Breaking: Rove Learned Plame's Identity From.. Novak?
By Leon H Wolf Posted in Elections — Comments (74) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Somebody help me, I can't stop writing on this story.
The New York Times (with a Hat Tip to Drudge) is reporting in a story peppered with horribly ambiguous grammar that Karl Rove did in fact discuss Plame's identity with Novak - however, the twist to this particular tale is that (apparently) Novak gave Plame's name to Rove, not the other way around.
I use the word "apparently" because the story is so filled with misplaced modifiers and awkward mutilations of the English language that it's difficult to determine what the heck the Times authors are intending to say. But, we shall give it the old College Try beneath the fold.
An aside: The article is also full of reiterations of the Known Fact™ that Bush promised to fire anyone involved in the leak. We've dealt with that so much already that to belabor the point here would be the rhetorical equivalent of beating a dead horse.
ADDENDUM, Nick Danger: The article goes on tell us that Rove "heard it too" from other journalists. Before reporters started calling him, Rove had never heard of Valerie Plame, didn't know she worked at the CIA, and didn't know she was involved in arranging Wilson's trip.
So this is all just a bunch of reporters chasing each others' tails. And blaming Rove.
The truly amazing part of this article is how it goes on ad nauseam about how this will only intensify the fire on Rove. It's almost like the authors didn't read their own article.
Update [2005-7-15 0:45:9 by Clayton]:
Dear New York Times. There is a book out concerning style in writing. Perhaps you ought to order a few copies. This article is a train wreck of grammar.
One more update [2005-7-15 1:16:00 by Leon H] When this story first started gaining serious steam, Nick Danger was the first to suggest that this entire affair was a deliberate attempt to take the scalp of Karl Rove that was both originated and perpetuated by the media (specifically, the NYT). At the time, the cries of "tinfoil hat!" were deafening. It's looking more and more each day like those hats just may be receiving signals from earth, after all.
And then there's this.
WASHINGTON, July 14 - Karl Rove, the White House senior adviser, spoke with the columnist Robert D. Novak as he was preparing an article in July 2003 that identified a C.I.A. officer who was undercover, someone who has been officially briefed on the matter said Thursday.
Mr. Rove has told investigators that he learned from the columnist the name of the C.I.A. officer, who was referred to by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and the circumstances in which her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, traveled to Africa to investigate possible uranium sales to Iraq, the person said.
My best understanding of these two horribly mangled paragraphs is that Rove is claiming that he learned both Plame's name and occupation from Novak, which would certainly clear him under the IIPA, even if he were not automatically cleared under the "five years" rule. (For an examination of Rove's liability under the Espionage Act, see the Baseball Crank's excellent post.
The confusion wanders on:
After hearing Mr. Novak's account, the person who has been briefed on the matter said, Mr. Rove told the columnist: "I heard that, too."
The previously undisclosed telephone conversation, which took place on July 8, 2003, was initiated by Mr. Novak, the person who has been briefed on the matter said.
Six days later, Mr. Novak's syndicated column reported that two senior administration officials had told him that Mr. Wilson's "wife had suggested sending him" to Africa. That column was the first instance in which Ms. Wilson was publicly identified as a C.I.A. operative. The column provoked angry demands for an investigation into who disclosed Ms. Wilson's name to Mr. Novak.
The Justice Department appointed Patrick J. Fitzgerald, a top federal prosecutor in Chicago, to lead the inquiry. Mr. Rove said in an interview last year that he did not know the C.I.A. officer's name and did not leak it.
The person who provided the information about Mr. Rove's conversation with Mr. Novak declined to be identified, citing requests by Mr. Fitzgerald that no one discuss the case. The person discussed the matter in the belief that Mr. Rove was truthful in saying he did not disclose Ms. Wilson's identity.
Despite the strange syntax, we are reasonably confident that negative answers are firming up to questions 8 and 11. This is, of course, bad news to liberals who are looking for a scalp.
On Oct. 1, 2003, Mr. Novak wrote another column in which he described calling two officials. The first source, who is unknown, was described by Mr. Novak as "no partisan gunslinger" who provided the outlines of the story. The second, confirming source, Mr. Novak wrote, responded, "Oh, you know about it."
Hmm.. who is this first source? No speculation is offered.
