President Bush and Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, have discussed the disclosure of the identity of a covert C.I.A. operative at a variety of news conferences and briefings for reporters. Following are excerpts of transcripts of those sessions as recorded by the White House and Federal News Service.
President Bush on Oct. 7, 2003, talking with reporters after meeting with Cabinet members.
Q. Mr. President, beyond the actual leak of classified information, there are reports that someone in the administration was trying to – after it was already out – actively spread the story, even calling Ambassador Wilson’s wife “fair game.” Are you asking your staff if anyone did that? And would it be wrong or even a fire-able offense if that happened?
A. Well, the investigators will ask our staff about what people did or did not do. This is a town of – where a lot of people leak. And I’ve constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks, particularly leaks of classified information. And I want to know, I want to know the truth. I want to see to it that the truth prevail. And I hope we can get this investigation done in a thorough way, as quickly as possible. But the Justice Department will conduct this investigation. The professionals in the Justice Department will be involved in ferreting out the truth. These are citizens who will – were here before this administration arrived and will be here after this administration leaves. And they’ll come to the bottom of this, and we’ll find out the truth. And that will be – that’s a good thing for this administration.
Q. Mr. President, how confident are you the investigation will find the leaker in the C.I.A. case? And what do you make of Sharon’s comment that Israel will strike its enemies at any place, any time?
A. This is the dual question. (Laughter.) I’m trying to figure out if I want to answer either of them, since you violated a major rule. (Laughter.) At least it’s not a cell phone. (Laughter.) Randy, you tell me, how many sources have you had that’s leaked information that you’ve exposed or have been exposed? Probably none. I mean this town is a – is a town full of people who like to leak information. And I don’t know if we’re going to find out the senior administration official. Now, this is a large administration, and there’s a lot of senior officials. I don’t have any idea. I’d like to. I want to know the truth. That’s why I’ve instructed this staff of mine to cooperate fully with the investigators – full disclosure, everything we know the investigators will find out. I have no idea whether we’ll find out who the leaker is – partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers. But we’ll find out.
President Bush on Sept. 30, 2003, talking with reporters after meeting with business people at University of Chicago.
Q. Do you think that the Justice Department can conduct an impartial investigation, considering the political ramifications of the C.I.A. leak, and why wouldn’t a special counsel be better?
A. Yes. Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There’s leaks at the executive branch; there’s leaks in the legislative branch. There’s just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of. And so I welcome the investigation. I – I’m absolutely confident that the Justice Department will do a very good job. There’s a special division of career Justice Department officials who are tasked with doing this kind of work; they have done this kind of work before in Washington this year. I have told our administration, people in my administration to be fully cooperative. I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business.
Q. Have you talked to Karl and do you have confidence in him …
A. Listen, I know of nobody – I don’t know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I’d like to know it, and we’ll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing. And again I repeat, you know, Washington is a town where there’s all kinds of allegations. You’ve heard much of the allegations. And if people have got solid information, please come forward with it. And that would be people inside the information who are the so-called anonymous sources, or people outside the information – outside the administration. And we can clarify this thing very quickly if people who have got solid evidence would come forward and speak out. And I would hope they would. And then we’ll get to the bottom of this and move on. But I want to tell you something – leaks of classified information are a bad thing. And we’ve had them – there’s too much leaking in Washington. That’s just the way it is. And we’ve had leaks out of the administrative branch, had leaks out of the legislative branch, and out of the executive branch and the legislative branch, and I’ve spoken out consistently against them and I want to know who the leakers are.
President Bush on June 10, 2004, at news conference after G-8 Summit in Sea Island, Ga.
Q. Given recent developments in the C.I.A. leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney’s discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, suggestion that it might difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent’s name? And …
A. That’s up …
Q. And do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so? And …
A. Yes.
Q. And finally …
A. And that’s up to the U.S. attorney – to find the facts.
Q. My final point would be – or question would be, has Vice President Cheney assured you, subsequent to his conversations with them, that nobody in his office had anything …
A. I haven’t talked to the vice president about this matter, and I suggest – recently, and I suggest you – you talk to the U.S. attorney about that.
Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, at a briefing Sept. 16, 2003.
