Ex-Cia's Spouse says Rove must go

[jasd]

Actually I'm not invested in Rove... that said, I'll be surprised if this, like the many other times the media and its ‘favorite sons’ flagellated (worked themselves into hysteria) over dis’n dat, eventually came to anything other than naught. Frankly,

I’m frightfully mistrustful of both parties and especially so --of corporate media. If I knowed they’s acomin’ I’d grab a shotgun rather than peruse cake recipes…

It’s just that every once in awhile there comes over me an urge to add a little salsa muy caliente! to the whole enchilada. [/caramba!];0

[jasd]

Tchah! --Colleen McCullough, writing on Julius Caesar

“There is no original thinking; we are all plagiarists in different forms.” --CS Lewis

[Bravus]

I *loved* Colleen MCullough's Roman novels.

[Neil D]

[:"blue"] This should add to the controversy....A CIA memo shows that Plume's identity was marked 'secret'... [/]

Quote:

---

Plame's "covert" status needs to be investigated:

---

Plame's Identity Marked As Secret

Memo Central to Probe Of Leak Was Written By State Dept. Analyst

By Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei

Washington Post Staff Writers

Thursday, July 21, 2005; A01

A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.

Plame -- who is referred to by her married name, Valerie Wilson, in the memo -- is mentioned in the second paragraph of the three-page document, which was written on June 10, 2003, by an analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), according to a source who described the memo to The Washington Post.

The paragraph identifying her as the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was clearly marked to show that it contained classified material at the "secret" level, two sources said. The CIA classifies as "secret" the names of officers whose identities are covert, according to former senior agency officials.

Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame's name and did not describe her status as covert, the sources said. It is a federal crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for a federal official to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert CIA official if the person knows the government is trying to keep it secret.

Prosecutors attempting to determine whether senior government officials knowingly leaked Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative to the media are investigating whether White House officials gained access to information about her from the memo, according to two sources familiar with the investigation.

The memo may be important to answering three central questions in the Plame case: Who in the Bush administration knew about Plame's CIA role? Did they know the agency was trying to protect her identity? And, who leaked it to the media?

Almost all of the memo is devoted to describing why State Department intelligence experts did not believe claims that Saddam Hussein had in the recent past sought to purchase uranium from Niger. Only two sentences in the seven-sentence paragraph mention Wilson's wife.

The memo was delivered to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell on July 7, 2003, as he headed to Africa for a trip with President Bush aboard Air Force One. Plame was unmasked in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak seven days later.

Wilson has said his wife's identity was revealed to retaliate against him for accusing the Bush administration of "twisting" intelligence to justify the Iraq war. In a July 6 opinion piece in the New York Times and in an interview with The Washington Post, he cited a secret mission he conducted in February 2002 for the CIA, when he determined there was no evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium for a nuclear weapons program in the African nation of Niger.

White House officials discussed Wilson's wife's CIA connection in telling at least two reporters that she helped arrange his trip, according to one of the reporters, Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, and a lawyer familiar with the case.

Prosecutors have shown interest in the memo, especially when they were questioning White House officials during the early days of the investigation, people familiar with the probe said.

Karl Rove, President Bush's deputy chief of staff, has testified that he learned Plame's name from Novak a few days before telling another reporter she worked at the CIA and played a role in her husband's mission, according to a lawyer familiar with Rove's account. Rove has also testified that the first time he saw the State Department memo was when "people in the special prosecutor's office" showed it to him, said Robert Luskin, his attorney.

"He had not seen it or heard about it before that time," Luskin said.

Several other administration officials were on the trip to Africa, including senior adviser Dan Bartlett, then-White House spokesman Ari Fleischer and others. Bartlett's attorney has refused to discuss the case, citing requests by the special counsel. Fleischer could not be reached for comment yesterday.

Rove and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, have been identified as people who discussed Wilson's wife with Cooper. Prosecutors are trying to determine the origin of their knowledge of Plame, including whether it was from the INR memo or from conversations with reporters.

The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that the memo made it clear that information about Wilson's wife was sensitive and should not be shared. Yesterday, sources provided greater detail on the memo to The Post.

The material in the memo about Wilson's wife was based on notes taken by an INR analyst who attended a Feb. 19, 2002, meeting at the CIA where Wilson's intelligence-gathering trip to Niger was discussed.

