I don’t know exactly what to believe right now with the whole Rove/Plame ordeal, as there has been so much spinning going on (I guess what both sides want, the administration probably more than the opposition), it is hard to get to the truth of the matter. I will stick with my initial statement from several years ago when this started:
And he is right- not that politicization of intelligence and this sort of retribution is anything new, as it has been going on for ages, even during the Golden Age of Clinton- but that is not the point. If some ‘senior officials’ compromised CIA agents, heads need to roll and someone needs to go to jail or have his/her career ruined.
regardless of what I think, or what I know, or what I think I know (paging Don Rumsfeld), the White House press reporters smell BLOOD:
Q: “So you’re not going to respond to a question about whether the president has confidence in Karl Rove?”
David Corn: Newsweek put out a story that Karl Roves passed natl security info outing a CIA agent. Are you saying the president isn’t taking any action? The president is free to respond. So are you saying he’s not going to do anything about this until the investigation is fully over and done with?
Scottie: This continues to be an ongoing criminal investigation…
David Corn: You acknowledge that he is free as president of the US to take whatever action he wants to, in response to a credible report?
Q: Did the president discuss Karl Rove’s current situation with him today?
A: Same question relating to reports about an ongoing investigation.
Q: Who is Karl Rove as it relates to this current adminiswtration?
Scottie refused to answer and went to someone else. He’s now refusing to answer anything about Karl.
Q: You said something on this podium months ago that was demonstrably false. Does that concern you now?
A: I will be glad to talk about this at the appropriate time, and that’s once the investigation is complete.
Q: Scott, at this point, are we to consider what you said previously, are you still standing by what you said previously?
A: You’ve heard my response.
Crooks and Liars has the video. This is going to dominate the news cycle, especially considering we are heading into the dead news month of August.
And just to really get people going, here is a run-down on the truthfulness of Joseph Wilson.
jmaier
It’s hard to figure out what is truly going on so I suppose we’ll just have to wait for Fitzgerald to act, or not. From the left, I’m obviously no fan of Karl Rove and would like to see him at least neutralized as a political opponent. However, I think the glee from the left and the back pedalling and misdirection from the administration and its advocates on the right makes for good political theater but for bad politics.
Lamont
Rove should tender his resignation so as not to endanger the President’s 2nd term agenda, particularly the pursuit of terrorists, Supreme Court nominations, and Social Security reform. The President is too loyal to fire a friend, so Rove will have to volunteer to leave. That will take the heat off so more important issues can be addressed.
Neal
John:
I think your analysis of the situation is sensible, but do wonder about the necessity to linking to the “truthfulness of Wilson” stuff; whether or not Wilson and his wife are good people, the leaking of the identity of a CIA agent is a matter of national security.
Linking to attacks on the agent seem to be a tactic employed by the blogs you often rail against (and rightly so) because they’re trying to run damage control or avoid the issue at hand. I was surprised to see that, to be honest: was that your intention, or are you trying to cover all angles of the story?
-Neal
Neal
John:
I think your analysis of the situation is sensible, but do wonder about the necessity to linking to the “truthfulness of Wilson” stuff; whether or not Wilson and his wife are good people, the leaking of the identity of a CIA agent is a matter of national security.
Linking to attacks on the agent seem to be a tactic employed by the blogs you often rail against (and rightly so) because they’re trying to run damage control or avoid the issue at hand. I was surprised to see that, to be honest: was that your intention, or are you trying to cover all angles of the story?
-Neal
Jimmy Jazz
I have to agree with Neal. Wilson’s credibility or lack thereof is now totally irrelevant to this story. What is relevant is what Rove did or didn’t do and what he said to the grand jury about it.
p.lukasiak
Its a shame that you continue to perpetuate the smear against Joseph Wilson, John.
Wilson has served as a diplomat under Presidents of both parties — and it was Wilson who stood up to Saddam Hussein during the run up to Gulf War I.
John Cole
What part of “And just to really get people going” eluded you, P. lukasiak?
KC
I’ve long thought Wilson was a blowhard. That said, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head exactly with your original comment, John. Timothy Noah pushes the same thing in Slate today. Even if a crime can’t be proved, what was done was clearly sloppy, unintelligent, and perhaps costly in terms of national intelligence. If it was Rove who leaked, and it certainly appears he was involved in the leak in some manner, and he were to be fired, it’s not like it would ruin his career anyway. Hell, it might even free him up to do new things he has been wanting to do.
Honestly though, I can’t see Bush firing anyone. In fact, I can see the guilty party/ies resigning–but with Presidential Medal of Freedoms around their necks. After all, Bush awarded it to the costly screw-ups, Tenet and Bremer, why not follow precedent?
Darrell
Where in this post did John link to any “truthfulness about Wilson” stuff? I don’t see it. Please show me where. Since Wilson was championed so loudly by the left, it’s entirely fair to point out that he has been proven (by the Senate intelligence committee findings) to be a lying POS.
As to the ‘relevance’ of Wilson’s lies, keep in mind that Wilson going public with his lies and smears, is what caused this controversy in the first place. I can’t imagine that Valerie Plame, if she truly was a covert agent, would have allowed her husband to go so public (Wilson was on over 30 talk shows + editorial in NYT), especially with known lies in a flamethrowing NYT editorial.. and knowing that she had recommended her unqualified husband for the Niger trip. What kind of covert spy would that make her? Seriously
KC
I just wanted to mention, I think Somerby puts it all in perspective pretty well at the Dailyhowler.com.
Brian
He’ll resign and then on a Friday afternoon a week later he’ll be hired as a consultant at some fictional remove from his current job.
