Redstate

I fear that just by virtue of confirming to Novak that Plame was a CIA operative,  he still broke the law. He may not have identified her by name, but he identified her, that is what the law is about, I get more and more worried about this story every day.

To paraphrase a famouse, or infamouse, president 'there is no there there.'

This is all media and Democrat hyperbole desparately seeking some way to get George Bush. Thus far nothing they have tried has gotten any kind of traction and they are rapidly becoming (became?) hysterical.

This is just so much nonsense.

Rove may not be the source.

But isnt it wrong for a senior administration official w/ security clearances to propogate the story even though it is for background? If he knew there was a leakage shouldnt he instead take the initiative to plug it?

I would hope in the future officials should be sensitive to their responsibilty of having security clearances.  It is not  enough to say "I did not know she was covert"  but it is one's responsibilty to find out consequences of their action especially involving CIA and security.

I would submit the only fear you really have about this story is that it is blowing up in the faces of the people who pushed it.

Stop nitpicking about "laws" and focus on "responsibility."

Surprising how that's change since Linda Tripp's background investigation was leaked.

. . .contemporary equivalent of how Democrats in the 1980s would, when a political witch hunt against a Republican would come up dry, start wailing about "the appearance of impropriety" being enough to justify hammering the poor soul in the crosshairs of a special counsel and/or the clowns who served as the Democratic chairs.  Naturally, that standard went right out the window when Bubba went to the White House.  Any attempt to resurrect it should be responded to with a snicker, or the metaphorical back of the hand if the idiot in question is persistent.

So the incarcerated Judith Miller is protecting what, or rather whom now?

Can you imagine the flipping and flopping from the Left that would occur if say someone like Chuckles Schumer turned out to be the original source of  identifying Ms. Plame and was being protected by Miller?

... if Rove was her source, and he has given her a 'get-out-of-jail-free-card', then why is she sitting in the slammer?

There is more, a whole lot more, to this story, but it isn't Karl Rove.

For Bob Schieffer to save his reputation.  He can unschedule Joe Wilson as his guest on tomorrow's Face the Nation.

Unless he secretly plans to humiliate the git, but that's out of character for the grandfatherly fill-in anchor.  He could ask Jan Crawford Greenburg  of the ChiTrib to handle it, but she's a Court beater.

"Democrats, however, said that even if Rove wasn't the leaker, someone still divulged Plame's identity and possibly violated the law."

Source: NEWSMAX

The Democrats acknowledge that Rove wasn't the leaker...It makes Chuck Schumer look like a total ass for having that presser with Joe Wilson calling for Rove to be fired.  The party of tolerance?  Right...I wish they could prejudge GITMO terrorists as quick as they did Rove.

is my bet.

He worked on the National Security Council before going off to become a propagandist and could very well have been trying to innoculate Wilson from being attacked on this issue.

their own rope?

Of course we have now gone from:

Rove should be fired, because he committed a crime to

Rove should be fired because he was unethical to

Rove should be fired because reporters told him about Plame.

I guess next week it will be:

Rove should be fired, because he is Rove and we don't like him (which in reality is the real reason behind all the others).

If the dems cared about CIA operatives they would have thrown a hissy fit, when the NYTimes published a story that named CIA cover businesses.

state and it is a source that is worth staying in jail for.

what good ol' Joe has to say.

I wonder if he will still be talking about Rove and the frog march.

to l'affaire Plame

I don't agree that this is nonsense, or that it is much ado about nothing.

It is one thing when the media takes a totally one-sided view of an external event, such as when they single out Tom DeLay for travelling or dealing with Jack Abramoff while ignoring all the Democrats who are doing the same thing. That's just liberal bias, and we can't expect anything else from them.

But this Wilson deal is a lot more like the Dan Rather fake memo episode than it is a case of mere bias. The New York Times, the Washington Post, and Meet the Press manufactured news when there wasn't any. They presented us with a Democratic campaign operative in a civil servant suit, and told us he was a "whistleblower," when in fact he was a partisan political hack sent out to lie to the public.

We have caught the crown jewels of the so-called "mainstream" media conspiring with the Democrats to stage a partisan hit on Bush. The whole Wilson Show consisted of a pack of lies told by a Kerry campaign operative, and these media creeps lent this guy their credibility to put on the show.

Then they turn around and try to turn their own reporting into a "White House Scandal" that they blame on Karl Rove, when it was the reporters who told him who Wilson's wife was.

This is just absolutely scurrilous, dishonest behavior by dozens of reporters and several large news organizations.

This is no small deal. This is a press gone berserk.

if Plame was indeed a covert operative during the previous five years and the leaker knew it.

If the law was violated somebody should be punished.

Although Fitzgerald said that it is unlikely anyone would be prosecuted under that law at this point (maybe Miller is the key to "who?" and without her they can't prosecute or get to the primary source).

I do think the premature press conferences calling for Rove to get the boot have made some look foolish.

Obviously there is more -- Novak said in his column that he had TWO "senior administration sources" meaning Rove and some yet-unnamed individual, or at least unnamed in the press.

If Rove was able to give permission to Cooper, one has to wonder if Miller's unnamed source is the other one.  And if she's staying in jail, the other "senior administration source" might be kinda important.  It's possible Fitzgerald already has that information, but odds are given he's got her in the slammer that he doesn't.  The Democrats are so wrapped up in Rove right now that they're not pushing for answers on the other person, who could be of equivalent or more importance...

I used to, lost the password and haven't bothered since.

down this memorandum from the State Department without success.  I understand that Powell had this memo in his possession during his trip to Africa.  Do you have a source that can make this memo available to the public?

given what we have been told about Rove's conversation with Novak it is equally possible that Rove was neither of the two officials Novak used as sources.

"WASHINGTON, July 15 - Prosecutors in the C.I.A. leak case have shown intense interest in a 2003 State Department memorandum that explained how a former diplomat came to be dispatched on an intelligence-gathering mission and the role of his wife, a C.I.A. officer, in the trip, people who have been officially briefed on the case said.

Investigators in the case have been trying to learn whether officials at the White House and elsewhere in the administration learned of the C.I.A. officer's identity from the memorandum. They are seeking to determine if any officials then passed the name along to journalists and if officials were truthful in testifying about whether they had read the memo, the people who have been briefed said, asking not to be named because the special prosecutor heading the investigation had requested that no one discuss the case.

The memorandum was sent to Colin L. Powell, then the secretary of state, just before or as he traveled with President Bush and other senior officials to Africa starting on July 7, 2003, when the White House was scrambling to defend itself from a blast of criticism a few days earlier from the former diplomat, Joseph C. Wilson IV, current and former government officials said.

Mr. Powell was seen walking around Air Force One during the trip with the memorandum in hand, said a person involved in the case who also requested anonymity because of the prosecutor's admonitions about talking about the investigation.

