Article

2005-07-15 Home Front: Politix

Judith Miller Revealed Plame's CIA Position

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2005-07-15 00:00|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [11132 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 BTW -- Wilson admitted to Wolf Blitzed that his Plame was NOT covert at the time of the Novak story.

Rove broke no laws. The story here is, once more, a press more interested in marching to the Democrat's orders than in getting to the truth.

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-07-14 22:32|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-07-14 22:32|| Front Page Top

#2 Meh.

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2005-07-14 22:58|| 2005-07-14 22:58|| Front Page Top

#3 That seems mightily constructed, sorry.

1) Judith Miller can't be sent to jail because she refuses to hand over notes that incriminate herself.

2) If I understand well there were TWO senior WH officials who are alleged to have revealed Plame's idenity to reporters.

3) If you really want to assume that Wilson revealed that his wife was CIA, would he also reveal that she was working under her maiden name? Btw Wilson could just have said that someone high up at the CIA told him that Cheney had indeed read the report. That's plausible because the CIA sent Wilson, so why wouldn't they tell Wilson: Hey your report was sent to Cheney (who had requested it from the CIA).

4) Why was Plame considered "fair game"? What had she done to deserve this? Even if she "suggested" her husband, Wilson was not an absurd choice. He was ambassador in Iraq and in West African states, he was (then) highly respected by the previous Bush administration and BEFORE the Plame outing broke he seemed not to have been hostile to the WH. His Niger travels might not have been very successful but if I remember well he did expose some yellowcake documents as forgeries.

I'm sorry, it's a very muddy affair but just watching Scott McClellan tells me that something is not right. And Rove did say that he was not involved in this at all. Now he apparently is, even if this might not meet the criminal requirements.

I also don't believe that Miller would go to jail over Wilson.

I also don't believe that a CIA desk analyst can send her husband on missions.

And if someone at the CIA works on WMD proliferation I would go the extra mile to make sure that talking about her is ok. Even if I heard about her from a journalist first. There was no reason to dismiss Wilson's report by outing his wife. If Wilson did a poor job, this was not because his wife suggested him.

Oh and I definitely want to hear more about Novak and why he isn't in jail. This can only mean that he did in fact reveal his sources.

And yes I really would love to hear Old Spook's opinion on this.

Posted by True German Ally 2005-07-14 23:08|| 2005-07-14 23:08|| Front Page Top

#4 TGA - You must be hearing your info from some seriously slanted sources. This is merely the latest Dhimmidonk game to personally wound Bush. There is no there there. The law wasn't broken, Rove had issued a blanket waiver, Wilson and Plame were the worst kept "secret" on the Washington "B" list - jokes about her being a secret agent abounded, she had become an analyst in 1997 - in from the field. drove her own car registered in her name with a spiffy CIA parking decal to work at Langley every day, Wilson lied through his ass about Cheney, about Niger, about his wifey suggesting him for the trip, about everything, in fact.

There is another article today about the 10 worst Joe Wilson lies or similar. Check it out - it's the truth. This MSM / Dhimmi attack is pure politics.

Posted by .com 2005-07-14 23:27|| 2005-07-14 23:27|| Front Page Top

#5 That's a bad typo in the headline. I read it as "Judith Miller Revealed [the late Olaf] Palme's CIA Position".

Posted by Eric Jablow">Eric Jablow 2005-07-14 23:33|| 2005-07-14 23:33|| Front Page Top

#6 .com, you know that I'm not an easy victim of slanted press coverage.

Yes I have serious doubts about Wilson's integrity. And yes, it's possible that the law was not broken when Plame's identity was leaked.

But it should not have been leaked. A WH official should not have talked about this. Even if Rove first heard about Wilson's wife being CIA he should have stayed mum on that. Journalists often don't feel responsibility, an important WH member must think about everything he says.

Rove said he wasn't involved in the Plame affair at all. If he wasn't, a short statement that he didn't talk about Wilson's wife being CIA to reporters would be all that's needed. He doesn't do that.

And sorry, Scott McClellan would rather brief the Martians right now than the WH press corps.

You know my position on most things. But something simply smells here.