Mr Furious
This about perfectly sums it all up for me. and you don’t even have to get into the criminal/not criminal specifics… [via the Carpetbagger Report]
Darrell
Ah yes, the honesty of the left. Demanding Rove be fired before the facts are in, before it’s even f*cking known whether Valerie Plame is a loose lipped ‘covert’ operative, or merely a desk jockey analyst at Langley.
How honest and open minded of you lefty scumbags.. only looking for truth and consistency I see
Mr Furious
Um, what other facts are we waiting for Darrell? Bush said anyone with any knowledge or information. anyone involved. He didn’t parse words and say anything about technical legal hoop-jumping or whether one needed to be convicted of a crime.
I’m not talking about criminal convictions here, I’m just holding the President to his word.
It doesn’t matter whether Wilson’s a dick, Plame was really covert at the time, whether Rove knew or used her name. He participated in the desemination of the info, and then covered it up. Bush called for full cooperation and forthcoming from his staff. No ifs, ands or buts. Rove stonewalled and lawyered up.
Rove himself has already copped to far more involvement and knowledge than President Bush was demanding at the time.
I say again, fire his pasty ass.
Rick
Yes, fire him, so he can move over to the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, or the National Republican Congressional Committee. He has no more campaigns to run for Dubya.
Yes, punish him (if guilty) to the max that Ken Bacon got back in ’98. I think he got a B- on “playing with other children.”
Cordially…
Darrell
Is that what they told you to believe over at Daily Kos?Mr. F, show us the evidence that proves “Plame was really covert at the time” or STFU. For that matter, where’s your evidence that Rove leaked her name? Oh that’s right, you have none. Oh, and if Plame was covert at the time, why in the hell was her ‘cover name’ listed on her husband’s ‘Who’s who in America’ listing as has been widely reported? Truth is, you don’t f*cking know
Rick
Tsk, tsk. Such language these days.
Cordially…
Halffasthero
Plame was really covert at the time, whether Rove knew or used her name
Is that what they told you to believe over at Daily Kos?Mr. F, show us the evidence that proves “Plame was really covert at the time” or STFU. For that matter, where’s your evidence that Rove leaked her name? Oh that’s right, you have none. Oh, and if Plame was covert at the time, why in the hell was her ‘cover name’ listed on her husband’s ‘Who’s who in America’ listing as has been widely reported? Truth is, you don’t f*cking know
Posted by Darrell at July 11, 2005 04:14 PM
Darrell – Rove’s lawyer has gotten to the point where he is parsing what Rove said and did not say about Plame. So, while it is certainly possible to hold onto the fact that Plame was not not covert, clearly they are not approaching it that way. His whole defense is starting to swing around “knowingly” releasing this information so there is now – at least to me – little doubt that she was covert. Thisis obviously blowing up and no matter what, Rove is obviously in some hot water. He seems to enjoy swimming with the pigs so, if anyone can survive this, Rove can. He is a slimeball from hell whom I do not respect.
Darrell
not so “obvious” to me and others. Time will tell, won’t it?
Karl Rove is a sincere, honest, and decent man. On what basis do you get off calling him a “slimeball”.. oh, and are you one of the ones defending Joseph Wilson’s ‘integrity’?
Vladi G
not so “obvious” to me and others. Time will tell, won’t it?
Darrell is so pathetic that if he were standing in a downpour and the President said “What a beautiful, sunny day”, Darrell would tell the people with umbrella’s that they should wait until all the facts are in.
Darrell, if you weren’t real, you’d be invented as parody.
Vladi G
umbrella’s
Not sure why I made those umbrellas posessive, but oh well.
Darrell
John, did you edit your post to add that bit about the truthfullness of Joseph Wilson? Because I didn’t see it earlier. *scratching head* Or perhaps you decided that if you were going to be accused of bringing up Wilson’s lies, you might as well really bring them up
Fledermaus
Darell,
show us the evidence that proves “Plame was really covert at the time” or STFU.
Here is a whole big timeline for you for you. Plese to be noting:
September 16, 2003 – the CIA notifies the DOJ that its investigation is complete and recommends that the FBI undertake a full criminal investigation.
September 23, 2003 – The CIA submits a standard 11 part questionnaire used by the DOJ to determine whether an investigation is warranted. (Milbank and Schmidt, “Justice Department Launches Criminal Probe of Leak, Washington Post, Oct. 1, 2003 at A01).
September 26, 2003 – John Dion, Director of the DOJ’s Counterespionage section decides to pursue a criminal investigation.
But yeah, I’m sure you’re the final authority on who is and isn’t an undercover agent. I’m sure you’ve even got a list of all undercover agents and I bet her name isn’t even on it.
Sojourner
Uh, Darrell, if Plame were not subject to the rules pertaining to undercover agents, there would have been NO INVESTIGATION. Duh.
If Karl Rove is your definition of an honest and decent man, it certainly explains your hatred of liberals. Good heavens, I doubt you’d find too many of his political associates who believe this shit. They know he’s a slime ball but they like the results he gets.
JG
The sad part is that Darrel is a perfectly rational compared to the wingnuts at Free Republic. Some of them are calling for the shutting down of the press corp. what the fuck happened to this country? Rove is honest? He’s a politician, he can’t be honest and successful. Its not possible.
Darrell
I’m not the one making definitive blowhard claims that Plame was surely a covert agent. I was disputing that anyone could make such a definitive claim and I asked for proof. There seem to be lots of doubts that she was covert. And you haven’t given jack sh*t for proof that she was anything more than a desk jockey analyst, have you now?
