Karl Rove - creepy s***bag

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

This is about to die. It's over. Dead. Rove didn't do it.

Not quite that easy. Novak found out about Plame, mentioned it to Rove, and soon published it in his column. Novak cited that two administration officials told him about this. Somebody committed a serious crime here. I think we can both agree to this.

During this process however, Rove basically told him that he had heard the same thing. Considering the information they are discussing, what right did Rove have to confirm this to Novak? Maybe not technically a crime but highly unethical. Rove's security clearance should be removed for this alone.

Then, four days later, Rove went on to inform another journalist that Joseph Wilson's wife was a CIA employee. It doesn't matter that he didn't use her name. Nor does it matter that Novak already had this information. What matters is Karl Rove actively divulged the identity of a CIA employee. That violates federal law.

I know how much you all want this to go away but I don't think that is going to happen here. I expect to see at least one indictment. Time will tell.

[Name]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

"The person, who works in the legal profession and spoke only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy, told The Associated Press that Rove testified last year that he remembers specifically being told by columnist Robert Novak that Valerie Plame, the wife of a harsh Iraq war critic, worked for the CIA.

Rove testified that Novak originally called him the Tuesday before Plame's identity was revealed in July 2003 to discuss another story."

My major question, which is extremely valid, and just as serious as giving the name, did he verify that she worked for the CIA. Because that offense is just as serious as disclosing the information, because it IS disclosing the information. And that is one of the questions I would be looking at if I were investigating this. In fairness, I will allow Mr. Rove to be innocent until proven guilty, but he is still a suspect.

[scaeagles]

Actually, Novak said he called the CIA to confirm that she worked for the CIA. If the CIA confirmed it, and if most of her friends and neighbors knew she was in the CIA because she talked it up (as her former boss has asserted), then that isn't even unethical, much less illegal.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

I know how much you all want this to go away but I don't think that is going to happen here. I expect to see at least one indictment. Time will tell.

And I know how much you want this to go to the highest levels of the Bush administration.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

And I know how much you want this to go to the highest levels of the Bush administration.

No, what I want is accountability. This administration thinks they can get away with anything. They think they can lie us into a war, and so far have been quite successful. They have destroyed many a persons career in the process. If someone doesn't say exactly what they want them to, they go on the attack. Someone in this administration leaked the name of a covert op. That is a felony, and according to Bush Senior, "the highest form of treason". I could personally care less if it was Rove, personal distaste for the man aside. I want whoever is responsible held accountable for a change.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

No, what I want is accountability. This administration thinks they can get away with anything.

I want whoever is responsible held accountable for a change.

I could say the same thing about other administrations, but it doesn't matter.

If you support accountability, I hope that you want the NY Times to reveal their source. Get the poor woman out of jail. The source already said it was OK to tell. Again, I suspect the editors at the NY Times does not want the source revealed because it could cause embarrassment to someone they do not wish to be embarrassed.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Actually, Novak said he called the CIA to confirm that she worked for the CIA. If the CIA confirmed it, and if most of her friends and neighbors knew she was in the CIA because she talked it up (as her former boss has asserted), then that isn't even unethical, much less illegal.

I find it highly unlikey that Novak, or anyone for that matter, could call the CIA and have that information confirmed, especially without the proper clearance, which Novak certainly doesn't have.

I also have not seen any evidence that her friends and neighbors knew that she worked for the CIA.

Originally Posted by Media Matters

Another frequent spin point used by Rove's defenders, and repeated by reporters, is that Valerie Plame's status as a covert operative wasn't a secret. As Bruce Sanford, who helped write the IIPA, said on CNN, "She really had a desk job at Langley [site of the CIA's Virginia headquarters] and was driving in and out of the CIA every day. That's not exactly deep cover." The "she worked at Langley, therefore she couldn't have been covert" talking point has been omnipresent over the past few days, repeated by conservative activists, Republican officials, and media figures.

But is it true? We have no idea how many CIA operatives with covert status are in and out of Langley each day. Rove's defenders would have us believe that being covert and going to Langley are fundamentally incompatible. So here's a suggestion for some enterprising reporter: Call the CIA. Ask them if covert agents ever come to Langley. They probably won't answer, so ask them this: Would the agency support legislation that would automatically strip covert status from any agent who sets foot on the grounds of CIA headquarters at Langley?

Also, from Media Matters:

Evidence indicates that Plame did in fact engage in CIA business abroad between 1998 and 2003, even if she was not stationed abroad. For example, the Post suggested on October 8, 2003, that Plame remained undercover "in recent years" as an "energy consultant," while actually serving as a weapons proliferation analyst for the CIA, and was known by friends and neighbors as someone who "traveled frequently overseas":

For the past several years, she has served as an operations officer working as a weapons proliferation analyst. She told neighbors, friends and even some of her CIA colleagues that she was an "energy consultant." She lived behind a facade even after she returned from abroad. It included a Boston front company named Brewster-Jennings & Associates, which she listed as her employer on a 1999 form in Federal Election Commission records for her $1,000 contribution to Al Gore's presidential primary campaign.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

I find it highly unlikey that Novak, or anyone for that matter, could call the CIA and have that information confirmed, especially without the proper clearance, which Novak certainly doesn't have.

Novak:
'Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. In July I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction. Another senior official told me the same thing. As a professional journalist with 46 years experience in Washington I do not reveal confidential sources. When I called the CIA in July to confirm Mrs. Wilson's involvement in the mission for her husband -- he is a former Clinton administration official -- they asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else. According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operator, and not in charge of undercover operatives'

So he called the CIA and a former Clinton administration official confirmed it. Sounds like that's the guy who should be found and indicted.

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

So he called the CIA and a former Clinton administration official confirmed it. Sounds like that's the guy who should be found and indicted.

I think you're getting off track here.

Originally Posted by Novak

When I called the CIA in July to confirm Mrs. Wilson's involvement in the mission for her husband -- he is a former Clinton administration official -- they asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else.

Notice where the offending words (he is a former Clinton administration official) are placed in the sentence - directly after "... Mrs. Wilson's involvement in the mission for her husband". My sense here is he's talking about Joseph Wilson, not his confidential source at the CIA. And by getting "he is a former Clinton administration official" in the records, he's introduced the idea that Wilson was motivated by the politics of embarrassing this President.

But what do we find if we keep picking at this statement?

... but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else

To do so would have indicated to Novak that Plame was in fact a covert agent, wouldn't it?

... they asked me not to use her name

Asked him, specifically, not to use her name, eh?

Using her name would be identifiying a covert agent, wouldn't it?

... which Novak proceeded to do.

Red courtesy phone for Mr. Novak: Your source was trying to keep you out of trouble.

I agree this confidential source should be questioned. He did NOT handle this exchange with Novak properly. "No comment" would have been the appropriate response, in my opinion. But, it seems that Mr. Novak disagrees with us about who should be indicted and questioned. In order to question this informant, Novak would have to identify him/her. I just don't see that happening unless Novak is compelled to do so.

Of course, it is possible this informant has been called by the Grand Jury and records of any such appearance have not been linked to Novak, at least in the media.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Scrooge McSam

Notice where the offending words (he is a former Clinton administration official) are placed in the sentence - directly after "... Mrs. Wilson's involvement in the mission for her husband". My sense here is he's talking about Joseph Wilson, not his confidential source at the CIA.

Of course you're right....I was half being funny, trying to poke at MBC. That may shock you, of course.....me, try to poke at a lib?????