0
   

Rove was the source of the Plame leak... so it appears

 
 
Chrissee
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 07:40 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Doesn't it strike you as odd that nobody....and I mean NOBODY who criticizes or 'blows the whistle' on or accuses anyone in the Bush administration is ever criticized or touted as anything other than 'honest', 'courageous', etc. by many here on A2K? But whatever the Bush adminsitration says to defend themselves is inevitably declared hateful, dishonest, retalitory, smear tactics, etc. by those same people?

How much objectivity is at play here do you think?


In your case? Zero.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 08:59 am
BBB
I have no respect for people who put their political party's interests before that of their country. That kind of chauvinism deserves contempt.

BBB
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 09:22 am
TIME is pimping Cooper's piece online today.

I don't have the whole thing, but here's some juicy snippets that you may like, or hate, depending on which side of the story you are on.

Quote:
Patrick Fitzgerald, the special counsel, told me that he would prefer that I not discuss the matter, and I suspect he said the same thing to White House officials who are now treating his request as a command and refusing to comment on the case.
...

These grand jurors did not seem the types to passively indict a ham sandwich. I would say one-third of my 2 1/2 hours of testimony was spent answering their questions, not the prosecutor's, although he posed them on their behalf. I began to take notes but then was told I had to stop, so I'm reliant on memory.
...
I told the grand jurors that I was curious about Wilson when I called Karl Rove on Friday, July 11...... But then, I recall, she said something like, "Hang on," and I was transferred to him. I recall saying something like, "I'm writing about Wilson," before he interjected. "Don't get too far out on Wilson," he told me. I started taking notes on my computer, and while an e-mail I sent moments after the call has been leaked, my notes have not been.
In fact, I told the grand jury, Rove told me the conversation was on "deep background." I explained to the grand jury that I take the term to mean that I can use the material but not quote it, and that I must keep the identity of my source confidential.
..
Rove told me material was going to be declassified in the coming days that would cast doubt on Wilson's mission and his findings.
..
As for Wilson's wife, I told the grand jury I was certain that Rove never used her name and that, indeed, I did not learn her name until the following week, when I either saw it in Robert Novak's column or Googled her, I can't recall which. Rove did, however, clearly indicate that she worked at the "agency"--by that, I told the grand jury, I inferred that he obviously meant the CIA and not, say, the Environmental Protection Agency. Rove added that she worked on "WMD" (the abbreviation for weapons of mass destruction) issues and that she was responsible for sending Wilson. This was the first time I had heard anything about Wilson's wife.
...
Rove never once indicated to me that she had any kind of covert status. I told the grand jury something else about my conversation with Rove. Although it's not reflected in my notes or subsequent e-mails, I have a distinct memory of Rove ending the call by saying, "I've already said too much." This could have meant he was worried about being indiscreet, or it could have meant he was late for a meeting or something else. I don't know, but that sign-off has been in my memory for two years.
...
A surprising line of questioning had to do with, of all things, welfare reform. The prosecutor asked if I had ever called Mr. Rove about the topic of welfare reform. Just the day before my grand jury testimony Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, had told journalists that when I telephoned Rove that July, it was about welfare reform and that I suddenly switched topics to the Wilson matter. After my grand jury appearance, I did go back and review my e-mails from that week, and it seems as if I was, at the beginning of the week, hoping to publish an article in TIME on lessons of the 1996 welfare-reform law, but the article got put aside, as often happens when news overtakes story plans. My welfare-reform story ran as a short item two months later, and I was asked about it extensively. To me this suggested that Rove may have testified that we had talked about welfare reform, and indeed earlier in the week, I may have left a message with his office asking if I could talk to him about welfare reform. But I can't find any record of talking about it with him on July 11, and I don't recall doing so.

So did Rove leak Plame's name to me, or tell me she was covert? No. Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the "agency" on "WMD"? Yes. When he said things would be declassified soon, was that itself impermissible? I don't know. Is any of this a crime? Beats me. At this point, I'm as curious as anyone else to see what Patrick Fitzgerald has.



Oy, what an interesting article!

Every time something comes out, a little more flesh is added to the bones of this story.

You can note here that even this glib little article presents testimony that is contradictory to that was given by Luskin, Rove's lawyer.

Now I'm watching the Robot Ken Mehlman try and dodge question after question from Tim Russert. Good ol' Russert keeps hammering the point.