Asked by investigators how he knew enough to leave Mr. Novak with the impression that his information was accurate, Mr. Rove said he heard portions of the story from other journalists, but had not heard Ms. Wilson's name.
This is the first I have heard, albeit indirectly, from the mouth of Rove in answer to Burning Question #10.
The rest of the article drives a stake through the heart of the contention that Rove was seeking out friendly reporters to distribute this information in an attempt to exact political retribution on Wilson:
Mr. Novak began his conversation with Mr. Rove by asking about the promotion of Frances Fragos Townsend, who had been a close aide to Janet Reno when she was attorney general, to a senior counterterrorism job at the White House, the person who was briefed on the matter said.
Mr. Novak then turned to the subject of Ms. Wilson, identifying her by name, the person said. Mr. Novak said he knew that in contrast to Mr. Wilson's suggestion in his Op-Ed article that he had been sent to Niger because of Mr. Cheney's interest in the matter, Mr. Wilson had been sent at the urging of his wife.
It is important to note that, thus far, neither conversation that we now have record of (Cooper and Novak) was initiated by Rove, and in neither conversation did Rove bring the matter of Valerie Plame up.
Mr. Rove's allies have stressed that he did not call reporters with information about the case, rebutting the theory that the White House was actively seeking to intimidate or punish Mr. Wilson by harming his wife's career. They have also emphasized that Mr. Rove appeared not to know anything about Ms. Wilson other than that she worked at the C.I.A. and was married to Mr. Wilson.
Seems about right to me from the facts we know thus far. The story is getting verrry interesting indeed. And if, as some sources are suggesting, the Times is preparing to slowly let the Miller information dribble, it could only get more interesting as time goes on.
Which is bad news for yours truly, because I'm simultaneously sick of writing about this, and unable to write about anything else whatsoever.
Cross Posted: Macho Nachos.
« Question and answer time: the Wes Clark thing. — Comments (50) | Who Outed Plame? Was it... Wilson? — Comments (39) »
Breaking: Rove Learned Plame's Identity From.. Novak? 74 Comments (0 topical, 74 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Ok, clearly the source is familiar only with Rove's testimony? Am I right about that? There's some syntax to wade through but I think this account is solely of Rove's account of the circumstances and substance of Novak's call. It's ironic that the source the NYT is using on this source has demanded (I'm guessing) anonymity, isn't it?
Anyway, if this is just Rove's side, what about Novak's? Now that this is out there will he tell the story from his side as he promised to eventually? What will that story sound like? I doubt Rove would be stupid enough to put this out there if Novak's story was different, cause he'd know Novak would fight back.
Who was Novak's source? Who was the other journalists' source(s)? Is Rove's testimony even accurate (could the source be Luskin)? Like I said in another comment this is the equivalent of an incomplete pass. Second down and 10.
Why oh why didn't the NYT give this assignment to someone who spoke English?
Insofar as these are the first words that we are hearing that are even reputed to be from Rove.
I, too, would find it shocking if Novak's version of these events differed significantly from Rove's. There was one paragraph that led me to believe that some information besides the personal testimony of Karl Rove was considered by this source:
That second source was Mr. Rove, the person briefed on the matter said. Mr. Rove's account to investigators about what he told Mr. Novak was similar in its message although the White House adviser's recollection of the exact words was slightly different. Asked by investigators how he knew enough to leave Mr. Novak with the impression that his information was accurate, Mr. Rove said he had heard portions of the story from other journalists, but had not heard Ms. Wilson's name.
But since, as you point out, the author of this piece didn't speak English, I can't say with certainty that that is the case.
leak, not the WH.
I think Novak did this digging (and given that Wilson's story just broke there were probably other journalists digging in the same waters) and got the dirt from a CIA source, then called his WH sources for confirmation of what he learned. Rove or other WH source may have made calls and confirmed, and it is possible other journalists had contacted him with a similar story, but I suspect the genesis was:
Wilson's story-Novak investigates (maybe talks to other reporters who were also sniffing out story angles)-Novak gets good info from a CIA contact on Plame-Novak calls Rove-Rove confirms with his own contacts (or maybe had already heard, but I really think Novak was Rove's source)-other journalists call Rove on the issue-Rove feeds them the story from Novak (which may explain why Rove didn't use her name with Cooper).