Especially in light of the fact that if she was ‘covert’, then why in the hell was her cover name listed in her husband’s ‘Who’s who’ listing? And why did she knowlingly let her husband go on a PR Jihad against the Administration, slingling dishonest, very public flamethrowing accusations. Common sense says that ain’t no secret agent who would be trying to keep a low profile.
Darrell
Tell us, were they being sarcastic? They were? Looks to me that you’re being a whiny, humorless, melodramatic overreactor, like so many leftists are.. I note that on Balloon Juice comments last week, ‘decidedfencesitter’ was seriously defending Europeans who were raising money for Al Queda. No sarcasm, no humor.. he made a serious justification. Does that mean that we should now whine like little bitches about ‘what the fuck happened to this country’ because of the words of one lefty kook? Get a grip
Halffasthero
Darrell, you like Karl Rove and that seems abundantly clear. I am not going to explain why I think he is dirt under my shoes because, frankly, his tactics were made clear back when he orchestrated the McCain smear prior to the South Carolina primaries in 2000. There is no “proof” he did but he ran the campaign and I would have a hard time ever believing he didn’t. As for this orchestrated Plame incident, you are very quick to go after Plame and Wilson and apply sainthood to Rove. I don’t know Plame or Wilson but I know all I need to know about Rove.
Sojourner
For heaven’s sake, Darrell. If the CIA didn’t consider her covert, why would there be an investigation?
Will you please answer that very SIMPLE question?
Whether you consider her a desk jockey or not DOES NOT MATTER. Nobody cares what your opinion, my opinion, or anybody else’s is on that matter.
Darrell
Let’s be clear about your position. You believe that Karl Rove was behind some dirty campaigning in SC. You have not a shred of proof or solid evidence of this, but you nonetheless “have a hard time believing he didn’t”. Well that settles that, doesn’t it?
JG
You ask me a question, answer it yourself then go off on me about the answer? Are you off your meds today?
No, they weren’t being sarcastic.
If she wasn’t covert why is there a special prosecutor? Why is Roves defense that he never used her name? Why doesn’t he just say that yes he did tell a newspaper reporter that a woman who everybody knows is an overt CIA employee, is an overt CIA employee? Even if Joe Wilson is a lying blowhard how can this be seen by anyone as anything other than revenge for what Joe Wilson said? Take the politics out of this and think about it.
Geek, Esq.
I think it’s a good bet that Rove perjured himself in front of that grand jury. After all, he lied to the POTUS.
And if there’s one thing Republicans can agree on, it’s that perjury is one of the gravest offenses one can commit.
And, btw, this diary:
http://redstate.org/story/2005/7/10/20194/2738
may be one of the dumbest I’ve seen FP’d at Red State.
I mean, can someone really think that this sentence:
really PROVES that Rove didn’t break the law.
“Rove didn’t use her name–just her husband’s” may be the dumbest meme since “fake but accurate.”
Oy!
Al Maviva
I think we should hang any sonovabitch that even potentially damages national security in any way – whether it’s by kinda sorta leaking the identity of a semi- kinda covert CIA employee, taking top secret documents out of the national archives and losing them, reporting half truths that result in a black eye for the U.S. and riots and deaths among tinder box countries, or by openly siding with the other guys.
Fair is fair, right?
And as for Wilson, he’s a tendentious bastard. Before the press: “The Niger uranium memos are fake, an utter forgery.” Before Congress: “Um, no, Mr. Senator. I never did see the Niger memos.” He was a great career civil servant place holder ambassador during GWI, but like a lot of soldiers, a guy who is useful on the front lines during a war, isn’t always the fellow you want to handle delicate investigations or politically sensitive questions.
Sojourner
Nobody wants to hang Rove. A lot of us, however, would like to see Bush keep his word and fire anyone who was involved in leaking her name, and that includes Rove.
But you know W. He has such a difficult time with the truth.
Darrell
The fact that there is a special prosecutor in no way proves Plame was a covert agent at that time. I linked earlier to this Washington Post column explaining why.
When the act was passed, Congress had no intention of prosecuting a reporter who wanted to expose wrongdoing and, in the process, once or twice published the name of a covert agent. Novak is safe from indictment. But Congress also did not intend for government employees to be vulnerable to prosecution for an unintentional or careless spilling of the beans about an undercover identity. A dauntingly high standard was therefore required for the prosecutor to charge the leaker.
Plame’s “covert” status needs to be investigated:
At the threshold, the agent must truly be covert. Her status as undercover must be classified, and she must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years. This requirement does not mean jetting to Berlin or Taipei for a week’s work. It means permanent assignment in a foreign country. Since Plame had been living in Washington for some time when the July 2003 column was published, and was working at a desk job in Langley (a no-no for a person with a need for cover), there is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as “covert.”
And this:
The special prosecutor and reporters should ask Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan, who is overseeing the grand jury, to conduct a hearing to require the CIA to identify all affirmative measures it was taking to shield Plame’s identity.
Since Plame’s cover name identity was posted for the entire world to see on her husband’s ‘Who’s who’ listing, and since she listed her employer as the CIA when she made a campaign contribution to Gore’s campaign.. her husband going on a VERY public PR smear campaign against the Bush administration, etc… it looks to me that there is going to be no finding of wrongdoing. Either the CIA was extraordinarily sloppy in it’s failure to take even basic steps to shield Plame’s identity, or she wasn’t a covert agent whose identity needed protecting
Halffasthero
Well that settles that, doesn’t it?
