been done. Try as his spinmeisters could, there was no avoiding such an obvious conclusion. Hume even cited the ABC poll that only 25% of the population thinks the WH is telling the truth- he even sighed in a real lamentation as he read it! When Faux admits the President is in trouble- he's really in trouble.
And this is going to go on all summer! Look out Jackson Distraction, Rove Rage is now the entertainment de jour!
And this is going to go on all summer!
Look out Jackson Distraction, Rove Rage is now the entertainment de jour! You and tazvil have it right winston. Like NIXON WAS THE ONE...BUSH IS THE ONE
Did Rove's conscience get to him or did he really make a mistake by leaking?
Everyone knows now about the WMD hype and so did he back then.
Could his conscience have made him say, "I've already said too much"
(Someone I know thinks this and I thought they were out of thier mind to think it. I also accused them of buying into the right wing propaganda. The more I think about it now, the more I am wondering what the truth is. The truth is always complicated)
KT
It's starting to take it's toll, so we need to push, push, push!
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/ne...t_id=1000981193
Gallup Finds Bush Approval Rating at New Low--and Compares to Other Presidents
By E&P Staff
Published: July 19, 2005 1:20 PM ET
NEW YORK A Gallup poll analysis released today finds President Bush's job approval rating at the lowest of his presidency and, at 47.4%, below 50% for only the second time.
This compares to the following at the same point in their time in office: Eisenhower 63.6%, Reagan 58.7%, Clinton 56.3, Truman 48.7%, Nixon 44% (during Watergate) and Johnson 42% (at a low point in the Vietnam war).
By Gallup's chart, Bush's current rating is 171st out of 236 for any quarter of a year, going back to Truman in the White House.
“Broadly speaking,” Gallup comments, “presidents who have had similar quarterly averages to Bush's most recent one did not show much improvement going forward…
“Clearly, Bush is off to an inauspicious start to his second term in office. He had average a 62% approval rating during his first term in office.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E&P Staff (letters@editorandpublisher.com)
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/ne...t_id=1000981193
Gallup Finds Bush Approval Rating at New Low--and Compares to Other Presidents
By E&P Staff
Published: July 19, 2005 1:20 PM ET
NEW YORK A Gallup poll analysis released today finds President Bush's job approval rating at the lowest of his presidency and, at 47.4%, below 50% for only the second time.
This compares to the following at the same point in their time in office: Eisenhower 63.6%, Reagan 58.7%, Clinton 56.3, Truman 48.7%, Nixon 44% (during Watergate) and Johnson 42% (at a low point in the Vietnam war).
By Gallup's chart, Bush's current rating is 171st out of 236 for any quarter of a year, going back to Truman in the White House.
“Broadly speaking,” Gallup comments, “presidents who have had similar quarterly averages to Bush's most recent one did not show much improvement going forward…
“Clearly, Bush is off to an inauspicious start to his second term in office. He had average a 62% approval rating during his first term in office.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E&P Staff (letters@editorandpublisher.com)
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.