Redstate

according to rawstory

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheney_aide_passed_Plames_name_to_1024.html

It is by now pretty obvious that both Rove and Libby passed Plame's identity to reporters (Rove to Matt Cooper and Libby to Judith Miller; we apparently still don't know who passed it on to Bob Novak and others)

This is not obvious at all.  Both Cooper and Libby have testified that they did not get Plame's identity from Rove or Libby.

It is also pretty obvious that she was an undercover agent...

This is not obvious either.  First of all, it is not necessarily a crime to reveal that someone works at the CIA.  It is only a crime to knowingly do so, from information gather as a result of one's security clearances, and with intent to harm the United States as well as with some other conditions.  This was hardball politics, not espionage.

First, obviously, if they knew she was undercover and outed her anyway, they should resign...Second, even if they did not know she was undercover they should resign.  This means that they did not care whether or not she was undercover, and they couldn't be bothered to find out before outing her.

What if they did check and knew she WASN'T undercover in the way that would violate the law or jeopardize national security?

Third, and perhaps a bit tangentally, the fact that these two decided to retaliate against Wilson by attacking his wife is really beyond the pale.

This assumes that Plame was a completely innocent bystander in the Niger caper.  The Senate Intelligence Committee report conclusions found that Plame reccommended Wilson for the trip, contrary to Wilson's op-ed and testimony.  Wilson AND Plame were in on this attempt by the CIA to undermine the credibility of the White House on the WMD issue do a little CYA for the Agency that got its WMD intel so wrong.  Plame got involved when she recommended her husband for the trip.  That she then reaped what she sowed is not a cause for Rove or Libby's resignation.

These two were quite willing to endanger the life of an administration critic, either knowingly or in such a blase manner that it was obvious that they didn't care if they did or not.  That is not healthy for democracy in this country, no matter who is in office.

This is a little hysterical.  Endanger her life?  Plame was stationed at Langley, not Damascus.  Not healthy for democracy?  Sounds like Talking Point material.

Rove and Libby should resign if they are indicted.  If not, they should get on with their jobs.  I for one will wait for a conviction in a criminal court before I make any judgements on their behavior.

Excellent rebuttal of the hyperventilation from the left.

You'll have to do it again and again and again methinks.

I'll give it a 5, too.

What kind of management is going on at the CIA? Do they have a nepotism policy? Do they normally allow non-staffers to conduct foreign research and require neither confidentiality nor seemingly minimal reporting standards, written reports, sworn accuracy and so on? Further, what controls do they impose on the use of such materials, the public disclosure of opinion on unrelated matters, and the role of intelligence vis policy vis political disputes?

What kind of message does this send, not only to people who work for the government, but anyone in a position to publicly criticize the CIA?  These two were quite willing to endanger the life of CIA critic, either knowingly or in such a blase manner that it was obvious that they didn't care if they did or not.  That is not healthy for democracy in this country, no matter who is in office.

I suppose this could go on and on.

I tend to agree that Rove and Libby can't stay on, but for different reasons.

I don't comment on the outcome of Fitzgerald's inquiry - there's just too much we don't know, and we'll find out soon enough.

But we do know that the White House position, for over a year, was that Rove and Libby had denied having anything to do with the leak, and it was ridiculous to suppose that they had been involved. It is now clear that that position was untrue, and that Rove and Libby, at least, must have known that.

The best WH scenario is that the knowledge of their involvement was limited to Rove and Libby, and that they misled the President, who wanted to get to the bottom of the matter. Something would have to be done about that.

see Mark I's rebuttal for why.

But I think even if there are no indictments, Rove and Libby both have too much scandal attached to them.

A change of face at the WH is probably in order.

While the dems love to blame Rove for everything, I don't think he is the god of all things good that happen to the WH that they paint him to be.

I think he did a very good job at mobilizing the base for elections, but he can do that from some background position in the RNC.  Replacing Rove will put a fresh face at the WH, and one that is not attached to the Plame stuff.

but the orginal post is fraught with "known" fact sounding commentary...

Hmmm

If there was no leak, were their denials true?

cannot be sustained on the basis of what we know now. Here is just one of the statements that Scott McClellan made (Oct 10 2003):

Q Scott, earlier this week you told us that neither Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams nor Lewis Libby disclosed any classified information with regard to the leak. I wondered if you could tell us more specifically whether any of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?