Q. Two things. On the Robert Novak-Joseph Wilson situation, Novak reported earlier this year, quoting anonymous government sources telling him that Wilson’s wife was a C.I.A. operative. Now, this is apparently a federal offense to [word unclear] the cover of a C.I.A. operative.Wilson now believes that the person who did this was Karl Rove. He’s quoted from a speech last month as saying, “At the end of the day, it’s of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove marched out of the White House in handcuffs.” Did Karl Rove tell …
A. I haven’t heard that. That’s just totally ridiculous. But we’ve already addressed this issue.
Q. But did Karl Rove …
A. If I could find out who anonymous people were – I just said it’s totally ridiculous.
Q. But did Karl Rove do it?
A. I said it’s totally ridiculous.
Scott McClellan at a briefing Sept. 29, 2003.
Q. All right, let me just follow up. You said this morning, quote, “The president knows that Karl Rove wasn’t involved.” How does he know that?
A. Well, I’ve made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place. I saw some comments this morning from the person who made that suggestion backing away from that. And I said it is simply not true. So – I mean, it’s public knowledge I’ve said that it’s not true.
Q. Well, how …
A. And I have spoken with Karl Rove. I’m not going to get into conversations that the president has with advisers or staff, or anything of that nature. That’s not my practice.
Q. But the president has a factual basis for knowing that Karl Rove …
A. Well, I said it publicly. I said that – and so, I’ve made it very clear.
Q. I’m not asking what you said, I’m asking if the president has a factual basis for saying – for your statement that he knows Karl Rove …
A. He’s aware of what I said, that there is simply no truth to that suggestion. And I have – I have spoken with Karl about it.…
Q. But, Scott, it gets to the question, if you know – if the president knows that Karl Rove was not involved, then maybe you can tell us more about what the president specifically is doing to get to the bottom of this, or what has he ordered to be done within the White House to get to the bottom …
A. The president wants anyone, anyone who has information relating to this to report that information to the appropriate agency, the Department of Justice. That’s what the president wants, and I’ve been very clear about that. If …
Q. So he’s convinced that there was no White House involvement …
A. You know, if I could get – well, if I could get anonymous to fess up, that would make my life a whole lot easier. But there’s been nothing – there has been absolutely …
Q. My question is, does he know, is he convinced that no one in the White House was involved with this?
A. There has been absolutely nothing brought to our attention to suggest any White House involvement. All we’ve seen is what is in the media reports. Media reports cite senior administration official, or senior administration officials.
Q. So they’re wrong?
A. But I haven’t seen anything before that. That’s why it’s appropriate for the Department of Justice, if something like this happened, to look into it.
Q. So those media reports are wrong, as far as the White House is concerned?
A. Well, we have nothing beyond those media reports to suggest there is White House involvement. And so …
Q. And the president …
A. There’s been no specific information brought to my attention to suggest …
Q. He’s not doing anything proactive?
Q. Let me – let me follow up on …A. No, he’s making it clear that this is a serious – through his spokesman, me, that this is a serious matter, and if someone did this, it should be looked into and it should be pursued to the fullest extent.…
Q. What do you say to people out there who are watching this and must be saying, you know, I voted for George Bush because he promised to change the way things work in Washington, and yet his spokesman …
A. And he has.
Q. … and yet his spokesman is saying that there’s no internal even questioning of whether or not people were involved in this, and he’s just letting that be handled at the Justice Department, letting it pursue more of a criminal investigation as opposed to almost an ethical
A. Dana, think about what you’re asking. Do you have specific information to bring to our attention that suggests White House involvement?
Q. No, but – (off mike) –
A. There are anonymous reports all the time in the media. The president has set high standards, the highest of standards, for people in his administration. He’s made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.…
Q. Scott, we do know one thing that did happen, and that is that a name was leaked of a C.I.A. operative. Whoever did it, does the president want some type of Justice Department investigation into just that?
A. Well, like I said, one, I’ve only – I’ve seen the media reports, and from one report I saw, that the C.I.A. had neither confirmed nor denied that this individual was a covert operative for the C.I.A.
Q. Why don’t they deny it …
A. But, yes, if something like this happened, a leak of highly classified information of this nature, the president would want it looked into and pursued to the fullest extent by the Department of Justice.…
Q. Okay, now, in terms of your efforts to – and in terms of the issue of whether or not to contact senior administration officials, are you saying it is inappropriate to contact them on behalf of the president, or that it’s too difficult?