Investigators are also trying to determine whether the gist of the information in the document, including the name of the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson, Mr. Wilson's wife, had been provided to the White House even earlier, said another person who has been involved in the case. Investigators have been looking at whether the State Department provided the information to the White House before July 6, 2003, when Mr. Wilson publicly criticized the way the administration used intelligence to justify the war in Iraq, the person said.

The prosecutors have shown the memorandum to witnesses at the grand jury investigating how the C.I.A. officer's name was disclosed to journalists, blowing her cover as a covert operative and possibly violating federal law, people briefed on the case said. The prosecutors appear to be investigating how widely the document circulated within the administration, and whether it might have been the original source of information for whoever provided the identity of Ms. Wilson to Robert D. Novak, the syndicated columnist who first disclosed it in print.

On Thursday, a person who has been officially briefed on the matter said that Karl Rove, President Bush's senior adviser, had spoken about Ms. Wilson with Mr. Novak before Mr. Novak published a column on July 14, 2003, identifying the C.I.A. officer by her maiden name, Valerie Plame. Mr. Rove, the person said, told Mr. Novak he had heard much the same information, making him one of two sources Mr. Novak cited for his information.

But the person said Mr. Rove first heard from Mr. Novak the name of Mr. Wilson's wife and her precise role in the C.I.A.'s decision to send her husband to Africa to investigate a report, later discredited, that Saddam Hussein was trying to acquire nuclear material there.

It is not clear who Mr. Novak's original source was, or whether Mr. Novak has revealed the source's identity to the grand jury."

Prosecutors in the C.I.A. leak case have shown intense interest in a 2003 State Department memorandum that explained how a former diplomat came to be dispatched on an intelligence-gathering mission and the role of his wife, a C.I.A. officer, in the trip, people who have been officially briefed on the case said.[...]

Mr. Powell was seen walking around Air Force One during the trip with the memorandum in hand, said a person involved in the case who also requested anonymity because of the prosecutor's admonitions about talking about the investigation.[...]

The prosecutors appear to be investigating how widely the document circulated within the administration, and whether it might have been the original source of information for whoever provided the identity of Ms. Wilson to Robert D. Novak, the syndicated columnist who first disclosed it in print.[...]

Rove was the second source Novak used, but you may be right.  The second administration source seemed more like the "hey I got this information, is it true" type source.  But it is possible that Novak had his story almost to bed (in the leak of the testimony Novak already had a publication planned for the weekend, so he had to have had all the facts ready to go at that point and enough confidence in the sources he did have that Rove's may not have been neccessary).  So you might have convinced me on that.

Also, in one of Novak's follow ups or interviews he made one of his admin sources sound like they were involved in intelligience and he also claimed a CIA source in his original piece and future follow ups and interviews.  

That is what makes me think at least Novak's primary source was not in the WH but in the CIA or possibly State.

If he knew there was a leakage shouldnt he instead take the initiative to plug it?

You would have then screamed COVER UP!!!!!!

We know how your side works!

so it looks like somebody in State (Powell himself) wanted to know how Wilson got the job etc.

It appears that Rove either didn't see the memo (if it named names) but apparantly somebody may have shared the results with the press.

Of course if that memo is the source, then it could be anyone-from lower level people who did the investigating, to the people who saw the memo.

But it appears that Novak had a primary source other than Rove.

there isn't much you can do to plug the leak.  You can try to discourage the reporter from printing, but the story was big right then-once the press knows pretty much the world knows especially in this environment.

And Rove wouldn't have been in a position to plug the leak, and I doubt Novak et al would have burned their sources to Rove.  

. . .any experts on grand jury procedure and related law:  why hasn't Judith Miller's editor--who presumably knows who her source is--been dragged in front of the grand jury and given the choice of spilling or rotting in a cell?

why NYT is so adamant about hiding Miller's source. All roads seem to lead to Miller and her relationship with Plame.

Who in the White House Press Corps had access to this memo during the flight to Africa?

but if one of them got it, then the press in reality would be the source of the leak.

Although I would have to wonder how the press corps got a hold of it.

Was Miller on that trip by any chance?

the premature press conferences calling for Rove to get the boot have made some look foolish.

IMHO, Wilson and CHuckie knew Rove was going to be cleared thru a press report so they wanted to get one last swift kick at Karl's behind before the report hit. Wilson later when on CNN with wolfie and said his wife was not NOC, so it is obvious he know the jig was up.  

if Plame was not covert and did not meet the definition of covert, what exactly has Fitzgerald been investigating for almost 2 years?

Now I feel like I am posting at Kos or something, but it is still a good question.

Makes me think there is some other investigation going on covertly over the release of classified stuff in general-but we will see.

I think you know what I meant when I said "Much Ado About Nothing" :-) I do however wholeheartedly agree that in terms of the actions of the press this is a very big deal indeed.

The press, the Democrats and the left in general, have been trying since November 2000 to prove that George Bush is either too stupid or too crooked to be President.

From the standpoint of a partisan Republican I'm happy to see them breaking their pick on this and other manufactured pseudo-scandals. They have apparently never heard the injunction about when one finds themselves in the bottom of a hole stop digging.

But as an American I am sorry to see the press turning themselves in to a self-parody. I do believe that a viable, credible press is important to a democracy. When the people can no longer trust what the press says down that path lies danger.

-----------------

Actually nobody is saying that at all.

We are saying: He should be fired because he confirmed that "Wilson's Wife" was a CIA agent with Novak and Cooper ("I heard that too." is an affirmative statement, so don't bother trying to parse it).

Per the non-disclosure agreement:

Before ... confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not, ... confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure.

1. Even if Novak fed him the information, and Rove did not "shop the story around" (which is merely speculation, I agree), it is Rove's responsibility to clam up right there and not disclose any more to a person who is clearly unauthorized to possess such sensitive info. Even if he didn't originally tell Novak, confirmation, however indirect, is still a violation of the agreement.
   
2. We can reasonably infer thet he DID in fact tell Cooper she was CIA by Cooper saying "Apprently, she is CIA." in his email about the conversation with Rove. I know some Republicans assert that she was not, in fact, a clandesine operative, but  since the CIA requested this entire investigation, I doubt the validity of that claim.
   
3. He stated repeatedly (through interviews and Scott McClellan) he had nothing to do with it, which is clearly false. And the White House's position has been that the leaker(s) would "no longer work in this administration." The WH never hinged this intention on whether or not the parties were charged with a crime.
   
4. Novak has contrarily stated that he learned the names from his sources, not the other way around. And it has been confirmed that Rove is one of the sources by his own lawyer.
   
5. He has a history of leaking information he shouldn't leak, which is why Bush Sr. fired him.

Just because Rove's story is now "he learned it from Novak" you can't really take that as certifiable fact, which I know some of you have.....this is the man who orchestrated that McCain had an out-of-wedlock black child after all. It begs the question why he didn't clear this up two years ago, at least.

