Redstate

ccording to a long profile of the Wilsons that appeared in Vanity Fair (January, 2004), Wilson was caught off guard three days later when he received a phone call from Robert Novak, who, according to Wilson, said he'd been told by a C.I.A. source that Wilson's wife worked for the agency. "Can you confirm or deny?" Wilson recalls Novak as saying. "I need another source." Wilson says he did neither.

that "I need another source" makes no sentence in its place inside that paragraph.

Why would the New York Times stonewall the special prosecutor they themselves asked for, to the point that Judith Miller would go to jail before revealing who told her all this stuff?

Should it be "before revealing . . ." or "without revealing . . ."

I think you may just be a bit too subtle in connecting the last two whys.  You might want to even try at the end of the last paragraph putting something in along the lines of "unless Miller has a source other than a Republican" or "other than someone in the Administration."

A plausible explanation for this, the first why:

Why? Well, to hear Democrats tell it, Rove "outed" Plame to exact revenge on Ambassador Wilson.

Last night on the Countdown, Michael Isikoff and Allison Stewart had this exchange:

STEWART: We've talked about, and it's kind of obvious about the way this e-mail might hurt Karl Rove. Are there any ways which it might help him?

ISIKOFF: Well, it does, in fact, his, sources close to him have argued that it indicates that he is responding to questions by Cooper about Wilson, and he's pointing Cooper to facts, or at least, Rove's spin on the facts, that are different than what Wilson is saying. In other words, as Rove clearly seems to be presenting it in the e-mail, he's trying to correct the record about what Joe Wilson has been saying about the origins of his trip, the genesis of his trip to Africa.

So in that sense, you know, it could be argued that he's trying to get the truth out, at least from the White House's point of view, rather than, as others see it, smear a political critic.

Soylent Green is people.

But without any evidence, that's a stretch.

We've already been discussing this via IM, but I wanted to get my $.02 out in the open on this as well. Here are a couple points/questions that I'd like to see someone from the NYT answer:

1, Given the assumption that Plame's identity was at the very least known to the politically connected in the media and in Washington, and given the NYT's behavior in re: Judith Miller, is it more reasonable to expect that they're protecting Rove, or someone in the Carville category?

2. Right now I'm totally believing that a Carville/Begala/Trippi type leaked this information on the presumption that everyone would make the assumption that an administration official was behind the leak. Now that Rove has signed the general waiver, the only reason for Miller to keep silent right now - at least, the only reason that makes sense to me, is if she's protecting a non-administration person. Is there another plausible explanation? And who, besides someone in the Bush administration, would have a compelling interest not only in leaking this information but also in keeping their identity secret to the point of allowing Miller to go to jail, besides a Democrat operative attempting to throw a spear at the Bush administration?
   
3. If it's another administration person that Miller is protecting, the Administration CAN'T take a bigger hit than the one it's already taken So it stands to reason that the Administration takes all their lumps now and comes clean with the other source. The fact that there is absolutely no movement by either the NYT or Miller really leads me to believe we're talking Democrat operative or at the very least someone non-administration. Again, who outside the administration 1) has a compelling interest in leaking this and 2) has a compelling interest in keeping their leak secret?
   
4. Here's the kicker - Why in the world does the NYT front-page a story calling for Rove's resignation while their own reporter sits in jail protecting a different source? This is especially puzzling considering that Miller never published the story she is sitting in jail for. This is smelling more and more like Miller's source is someone embarrassing to the Times, and they are participating in the smokescreen to divert attention from Miller's role in all of this.

< removes tinfoil hat>

Thank you, that is all.

the theories on the Left that Rathergate was a setup.  

While certainly possible it does require a few leaps to get there.

How did this Democratic operative know about Plame?  Are you suggesting that Plame wilfully outted herself?

While it may seem odd that Wilson was on 3 major media outlets at virtually the same time it isn't all that surprising given the nature of our controvery devouring media.

Certainly the Miller angle is an interesting one.  Not sure how that is going to play yet but there are simply too many possible answers right now to even speculate as to what the right reason is.

being Rove, since if I was in her shoes you better believe I would be asking Fitzgerald what time he wanted me in court rather than doing my 18 months of jail time.

I don't understand why the Times is protecting Rove or anyone else, and I am bothered by the idea that a newspaper would feel justified in protecting a source who is suspected of committing a crime.  Even if I was gung ho in favor of papers being able to protect sources, I would want a "if the source committed a crime, there is no protection" clause in it.

The source being a dem, would be interesting and plausible, but I sometimes wonder if it isn't just a matter of the Times wanting to fight this for the cause of protection in general, not so much to protect Rove.

was lying, there are two sources out there, and maybe others (at least in the media Rove hasn't admitted to being Novak's source, but Cooper's source-at this juncture there isn't enough to really know).

When Rove signed the general waiver, the principle of protection went out the window. You don't have to go to jail to protect a source who doesn't want to be protected.

honestly who really goes to jail for a source who said you could reveal?  Um nobody.

Shoot I guess I wouldn't be a good journalist, because I can't much think of a source I would go to jail for period, especially if said source was suspected of committing a crime.

You know my position but I cannot resist repeating it because it deserves some focus.  I have 7 posts on this subject  - the one I like the most is this one

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/258

The answer to this is captured in the examples of Johnathon Pollard and Dan Rather.  Pollard was a rogue government employee who decided he knew better about our government's dealing with Isreal.  So for his self-centered heroics he decided to sell secrets to the MOSSAD.

Plame and Wilson our professed zealots out to stop conservatives and their policies.  They are no less driven than Pollard.  And no less criminal.  Whatever Wilson learned in Niger, it was classified and shouldn't have been exposed in the media.  And Plame should have known it was (a) classified and (b) erroneous to his formal reports to the CIA.  But she kept quiet - because facts were not here goal - toppling Bush was.

Now Why is a NYTimes reporter in jail instead of getting the good on Karl & Co?  Because she was part of the conspiracy with Plame and Wilson.  In other posts I link to sites where Plame and Miller would probably know each other since they both focused on WMDs.  And like Rather, Miller was willing to conciously allow misinformation to be reported as fact in order to take down Bush.

Why is it so hard to believe these liberal zealots would risk their careers to save humankind from conservatives?  They believe they are the only salvation for mankind and Bush and cons are evil to the core?  What is a little personal sacrifice to save the planet?

Most on the left think Miller was acting in a friendly way towards the administration in the run up to the war. All her reports about WMD basically supported the government's claims.

So wouldn't it make sense that her source(s) were actually "high government officials"? She had a good reputation in those days.

Perhaps she is protecting someone else in the present government and feels that having this person's identity known would cause too much of a disruption in the midst of a war. A single breach of security might, in her mind, be preferable to a larger shakeup.

Then the  real questions to be asked are:

Who told Rove?

Who are the other sources of the leak?

I think you are assuming that the WH controls the person who can release Miller.  The person may be in the WH he/she personally doesn't want to go to jail, or the information is even more damning.

Now that the fox is amongst the chickens when it comes to Rove, it makes absolutely zero sense for the WH to cover for another person. You've got to figure that eventually Miller (or someone else) capitulates and reveals the source. In that eventuality, the grilling McLellan has been receiving over the last two days will seem like a cakewalk.

Politically speaking, and this administration is NOT politicaly stupid, if they know who the second source is, so would we.

they feel either.

1. Rove has done nothing illegal but the other source has.
   
2. They don't know who the other source.

Here:

Do you go to jail to protect the confidentiality of a source whose name has been revealed, and not by you but by someone else?

as anyone, but the only way that will happen is if Rove himself, and Bush for good measure (to shut up the idiotic impeachment talk you hear way off to the left), answer the 1 1/2th "why" question from the initial poster.  Why did Rove leak Plame's name (if we can believe the evidence that has so suddenly come to light after all this time)?  Or, if he didn't leak her name, why was he talking to the press about her right before Novak's column?  Democrats like to think it's part of some slimy political revenge scheme, but it is wise to hold off on judgments like that.  Rove is the only one who can answer that why, and he should, so this can pass and America can refocus on real issues.

As for Miller, there is another motivation for what she's doing other than taking marching orders from the Times and its lefty editors:  a massive ego.  She is happy to be a political and journalistic celebrity, dreaming in her cell of lucrative lecture tours and a book deal.  She can now pretend she's a martyr for journalism, and I'll be shocked if she holds out for more than a couple of months, less if this all blows over and people forget about her.

One question, though, and I'd love for your theories to be true and not-so-tinfoil-hattish, but:  isn't it well-established that it was "two administration officials" who leaked the name?  Why would Novak hold water for a Carville or Begala?

Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC admitted that it was common knowledge in the press (including herself) before the Plame affair that Plame was a CIA agent.

Karl Rove (or Paul Begala or Carville for that matter) are not connected to the CIA, they are political operatives and focus on that area. They are unlikely to be plugged into the National Security circles, just as a marketing guy is unlikely to be connected to finance gurus.

SOMEONE had to spread Plame's name around. Who? My best guess is someone connected to National Security issues, in or out of government in that area, who'd worked with Plame on various WMD issues. Likely candidates would be Tenet, Sandy Burglar, Woolsey, Rice, Bolton, Powell, and others on the National Security Council or connected to those issues.

Mitchell, Miller, Cooper and others are not super-sleuths. Obviously someone before this issue leaked Plame's identity, hence Fitzgerald convincing a judge he was not on a fishing expedition but had real evidence that Miller in particular along with Cooper had vital information for his investigation.

This to me seems to indicate that it may be that MILLER told Rove that Plame was a CIA secret agent; question being who told Miller.

If Rove was the principal target I'd expect Fitzgerald to subpoena a lot of Rove's records and so forth, various press strategies to force a plea bargain.

that absolutely no one not on thorozine has made:

Why would Novak hold water for a Carville or Begala?

Who has made this claim?

Rove is first and foremost a political operative. Wilson was carrying water for the Dems. Rove also knew Wilson was lying and so Rove was trying to take him out.

It is important to remember the political circumstances surrounding this "leak." Joe Wilson had returned from Niger and miraculously found himself on three prominent news outlets claiming that he had gone to investigate one of the Bush administrations claims, they turned out to be bogus, and nobody listened to his report.

Rove then, from what we know of his communications with Cooper, was attempting to save the press some face by letting them know that "getting too far out on this Wilson thing" was going to come back and bite them in the backside later. He let Cooper know that Wilson wasn't sent on the trip by Cheney, or Tenet, or even with the authorization of the DCI or the State Department, but rather because his wife, who "apparently worked in the CIA on WMD", had insisted that he go.

Far from exacting political retribution, Rove was attempting to keep the press from hanging themselves with the silly Wilson rope, which was exactly what they ended up doing anyway, once it turned out that virtually everything that Wilson said was a politically motivated lie.

issue at the moment until Fitzgerald's investigation draws to some conclusion so I tend to avoid these discussions.

At the same time I have to chuckle that Rove acted, assuming he did act, out of concern for protecting the press from making themselves look foolish.  That theory made my day!

You know how flattering cocktail party chatter works. Rumors not denied, or, perhaps, subtly winked at become fact.

The investigation should reveal Plame's real role at CIA. Here's my speculation. She was flying a desk and missed the old covert days. Hubby liked the lime light and probably demurely smiled when the spy stories floated by, neither confirming or denying. That's not outing, I guess.

