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

speaking of which ...

keeping up with white house press briefings :wink:

Top Aides Reportedly Set Sights on Wilson
It looks like the US has its own "axis of evil": Rove and Cheney.---BBB

Reporter Says Cheney Aide Was a Source
Reporter Says Cheney Aide Was a Source
By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer
Sun Jul 17, 7:38 PM ET

The vice president's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, was a source along with the president's chief political adviser for a Time story that identified a CIA officer, the magazine reporter said Sunday, further countering White House claims that neither aide was involved in the leak.

In an effort to quell a chorus of calls to fire deputy White House chief of staff Karl Rove, Republicans said that Rove originally learned about Valerie Plame's identity from the news media. That exonerates Rove, the Republican Party chairman said, and Democrats should apologize.

But it is not clear that it was a journalist who first revealed the information to Rove.

A lawyer familiar with Rove's grand jury testimony said Sunday that Rove learned about the CIA officer either from the media or from someone in government who said the information came from a journalist. The lawyer spoke on condition of anonymity because the federal investigation is continuing.

In a first-person account in the latest issue of Time magazine, reporter Matt Cooper wrote that during his grand jury appearance last Wednesday, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald "asked me several different ways if Rove had indicated how he had heard that Plame worked at the CIA." Cooper said Rove did not indicate how he had heard.

The White House's assurance in 2003 that Rove was not involved in the leak of the CIA officer's identity "was a lie," said John Podesta, White House chief of staff in the Clinton administration. He said Rove's credibility "is in shreds."

Until last week, the White House had insisted for nearly two years that Libby and Rove had no connection to the leak. Plame's husband is Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson, the top U.S. diplomat in Iraq at the start of the Persian Gulf War.

The White House refused last week to repeat its denials about Rove's involvement. The refusal came amid the disclosure that Rove told Cooper on July 11, 2003, that Wilson's wife apparently worked at the CIA and that she had authorized a trip he took to Africa in 2002. The White House on Sunday declined to comment about Libby, saying the investigation was ongoing.

The CIA sent Wilson to check out intelligence that the government of Niger had sold yellowcake uranium to Iraq for nuclear weapons. The chief rationale for the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 was that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

Five days before Rove spoke with Cooper, Wilson had written a newspaper opinion piece suggesting the administration had twisted prewar intelligence, including a "highly doubtful" report that Saddam bought nuclear materials from Niger.

Libby and Rove were among the unidentified government officials who provided information for a Time story about Wilson, Cooper told NBC's "Meet the Press."

Cooper also said there may have been other government officials who were sources for his article. Time posted "A War on Wilson?" on its Web site on July 17, 2003.

The reporter refused to elaborate about other sources. He said that he has given all information to the grand jury in Washington where he was questioned for 2 1/2 hours.

In his first-person account, 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."

"This was the first time I had heard anything about Wilson's wife," Cooper wrote of his phone call with Rove.

Cooper also had a conversation about Wilson and his wife with Libby, Cheney's chief of staff.

According to Cooper, "Libby replied, 'Yeah, I've heard that too' or words to that effect" when Cooper asked if Libby had heard anything about Wilson's wife sending her husband to Niger. Cooper's testimony about Libby came in August 2004, after Libby, like Rove this month, provided a specific waiver of confidentiality, Cooper said.

In 2003, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the idea that Rove was involved in leaking information about Wilson's wife was "ridiculous."

The only concession by any Republican in the controversy came from Rep. Roy Blunt (news, bio, voting record) of Missouri, the third-ranking House Republican.

Asked about the White House's previous statements that Rove was not involved, Blunt told CBS' "Face the Nation" that spokesmen for the White House "need to be very thoughtful about what they say and be sure that their credibility is sustained."

At the time of the assurances, McClellan said he had checked directly with Rove.

"I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you," McClellan told the press in October 2003. McClellan said then that he had also checked with Libby and National Security Council official Elliott Abrams before saying they were not involved in the leak.

Blunt and Wilson clashed on CBS.

Blunt said many people in Washington understood that Plame worked at the CIA and went to its headquarters every day.

It "certainly wouldn't be the first time that the CIA might have been overzealous in sort of maintaining the kind of top-secret definition on things longer than they needed to," Blunt said.

Wilson pointed out that his wife "was covered according to the CIA, and the CIA made the referral" to the Justice Department for a criminal investigation.

Wilson said friends and neighbors of the couple did not know that she worked for the CIA and that they understood her to be "an energy analyst, an energy consultant."