The only thing this timeline doesn't explain is Miller, so I may be off base, or Miller may be related to stuff with Wilson/Plame.
Somebody help me, I can't stop writing on this story.
You and me both, brother. I am hating myself for spending any time on this.
By the way, I win the office pool:
posted by polyphemus on 07/13/2005 01:15:44 AM EST
This topic has been pretty much...
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....
Booyah.
That Judith Miller was the true source of this, and it will not be unreasonable to guess that Wilson was her source for Valerie's name. no wonder they do not care to participate in this. They were behind it the whole time.
In other words, the NYT has known the whole time that Rove did nothing wrong, and in fact set out to get him. The NYT led the charge for the special prosecutor, even though they filed in their brief that no crime occured in the affair.
This is not only a tempest in a teapot, it is an example of something far beyond agenda driven news. it is corruption deliberately designed to destroy by fraud on a scale Rather did not even dream of when he winked and nodded to shoot at W over the phony Rathergate story.
or even that Wilson/Plame are, but it looks like Miller knows more about the primary source than is let on, it now appears at least that Rove was not the primary source, and that he wasn't "shopping the story around" as the media portrayed it after Novak's story broke.
Rove was taking phone calls and playing the media game.
No matter how complicit Judith Miller ends up being... And no matter how innocent Rove ends up being, the NY Times drives most of the print media in this country.
As we saw with this (Third-Grade-Level) piece, the author had the nerve to say this will merely ramp up the political pressure. Huh? That's journalism? Now NY Times authors are trying to fuel political fires?
The point being that this is agenda-driven news by a press who feels castrated by the current state of things (read Fineman's latest column on Newsweek.com if you need proof)... Who is the check on the Times if this thing gets ugly? We are headed for partisan news outlets in this country....
i have doubts now...just because all these DEM Senator(s) wouldn't be calling for him to quit if they thought this would turn around and bite them in the ass.
on their agenda: Their writing style gets even worse.
I think if they really lose dramaticaly we will likely see something worse than my own typing, even approaching this:
QWER#QW$ARGFSDREY%YRHSGTHertrewfwerwwe%$^fgb<>kj(*gh
Then we will know the end of modern lefty liberalism has arrived. Plus of course the skating concession in hades.
steaming pile than Pepe stepped in with the email hoax. Just wow if true.
I am with you completely.
However, we have to be careful. President Bush did say he'd fire the person, if the investigation proved someone in his staff leaked the name. He said it during the G8 meeting. Here's the link and the important piece:
QUESTION: Given -- given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?
THE PRESIDENT: That's up to --
QUESTION: And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.
http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/33463.htm
I think we need to stand by that statement because it makes sense. Of course you would fire the leaker. But the leaker is not in his staff and he knows that.
So who, in Novak's original article were the "two senior administration officials" that Novak, in a later article, said "They gave me the name...I used it"?
Where did Novak get the info?
What is Novak's side of the story?
Why, then were Miller and Cooper called to testify?
My suspicion is that there was directly conflicting testimony heard by the Grand Jury, and that Miller and Cooper were subpoenaed by Fitzgerald in order to clear up the conflict.
he may have answered definitively because because he knew he wasn't going to have to follow through.
I think the WH is aware that they are pretty much in the clear in this, so as long as nobody lied or obstructed justice the indictments are going someplace other than the WH staff-they are just letting the liberals out for Rove's head hang themselves.
"Did media tell Rove agent's name?"
That needs to be our spin from now on with this... Coupled with Andrea Mitchell's admission (begrudgingly) that it was a known fact that Wilson's wife worked at Langley.
Unfortunately, our spin machine is never quite that good.
So who, in Novak's original article were the "two senior administration officials" that Novak, in a later article, said "They gave me the name...I used it"?
Administration doesn't neccessarily mean the WH. I still suspect the primary source was a CIA leak. I remember from his original article it sounded like he got info from one, and confirmed with the other, and he also called one of his administration leaks an "intelligience source" in another piece or maybe an interview (everything is melding together).
I think his primary source was CIA, and Rove was his confirming source, and I think Rove loosely confirmed, but Novak used him to strengthen his story.
Where did Novak get the info?
CIA see above.
What is Novak's side of the story?