Or perhaps just a failure to be even vaguely familiar with the contents of the Cooper email:

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

I'm glad to see that facts can still make your day.

SOMEONE had to spread Plame's name around. Who? My best guess is someone connected to National Security issues, in or out of government in that area, who'd worked with Plame on various WMD issues.

Miller herself may meet that test. Miller wrote many stories for the Times about various aspects of the WMD issue. She accompanied military search teams in Iraq looking for WMDs, as an embedded reporter. She may well have had Plame in her Rolodex for a long time, as someone to check facts with, before any of this happened.

Why was Rove talking to Cooper?  Read the notes on Cooper - to warn Time away from Wilson.  Which as sage advice.

forget about Rove, he has nothing more to lose or gain so he stays put.  Forget about about Plame's name and employment - that was an open secret and many people have already stated as much, including Andrea Mitchell the other day.  So you can't leak public knowledge.

If you remove these two red herrings then you will find indicators on what is motivating the NYTimes and Miller.  So many people fall for the magician's sleight of hand it is amazing.  Rove and Plame's employment are distractions.

This makes absolutly no sense. I like reading Red State even though I often disagree because I find respect the integrity of the arguments, but this is ridiculous.

There is no question that Karl Rove leaked Valerie Plames identity to the press. His lawyer has admitted as much to the press. What remains to be seen are legal technicalities surrounds his knowledge of her undercover status. This begs a similar question to the fifth why of this post, that remains unanswered: If Karl Rove didn't find out about the leak by using his security clearance, then who did? How was that information passed from CIA to the White House? Which administration offical was responsible for passing the knowledge of Valerie Plame's undercover status to Karl Rove? Did the president know of Karl Rove's activities, and did he approve?

These are compelling questions, and do demand an immediate answer. Why a partisan democrat would pass along information to Karl Rove to smear a partisan democrat in an attempt to intimidate people from speaking out against the war seems highly implausible, conspriacy theories not withstanding.

That's how press and people in high positions get to trust each other.  They give each other heads up about pending things they may want to avoid or address.

Maybe you just never thought about how a news media person would gain the trust of Rove and vise versa?

Many people have stated Plame's employment at the CIA was an open secret in the elite social circles of DC.  Andrea Mitchell said so the other day - to name one.

So you cannot leak something that is already public knowledge - even if it is small number of elite news media types.  Get over that right now and save yourself the tears later.

What you fail to grasp is Wilson's open statements that he wanted to undermine Bush and his administration.  And this is how he and his wife planned to do it.

revealing her undercover status, the leak mentioned where she works, not that she was "undercover."

Part of being guilty of this crime is that you have to have knowledge of the undercover status, and Plame hadn't been under cover since 1997.  It is conceivable that Rove and any other admin official wasn't all that aware that she had been undercover.

Absolutely no one is questioning Rove's involvement at this point. In case you missed it, though, Judith Miller of the NYT is sitting in jail right now refusing to release the source that gave her the information. Rove has apparently called "olly-olly-oxen-free" since Matt Cooper isn't in jail, since Rove signed a personal waiver on their conversations. This leads us to believe that Miller had another source, and for reasons enumerated above, we believe it to be a non-administration official.

If Karl Rove didn't find out about the leak by using his security clearance, then who did? How was that information passed from CIA to the White House? Which administration offical was responsible for passing the knowledge of Valerie Plame's undercover status to Karl Rove? Did the president know of Karl Rove's activities, and did he approve?

The underlying premise of all these questions is still a matter of very great doubt - that Karl Rove even KNEW:

1. Valerie Plame's name
   
   
2. That she was an undercover agent

Go back and read the emails again. Also, it would be worth your while to read the post further upthread in which Andrea Mitchell (and others) have frankly admitted that Plame's identity as a CIA agent was no big secret in Washington whatsoever.

These are compelling questions, and do demand an immediate answer. Why a partisan democrat would pass along information to Karl Rove to smear a partisan democrat in an attempt to intimidate people from speaking out against the war seems highly implausible, conspriacy theories not withstanding.

Are you thickheaded? Where have we ever suggested that a partisan Democrat passed information to Rove?

You're making the (partisan) assumption that since Rove has been identified as a source, he must be the only source - and that assumption has been slain and left beside the road for dead. My belief is that this partisan Democrat passed this entire story (Wilson expedition and all) along to the media as a package.

Yes that is silly, indeed.  Everyone knows that if Br'er Rove tells the press not to do something, then they will certainly do it just to spite him... and now they have him just where he wants them.

He passed to them what turned out to be legitimate information that Wilson was a flake - if they go ahead and run with it anyway, whose fault is that?

...There is no question that Karl Rove leaked Valerie Plames identity to the press...

Well, not exactly. According to Newsweek Rove told Cooper that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA but did not say Valerie Plame. And according to other published accounts Valerie Plame's identity and employment were hardly a secret in Washington. Apparently the only people who didn't know about her were us hayseeds out here in flyover America and the night janitor at the Russian embassy in India.

... practically the only people more "important" to protect than Rove is the President and Laura! Who else, the Whitehouse pastry chef?

as most have been answered and none address the "compelling question" in this story of why Judith Miller would go to jail to protect someone in the Bush White House.

denying that is what Cooper is citing Rove as saying.  I'm not denying that is what Rove said.  I'm only smiling at the purported motivation.  Karl Rove is about as likely to be interested in protecting the press as Carville would have been in his position.  In my opinion, it was about political damage control and spinning the story by short-circuiting the story.  

Mind you...I'm not saying that is a bad thing.  It's pretty normal and I'm not making a value judgment at all.  I have no opinion whatsoever on Rove, Miller or anyone else's actions in this case.  In my mind, there is a legal process underway and it will reveal an outcome.  At that point, I suppose I might opine.

...Karl Rove (or Paul Begala or Carville for that matter) are not connected to the CIA, they are political operatives and focus on that area. They are unlikely to be plugged into the National Security circles, just as a marketing guy is unlikely to be connected to finance gurus...

But remember, by the time this happened Wilson had already gone over to the Dark Side, he had apparently become a political animal of the first order.

also her source, given that he has released the press from covering for him as a source.

for your theory is that characterization of Miller is pretty unique to certain segments of the left. It is highly unlikely that anyone in the Administration saw her as a "friendly" reporter.

Because she wants to be a martyr? There really isn't anything inconsistent about the NYT pushing for an investigation at the same time as Miller serving her jailtime. As anyone even remotely involved with the law or the press knows, these are the kinds of principles people are willing to make a stand on. Irrespective of the source.

As regards Andrea Mitchell and the open secret re: Plame's job. Does anyone have a link? TIA

...official wasn't all that aware that she had been undercover... the protection only goes back 5 years.

I think the motivations here are purely politics and self interest. (clever huh?)

I'll accept that outing an undercover agent is bad news, but it doesn't look like Plame was under cover, but that's an open question subject to spook regulations about which I don't have a clue.

My sense is that Rove understood that Plame was not under cover, but he tip toed anyway to maintain plausible deniability if things blew up. I think he was trying to kill Wilson's story in the nest, and rightly so.

I don't know or care about Miller's politics, but it makes sense to me that she knew about Plame and the Rove angle, and was snooping after a story. The story didn't run because Miller knew that there really wasn't a story. Plame was not undercover, and Wilson turned out to be a liar. Not much traction there.

is referring to the fact that Cooper's employer had already released his emails and notes to Fitzgerald.

The email names Rove so Fitzgerald had that information and Cooper knew it, however Rove may not have know what was in Cooper's notes. Fitzgerald still wanted Cooper to testify. It's clear Cooper did not think he had been released by Rove and was all set to go to jail with Miller.

Later, Mr. Waldman asked whether Time's disclosures and a blanket waiver form his source had signed were enough to allow him to testify. In an e-mail message on Tuesday night, Mr. Cooper said he believed the forms could have been coerced and thus worthless.

However on Wednesday morning Cooper and his lawyer saw a way out, they felt that Rove's lawyer had to all extents and purposes released Cooper to testify by his statement in the Wall Street Journal.

His lawyer, Mr. Sauber, called to alert him to a statement from Mr. Luskin in The Wall Street Journal.

"If Matt Cooper is going to jail to protect a source," Mr. Luskin told The Journal, "it's not Karl he's protecting."

That provided an opening, Mr. Cooper said. "I was not looking for a waiver," he said, "but on Wednesday morning my lawyer called and said, 'Look at The Wall Street Journal. I think we should take a shot.' And I said, 'Yes, it's an invitation.' "

 

Miller's lawyer however was not out talking to the press and it is possible her source is Rove, since we know Rove did not explicitly release Cooper. Cooper essentially used a technicality ( Rove's lawyer's very specific quote in the WSJ).

Quotes above are from your NYT link.

for a newspaper to cover for a source that is suspected of committing a crime?  

If there was a crime committed, it isn't quite like covering for a whistleblower-to protect them from retribution, this is protecting a supposed criminal to shield them from prosecution.

so isn't it better for everyone for Rove to go public with it and shut the reporters up?  Why is he letting this drag on so long?

for the most doltish remark of the day!

There really isn't anything inconsistent about the NYT pushing for an investigation at the same time as Miller serving her jailtime.

You seriously don't see a problem with the NYTimes hopping up and down demanding a special investigator get to the bottom of this when they are supporting their own reporter who is going to jail for refusing to reveal a source involved in the same investigation? Nevermind the fact that source protection legally does not extend to issues of criminal investigation, and therefore Miller's actions are illegal?

As anyone even remotely involved with the law or the press knows, these are the kinds of principles people are willing to make a stand on.

Yes, the principle of partisan hackery. How we should adore and revere those who are blatantly inconsitent for their own political agenda.

Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

You're correct in identifying the two key questions. There are still questions regarding whether Rove knew Plame's name, or her undercover status. Neither of these questions relate to the propriety of the leak, but do matter in the legal definition of treason.

It is entirely possible that Rove didn't know her name, as his lawyer suggests that he simply referred to her as "Joseph Wilson's wife." This may not have explictly said the name Valerie Plame, but with her information her name could be found using a Washington Metro phonebook. Further, it is very unlikely that he did not know of her undercover status. In Novak's column he referred to Plame as an operative, which Lexis searches have shown is a phrase that he used in the past to refer to undercover agents.

I make no assumption that Rove is the only source on this. I'd be very willing to bet a rather sizable amount of dollars that the other source is none other than Scooter Libby, Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff. Most likely, Libby and Rove were the sources of Novak's column.

Your suggestion that this is all a Democratic hoax is unfortunate and short sighted. My own suspicions lead me to believe that this administration would put his own political expediency over national security interests, but as an American it is always my hope that consensus can be reached on issues of vital national security. At this point, we know this much is true:

A. Rove's attorney has acknowledged that he talked about Plame with Cooper, without mentioning her name, days before Robert Novak's column publicly revealed her identity.

B. Rove (and Rove via McClellan) has repeatedly suggested that he had nothing to do with this story at all.

C. The White House has suggested that any person found to have anything to do with the improper leaking of Wilson's name to the press would be fired.

They simply aren't even taking up your arguments. I wish that Americans of good faith could come together to condemn this deplorable leak, and I wish the good citizens at Redstate would not abide by serious improprieties committed, even if committed by an administration they support.