A. I’m sorry, contact – contact them in the sense of asking whether or not there was any involvement?
Q. Well, obviously someone contacted Karl Rove. There was some effort to knock down a specific allegation here. So I’m wondering, why not contact others? Were others contacted in the – among the president’s senior advisers?
A. Well, there was a specific allegation leveled – I saw it was – has now since been backed away from – about Karl Rove, and that’s why I responded to that question. But I think we could go down the White House directory of every single staff member and play that game. I’m not going to do that. What I’ve made clear is that if anybody has information relating to this, they need to report it to the Department of Justice, and the Department of Justice should pursue it to the fullest. It is a serious matter. But I’m not going to go down a list of every single staffer in the White House when there’s not specific information that has been brought to my attention to suggest …
Q. – inappropriate, in your view, or is it just too diffuse, it’s too difficult? I don’t understand exactly what the reason is that you wouldn’t expand the effort from Karl Rove to perhaps another dozen or so people who might have been …
A. Well, we’ve got important work to do here in Washington, D.C., for the people of this nation, and the president will continue to focus on the priorities we are pursuing: the war on terrorism; strengthening the economy. There are a number of important priorities we are focused on. There are a lot of anonymous media reports that happen all the time, and it’s not our practice to go and try to chase down anonymous sources every time there’s a report in the media. If there’s specific information that comes to our attention, that’s another matter. But there has not been any information beyond what we’ve seen in just anonymous media reporting to suggest that there was White House involvement.
Q. (Off mike.)…
Q. Scott, just one point. You said that the president knows that Karl Rove was not involved, and you specifically have spoken to Karl Rove and gotten these assurances. By those statements, you’ve implied that the president has not talk to Karl Rove specifically about this. Is that a correct assumption or …A. No, I said that – what – I’ve already answered this question when Terry asked it earlier, and I said that it’s not my habit to get into conversations the president has with staff or with advisers. So that’s just not – I’m not going to get – I’m not going to get into those conversations. I’ve made it clear that it simply is not true, and I’m speaking on behalf of the White House when I say that.…
Q. Scott, just a couple quick clarifications. Weeks ago, when you were first asked whether Mr. Rove had the conversation with Robert Novak that produced the column, you dismissed it as ridiculous.
A. That’s right.
Q. And I want to just make sure, at that time, had you talked to Karl?
A. I’ve made it very clear from the beginning that it is totally ridiculous. I’ve known Karl – I’ve known Karl for a long time, and I didn’t even need to go ask Karl, because I know the kind of person that he is, and he is someone that is committed to the highest standards of conduct.
Q. So you didn’t have a subsequent conversation with Mr. Rove in order to say that you had this conversation?
A. I have spoken with Karl about this matter.
Q. When did you talk to him?
A. I have spoken with Karl about this matter.
Q. When did you talk to him? Weeks ago, or just recently?
A. And I’ve already addressed. What I said then still applies today, and that’s what I’ve made clear.
Q. I have one other follow-up.
A. Okay.
Q. Can you say for the record whether Mr. Rove possessed the information about Mr. Wilson’s wife but merely did not talk to anybody about it? Do you know whether for a fact he knew?
A. I don’t know whether or not – I mean, I’m sure he probably saw the same media reports everybody else in this room has.
Q. No …
Q. Before.
Q. When you talked to Mr. Rove, did you discuss, “Did you ever have this information?” Could you have talked …A. Yeah, I mean, we’re going down a lot of different roads here. I’ve made it very clear, he was not involved, that there’s no truth to the suggestion that he was.
Q. No, I’m trying to ask …
A. And again, I’d say, I didn’t – it’s not something I needed to ask him, but I like to, like you do, verify things and make sure that it’s completely accurate. But I knew that Karl would not be involved in something like this.
OK – McClellan never should have categorized it as ‘ridiculous’, but instead should have directed those questions to the Justice Department. Bush has laid it out there that he’s going to sack and possibly prosecute whoever leaked the information. Let’s see if he’s a man of his word.