The memo was drafted June 10, 2003, for Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, who asked to be brought up to date on INR's opposition to the White House view that Hussein was trying to buy uranium in Africa.

The description of Wilson's wife and her role in the Feb. 19, 2002, meeting at the CIA was considered "a footnote" in a background paragraph in the memo, according to an official who was aware of the process.

It records that the INR analyst at the meeting opposed Wilson's trip to Niger because the State Department, through other inquiries, already had disproved the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger. Attached to the INR memo were the notes taken by the senior INR analyst who attended the 2002 meeting at the CIA.

On July 6, 2003, shortly after Wilson went public on NBC's "Meet the Press" and in The Post and the New York Times discussing his trip to Niger, the INR director at the time, Carl W. Ford Jr., was asked to explain Wilson's statements for Powell, according to sources familiar with the events. He went back and reprinted the June 10 memo but changed the addressee from Grossman to Powell.

Ford last year appeared before the federal grand jury investigating the leak and described the details surrounding the INR memo, the sources said. Yesterday he was on vacation in Arkansas, according to his office.

[Dr. Shane]

Stopping emotionally charged rhetoric is a good idea as far as it goes. I use political terminology that is commonly used on news broadcasts. I am not trying to push anyone’s buttons.

“Hopeing that Karl gets nailed, I would like to see Bush put in that postion”

Is that not emotionally charged rhetoric?

“it's nice to see when this political savay president keeps getting embarrassed”

Is that not emotionally charged rhetoric?

Is the altered picture emotionally charged rhetoric?

“Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!”

Is that emotionally charged rhetoric?

Need I go on? Brother Neil accusing me of emotionally charged rhetoric is the pot calling the kettle black.

Yes, Brother Neil, I agree this type of rhetoric should stop. Please let’s stop it. We can have a healthy exchange of ideas in a mature manner but I can’t make that happen all by myself.

[Neil D]

In an attempt to keep this tit 4 tat stuff off the thread, I will take this to PM.

[Stan]

Shane

Neil

You are both using inflammatory emotional charged phrases and words that will do nothing but irritate each other and those watching.

I frankly do not really care if the conservative controlled (let's pretend we are middle of the road) or the liberal controlled (let's pretend we are the middle of the road) media uses them or not.

There will be no more of this. Last warning. I am not interested in messages from either of you on this. This is simply not going to turn into a conversation.

Stan

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

If Rove is the leak then he must be fired or Bush is a flat out liar.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I have no problem with Congressional investigations or independant investigations. I am of the opinion that the major difference between the US and its southern neighbor, Mexico, is our lack of corruption in government. So the idea of government spending time and money on investigating other parts of government seems to be time and money well spent to me.

I don't want a corrupt government regardless if it is Democrat, Republican or other. When government officials break the law they need to be punished. You may note how consistant I have been on this point. I have no problem with Tom Delay being investigating and didn't support the Republicans changing the rules to keep him in leadership during the investigation.

However, that said, at the end of the day, if a person - Tom Delay or Karl Rove - is found not to have broken the law, I don't believe they should be removed from their position. That just wouldn't be right. We shouldn't punish people that play by the rules.

[Neil D]

[:"blue"] Latest opinion from Seattle and th New York Times [/]

For Bush, repercussions of leak case are uncertain

By RICHARD W. STEVENSON

The New York Times

WASHINGTON — His former secretary of state, most of his closest aides and a parade of other senior officials have testified to a grand jury. His political strategist has emerged as a central figure in the case, as has his vice president's chief of staff. His spokesman has taken a pounding for making statements about the matter that now appear not to be accurate.

For all that, it is still not clear what the investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's identity will mean for President Bush. So far the disclosures about the involvement of Karl Rove, among others, have not exacted any substantial political price from the administration. And nobody has suggested that the investigation directly implicates the president.

Yet Bush has yet to address some uncomfortable questions that he may not be able to evade indefinitely.

For starters, did Bush know in fall 2003, when he was telling the public that no one wanted to get to the bottom of the case more than he did, that Rove, his longtime strategist, senior adviser and alter ego, and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, had touched on the CIA officer's identity in conversations with journalists before the officer's name became public? If not, when did they tell him, and what would the delay say in particular about his relationship with Rove, whose career and Bush's have been intertwined for decades?

There also is the broader issue of whether Bush was aware of any effort by his aides to use the CIA officer's identity to undermine the standing of her husband, a former diplomat who had publicly accused the administration of twisting its prewar intelligence about Iraq's nuclear program.