Well, it seems that in the years since leaving the career civil service, Joseph Wilson had become something of a partisan Democrat. As Washington Post writer Richard Leiby noted on October 2, 2003, "Wilson makes no secret of being a left-leaning Democrat and intends to endorse Sen. John F. Kerry for president. Wilson, a former ambassador to Gabon who served as an Africa expert in the second Clinton administration, has long been friendly with leading Democrats." Writing in the Washington Times, Helle Dale quotes Wilson as saying, "Neo-conservatives and religious conservatives have hijacked this administration, and I consider myself on a personal mission to destroy both."

....the fact that the Bush administration was publicly attacking him & his wife might have had something to do with that?

I'd find that line of attack more interesting if you could find some serious evidence of partisanship before Rove started the smear campaign.  Afterwards is just self-defense.

I don't know his politics and I suspect you don't either.  We do know that he served in a very high position under Bush I and we do know it is a matter of public record that he contributed to George W. Bush's primary campaign in 2000.  That doesn't make it impossible he was a lefty but it sure puts it in the "highly improbable pending darn solid evidence to the contrary" category, I would think.

"It is all true"

And, it the same vein, "it is all piffle".

the Plame-wilson-rove affair is a tempest in a teapot, and I am beginning to think that W is getting a great deal of laughter out of this.

Leon H. mentioned above:

Right now I'm totally believing that a Carville/Begala/Trippi type leaked this information on the presumption that everyone would make the assumption that an administration official was behind the leak.

But Novak wouldn't cover for one of those slimeballs.  But that is probably not what Leon was implying.  Am I missing something?

Would you care to elaborate on that one?

One man's traitor is another's whistleblower. Daniel Ellsburg committed a crime. Deep Throat committed a crime.

I would imagine the vast majority of national security leaks are criminal acts, but the reporter shield laws (in the States) recognize that the information is more important than the crime.

re:

Are you suggesting that Plame wilfully outted herself?

The way I understand it, she was brought back to Langley in 1997 and Joe Wilson wrote in his biography that his wife worked for the CIA in 2003.  So, no, she didn't out herself, but her husband did.  Sorry, I don't have links, but I have seen them in other threads here.  Feel free to let me know if you see anything that contradicts this.

On Joseph Wilson's own website. What was the point you were making about treason again?

According to Cooper, in his statement on TV, "A short time ago, in somewhat dramatic fashion, I received an express, personal release from my source," Mr. Cooper said. "It's with a bit of surprise and no small amount of relief that I will comply with this subpoena."

So your much of your post is founded on a false premise:

since we know Rove did not explicitly release Cooper

which Cooper says is not true.

....alleged smear campaign. Honest slip.

is the leak they are covering for, and they should have to cough up the name.

know his politics.

His and his wife's political contributions are public record.

If her identity was "common knowledge" then why wasn't that the administration line immediately, when this all came out. Go back and look at the quotes the administration made about the seriousness of the crime committed here. If her name was common knowledge, the crime would not be significant. Even the White House acknowledges the seriousness of the crime here.

Also, take a look at the brief Fitzpatrick filed in court to get Miller thrown in jail. It has 7 out of 41 pages blacked out, in which Fitzpatrick makes the case for how important the case is to national security. You simply can't defend who ever is guilty of this crime by dismissing the nature of the crime. Someone in the white house leaked the indentity of an undercover agent to the press.

Wait for an imminent RedHot/FP story on that issue.

According to Newsweek Rove told Cooper that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA but did not say Valerie Plame.

Do you see a big difference between saying, "Wilson's wife" and saying, "Wilson's wife, Valerie"?  I can't see how the former leaves the person's identity in question unless Wilson has a non-standard number of wives.

cover was blown by Ames, so she was brought back in 1997 and worked a non covert job in the WMD department.

When was Wilson's biography written?  Before or after the Novak article?  I didn't realize he had written about her job in his book.

In that case, why are we even investigating this?

Her name was on his website. What wasn't was the fact that SHE WAS AN UNDERCOVER CIA AGENT WORKING ON WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION ISSUES.

...if members of the press refuse to take good advice because they believe the source to be bad.  jmaier seems to be operating from the simplistic view that Rove is all bad, Press is all good, and there are no complexities or personal factors involved in their interaction.  I was just applying a little iocaine logic via Br'er rabbit. =:}

You just have to listen to the silence and stonewalling to understand that the WH realizes that this is an issue that will only get worse.  

This Administration has demonstrated excellent spin control ability before, and if they felt that this was the worst of the information to come out, they would be pushing out a brush-off of the issue and change the subject.  Ken Mehlman has started to do just that, but he could possibly be off the official WH spin reservation.

The fact that they are stonewalling indicates might indicate that they know this will end badly.  If the rumors about the investigation focusing on the effect of the Plame leak on the CIA front company "Brewster Jennings $ Assoc." are true, then the (rather premature, IMHO) calls of "treason" and "congressional investigation!" will seem a little more reasonable.

If this issue was truly nothing important, why is the President (very publicly and obviously) not answering questions?  Why damage the "straight shooter" image?  Why not come out, say that Karl wasn't THE leaker but only a secondary source, and put it behind them?

No, I don't see a problem. The system is working. The newspaper is doing its job as the Fourth Estate, and the reporter is doing her job protecting her sources.

I'm not sure I see anything partisan about Miller protecting the WH source. Do you mean because it's a known fact that Miller is a secret DNC operative? If you meant something else, and I just didn't follow you, I'd appreciate you explaining it to me.

"...indicates might indicate..."

Jeez, I need more coffee before I post.

working undcover and hadn't been since 1997-when they thought her cover compromised by Ames.

Granted the CIA didn't just up and announce that she was a former undercover operative either, but Rove didn't say she was undercover in his comments to Cooper.

The problem here is 1. we don't know who else Rove spoke to, and what he told them (what we have so far, doesn't seem to meet the standards of the crime) and 2. we do not know who the other source is (we know Novak said two, and one of them may have been Rove).

At this point there isn't enough information to go speculating that deep regarding Rove.

That is not what I'm saying.  Karl Rove, if he did anything, was probably doing his job.  Control a story.  That doesn't mean lying or having any ill motives other than what I said.

On the "big" issues, I have no opinion.  There is a prosecutor, a legal process, and presumably an outcome at some point.  I'd prefer to see everyone stop the speculating, attacking and defending and let the process run its course.

At this point, there isn't even any indication that Rove is the target of the investigation.  It could be Miller herself.  Someone else in the administration, Democratic operatives.  Who knows.

No evidence of this but:

Wilson had to pitch his story.

Wilson might have been saying something like "it is more than just my word as an exAmbassador who spent a week drinking gin in Africa, my wife, the spy, says the Europeans all know this is crap too."

Who else would need protection from Miller and NYT and get it?

very few people know the details of Plame's resume with the CIA.  Seems there is a lot of speculation but very little information.

"Are you suggesting that Plame wilfully outted herself?"

How does it fare under Occam's razor?

Wilson openly stated his desires to undermine the 'necons' and destroy them.  Bush and all those promoting regime change have always been labeled neo-cons.  OK so far?

Plame was one of many in the CIA who also opposed going into Iraq.  They needed a way to stop Bush or at least pay a heavy political price.  It did not hurt Wilson was angling for a cabinet level job in a Kerrey administration, something he had in hand until the Senate report on his lies came out.

So Plame and Wilson decided to send Wilson to Niger and come back with a 'report' they could use in the media.  Wilson knew his wife sent him on the trip and his report was back to her.  They both knew they could not release information on Saddam's nuclear intentions since she was CIA and he was State Dept (at one time).  So they KNEW he shouldn't be discussing this with the press, let alone authoring an Op-Ed and book!

There plan was to set themselves up a neo-con destroyers, save the planet from the neo-cons and get publicity and leadership jobs out of it.

They got all but the last piece - the leadership jobs.  But that was because the whole mess fell apart when Wilson (and Plame behind government doors) were caught lying.

If you wonder why Wilson and Plame are being so quiet then you don't appreciate the kind of trouble they are probably in for faking critical, national security intelligence and spreading that to the public.  Not to mention running a roque international policy effort out of the CIA and at cross purposes with the State  Dept.

Why do you think they grand jury deposed Colin Powell?

The statements concern the leaking of classified information.  If Plame's name and occupation where not classified (and it is clear Andrea Mitchell is not working for Rove or Bush when she popped that idea) then what is classified/

Well, for one thing any material related to the current, best estimate on Saddam's nuclear weapons intentions is classified.  And that is what Wilson (and Plame through Wilson) divulged in his Op-Ed, interviews and books.  Did it ever occur to you why Wilson got caught in a lie about forged documents he had (supposedly) never seen?

Documents his wife as a WMD analyst would definitely seen???

I mean - duh!!

But it was on Powerline.

Here is my posting on it

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/258

Gratuitous linking is so bad, I know.

it is sort of fun in a trainwreck sort of way, but in the end we don't know that much and won't until Fitzgerald makes his report (and even then we may not know everything).

We also do not know just how much Rove knew about Plame's resume.

She was pulled from her covert position in 1997-it is possible that Rove was unaware that she had ever been a covert operative.

Also, we need to remember that all these reporters were also using sources from the CIA, and we don't know who those sources were or what they were saying about Plame and Wilson's trip.

I really think the 4th and 5th "Why's" got me into my most conspiracy-theory minded mode.  I know conspiracy theories are frowned upon on this side of the moat, so let me just say up front: This is rank, unsupported, unjustified speculation for fun only.

So with that said, let's look at the following factors: The Protected Source is someone who

1. knows Wilson and Plame
   
   
2. knows lots of reporters
   
   
3. has enough juice to get high-and-mighty media types to pay attention
   
   
4. has a well-established NYT reporter willing to go to prison rather than expose his/her identity

Now, consider that based on what has been reported about Plame's identity and employer being an open secret in Washington's elite circles, and that Plame's "covert status" is very much under question, there may have been no crime committed.

So... the danger to the Protected Source may not be criminal liability, but a political one.

These combine to point to perhaps a Patron Saint of the Democratic Party, rather than a simple political operative who can, in all honesty, be sacrificed, especially if the damage is political and not criminal in nature.  From this standpoint the Paul Begalas and Sandy Burgers of the world don't really seem to fit.

Bill and particularly Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, do fit rather perfectly.  They know Wilson and Plame, know lots of reporters, have more juice than Minute Maid, are most certainly the kinds of people that Judith Miller would absolutely go to jail to protect, and who would face serious political damage from this kerfuffle, even if no criminal liability attaches.

Joe Wilson was on Clinton's National Security Council after all, and Valerie Plame met Wilson in 1997 when she was a covert CIA operative.  The Clintons were in a position to know that Plame was a CIA operations officer, especially as she was married to a man that Bill appointed to the NSC.

If they knew, or had heard through sources at (let's say) Time, which knew from Matt Cooper that Rove did mention "Wilson's wife", they might have calculated that the blowback from the media coverage would have taken Karl Rove the Architect out of what was sure to be a contentious presidential election in 2004.

I know this is all pure bunk until the Fitzgerald investigation gets to the bottom of the affair, but in all seriousness, ask yourself these questions:

• If no crime has been committed, who stands to lose big from being named as Miller's source?
  
• Who would let Miller go to jail rather than coming forth and stating, "I'm the Source"?
  