This may be a problem for Rove as it is pretty hard to muddy the waters on this one. He outed a CIA agent, and later lied about it.
Bush promised to fire the leaker, much like his father promised no new taxes. If Bush goes back on his word at this point he will be crucified in the court of public opinion. Another problem for Bush is that without personal popularity his teflon image fades and suddenly more things will start to stick. I am thinking the downing street memo could be next. Again I realize I may be guilty of wishful thinking but thier does seem to be some chinks in the Bush armor.
This may be a problem for Rove as it is pretty hard to muddy the waters on this one. He outed a CIA agent, and later lied about it.
It’s possible but it’s way too early to tell. I find it hard to believe that Rove was out looking for anyone and everyone to tell them Plame is a secret agent.
More likely, these reporters got a lot of small bits of info form a lot of sources and just pieced it together. How would Rove even know that Plame is in the CIA? I never bought the revenge theory either, there’s a whole shit load more democrats who need it more than this guy.
Bush promised to fire the leaker, much like his father promised no new taxes.
What does this mean? We don’t even know the story. Why don’t you let some of those civil rights kick in before you condemn Bush for not doing something before we know what that something is.
If Bush goes back on his word at this point he will be crucified in the court of public opinion
By the time this all blows over some other Republican will be in the White House. This whole Rove thing is one of those non-events, kinda like that Clinton guy who stuffed the clasified documents down his pants and then feinted ignorance.
Another problem for Bush is that without personal popularity his teflon image fades and suddenly more things will start to stick.
What would stick? He hasn’t done anything illegal like Clinton did, he’s only been the target of an aggressive radical left smear campaign since he took office. Read a newspaper or watch the news and you’ll see what I mean.
I am thinking the downing street memo could be next.
This is more stuff like the national guard memo. It’s best to forget this attempt to create evidence was ever perpetrated and move on.
Again I realize I may be guilty of wishful thinking but thier does seem to be some chinks in the Bush armor.
You, the media, liberals, islam, terrorists and the unions. Wishful thinking is a distraction when you could be out supporting something rather than tearing it down. You seem somewhat conservative from your previous posts, if not a bit libertarian, if you could only release this infatuation you have with Bush.
Right:
Your back!!
I was about to start arguing with myself.
If Rove is guilty, he compromised national security, and did it to help mislead people into supporting the Iraq war. You are right about innocent until proven guilty, but if guilty he should be fired and prosecuted.
BTW:
Right:
“you seem somewhat conservative, or even liberetarian” Could we please refrain from insults. 🙂
One more thing on Rovegate:
Murray Waas has some info about Novak’s cooperation. Tantalizing bit:
Also of interest to investigators have been a series of telephone contacts between Novak and Rove, and other White House officials, in the days just after press reports first disclosed the existence of a federal criminal investigation as to who leaked Plame’s identity. Investigators have been concerned that Novak and his sources might have conceived or co-ordinated a cover story to disguise the nature of their conversations. That concern was a reason– although only one of many– that led prosecutors to press for the testimony of Cooper and Miller, sources said.
Lending credence to those suspicions was that a U.S. government official questioned by investigators said Novak specifically asked him whether Plame had some covert status with the CIA. The official told investigators that Novak appeared uncertain whether she was undercover or not. That account, on one hand, might lend credence to the claims by Rove and other Bush administration officials that they did not know Plame was a covert CIA officer. Conversely, however, the fact that Novak asked the question in the first place appeared to indicate that he might have indeed been told Plame was a covert operative, and was seeking confirmation of that fact.
More Rove:
Taken from TPMMemo.com
“For starters, Valerie Plame was an undercover operations officer until outed in the press by Robert Novak. Novak’s column was not an isolated attack. It was in fact part of a coordinated, orchestrated smear that we now know includes at least Karl Rove 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.”
This really is some serious stuff.
I was about to start arguing with myself.
Where’s the sport in that? :- )
If Rove is guilty, he compromised national security, and did it to help mislead people into supporting the Iraq war.
I’m not sure about the national security being compromised but I’m sure it had no effect on getting people to support the war. She was in South Africa or someplace like that, why would people be more inclined to support the war once they found out this guy’s wife is CIA?
And, yes, Rove should be prosecuted to the extent of his involvement and the penalty determined by a jury.