Posted by True German Ally 2005-07-14 23:38|| 2005-07-14 23:38|| Front Page Top

#7 If I understand well there were TWO senior WH officials who are alleged to have revealed Plame's idenity to reporters.

One has made it clear he got her name from a reporter.

If you really want to assume that Wilson revealed that his wife was CIA, would he also reveal that she was working under her maiden name?

His entry in "Who's Who" listed his wife's name, as Valerie Plame. Anyone knowing that "Wilson's wife works at CIA" and looking into this book -- available in most libraries -- would have her name.

Why was Plame considered "fair game"?

I don't know that she was. Remember that it turned out -- despite Wilson's protests to the contrary -- that she did, in fact, arrange for him to make the trip to Niger.

His Niger travels might not have been very successful but if I remember well he did expose some yellowcake documents as forgeries.

That's what he claimed to the press. The Senate Select Intelligence Committee debunked it, stating that during his testimony Wilson said he "misspoke" when making that claim.

Contrast this with Sandy Berger -- he stole and destroyed classified documents. The press couldn't drop that story fast enough, despite there being a real and obvious crime. Or the illegal release of Linda Tripp's personnel file -- again, dropped and ignored. This is purely partisan.

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-07-14 23:41|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-07-14 23:41|| Front Page Top

#8 and .com, if Plame's CIA identity was common knowledge in Washington, why is there an investigation at all. Why did the CIA request it. And why are reporters sent to jail over laws not broken?

Why would Novak need two senior WH officials to confirm Plame's CIA activity if she was the joke of the town?

Was it really "cocktail party knowledge" that Wilson's wife one worked NOC under her maiden name?
(OK the last point is somewhat fishy because who would work NOC under a real maiden name?)

I'll wait for the findings. If you're right, the better.

Posted by True German Ally 2005-07-14 23:46|| 2005-07-14 23:46|| Front Page Top

#9 RC

You might find out about a maiden name in a library but NOT that this person used her maiden name when working covertly.

Getting the name from a reporter is irrelevant. Reporters can feed you rumors, but you don't comment on them. I understand the legal technicalities but you DONT CONFIRM things you hear about CIA people from reporters without thinking hard and checking back with the CIA.

Posted by True German Ally 2005-07-14 23:50|| 2005-07-14 23:50|| Front Page Top

#10 The CIA is rife with political partisans. Scheurer ring a bell? Bet your bottom dollar that it was a few of these who thought Wilson would make a great "envoy" to check out Niger.

What about all of his proven lies?

The law is clear - she was no longer NOC because she had been back stateside since 1997 (5 yrs in-country is the key) and had become an desk-bound analyst.

Bush appointed the Special Prosecutor because anything less would have really caused a stink. The guy has full subpeona power, too - why hasn't he jumped Rove? Because Rove has been above-board with him from Day One. Rove merely cautioned the Time reporter not to buy into Wilson's BS pronouncements. Just his claim that Cheney had been somehow involved in selecting him was more than enough for Rove to say to the reporter - careful, don't buy into Wilson's statements as we know some are lies.

Posted by .com 2005-07-14 23:54|| 2005-07-14 23:54|| Front Page Top

#11 I am pretty sure there is a leaker and it's not Rove. From what I have read Rove only verified information a reporter already had. He didn't give her up and may in reality not known she worked at the CIA "undercover."

I am wondering if Rove has or even has need of a top secret clearance? He is a political operative and really has little need of such a clearance.

One thing is for sure, if a certain male senator from New York is denouncing Rove, there is no there, there. It's pure political bullshit the Dems and their fellow Marxists in the MSM are trying to pull.

Posted by Sock Puppet 0â Doom 2005-07-14 23:57|| 2005-07-14 23:57|| Front Page Top

#12 TGA: one issue is that the Special Counsel can't nail Miller at a grand jury for what she might have done / said, as she can always invoke her right against self-incrimination (5th Amendment). What he can nail her for (now) is refusing to cooperate and invoking an invalid press privilege.

If it were an issue of incriminating herself, she'd be at home tonight, at least until the grand jury issued an indictment.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2005-07-14 23:59|| 2005-07-14 23:59|| Front Page Top

#13 I'll say it again: there is no way, no way, a New York Times reporter goes to jail to protect Karl Rove. It doesn't happen in this universe.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2005-07-15 00:08|| 2005-07-15 00:08|| Front Page Top

#14 OK, it's a complicated matter, so let's see.