• Who is important enough that Miller would go to jail rather than coming forth and naming names? (Note that the naming of names would be to the secret grand jury, not to the media at large.)

Speculation, but fun speculation nonetheless.

-TS

And it was posted on Powerline.

Check the updates on my post

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/258

Maybe I should at least cut a hole in my tinfoil hat to let some air in but, just for fun, let's imagine the cosmic justice in this:

Plame, Wilson and Miller are discussing what they believe to be flaws in administration actions; Plame gets her husband to go public with exaggerated or downright falsified data, knowing that the real memos are classified and won't be made public, believing that her identity won't be connected due to secrecy.  The Kerry campaign helps get publicity for the Wilson claims, and all goes as planned, except that Rove gets Plame's name into the picture.

They believe they can capitalize on the leak and screw Rove, the evil genius, at the same time that they smear the administration as liars.  All goes well, until a special prosecutor gets named and starts looking beyond the initial leak and starts asking those dumb why questions of Nick's.  

Now, Miller is in jail because she can't fink on Plame, Wilson has been discredited, and it looks as if the whole house of cards may fold if the prosecutor puts it all together.  If the evil genius walks away from this, and Plame, Wilson, and Miller take heat, the lefties of the world will spontaneously combust.

Of course, all this is just speculation from flyover country and my sources are beaming down from space.  But if any or all of it is true, I would certainly enjoy watching this play out.

If you assume that a person who has dedicated their life to a career would be willing to throw it away to score some political points I guess Occam's Razro could apply.

I generally assume people are acting out of self-interest over political zealotry

sometime in 1999-2000.  We had ours 9/99 and I can tell you she was not working on anything for the CIA for at least 12 months....

but I can't reveal my sources. :P

Another interesting tidbit that has not been explored here, (in re: did Rove know that Plame was undercover) is the alleged phone call he made to Chris Matthews shortly after the Novak article, stating that "Wilson's wife is fair game."

While speculation, it seems to be the comment of someone who knew that discussing Plame may have had some unsavory legal ramifications-- that is until her status at the CIA became public knowledge via Novak.  What else are we to make of Rove calling her "fair game" (assuming that Matthews' account is correct)?

This White House has let the liberals and the media walk full face into their own mistakes.  They let Rather gut himself on his fake memos, they let Daschle implode himself on the Iraq war, Durbin on GITMO and Kennedy on Abhu Ghraib...

They give out rope as long as they want to, because in the end they know the answers and they will not hurt them.

Compare that to the early resignation of the Treasury secretary when his mouth was not working unison with the Bush plans...

If Rove was a problem he would be gone.  6 years people have watched this administration sukker punch the left time and time again and still few have figured it out yet.

Maybe it is simpler than that.

Maybe the other source is Jayson Blair, and NYT and Miller would rather rot in jail than admit they fouled up with him again.

with releasing classified information if he has broken the law as you said?  

You seem to have a real inside track on the machinations of the CIA and what is and isn't classified.

Simple, she was fair game because her identity was well known AND Plame and Wilson are the targets of the criminal investigation.

It's all right there in front for everyone to see if they cared to look past Rove.

What do you think the grand jury is doing?

Prosecutors take their jobs seriously and Fitzgerald does not seem to be the kind to play around with marginal stuff.  First we stipulate that Plame's identity was not the big secret, so if the crime was outing her then end of Grand Jury.

But wait, the grand jury is still on!  And McClellan and Rove and Bush are GLADLY taking the heat from the media UNTIL the grand jury determines the final outcome.  

Miller is in jail, but she has no source to cover since Plame's identity was out and Rove is out....

OK, what is left to investigate.

Yeah, it will be fun to watch if true. And this is all speculation.  But it fits ALL the facts we have in front of us.  And as Holmes said (I think): once all other options have been eliminated, what remains - however improbably - must be the answer.

that the Grand Jury has subpoened these journalist plus various White House staffers because they are looking for evidence that the information that Wilson PUBLISHED IN THE NEW YORK TIMES was classified?  

Ummmm, ok.  

that shows that his wife sent him on the trip and by what authority?

Start reading about page 46.

the same thing as sending or authorizing.

Until you get to the part where they talk about the "this crazy report" memo.

Not sure how that shows that she authorized the trip.

Maybe I should at least cut a hole in my tinfoil hat to let some air in but, just for fun, let's imagine the cosmic justice in this:

Plame, Wilson and Miller are discussing what they believe to be flaws in administration actions; Plame gets her husband to go public with exaggerated or downright falsified data, knowing that the real memos are classified and won't be made public, believing that her identity won't be connected due to secrecy.  The Kerry campaign helps get publicity for the Wilson claims, and all goes as planned, except that Rove gets Plame's name into the picture.

Kerry Campaign? In July 2003?

The Senate Committee has her memo on the subject.

Google is easy to use.

The Dan Rather memos were fake, but the issue was real, the white house never denied that. GWB was given preferential treatment in the guard

It is clear she set up the trip since Tenent didn't.  Her budget to use as she sees fit.

Oh,you are one of THOSE!

I suspect.

One more of those and you're gone.

And it worked because Kerry had Wilson on his national security team up until the lying came out..

Then he dumped him.

You need your team ready and working 4 years ahead of time.

My sarcasm has been know to be caustic.

let me know if I need to tone it down.

You're just making stuff up here.  You have no idea what her position was at the time.  

If it were her budget she wouldn't need to recommend him to anyone.  She would be the approving authority thus there would be no need to recommend him.

But Valerie Plame as a covert agent for many years and then a WMD expert.  I do not know her exact title but her ability to write a memo to CIA management regarding her husband puts her high up in the management chain.

I work for NASA and DoD and the federal government structures are basically the same.  She easily had authority to spend money - and once you have that spending <$25 is pretty easy.  Not to mention credit cards.  A one week trip for one person is not going to chew up that much money.

So while I am speculating, it is based on 20 years of working for federal programs.

What's your excuse for claiming these assumptions to be wrong?

The grand jury was emplaneled to investigate whether there was a leak of classified information.  Since Plame's identity was not 'classified' through many readings of fact and the law itself, that leaves us with only other forms of classified information.

The reporters talked to Plame or Wilson as well as their government sources....

So they have information on what Wilson and Plame said as well...

You have no way of knowing if she had the authority to do ANYTHING.  

Her ability to write a memo simply means she has relevance.  We don't know who she wrote the memo two, organizationally.  We don't why that person took her recommendation into consideration.  

You say that you have a lot of experience with the government but then proceed to say that she "easily"  has approving authority.  Let me say this one more time.  SHE RECOMMENDED TO SOMEONE ELSE that her husband go on this trip.  Thus SHE DID NOT have approving authority.  Thus it was not done under her budget.  Generally speaking only department heads have budget authority.   Having influence DOES NOT mean you are in charge of department.

also, if one thinks they can get away with it, then they are more likely to assume the risk.

But sometimes politics alone can be the motivator-afterall what was Rove's personal gain, if he did indeed commit a crime in this?  He certainly risked his career as well.

so while this theory is plausible, it isn't the only thing, and it doesn't mean Rove is out of the hot water.

There is also the matter of the second source.  

But your theory may play out in the end-although the sun seems to be reflecting a bit brightly off all the tinfoil hats.

in the summer of 2003, actually he was running around NH before that-in the summer of 2003 he wasn't polling well at all here.

So yes, he very easily could have been part of the campaign-at one point he was definitely on the team, but not sure at what point he was officially named.

granted that tinfoil hat might be fitting too tight, but the Clintons would certainly have the pull to get somebody to go to jail for them, and they also probably knew how to funnel the info to Novak without being seen with dirty hands (I actually sometimes wonder if Novak's info wasn't second hand anyway).

If you knew me better you would know I rarely go out on a limb.

The scientist in me is fitting the best scenario to the facts.

It is PURE speculation, I admit that.

But when facts line up without any inconsistencies you have to go where the data tells you.

thing was said that day by Cooper and this later NYT's article laid out more of the actual events that happened that morning.  

More from the NYT

..But the facts appear more complicated than they seemed in court. Mr. Cooper, it turns out, never spoke to his confidential source that day, said Robert D. Luskin, a lawyer for the source, who is now known to be Karl Rove, the senior White House political adviser....

If Matt Cooper is going to jail to protect a source," Mr. Luskin told The Journal, "it's not Karl he's protecting."

That provided an opening, Mr. Cooper said. "I was not looking for a waiver," he said, "but on Wednesday morning my lawyer called and said, 'Look at The Wall Street Journal. I think we should take a shot.' And I said, 'Yes, it's an invitation.' "

In court shortly after 2, he told Judge Thomas F. Hogan of the Federal District Court in Washington that he had received "an express personal release from my source."

That statement surprised Mr. Luskin, Mr. Rove's lawyer. Mr. Luskin said he had only reaffirmed the blanket waiver, in response to a request from Mr. Fitzgerald.

I might have to try on your tinfoil hat for size.

Hard to say for sure, and Luskin is going to portray his client in the best of light no matter what, but Fitzgerald and Rove seem to be working together to some degree (as in Rove is doing what he can to cooperate and move the investigation forward) and I find it interesting that Fitzgerald has broadly defined who the sujects and targets of the investigation are.

I don't know what the "administration line" was right away, but I remember someone on The Corner saying they had known Plame's job in the CIA and being kind of confused that people were getting upset at Novak about saying this.

(At the same time it was admitted Novak perhaps should not have printed it even if everyone in those circles knew it there.)

They've got to be someone high up feeding her stuff, the National Security equivalent of Mark Felt.

Someone with a grudge, who expected to go higher and didn't, or felt slighted, or worked for a prior administration but didn't get promoted because of that.

Possible long time National Security sources for Miller on Iraq WMDs and Valerie Plame could be:

Colin Powell (has a old-school grudge against the Administration).

James Baker (see above).

Brent Scowcroft (see above).

Sandy Burglar.

George Tenet or one of his top deputies.

Henry Kissinger.

Bill Clinton.

Hillary Clinton.

Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman, or other Intelligence Committee members privy to National Security info This last probably unlikely, Miller seems to have lots of inside Admin info).

Condi Rice.

Dick Cheney.

If I HAD to put down my markers, I'd say Judy Miller's reporting on Iraq WMD issues and other Administration inside info including Plame came from a high ranking National Security Bush Administration Official and it was ... Colin Powell. Miller, like Sy Hersh with the CIA, seems to have been the recepient of friendly leaks for institutional purposes. To me that has Colin Powell's fingerprints all over it, YMMV.

Miller sit in jail to protect Karl Rove? Not a chance. Protect the NYT BEST source in generations, Colin Powell? Uh huh.

about knowing Plame was a CIA employee.  Clifford May perhaps-seems like he wrote a lot on the Wilson/Plame stuff.

could be considered high up in the administration.

that Powell.

Some sentence still applies though.

was committed?

It is very UNclear right now that one was. So to "protect" a source with no crime is OK, and it serves the purpose of stirring the pot even longer.

Maybe Miller is playing along in hopes of a big reward of some kind, maybe she really thinks she's upholding some high journalistic standard, or maybe she just likes pretending she's Susan McDougall.

Kerry Campaign? In July 2003?

Absolutely. AP writer David Tirrell-Wysocki, in a story dated 10/23/03, says...