Now Russert is reading the Briefing Booklet that is given when one recieves classified Access. Beautiful!

Cheers to all

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 09:30 am
Ken was cool as a cucumber.

Podhertz (whatever) is starting to look like freaky James Carville, literally and figuratively...
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 09:35 am
Ken's using every dodge in the book. But Russert isn't having any of it. Podhertz doesn't even have to talk, Ken is making himself look like enough of a fool as he dodges question after question...

Was Matt Cooper already on? I hope I didn't miss him.

Cycloptichorn

ps I always liked that avatar of yers Lash
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 09:41 am
I do aim to please.

Re titillation, anyway.

I didn't see Cooper. Is he scheduled on Russert?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 09:44 am
He WAS scheduled on Russert, so I guess he went first. Hmm. Now they have Woodward et al on, and they are kind of dry.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 09:49 am
Have you ever noticed how impossibly wooden Woodward is? LOL.

I'll have to catch a rerun of MTP later. They come on all day here. I'd love to hear Cooper.

(DYING to read Novak's article.)
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 09:53 am
Does he have a new one, Novak?

We still haven't heard much from him on this.

But then again, Russert, Chris Matthews, and... Jeff Gannon were also talked to as well, and we haven't heard their testimony either.

There is a lot of story still hidden here. And even though the focus is on Rove and Cooper's reported testimony contradicts a lot of the things that Rove said, I still will maintain that nothing has been decided yet and it very easily could be others besides Rove who go down for this.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 09:58 am
Re Novak--no. I'm having a conniption to read his Big Reveal about this whole thing. You know, he said he'd Tell All when the court case is resolved. I know a good bit of the thing will have been outed, but he'll likely have tidbits left over. If he's got any brains, he'll put it in a book.

He's been maddeningly silent.

Matthews! You're right. Why hasn't HE been talking. (This is a good summer mystery.)
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 10:04 am
He's been saying the whole time that he won't talk, at all, till the whole thing is over.

This IS a good summer mystery!

ps, I just heard on CNN that Hussein was formally charged just now, for anyone who is looking for news on this subject. Could face trial in September at the earliest, Charges stem from 1982 killings north of the capital city, 150 residents executed.

Tried as a case-by-case basis, first of many trials.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 10:34 am
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB5RCZF9BE.html

Quote:

Cheney's Chief of Staff Was Another Source for Cooper on Valerie Plame Story

By Pete Yost Associated Press Writer
Published: Jul 17, 2005






WASHINGTON (AP) - Vice President Dick Cheney's top aide was among the sources for a Time magazine reporter's story about the identity of a CIA officer, the reporter said Sunday.
Until last week, the White House had insisted for nearly two years that vice presidential chief of staff Lewis Libby and presidential adviser Karl Rove were not involved in the leaks of CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity.

The White House refused last week to repeat those assertions when it was revealed that Rove had told Time reporter Matt Cooper that the wife of Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson apparently works at the CIA and that she had authorized his trip to Africa. The CIA dispatched Wilson to check out a report that the government of Niger had sold yellowcake uranium to Iraq for nuclear weapons.

Cooper said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he spoke to Libby after first learning about Wilson's wife from Rove.

According to Cooper, Libby and Rove were among the government officials referred to in Cooper's subsequent Time story that said Wilson's wife was a CIA official and that she was involved in sending her husband on a trip to Africa.

Cooper's article was headlined, "A War on Wilson?"

On Sunday, Cooper also said there may have been other sources for that information. He declined to elaborate.

In a first-person account in the latest issue of Time, Cooper said Rove ended their telephone conversation with the words, "I've already said too much." Cooper speculated that Rove could have been worried about being indiscreet or "it could have meant he was late for a meeting or something else."

Republicans are responding to the revelations about Rove's role in the leak by saying that the deputy White House chief of staff first heard about Wilson's wife from a reporter.

The chairman of the Republican National Committee, Ken Mehlman, told NBC that the disclosure about getting the information from a reporter vindicates Rove and that Democrats who have called for Rove's dismissal should apologize.

But John Podesta, former White House chief of staff in the Clinton administration, said the White House's assurance in 2003 that Rove was not involved in the leak "was a lie." Rove's credibility "is in shreds," said Podesta, who appeared with Mehlmen.

Wilson was the top U.S. diplomat in Iraq during the Persian Gulf War.