MR. McCLELLAN: Those individuals -- I talked -- I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that's where it stands.

It is clearly incompatible with what we now know, and what Rove and Libby must have known at the time.

Depends on the meaning of "this", doesn't it?

Lawyers sure can be pesky!

It may be damaging politically for Rove and Scooter to have demonstrably lied to Scott McClellan, but it's not a crime.  It may be damaging politically for the Admin for McClellan to pass on that lie to the American people, but it's not a crime.

If Rove or Scooter lied to the Grand Jury or the FBI, well, then that's a crime and the consequences should be swift.

It's politically damaging, and to restore admin credibility there will need to be a political resolution, which may require resignations.

"May" be politically damaging. Not "is" politically damaging.

(snark)I'll bet that if you had grown up in the UK in the 1930s, you would have been pushing for the UK to unilaterally disarm, too.(/snark)

The whole culture of Washington is irredeemably corroded when it comes to classified information.  Depending on who is the press favorite and who is the goat, you can get off scot-free for leaking classified information that permanently damages US interests, or you can get thrown in jail for making a mistake talking to a prosecutor that had nothing to do with what the prosecutor was originally empaneled to look for (see: Martha Stewart).

I know Republicans and conservatives as a rule should try to put the best foot forward, but we can't afford to surrender in this kind of game.  If the press hates someone, they'll find something to slime them with-- and we know how much they like us.  All we'll end up doing is permanently backpedalling.

What we really need to do is to make a very clear distinction between perjury that's uncovered as part of an investigation (like Bill Clinton's was) and perjury that's purely generated as part of an investigation (like Martha Stewart's was).  If any perjury indictments come out of this of administration officials, I can guarantee you that they're the Martha Stewart type, not the Bill Clinton type.

This is not obvious at all.  Both Cooper and Libby have testified that they did not get Plame's identity from Rove or Libby.

Cooper wrote in Time that Rove told him that Wilson's wife worked for the Agency on weapons of mass destruction.  Whether he already knew that, or had to go look up her actual name is immaterial to whether Rove passed her identity to Cooper; "wilson's wife works for the agency on WMD's" (a paraphrase) is enough.

This is not obvious either.  First of all, it is not necessarily a crime to reveal that someone works at the CIA.  It is only a crime to knowingly do so, from information gather as a result of one's security clearances, and with intent to harm the United States as well as with some other conditions.  This was hardball politics, not espionage.

This is why I did not say they committed a crime, I said they should resign (just because something wasn't criminal doesn't mean you shouldn't resign over it).  In any event, if she was not under at least some sort of cover I cannot imagine Fitzgerald (who pretty much seems to have impressed everyone with his conduct of the investigation) would still be around, as this is the easiest element of the crime to verify and was likely the first thing Fitzgerald asked the CIA for: evidence that she was covered by the statute.  That should have taken about a week, maybe two at tops, if he even had to ask (I assume it was in the CIA's initial referral to the DOJ).

What if they did check and knew she WASN'T undercover in the way that would violate the law or jeopardize national security?

I will agree that if they did this then they are much less culpable and will retract my post.  

The Senate Intelligence Committee report conclusions found that Plame reccommended Wilson for the trip, contrary to Wilson's op-ed and testimony.

I agree that she did recommend him for the trip, whether Wilson is a lying scumbag is irrelevant to whether they leaked the name of an undercover agent.  

Wilson AND Plame were in on this attempt by the CIA to undermine the credibility of the White House on the WMD issue do a little CYA for the Agency that got its WMD intel so wrong.  Plame got involved when she recommended her husband for the trip.  That she then reaped what she sowed is not a cause for Rove or Libby's resignation.

This involves just as much speculation on just as little evidence (other than she recommended him) as you seem to think my post involves.  Wilson went to Niger in February 2002.  We invaded Iraq over a year later.  It wasn't until May of 2003 that rumblings of Wilson's trip and conclusions reached the press, and his op-ed was in July 2003.  She therefore recommended him for the trip long before anyone thought the CIA "got its WMD intel so wrong" necessitating some "CYA," or a thought toward "undermining the White House on the WMD issue."  