Wilson, former ambassador to the West African nation of Gabon, said he has long been a Kerry supporter and has contributed $2,000 to the campaign this year. He said he has been advising Kerry on foreign policy for about five months and will campaign for Kerry, including a trip to New Hampshire next month.

So Wilson was an advisor to the Kerry campaign as of May, 2003. So he got in the New York Times with his own op-ed, pretended to be Mr. Objective Truth, was written up in the Washington Post and interviewed on Meet the Press on the same basis, and all the while he was part of the Kerry campaign.

Did the media mention that when they told you that Wilson had "exposed Bush's lies?" I don't recall that they did.

The funny thing is, the only copy of this AP article I could find was on a Google-cached copy of the John Kerry campaign web site.

This is from a July 22, 2003 Newsday article.

A senior intelligence official confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked "alongside" the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger.

But he said she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment. "They [the officers who did ask Wilson to check the uranium story] were aware of who she was married to, which is not surprising," he said. "There are people elsewhere in government who are trying to make her look like she was the one who was cooking this up, for some reason," he said. "I can't figure out what it could be."

"We paid his [Wilson's] air fare. But to go to Niger is not exactly a benefit. Most people you'd have to pay big bucks to go there," the senior intelligence official said. Wilson said he was reimbursed only for expenses.

A principled reporter.

is a big plus. Leon is referring to a leak to Miller, not a leak to Novak.

in May.  That may explain how he got in both major newspapers and meet the press on the same day.  The Kerry campaign would have had the contacts to organize that one.

primaries are held?

recommendation of her husband for the trip, the Senate investigation pretty much confirmed that at the least she verbally recomended him, and then wrote a memo recommending him.

you have a choice between watching Matt Cooper at a press conference or reading the NYT. I know I don't have much difficulty in making a choice between the two.

terrible journalist, but I wouldn't go to jail to protect a source in order to stir the pot.

Shoot I probably wouldn't go to jail to protect a source at all, unless I thought it would put the source at severe undeserved risk (and if the source supposedly broke the law and might go to jail that isn't underserved).

Well played.

So that's where my tin foil hat disappeared to!

About the Kerry campaign.

Do you think Wilson and Plame would set up an elaborate hoax in order for one of them to get a cabinet position>

My guess is they would in a heart beat.

Newsday July 22, 2003, this article came out shortly after the Novak column,

Intelligence officials confirmed to Newsday yesterday that Valerie Plame, wife of retired Ambassador Joseph Wilson, works at the agency on weapons of mass destruction issues in an undercover capacity -

LOL!  OK, settle down since it is clear you are NOT familiar with goverment agencies where the pecking order is EVERYTHING.  Plame's memo was not to mid-level managers if my recollection is accurate.

But it is clear she had the years in and the position in overseeing WMD proliferation to have sufficient personal budget control for a lousy trip to Niger for one person.

The people I work for at NASA are the same age a Valerie and manage budgets in the millions of doillars per year.  A one week trip is not even detectable in their budgets.

Geez, my part time support to them is not detectable in their budgets.

You still have to prove what personal experience you can bring to bear to disprove these assumptions.

Yep, it is clear Luskin was hinting that EVERYONE was a subject.

Now who is the target?

I doubt a low level employee cuts memos directly to the deputy.

her name and undercover status (which was "not undercover"), it doesn't matter.  He didn't reveal either one of them to Cooper.

Isn't anyone interested in how Cooper found out her name? Doesn't that imply another, more informative, source?  And he himself must have known she wasn't undercover if he was going to publish her name in the first place. (Did he publish, or not?)

If Novak had already published the information, how is it a crime to talk about even less specific information? I know the fuss implies the Rove-Cooper conversation was before the Novak column, but I haven't seen the dates.

Since Novak wasn't bothered by the the SC, Fitzgerald, Novak's source apparently didn't request anonymity. That source was obviously not in any fear of prosecution.

So, we still have the question of Why? Miller hasn't revealed her source if it was Rove--after all, she'd just be confirming Cooper, not telling Fitzgerald something he doesn't already know. Perhaps her employers have ordered her to keep quiet. Then there's the question of Who? her source was, if it wasn't Rove.

Since we have to guess at these things until SC Fitzgerald's report is public, we might as well guess that Miller's source provided more and better information, and that it wasn't Rove.

wasn't very undercover given that it was known in washington media circles she worked for the CIA.

Also, if I remember right that is the article quoted above, which has the same guy lying about Plames involvement in sending Wilson to Niger (the guy denies she was involved, and there is a memo to prove otherwise).  

Also, I didn't think undercover people worked at Langley-I thought the CIA tried to keep them as far away from Langley as possible.

While we're getting signals from the Space Brothers ... why not consider that the whole "Rove Outted Plame" campaign is a massive disinformation operation by the CIA to take attention away from the fact that they are a bunch of partisan incompetent boobs who practice nepotism ... and incidentally, SHOULD have been able to warn the US about things like 9/11 ... and were not able to ... ? For obvous reasons ... ?

Okay, I'll take off my tin foil cap. I honestly don't think the CIA is competent enough these days to carry off a disinformation campaign.

Here's what really, really, REALLY ticks me off. That some babe from the CIA sent her husband to track down intel about Saddam and Uranium, either directly, or by recommendation to her boss. That the guy they sent didn't bother to file a written report, except in the New York Times.

And, that it took a YEAR for the Senate go get around to investigating the problem.

I used to be kind of amused by Karl Rove ... thought he was some kind of necessary evil .. but dangit .. it's beginning to look like Rove's the only one that made an ATTEMPT to get the straight story out to the public ...

Incidentally, I've read both of Robert Baier's books "See No Evil" and "Dancing with the Devil"

Baier was the last Arab speaking agent in the Middle East, until he was pulled to a more politically correct position.

to be reporters. They are far too devious to be human.

I think I'll go with the "big reward" theory.  The NYT has promised her a lot for a few days in jail.  Or haven't you seen "The Front Page"?

I guess it comes down to whether you believe Mr. Luskin statement

Mr. Cooper, it turns out, never spoke to his confidential source that day, said Robert D. Luskin

and his surprise at Cooper's statement.

comes across as a media/attention seeker, and if he thought he could get by with it, I could see him seeking some high level cabinet job.

I think if they did they only intended for the Wilson pieces and media appearances to happen.  I don't see how the release of Plame's employment and subsequent investigation would have helped them any, and it would have (and may have) exposed them to risk.

Granted as my caveat this is of course all speculation, and may in the end be about as worthless as what I find in the cat's litter box.

Everyone PLEASE remember that the Media's foundational assumption behind this whole case is flawed - no one, on the Right OR the Left, revealed Plame's name intentionally.  There was no malicious intent, and the CIA was not actively trying to hide her identity.

Please review Novak's follow-up column:

Robert Novak: The CIA leak

So, what do we really have?  At WORST, someone slipped up and accidentally revealed something that they did not know was a "secret".  Something that the CIA could have prevented from happening by saying "Hey, Bob - if you print Ms. Plame's name it will be a violation of national security.  And we need to know who told you about her."

My opinion?  Who cares if it was Karl Rove?  And Scooter Libby?  This is just another case of the Lame-stream Media trying to hype up a non-story because they think it might make a Republican administration look bad.

Yawn.

Why did the White House (WH), including the President repeatedly said Rove was not the leak, when his lawyer clearly says he is involved?

Why did Bush say he would fire who ever outed Plame, if he and the WH did not believe this was a serious crime?

Why does Rove still work for the President?

Why does he still have clearance at the WH? Shouldn't he be on some sort of leave of absence at the very least?

Why hasn't Rove resigned?

Why hasn't Bush fired Rove?

Why has the President lied to the American people? After all, he said he would fire the leaker? Is anyone denying that Karl Rove was a leak?

I thought Bush was about accountability. I really liked him for that. Why is he going back on his word now?

Why hasn't gando read anything at this site about the story over the last three days before posting?

Why does gando think he will survive long at a Republican site by posting Democrat talking points?

Why hasn't gando read this or this?

... work at the CIA. Most of them are not protected identities.

Rove apparently never used her name --- one could speculate that he didn't have to because everyone "in the know" in DC already knew who she was. Apparently all the reporters did.

This whole this is, in the words of William Shakespeare Much Ado About Nothing

I knew we couldn't trust him!

Sorry, I didn't follow the rules, thank you for your kind pointers. I will try my best to tone down the snarkiness and the democrat talking points. I do truely like this site, and like that you folks allow those with differing ideas to come here and participate.

and a third leaker to Miller?  I am not being dense, just trying to follow Leon's logic (with my own limited reading comprehension abilities).

This comment said that Rove leaked Plame's identity.

You replied, "not exactly," Rove didn't use Plame's name, and everyone knew who she was anyway.

Now, I can't tell what you're saying.  Do you think Rove didn't know her identity was to be protected?  Do you think he thought her (protected) identity was already blown?

I would have to say the monetary reward would have to be huge (as in send all four of my kids to Harvard in addition to setting me up for life) to get me to go to jail to protect the source.

one of the leakers also may be in common between them, but Novak didn't want to go to jail.

IMHO that Powell consistently leaked info, and Bush has a pretty good idea that Powell is the guy Miller went to jail for.

ANY good reporter at the NYT would not just run stories based on Karl Rove's say-so. Standard Journalism practice last I heard was at least two sources, cause heck people lie.

The Secretary of State, who is well respected, telling the NYT Miller "Hey Judy the stuff on Saddam and WMDs is legit" is news, and gives Miller the credibility to get through the editorial gatekeeper function which after the Jayson Blair fiasco is likely to be tight. Karl Rove or Scooter Libby saying that doesn't have the same impact. It's like Al Gore or Carville saying something. It automatically has a political discount built in.

Judy Miller isn't playing martyr. She's protecting an interest and a source that's worth going to jail for. A serious one likely to be a player in the future for either a Republican or Democratic Admin.

Colin Powell is gone from the Administration, as was Paul O'Neil. Yet Rummy hangs on despite having offered his resignation and generating considerable resentment on the Hill, and in the Pentagon (his re-org and attempts to kill weapons systems like the Osprey and Crusader make powerful Pentagon and Defense Contractor Enemies). If Rove becomes a liability, Bush will dump him like O'Neil. Note that O'Neil and Powell both played up to the Press and did not subordinate to the Admin goals. You can party with Bono on Press Junkets or play by the gameplan of the Admin but not both.

It's very likely Bush knows exactly who the leaker is and that person is no longer in the Admin. Popular perception is that Bush is dumber than rocks (something he deliberately accentuates btw) due to his inherited dyslexia and difficulty in prepared speeches. Bush is not stupid, and a dynastic name only goes so far (ask President Teddy Kennedy). HE, not Karl Rove, has the strategic political vision of where he wants to go (Rove is the tactical guy). Gitmo, TANG, various other "scandals" Bush has not responded to because it was obvious how they'd play out ... and because he knows the press is so partisanly hostile it's useless to respond to them anyway.

Ever wonder, somewhat off tangent, why the Press LOVES Colin Powell, John McCain, and Jim Baker before them? It's not their nice shiny hairdos or "maverick" status, but that they leak like a sieve so reporters cover their flank.