AP-ES-07-17-05 1128EDT


So, it appears that the reports that Libby 'wasn't invovled' are somewhat exaggerated.

That's two confirmed members of the Administration involved. I wonder how far it will go?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 10:47 am
The Bush administration people should be charged with treason. They are a security risk for this country and those who work in our intelligence agencies. As stated earlier by a poster, it's against the law to reveal secret information to the public. Everybody that works with secret information must sign non-disclosure documents, and are verbally warned of the penalties if caught. Back in the late fifties, I worked with nuclear weapons. They did a background check on me to make sure I was not a security risk. We were told that the penalty for getting caught was $10 thousand dollars and ten years in prison if we were ever caught discussing our work outside of the secured areas. I'm sure it's the same today, except the penalties would have increased ten-fold (or more).
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 10:55 am
Heh, and that's just thru inflation.

It's dangerous. Dangerous to you and I that this group would reveal secret information in order to make political gains.

You may have read lately about how the information about a terrorism investigation, that was leaked for political gain, which Tom Ridge eventually apologized for, was directly applicable to the London Bombings.

So how can anyone say that this doesn't concern 'real people' at all? There are 55 really DEAD people in London who probably would have been a lot happier that the information was not leaked.

Sigh. All this is just the tip of the iceberg with this group. The shadiness goes back into every single aspect of the administration, from their manipulation of war evidence, to their manipulation of Scientific evidence (which I have a great article to post on that, btw) to the flat-out lies told to their OWN BASE in order to get elected!

It's hard not to be happy with recent developments.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Zane
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 10:58 am
..The scandal hasn't disappeared yet? "LOL"
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 11:06 am
This administration is made up by a group of gangsters that does everything in its power to do everything to benefit their own interests. Wilson's revelation that yellow cake sales to Saddam was wrong threatened this administrations jusitification for our preemptive attack on Iraq. They would go so far as to reveal his wife's CIA status to show everybody in government how far they are willing to go to scare them off of telling the truth. That's the reason why all the generals in the military didn['t criticize anything this administration did; they feared more for their own careers than the foot soldiers that had to fight a war without the proper armourment. Only a tyranical government works the way this administration works. There are too many resemblance between how Saddam ran Iraq to how this administration is running this country. They put everybody in fear of revealing the truth.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 11:12 am
I have to wonder how much his holiness Bush was involved in the scheme to discredit Wilson.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 11:21 am
The entire Rove/Plame issue will not be who outed Plame but perjury, or obstruction of justice. Rove will remain untouched but the Bush Admin will not.(Rove is far more intelligent than Bush)
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 11:25 am
Quote:
which would just prove once again that the easiest way to uncover corruption in Washington is to create it yourself by investigating nonexistent crimes.


Now I wonder where the Democrats would get an idea like that....


Joe(who me?, )Nation
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 11:31 am
Of course, its all just coincidence that the Plame Game hotted up right when it became evident The Democrats stood to loose their grip on the last branch of government over which they had any influence, isn't it? I mean, how could one possibly suspect the Democratic leadership of opening a can of red herrings in order to justify the obstructionist plaint of "No consideration can be given to judicial nominees while this cloud hangs over The Administration". That would be preposterous, wouldn't it?

And just who is Miller/NYT "Protecting", and why? Does anyone find it odd the NYT, a key sparkplug for the Independent Counsel Investigation, now is, through Miller and the paper's support of her, obstructing the very investigation they so eagerly sought? I find interesting too that fallback positions already are being floated; "Well, even if there wasn't a crime] ... ", "OK, so Rove didn't identify her by name, but he confirmed ... ", and so forth. There even have been the preparatory rumblings of "coverup", if the investigation doesn't turn out to the advantage of The Opposition, "The Administration rigged it."

To me, what appears to be going on is the unravelling of the attack, and the beginnings of the snapback that will cut the legs right out from under those who so desperately - yet to this point not only futiley but counterproductively - have been seeking anything which might offer The Democrats some hope of recovery. One thing for which I've gotta give The Opposition credit; its consistent.

There is much we yet don't know. We shall see.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Karl Rove E-mails - Discussion by Diest TKO
Rove: McCain went 'too far' in ads - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Sheryl Crow Battles Karl Rove at D.C. Press Dinner - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
Texas attorney fired for Rove article comments - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.16 seconds on 03/23/2025 at 06:18:22