Regarding the Rove non-story

[Cal]

I agree, let's not let the Rove story die just yet
David Limbaugh


July 22, 2005


Before President Bush's Supreme Court nomination of Judge John Roberts completely overshadows the misidentified Karl Rove scandal, I think we better take a second look at the twisted direction this sad story has taken.

As far as Karl Rove's conduct in the Plame/Wilson affair, there is no scandal. He didn't come close to committing a crime, nor even an ethical infraction.

He didn't set out to expose a CIA operative, much less an undercover one. He was the recipient of a phone call in which he cautioned Time's Matt Cooper not to be taken in by the politically driven Joe Wilson, whose operative wife, Valerie Plame, had played a great role in securing Wilson's "fact-finding" trip to Niger.

Rove, who didn't even mention Plame's name, couldn't have known she was an undercover CIA agent -- because she wasn't. He manifestly wasn't motivated to expose her for the purpose of punishing Wilson -- because "exposing" her non-covert status couldn't possibly have damaged her.

But Rove did have a motive to share his information with Cooper: to warn him of the nepotistic connection between Plame and Wilson and to thus take Wilson's claims with a grain of salt.

Rove did nothing wrong. Indeed, he had an obligation to alert Cooper to Wilson's chicanery because, among other reasons, questions of our national security were involved. As the president's right-hand man, shouldn't we expect Rove to do his part to correct the record about a matter so serious: whether Saddam was trying to or did acquire uranium from Niger?

The media and Democrats seem to be saying that we can't let Rove off the hook just because he might not have technically violated the law. He must be fired or at the very least lose his security clearance because of his indiscretion.

But there was no indiscretion. Plame was not undercover and hadn't been. She had no secret status to protect. Neither she nor her husband -- it appears -- even treated her status as clandestine. Rove isn't getting off on a technicality. He did nothing wrong. The fact that the allegations against Rove are so serious doesn't change that -- and in no way taints his credibility -- because the allegations are false.

"But there was a leak," cry the Democrats and the press. "President Bush has always said he had a zero-tolerance policy for leaks out of his administration. He must fire the evil Karl Rove."

Even conservative pundits seem to be falling for this ploy. But if there was nothing secret about Plame's status, if there was nothing to protect, there could have been no leak.

Rove talked about her position for the purpose of showing the nefarious link between her and her husband -- and thus the dubiousness of Wilson's supposed findings. He "leaked" nothing. Why is simple English so difficult for people? You can't leak that which is already in the public domain.

But the cockeyed slant on this non-story is masking the real story here, which is not just that Joe Wilson was caught red-handed lying about his wife recommending him and the nature of his actual findings. The real story is the treachery of Wilson in distorting his findings for political purposes to the detriment of our national security.

According to the Senate Intelligence Committee, Wilson's findings did more to bolster than discredit the Brits' allegation that Saddam was trying to buy uranium from Niger. When he misrepresented those findings -- while working to elect John Kerry -- he consciously damaged our national security by tainting the historical record against America and her image. And what role, if any, did the CIA play in allowing itself to be manipulated for political purposes?

The fact that Democrats and the media are so desperate to bring down Karl Rove, the perceived primary mastermind behind their glorious loss of influence and power, respectively, apparently blinds them to their effective collusion with Wilson in his reckless conduct against this nation. And their non-stop bluster is apparently keeping the rest of us from focusing on it as well.

They are so determined to prove that President Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq they're obviously willing to use discredited sources and data to make their case.

Let's not move beyond this story without noting the robust irony it contains. The same people who routinely (and baselessly) accuse President Bush of having fraudulently played the national security card in furtherance of his agenda to remove Saddam are demanding Karl Rove be fired because he can't be trusted in a sensitive national security position.

But it is these people, in their shameless elevation of Joe Wilson -- among other things -- who are complicit in sacrificing our national security interests for their own political agenda.


David Limbaugh is a syndicated columnist who blogs at DavidLimbaugh.com

©2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

 

[Disagreeable]

:lol: Great post, Cal!! Carl Rove outed a CIA agent and you blame the reporter and the Democrats! Whether Rove knew she was covert or not, it's still illegal to leak classified information. ROTFLMAO! Keep them coming.

 

[Cal]

:lol: Great post, Cal!! Carl Rove outed a CIA agent and you blame the reporter and the Democrats! Whether Rove knew she was covert or not, it's still illegal to leak classified information. ROTFLMAO! Keep them coming.