Dont' watch the clowns in the Circus (the Washington Press Corps which is pack journalism). Watch what a serious Special Prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald does. He may nail someone on lying to investigators ala Martha, or other related crimes. It could even be Rove (though I personally doubt it).

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

The New York Times

Oct. 11, 2003

the C.I.A. suspected that Aldrich Ames had given Mrs. Wilson's name (along with those of other spies) to the Russians before his espionage arrest in 1994. So her undercover security was undermined at that time, and she was brought back to Washington for safety reasons.

Sounds like her cover had alreasy been blown.

there is something in the claim that the CIA considered her to be covert. Fitzgerald has been investigating this for a year and a half and the DOJ/FBI spent 3 months investigating before that.

This September 2003 WAPO article says that Tenet called her an undercover officer.  

Administration officials said Tenet sent a memo to the Justice Department raising a series of questions about whether a leaker had broken federal law by disclosing the identity of an undercover officer. The CIA request was reported Friday night by MSNBC.com. Administration sources familiar with the matter said the Justice Department is determining whether a formal investigation is warranted.

An intelligence official said Tenet "doesn't like leaks."  

I don't think we ever found out what the Clintons did for Susan McDougall.  I think she was in jail for a couple of years. Maybe not that long. And all she had to say was that WJC didn't tell her to lie, or something like that.

but now that you've mentioned Novak... he did say that no one in the Bush Administration tipped him off.

That would suggest a career bureaucrat in one of the covert-related agencies.  Perhaps a senior CIA or State official with ties to the Clintons from their time in office?

Ooo, bring out more tinfoil! :D

-TS

Maybe I'm completely misunderstanding you, but:

"Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me."

-Robert Novak, "Mission to Niger," July 14, 2003.

So are you suggesting that the senior administration officials Novak cites were Clinton administration officials? Like I said I could be misinterpreting what you're saying.

... there are several possibilities.

On the one hand maybe he didn't know that she might be a protected individual. And based on some of the news reports I'd surmise that since apparently everyone in DC knew who she was maybe he assumed she was not covered.

On the otherhand perhaps he knew that she might be covered but assumed that since everyone already knew, her cover was blown already.

Another possibility is that Rove knew she was a potentially covered agent but also knew that the protection only applied for five years and they were at or outside the limit.

And then of course there is the ultimate possibility; maybe Rove simply didn't know.

But since he didn't use her name maybe he assumed that Cooper would know who he was talking about since her name is on Wilson's web site bio and again apparently everyone "in the know" in DC knew who she was.

At the end of the day we have to wait for the prosecutor to decide what he thinks happened. My prediction is that nothing happens. This is another TANG memos, Downing Street Memo, et al --- wishful thinking by the left.

But I think that the earlier question is still valid. Since Rove gave a blanket clearance why would Judith Miller be willing to take a jail sentence? Rove said it's OK for her to exercise her 'get out of jail free' card. Unless of course Rove is not Miller's source.

Now I know that principle is important, but 18 months in the slammer to protect a source who is willing to be named seems a bit too much of a martyr; this is Judith Miller, not Sister Teresa. But maybe she has no social life anyway so jail is as good as any other place --- and she doesn't have to pay the cleaning lady every week for a while.

As I said, Much Ado About Nothing

with receiving Lord Rove's messages.

I misread the "Bush administration did not call me to leak".  Novak did in fact get his info from two Bush administration officials.

-TS

Someone with a grudge, who expected to go higher and didn't, or felt slighted, or worked for a prior administration but didn't get promoted because of that.

It sounds like you are describing Richard Clark.

There is no Grand Jury report.  There are only indictments, if charges are brought.

a journalist would probably source top echelon career beaurocrats as "admin officials" ie Tenet, or somebody high up in state would possibily get that label.  

Also, I wonder if it may not have been a matter of X (not in administration, but in the know) tips of Novak, and Novak calls his sources in the administration and CIA to confirm the tip off.  In the story, it just sounds better to site the administration sources rather than the person who was the initial tip off.  Novaks second administration source all but sounds like he/she was contacted by Novak to confirm-it isn't fully clear with the other.

somebody worth going to jail for, especially if they have been a good source in the past, and may be in the future.

I think it is hard to deny that Powell was leaking stuff to the press while he was SofS although I am not sure what would have been in it for him to leak the Plame stuff.

but there is something completely absurd about a newspaper advocating for an investigation to bring to light information that they already know.

to test this theory of yours by holding a press conference and firing slugs into a watermelon to study the blood splatter theory?

I'm glad to see Republicans returning to the conspiracy mongering again.  It makes life so much more entertaining.

What is going on here is speculation.  It is like a GREAT BIG game of Clue or who dunit.

Are you saying that Joesph Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame knew that by his going to Niger to investigate the yellowcake/Niger/Iraq connection they would be able to undermine neo-cons?

Didn't Mr. Wilson go to Niger over a year before President Bush made the statement about Niger in his 'State of the Union' address?

Are you saying that some how their were able to predict President Bush's 'State of the Union' topics more than a year before?

Are you saying that they knew Karl Rove would leak her name over a year later?

I think you're giving Wilson and his wife too much credit.

beaten to death but I haven't seen anyone mention one possibility.  So I'm going on record as the first to predict that Rove found out from Novak.  Invented conversation follows:

Rove:  Karl.  Speak!

Novak:  Karl, it's Bob.  I heard Wilson's wife works for the CIA.  Any comment?

Rove:  Let me get back to you.

(5 minutes later)

Novak:  Karl?

Rove:  Yeah, I checked with Scooter and he said "Uh huh, that's how the *** got the job."

Novak:  Thank you.

(1 minute later)

Editor:  Hello?

Novak:  I have two Bush administration sources....

Now I'm back to ignoring all-things-Rove.

I was just watching Hannity and Colmes and I can not believe what I just heard.

Lindsey Graham was just on talking about judicial nominees and how he believed the president should and would keep his campaign promise to appoint judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas.  Then Alan Colmes gets on there and asks him whether Bush should keep his promise and fire Rove for the Plame leak.  Graham gave the innocent until proven guilty blah, blah, blah, and then without missing a beat basically told Colmes to SHUT UP because he was on to talk about judicial nominees, not Karl Rove.

SCORE one for a gang member.  That was a pretty good right hook.  Too bad I couldn't see Colmes', or Sean's for that matter.  That would have been priceless.

If Karl Rove even mentioned Valerie Plame to ANY reporter, as political retrobution for Wilson's comments, he stepped over the line.  People can say this happens every day, but given the current state of affairs and this administrations emphasis on securing, dismantling terror networks who wish to use WMD against our nation, why on EARTH would you even remotely compromise our security by discussing the name of a senior CIA agent who is a WMD  counterproliferation professional?

Like it or not, illegal or legal, its an embarrassing, over-the-top, callous, cheap shot by Rove---and he got caught lying...not misleading - LYING to me Joe Public.  Two years ago, the Scott McClellan came out speaking with the authority of the President and stated he had spoken to Karl Rove and said he had NOTHING to do with this story.   Now, we know Rove was the primary source for Cooper, most likely Novak, and possibly even Miller.    

You have to ask yourself at the end of the day.  What kind of party are we if we cant hold ourselves to the same standards we expect from the other side?  Rove should be fired .  Illegal or not, he will cost us the midterm elections.  Scum like him and Delay have no place in this party.  

I think you are debunking things that haven't been said. Without a Vulcan mind meld, we will never know whether Ms. Plame suggested that her husband go to Niger to check out "this crazy report" because she wanted it debunked, or because she honestly thought his connections in Africa would be useful in checking it out. But it doesn't matter, so we can set that one on the shelf.

What does matter is that Wilson for sure, and possibly Plame as well, were highly partisan Democrats. So once the controversy over the "sixteen words" heated up, his status as someone who had gone to Niger for the CIA to check this out became valuable as a tool of propaganda. By July 2003, when Wilson's op-ed appeared in the NY Times, Wilson had been advising Kerry on foreign policy issues for a couple of months. He was already on board the Kerry campaign, although he would not publicly announce that until October.

So in July we get the spectacle of a Kerry campaign advisor appearing in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and on Meet the Press, presenting himself to the public as an authority on the subject of this "yellowcake" business who had been sent by the CIA to investigate the report. His ties to the Democratic Party and to the Kerry campaign are not disclosed; he is simply a "whistleblower" speaking truth to power, and the media supports him in doing this.

The report he delivers to the public is found by a subsequent Senate investigation to be, shall we say, at odds with what he told the CIA when he returned from Niger. His multiple claims that his wife had nothing to do with sending him over there are similarly found to be untrue. In fact it is fair to say that the Senate report exposes him as a fraud and a liar. At which point he becomes a non-person in the Kerry campaign and disappears from the Kerry web site as if he had never existed.

So basically what we have here is an undercover Democratic campaign operative presented to the public by the media as an objective observer, delivering what turns out to be a pack of lies, for the purpose of discredting Bush.

You would be right, I think, in assuming that Wilson believed that Plame's role would never come out. Otherwise why would he publicly state several times that she had nothing to do with his trip? He was clearly assuming that her role would remain classified, and that no one could ever prove him a liar.

The claim you have not debunked is that a Democratic campaign operative was presented to the public in a media "trifecta" that John McCain would have difficulty pulling off, as a career civil servant whistleblower, and that in that role he delivered what he knew to be numerous falsehoods.

It would appear, at least to the suspicious, that certain organs in the media conspired with partisan Democrats to hookwink the public on a matter of national security, for the purpose of benefitting the Kerry campaign.

If that happened, it's a big deal.

Who am I going to believe Luskin or my lyin' eyes. As I watched the presser, I'm going to go out on a limb and say Matt Cooper knows who Matt Cooper talked to and what was said.

primary source for anyone other than Cooper who didn't write a story on it.

I actually suspect that the primary source for Novak and Miller isn't Rove (I suspect Novak contacted Rove for confirmation of the primary source and Miller is going to jail to protect that source).

You are right though that Rove either lied to McClellan, or McClellan was talking out his rear end when he said Rove wasn't involved-either way it is bad for the administration.

to shut up is something that should be encouraged?  

OK.

However the discussion is about the credentials of Joe Wilson.  So he's not bonafide.  The discussion is about Plame and who leaked her identity to the press.  

Whether Joe Wilson was a hired political assassin does not, in any way, absolve the person who leaked her identity.  

No, you are saying all that.  I said what Wilson said - he was out to destroy the neocons.

And they were not worried about the SOTU speech, they wanted to stop regime change in Iraq....

Are you trying to be confused??

You are somewhat correct but I dont know that anymore than this President knew Iraq had WMD and he took us to war over far less credible evidence...so lets be realistic.  Rove got caught lying to AT LEAST to McClellan AND the  president if McClellans words at his first press conferences are truthful themselves.  

Again, I want to know when it became acceptable to discuss openly to reporters the name or work of a senior WMD counterproliferation agent given the war on terror we are fighting...its completely antithetical to the goal of the war itself.

If Plames identity was common knowledge, why did only Novak opt to publish her identity?  Novak isnt known for being ballsy...

The fact is that Rove of all people and this WH had plenty of resources, independent of Wilson's wife, to discredit him and they chose this avenue...its more than cheap and its doesnt take a law degree or special prosecutor to see that they really wanted to hush Wilson up for sure.  They had plenty of other critics lobbing equally damaging accusations before but chose to pursue this , this far, with Wilson, why?  I wonder if Rove wanted Sandy Berger fired when he removed classified information from the archives...this is no different.  