Damn right it does.
sammy
So, here’s a question for the “How do you even know that Plame was covert?” crowd:
If Plame wasn’t covert, presumably, disclosing her identity as a source wouldn’t have been a crime. So why would there be an investigation in the first place?
Al Maviva
Right on, Sojourner. Lying under oath to a court, no big deal. Breaking political promises made to the press – criminal offense.
And as for you, Sammy – If Bill Clinton wasn’t a perjurer, why would there have been an investigation in the first place? Just wondering.
Jon Black
Sammy
Whether or not Plame was covert is one of the aspects of the investigation. The CIA claims that she is, or at least they are purported to make this claim, but they are not the final arbiters of that decision.
I find it unlikely that Rove will get indicted for the “outing” charge, if for no other reason then the fact that targets of grand jury investigations are almost never called in to testify in front of that grand jury. Not to mention that under the relevant statute I don’;t think the prosecutor can make his case, at least not on what we know so far. With respect to perjury, not likely either (though it would be the greatest political irony of my lifetime.)
The reason perjury seems unlikely is that modernly, if federal investigations think you are full of it, its easier to pop someone for lying to a federal investigator (if you dig into the statues you can see why.)
This still leaves Rove susceptible to the lying charge as far as legal concerns. The bigger concern is political. If Rove did do this, even inadvertently as the Newsweek article seems to indicate, and Bush tolerates it, Bush will have a lot of people really pissed. Even though Plame may have been married to a world-class douche, she was still working towards national security. If Bush’s team left her hanging in the breeze, he will take a big hit.
Vladi G
If Plame wasn’t covert, presumably, disclosing her identity as a source wouldn’t have been a crime. So why would there be an investigation in the first place?
Forget it, Sammy. You’ll never convince mindless drones like Darrell. He’s apparently of the belief that after two years, Fitzgerald still hasn’t bothered to investigate whether Plame was covert. You can’t reason with wingnuts. In Darrell’s world, Prosecutors routinely spend years interviewing witness and investigating crimes before they get around to reading criminal statutes. I imagine that in Darrell’s world, district attornies probably convene grand juries and investigate all the elements of a murder without bothering to find out if anyone died.
Bob
Okay, Wilson was sent to Niger to find out if Saddam had gotten yellow-cake. He was basically confirming what our ambassador there had already found out, that no, Saddam hadn’t gotten yellow-cake. And it turns out that Saddam didn’t get any yellow-cake. And he didn’t make any nuclear bombs and the U.S. didn’t find any.
And two officials in the administration fed information to Novak that Wilson’s wife, Plame, was a CIA operative. And the CIA went to the Justice Department, and a special prosecutor thought that there was a crime and a three-judge panel concurred. And now Rove’s attorney is using the word “knowingly” a lot.
Look, I’m getting the same vibe about Plame as we routinely get when Republicans go on a Hillary bash. You know, scary, all-powerful female divinity. Like Plame ordered her husband to find information damaging to the Bush Administration right after she’d order Sandy Berge to go to the National Archives and fill up his trousers and socks with top-secret documents. Must be some campaign by feminazis in conjunction with al-Qaeda.
And just where is that document that Gannon said existed that was the source of this claim that Plame made the decision to send her husband to Niger? With our Niger ambassador (and I believe there had been another investigation finding the SISMI stuff bunk) finding no evidence of Saddam getting yellow-cake, I almost believe that Wilson was sent because Plame was an identified Democrat and working to round up loose nukes. That is, it’s almost as if this was the construction of a straw man, and helps out Bolton’s campaign to spread nukes to all terrorists. On the other hand, a straw man makes lousy company in a jail cell and Rove’s reputation isn’t to incriminate himself.
The bottom line, someone near and dear to the President did something akin to a violation of the law, and it strains credulity that Bush didn’t know.
Jon Black
Vladi G
I think if you are looking for the mindless drone, you need to find a mirror. Whether or not Plame was a covert operative is not a determination that either the CIA, or Fitzgerald, is empowered to make. It is a question of fact that need be established to a grand jury, and then to the ultimate finder of a fact (typically a jury in a criminal case.
Vladi G
It is a question of fact that need be established to a grand jury, and then to the ultimate finder of a fact (typically a jury in a criminal case.
Right. But the independent counsel, who has access to all of the information, and the CIA, for whom the person in question was employed, seem to think she was covert. Otherwise a) the investigation would be over, and/or b) the CIA never would have requested the investigation in the first place. As a layman, I think that’s pretty damn good circumstancial evidence.
Idiots like Darrell seem to think that there is no question. They seem to believe that it’s cut and dried – she was not covert. Like I said, if it’s so obvious that there’s no dead person, why investigate the murder?
And as has been asked by others, if it’s so obvious that she wasn’t covert, and therefore no crime was committed, why deny revealing her identity? What did Rove have to hide?
This isn’t a he said/she said. Darrell is citing what he believes is tangible evidence of her open identity. If this is all so obvious, why are we still talking about it?
Vladi G
. Whether or not Plame was a covert operative is not a determination that either the CIA, or Fitzgerald, is empowered to make.
Bullshit. Fitzgerald could make that determination right now and end the investigation. If there’s so much evidence of this, why is he still investigating? Darrell claims that this angle still needs to be investigated. Is he really that stupid that he believes that it has yet to be investigated? We’re talking about a threshold. If she wasn’t covert, than this whole exercist has been a waste of time. Don’t you think that aspect would have been investigated first?
It is a question of fact that need be established to a grand jury, and then to the ultimate finder of a fact (typically a jury in a criminal case.