I geuss you missed it:

Rove talked about her position for the purpose of showing the nefarious link between her and her husband -- and thus the dubiousness of Wilson's supposed findings. He "leaked" nothing. Why is simple English so difficult for people? You can't leak that which is already in the public domain.

 

[Disagreeable]

Rove talked about her position for the purpose of showing the nefarious link between her and her husband -- and thus the dubiousness of Wilson's supposed findings. He "leaked" nothing. Why is simple English so difficult for people? You can't leak that which is already in the public domain.

I didn't miss it. It doesn't matter why Rove told the reporter about Wilson's wife working for the CIA. It's still illegal. Bush said he would fire anyone found to be leaking; Rove has admitted he told Cooper that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Bush now has lowered the bar for conduct in the White House. And every person who watches the news saw it. If Rove didn't know what she did, how could he know it was safe to tell Cooper? The fact of the matter is that Carl Rove outed a CIA agent for his own political purposes. That you can support that shows how low your moral standards have become.

 

[Cal]

Rove talked about her position for the purpose of showing the nefarious link between her and her husband -- and thus the dubiousness of Wilson's supposed findings. He "leaked" nothing. Why is simple English so difficult for people? You can't leak that which is already in the public domain.

I didn't miss it. It doesn't matter why Rove told the reporter about Wilson's wife working for the CIA. It's still illegal. Bush said he would fire anyone found to be leaking; Rove has admitted he told Cooper that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Bush now has lowered the bar for conduct in the White House. And every person who watches the news saw it. If Rove didn't know what she did, how could he know it was safe to tell Cooper? The fact of the matter is that Carl Rove outed a CIA agent for his own political purposes. That you can support that shows how low your moral standards have become.

So you didn't miss it, you just obviously can't comprehend it. And don't preach to me about my "moral standards".

You can't leak that which is already in the public domain.

 

[Cal]

July 25, 2005, 8:47 a.m.
A Rove Perjury Rap?
The speculation grows intense — without any evidence.



Recent news reports and commentary have suggested that top White House adviser Karl Rove might be under investigation for perjury in the Plamegate affair. But sources familiar with the probe say the most frequently cited evidence for such speculation — an apparent inconsistency between Rove's and Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper's accounts of a July 11, 2003, telephone conversation — falls far short of being the basis for any prosecution, much less a perjury charge.

Two days ago, in a front-page story headlined "Testimony By Rove And Libby Examined; Leak Prosecutor Seeks Discrepancies," the Washington Post reported that Plamegate special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald "has been reviewing over the past several months discrepancies and gaps in witness testimony in his investigation of the unmasking of CIA operative Valerie Plame." One such discrepancy, the Post reported, involved vice-presidential chief of staff Lewis Libby. The other involved Rove:

Prosecutors have also probed Rove's testimony about his telephone conversation with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper in the crucial days before Plame's name was revealed in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak.

Rove has testified that he and Cooper talked about welfare reform foremost and turned to the topic of Plame only near the end, lawyers involved in the case said. But Cooper, writing about his testimony in the most recent issue of Time, said he "can't find any record of talking about" welfare reform. "I don't recall doing so," Cooper wrote.


The apparent discrepancy, first reported by Bloomberg News, is, according to the Post, evidence that Fitzgerald's investigation "has ranged beyond his original mission to determine if someone broke the law by knowingly revealing the identity of a covert operative." Another Post account, citing the Cooper-Rove discrepancy, quoted an informed source saying that Fitzgerald is now " looking at a coverup: perjury, obstruction of justice, false statements to an FBI agent.'"

But speculation that Rove's conversation with Cooper might somehow form the basis of a perjury charge has no basis, according to knowledgeable sources. There are two reasons. The first is that there is solid evidence to support Rove's version of events. The second is that, even if Rove's account were incorrect, a conflict in testimony about welfare reform is not material to the Plamegate case.

First the evidence. Two weeks ago, Rove lawyer Robert Luskin told NRO that Cooper called Rove on July 11, 2003, and that Cooper began the conversation by talking about welfare reform. After a brief talk about that issue, Luskin explained, Cooper then changed the subject to WMDs and the controversy surrounding former ambassador Joseph Wilson.