If Wilson's trip was a boondoggle, where is the documention showing WHO authorized his trip...its doubtful Plame did that given the obvious conflict of interest it would generate.  

The discussion is about Plame and who leaked her identity to the press.

No, that's your talking point. You don't get to tell me what my talking point is.

Fitzgerald can figure out how Plame's name got out there. But I don't want him to stop there. I want to know whether Tim Russert, Judith Miller, Walter Pincus, and the rest of these clowns who put this guy Wilson in front of the public as an objective observer knew that he was working for the Kerry campaign; knew who his wife was and what she did before they even talked to anyone in the White House about it; and knew they were participating in the delivery of a pack of lies designed to benefit the Kerry campaign.

Because if that happened, the public needs to know that the New York Times, the Washington Post, and NBC News were in bed with the Kerry campaign and assisted that campaign in perpetrating a fraud on the American people.

You wanted to create a different story. OK.  Fair enough.  

Why would Fitzgerald care about any of this though?  Did the New York Times, Washington Post, or NBC News commit a crime of some sort?  

Did the New York Times, Washington Post, or NBC News commit a crime of some sort?

Was any of the information Wilson disclosed from his trip to Niger classified? Is the fact that his trip was even on behalf of the CIA classified? Could any of the media figures have reasonably known that they were assisting with the disclosure of classified information? Was there a conspiracy to disclose classified information?

We don't know. But it's possible to find out. And Fitzgerald is just the guy to find it out.

... understand how such investigations work.  Vague claims about crimes that may have happened and that are not directly connected are not covered by investigation.  

Furthermore, you do know that Judith Miller is a prominent conservative right?  Her biggest sources have been in Republican administration.  Her most famous stories have been during this administration when she wrote articles saying Iraq had WMD (which were publicly cited by both Rice and Powell) and during the Reagan administration when she wrote stories for John Poindexter in a campaign against Libya (both series of stories later were revealed to be false).  Painting her as part of the liberal conspiracy in the media ignores her actual open political orientation.

Here we are. Happy members of the VWRC. Minding our own business.

For years we've lived in a state of chronic conspiracy envy. You guys had "blood for oil." You guys had "the Jews didn't show up for work." You guys had "no plane hit the Pentagon." And on and on.

We finally get a chance to weave our own conspiracy theory and you come in here and crap in our sink.

There are plenty of other places who will appreciate your talking points so I don't see much use in you wasting your time here.

You guys trot this out all the time.

Judith Miller is a conservative in the same sense that Howard Dean is lucid, in other words no one in the real world believes it.

deserved it.  He was being a total horse's behind and badgering the guest.  Sheesh!

So you want a fishing expedition.  

You don't know if any crime has been committed and you have no actual evidence to support the belief that a crime has been committed but you figure that we might as well keep Fitzgerald busy looking at events that are already publicly disclosed.

You always seem like a reasoanable fellow, Nick.   I usually appreciate your comments.  But you seem to be grasping as straws here for no other reason than to deflect away from the actual story.

There are STILL people that think that Hillary Clinton has Vince Foster killed.

they are wrong? Got any proof of that?

Because the few times I accidentally watch that show it seems like Colmes is always on the butt end of verbal abuse.  

I also don't have any proof that George Bush isn't an alien sent to destroy the planet.  

How do you read that Plame identity was classified?  The CIA asked for this investigation.  Her official employment was for a non-official company (ie she was under non-official cover).  I don't think there's much doubt.

MSNBC

WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 -- The CIA has asked the Justice Department to investigate allegations that the White House broke federal laws by revealing the identity of one of its undercover employees in retaliation against the woman's husband, a former ambassador who publicly criticized President Bush's since-discredited claim that Iraq had sought weapons-grade uranium from Africa, NBC News has learned.

Newsday

Intelligence officials confirmed to Newsday yesterday that Valerie Plame, wife of retired Ambassador Joseph Wilson, works at the agency on weapons of mass destruction issues in an undercover capacity - at least she was undercover until last week when she was named by columnist Robert Novak.

The Hill

CIA agents work under different sorts of "cover." There's "official cover" -- like when an agent is assigned to a U.S. embassy under the guise that he or she is a foreign service officer. Then there's "nonofficial" cover -- like when your business cards say you're a manager at Acme Overseas Energy Corporation, but you really work for the CIA.

Plame is in that latter category.

...

My sources tell me that Plame formerly worked abroad under nonofficial cover and has more recently worked stateside. Her position today may be less sensitive than it was when she worked abroad. But she still works on WMD proliferation issues. And, at a minimum, any operation that she may once have been involved in is probably now fatally compromised, any company which provided her cover is now exposed.

WaPo

CIA officials approached the Justice Department about a possible investigation within a week of the column's publication.

...

She is a case officer in the CIA's clandestine service and works as an analyst on weapons of mass destruction. Novak published her maiden name, Plame, which she had used overseas and has not been using publicly. Intelligence sources said top officials at the agency were very concerned about the disclosure because it could allow foreign intelligence services to track down some of her former contacts and lead to the exposure of agents.

Her official employment was with the CIA and she served on an interagency task force.

the object of various jokes-but then Sean Hannity rubs me the wrong way, and I often can't help but wonder if the two actually like each other (they say they do on camera, but when they shut down-who knows).

then you don't need to be posting on this thread.

that it is complete schtick.  Colmes is Costello and Hannity is Abbott.

was not an inter-agency task force.

You don't know if any crime has been committed

That's only because I do not know what was classified and what wasn't. How would I know that? But the CIA knows. If Porter Goss were to determine that Wilson disclosed classified information, he could easily make another referral to Fitzgerald. He could already have done that for all we know.

On the face of it, I cannot believe that the fact that Wilson's trip was undertaken on behalf of the CIA was not classified. "Hi, the CIA sent me over here to find out..." That's just not how it works.

because her cover was believed to have been blown by Ames (that is in the Vanity Fair article published in late '03 or early '04).

Novak's CIA source confirmed that she worked with the CIA, and asked that Novak not use her name (Novak says he didn't realize the risk of using her name, which makes me wonder if he understood or was aware of her covert past).

Also, Plame was working at Langley.  Covert CIA agents do not commute to Langley everyday-that sort of gives away where one works.

The fact is that the CIA has confirmed she was an agent who was still under non-official although she was now largely (but not exclusively) working from Washington "running teams."  

Speculated facts.  

Maybe Porter Goss has indeed covertly notified Fitzgerald to investigate Wilson's report.  The evidence wouldn't suggest this and the appearance of gross political manipulation would be pretty bad for the administration and for the CIA.  Why use Fitzgerald when a standard CIA investigator would do the job?  

Whether you believe it or not it is unlikely given that Joe Wilson has not faced ANY charges for the past 2 years, that he did divulge classified information.  Since Wilson was NOT on the payroll of the CIA it is hard to imagine that he had much access to classified information.

1 he is already investigating the leak issue, and all the players are pretty much the same-covers two birds with one stone.

2 by having Fitzgerald do it, then the CIA will then avoid the appearance of having a conflict of interest.

He also at one point made a claim to have seen or at least known what was in some classified documents (when he realized those documents weren't available to the CIA at the time he did his investigating he backed off that story as well).

Flyerhawk, this whole thing is nothing but "speculated facts." One of them is that Rove told any of these reporters anything they didn't already know. Since everyone is guessing, I can guess too.

If you don't think Wilson had access to classified info, you need to famailiarize yourself with the Vanity Fair profile. Wilson served in the National Security Council under Clinton. The CIA trusted him and briefed him on all kinds of stuff.

doesn't appeal to me much.  

I also don't tolerate Hannity and Colmes well, because it ends up turning into a yell fest where everyone tries to talk over each other.  

stuff?  I keep seeing it referenced by various liberals, but I haven't seen anything beyond that.

Would like to read up on it, and am just wondering why they didn't think Brewster and Jennings was compromised, when they believed Plame was compromised by Ames back in 1997.

I don't understand.  He holds no official position.  How would it be a conflict?

but that doesn't mean he had a need to know about classified information.  

You're right that the Rove stuff is speculated.  But there is relevant KNOWN information that supports the claim that he is embroiled in this.  There is little evidence that Joe Wilson is being investigated.  Occam's Razor would suggest that he isn't, regardless of the wishful thinking of some.

or the context of Mitchell's statemnt.

If Plames status was common knowledge, then why did the CIA refer this to a special prosecutor for investigation?

Means classified identity and works outside the US at least once in the last five years (or other possible categories).  If Plame "ran operations abroad" as has been reported, its likely she worked outside the US at least once within 5 years of 2003.  

Sorry, your train has left reality... have a good trip.  You typically have rational comments, but not this one.

Seriously, why would some Democratic operative "out" Plame? Why do that?  Doesn't make any sense, except with tinfoil...

5 Why's you didn't ask before you posted...

[1] Why is the way to "set up a 'media hit' on Bush" through leaking a CIA agent's name to press that is so in-bed with Republicans (Novak)?  Too risky, too easy to backfire, too dumb - Democrats are not dumb.  Better to rig elections in Ohio, than mess with insider journalist ; )

[2]  Why is Wilson's timing so suspect? Look at the time line carefully.  If he had coordinated the "left-wing" media so artfully, why wait until July 2003 to debunk 16 words stated in POTUS' SOU address in Feb 2003?  The WMD issue was relevant in June/July 2003.  The administration was still insisting WMDs would be found, particularly those that could be used for a mushroom cloud over New York.

[3] Why was it more important to "attack a messenger" than admit 16 words were wrong, but the WMD issue was serious?  In another post, Greenpeace found some WMD (yellow cake), though it was not from Niger.

[4] Why is Wilson & Plame's Democratic affiliations relevant?  If they disagreed with the Administration, don't they have the right to speak their minds.  If they were wrong (see #3 above?), the story would not have warranted the coverage it then (& now) received.

[5] Why was it necessary for Novak and Rove to publicize the CIA connection in July 2003, if for nothing else than to smear some (no)one who dissented?  Why is dissent not to be tolerated? Dissent created this country...

Finally, in honor of 6-sigma...

[6] Why is it more important for our president (and Republican apologists) to protect his friend, than to protect this country?  The fact that Rove was more interested in warning journalists (who this Administration has little respect for anyways) away from a "bad" story by alluding to (or "outing") a CIA operative says more about his priorities (politics over national security) than anything else.  No one should be above the law.  When did Repulicans become the moral relativist party?  Was it with DeLay? The majorities in every branch of government? When?

Defending Rove too partisan-ly is a slippery slope (just ask Democrats about Kennedy!)

where Osama bin Laden is, we would get him, right?

Goss is a political operative.

If Karl Rove is Judith Miller's source, then how can the NY Times claim to be protecting her source?  Calling for the man's resignation is hardly protective behavior!  They are taking advantage of the fact that we don't have all the information in order to launch attacks against the man.

This leads me to believe that the Times has ANOTHER source who is being protected.  It is possible that this other source is a career appointee (and not necessarily someone tied to the Bush political operations).  

Bush is now suffering because he did not adequately clean house and purge partisan Dems from sensitive positions.  But then, who would have expected so much insubordination and outright sabotage?