“you seem somewhat conservative, or even liberetarian” Could we please refrain from insults.
I call it tough love. If I can convert you to the conservative side then maybe I can get you to enlist in the Marine Corps. But maybe I’ve said too much (nervous glance)
The official told investigators that Novak appeared uncertain whether she was undercover or not.
Here is the issue for me, does Rove even have the security clearance to know who Plame is and what she does? Was Rove and Novak just shootin’ the shit one day and Novak latched onto some obscure slip of the tongue and decided to persue it further? I’d hold off on attaching the “gate” to this until an actual accounting of the facts is provided.
It was in fact part of a coordinated, orchestrated smear that we now know includes at least Karl Rove Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA.
Ignoring the suspect nature f this statement there is no fact that a smear campaign existed and no reason for one to exist. This definitely has no link to Bush so those with “wishful thinking” aren’t going to find the kind of dirt that there was on Bill Clinton. Wishful thinkers will just have to beat Bush fair and square.
I’m under the assumption that Novak wasn’t even the reporter that Rove talked to…he talked to Cooper, so this is really not making much sense. Did Cooper also ‘out’ Plame? Or talk to Novak about what Rove said? This whole investigation is about as confusing as the Natalee Holloway investigation…I also hear that the context in which Rove spoke about Ms. Plame was in her assistence to getting Ambassador Wilson sent to verify claims that Saddaam ‘bought’ yellow cake uranium in Niger, Cooper was going to say that the vice president sent him…which was not the case, he was suggested by his wife in the CIA. The good Ambassador returned with a poorly written summary, wrote an article about how bush lied in his state of the union speech, when bush said Saddaam ‘sought’ not ‘bought’ uranium in Niger, then he contributed to the Kerry campaign, voted for kerry, and then cried with the rest of the Bush is a nazi crowd. This info that we are now hearing isn’t new to the investigator, Karl Rove released Cooper from the confidentiality agreement in 2003 when the whole thing began. I give this about 2 months, then it will go away just like ohh…whats his name? Tom Delay… Doh! Obvious political partisanship in an investigation never looks good, the president is taking the high road, and democrats are falling for the low road again…simple suggestion, let the law run its course, or look foolish while you try to convict someone prematurely.
Meanwhile, why you were touting the deficit Chicken…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050713/ap_on_go_pr_wh/budget_deficit;_ylt=AgaVotgCNgjBDE70frtbcCCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-
Yeah, this seems to have Witch Hunt written all over it. Dems seem to be frustrated that Bush doesn’t do anything illegal, like Clinton did, so they have no ammo to throw at him. They call the war on terror illegal although I don’t know how they account for that one but Bush is pretty clean.
The company Plame worked for had a mission to track and provide information concerning the movement of nuclear materials. The leak blew their cover, and compromised its mission. It also left undercover agents with blown covers out to dry. These agents would not be able to turn to the government for help due to the nature of their mission.
As for the benefit of letting people know that Joe Wilson’s wife was CIA…it was done to discredit the information he provided concerning the yellow cake from Niger. What Wilson wrote in his editorial was true, and what Bush said in the state of the union address was false – so when faced with this reality, all they could do was discredit Wilson himself by making the information of his wife’s status in the CIA common knowledge.
The motive is clear here.
On the contrary – as I pointed out above in this comment, their motive was clear. Rove’s leak caused a CIA operation to fold and put many agents’ lives in danger…Clinton had an affair. Death vs. Sex – while to the evangelicals, sex is more scandelous…in reality, there’s no comparison.
Miller knew the information concerning Plame – she instructed Rove on how to leak it, which he did to Novak who then wrote the article. The New York Times makes it a 1st Ammendment thing due to Miller’s involvement – whereas Cooper was on the receiving end, ala Novak, and Time decides not to aid in this crime that’s being investigated.
Believe that if you want to – but a crime was committed here, one that compromised an ongoing CIA operation and resulted in the death of one individual we know of right now. I’m not shocked by the nonchalant treatment of this story by righties – but consider this for a moment…
The outrage over the Newsweek story came from knowing it resulted in a riot that cost American lives…now we have a similar situation where a CIA operation is compromised…one that was in place to prevent Americans from being killed by a nuclear explosion sometime down the line, and the same people who were burned up over Newsweek couldn’t care in the least.