We don't know it, but from Novak's interviews and such, I think Novak's story will likely fit with Rove's.
Why, then were Miller and Cooper called to testify?
Because part of the story of the Plame leak was the story that was written (read the York piece interviewing Rove's lawyer where it talks about Cooper burning Rove in a story at NRO) was that an Administration rep was "shopping the Plame story around" to journalists. Cooper's name was on the byline for the story, so obviously he likely had informatoin.
I am not sure how Miller fits in-she probably mentioned the administration story shopping thing, or similar, somebody more in the know on her part can clarify.
Perhaps it would be wise to see what, if anything, Fitzgerald gleans from the grand jury proceedings before trying to parse the somewhat bewildering blizzard of innuendo that this situation has become.
It really won't be all that long before their findings are publicly available.
Cheers -
I would love this to just go away until the investigation is over, and then go from there. But, I just don't see that happening in the media, and as long as they go on, blogs will too.
-bro
No doubt. I'll simply add that that is a choice, not an imperative.
Cheers -
According to NYT, AP, and WaPo stories, a source who has been briefed on the legal situation, and who is close to the case...and is (as is clearly stated in the NYT story) sympathetic to Rove's side of the issue....
Rove stated that he heard the name and learned the identity (two different things, btw) from Novak on the 8th or 9th.
However, Rove talked to Cooper on the 11th...and in regards to that revelation, there were several rounds of "Rove did not know her name" that followed Cooper's story.
What about that?
Dollars to donuts that both Novak and Miller were spoon fed by ... Colin Powell.
James Baker leaked like a sieve, and Powell doubtless learned from his mentor. He had good reason, by his lights. Wilson made him look like a chump and doubtless Powell wanted to even up the score.
With Powell as your source, heck any NYT Reporter is going to go to the mat to protect THAT guy. He can give you inside scoop for decades if you nurture him. I don't think Miller's the villain in this piece, but rather the NYT editors who have Bush-hatred on the brain.
Possible sequence explained by known facts:
- Wilson writes op-ed piece, media storm commences.
- Colin Powell gets angry and decides payback is a well, you know. Leaks to favorite columnist and reporter so he doesn't look like a chump (Powell was attacked for "the sixteen words.")
- Media picks up on Wilson's "I'm being persecuted" nonsense; runs with it.
- Special prosecutor installed, Media's worst nightmare, he actually well investigates.
- Fitzgerald takes testimony, figures out quick Miller got fed lots of juicy/classified stuff by Media's second fave Republican, decides to nail our golden hero Colin.
- Wacky hijinks ensue.
Richard Clarke. He would fit right in the liar Joe Wilson plus Clarke had motive of pay back because he did not get the promotion he felt he should get.
As per Newsweek.
So, if Novak revealed both her identity and her name to Rove before he talked to Cooper...was Rove lying then, or lying now?
What about Novak?
And do the public statements coming out of the various sides of this story reflect anything about what is being said in the Grand Jury?
If the public statements are close to or true to the statements being made in Grand Jury, then someone is in a lot of trouble.
The payback would be to Wilson. Clark had no reason to want to pay back Wilson or his wife (at least as far as I can tell). Clark would want to pay back the administration. The leaker was trying to help the Bush administration.
After hearing Mr. Novak's account, the person who has been briefed on the matter said, Mr. Rove told the columnist: "I heard that, too."
Is he confirming he already knew: "the name of the C.I.A. officer, who was referred to by her maiden name, Valerie Plame"? That seems like a bad move - confirming the name of a CIA officer.
And do a double take here: Didn't Rove and his council say that when he talked to Matt Cooper, a few days after he talked to Novak, that he didn't know her name?
Wha wha wha?
That article did suck. I don't trust it one bit. I'll wait for Rove to actually say all that.
I think this one might be easier to read.
-bro
A few weeks after Wilson's editorial and Novak's column ... I seem to remember Novak stating on nationwide TV that he called the CIA to confirm if plame worked there. The person who answered the phone said "Ohyah, she works here."
Now ... does anyone else happen to remember the above ... ? Or am I hallucinating in my old age!
From Novak:
"At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission."
Is the MSM has known this is the case from day one.