Right. But the independent counsel, who has access to all of the information, and the CIA, for whom the person in question was employed, seem to think she was covert. Otherwise a) the investigation would be over, and/or b) the CIA never would have requested the investigation in the first place. As a layman, I think that’s pretty damn good circumstancial evidence.
Idiots like Darrell seem to think that there is no question. They seem to believe that it’s cut and dried – she was not covert. Like I said, if it’s so obvious that there’s no dead person, why investigate the murder?
And as has been asked by others, if it’s so obvious that she wasn’t covert, and therefore no crime was committed, why deny revealing her identity? Why not say “hell yes, I did it, and it doesn’t matter, because she was a desk jockey!”?
This isn’t a he said/she said. Darrell is citing what he believes is tangible evidence of her open identity. If this is all so obvious, why are we still talking about it?
Vladi G
Sorry for the double post. I was doing it from the permalinked page and it and I was getting an internal service error.
Jon Black
I am not going to defend Darrell, that his job. There does appear to be some evidence that Plame was known to be CIA around Washington. I have no idea if it’s true, nor I would imagine, does Darrell, nor do you.
With respoect to the more pertinent question, i.e. Fitzgerald’s determination. He may have determined that she was covert, but that doesn’t make her covert. I want you to imagine a scenario where a special prosecutor believes, or claims to believe, that the elements of a crime have been satisfied, when in fact they haven’t. I’m willing to bet you can imagine such a scenario. In fact, I’ll double that first bet and suggest you can even specifically remember such an occurrence.
Unfortunately, that example drags up a bunch of baggage. I don’t think that Fitzgerald is witchhunting. But it is possible that he is wrong in his belief that she was covert, or in the alternative, that he has determined that she wasn’t covert and is investigated ancillary matters (perjury, lying to feds.)
The bigger point I was trying to make is that we just don’t know. Claiming that we do based on circumstance is reasonable, but is hardly concrete enough to cast doubts on the opinions others have made with respect to the same limited evidence that you have.
sammy
Al Maviva
I’m no lawyer, but it seems to me that Clinton was clearly guilty of perjury on the issue of whether or not he’d had sex with Lewinsky. Should I take it as a concession of the argument that the best you can come up with seems to be, “But Clinton lied under oath! About nookie! Six years ago!”
Jon Black, Vladi G, et al
Regarding Plame’s covert status: is it really the case that Fitzgerald or a grand jury gets to make that determination? (Unless you’re referring to a legal finding of fact: that’s sort of a different story.) Isn’t that something that the CIA decides?
I’m not asking this out of snarkiness: I don’t know, and I’d really like someone informed to answer the question. But it seems to me that the best way to find out whether or not she was covert was to ask the CIA, “So, was she covert?” I mean, it’s not like J. Random Dude gets to say after the fact, “Dumbass, that was a secret!” is it?
sammy
Al Maviva
I’m no lawyer, but it seems to me that Clinton was clearly guilty of perjury on the issue of whether or not he’d had sex with Lewinsky. Should I take it as a concession of the argument that the best you can come up with seems to be, “But Clinton lied under oath! About nookie! Six years ago!”
Jon Black, Vladi G, et al
Regarding Plame’s covert status: is it really the case that Fitzgerald or a grand jury gets to make that determination? (Unless you’re referring to a legal finding of fact: that’s sort of a different story.) Isn’t that something that the CIA decides?
I’m not asking this out of snarkiness: I don’t know, and I’d really like someone informed to answer the question. But it seems to me that the best way to find out whether or not she was covert was to ask the CIA, “So, was she covert?” I mean, it’s not like J. Random Dude gets to say after the fact, “Dumbass, that was a secret!” is it?
sammy
Al Maviva
I’m no lawyer, but it seems to me that Clinton was clearly guilty of perjury on the issue of whether or not he’d had sex with Lewinsky. Should I take it as a concession of the argument that the best you can come up with seems to be, “But Clinton lied under oath! About nookie! Six years ago!”
Jon Black, Vladi G, et al
Regarding Plame’s covert status: is it really the case that Fitzgerald or a grand jury gets to make that determination? (Unless you’re referring to a legal finding of fact: that’s sort of a different story.) Isn’t that something that the CIA decides?
I’m not asking this out of snarkiness: I don’t know, and I’d really like someone informed to answer the question. But it seems to me that the best way to find out whether or not she was covert was to ask the CIA, “So, was she covert?” I mean, it’s not like J. Random Dude gets to say after the fact, “Dumbass, that was a secret!” is it?
JG
Is this like ‘the chicken or the egg’?
Jon Black
Sammy
I suspect I may have been wrong. It (whether Plame is a covert operative) may not be a question of fact (a jury issue) but rather a question of law (something the judge must pronounce on.) However, if the defense is “everbody knew Plame worked at the CIA” the jury will decide whether or not that was actually the case.
I may be wrong on the above procedurally, but I am certain that it is not the CIA who gets to make the decision. Imagine if there was a law that said, “no one may enter onto your property.” Just because someone entered onto property that you claim is yours wouldn’t decide the matter. Granted with respect to the CIA, thier opinion will have a little more signifigance, but it will not be conclusive.
Sojourner
Thanks for the belly laugh!! You’re still pissing and moaning over a blow job while our soldiers are dying in Iraq. You dumb ass, the Bush administration was trying to intimidate their challengers into silence to grease the wheels for the war. That’s what the Plame outing was all about.
Number of people who died because of Clinton’s lie about a blow job: 0
Number of Americans who have died because of the Bush administration’s fight against their critics: more than 1750
I’ll take Clinton’s lie over the blood flowing because of your beloved adminstration. I’m sure the Bushies appreciate your mindless support for their immoral and illegal activities.