But when Cooper testified before the grand jury, he said he did not recall talking to Rove about welfare reform — "I can't find any record of talking about it with him on July 11," Cooper wrote in his Time account of his testimony, "and I don't recall doing so." That, plus Cooper's statement that he was questioned closely about the issue during his grand-jury testimony, led to the current speculation that Rove might have given a false account of the conversation before the grand jury.

But there is more to the story. Just moments after finishing his conversation with Cooper, Rove wrote a description of the talk in an e-mail to Stephen Hadley, who was then the deputy national-security adviser. The e-mail indicates that the two men did indeed begin their conversation with welfare reform. "Matt Cooper called to give me a heads-up that he's got a welfare reform story coming," Rove wrote in the e-mail, which was first reported by the Associated Press. "When he finished his brief heads-up he immediately launched into Niger..."

The e-mail appears to be solid, at-the-time evidence that the two men discussed welfare reform. "It appears that Rove's recollection of a conversation having been initiated about welfare reform is consistent with a contemporaneous e-mail he wrote to Hadley moments after he hung up the phone with Cooper," says a knowledgeable source.

In addition, in a less-quoted section of his article in Time, Cooper himself acknowledged that he might have inquired about welfare reform. Cooper wrote that after reviewing his e-mails from the days in question, "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." Cooper also wrote that, "I may have left a message with his office asking if I could talk to him about welfare reform." (The welfare story, Cooper wrote, was ultimately pushed aside by other news.)

It was not until Cooper went before the grand jury and was questioned at length about the welfare-reform issue — did he discuss it with Rove? — that Cooper got the idea that the topic might be important. The questioning, Cooper wrote, "suggested that Rove may have testified that we had talked about welfare reform." But Cooper had no memory of that being part of the conversation.

Hence the conflict. But it is a conflict, at least from what is publicly known, between an account — Rove's — that is supported by an e-mail written at the time, and an account — Cooper's — that is based on a lack of recollection, hedged by Cooper's concession that he had, in fact, been working on a welfare reform story. That is not, experts suggest, the stuff of perjury.

"Even if [Rove] didn't have that contemporaneous e-mail, it has to be about something material," says Victoria Toensing, a former federal prosecutor who also, as a Capitol Hill aide, helped draft the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. "Whether [Cooper] called [Rove] about welfare reform or the price of milk, it wasn't at the heart of what the testimony was about, which was Valerie Plame. It would never be considered material."

Rather, Toensing says, the difference between Rove's and Cooper's account of their conversation falls within the normal differences in recollection that often occur when two people are asked about the same event. And if such differences were the basis for a perjury prosecution, Toensing says, one might as well speculate that Matt Cooper could face such charges. Both scenarios, she suggests, are ridiculous. "Somebody remembers something as happening on Tuesday, and somebody remembers it happening on Wednesday. People differ in their memory. It's not perjury."

— Byron York, NR's White House correspondent, is the author of the book The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President — and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200507250847.asp

 

[Disagreeable]

:lol: And s l o w l y they twist in the wind! Carl Rove doesn't have the authority to declare something to be in the "public domaine." Mrs. Wilson was a CIA agent and he outed her to a reporter for his own political purposes. Keep spinning; won't change the facts. It only underlines claims that the Bush Bunch doesn't have the safety and security of this country at the top of their agenda. At the top of their agenda is their own political purposes and the welfare of big business.

 

[passin thru]

You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain.

 

[Disagreeable]

You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain.

And you can repeat that all day, but doesn't mean squat. Who do you think called for this investigation? Link below and my emphais.

"Sources told CNN that Plame works in the CIA's Directorate of Operations -- the part of the agency in charge of spying -- and worked in the field for many years as an undercover officer.

"If she were only an analyst, not an operative, we would not have filed a crimes report" with the Justice Department, a senior intelligence official said."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/wilson.cia/

 

[Cal]

Novak said a confidential source at the CIA told him Plame was "an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative and not in charge of undercover operatives."

Verses CNN's "sources". Why would you post such an old article on an ongoing debate?

 

[katrina]

You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. You can't leak that which is already in the public domain. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Disagreeable]

Keep on saying that and click your heels, too. Maybe that will get you to Kansas, but it won't matter in this case. Mrs. Wilson was covered for five years after she finished a covert job. In 1999 she was listed as an employee of a covert CIA "business". Rove outed her within that five years. Now not only is her career damaged, but the other "employees" of the CIA company and any foreign nationals that they worked with are outed.

 

[Disagreeable]

Novak said a confidential source at the CIA told him Plame was "an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative and not in charge of undercover operatives."