In passing, this is my first post here.  I see the big PROFANITY IS NOT TOLERATED legend and I hope it is not generated because there is any in my post.  I also hope that I have not been "snarky."

I agree that trying to destroy someone's career is reprehensible behavior.  However, we don't know if that is what happened.

The Bush administration gets blind sided by another career government official (whom they learn, through brutal experience, is a partisan for the political opposition).  Too late they learn that Wilson is helping the Kerry campaign.  They see outright lies and misrepresentations in his NY Times column and in his interviews.

They try to respond to some of Wilson's lies.  He tries to enhance is credibility by making it seem that the Administration (Vice-President's office, if I remember correctly) chose him for the job.  The White House responds that they did not pick him, and then offer a counter explanation.

As for destroying Plame's career at the CIA (and I believe she just went back to work there), think about what the Clintons did to the White House travel office employees!  Had them fired and sicced (did I spell that right) the FBI on them.

Finally, I go back to the point of my first post...if Rove is Judith Miller's source, then how can the Times claim to be protecting her source?  They are going after Rove with a vengeance.

attempting to save the press some face

Karl Rove cares about Time Magazine AND NYT!?!?!? Just in July 2003?!?!?  Reality check time, Redstate!

take the tinfoil off Leon, you're one of the reasons to read RedState...

Rove only does things that serve his interest which is keeping Bush an effective president.  The president can only be effective if he kept his poll numbers high during this war.  The lack of WMD's in Summer 2003 was a weak spot for the president.  He told the country WMDs were in Iraq which were a direct threat to America.  That the WMD's weren't being found (the way the president characterized the threat) had the potential to seriously cut his support during that summer.

The only "attempt to save" that Rove cared about Summer 2003 was the president's support for the war in Iraq.  He had to attack Wilson to discredit Wilson - and deflect from the know fact that the intelligence on WMD was wrong/mischaracterized/fixed(alloftheabove).

Rove's no American saint.  Republicans praise him because he acheives a good "end" (elections), but you do not (and should not) support bad "means" to get there.  It's just un-American = )

Let us review the circumstances in which this "leak" occurred.

Joe Wilson returns from Africa and promptly "leaks" to Nick Kristof that he has been to Africa and back, at the behest of Dick Cheney, and there is no truth to the yellowcake claim. Further, he claims, he has told the administration this, and they are pointedly ignoring him.

Media Frenzy ensues. Wilson is promptly put on every talking head show that exists. The NYTimes allows him to write a friggin editorial. During this whole time, the story is, "The administration sent this guy, he came back and told them how it was, and they ignored him."

Rove's advice to Cooper was thus, from Cooper's own email:

Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"--CIA Director George Tenet--or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." Wilson's wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA's Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division. (Cooper later included the essence of what Rove told him in an online story.) The e-mail characterizing the conversation continues: "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger ... "

In other words, if you get too far out on this Wilson thing, you're gonna get embarrassed later. Which is, we should point out exactly what happened, most especially to the Washington Post, who had put credence behind even the most ridiculous of Wilson's statement.

So please, provide me with an alternate explanation of Cooper's email, if you can.

the timeline here. I agree with the premise that Mr. Wilson has no love for neo-cons and if he could embarrass the Bush administration I think he would.

I thought you had implied in your diary that Wilson and his wife had conspired over a year ahead of time to use the Niger documents to bring down the neo-cons knowing that the Bush administration would use these documents to justify the war in Iraq.

I wasn't trying to debunk your analysis. I was attempting to understand your reasoning.

If Joesph Wilson was the only one to say the Niger documents were forgeries I think you would have a strong case for your analysis. However, on March 7, 2003 the IAEA released their analysis that these documents were crude forgeries. Even Pat Buchanan felt these were forgeries and no one would link Mr. Buchanan with an attempt to bring down the neo-cons. I know he was against the invasion of Iraq but I don't think he has much else in common with Mr. Wilson's views.

I respect your views but on this point I don't agree with you. I do believe that Mr. Wilson took the opportunity that was presented by President Bush in the SOTU address and Colin Powell's address to the UN to try and refute their claims. I'm sure there this was politically motivated as is most of the dialog from both sides of the ditch.

The elections in Ohio were rigged?

Seriously, why would some Democratic operative "out" Plame?

I don't know. Why would you ask the question? Did someone suggest that's what happened?

Why is the way to "set up a 'media hit' on Bush" through leaking a CIA agent's name to press

It isn't. The way you set up a media hit on Bush is to arrange for a Kerry campaign operative to appear simultaneously in the NYT, the WaPo, and on MTP, present him as an objective observer, and have him tell a bunch of lies that discredit Bush.

So that's what they did.

why wait until July 2003 to debunk 16 words stated in POTUS' SOU address in Feb 2003?

Probably because Wilson couldn't set up such a fantastic media trifecta by himself. Somebody else with more juice had to come along and see the opportunity and arrange it. That didn't happen until after Wilson had started advising Kerry, which happened in May.

Why was it more important to "attack a messenger" than admit 16 words were wrong

Nobody knew at that point. They still don't know. The British still stand by what they said. It's only a Known Fact that the 16 words were "wrong" among flaming moonbats and insane people when they rant.

Why is Wilson & Plame's Democratic affiliations relevant?

The media portrayed Wilson as a truth-telling Objective Observer, a career civil servant who had joined the ranks of heroic whistleblowers.

The media lied. He was a Kerry campaign operative, a long-time partisan Democrat, and a liar. Virtually nothing he said turned out to be true.

Why was it necessary for Novak and Rove to publicize the CIA connection in July 2003

Rove was trying to warn Cooper that Wilson's statement that he had been sent to Niger by Dick Cheney was a lie. As for who told Novak about Plame, we don't know yet.

As for your [6], that's just one of them thar rhetorical questions that people toss off when they have nothing to say. Rant, rant, rant, blah blah blah.

cares about truth?  He cares about image and opinion.  I don't say that as an insult either.  IT IS HIS JOB to care about image and opinion.

To think that he was throwing Cooper a bone is to suggest that Rove acted completely out of character in this one instance.

The excerpts of the email are also oddly inconsistent with reality.  There are no analysts in the CIA's Directorate of Operations.  Analysts work in the Directorate of Intelligence.   Also Plame did not authorize the trip, she didn't have that authority.  A divisional manager did.  

Also you can see that Rove is trying to mitigate the negative impact of the Wilson report which, most likely, he really didn't know the veractiy

Based on that email my suspicion is that Rove found out, perhaps accidentally, that Plame worked for the CIA.  He mistakenly thought she was simply an analyst.  He passed this on, not realizing that he was outting an operative.

I think that too many people assume people like Karl Rove are super-geniuses that know exactly what they are doing at all times.   However even smart guys like Rove make mistakes.  I suspect he didn't intentionally do anything illegal and ultimately he may not have done anything illegal at all.  But I suspect in retrospect he regrets bringing Plame into the fracas.  

But can't we remove our tinfoil hats and admit that maybe, sometimes, he does something in the interest of someone besides himself?

To think that he was throwing Cooper a bone is to suggest that Rove acted completely out of character in this one instance.

Even granting that Rove is the master of the Dark Side, this is false. There are plenty of reasons even for an evil genius to throw a bone to the press, not the least of which is to expect a favor in return at some point later.

The excerpts of the email are also oddly inconsistent with reality.  There are no analysts in the CIA's Directorate of Operations.  Analysts work in the Directorate of Intelligence.   Also Plame did not authorize the trip, she didn't have that authority.  A divisional manager did.

What this means is that either Rove didn't understand Plame's actual job, or that Cooper misunderstood Rove. Both are certainly plausible. But it goes further to show that Rove didn't give Cooper this information as a way to out Plame, otherwise he would have been very specific as to who she was and what she did. Instead, he mentioned her affiliation with the CIA in passing (and in a factually inaccurate way), just to point out that it wasn't as though Cheney or Tenet picked Wilson out for this mission, his WIFE did.

Based on that email my suspicion is that Rove found out, perhaps accidentally, that Plame worked for the CIA.  He mistakenly thought she was simply an analyst.  He passed this on, not realizing that he was outting an operative.

In a stunning turn of events, Leon H. agrees with Flyerhawk for the first time in recorded history. More at 11.

I think that too many people assume people like Karl Rove are super-geniuses that know exactly what they are doing at all times.   However even smart guys like Rove make mistakes.  I suspect he didn't intentionally do anything illegal and ultimately he may not have done anything illegal at all.  But I suspect in retrospect he regrets bringing Plame into the fracas.

Twice in the same post. Watch for the impending apocalypse.

put Cooper on "double super secret" background? That's what I don't get.

I also don't think Karl is the end-game here. I don't know, maybe he perjured himself or something, but how did he even get the information that she was CIA? Also, Novak said "two administration officials." So who else is he talking about? Scooter? John Hannah?

Why doesn't Pres Bush just ask Karl about it and then he can quit the "can't comment" bit.

Your right that Plame didn't authorize the trip - she couldn't. That's what I'm not sure holds up in your argument - if he thought she was a mere analyst, how did he think she'd have the authority to send Wilson on the trip?

I also think you're right that there's no disupting she was undercover, as I've heard/seen some people argue.

"The CIA declined to discuss Plame's intelligence work, but an agency official disputed suggestions that she was a mere analyst whose public exposure would have little consequence.

"If she was not undercover, we would have no reason to file a criminal referral," the CIA official said, insisting on anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation.

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:PMi-X2KWqqMJ:www.billingsgazette.com/i
ndex.php%3Fts%3D1%26display%3Drednews/2003/10/01/build/nation/25-leak.inc+P
lame+CIA+referral&hl=es

heh.

judgemental terms like evil because they rarely apply.

Rove is simply very good at what he does given the political framework in which he is expected to do his job.  To use a cliche "Hate the game not the player"

I find it unlikely that Rove was trying to simply give a heads up to Cooper.  It is far more likely that he was playing politics and got caught with the hot potato in his hands.

"once it turned out that virtually everything that Wilson said was a politically motivated lie."

How do you figure? The yellowcake documents WERE forgeries.

she definitely on board with the right-wing agenda. Just read her Iraq stuff.

Judith Miller is on board with the Judith Miller agenda. Anyone who thinks she is even to the right of John Kerry doesn't know her.

Just because she was an analyst doesn't mean she couldn't approve a trip of this sort.  If she was a high enough ranking person in the DoI she certainly could.  Matter of fact it would make more sense if she was in DoI than in DoO since this was a diplomatic trip.

because of what he said about W getting preferential treatment in the guard?

to a shallow, unmourned grave in The Pile™.

See how easy it was?

That this is a Republican blog.  They openly and clearly state that they are attempting to advocate and promote the interests of the GOP.  As such Democratic talking point criticisms are not going to be tolerated here.  They serve no purpoose on a blog such as this.  

The Bush Guard story is both old news and inciteful.  At a place like this it is purely flame bait that will almost certainly create a firestorm.  Thus the powers that be will simply get rid of people that promulgate that sort of talk.

Entirely within their rights and, given the stated purpose of the blog, a pretty fair way to handle things.

We are starting to get too clever with this Rove thing.  The fat lady has officially sung on this one anyway, since Rosie has blogged about it.  I saw it on one of those fluff celebrity hype shows, and now I just can't take this "scandal" seriously anymore... at least for a while.