For the past several weeks, Bush and his spokesman, Scott McClellan, have declined to address the leak in any substantive way, citing the continuing federal criminal investigation.

But Democrats increasingly see an opportunity to raise questions about Bush's credibility and to reopen a debate about whether the White House leveled with the nation about the urgency of going to war with Iraq. And even some Republicans said Bush cannot assume he will escape from the investigation politically unscathed.

"Until all the facts come out, no one is really going to know who the fickle finger of fate points at," said Tony Fabrizio, a Republican pollster.

Degrees of knowing

The case centers on how the name of a CIA operative ended up two years ago in a syndicated column by Robert Novak, who identified her by her maiden name, Valerie Plame.

The operative, who is more commonly known as Valerie Wilson, is married to Joseph Wilson, a former diplomat who had publicly accused the administration eight days before Novak's column of twisting some of the intelligence used to justify going to war with Iraq. Under some conditions, the disclosure of a covert intelligence agent's name can be a federal crime.

The special prosecutor in the case, Patrick Fitzgerald, has kept a tight curtain of secrecy around his investigation. But he spent more than an hour in the Oval Office on June 24, 2004, interviewing Bush about the case. Bush was not under oath, but he had his lawyer for the case, James Sharp, with him.

Neither the White House nor the Justice Department has said what Bush was asked, but prosecutors do not lightly seek to put questions directly to any president, suggesting there was information Fitzgerald felt he could get only from Bush.

Allan Lichtman, a presidential historian at American University in Washington, said the lesson of recent history, for example in the Iran-contra case under President Reagan, is that presidents tend to know more than it might first appear about what is going on within the White House.

"My presumption in presidential politics is that the president always knows," Lichtman said. "But there are degrees of knowing. Reagan said, keep the contras together body and soul. Did he know exactly what Oliver North was doing? No, it doesn't mean he knew what every subordinate is doing."

Rove spoke to reporters

According to accounts by various people involved in the case, Rove spoke in the days after Wilson went public with his criticism in July 2003 to both of the first two reporters to disclose that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, Novak and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine. Cooper has said he also spoke about the case with Libby.

By September 2003, as a criminal investigation was beginning, McClellan was telling reporters that Rove had nothing to do with the leak, saying he had checked with Rove about the topic.

Around the same time, the president was saying he had no idea who might have been responsible. Asked by a reporter on Oct. 6, 2003, whether the leak was retaliation for Wilson's criticism, Bush replied: "I don't know who leaked the information, for starters. So it's hard for me to answer that question until I find out the truth."

Republicans said the relationship between Bush and Rove was so deep and complex that it was hard to imagine the president cutting ties with him barring an indictment.

McClellan and other White House officials have repeatedly declined to answer when asked if Rove or Libby had told the president by October 2003 that they had alluded to Wilson's identity months earlier in their conversations with the journalists.

Bush in a box?

But Bush's political opponents said the president is in a box. In their view, either Rove and Libby kept the president in the dark about their actions, making them appear evasive at a time Bush was demanding that his staff cooperate fully, or Rove and Libby had told the president and he was not forthcoming in his public statements about his knowledge of their roles.

"We know that Karl Rove, through Scott McClellan, did not tell Americans the truth," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., and a former top aide in President Clinton's White House. "What's important now is what Karl Rove told the president."

[Dr. Shane]

An on-line poll at Bill O'Reilly's web site finds that 40% do not care what happens to Karl Rove. What is signifficant about that is that the only ones that participate in such polls are news/political junkies. If 40% of them don't care, a whole lot more average Americans don't care.

[Neil D]

[:"blue"] Amide the point counter point over whether Valery Plame was a covert agent or not, medica matter has added this valuable tidbit. [/]

Fox News chief White House correspondent Carl Cameron reported on the July 18 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume that "we should point out that the covert agent would have had to have been operating overseas within the preceding five years. And Wilson himself has said that his wife had not been covert since 1997."

Cameron's report, though vague, appears to be based on a July 14 USA Today article that used "little-noticed details" in Wilson's book, The Politics of Truth, to suggest that the outing of Plame did not violate the relevant criminal statute, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA). The IIPA defines a "covert agent'' in part as someone "who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States." USA Today cited two of IIPAA's authors, Victoria Toensing and Bruce W. Sanford, who claimed that because Wilson's book indicated that Plame has lived in the United States since 1997, it is unlikely that she was covert under the law's definition. This argument is debatable, since the statute does not explicitly state that a covert agent must be stationed abroad. What is not debatable, however, is that nowhere in Wilson's book does he claim that that his wife has not been a covert operative since 1997.