Considering his history and his current troubles, I think it is fair to say that, yes, Democrats do not like him, but that is not the only reason we want him gone. We think he is a cancer on the political landscape (and your party in particular) and may very well be in serious violation of matters concerning national security. I'm not so sure why everyone here is so staunchly supporting him...we will know more when the special prosecutor makes public his findings. And if Rove is indeed in serious trouble, some of you are going to look rather foolish.

Again, you hear what you want to hear. You can parse everything with a fine-toothed comb all you like. RedState, despite (or because of) the recent purge, is quite the echo chamber these days, and it sounds like an awful  lot of you are grasping at straws to me. If you guys want to label it "liberal hysteria," hey, whatever you think.

The prosecutor is doing a thorough review of all the relevant White House memos and interviews of many high ranking officials, though. It sure seems like he's more concerned about matters inside the White House than the possibility of it being the media who outed Ms. Wilson. So, unless he is also a hysterical liberal, I don't think the argument holds water. I guess we'll see soon enough.

He is your basic bomb-thrower. But he doesn't qualify as an 'adminstration source.'

... whole thing is making my head hurt.

he understands politics and your side doesn't have him.

I guess.

don the 'tinfoil hat' - but what about rouge elements within the CIA and the State Department conspiring to bring down a sitting president?

when I see posts at Kos and other sites that condemn equally and call for the heads and firings of the leaks who gave the NYTimes the information for this story:

http://auto_sol.tao.ca/node/view/1397

that

1-- the SF 312 is a new Known Fact and is used out of context.

2-- if you are authorized to deal with the press it is never your duty to "clam up". That is professional malfeasance under most circumstances.

3-- being emplyeed by the CIA is not "classified." They have a phonebook, you know.

4-- I'll defer to your knowledge of cancer on the political landscape as you are much closer to the phenomenon than I am.

5-- Get used to seeing Rove in the White House. He's not going anywhere. We don't care that you're upset and your collective opinion just doesn't matter.

it would not have taken Fitz long to figure out Plame was not NOC.  I think you are correct in thinking there is some other investigation going on covertly over the release of classified stuff in general.  But what it is is beyond my pay grade!  :)

It's amusing how the members of a party that employs individuals such as Sid Blumenthal, Bob Mulholland, and James Carville can argue with a straight face that Karl Rove is somehow beyond the pale.

I think it's because he's unethical and willing to do anything to gain power, especially if it involves outright lies, as in the McCain affair.

Of course he "understands politics." He's made politics what they currently ARE: vicious attacks from both sides. Frenzied spinning of every possible issue. Unverifiable lies repeated until accepted as fact.

Instead of rational debate supported by documented fact.

Apparently, you approve of what our political landscape has become.

is rooted in the fact that the Bush-Rove team has kicked their collective butts for nearly six years and they are bitter, pathetic losers who have tried to use a special prosecutor to do what they couldn't accomplish at the ballot box.

I am confident that when the smoke clears on this the stench of loserliness will hang heavy over the Democrats.

not beyond the realm of possibility.

I am just not grasping a two year investigation into something that doesn't even appear to meet the initial standard of the crime (and not being covert for 6 years is a pretty easy element of the crime to check out and it isn't all that ambiguous to interpretation).

I will find this for the most part to have been a total waste of time and money if they investigate for two years and there is no crime or the only charges that result are things like perjury for lying to the grand jury.

Couldn't link, sorry.

I approve of just about anything that keeps you guys from positions more responsible than dog warden.

And of course your guys would never do stuff like this. Like Carville floating the story in 1992 about GHWB having a mistress?

I wonder if Miller went 'Jayson Blair' and there is no original source, she would be protecting herself (and the NYT). Plame's name was well known around the party circuit (Wilson in the Clinton admin, his wife and reporters all hanging out together and having fun at the cocktail parties in the late 90s?).

when you consider that the CIA and State tried to do exactly that during the course of the 2004 campaign.

Even if it was the Democratic Administration and a Democratic official who talk to press about a CIA or security sensitive material whether he was the source or not is WRONG.

This is beyond politics.

the article is quite long-longer and far more detailed in fact than Novak's:

SMITHFIELD, N.C. - The airplanes of Aero Contractors Ltd. take off from Johnston County Airport here, then disappear over the scrub pines and fields of tobacco and sweet potatoes. Nothing about the sleepy Southern setting hints of foreign intrigue. Nothing gives away the fact that Aero's pilots are the discreet bus drivers of the battle against terrorism, routinely sent on secret missions to Baghdad, Cairo, Tashkent and Kabul.

When the Central Intelligence Agency wants to grab a suspected member of Al Qaeda overseas and deliver him to interrogators in another country, an Aero Contractors plane often does the job. If agency experts need to fly overseas in a hurry after the capture of a prized prisoner, a plane will depart Johnston County and stop at Dulles Airport outside Washington to pick up the C.I.A. team on the way.

Aero Contractors' planes dropped C.I.A. paramilitary officers into Afghanistan in 2001; carried an American team to Karachi, Pakistan, right after the United States Consulate there was bombed in 2002; and flew from Libya to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the day before an American-held prisoner said he was questioned by Libyan intelligence agents last year, according to flight data and other records.

While posing as a private charter outfit - "aircraft rental with pilot" is the listing in Dun and Bradstreet - Aero Contractors is in fact a major domestic hub of the Central Intelligence Agency's secret air service. The company was founded in 1979 by a legendary C.I.A. officer and chief pilot for Air America, the agency's Vietnam-era air company, and it appears to be controlled by the agency, according to former employees.

Behind a surprisingly thin cover of rural hideaways, front companies and shell corporations that share officers who appear to exist only on paper, the C.I.A. has rapidly expanded its air operations since 2001 as it has pursued and questioned terrorism suspects around the world.

This one is interesting:  Did anyont think about it putting this guy at risk?

Aero's president, according to corporate records, is Norman Richardson, a North Carolina businessman who once ran a truck stop restaurant called Stormin' Norman's. Asked about his role with Aero, Mr. Richardson said only: "Most of the work we do is for the government. It's on the basis that we can't say anything about it."

Now run along, I will buy your outrage at Rove later, when you start being outraged at things that don't involve political motivations.

If these reporters come up to me to confirm the story,  I would have checked with CIA first.  If CIA said it is okay then that's fine but if CIA thinks it is sensitve material,  then I would asks the reporters not to print her name.

the CIA employs a press office to talk about the CIA. They'll even talk to private citizens about the CIA. They have a speaker's bureau. So get off the idea that the CIA is secret. It isn't. The overwhelming majority of their staff work in full light of day as CIA employees.

As the White House is superior on the typical organization chart to the CIA, it really is the call of White House as to the appropriateness of the comments.

While I think your concern about talking about security matters is really precious I checked your comments and failed to note your daily outrage over leaks in the NYT, WaPo, and LAT, of really important stuff. Perhaps you could point me there.

information that Wilson go sent because his wife put him forward as the guy to go.