If Plame did not fall under the protection of the law applied here there would be no investigation. No law broken, no Counsel. I don't think Fitzgerald needed a year to find that out.

Obviously Plame did enjoy the protection of that law. She might not work covertly anymore, but she did in the past. Even ten years later an outing might endanger people she once had contact with abroad. If she worked on WMD proliferation issues, that is serious. Let's say she met people in a dictatorial state and now her name's splashed all over, that can't be good for the contacts she once entertained.

I would expect from anyone working in the White House to be deadly silent on any CIA operative. Even more on someone concerned with WMD

There was no need to bring her into play. Whether Plame had anything to to with Wilson being sent to Niger is irrelevant to the quality of Wilson's finding. Wilson didn't lack the qualifications and after all he wasn't sent on a pleasure trip to Paris to question the girls at the Moulin Rouge.

Whether Rove was the source or someone else, I don't know. But the real source should not work in the White House anymore.

I just think that there's more to the story than we know. It may very well be a conflict between parts of the CIA and Cheney's intelligence team that has turned ugly.

How important is Plame? What exactly did she do in 2002? Of course we'll probably never know.

Posted by True German Ally 2005-07-15 00:35|| 2005-07-15 00:35|| Front Page Top

#15 Hi TGA! You wrote:

And yes I really would love to hear Old Spook's opinion on this.

Well, this is what he wrote earlier today; I'm guessing he won't mind if I copy-and-paste his comments from here:

Let me rephrase - that is a redacted version - Joe Wilson implies (as you can see) that Cheney sent him - and his public comments subsequent to the NYT article show him making those claims: Cheney sent him to the CIA, the CIA wanted him there, etc etc.

This stuff is OLD, and Joe Wilson has been outed on every bit of that article as being a liar. Check the report for the Senate investigation.

The facts are out there if you check into them. And they support Wilsom being a liar, and his wife just being a desk bound agent after Alrich Ames blew her cover back in *1997*. She was NOT a covert. This is the Old-Boy network at the CIA at work: trying to cast the blame for the results of of poor management and fieldcraft on someone else - in this case trying to blame a "leaker" for sooomethign that was not a leak to begin with.

It can hardly be a leak if the info was not classified to begin with.

Its akin to trying to prosecute someone for leaking a US Army Field Manual that they bought off ebay which turned out to be UNCLASSIFIED.

The special counsel is trying his damnest to dig up something to justify his office's continued existence, in hopes of becoming a special prosecutor, not just a counsel.

Sadly for him, and for the left, there simply is no "there" there for them.

The ONLY reason this is a headline event is that the openly partisan press has decided to help thier side by trying to make something of nothing, in order to try to weaken the Republicans before the supreme court noiminations come up.

They are that desperate - and that out of touch, and that bought in by a pack of lies. Just look back to the Dan Rather forged memo if you want to see the truth of thier inability to handle the truth when it doesnt fit their warped views.

Its sad - the "4th branch" of the US has become corrupt and partisan.

Its pretty sad how the more Democrat/left the press has become, the further it leaves behind facts, reason, honesty and fairness, and how much more it relies on lies, rumors, innuendo, smearing, and sensationalism.

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-07-15 00:49|| http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com]">[http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2005-07-15 00:49|| Front Page Top

#16 The story here is that not only is the Old Grey Lady's slip is showing, she's been caught with the left with her panties on her ankles.

Judith Miller knew that Plame was CIA and she apparently used herself as a 'source.' Miller, it appears was one of the two 'sources.'

Posted by badanov 2005-07-15 00:53|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org] 2005-07-15 00:53|| Front Page Top

#17 Obviously Plame did enjoy the protection of that law. She might not work covertly anymore, but she did in the past. Even ten years later an outing might endanger people she once had contact with abroad.

I believe the law covers up to five years after an out-of-country covert assignment.

Posted by Pappy 2005-07-15 00:54|| 2005-07-15 00:54|| Front Page Top

#18 Some interesting thoughts from Old Spook, thanks Phil, I missed that posting somehow.