This is a little hysterical.  Endanger her life?  Plame was stationed at Langley, not Damascus.  Not healthy for democracy?  Sounds like Talking Point material.

Plame was stationed at Langley, yes.  People have been shot entering Langley.  A little hysterical?  Probably, but we don't know what she did in the past overseas, or who else may have been put in danger by revealing her identity.  Could it have been no one?  Sure.  Could it have been dozens of people?  Yes, and it is for this possibility and their cavalier attitude towards it that Rove and Libby should resign.  

I think the WH may be starting to deal with the political damage that "may" have occurred:

My question is: Can we be confident that when we hear statements from the White House in public that they are truthful?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think you can because you know that our relationship is built on trust, and I have earned that trust with you all. As you pointed out, you pointed back to some past comments that I gave and I've talked to you about the assurances that I received on that.

Cooper wrote in Time that Rove told him that Wilson's wife worked for the Agency on weapons of mass destruction.  Whether he already knew that, or had to go look up her actual name is immaterial to whether Rove passed her identity to Cooper

Her identity is her name, not her job description.  This is a criminal investigation and crimes often hinge on technicalities like this.  Rove did not pass her name so there was no crime.  Also, Rove passed the info about Wilson's wife in an attempt to warn Cooper off of trusting Wilson.  Rove was doing Cooper a favor by clueing him in on an uncredible source.

This is why I did not say they committed a crime, I said they should resign (just because something wasn't criminal doesn't mean you shouldn't resign over it).

It seems you are agreeing with my assertion that that this whole thing was hardball politics, not espionage.  If that is true, why should a political operative resign for engaging in politics?

In any event, if she was not under at least some sort of cover I cannot imagine Fitzgerald...would still be around, as this is the easiest element of the crime to verify and was likely the first thing Fitzgerald asked the CIA for: evidence that she was covered by the statute.  That should have taken about a week, maybe two at tops, if he even had to ask (I assume it was in the CIA's initial referral to the DOJ).

Being under "some sort of cover" is not nearly the same thing as being a covert agent covered by the statute.  There are at least 5 criteria that must all be met for someone to have violated that statute.  One can assume that it probably took Fitzgerald some time to verify whether or not Plame was covered.  Also, much of the delay in this case has come from the media fighting Fitzgerald over subpoenas.  Had that not occurred, he might have wrapped up long ago.

This involves just as much speculation on just as little evidence (other than she recommended him) as you seem to think my post involves.

No speculation here.  The Senate Intelligence Committee investigated this and found that Plame did have a role in getting Wilson the assignment contrary to Wilson's claims.  What's more is that according to Plame, the report Wilson went to investigate was "crazy."  She had already made up her mind about the president's position and involved herself and her husband in an effort to discredit it.  By the way, the British, whose intel the president cited in the State of the Union, have never backed off their intelligence.  In fact they have affirmed it and the president's use of it.  

As to your timeline, I'll agree that in my last post, I put the cart before the horse.  But that doesn't mean that the some in CIA, including Plame, and Wilson weren't trying to undermine the president in 2002.

...we don't know what she did in the past overseas, or who else may have been put in danger by revealing her identity.  Could it have been no one?  Sure.  Could it have been dozens of people?  Yes, and it is for this possibility and their cavalier attitude towards it that Rove and Libby should resign.

We don't know, that's the point.  You have yet to prove that Rove or Libby acted cavalierly.  Certainly if Rove or Libby are indicted, and rumors are swirling, they should resign.  But we just don't know enough yet to demand resignations.

Her identity is her name, not her job description.  This is a criminal investigation and crimes often hinge on technicalities like this.  Rove did not pass her name so there was no crime.  

This is incorrect.  The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 clearly states in part that:

Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Continuing my point above.  The act states "any information identifying such covert agent," which clearly includes more than just the person's actual name.

It seems you are agreeing with my assertion that that this whole thing was hardball politics, not espionage.  If that is true, why should a political operative resign for engaging in politics?

They may have intended it to be "hardball politics" but in the course of engaging in such they outed an undercover CIA agent.  Whether they did so intentionally or not is in my mind irrelevant, they could have checked to see and it appears that they did not.