Short of a lot of new information coming out, this story is going to sink the last shreds of MSM credibility. NPR is on the radio right now, reporting this as proof that Rove did something wrong, They are taking the koolaid on this big time, eventhough there is a certain tone that even they admit they are dealing in a 'scandal' whose expiration date ahs passed.
I bet this whole thing just dies a quiet death pretty soon, and when the SP report comes out with no indictments, it will be barely reported.
The MSM/DNC has ridden this as far they could: In the minds of their sheep, Rove is an eeeevvvviiillll genius and the Prez they slander has covered it up for them.
I seem to remember that one of Machiavelli's maxims was that if a Prince's enemy is in the process of destroying himself, a wise Prince does not interfere.
technically this could be true.
Rove learns the story and Plame from Novak (more than likely Rove checked sources and confirmed story for Novak, and was probably the second administration source, but that is just speculation like everything else).
He gets the call from Cooper and feeds him Novak's story, but doesn't use Plames name. His goal isn't to out Plame as a secret agent, but to impeach Wilson, so Plames name as far as Rove is concerned wasn't leaked by him.
you have to remember that the whole "Plame was outed in order to get back at Wilson and the administration was shopping the story around" story was a media creation.
We know Cooper's accusation of story shopping was likely false at this point-since the reality is that Rove was called by Cooper not the other way around.
Story shopping, at least the way the media portrayed it was an administration official out there calling reporters and saying "hey I got this hot story on Wilson . . ."
His response may have simply confirmed that he heard the same story, parts of the story, not neccessarily her name.
For instance somebody tells me a piece of gossip, but leaves out a name or two. Somebody else tells me later the same story, with names named, I likely would response with "I heard about that" not "I heard that was their names."
a leaker?
I am not voting gossip.
I am also thinking that it is going to be hard for the case to be made for Rove to be fired given his sources were all from the media.
Don't everybody get to far out ahead on this one. The Washington Post got the same story from the same source, but they give a little more information on who's talking. It's pretty obviously Robert Luskin, Rove's lawyer. Not exactly an uninterested third party.
See Slate.com's Today's Papers column for a good compare-and-contrast on the coverage.
Me thinks Novak is lying...and here is why.
Dont reporters require two anonymous sources usually if there are unsure of a fact.
If novak considers "i heard that (rumor) too" to be an independant source confirming a fact he was unsure about, then Novak is truly a very bad journalist. It seems more likely to me rove confirmed the information with language stronger than "I heard that too"
Let's face it: there are no "disinterested third parties" anywhere near this thing. It's nothing but axe-grinders on every side, and that includes me.
The leftist media has done yeoman's work in setting this up as a Big Scandal that is going to sink Rove for sure and maybe even Bush. But it's not over 'til it's over, so let's see who gets indicted (if anyone) before jumping off any cliffs here.
What's clear now is that the image of Rove as some central character dispensing secrets to the media is a crock. Somebody was telling these reporters about Plame and her role in sending Wilson to Niger, but it wasn't Rove. The mystery deepens.
had another primary source, the real leaker, but Rove's "I heard that too" was misconstrued by Novak as another leak, hence the birth of the elusive second senior administration official? It would explain why there are two leakers mentioned and also why Rove has gotten dragged into this...
statements about this? They could clear this up in one afternoon! So frustrating to see them not fight back!!!
i see now that this is roves testimony. that just makes the whole article laughable.
but I am betting Rove is Novak's second source.
His original article claims two admin sources, and one of those sounds more like he was a call to confirm and not a primary source-my guess is that this was Rove.
To what degree Rove looked into, or was aware of the story we may not know or will have to wait to find out, I suspect that this leak on Rove's testimony was intended to put some water on the "fire Rove now" fires.
did it-they had to know that Plame was involved at some level for the leak to work-because the original source was in fact right, when they said that Plame reccomended her husband for the job.
I am not sure anyone outside the CIA would have known that.
It could be somebody else in the WH, but I am thinking not-the WH seems too confident right now-this is shades of the whole Rather/TANG thing where they just kept mum, let poor McClellean beat off the media while the media and leftwing hung themselves with the rope they brought to the party.
There has been speculation that it was somebody out of State, and that may work too, given that people from State were at the meeting that sentWilson, and Wilson contacted State with his findings too.
Some seem to think Powell-and that could be a good guess.