Verses CNN's "sources". Why would you post such an old article on an ongoing debate?

Link below; my emphasis. Here's what Novak's CIA confidential source says he told the grand jury. Doesn't seem to add up, does it? Now who do you think is telling the truth?

"Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/26/AR2005072602069_pf.html

 

[Cal]

www.libfibs.com
THE "OUTING OF A COVERT AGENT" STORY / NON-STORY
If there was ever a better example of a Media-manufactured crisis, it has to be the "Rove 'Outed' a Covert Operative" story - or should we say, non-story. We personally thought this story had gone away, collapsing under the weight of the evidence that Joey Wilson was just another sad lib fibber peddling a thoroughly discredited Bush-bashing book. But, then again, it is the "summer doldrums" and the media needs to sell papers and airtime. So, it has resurfaced for the third straight summer with lots of not-so-fresh intrigue and just a dash of conspiracy theory posturing.

Let's get to the truth shall we:

1) At the time of the supposed "outing" of the media's double-super-secret covert operative, Valerie Plame was stationed in the U.S. for six years, returning from overseas assignment back in June 1997. Therefore, under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, passed in 1982, NO crime was committed since she was not on overseas assignment "within the last five years." In fact, 36 media organization's filed a brief to the court asking that Matt Cooper and Judy Miller not be compelled to testify, since no crime had been committed (see here). How's that for hypocrisy? The MSM is breathlessly propagating a story that it has argued against in court.

2) According to Joey Wilson himself (from an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN), "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity." Whoops! Did he just say that?

3) Contrary to Joey Wilson's implication that the Vice President sent him to Niger to check out whether or not Saddam Hussein was attempting to buy uranium, Dick Cheney (who might actually know whether he did or not) responded by saying, "I don't know Joe Wilson. I've never met Joe Wilson. I don't know who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back."

4) Karl Rove wasn't even a leaker. He received information from reporters. Robert Novak apparently called Karl Rove and told him that Valerie Plame worked at the CIA and recommended her unemployed hubby for the Niger gig (for no pay, mind you). To which, Rove responded, "I heard that too." Perhaps, there's a reason Judith Miller (NY Times) opted for jail time rather than testify. Hmmm.

And, finally we have this little gem...

5) According to Fred Rustmann, a real covert agent from 1966 to 1990, "She [Valerie Plame] made no bones about the fact that she was an [CIA] agency employee and her husband was a [former] diplomat. … Her neighbors knew this, her friends knew this, his friends knew this. A lot of blame could be put on to central cover staff and the agency because they weren't minding the store here. ... The agency never changed her cover status."

So, there you have it folks. For all the bluster and feigned outrage at the "outing of a covert operative," we now know that A) everyone in Washington apparently knew Joey's wife worked at the CIA; B) Rove did not leak her name to the press - in all likelihood it was the other way around; and C) the media darling, Joey Wilson, is the only person in this non-story who has been 'outed' -- as a complete and utter fraud.

UPDATE: Could it be that poor Val was outed by HER OWN HUSBAND? According to Andrea Mitchell, Robert Novak talked with Joey Wilson 48 hours before he called Karl Rove in the "Meet the Press" greenroom. And, Clifford May also makes the argument that Joey may have talked with The Nation's David Corn about the subject of his wife's status. Could this really be possible? I mean, we all know he can't keep a secret, he "outed" himself for goodness sakes. Perhaps, we should feel sorry for Valerie Plame afterall, she obviously married the town fool.

UPDATE #2: You'd might be surprised to learn that Valerie Plame was "outed" years before Novak typed a word. In fact, both Russia and Cuba knew of Agent Plame. The former Soviet Union outed her in the mid-1990's. And, get this, the CIA itself 'inadvertently' compromised Plame by exposing classified documents to the Swiss embassy in Havana. In a Washington Times article, it's revealed that "[t]he documents were supposed to be sealed from the Cuban government, but [unidentified U.S.] intelligence officials said the Cubans read the classified material and learned the secrets contained in them." Priceless.

 

[Disagreeable]

:lol: Keep spinning.... Facts are facts and, unless the Republicans stop this Grand Jury, the truth will be out for everyone to see. If they do stop this Grand Jury, the truth will be out for everyone to see. I know I'm looking forward to it. I especially want to see when George W. Bush flip flops again about firing anyone who leaks to the press. :lol: