The person who provided the information about Mr. Rove's conversation with Mr. Novak declined to be identified, citing requests by Mr. Fitzgerald that no one discuss the case.
With another administration leak from an unverifiable anonymous source taking the lead, we begin another round of deflections
Rove Reportedly Held Phone Talk on C.I.A. Officer
By DAVID JOHNSTON
and RICHARD W. STEVENSONWASHINGTON, July 14 - Karl Rove, the White House senior adviser, spoke with the columnist Robert D. Novak as he was preparing an article in July 2003 that identified a C.I.A. officer who was undercover, someone who has been officially briefed on the matter said.
Mr. Rove has told investigators that he learned from the columnist the name of the C.I.A. officer, who was referred to by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and the circumstances in which her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, traveled to Africa to investigate possible uranium sales to Iraq, the person said.
After hearing Mr. Novak's account, the person who has been briefed on the matter said, Mr. Rove told the columnist: "I heard that, too."
So now Novak is Rove's source.
Maybe Judith Miller's source got to Novak before Rove did. But it seems Rove is Cooper's source...which still means he Identified Ms. Plame (I know, People of the Word claim you have to use someone's name to identify them...but People of the Word are kind of helpless in peculiar ways).
After saying in 2003 that it was "ridiculous" to suggest that Mr. Rove had any role in the disclosure of Ms. Wilson's name, Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, has refused in recent days to discuss any specifics of the case.
See what I mean? The next excuse will be "He didn't identify, he verified."
Rove told Chris Matthews Ms.Plame was "fair game" politically, but of course as a CIA operative she is not...or is not supposed to be. That Rove said this suggests an interesting view on the importance of the spirit of the law, i.e., there is no importance. It seems Rove's position is, once the law has been broken it doesn't work anymore.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - Marc
Question: If Plame, as detailed in Wilson's own book, had not been overseas since 1997 how is she a CIA operative?
Question: If Plame worked at the CIA as an analyst on WMD's, drove to and from work each and every day how is she an operative covert or otherwise?
Question: If in Wilson's own bio she is listed as his wife how did anyone "out her" by linking Wilson with the name Plame?
Question: If the law that has been allegedly been broken specifically states to be covered by the law an agent must have been stationed overseas for an extended length of time within the previous 5 years just what law was broken? (see 1997 date above)
2 - fred
all i can say is fitzgerald better watch his back. as the journalists become the targets two things have to happen: no more discussion of "this is all about protecting a NOC"; that would put the journalists in hot water, and they are lefties. nothing there. and 2: fitgerald has to be demomized.
you heard it here first.
watch your back, fitz.
3 - billy
perfect position for the right to be in. not only do they hate national security since they are defending this traitor (Bush I's own words), but they hate the judiciary, democrats, and now prosecutors and law enforcement.
is there any part of america the right doesn't hate at this point besides themselves.
4 - Arnold
Wilson received a personal letter from President Bush regarding his op-ed piece, stating that he appreciated his work on behalf of his country, which Wilson read aloud on CNN. Of course that was from a different President Bush, the one who was former head of the CIA, the one with a lifelong career in national government, not the combat-avoider who belittles wounded Vietnam vets and former Vietnam POWs for political advantage.
The bottom line is Joe Wilson's report to the CIA on the Iraq-Niger WMD supply link was more accurate than the "intelligence" that came to Bush's desk before the war-- Bush himself blames "bad intelligence" that was presented to him by his innermost circle of "trusted" advisors. Too bad Bush, Cheney, and company never saw Wilson's report , or decided to ignore it.
Too bad that kindly Rove helped out his lovely reporter friends regarding Wilson's op-ed piece, stating that his wife was "fair game" -- what could that mean??
Too bad Novak attempted to discredit Wilson's accurate report (remember, there really was no such Niger-Iraq as claimed by Bush et al) by dragging in irrelevant information about why Wilson was assigned the task in the first place, as if that made his entire report doubtful, whereas it was accurate: like others, he said the claims of the Iraq-Niger linkage were not trustworthy. It was announced on March 7th, before the invasion that the documents Powell used at the UN were falsified --forgeries--fake--bogus--lies. It didn't concern Bush much, somehow, that he'd based any part of his war rational on mocked-up evidence, nor did he pause to wonder how such phoney-baloney manipulated trash wound up at the highest echelon of the US government -- his desk. It didn't bother him one bit.
You don't find that odd?
Bush himself admitted he trusted people he shouldn't have trusted in the presidential campaign debates. It was the only mistake he could remember ever having made. .
By his lack of good character judgment, he has surrounded himself with unethical amoral political hacks who, doing disservice to him and to us, the American people, hide the hard truths from him, who allowed him to use forged evidence in his state of the union address, who told him the Iraq war would be a cakewalk, who allowed WMD to be centerpiece of his public arguments for war, who urged him to rush to war and who he refuses to hold responsible.
Apparently, some so-called republicans among us spout have no ethics and no shame. They refuse to take responsibility for their actions, instead offering excuses worthy of Clinton: technically, I didn't break the law. I did not say the name of that woman-- I said she was "fair game". It depends on what "identify" means.
The truth is that Rove and Novak together had a discussion involving Plame that led to the revelation that she had been a deeply covert CIA operative: thus exposing by association others she worked with and had contacts with.
How many informants useful to us may have been killed by our enemies as a result?
No, don't tell me-- it's a matter of national security!
Bush literally holds hands with Saudi royalty and now makes a big point of being seen with his pal he calls "Turd Blossom".
Why?
Instead of encouraging Bush to support a leaker who did damage we can't even begin to imagine to our intelligence gathering in Iraq, we should be reminding him of his self-confessed tendency to put his blind faith in persons unworthy.
We should be asking him to rid himself of the dangerously blabby Rove, not cheering him on in his self-imposed delusions.
5 - Maynard
There is a great new article on CNN's website written by former Nixon staffer, John Dean.
In it, being a lawyer, he brings up a great point. There has been precedent of how the Bush administration's Justice Department deals with leakers. The case was some information against Bush pal, Lord Ashcroft of Britain, leaked by a DEA person to a London newspaper.
All the legal details are in the article and lay out how the circumstances surrounding only what Rove and his lawyer have already admitted make for as tight a case as what the DEA leaker did real jail time over.
It also has a nice quote from a Justice Department official stating that this is how the Administration would be dealing with leakers.
Karl, meet big Bubba? Only time will tell, but there is definately going to be some sweating over this now that some bright legal whistleblower has connected the dots in the MSM.