Congratulations, butthead.
Bruce Moomaw
Relax, everyone — Hugh Hewitt and Powerline are on the case! Even if Rove actually did spill the identity of a covert CIA agent to try and discredit a diplomat who had evidence that the White House was trying to trump up a war, it was vastly less serious than Clinton’s lies about his affair — and, besides, the Niger Yellowcake Memos were really true after all. Also, it’s unpatriotic to mention any of this so soon after the London bombings. (And also, Fox And Friends” thinks the whole controversy is hilarious, since Rove only referred to her as “Joe Wilson’s wife” and never actually MENTIONED HER NAME.) See
Vladi G
With respoect to the more pertinent question, i.e. Fitzgerald’s determination. He may have determined that she was covert, but that doesn’t make her covert.
I won’t argue with that. My point is that from the evidence on both sides, it would appear that much of what Darrell believes is crap. Call me crazy, but if it was so obvious that she wasn’t covert from a WP column, I’m thinking that we would no longer be headed down that path. What I’m saying is that if it was really such common knowledge that she wasn’t covert, the investigation would not have lasted this long. This isn’t like proving mens rea. Proving she was NOT covert should be really easy. You just find a couple of people who are in no position to know that she’s covert (i.e., without clearance) to know that she was CIA. The fact that we haven’t reached that point is pretty good evidence that SOMEONE was trying to keep it a secret.
Now, does that a mean a jury will find that she was covert? Not necessarily. Is it possible that a jury would find that she wasn’t covert? Sure. But if it was as obvious as Darrell really, truly wants to believe, we wouldn’t be where we are right now.
But it is possible that…he has determined that she wasn’t covert and is investigated ancillary matters (perjury, lying to feds.)
This is true. And if it is, then all of the “what’s the big deal” about her covert status from the right is irrelevant.
Vladi G
You just find a couple of people who are in no position to know that she’s covert (i.e., without clearance) to know that she was CIA.
That should read “…to testify that they knew that she was CIA”.
Vladi G
You just find a couple of people who are in no position to know that she’s covert (i.e., without clearance) to know that she was CIA.
That should read “…to testify that they knew that she was CIA”.
Jon Black
If she wasn’t covert than the scandal disappears. No national security concern, no signifigant risk to American assets. People won’t be pleased but the issue will disappear.
Now a perjury or lying to the feds charge against Rove would certainly make for a big mess. A charge against Libby will have almost no signifigant effect.
Most importantly though, an “honesty” charge is something the White House can sustain. First, aside from the irony, unless its perjury related to outing a covert operative, it won’t get moderates and repubs pissed, at least not in huge numbers. Moreover, I think if it is a honesty charge, there is already a pretty expansive playbook on how to whether that. Remember also that such a charge won’t be related to the outing (under this assumption) and it won’t be leveled against the president.
Finally, like the previous President, Bush has the best weapon in the world, his enemies. If the New York Times is actually going to come out and call for Rove’s resignation, while thier own reporter is in jail for violating a court order, the whole thing gets spun as a political witch hunt. I can’t imagine the NYT is that stupid, but I suspect by tomorrow I won’t have to.
Jon Black
Preview is my friend, sorry for the misspellings.
Darrell
Glad to be quoted from you lowlifes. Tell me Vladi you lying piece of shit, since you’re already lying your ass off claiming that I ever f*cking said “there is no question” (I NEVER said it, you’re quote is a lie) share with us your insightful, and ever so honest explanation as to why: if Valerie Plame was an undercover agent, she would have ever allowed her husband to use her ‘cover name’ in his “Who’s who” listing? And why in the hell she purposefully listed her employer as the CIA in her financial contribution to Al Gore? Why did if she was undercover did she let her lying ass husband go on 30+ f*cking talk shows spreading what she KNEW to be LIES? Is that the behavior of a covert undercover agent? Why in the f*ck would she have done that if she was an undercover secret agent? Can you lying dishonest pieces of sh*t answer that?
Mr Furious
Ah, Darrell, sorry to pull the rug out since you tried to get so much mileage out of it…
It doesn’t matter whether Wilson’s a dick, Plame was really covert at the time, whether Rove knew or used her name…
I actually intended for the “whether” to apply to the Plame part of that sentence as well as the Wilson part. My sentence structure was a bit sloppy. In other words: “It doesn’t matter whether Wilson’s a dick, whether Plame was really covert at the time, or whether Rove knew or used her name.”
Just to set the record straight, I never meant definitively that she was covert, I was just pointing out that it didn’t matter one way or the other. Rove lied to or withheld info from the President
Sojourner
It warms my heart to read Darrell’s eloquent response. The strength of his argument can be measured by the number of times he calls someone a lying piece of shit.
Vladi G
First, she didn’t have a “cover name”. She has a name. A real one. She had a job at a front corporation called Brewster Jennings. As to your favorite piece of evidence, her contribution to Gore:
The company’s identity, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, became public because it appeared in Federal Election Commission records on a form filled out in 1999 by Valerie Plame, the case officer at the center of the controversy, when she contributed $1,000 to Al Gore’s presidential primary campaign.
After the name of the company was broadcast yesterday, administration officials confirmed that it was a CIA front. They said the obscure and possibly defunct firm was listed as Plame’s employer on her W-2 tax forms in 1999 when she was working undercover for the CIA.
She didn’t list her employer as CIA. She listed her employer as Brewster Jennings. That firm wasn’t outed as a CIA front until it was tied back to Plame who had already been outed.