[:"blue"] From a July 15 remark from Media Matters, apparently, the CIA believes that there is a crime committed. If the spooks believe there is a crime committed, then there are two possiblities....They know the crime was committed, or they set it up so that a crime was committed. Either way, there WAS a crime committed. [/]

[snip] the context of the interview on the July 14 edition of CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports demonstrates that the AP misconstrued and falsely reported Wilson's remarks. In stating that "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity," Wilson was simply noting that Plame's identity was no longer secret after Novak publicly revealed it. In fact, when host Wolf Blitzer specifically asked Wilson if his wife "hadn't been a clandestine officer for some time before" Novak's column was published, Wilson responded that he could not comment on her past status as an undercover officer, but noted that "the CIA believed that a possible crime had been committed." The implication of Wilson's statement is clear. Had Plame not been a clandestine officer at the time Novak published her identity, the CIA would not have believed a possible crime had been committed.

[Amelia]

Bill Clinton Pardoned Nat'l. Security Leaker

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

NewsMax.com

No wonder 2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has been silent as a churchmouse about Karl Rove while her Democratic colleagues call for his prosecution for leaking classified information about CIA employee Valerie Plame.

Turns out - in the only case in U.S. history of a person successfully prosecuted for leaking classified information to the press - Hillary's husband pardoned the guilty party.

On January 20, 2001, President Clinton pardoned Samuel Loring Morison, a civilian analyst with the Office of Naval Intelligence. In 1984, Morison had been convicted of providing classified satellite photos of an under-construction Soviet nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to Britain's Jane's Defence Weekly.

He received a two-year jail sentence.

In pardoning Morison, Clinton dismissed the advice of the CIA.

"We said we were obviously opposed - it was a vigorous 'Hell, no,'" one senior intelligence official told the Washington Post at the time. "We think ... giving pardons to people who are convicted of doing that sends the wrong signal to people who are currently entrusted with classified information."

Morison is the only person ever successfully prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act, the law invoked by Democrats who want to nail Rove after it became clear that he didn't violate the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

But it's going to be difficult for Dems to feign national security outrage over Plame's outing when the husband of their party's presidential front-runner let an actual convicted leaker off the hook.

Last week, when Sen. John Kerry called for Mr. Rove to be fired, with Hillary standing by his side, she nodded silently. When reporters asked her what she thought of the alleged Rove outrage, she offered only, "I'm nodding."

No doubt while remembering her husband's pardon of Mr. Morison.

[Dr. Shane]

Here is your right-wing cartoon

[]http://www.conservativechronicle.com/images/cart_1_sm.gif[/]

[Dr. Shane]

Since you folks love cartoons so much...

[]http://www.cnsnews.com/cartoon/nowakimages/2005/Rove-Press.jpg[/]

[Bravus]

Um, the polls almost back that up:

"The controversy hasn't gripped the public's attention."

Or maybe not (the continuation of the same paragraph from the same story):

"Just half of those surveyed say they are following the story closely; one in five aren't following it at all."

In other words, half the polled voters are following the story closely. Do half of Americans even vote? Hardly the kind of unanimous apathy the cartoon suggests.

Full story here: http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20050726/a_poll26.art.htm

[Dr. Shane]

It's just a silly cartoon that represents the opinion of one person - the artist. His opinion isn't worth any more than yours or mine.

[Bravus]

Fair enough, you're consistent! <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" />

[Neil D]

I have no complaint regarding political cartoons....

[]http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/RoveInformant/cagle00-1Rove.gif[/]

From the "He ain't heavy/ He'smy brother" department....

[]http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/RoveInformant/cagle00-2ndrove.gif[/]

From the "No Story, No Problem" dept.

[]http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/RoveInformant/images/keefe.gif[/]

From the " Get out of Jail ,free" dept.

[]http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/RoveInformant/images/lane.gif[/]

from the "Wizard of ....Odd" department

[]http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/RoveInformant/images/matson.gif[/]

From the "Walking your dog" dept. ....Or was it from the "Wag the dog" department

[]http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/RoveInformant/images/thompson.jpg[/]

from the "Rove, Rove, Rove your boat" dept. []http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/RoveInformant/images/varvel.jpg[/]

From the "Chasing your tail" dept.