Politics is nothing more than sports to the right. Here’s a perfect example. People pretend to be outraged, but in reality they’re just watching TV and rooting for a team. The type of bias/double standard that exists here can be found in sports…like the bias of a Red Sox fan after a questionable call by the umpire that favors the Yankees. If the call goes their way, it’s ‘no big deal’ – if it hurts their team, they’re in a frenzy!
As for the benefit of letting people know that Joe Wilson’s wife was CIA…it was done to discredit the information he provided concerning the yellow cake from Niger.
How does being married to a CIA agent discredit the info you get in another country? Hell, with a CIA wife I’d tend to believe the info more because maybe she had something to do with getting it. It doesn’t make sense.
so when faced with this reality, all they could do was discredit Wilson himself by making the information of his wife’s status in the CIA common knowledge.
Again, how does being marrried to a CIA agent discredit him? I think it’s kinda cool, this so doesn’t make sense, who cares who he married?
What Wilson wrote in his editorial was true, and what Bush said in the state of the union address was false
Wilson let politics get in the way of his job, he went over there with the express purpose not to find any evidence. He’s a liberal hitman.
Rove’s leak caused a CIA operation to fold and put many agents’ lives in danger
We still don’t even know what was said or by who.
Miller knew the information concerning Plame – she instructed Rove on how to leak it, which he did to Novak who then wrote the article.
How did Miller know? And if so, the info was already leaked by others. Why is Miller going to jail if Rove is the source and said the confidentiallity issue is moot? If we all know Rove is the source then why doesn’t Miller just say so and get out of jail?
The NYT hates Bush anyway so why would they try to protect him and Rove? Why follow the confidentiality thing anyway, I figure the NYT would run right out and yell guess what Karl Rove just said!!!
The outrage over the Newsweek story came from knowing it resulted in a riot that cost American lives…now we have a similar situation where a CIA operation is compromised…one that was in place to prevent Americans from being killed by a nuclear explosion sometime down the line, and the same people who were burned up over Newsweek couldn’t care in the least.
That is what makes this thing soo far fetched. Why would Bush personally do such damage to America for nothing? No one cared what this Wilson guy said, he’s a left wing hack. Where is the motive??? This just doesn’t make sense.
Politics is nothing more than sports to the right.
You are way off base!!!! HAHA
The right-wing’s accertion from the day Novak’s article came out was that Wilson’s wife orchestrated his trip – some pundits have even gone as far as to have called it a ‘junket’…Niger being the vacation spot that it is – and because Wilson’s accertions were 100% correct, the idea was to make the connection with his work and the fact that his wife was a CIA agent who worked in the field of WMD proliferation.
The goal was to create the assumption that there was a conflict of interest at play. This had to be done like this because the document they used to justify the President saying what he said about ‘uranium from Africa’ was forged – the WMD arguments were trumped up…and because Wilson’s editorial couldn’t be proven false, the HAD to think outside of the box, play dirty…talk some shit about the guy’s wife, ruining her career…
They were wrong, he was right, so they had to get dirty. End of story.
A liberal hitman? Right, he told the truth. He was correct…so whether he was a liberal or a conservative, I don’t see how it would matter.
Are you saying that if someone has the facts, it only matters if they’re a Republican?
The emails from Rove to the Times reporter clearly show that he was telling the press that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA in the field of WMD proliferation. Rove told the press, period. The documents prove it.
Miller was advocating for the Iraq war from day one, and got her information directly from Wolfowicz, Perle and Chalabi – who were all on the same page – but she’d claim that her ‘inside intelligence information’ was ‘double sourced’. So the NYTimes editorial pages, based on her reporting, started beating the drum for war.
She got her info from the neo-cons, wrote her articles, and the organization fell in line behind what she was writing. The NYTimes was pro-war in the runup…she knew that Plame was in the CIA, from the same people who gave her all of her ‘inside information’. She’s a worthless hack who is where she belongs. If she were to testify under oath and spill her guts, this thing would be huge.
The coverup counted on both reporters refusing to testify and going to jail for it…Time magazine wouldn’t allow it to happen.