Let me explain …real…slow…for…you…Darrell.
Plame lists Brewster Jennings as employer–> Plame is outed–> Plame is tied to Brewster Jennings, a firm who’s role as a front was secret UNTIL SUCH TIME AS PLAME WAS OUTED–> firm is outed by CIA when it can no longer be kept a secret.
And for God’s sake, her cover name was her freaking maiden name. It’s not like she went around with a super secret name. And the who’s who thing is about the dumbest thing you’ve come up with yet. Her identity as Wilson’s wife wasn’t a secret. It was her job that was secret, at least until it was outed by Novak.
Seriously, you’ve brought up the CIA “listing in the donation” thing about three times now, and it’s been wrong every time. Try using google sometime.
So now it’s your turn. I’ve provided a link saying she never listed her employer as CIA. You go ahead and find one, a real one (not some loser from the rant or some other wingnut site) that says on that disclosure it specifically said “C.I.A.” under employer. Good luck. Geez, even the wingnuts at Frontpagemag say “…when she donation $1,000 to Al Gore, she did so under her married name, also listing a private CIA front group as her
Darrell
Not “defintively”??
Mr. Furious wrote:
It doesn’t matter whether Wilson’s a dick, Plame was really covert at the time
Plame “really was covert” at the time? Yet you never meant ‘definitively’ that she was covert, right? Ya know, that’s what bothers me most about you lefties… by and large, most you really and truly are lying scumbags who have no honor and who really are dishonest as hell. This quote from Mr. Furious is but one of a loong list of examples. It’s who you lowlifes really are deep down inside
Vladi G
Ya know, that’s what bothers me most about you lefties… by and large, most you really and truly are lying scumbags who have no honor and who really are dishonest as hell.
Hilarious. This from the guy who has lied about what employer Plame listed on her donation to Gore. You really are a parody, Darrell.
Sojourner
Coming from you, Darrell, that’s a compliment.
Darrell
First of all you piece of shit, are you honest enough to admit I NEVER said or inferred “there is no question” that Valerie Plame was never a covert agent? Are you man enough to admit that?
It was common knowledge in Washington that Valerie P. was both Joseph Wilson’s wife, and worked for the CIA. Nothing but lies from Vladi claiming it was all a ‘big secret’ until the evil Republican kingpin Karl Rove.
I will concede that it appears, too late for me to do serious googling research, but it appears you are correct that Plame contributed under a CIA front, not specifically the ‘CIA’ as I had previously understood. You may be correct on that point and I stand corrected
However, what still stands true, is that Valerie Plame’s name (allegedly her cover name) was used on her husband’s “Who’s who” listing.. also, it still stands very true that her husband went public with known lies, flamethrowing editorial on the NYT + 30 odd appearances on talk show to smear the administration with lies.. not the sort of thing a real live undercover agent would permit.
Again, I may stand corrected on the Gore campaign contribution. But it appears her cover name appeared in both Wilson’s ‘who’s who’ listing and and in Wilson’s bio at the Saudi-funded Middle East Institute.. not to mention the bizarre PR jihad from her husband are absolutely the truth. Doesn’t appear her ‘secret’ agent identity was any secret at all based on this evidence
Vladi G
No. Mostly because I said:
Idiots like Darrell seem to think that there is no question.
I realize you’re not bright enough to realize that the above is a generalization, not a direct quote. But if you think real hard, you might figure it out.
No. I am correct, and you’re a liar. Many times over.
Find one link from anyone, anywhere, dated prior to fall 2002 that mentions Plame was CIA. I’ll wait. And I don’t mean right wing hacks saying it was common knowledge after the fact. I mean an honest to goodness link prior to fall ’02. Don’t bother, because you won’t find it. You know why? Because it’s bullshit. She made her connection to Brewster Jennings public at least as early as ’99, if not before, but no one put 2 and 2 together until after she was outed. Ask yourself why.
You continue to misunderstand this, but that’s because, as we’ve established, you’re a moron. She’s listed as his wife. It’s a who’s who list in which he appears (see, he was kinda well known). She DIDN’T HAVE A COVER NAME!! SHE USED HER REAL NAME! See, many women use their maiden name. Now say it with me – IT DOESN’T MATTER THAT PEOPLE KNEW WHO SHE WAS. IT MATTERS THAT PEOPLE DIDN’T KNOW WHAT SHE DID!! Of course, until traitor Novak outed her.
If you were any dumber, you’d be eating dirt. For the millionth time, liar, she didn’t have a secret identity. She had a secret job.
JG
This is classic.
Vladi G
Tom Tomorrow explains for people as dumb as Darrell, a group which apparently includes Fox’s John Gibson. No word yet if Gibson’s as big a liar as Darrell. Stay tuned.
AlanDownunder
From somewhere in the left blogisphere I see the theory that Plame and many others within the CIA might have been appalled at the DSM-described “fixing” of their intelligence by Pentagon, State and White House, at the likes of Bolton & Cheney visiting them etc, and that Wilson’s trip, whilst an overt response to Cheney’s request for Niger dirt, was an effort to stem the “fixing”.
Take that as patriotism or treachery according to your inclination, but either way what on earth has it to do with blowing Plame’s cover? Whatever you think of the Wilsons, the security breach was inexcusable — as the ample record of parsed misdirection and cover-up lying ever since tacitly admits.
p.lukasiak
I am not going to defend Darrell, that his job. There does appear to be some evidence that Plame was known to be CIA around Washington. I have no idea if it’s true, nor I would imagine, does Darrell, nor do you.