Other's say Bolton-I am not so convinced, if the WH had even an inkling that Bolton was the leak, I don't think they would have nominated him for the UN position, they would have kept him out of the spotlight.
I honestly think the primary Novak source was probably some lower level in the know people at CIA-and the admin calls were to sex up the story.
What is your problem with the grammar in the NYT story? Although I prefer the AP story by another reporter and printed in my Chicago Tribune to the NYT piece, I found the article quite clear.
One must suppose that it is difficult to find a simple referrant to the reporter's confidential, unnamed source, or "someone who has been officially briefed on the matter." And yet your petty claims of misplaced modifiers and grammar so poor it is in desperate need of a style manual are as silly as they are petty.
Bogus charges such as this make your entire argument suspect.
Perhaps you should "brush up" on grammar yourself.
"I didn't leak her name" could certainly be true. In fact except for the fact that Rove had lied in other portions of his statements there's no reason to doubt that.
But he also said "I didn't know her name." This story claims that he did in fact know her name.
Either this poorly written story is not accurate or Rove was lying.
I have two conflicting pieces of information here that I hope someone can help me sort out. Both redound to the question of whether or not Plame was undercover at the time the fiasco ensued. Here is the paragraph from today's Washington Post story:
In accounts of both conversations that have been made public, Rove does not give Plame's name and discusses the matter only at the end of an interview on an unrelated topic. Rove has said he did not know Plame's name and did not know she was undercover. If that is the case, it is unlikely that the disclosure is a crime.
This seems to assert that Valerie Plame/Wilson was undercover at the time the conversations took place - not merely that she worked at the CIA.
Then we have this quote from the Yahoo News story:
In an interview on CNN earlier Thursday before the latest revelation, Wilson kept up his criticism of the White House, saying Rove's conduct was an "outrageous abuse of power ... certainly worthy of frog-marching out of the White House."
But at the same time, Wilson acknowledged his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak's column first identified her. "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity," he said.
So if Wilson himself, today, in an interview on CNN, admits that his wife was not covert at the time the story broke, then what did Rove do wrong? How can anyone possibly assert that he "leaked" anything that was a secret, or even that he confirmed something that was secret at the time?
and put yourself in Karl Rove's shoes. A year ago, when he was first asked about this, the natural response would have been to say that Novak came to him before going public, but that's the first he had ever heard of it. Was Karl Rove the source of the leak? I have no idea, nor does anyone else except probably the prosecutor.
I am highly skeptical that the CIA would be the source for this leak, since it is doubtful they would out one of their own. Remember, it isn't just Plame that was outed...Novak's article led to the outing as well of the company for which she worked (assuming that "outing" of her and this company was a crime, which we also don't know for sure, but then the administration has been treating it that way for a long time).
And while it is true that two "senior administration officials" are not necessarily the White House, most of Novak's friendliest sources are there.
I beg to differ that this all started with the New York Times. It started in the blogosphere.
Finally, YES, here is one Democrat who knows exactly what Bush said with regard to this. Bush never promised to fire the leaker! He promised to "take care of" anyone who broke the law. The day he said it I knew he meant pardon, not fire.
There goes Karl, oops, I mean "the person who has been briefed on the matter" talking to the press again.
What a hoot!
And yegods, Leon's right, the grammar is terrible. One-sentance paragraphs, split clauses all over the place, very hard to follow. The Times must have rushed this to copy at the last minute.
However...
Mr. Bush was asked at a news conference whether "you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found" to have leaked the agent's name.
anyone found to have leaked the name is NOT the same as firing anyone INVOLVED in the leak. The article did not claim said Known Fact.
Was VP/W even undercover at the time Wilson made the trip to Niger? When did her status change from covert to "regular desk job" at the CIA? In other words, was her "identity" even a secret at the time Wilson made the trip?
he lied when he said he didn't know her name?
With Cooper he said he didn't use her name.
Or am I missing an interview somewhere that he says that?
If you mean his confirmation of the story-then once agian, it sounds more like he is saying he heard the story, not that he knew her name.
the story broke for it to violate the law-the statute protects covert officers for 5 years after their last long term overseas assignment.
Wilson in other interviews and his own book, seems to indicate that her last overseas assignment was in 1997, which would put her undercoverness outside that 5 year window.