Because Miller’s hands are dirty, and her supervisors didn’t vet her articles well enough. When she claimed to have ‘double sourced’ her information, they didn’t ensure that she wasn’t just talking to two people who worked beside one another. The NYTimes dropped the ball in the leadup to the Iraq war. This is common knowledge.
It’s not far fetched at all Right. Rove leaked the information for what reason then? The motive is so clear it might as well be a blinking neon sign!
So…where did you get all this information about miller? President Bush said that Saddaam ‘sought’ uranium…Wilson said he found no evidence that he ‘bought’ uranium…the bi-partisan intelligence committee concluded that Saddaam had made overtures to buy uranium in Africa…Bush’s statement is verified by the intelligence committee. You guys are fishing and getting egg on your face in the process…
I think it was Ambassador Wilson who first spoke about his wifes classified status, thats what Miller is trying to protect. Do I have any proof? No, but I don’t think you have any proof that Rove was her informant either.
Btw, who has died?
Are you just ignoring the documents Time turned over to the special prosecutor? That’s the proof that Rove leaked the information.
What he compromised by doing so: The “brass plate” CIA proprietary had offices in Boston and Washington, DC. Active since 1994, Brewster-Jennings was instrumental in tracking the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and had agents or correspondents in a number of countries including Iraq, North Korea, Belarus, Russia, South Africa, Iran, Israel, China, Pakistan, Congo (Kinshasa), India, Taiwan, Libya, Syria, Serbia, and Malaysia. By releasing Valerie Plame’s name, other agents’ non-official covers were blown and the lives of U.S. operatives within foreign governments and businesses may have been placed in danger.
Recently, CIA Director George Tenet and Plame’s ultimate boss, Deputy Director of Operations James Pavitt, suddenly resigned within hours of one another. Intelligence sources have said the two have been cooperating with Fitzgerald’s investigation of the Plame/Brewster-Jennings leak and the damage to U.S. clandestine operations which globally track the flow of WMDs.
Sensitive CIA operations that were compromised by the leak included companies, government officials, and individuals associated with the nuclear smuggling network of Pakistan’s chief nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan. In addition, the identities of U.S. national and foreign agents working within the headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, North Korea’s nuclear laboratory in Yongbyon, Pakistan’s Kahuta uranium enrichment plant, banks and export companies in Dubai, Islamabad, Moscow, Cape Town, Tel Aviv, Liechtenstein, Cyprus, and Kiev, and Kuala Lumpur, and government agencies in Libya, Pakistan, Malaysia, and Iran were severely compromised. The CIA has reportedly given Fitzgerald highly classified details on the damage done to the CIA’s WMD tracking network.
I heard this several times already – I’m on the hunt for documentation. I’m not ignoring this question.
Don’t count those chickens just yet – – – we’re talking about some fuzzy math here. $5 billion a month in Iraq that is not counted for in the budget.
Are you just ignoring the documents Time turned over to the special prosecutor? That’s the proof that Rove leaked the information.
But you said Miller and others already knew Plame’s identity and Novak had to ask someone else about her status.
This whole thing seems fishy, I mean, why go after the guy and his wife after the fact? He wasn’t anybody I’ve ever heard of and still don’t really know what he does. This seems like 99% speculation and 1% details.
Who really cares what this Wilson guy writes anyway? Sought, bought they are two diffrent things so Bush was right and this Wilson guy was right. I don’t see the motive, there are much worse people out there to go after. I wish someone would ruin Michael Moore but he’s self destructive anyway so in the end it’ll be ok.
I just can’t see the NYT protecting the Bush administration, it’s like lions protecting gazelles from the leopards. If all this is true the NYT could bring down the Bush Admin tomorrow and become the #1 news outlet in the liberal world. They would be like the second coming if they could damage Bush. It don’t add up.
I don’t know html, but im trying to figure out this blockqoute thing, sorry if it doesn’t post right.
One-time factors…so good stock market performance is a one time factor? So…what are the economists saying? The only thing I’ve heard economist say is that this revenue increase is due to the strong economy created by the Bush tax cuts.
Michael: I don’t know html, but im trying to figure out this blockqoute thing, sorry if it doesn’t post right.
Michael, after you post, is there an edit tab below the comment that allows you to go back in?