[]http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/RoveInformant/images/devericks.jpg[/]

[Dr. Shane]

To me political cartoons are for the purpose of back-slapping. They are for amusement within a group of like-minded people. I do not see cartoons as a refined means of political discussion. Cartoons, by their nature, are just silly. Within the arena of ideas they reduce our legitamate concerns to a few laughs. They make light of serious matters. They have their place within like-minded groups but can undoubtly be inflammatory when injected into an otherwise intelligent discussion about an issue.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Shane said:

They make light of serious matters. They have their place within like-minded groups but can undoubtly be inflammatory when injected into an otherwise intelligent discussion about an issue.

---

If abused, this is true. If it is inappropriate, it can, indeed, add to tension. But I have seen the very same used to reduce tension and done very sucessfully.

Many times that I have used them here, is to bring to light a very serious problem. I know that you don't like them...but from your distaste for them as a usefull tool, WHY don't you like them? Why is it that you feel that they are a "back-slapping" art? What do you think the Ed. cartoons are really trying to say? How does that compare with your values and why don't you feel that the cartoon is 'wrong'?

[Neil D]

Here is an except from the Al Frankin Show, a know liberal talking head, interviewing Larry C. Johnson, an ex-CIA officer....

[:"blue"]"Right now, in the Republican Party, there is no honor..."

AL FRANKEN: ...Does the leaking of Valerie Plame -- Valerie Plame Wilson -- as an undercover CIA agent damage national security?

LARRY JOHNSON: Understanding that...what Valerie was involved with, she was a non-official cover officer, which means she had no association -- no visible association -- with the U.S. government at all...instead she was working for a private company, so that got her overseas to be able to meet with people who normally might not meet with a government agency, but they'd be willing to meet with someone in the private sector and, in that sense, once you're meeting with those people you're in a position where you can start trying to recruit them, identify possible sources of information, and, as we know from the press reports, she clearly was working on issues that involved weapons of mass destruction. When she was outed, that created a trail of bread crumbs that you could just trace backwards to identify sources she was working with, people who, perhaps, were collaborating with the CIA....I haven't seen the damage assessment, but I'd be willing to bet that it was very important.

[...]

KATHERINE LANPHER [Franken's co-host]: ...Let's talk about...what sort of threats or pressures was she subjecting herself to with her status?

LARRY JOHNSON: If she would have been caught, she could have been executed -- that's the simple truth...Here's the bottom line: You don't reveal names, you don't reveal anything that helps you identify who these people are, and the fact that Karl Rove and the Republican National Committee can't get that through their skulls is, to me, astonishing.

AL FRANKEN: Okay, so she didn't have this kind of [diplomatic] passport that gets you out of jail free -- she was in danger, if she got caught...

LARRY JOHNSON: Correct.

AL FRANKEN: ...in a foreign country.

LARRY JOHNSON: And that's why I call it treason.

[...]

LARRY JOHNSON: ...Let me put this into context; this may get me thrown off the show, but I'm still a registered Republican. I worked on...

AL FRANKEN: I'm sorry.

LARRY JOHNSON: ...I worked on the gubernatorial campaign of Kit Bond [R-MO], and I was recommended to the CIA by Senator [Orrin] Hatch [R-UT], and to hear Hatch and Bond participate in this smear [of Valerie Plame and husband Joe Wilson] is one of the most sickening, disgusting spectacles I've seen....Right now, in the Republican Party, there is no honor... [/]

Clinton may have lied, but his lied didn't cost lives....

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Why is it that you feel that they are a "back-slapping" art?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Remember that I am politically active and associate with many like-minded groups. I almost always get active in a political campain every two years. Some of you may find it hard to believe but I am generally considered the liberal one in the room and there are a handful of people that tease me for being what they call pro-choice, because of my moderate position on abortion. Funny how geography changes things. In Minnesota I was considered by my associates to be conservative and in Texas I am liberal. (I haven't changed that much) But I digress. Anyway, there is always a lot of back-slapping within these groups.

Cartoons are light-hearted and not intended to be part of a serious debate. Imagine if political canidates used goofy cartoons for their TV commercials. Now that might make elections a lot more fun but it would also make them a lot less serious too.

I would think the humor forum would be more suited for such cartoons but I am just one of many here. It's not MY way but OUR way. There is my :2cents: Carry on