I think Rove and Novak, and probably the other sources didn't realize she had been undercover at one point. I imagine that if Rove called the CIA for confirmation, he asked if she worked there, not if she had ever been undercover.
Also, I wonder if the CIA redacts/hides any past undercover work for CIA NOC's in their official employment records to protect them. Not sure-somebody more in the know may or may not be able to answer that one, but I can't imagine they would have out in the open 'Valarie Plame a former NOC" where it is easily accessed.
statements about their testimony, Fitzgerald has asked them not to, and they are honoring that request.
That is why they haven't given statements, although I suspect this recent leak is probably from either the WH (Rove/Rove's attorney) or somebody working for Fitzgerald to stave off the "Fire Rove now, he is an evil leaker" war cry.
the CIA source may not have been aware of her NOC status (classified info is on a need to know, and the source may not have been in a need to know position).
But I still lean towards it being Novak's CIA source (and he says he has one, he also intimated that one of his administration sources was from intelligience in another follow up interview or article, I can't remember which now, and I am not in the mood to play google).
You win the prize for the tersest, truest, post du jour. This is a legal matter. It either happened or it din't.
Because Wilson's trip wasn't covert...he's said that himself. And now he admits that his wife wasn't covert at the time the story broke. And if she was outside the 5-year window, then she had been, as far as anyone knew, just a deskbound employee of the CIA for all that time. So that neatly takes care of whether any crime even could have been committed.
And then to that we add all of the analysis that everyone here has done, and putting it all together, I just don't see where anyone has anything to say about Rove at all aside from the fact that they just don't like him. I mean, the people marching outside the White House for MoveOn.Org haven't liked him since Day One, and there's nothing anyone can do to change their minds, but where is the crime here? I don't see it, especially given Wilson's admission in that CNN interview, as reported by Yahoo News.
Do you really think that Rove would confirm a story based on what he had heard from another reporter (whose name he now can't remember)? And that Novak would accept as a confirmation "Yes, I heard that too"?
It is more likely that Rove would have checked it out before passing it on. And that road leads into dangerous ground for him.
....but I'll make the added point that the CIA weren't necessarily friends of the administration by this time, so what would the motive be to out her?
Quite frankly I'm still a little puzzled as to just how outing Valerie Plame, while probably a crime (but again, we don't know for sure), discredits Wilson, or serves as a "signal" to other administration officials who might be thinking of dissenting in the buildup to war. In other words, were I in the administration (Gawd forbid), I would simply have discredited Wilson the way I discredited any of the other "dissidents" --- by smearing them and focusing on their credibility. It has certainly worked with far more honest and upstanding targets, such as Paul O'Neill and John McCain.
I suspect he checked it out, but checked it out in a quick phone call and a "hey does Joe Wilson's wife work for the CIA?" and a "yes" then a "hey Bob-sounds like you have a good source"
But sometimes reporters-even good ones play fast and loose with the sourcing-and what they think counts as a source. Remember the Newsweek Koran flap-they had one anonymous source, but turned it into a plural, then they asked the administration to consider the information, the admin source noted one thing, and they took the fact that the official said nothing about the Koran thing as a confirmation of the Koran thing.
In reality all Newsweek had was one source, although from the piece that was written it sounded like there were fact checking.
I am not naive enough to think that conservative reporters chasing a story don't also play fast and loose with the anonymous sourcing. In the end, Novak's story is the one that is going to count on this one-does it confirm, or contradict Rove's?
meant to out Plame is a media creation, and may not be fact.
A motive for a CIA employee to impeach Wilson may be that Wilson's talk was putting egg on the face of the CIA as much as on the Bush administration.
Although I don't suspect Tenet, Tenet's career was in the tank at that point-people were calling for his resignatio (although he hung on for another year), Wilson also implied that Tenet and way higher ups were involved in sending him (although Wilson wasn't saying this, by virtue of how it was playing in the trip it appeared that the trip was ordered by Cheney and top officials of the CIA were involved in sending him, when in reality it wasn't much more than a departmental plan to get information the VP was wondering about).
Also, just like any organization you have politics. It may have been somebody in Plame's department who was aware of the circumstances of Wilson's trip, and wanted to shaft Plame at the personal level, and in this case it is highly possible that the fellow employee was clueless as to her secret spy past, since that information would be classified.