If not, you had the blockquote thing right, but the should come at the end of the portion you’re quoting…you had it at the end of your entire entry. I went in and fixed it. Let me know if you have any questions on how it works. It took me a while to get the hang of it as well. I want to get the buttons right above this reply window, but haven’t been able to figure out how yet…there should be a plugin out there.
Agents who worked with her didn’t know she was married to Wilson. Since I wrote that, there have been sources indicating that the CIA actually revealed her identity in the daily briefing with the President and Vice President. Following the publishing of the editorial, they asked, were authorized to know that information, but Karl Rove surely was not authorized to know it.
I had been thinking that Miller found out somehow and it went that way, but after reading and hearing the words of actual CIA employees who worked with her – it was kept under wraps.
I don’t think there’s any proof out there that this information was known by anyone prior to Novak’s article being published.
Miller was pro-war, and basically laundered the administration’s tales in the pages of the Times – so I figured she had motive to smear Wilson for what he exposed.
Miller was pro-war, and basically laundered the administration’s tales in the pages of the Times – so I figured she had motive to smear Wilson for what he exposed.
I’d buy that Miller was out to get Wilson in that case so did Rove get duped into this whole thing being a source for info he didn’t even have? The grand jury said it was the reporters who told Rove who Plame was. That sure changes things and who is Miller protecting if it isn’t Rove?
I find it hard to believe that Novak called Rove, becuase if that were true, it would mean that Rove scooped Novak’s story to Chris Matthews and Time magazine.
As to say, he stole the scoop and shopped it around. Would Rove do that to a ‘friend’ or at least someone he’d used to leak information through in the past? The flow has always gone from Rove to Novak to the public. If they’ve determined that it’s safe to paint it like it went some other way, I’m sure they won’t hesitate to go there…but doesn’t it seem unlikely?
Novak calls Rove, who finds out then – and Rove turns around and chats up the info with other people in the media. I think this story is out there now so the flow of that information isn’t determined to have gone like, CIA-President-Rove-Novak…which I really think is what happened.
But isn’t that the only thing we really know for sure? Novak or Miller or whoever it was called Rove about Social Security and then the conversation went, Hey Rove, by the way, did you know such and such?
The concensus is Rove was called about one topic and the caller changed subjects at the end. I’m wondering if Rove was set up. That is what makes this thing so odd, it looks like they already knew Plame’s identity and needed to dupe someone in to confirming it.
Roves excuse dejour is that one reporter who he cannot remember, called him and asked about Plame and then when Novak called he asked and Rove said “oh you know about that”.
I find it hard to beleive that Rove does not remember who the other reporter was. Seems like a little kid blaming the dog.
That’s the story, now that this has gotten real. This has to be the story or else the trail would have to have been CIA-Bush-Rove-Reporter.
I find it hard to beleive that Rove does not remember who the other reporter was. Seems like a little kid blaming the dog.
I would imagine that Rove talks to 100 people a day about trivial crap. Do you know what you had for lunch January 12? The reporter said he called Rove and the phone logs probably back that up, if the calls a traceable in the first place.
This is going to fall the way of the National Guard memo, the Newsweek story and that Downing street memo issue.
I would think a reporter who outted a CIA Agent might be memorable, then again for Rove and co national security is not a big deal so maybe you are right, he is helped leak this through incompetence. This story may have legs.
This thing is real. Don’t let the RNC chatter fool you for a second. The difference between this and the other things Right pointed out is this:
-in all of those you had GOVERNMENT, PRESS
-in this one you have GOVERNMENT, PRESS, PROSECUTOR
When it’s just the White House and the press, the White House has the upper hand. Only when a third party is inserted does the advantage wear down.
The one charge they keep mentioning is not the only one that can be used. Check out this:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/15/dean.rove/index.html?section=cnn_latest
-in this one you have GOVERNMENT, PRESS, PROSECUTOR
Remember Government, Press, Prosecutor, Impreachment, New Nickname is Slick Willie?
In Rove’s case there doesn’t seem to be anything he leaked, he didn’t call anyone but was called himself to verify something else. The caller already knew the info along with several others. Rove most likely was duped and that isn’t a leak, that is Rove being the victim of fraud.
This story may have legs.
Sure, if they’re Steven Hawking’s legs.