That would require a leak-although that leak wouldn't have to come from high up the food chain, almost anyone involved with sending Wilson to Niger would do.

this was the outing of an evil CIA front organization.

Plame-Wilson, on the other hand, was a hero fighting the evil regime of Smirky McChimp. If she was "outed" from her deep covert NOC cover as a CIA analyst it was a crime.

Sorry, but if this is an actual article, I would prefer to read it directly from a reputable source (any one will do, including traditionall conservative ones).

If it's the NYT then link to the NYT please. If you're cpoying and pasting from other conservative blogs, don't bother.

The CIA contact did ask Novak not to print her name, but Novak did, which really makes me think that nobody in all this realized she had been a covert agent.

My guess is that even the memo Powell had probably just said hiw wife who worked at the CIA in WMD's recommended him for the job-it probably wouldn't have referenced her previous undercover work-that wasn't really need to know in order to answer that question.

Also, like I said once the press has the story, there isn't much you can do to fill the hole, the dike has already burst.

they confirmed that she worked there. Read his column.

link I'm just guessing you don't have access to Google.

on a security related matter that is intended to harm the administration.  Do you think there will be dozens of posts at Kos et al asking that somebody be found out and fired?

....look. A pig flying by my study window. Over there... another one.

This is about WMD front abroad.....it is National Security.  

Mr Fitzgerald would not let this investigation extend as to jail a woman for not talking if the consequence of the leakage is not significant.  If Valerie Plameis just an ordinary CIA employee,  there would have been no Special Counsel and a journalist would not be in jail.

Sandy Berger was wrong to taking security materials in the archive and should be punish for it .

So this is really beyond politics.

continue in perpetuity and indefinitely with this particular mindset permeating the majority of the dems.

They just can't seem to get past 'Known Facts' and the politics of personal destruction (Borking).

The last thing the dems want is a rational public debate of the issues based on truth and documented facts.  

If a reporter had hung out with the Wilsons at a party, he's a big shot ambassador and council to the President (Clinton) on national security, she's bragging about being a WMD analyst in the CIA, then the Niger story breaks with Joe Wilson's name one it. Reporter does a little digging background on Wilson, remembers his wife, asks the question why does a hack like Wilson get sent for this? Yellowcake, WMD analyst, hmmmmmm.....

</tinfoilhat&gt

not saying this happened, but it's not outside the realm of possibility

Shows real character.

I looked it up on google, but nothing showed up from a major news outlet. And this link doens't count as a major news outlet, by the way.

admitting she wasn't a NOC at the time, and from his own book she hadn't had an overseas assignment since 1997 (btw for the law to apply they must be assigned overseas, and from caselaw an assignment has to be long term now a week or so here or there).

It appears she was not covert at the time.

I agree that it wouldn't have taken long for Fitzgerald to figure that one out, I suspect this may be in the end about the leaking of classified information in general to the press.

Don't know we will see, but it appears that at least, when it comes to outing of Plame, there wasn't a law broken.

Is in the future people (press and officials) will be more careful about matters of security and Intelligence.

Learn from the experience.

I wonder who was Novak's source.  Perhaps he got hold of the security memo of June 2003?

the "front" was not abroad, it was in Boston.

The front didn't have a business license. It didn't file tax returns. It was as bogus as this story.

f Valerie Plameis just an ordinary CIA employee,  there would have been no Special Counsel and a journalist would not be in jail.

Nice try. The CIA refers cases of possible security breaches to DOJ. DOJ has a statutory requirement to open an inquiry. A special prosecutor was appointed here because of the profile of the allegation, not because it's seriousness, which I maintain it was not and is not.

Judith Miller is in jail for civil contempt for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury. The exact same thing that would happen to you. So while it proves Miller is a mere US citizen and not a privelged citizen of the world, it proves nothing more. At least that's what the Supreme Court said on the issue.

are dem politicians concerned about national security?

Since they think they can damage President Bush through attacks on Karl Rove?

Since the electorate voted for national security issues in '02 and '04 and the dems lost big-time?

are picked up off the wire and reprinted in other papers (papers generally too small to send their reporters to places like DC to dig up this stuff) don't you.

They byline:    By Scott Shane, Stephen Grey and Margot Williams The New York Times

very hard, eh?

I agree, the International Herald Tribune is only owned by the New York Times so it really doesn't count for much. I figured if you couldn't use Google you certainly didn't have a subscription to the NYT archives.

he's pretty unaware of most things that can't be cut and pasted from dKos or somewhere.

JPod has a new comment in the corner about Powell/Armitage and today's NYTimes story, and the focus on the State Dept. memo.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_07_10_corner-archive.asp#069742

Interesting to say the least.

More and more it looks as if Rove's conviction occurs about when Hurricane Emily hits Tucson. All tracks point in the same direction, but for the mountainous evidence in the way.

is beginning to make more sense as the genesis of this.

I could see where someone there would think that saying Wilson was sent by his wife, who BTW worked on non-proliferation of WMD in the CIA, to Niger would increase his bona fides as a impartial fact finder.

and byline are from the 'All Exalted' NYT.

I quess that no longer counts as a 'reputable' major news outlet.

All the news that fit to TINT!

this link doens't count as a major news outlet

What? You never heard of the Herald Tribune? Just how long have you been off the turnip truck? You come out of the forest in the last week or sumthin'?

Hey, I never purported to be a genius. Sorry I don't know the complete organization of the Times and all its subsidiaries, however I do have access to the archives.

If it's owned by the Times, all you had to do was say so. But you'd rather snark, so go ahead.

Ridiculing others is good times, I realize. Oh well, I'm sure you'll get yours in the end.

to read the byline.

You wrote: 'no longer work in this administration.'

I do not recall Bush saying anything even close to this.  

Being you put this in quotes I would like a lnk from a major news outlet.  

with the New York Times and it doesn't count.

Is in the future people (press and officials) will be more careful about matters of security and intelligence...

don't bet real money on this. In the current climate of Bush Derangement Syndrome, politics trumps national security.

... really believe this

...He's made politics what they currently ARE: vicious attacks from both sides. ...

then you don't know much about the history of politcs in America. American politics has been a full-contact sport since the earliest days of the Republic and before :-)

-------------

The Paris-based International Herald Tribune, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Washington Post and until recently a joint venture of the Wash Post / New York Times does not qualify as a major news outlet? It's almost the only English language newspaper available in large parts of the world. H*ll in Paris it's the best locally produced newspaper on the stands.

Reversed the ownership of the IHT.