Is there anything else on these suspicions anywhere, or is this just speculation from people with a computer and keyboard? The story thus far is this. Both Rove and Novak leaked the name (or said "Wilson's wife," which is the same thing). So either Rove is the original source (and/or Novak) or they have to reveal who told them. According to what happened to Miller (and almost to Cooper), Rove and Novak are looking at jail time if they won't speak up. Stories about who sent Wilson, if he was in Niger specifically to smear the administration, etc. are all moot. A crime was committed, and the ladder needs to be climbed to find out by who...originally.
have fully cooperated with Fitzgerald and have testified before the grand jury.
Cooper had refused (I assume he has or is scheduled to testify at this point) and Miller is still refusing.
But Rove and Novak aren't going to jail for refusing to testify. If, bit if, they go to jail for anything at this point it is likely to be perjury or obstruction of justice.
Rove's lawyer friend is trying to help him avoid a criminal charge, but isn't helping with the perception of Rove's honesty. Rove said he didn't know Plams's identity when he talked to Cooper on July 11, 2003. But now it turns out that Rove knew it on July 8.
It must be difficult to get all the stories straight.
that there was NO leaker, VP/W's name was known around the DC party circuit, and known by the media. Joe was part of the NSC during the Clinton years when there were some swank parties (with both media people and Plame there). Novak could have put 2 and 2 together while digging for information about Joe Wilson and his trip to Africa, called a couple of Bush Administration officials to check to see if they knew Plame recommended Wilson and that they were married.
from the tone of the WaPo article was that the source for the latest NYT artcile was Rove's attorney. But, my understanding is that even Rove's attorney wouldn't be privy to grand jury testimony.
So either the leak came from Fitzgeral's office and the leaker just happens to believe in Rove's veracity or the leaker is Liskin(?) and he's relaying his understanding of the testimony that he learned second-hand (even if from Rove).
Sure, I do this in idle conversation as well.
However, when you are in a seat of power, and you hear someone is a CIA agent from a reporter, if you say anything at all it should be: "Oh, I can't comment on that".
That got hammered in through class after class after experience while I was in the army, and it's quite probably relevant in this case.
You and I may live in Nowhere Wyoming and talk about "that missile silo just southwest of Bob Smith's ranch" every day in the coffee shop. But if Airman Jones, who happens to have a shift at the silo, shows up one morning for coffee and joins the discussion and confirms through his conversation that it is a missile silo, then Airman Jones has revealed classified information to unauthorized individuals.
Perhaps Novak put two and two together - no problem. But if Rove had "lawful knowledge" of classified information (and if it was classified information) then he leaked - he revealed classified information to unauthorized individuals.
On the other hand, "I heard that too" is awful vague -- he could have been just confirming he'd heard that rumor also and was neither confirming nor denying.
FWIW, I'm treating this with a large grain of salt. It is STILL not Rove speaking, it's yet another person speaking on Rove's behalf. And many of those people so speaking have made contradictory statements as to when Rove knew Plame was CIA and if/when/what he said (or a variation) to whom. If Rove speaks in front of a gaggle I'll weigh that more heavily, but given the spin from both sides I'll still carry my salt shaker. I'll put the shaker aside only when I see what Fitzgerald's assembled.
I understand more and more why the white house is so mute on so much when there is so much to say in refutation of the lunacy of the left....
why bother.
By the way, I also am a mike d from sc now residing in ATL, GA.
You wear it well.
that no crime was committed? This fails the test of every single phrase of the Identity Protection Act. Val was not under cover - she was a clerk in a cubicle at Langley. Val was not overseas at the time and she had not worked abroad in the past 5 years. Her identity was not learned through classified sources - everyone at the best DC cocktail parties evidently had to endure Mr. and Mrs. Plame slurring endlessly about their imagined exploits. And their was no intent to out the desk-jockey. Val and her house-husband had been outing her for years. All the Democrat propagandists in the MSM were her drinking buddies. Reporters told Rove who she was, not the other way around.
that you think you are at dKos.
You aren't. But you might as well spend the rest of your day there because you won't be here.
This is great coverage...I've been reading all of my favorite BLOGS this afternoon and none of them seem to dig into specifics, etc.