It may well have been “common knowledge” among White House insiders, because Walter Pincus has made it clear that Wilson’s relationship with Plame was used to discredit his report after he returned…
On July 12, 2003, an administration official, who was talking to me confidentially about a matter involving alleged Iraqi nuclear activities, veered off the precise matter we were discussing and told me that the White House had not paid attention to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson
Mr Furious
Darrell, pull your head out of your ass and read what I wrote. In the original post and in my follow-up above. The “whether” applies to Plame’s covert status.
It might not have been perfectly clear in my original post, but it was crystal fucking clear in my follow-up. Even in bold-face.
Your nitpicking of my language is all you have on me so I can understand why you hold onto it, but the fact is you are wrong. And in classic fashion (just like the White house) you lash out with invective rather than actually understand anything. Offense and distraction is your only defense.
Her status is, and always was, irrelevent to every point I’ve been making, whether that was perfectly clear or not. So is any criminal action or prosecution of Rove. Bush called for complete candor and cooperation from his staff, Rove failed that test, he deserves to lose his job. It’s about the cover-up, not the crime.
You’re clearly a hothead and a dick, and I am done wasting my time trying to convince you of anything, I just want to get the record straight for anyone else who is reading your bullshit.
Darrell
Mr.F, whether or not Plame is, or is not, a covert agent, is at the very crux of this matter. As to whether the cover of an undercover agent was blown or not.
Judging by everything I’ve seen, she is either not covert (most likely scenario), or she is wildly irresponsible and careless with her ‘secret’ identity. She reminds me of that Simpson episode where Homer wears a shirt WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM. Someone should check Plame’s wardrobe closet to see how many shirts she has which say CIA SECRET AGENT
Bush said he wanted to know if there were any leaks, and would fire people, if anything ILLEGAL took place. That is the quote I read.. unless you have something more, it looks like you have no basis to demand that Rove be fired as I see nothing illegal (and so far, nothing unethical either).
Mr Furious
Darrell-
I’m glad the distinction seems clear now. I was never talking about the criminal aspects, just whether or not Rove, for his part in all of this, deserves to keep his job. I say “no” you (and the President?) say “yes.”
Fair enough. I prefer to think of this as extremely unethical, and unbecoming of a top Administration official, you are obviously willing to excuse any behavior short of a felony. We’ll see where Mr. “Restore Integrity to the White House” ends up coming down on this…
Darrell
Whoa there flicka.. If it was in fact *widely known* that Plame worked for the CIA, as seems to be the case. And that she really was just a desk jockey analyst, not an undercover agent.. then how in the hell do you conclude that mention of her name by anyone in the administration (which is still very much in doubt) is “extremely unethical”??
Answer: Because you are so damn dishonest, even though the jury is out on much pertinent data, you are willing IN ADVANCE, to smear without basis
What in the hell is so damn unethical about it if *everyone* knew she was CIA already, and if she was only a desk jockey analyst? Please take us through your ‘logic’ here. I want everyone to see how you dishonest kooks really think
Vladi G
Answer: Because you are so damn dishonest, even though the jury is out on much pertinent data, you are willing IN ADVANCE, to smear without basis
A proven liar calling someone else dishonest. That’s really funny.
Darrell
Interview with her husband J. Wilson:
Mr. WILSON: Well, you know, what was left out of my interview with Andrea Mitchell was–was my comment that I would not answer any specific questions about my wife. But hypothetically speaking, as others have reported, including TODAY, it would be–it would be damaging not just to her career, since she’s been married to me, but since they mentioned her by her maiden name, to her entire career.
Wilson claims that Plame’s maiden name WAS her cover name. So if her ‘cover’ name was used on Wilson’s now removed bio and his ‘who’s who’ listing, that would amount to a public outing of a covert CIA agent. And Rove is supposed to be the guilty one here?
Oh my lefties, what a tangled web you weave when you show everyone what lying scumbags you truly are
Mr Furious
Yes Darrell, and she wore glasses at work that completetly disguised her identity just like Clark Kent.
Jackass. She is a real person, with a real name, and (oh my) even a real husband and a personal life. Her job at the CIA (at one time or another) was secret. Even if she was no longer overseas or covert, she was at one time. Exposing her exposes her contacts, her cover, other agents employed by the same CIA cover operation, and a whole host of other issues.
Since her specialty (even in non-covert role) was to prevent proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, it was extrememly irresponsble on top of unethical. Shouldn’t that be treated as more important than short-term political retaliation?
Not to these fucking jokers in the White House. And not to an idiot like you, who is only looking to score points in a stupid debate in a blog.
Fuck off, I’m done with you.
Sojourner
Darrell:
Put up or shut up. Provide some proof that her true employer was widely known.
Otherwise, shut the fuck up.
Darrell
Evidence/links that she “was at one time” a covert agent? Or did you lie you ass off about that too?
Vladi G
Wow. Darrell may very well be the stupidest person on the face of the earth.
Sojourner
Put up or shut up.
Darrell
If Valerie Plame was in fact her undercover name as claimed by her husband, then this clearly would constitute an outing of a CIA operative. Like I said, so many of you lefties have no honor
Sojourner
And where does it say that Valerie Plame works for the CIA?
Mr Furious
Ignore Darrell, and maybe he’ll go home.
Vladi G
No. It wouldn’t. And once again, you are caught either lying, or displaying the intellect of a three year old.
Again, the fact that she existed, and that she was Wilson’s wife, was not a secret. The fact that she worked for Brewster Jennings was not a secret. The fact that B-J was a CIA front WAS a secret.
Are you really this stupid? No, seriously, are you really this fucking stupid?