If Dems to prove that Bush lied will out a covert CIA agent and consequently affect its operations and endanger lives then they will be wrong and committing a crime.

in detail here

What makes you think Rove had the ability to check as to whether or not Plame was covert? On a need to know basis (assuming Karl had clearance to even determine this sort of thing anyway)... well, there was no need to know. Further, a chain of custody system would have recorded the access details were he to inquire further about Joe Wilson's wife. I doubt Karl, being the evil genius he is, would want to leave a record of inqiuring into the matter for the purposes of covering political / media-relations bases. And even if he had inquired, either confirming or denying her covert status (or lack there of) to either Novak or Cooper, he would have actually been divulging more information than he actually did.

The only other action he could have taken was to say to Novak, "No comment" simply because Novak said the acronym CIA, as if everyone ought to assume that anyone who works for the agency should  be assumed to be covert! and that is laughable. And of course again then Rove is essentially at the level of not communicating with the press.

Introducing some reason and common sense into these matters really helps clear things up....

Valarie Plame put her 'own' NOC designation, and her fellow NOC designates, in jeopardy when she decided to date a 'high profile' American diplomat.

She was brought in from the cold in 1997 when the CIA concluded it was too dangerous for her and her fellow NOC designates when she decided to marry that same 'high profile' American diplomat.

Since it is unlawful for the CIA to conduct covert operations on US soil, and she was assigned a desk job on US soil, she could not have been a covert operative of the CIA under NOC.

This restriction on CIA covert operations and inter-agency information sharing was further reenforced and expanded in the Gorelick Memo.

And you would be wrong to conclude that this attack on Rove is anything but politics for the dems.

doesn't need to be parsed.

One hypothetical should suffice...

Paul Begala: "They're saying that Clinton raped Juanita Broderick."

James Carville: "I heard that too."

Did Carville out Clinton as a rapist?

CNN transcript

Here's the bit I assume you are talking about:

BLITZER: But the other argument that's been made against you is that you've sought to capitalize on this extravaganza, having that photo shoot with your wife, who was a clandestine officer of the CIA, and that you've tried to enrich yourself writing this book and all of that.

What do you make of those accusations, which are serious accusations, as you know, that have been leveled against you?

WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.

BLITZER: But she hadn't been a clandestine officer for some time before that?

WILSON: That's not anything that I can talk about. And, indeed, I'll go back to what I said earlier, the CIA believed that a possible crime had been committed, and that's why they referred it to the Justice Department.

She was not a clandestine officer at the time that that article in "Vanity Fair" appeared. And I have every right to have the American public know who I am and not to have myself defined by those who would write the sorts of things that are coming out, being spewed out of the mouths of the RNC...

So, as of the day Novak blew her cover, she was not undercover.  He's clearly saying that by the time they appeared in Vanity Fair, the horse had left the barn.  His word choice could be more clear, but there's no reasonable way to interpret this to mean that she was not undercover before Novak revealed her CIA affiliation.

If this is not the Wolf Blitzer interview you are talking about, clarification is welcome.

had any role in assigning the special counsel for this investigation.  It was a justice department action.  

you to read it again and find where I said what you're contradicting. I didn't.

Here:

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said if the leaker is identified, he or she will be dismissed.

"If anyone in this administration was responsible for the leaking of classified information, they would no longer be working in this administration," he said

Think about it. Wilson made Powell look bad. It hurts Powell's ambitions of which the man has many, perhaps not elected office but certainly appointed ones.

Powell almost certainly had motive to strike back at a man who had made him look bad, and point out to the press that, hey, Colin Powell is the calm professional and Wilson the partisan bomb thrower who was the beneficiary of a nepotistic boondoggle.

However, you are completely wrong when you state:

there's no reasonable way to interpret this to mean that she was not undercover before Novak revealed her CIA affiliation.  

First off, you use the 'reasonable' to state that anyone not seeing it your way is unreasonable.  That is defintely unreasonable.  

Second, Wilson was referring to her identity being blewn not her NOC status. These are two separate things. Reread what he said, (My Emphasis added)

My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.

Third, Mr Wilson was clear of her status in his book which USAToday spoke about on the same date Wilson was interviewed by Wolfie.    

CIA 'outing' might fall short of crime

In The Politics of Truth, former ambassador Joseph Wilson writes that he and his future wife both returned from overseas assignments in June 1997. Neither spouse, a reading of the book indicates, was again stationed overseas. They appear to have remained in Washington, D.C., where they married and became parents of twins.

Six years later, in July 2003, the name of the CIA officer -- Valerie Plame -- was revealed by columnist Robert Novak.

The column's date is important because the law against unmasking the identities of U.S. spies says a 'covert agent' must have been on an overseas assignment 'within the last five years.' The assignment also must be long-term, not a short trip or temporary post, two experts on the law say. Wilson's book makes numerous references to the couple's life in Washington over the six years up to July 2003.

'Unless she was really stationed abroad sometime after their marriage,' she wasn't a covert agent protected by the law, says Bruce Sanford, an attorney who helped write the 1982 act that protects covert agents' identities.

Anyone reading both the interview and the USAToday article will understand she was NOT undercover so they was NO crime.  

WHY did reporters LOVE James Baker, despite his power-center Republicanism that was at odds with most Reporters Liberalism?

Cause he leaked like a dang sieve. Baker taught Powell everything he knew.

On a related matter, Rove is symptomatic of Dems problems. They keep searching for "evil, cheating, geniuses" who deny them the rightful victory, because they are right and the Reps are wrong. If it's not Rove, it's Lee Atwater. Or some reporter asking Michael Dukakis questions on the Death Penalty.

That despite the obvious political gifts of Paul Begala and James Carville (they ARE smart, too bad for the Dems they aren't listened to anymore), Dems lose national elections over and over again, hasn't penetrated. The possibility that it's not "evil, cheating geniuses" on the other side but the basic failure of the Dem party to address the largest concerns of the voters as a whole hasn't penetrated.

I for the record find Rove's basic political acumen no larger or smaller than James Carville or Begala. All three of these guys (and Mehlmen) recognize the basic shape of American politics and the core concerns of the electorate, that the Parties are in competition for votes and Dems post-Clinton have done a miserable job of offering compelling alternatives.

Dems are running off the cliff in an attempt to "fix the problem" by "getting Karl Rove" in the naive and simplistic belief that they'll be winners if Karl Rove is somehow gone. In this they are aided by the Press, which acts in support of their beliefs and is similarly disconnected from ordinary people's experiences and lives.

Clinton won IMHO in 1992 because he understood ordinary people and GWHW "this is for checking out?" did not. Since 2000 that dynamic has been exactly reversed, due to the heavy spade work done by Newt Gingrich (maligned but brilliant politically) as well as Rove and GWB (who contrary to perceptions is IMHO totally brilliant politically and the carrier of the Rep's strategic vision).

If Dems forgot about Rove and started competing for votes with actual ideas/policies responsive to voters concerns Reps would be in serious trouble. But instead the media re-inforces the Kos Kool Aide and the Party marches off the cliff.