With all this evidence coming out on who outed the CIA agent, it makes one wonder how Bush-supporters can continue to debate the important issues. If it was the other way around; where the democrats outed a CIA agent, they would be crying bloody murder, and demanding firings and resignations. They would allow their own party these criminal actions, and even go so far as to rationalize the legality even though it threatens many lives.

So now Bush is saying he'll be sure to fire anyone who's convicted of leaking. Gosh, gutsy of him. Won't stand to have a convicted leaker around! (What exactly was it that he said earlier? Anybody involved?)

why? its obvious to rational men and women. the GOP stooges care more about their party than they do about america.

There is no philosophical system on the right, little true patriotism, rather only cynical opportunism mascarading as coherent thought, a fig leaf of virtue to hide their whoring ways.

BBB
I have no respect for people who put the political interests of their party above those in the best interests of their country. They are not patriots, they are chauvinists of the worst type.

BBB

Okay, kuvasz, is another package on the way to CA? LOL

Amen to that, k- Amen to that.

Still conjecture, but another version of what's been said a few times:



Lots of good stuff here, most of it is recaps/ not anything new, but clear and well presented:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/18/politics/18law.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1121708086-mwPvBGAMutvPJ6IO1+DnvQ

Great! you got it!

since you sent me ages ago those beautiful pix of the cheetahs (or wewre they leopards?) from your safari, i figured you'd like a view of my bunkies!

Oh wait, the above is interesting but I actually meant to point to this section, immediately before it:

karl and the rovettes have made a huge mistake here, me thinks.

they have labored under the illusion that the c.i.a. is an administration-centric body. i.e., that the entire agency is refreshed with each new whitehouse. that may be true of the dci, but on the whole the agency seems to be made up of career intelligence people, lifers. many have put their life on the line for the country, whether with the agency or in the military. a lot of people work pretty damn hard for the good of the country. i'd imagine that there is at least a bit of the old esprit de corps among the c.i.a.'s folks, kinda clannish you'd think.

and what the entire hard right of the republican party and it's faithful have just done is tell all of those people, "screw you".

thinking about it, and how real life works, in my mind's eye i see the scene of rove ( or whatever senior administration officials ) spilling the beans and showing the one finger salute;

karl and the rovettes - "hey c.i.a. ! screw you. a-hahahaha! "

c.i.a. - "noooo.... screw you".

logically, i don't think that the republicans can look forward to getting any special favors from the c.i.a. for a long time.

so i guess the next time ol' grampa dick wants to know anything about yellow cake, he's gonna have to put on the trenchcoat and catch the midnight train to niger. (gosh, i just love that song...)

clifford may. card carrying PNACer. just like 90% of the right wing barking heads that are running amuck on the wire and the airwaves over the last few years. if he says it's raining, good bet that he's using your leg for a pissoir.

errrr-grumble, grumble, damn pnacers, grumble, grumble...

And no, Tico, this has nothing to do with the question I raised on the "Expatriation" thread. This present fiasco isn't even the straw that broke the....... Separate and different - like apples and oranges.

And from what I have learned so far, expatriation takes a great deal of money in order to do. No country really wants impoverished people flooding in.

ehBeth,
Neat site - never seen it before. From the 'press gaggle' (as distinct from press briefing?) of July 15th on Air Force 1(?):

"Q Trent, is there any concern -- yesterday, for a good nearly two hours, the Senate debated for the -- Rove's role in this leak investigation, whether or not he should stay in that job and whether or not he should retain his security clearances. Is there any concern on your behalf that it is a distraction from your legislative agenda on the Hill at this point, or it's getting to that point?

MR. DUFFY: No, the Congress is moving forward on all the items that I just mentioned -- on energy, on a transportation bill, on the budget, as well. So Congress is moving forward on the agenda of the American people. And that's what the President is focused on. He's focused on today, on continuing to grow our economy by opening up markets overseas. He's continuing to focus on the war on terror and keeping Americans safe at home. Secretary Chertoff announced the reorganization of the DHS. So the President's focus is on the business of the American people.

Q -- the President's confidence in Mr. Rove unchanged, enhanced?

MR. DUFFY: Nothing to add beyond what Scott has said this week. "

Is that like a gaggle of geese?

Tico, it is possible to find published articles which reflect your point of view. And to cite them, or quote them in full. Fine.

My question to you is, why? Why do you want to believe this?

sumac, It's because they can't handle the truth.

A small leak can destroy the whole dam.