Karl Rove - creepy s***bag

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Now, to unravel some spin...

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Novak told Rove the name "Valerie Plame". Novak was the one who initiated contact.

I'm having a hard time believing that Rove did not know the name Valerie Plame prior to Novak mentioning it. Even though he has a past history of this kind of stuff, that of which got him fired from Bush Seniors campaign in 92. And, even though her husband had royally pissed off the administration recently (for telling the truth, no less). Nope, I'm sure Rove was totally in the dark.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

[Cooper (as discussed earlier) believed a lie of Wilson that Cheney recommended he go to Niger, when it was in fact his wife Plame, and was corrected on it. Cooper was the one who initiated contact.

From MediaMatters.com: Link

Remarking on the controversy surrounding senior White House adviser Karl Rove, New York Times columnist and National Public Radio (NPR) commentator David Brooks echoed the false GOP talking point that former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV claimed that Vice President Dick Cheney sent him to Niger.

In an effort to deflect criticism of Rove, the Republican National Committee (RNC) issued talking points claiming that Rove leaked the identity of Wilson's wife, undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame, in order to correct Wilson's false claim that Cheney's office had sent him to Niger. But the RNC supports this claim by distorting Wilson's July 2003 New York Times op-ed and his August 2003 appearance on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer. In both instances, Wilson made it clear that his trip was authorized by officials at the CIA, not Cheney.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Wilson acknowledges that his wife wasn't undercover when the Novak article ran.

From MediaMatters.com: link

AP falsely reported Wilson "acknowledged his wife was no longer in an undercover job" when her identity was first publicly leaked »
In a July 15 article reporting new details in the ongoing criminal investigation into the leak of CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity, the AP distorted a remark by former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV to falsely report that Wilson "acknowledged his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak's column first identified her." In fact, Wilson merely emphasized that his wife’s cover was blown at the moment when columnist Robert D. Novak revealed her identity in a July 2003 column.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Most of her friends and neighbors knew she worked for the CIA, so this was hardly any secret.

Working for the CIA and being known to be a covert op are two entirely different things. Here is an interesting perspective from someone who was a classmate of Valerie.

Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA. I entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985. All of my classmates were undercover--in other words, we told our family and friends that we were working for other overt U.S. Government agencies. We had official cover. That means we had a black passport--i.e., a diplomatic passport. If we were caught overseas engaged in espionage activity the black passport was a get out of jail free card.

A few of my classmates, and Valerie was one of these, became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed.

The lies by people like Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, and P. J. O'Rourke insist that Valerie was nothing, just a desk jockey. Yet, until Robert Novak betrayed her she was still undercover and the company that was her front was still a secret to the world. When Novak outed Valerie he also compromised her company and every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company and with her.

The Republicans now want to hide behind the legalism that "no laws were broken". I don't know if a man made law was broken but an ethical and moral code was breached. For the first time a group of partisan political operatives publically identified a CIA NOC. They have set a precendent that the next group of political hacks may feel free to violate.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

I'm having a hard time believing that Rove did not know the name Valerie Plame prior to Novak mentioning it. Even though he has a past history of this kind of stuff, that of which got him fired from Bush Seniors campaign in 92. And, even though her husband had royally pissed off the administration recently (for telling the truth, no less). Nope, I'm sure Rove was totally in the dark.

Truth? I'm certain this will be the subject of debate forever....I'll go with the senate committee's unanimous report.

Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Unanimous Report: “Conclusion 13. The Report On The Former Ambassador’s Trip To Niger, Disseminated In March 2002, Did Not Change Any Analysts’ Assessments Of The Iraq-Niger Uranium Deal.” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04)

And Wilson did assert it was the VP -
Joe Wilson: “[W]hat They Did, What The Office Of The Vice President Did, And, In Fact, I Believe Now From Mr. Libby’s Statement, It Was Probably The Vice President Himself ...” (CNN’s “Late Edition,” 8/3/03)

Regardless, nothing can change two facts - that Cooper and Novak initiated the conversations with Rove, not vice-versa. Hardly what one would expect if there was a plot to out Wilson's wife. And Cooper told Rove, as was evidenced in the email mentioned previously, that the VP sent Wilson on the trip. Rove corrected him.

This is about to die. It's over. Dead. Rove didn't do it. Now.....when will the NY Times allow their source, who has waived confidentiality with them, to be known? I wonder why they won't?

[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.

[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.