I'm not convinced that Rove is the primary target of Fitzgerald's investigation--  I think there are some people higher up the food chain who are also in trouble here.  There is an awful lot at stake; this is not just a matter of fingering a couple of bad apples and bringing them to trial.  If indeed the investigation reveals a conspiracy to discredit Wilson, then the administration's entire rationale for attacking Iraq comes under more intense scrutiny.

Given that nearly everyone over here on the Right was cheering Ken Starr's $60 million, taxpayer-financed jihad against the Clintons, I think that conservatives of integrity ought to halt their knee-jerk defense of the Bush administration in this case and await the results of the Fitzgerald inquiry.  

However, that was Scott McClellan not Bush as per my request.  

My post stated:

I do not recall Bush saying anything even close to this.  

Being you put this in quotes I would like a link from a major news outlet.

like Powell's MO to me, and not very good payback either.

with State. State is increasingly looking like the locus of the Plame affair, but I can't see Powell leaking this. Too low level and it would not make him look good.

I think that conservatives of integrity ought to halt their knee-jerk defense of the Bush administration in this case and await the results of the Fitzgerald inquiry.

Conservatives are far more open-minded concerning this investigation than the Dems in DC were with MonicaGate.  Don't you recall Hillary's birthing of the VRWC and the meme "it's just about sex".   Where was the Dems in DC's integrity!  They ALL PIMPED themshelves so they could hold onto Clinton's power.

although I do think Powell was the source of many leaks during his tenure, I don't see it on this one, but it is a possibility.  

I actually think this leak of the Plame  information with the press was more than likely lower level anyway.  Whether it was State or CIA.

But for some reason I simply do not believe Powell is the type to allow a woman to serve jail time on his account.

Maybe it's the fact that he was a soldier, but I think he would have a great deal more honor than that.

where several democrats (Schumer was one of them) wrote a letter to the justice department encouraging them to investigate this, so they did put their noses into it and pressure for an investigation.

Funny I don't recall them pressuring for an investigation of the other leak about the CIA business front doing work in the WOT.

It's his job.

The passage you were objecting to was:

He stated repeatedly (through interviews and Scott McClellan) he had nothing to do with it, which is clearly false. And the White House's position has been that the leaker(s) would "no longer work in this administration."

[Emphasis mine.]

I provided you a quote which is completely consistent with masterfaculty's claim (almost verbatim, in fact).  I frankly don't care what your request was.

And, I would point out that masterfaculty is actually wrong on one minor point insofar as Bush speaks for the White House:

The WH never hinged this intention on whether or not the parties were charged with a crime.

Bush did hinge some statements on the legality of the act.  But I think this is just a clumsy turn of phrase (no offense, masterfaculty) since this doesn't change the central point that the White House, via McClellan, made broader claims, and McClellan speaks for the White House, at which Bush is the final authority.

This should be a no-brainer.  The whole point of being undercover is keeping your identity from being associated with your actual organizational affiliation, whether your cover is official or nonofficial.  What are you getting at by trying to make a distinction between having your identity blown (an awkward phrase, yes, but pretty clear in context) and having your cover blown?

For the reasons I stated upthread, the quote simply does not support your assertion.  It doesn't necessarily rule it out, but it doesn't support it, either.

the other portion of my post?  It supports my position. Or is that why you ignored it?

The information contained in this INR State Department classified document, that Plame was CIA and that she  dispatched him, was exactly what was leaked in 2003 to Cooper by Rove and to Novak.

In the I classified report the INR analyst states that the meeting was "apparently convened by [ the former Ambassador's wife ] wife who had the idea to dispatch [ him ]" . The Senate Report includes Plame's statement that "she only attended the meeting to introduce her husband and left after about three minutes".



The text I have in bold here is the actual text of the INR document and the Senate Report. These quotes are shown in quotation marks in the Senate Report on Prewar Intelligence July 7th, 2004 (page 40).  

This classified document has been mentioned in several news articles starting in October 2003 and is the probable source, according the Newsweek's Isikoff, "for the information that Rove and others were then dishing out to reporters" The information being that Plame was CIA and that she authorized his trip.

This is it, this is how the White House knew Plame was CIA. This classified document was leaked by the administration in the following news reports. This document was made public in part in the Senate Report in 2004, but it was leaked before that.

Reference to this classified document first turns up on October 17, 2003 in the Wall Street Journal. The WSJ credits "two people familiar with the memo", I find that fact that they mention people not some official interesting in it's own right since this is a classified document.

An internal government memo addresses some of the mysteries at the center of the White House leak investigation and could help investigators in the search for who disclosed the identity of a Central Intelligence Agency operative, according to two people familiar with the memo.

The memo, prepared by U.S. intelligence personnel, details a meeting in early 2002 where CIA officer Valerie Plame and other intelligence officials gathered to brainstorm about how to verify reports that Iraq had sought uranium yellowcake from Niger.  

The Washington Post article of December 26th 2003 is referring to the original Wall Street Journal article and the classified document.

Sources said the CIA is angry about the circulation of a still-classified document to conservative news outlets suggesting Plame had a role in arranging her husband's trip to Africa for the CIA. The document, written by a State Department official who works for its Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), describes a meeting at the CIA where the Niger trip by Wilson was discussed, said a senior administration official who has seen it.

Then in August 2004 Isikoff himself writes about this classified report. He placed the report with Powell on the Africa trip in the week following Wilson's July 6th op-ed.

A senior State Department official confirmed that, while on the trip, Powell had a department intelligence report on whether Iraq had sought uranium from Niger--a claim Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, discounted after a trip to Niger on behalf of the CIA. The report stated that Wilson's wife had attended a meeting at the CIA where the decision was made to send Wilson to Niger, but it did not mention her last name or undercover status.  

On July 7th 2005 Arianna Huffington refers to the classified document referring to information the White House players had recieved from the State Department.

According to the players, the key to whether this story has real legs -- and whether it will spell the end of Rove -- is determining intent. And a key to that is whether there was a meeting at the White House where Rove and Scooter Libby discussed what to do with the information they had gotten from the State Department about Valerie Plame being Joe Wilson's wife, and her involvement in his being sent on the Niger/yellowcake mission. If it can be proven that such a meeting occurred, then Rove will be in deep trouble -- especially if it is established that Rove made three phone calls leaking the info about Plame and her CIA gig... one to Matt Cooper, one to Walter Pincus, and one to Robert Novak.  

On July 11th, 2005 CNN

Isikoff puts the classified state department document front and center.  

ISIKOFF:



That classified State Department report appears to have been -- or may well have been the source for the information that Rove and others were then dishing out to reporters. And if that's the case, there still may be -- we don't know yet, but there still may be an instance where classified information was provided to reporters.

A couple of points

This is an updated account of the diary I wrote for DKos on July 13th. This diary sat in the top postion on the recommened list for about 18 hours and was seen by alot of people.

Before I found out the date of this document(June 10, 2003), which explains much, I stated these reservations about the INR memo.

The CIA and Wilson are on the record as disputing parts of the document. Specifically that Plame was not an attendee at the meeting and that the INR analyst who implies she was an attendee could not have attended the meeting.

In particular, the document states exactly that the meeting detailed in the INR document was "apparently convened by [ the former Ambassador's wife ] ".

I found the use of the word "apparently" interesting because the INR analyst is parcing her/his words here. The author of the INR document cannot state with certainty that she convened the meeting. I have to assume that the INR analyst uses the word apparently because he/she wasn't at the meeting.

I do not know why the author of the INR document wanted this information in the report. It doesn't relate in any way that I can see to the matter at hand ( the yellowcake ).

The new revealed date(June 10th, 2003) of the document explains much. Short version, Wilson was leaking and WAPO was asking for comments from the administration about an upcoming article. The WAPO article was published on June 12, 2003.

The Washington Post explains all in their October 12, 2003 article about the backgroung for the June article. Here is the lead

FBI agents investigating the disclosure of a CIA officer's identity have begun by examining events in the month before the leak, when the CIA, the White House and Vice President Cheney's office first were asked about former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV's CIA-sponsored trip to Niger, according to sources familiar with the probe.

was BUSH never said "no longer work in this administration."

But if you want to be dense, frankly I can't help you.    

Yes, Scott McClellan is the WH press sec, however president's have been known to corrected what press secs have said before.  As you stated: Bush is the final authority.

I'll state again, I do not recall Bush saying anything even close to this.  That is because he never said anything even close.  That is and was my point.  

Where is the link quoting Bush?  

Joe Wilson's Favorite T-Shirt

For Her

the evidence a little better.

You made a claim that was not true ("Wilson later when on CNN with wolfie and said his wife was not NOC, so it is obvious he know the jig was up.").  Whether you are capable of making another claim that might turn out to be true is irrelevant to the question of the veracity of the initial claim.  Incidentally, Wilson later clarified his meaning (unfortunately, I can't find a link to the actual AP correction), and it is exactly as I interpreted it above.

If you really want my opinion on the book thing, however, I'd say that attempting to build a comprehensive timeline of the activities of a covert CIA operative from a tell-all book is a bit of a fool's errand.  Your "evidence" amounts to the fact that Joe Wilson hasn't made affirmative claims as to his wife's recent clandestine overseas work.  Does nothing about such reasoning strike you as funny?  I'd bet good money he hasn't told us every detail about her pre-1997 work either.  Hell, he might not even know about a lot of it.

You might, after all is said and done, be correct, but your evidence is inconclusive.

Nobody here claimed Bush himself spoke those words.  The claim was that the White House made that statement.  I offered proof of this.

How about this:  I'll find a link to Bush himself making a statement that was attributed upthread not directly to Bush, but to the White House, right after you find me a link to a credible news organization quoting the Queen of England as saying "I can control bugs with my mind."  Both errands will serve about the same purpose.

They keep searching for "evil, cheating, geniuses" who deny them the rightful victory, because they are right and the Reps are wrong.

This is an excellent assessment of what is wrong here.

The dems don't understand why they lost, and the ones that do understand (and I am convinced that Carville does, because he has said some very honest stuff about it) are being shouted down by the ones who think the answer is to get Rove and run to the left (while sometimes faking right).

in his book, which is the part he was referring to, where Wilson says that neither he or his wife had had an overseas assignment since 1997.

Part of the law defining whether or not the revelation is a crime is that the person had to have an overseas assignment in the 5 years prior to the name being revealed.  From Wilson's own words (unless we are going to say he was lying in his book) his wife was not a NOC during the period that the law was covered (the USA Today article also explains that short trips do not count to violate the law, it has to be a long term overseas assignment).

That is the part you seem to be ignoring.

Wilson has twice basically said what in effect indicates that the law wasn't violated (which is why I think this is just the cover for the investigation which is looking more specifically at leaks of classified material to the press, not Plame's name).

Whether:

  My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.

is read as meaning:

  The day Bob Novak blew her identity she stopped being a clandestine officer.

or as meaning:

  The day Bob Novak blew her identity she was already no longer a clandestine officer.

It's not the clearest sentence in the world, but it seems to me in context he clearly meant the former and not the latter.  

That despite the obvious political gifts of Paul Begala and James Carville (they ARE smart, too bad for the Dems they aren't listened to anymore), Dems lose national elections over and over again, hasn't penetrated.

I'd say the main reason it "hasn't penetrated" is that it hasn't happened.  We don't really have any "national" elections in the Unites States (as we were all reminded in 2000, painfully for half of us) but using the closest thing to it that we do have....last November was the only national election the Dems have actually lost since 1988. And that one was pretty close.  Ya'll seem to keep forgetting that in the flush of owning the entire government.

You didn't get there by winning "national elections" "over and over again".  You got there by ruthless House re-districting, an Electoral College fluke assisted by a (imho) lawless activist Supreme Court ruling, and the good fortune to get your Senate votes spread in the right states (don't forget that more Americans voted for the 44 Dem Sens than voted for the 55 GOP Sens).  

It's not like you guys have an American League All-Star streak going here or anything....

It's very much a 50-50 country still. You'd be wise not to get too cocky and forget that.

And Wilson later clarified it as such.

IANAL, but I have a theory...

If Miller was the original source in this, and had any criminal liability, she would NOT be in jail now.

Miller has a 5th amendment right to not testify in front of the grand jury if her testimony would be self-incriminating.  A good lawyer would argue this "in camera" and the judge would not have her locked up.

Of course, this doesn't apply if she:

a) Would rather be a journalistic martyr (although this could be possible with Rove as the source as well)

b) She's covering for somebody else as well, and has been offered immunity and turned it down. (I think)

Any lawyers want to comment?

Uh, in case you didn't realize, Clinton lied about having sex with an intern.

The Bush administration is being investigated for leaking the identity of a CIA agent, which puts the security of our nation at risk.

It is possible (although not yet proven) that the identity of this CIA agent was leaked as revenge for a story that conflicted with the President's now disproven alleged reasons for going to war.

See the difference?

it is miller (after all somebody still had to give the "Plame was the one who recommended her husband" info to the press) so much as it is that Miller holds the key to who the source is, and may be the source for other journalists.

It may in the end be that she and Novak (and others) all had the same source, but Miller is the only one not testifying.

Hard to say.

Although, if this investigation ends up being as much about the leaking of classified material and not just the leaking of Plame's name, then Miller may hold a key that we are unaware of.

and the wording is vague, but the article linked seems to say, in essence, that there is no evidence in the book to support the idea that she was a covert operative post-1997.  This is pretty different from saying the book offers evidence to the contrary.  I'd call that inconclusive.

And yes, I understand why this detail is important from a legal standpoint, and I won't be shocked if the leaker skates on that particular charge because he or she blew the cover of an operative with 6 years back in the states rather than 4 years 11 months.

The Bush administration is being investigated for leaking the identity of a CIA agent, which puts the security of our nation at risk.

That's a talking point. The fact is, none of us know who is being investigated. Democrats and the media assume it's the administration. Won't they be surprised if it turns out to be Democrats and the media.

Powell and State had already dismissed the Niger documents and he made no mention of it to the Security Council.

For starters, if Joe Wilson went on a mission for the CIA, whatever he found should have remained classified unless and until someone in the executive branch chose to reveal same. All he knew was what he was told by the Nigerian government. For all he knew, 6 other "agents" had developed evidence to the contrary. If the President had named Joe Wilson as the source, then Joe can correct a bald faced lie. He cannot assume that he, and only he, is the oracle of uranium. The President said the British Government had gathered the information. Wilson was honor bound to keep his opinions to himself. What if the Brits broke a Nigerian code. Wilson could have been dead wrong and impossible to refute.

Patrick Leahey (sp?) leaked evidence that could have resulted in the death of an agent. He was removed from his committee assignment, but he is still in congress. The NYT printed the tail number of a jet used by the CIA for "renditions". How many people were put at risk by the release of that information?

Novak has said the leaker was "not a partisan gunslinger for the administration". That narrows the field to holdovers from the previous administration = Tenet, Libby et al, or Colin Powell. Rush Limbaugh might spend time in jail to protect a Republican, Judith Miller on the other hand......

If anyone needs a barometer for just how serious the administration is taking the investigation into the Plame affair, watch for the appearance of James Baker.  He has been called upon to pull the Bush family out of the fire on more than one occasion, and I won't be the least bit surprised if he shows up sometime soon on this case.

Who does the New York Times pull in when they are in trouble?

PLEASE NOTE: I did not make a CLAIM as you are claiming, it was MY OPINION!  What I Wrote was prefaced with IMHO or in  long hand In My Humble OPINION. Opinions are not claims or facts, just opinions.

Quoted from your link

In an interview Friday, Wilson said his comment was meant to reflect that his wife lost her ability to be a covert agent because of the leak, not that she had stopped working for the CIA beforehand.

Note the slight of hand?  

Glenn Reynolds says it better than I would:

Nobody ever said that she wasn't working for the CIA -- the question is whether she was a covert spy or a paperpusher, and the answer seems pretty clearly to be the latter. And "ability to be a covert agent" isn't the same as actually being a covert agent, though he hopes you'll miss that. This is, sadly, typical of Wilson here, though it seems that she lost her ability to be a covert agent when she married Wilson, really.

Robert Novak sourced the leak to senior Bush Administration officials.  His column sparked the investigation.  Bush's Deputy Chief of Staff got himself subpoenaed.  You don't need to read tea leaves to figure out that those administration sources are an important part of what is being investigated.

Are even truthful talking points off limits to discussion here?

Believe it or not, it happens.

Just slopping AP writing Believe it or not, it happens. You can't see or discount ALL evidence presented to you.  You are so nonsensical, it is almost funny.    

What color is the sky in your world of denial?

I get it finally............

I say the grass is green, the sky is blue

then you say the grass is blue, the sky is green.

into a negative.  This is specious reasoning.

According to your reasoning, no mention of recent undercover status in the book means Plame was not undercover.

According to your reasoning, Wilson's failure to say Plame was undercover in the Blitzer interview and the subsequent correction means Plame was not undercover.

Never mind that Wilson says outright in the interview that he can't talk about whether she was undercover in recent years.  You call this evidence of a negative, when all it is is lack of evidence of a positive.  I don't know when she was undercover, and neither do you.  It's more like you are saying the sky is blue and the grass is green on a world neither of us has ever seen, just because nobody has yet told you otherwise.

Clintonesque.

Wilson phrased his statement that way so it COULD be read either way.  He satisfied his supporters' need for a branch to cling to, but he didn't really say anything we didn't already know, and he didn't leave himself open to being caught in a lie.

The CIA has already confirmed that Plame wasn't covert when they didn't try to stop Novak from publishing.

of a negative into a positive.  This is specious reasoning.

According to your reasoning, no mention of her not being a undercover agent is the evidence of Plame was an undercover agent.

Never mind that Wilson never says outright that she was undercover in recent years.  You call this evidence of a positive, when all it is is lack of evidence of a negative.  I don't know for sure when she was undercover, and neither do you.  It is highly doubtful she was.

Like I said, I say the grass is green, the sky is blue then you say the grass is blue, the sky is green.  

No, it's not wrong.  It's called confirming the truth, and it's neither illegal, immoral, nor unethical.

<<The fact is, none of us know who is being investigated.>>

Hello and welcome to planet earth!

Karl Rove is among one of several Bush administration officials that are currently being investigated, all of them Republicans. Karl Rove is the SUBJECT of the investigation although not the TARGET of the investigation (as we are a little too happy to point out). That doesn't make it time to nominate him for sainthood just yet.

Also, in regard to "talking points": it was the RNC that released talking points earlier this week. Read 'em and weep:

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Exclusive_GOP_talking_points_on_Rove_seek_to_
discre_0712.html

The main stream media is finally sick and tired of being used as pawns for the lies this administration has told and are finally beginning to behave as real investigative journalists for the first time in years.

It is time we take back our party and restore it to what it once was under such reputable Republican Presidents like Ronald Reagan.

Let's not blindly fall in line here folks.

THINK!!!!

Karl Rove is among one of several Bush administration officials that are currently being investigated, all of them Republicans

Says who? The people being investigated?

The main stream media is finally sick and tired of being used as pawns for the lies this administration has told...

Yeah? Keep going.

It is time we take back our party

Oh. A moby.

Wrestlerdude! It's you! How did you get off The Pile? Get back on there.

Should be a neat trick.  You made a specific claim:

Wilson later when on CNN with wolfie and said his wife was not NOC, so it is obvious he know the jig was up.

and:

Anyone reading both the interview and the USAToday article will understand she was NOT undercover so they was NO crime.

Now you say:

Never mind that Wilson never says outright that she was undercover in recent years.

I think what you might have meant to say is "Never mind, I was wrong to claim Wilson said so.  Sorry."  But somehow it came out as a snarky and miguided attempt to turn the tables on positions I never took.

And you still continue to insist that Plame's post-'97 lack of NOC status is as evident as the blue sky.  If it is so obvious, offer up your plain evidence, and I will happily agree with you.  But so far, you have offered only your own suspicions and the absence of claims to the contrary.

"clamed" should read "claimed"

your wording sounds real nice but it just shows you've got no experience in even AA politics.

"But as an American I am sorry to see the press turning themselves in to a self-parody. I do believe that a viable, credible press is important to a democracy. When the people can no longer trust what the press says down that path lies danger."

What you say is true as far as you go.  But please stay relaxed.  It is only some elements of the Old Media that are destroying their credibility and their balance sheets.  Other media outlets are booming.  There is no danger of losing access to credible or incredible sources of news.