If I understand it right it is just a speculation that Ames blew Plame's cover. Even if it were so that doesn't mean that it became "common knowledge" in DC. It simply means that Plame couldn't work undercover anymore. Ames' "unmasking" would still have to rate as classified info.

I also remember to have read that Wilson did not claim that Cheney sent him, only that Cheney requested the CIA to send someone, which turned out to be him, whether as a "suggestion" of his wife or not. But if Plame was just another blonde desk clerk, her contribution would have been rather irrelevant. Her "suggestion" does not disqualify Wilson's finding, so why bring it up? And wasn't that just a speculation anyway?

When and why did Wilson turn into such a big liar? He used to be a very respected man by the former Bush administration. He also can't have been a friend of Saddam, given his history. Why would he start such a crusade against the White House. Wilson could not confirm the yellowcake story in Niger (which doesn't mean it was untrue). So why did he make such a big deal about it?

Also, which role did Judith Miller play? She did in fact write a lot about Iraq's WMDs. She did buy into a lot of things Chalabi said that were unsubstantiated. Why would she "protect" Wilson, who, if he was on a anti-WMD crusade, must have hated Miller? It may not be Rove she's protecting, but who is worth months in jail?

I continue to believe that it was uncalled for any WH official, if there was one, to bring up Plame, even if only to confirm things heard from journalists, if we chose to believe that.

Rove told Chris Matthews that Ambassador Wilsonâs wife and her undercover status were âfair game.â

I'm sorry, this is not right.

Posted by True German Ally 2005-07-15 01:23|| 2005-07-15 01:23|| Front Page Top

#19 Did you check out the article from yesterday?

Indeed, Pappy's right, the law covers an agent for 5 years - or if still covert. It was crafted very narrowly with the Phillip Agee book in mind. The press is amply protected - agents are somewhat protected. The instant she began working at Langley - she was "blown".

As for Wilson's duplicity - do we have to prove he's a raving Moonbat, or will his actions suffice?

Read the link given above. In Wilson's own words he puts to rest almost everything you've brought up. He's a bona-fide liar and BDS sufferer - along with his wifey thingy. I think they BOTH deserve to end up in jail for their shenanigans. Unfortunately, just being a seditious asshole who lies through his teeth isn't sufficient. People of that persuasion run the Dhimmidonk Party, today.

Posted by .com 2005-07-15 01:40|| 2005-07-15 01:40|| Front Page Top

#20 OK I'm just reading the NYT story, which goes:

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."

The previously undisclosed telephone conversation, which took place on July 8, 2003, was initiated by Mr. Novak, the person who has been briefed on the matter said.

That DOES change things. So who really was Novak's source? He obviously did tell the Counsel who it was or he'd be in jail like Miller.

Whoever was the original leaker, this could get interesting.

Posted by True German Ally 2005-07-15 01:45|| 2005-07-15 01:45|| Front Page Top

#21 Where did the "fair game" statement come from?

(See y'all tomorrow, TGA; it's 1am here).

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-07-15 01:51|| http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com]">[http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2005-07-15 01:51|| Front Page Top

#22 TGA you should let go of it. You obviously haven't been following the story and are raising issues that have already been settled.

Wilson is a liar. He repeatedly lied about his being on a mission for Cheney, he lied about his not having been selected by his wife, and he lied in the NYT about the yellow-cake connection with Iraq. Rove merely told Cooper that he should not believe Wilson's lies. Plame was fair game because she was helping Wilson spread his lies.

There is no there, there. Nada. Just leftist BS. Miller is in jail because she is most likely covering up for the only person who's known to have been lying and leaking confidential information in this silly affair: Wilson, the Kerry man who announced that he would do *anything* to destroy the Bush administration, and lied in public about a confidential CIA report.

Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-07-15 01:58|| 2005-07-15 01:58|| Front Page Top

#23 Let's see....Rathergate....could it be Millergate?

No wonder the NY Slimes is covering this up. Judith got her hmm boob in a ringer over her pre-war articles in the lead up to the Iraq invasion. She was chastized by the Slimes for her pro-war WMD publications.

Posted by Captain America 2005-07-15 02:02|| 2005-07-15 02:02|| Front Page Top

#24 Let's ask it another way: Who would Judith Miller be willing to do time for to protect? It damn sure isn't Rove and I find it unlikely to be anyone else in the WH.

Posted by Classical_Liberal 2005-07-15 02:04|| 2005-07-15 02:04|| Front Page Top

#25 How devastating would it be for the MSM and NYT if it turned out that Wilson is the one who informed Miller?

Just asking.

Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-07-15 02:07|| 2005-07-15 02:07|| Front Page Top

#26 Kalle, an awful lot of assumptions you make...
It seems that Wilson became disgruntled with the administration because he went to Niger, believed to have found nothing that confirmed the yellowcake story and then had to learn that his report was either not read or discarded, and the President went about to mention the uranium story (which seemed to have been worded very vaguely).

When, in fact, no active nuclear program was found in Iraq, Wilson felt his time had come to "stick it to them".

That wouldn't be so unusual. Wilson did become a partisan hack after the State of the Union address. But was he when he went to Niger?

I think there is a good reason why Miller is in jail. And it's not because she's protecting Wilson.

I think it's a conflict between anti WMD intel people with the CIA and pro WMD intel people with the Pentagon/Cheney teams. And some people did get caught in the middle.

There is no evidence that Plame worked against the WH as you claim, that's pure speculation. And the mere fact that she might have suggested her husband to check out lovely Niger would only disqualify Wilson if he weren't qualified for the job. I can't say whether he failed his job or not, but his resume would qualify him. How many people could the CIA have chosen from to send to Niger. How many did have connections and expertise?

Posted by True German Ally 2005-07-15 02:25|| 2005-07-15 02:25|| Front Page Top

#27 The law was written in that CIA-bashing era, after the Church Committee had eviscerated the agency, and it was open season. It should be more protective, but it is what it is and the time it was written is the why.

The reason why this is such a Big Deal is that this is one of the fundamental Moonbat memes. The 16 words of the SOTU Address, the WMD's, "Bush Lied" - all of it wrapped up in this game - and Wilson was literally a God to the Lefties for this act of seditious conspiracy in league with his BDS Wifey and her BDS CIA Kool Aid co-conspirators.

All I can add that hasn't been covered by others is Go, Goss, Go!

Posted by .com 2005-07-15 02:30|| 2005-07-15 02:30|| Front Page Top

#28 Oops, overlapped.

Posted by .com 2005-07-15 02:31|| 2005-07-15 02:31|| Front Page Top

#29 I think you all are missing the nasty turn this story just took for the Democrats, or at least for Judith Miller. No wonder they have been in full-blown damage control and no wonder the watchers have been on this story like flies on a watermellon. It's starting to make sense to me now. And don't forget - the dems didn't understand the power they lost to the blogs when they started this mess.

Here's what we should all be focusing on - reread it and weep....
As the Washington Post put it, "On Dec. 3, 2001, Times reporter Judith Miller telephoned officials with the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, a Texas-based charity accused of being a front for Palestinian terrorists, and asked for a comment about what she said was the government's probable crackdown on the group. U.S. officials said this conversation and Miller's article on the subject in the Times on Dec. 4 increased the likelihood that the foundation destroyed or hid records before a hastily organized raid by agents that day."

Fitzgerald sought her phone records on that occasion to uncover the source of a potential leak in his own office and was blocked by a liberal New York judge named Robert Sweet. Miller didn't get so lucky this time. Fitzgerald thinks Miller has a loose tongue, and for good reason. It's possible he's trying to figure out what other mischief her loose tongue might have caused.

This story is just barely about Plame - it's about Judith Miller and it could be very big indeed!

Ask yourself this - if Judith Miller called the Holy Land Foundation and warned them - WHY? WHY would she do that??? And why would the Dem's give her a full blown damage control parade?

I think we just got a quick peep into Pandora's box.

Posted by 2b 2005-07-15 02:39|| 2005-07-15 02:39|| Front Page Top

#30 TGA, you're usually interesting but in this case you're becoming a bore.

It is absolutely false to state that: "[Wilson] went to Niger, believed to have found nothing that confirmed the yellowcake story... It has been firmly ESTABLISHED that Wilson did receive evidence while in Niger of Iraqi contacts to buy nuclear material. He LIED when he claimed that he had found not such evidence.

You're engaging in hypotheticals all based on Wilson's lies.

Check your premises.

Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-07-15 02:41|| 2005-07-15 02:41|| Front Page Top

#31 2b, you are right that the central problem is Miller. She's covering for someone and has already demonstrated that she is willing to help the enemy.

In view of all the evidence, Miss Marple would say that Plame's husband is the one who leaked all over DC. I can't see any other logical explanation. Miller was not informed by Rove, and the MSM are doing everything they can to hide who was the "mastermind" of the Wilson affair... ergo...

Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-07-15 02:46|| 2005-07-15 02:46|| Front Page Top

#32 this whole Plame thing seems like shiney keys to me, by all accounts, she's not even covert and apparently had a Langley sticker on her car.

So if it is shiney keys - what are they distracting us from. Maybe, I'm over reacting, but I've got a feeling this goes deeper than Judith Miller and Plame is only a back door entry to get Miller's notes.

Posted by 2b 2005-07-15 02:52|| 2005-07-15 02:52|| Front Page Top

#33 I have a strong suspicion that the administration knows who leaked this, and they know this is going to blow up right in the Democrats/MSM's faces. The whole way they are handling it seems, to me, in a manner to say as very little as possible to give the league of moonbats enough rope to seriously hang themselves.

And they are blindly desperate enough, as they have proven so many times now, to step right into Rove's snare.

Time will tell...

Posted by Mac Suirtain 2005-07-15 03:03|| 2005-07-15 03:03|| Front Page Top

#34 Yet another supremely devious Rovian Plot... Is there no end to his eeeeviiiil genius? Lol!

The desperation and frenzy is, indeed, apparent.

Popcorn, anyone?

Posted by .com 2005-07-15 03:08|| 2005-07-15 03:08|| Front Page Top

#35 This is a fun piece - check the date... "Who didn't know?", Lol!

Hat Tip to RC & Dr Steve - RC posted another article on this topic which is being ignored since all the fireworks are here, at the moment. Go read it. Good stuff.

Posted by .com 2005-07-15 03:31|| 2005-07-15 03:31|| Front Page Top

#36 Kalle, let's not call others a bore just because they do not always coincide with your opinion. I'm always willing to learn.

If I recall it right the "yellowcake story" was never "debunked" by Wilson, it was just felt that evidence was not strong enough to get the story included in the State of the Union address.

There is no evidence that Wilson, in 2002, withheld evidence and/or lied.

If you go back to a WaPo report you find this:

"Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was unaware of any sales contract with Iraq, but said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq -- which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to discuss yellowcake sales. A report CIA officials drafted after debriefing Wilson said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq."

According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998."

The WaPo misreads the Senate report here which states Iran, not Iraq.

That is not exactly what I would qualify as "clear evidence".

Wilson seems to have started to "lie" only later, after the State of the Union address.

I don't want to go to much into it but I have still found no reason why his wife should have been "outed" or, if you prefer, have her CIA id confirmed by WH officials.

But indeed, that may be a smokescreen for something bigger and may involve Judith Miller, her contacts, Chalabi....

But I guess I'm done now with speculations.

Posted by True German Ally 2005-07-15 03:33|| 2005-07-15 03:33|| Front Page Top

#37 This story is just barely about Plame - it's about Judith Miller and it could be very big indeed!

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! The only remaining question is whether we're near the end of this mess (if Miller is covering for Plame/Wilson) or if we're about to see it take off in whole new directions.

It's entirely possible that the grand jury is now investigating Miller's role in tipping off the Holy Land Foundation to Fitzgerald's forthcoming raid in preparation for bringing criminal charges against her. Or perhaps the administration is stringing it along because she'll be sprung from club fed as soon as the grand jury investigation ends and they just think she needs to spend a little time behind bars.

What I find interesting is that Miller goes to jail and almost immediately we have Wilson dropping the line that Plame wasn't a covert agent. This is a slam-dunk red flag signal that the investigation is getting close to something that some folks would prefer remain buried because the surest way to end the investigation (or at least politically discredit it) is to take any possibility of a crime having been committed off the table. If Plame isn't covert and hasn't been one for many years there is no possibility of a crime thus the grand jury should be disbanded and Fitzgerald be sent home.

If I were a betting man I'd wager a *lot* that Wilson and/or Plame are the original source(s) that "outed" Plame to the media. It makes perfect sense that Wilson would have exploited his wifeâs status to shore up his credentials with the press while making his case against the administration. And it makes no sense at all that the administration would have outed Plame, as there was no political gain whatsoever to be had by doing so.

This was nothing more than a pure political game from the get-go, the left kicked it off and, per usual, vastly overplayed their hand. Now they are trying desperately to bring it to a close before we find out how deep the rabbit hole really goes.

Posted by AzCat 2005-07-15 03:43|| 2005-07-15 03:43|| Front Page Top

#38 Lol, TGA - you have to admit it's fun, no? BTW, try that first link in my prior post... the date will surprise you, as will the content.

Grins & Regards...

Posted by .com 2005-07-15 03:45|| 2005-07-15 03:45|| Front Page Top

#39 .com
what would be interesting to know is when did Wilson become partisan. Is there anything from him BEFORE he went on the Niger trip?
Remember, he went in February 2002. The Iraq debate did only heat up later.

Posted by True German Ally 2005-07-15 04:11|| 2005-07-15 04:11|| Front Page Top

#40 Heh, I'm looking... so far it seems while he was employed, he kept his mouth shut. He was a "diplomat" until 1998, according to his absurdly self-aggrandizing website. When Bush won in 2000 - he was definitely unemployed. Motive enough? Hmmm... What if he had a guaranteed gig offered by the "Gore Administration" and, well, shit just didn't go his way? Lol!

I'll keep looking for something in that 1998 - 2002 time period and will post if I locate anything partisan or giving motive.

Posted by .com 2005-07-15 04:20|| 2005-07-15 04:20|| Front Page Top

#41 Hey, Dotcom and TGA, all you need to know about Wilson is that he was our last ambassador to Iraq before OIF (1991).
It was his boss--some woman whose name I forget, Wendy ?--who said the wrong thing to Saddam and the next thing everyone knew, Saddam was invading Kuwait because this woman had indicated that it might be OK with the U.S.!

When she got recalled for that, Joey Boy was stuck in Baghdad while we were bombing and kicking Saddam's ass.
I swear the man's been bitter about Presidents named Bush every since.

Posted by Jennie Taliaferro">Jennie Taliaferro 2005-07-15 06:15|| http://www.greatestjeneration.com]">[http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2005-07-15 06:15|| Front Page Top

#42 TGA,
Here are Joe Wilson's political contributions:
2000 Elections
It is skewed to the Dems ($4500 vs. $1500), where he gave $3000 to Gore and $1000 to Bush. The other Repub. is Ed Royce, Representative from California.

2002 and 2004 Elections
Here the political contributions are split $3750 ($2000 to Kerry) to Dems and $1000 to Repubs. Ed Royce (0 to Bush).

Valerie Wilson gave $1000 to Gore for the 2000 election. For the 2004 election, Valerie gave $372 to America Coming Together, the hard left umbrella organization funded by MoveOn, George Soros, Peter Lewis, Steve Bing.

So I would say both Joe and Valerie Wilson have been partisan all along, except to Ed Royce (friend?), though he did contribute to both presidential campaigns in 2000. It becomes stark when taken together with his comment "It Will Be A Cold Day In Hell Before I Vote For A Republican, Even For Dog Catcher."

Posted by ed 2005-07-15 07:10|| 2005-07-15 07:10|| Front Page Top

#43 The second link is hosed. Here is the corrected link: 2002 and 2004 Elections

Posted by ed 2005-07-15 07:13|| 2005-07-15 07:13|| Front Page Top

#44 Jennie,
You are referring to April Glaspie.

Posted by ed 2005-07-15 07:16|| 2005-07-15 07:16|| Front Page Top

#45 I see no benefit to Wilson/Plame outing Plame. At the very least it exposes themselves to nepotism charges when Plame recommended Wilson, political manipulation charges if one were more conspiratorial.

Posted by ed 2005-07-15 07:24|| 2005-07-15 07:24|| Front Page Top

#46 It is threads like this one that make Rantburg great. I thought I already had all the dots connected, but this thread turned many of those dots into solid lines. Thank you, everyone, for contributing to my education.
BTW, does anyone else have a problem with the "preview" button?

Posted by Whiskey Mike 2005-07-15 07:52|| 2005-07-15 07:52|| Front Page Top

#47 I see no benefit to Wilson/Plame outing Plame.

He didn't intend to. Hypothetical: Wilson's talking to a reporter, supposedly on background, reporter asks him, "Why would the CIA send you?" Wilson responds, "Well, I have experience in the area, and my wife is at the CIA as part of their WMD team." Wilson assumes that since it's "background", it'll never see the light of day.

Then Wilson writes his article, gets it published. His name's in public. Reporter he spoke to on background figures that once a source exposes itself, there's no need to maintain anonymity for them.

Bingo.

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-07-15 08:02|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-07-15 08:02|| Front Page Top

#48 WM - If you have pop-ups blocked - that can stop the Preview Window - just permit pop-ups for rantburg.com and it will work correctly. Fred switched over to opening a new window / tab for the Preview awhile back. Also, if there is one already open, it is just refreshed with the new content when you click Preview - so you may not notice one is already there. Got lots of browser windows / tabs going? Heh.

Posted by .com 2005-07-15 08:32|| 2005-07-15 08:32|| Front Page Top

#49 Another trail is that Plame is a source for MIller on WMD issues. Miller has to tell editors including Kristof who her source is to get unattributed material into the paper. Somebody is chating up Scooter Libby and slips up, mentioning something he thought Libby knew. I vote that the leak will end up being something related to that kind of momentary stupidity but that it has opened a pandoras box about something much nastier about which Judith Miller know much and we nothing.

TGA, you're never a bore, though some here are boors at times.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-07-15 08:40|| 2005-07-15 08:40|| Front Page Top

#50 Jennie - I didn't know he was there when the light show kicked off - lol! That's funny as hell!

ed - There's definitely some fire in his belly with those contributions - thx! I'll bet serious money he expected a Knighthood from Gore somewhere in the State Dept.

All I found, before I conked out, was more and more detailed summations of his lies and, of course, the Kos Kiddie-type sites with bulging eyeballs screeching BDS hate. He is truly a pivotal figure for the Moonbats. To see him go down in flames, utterly defamed and outted as a lying asshole, well, no wonder the BS level is so high in Moonbatia. Fug 'em.

Posted by .com 2005-07-15 08:46|| 2005-07-15 08:46|| Front Page Top

#51 Here is what we (should) mark as known:

1) Plame was in a covered position until 1997.

2) the law protects covert agents overseas for 5 years.

3) Somone let Plames identity as a CIA agent be known to a newspaper columnist, Robert Novak, who published the identity.

This is why there was a Special Counsel (NOT a Special Prosecutor - there is a BIG difference and peopel need to stop using the wrong terms) appointed by President Bush: there was a need to see if in fact the laws were broken by people in his administration.

Now here is the part people are not getting:

a) Plame's employement by the CIA was widely known - she was no longer in an overseas assignment, openly drove to and from the facility, and had a parking sticker on her car for the facility. De Facto: she was not and had not been a "covert" agent for some time.

b) Her husband openly talked about his wife working for the CIA. "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity", as well as many references made to her.

c) She was pulled back in 1997 due to the concern for her safety after being compromised by Aldrich Ames. (i.e. The CIA feared she was already "blown" in 1997, and treated her as such).

d) The Judith Miller angle on this case amounts to a possible "blood feud" by the Special Counsel for her blowing a federal investigation by tipping off the people being investigated before the FBI coudl seize them - and being protected by a (liberal) judge from having evidence against her gathered.

e) The emails in question say that cheney *confirms* informally that Wilson's wife "apparently" worked for the CIA: "Apparently" = no *knowledge*, and that he is hazarding a guess - its a very legalistic word parsing that means Cheney did not *know* that she was a CIA operative. Furthermore, he did not mention her name, married or maiden.

f) The law requires that the agent be "covert" (not the same as "covered" - they are diffeerent terms of art in the esponage business), that the person "outing" the agent know this, and that the outing was deliberate. And it had to occur within the 5 year timespan. You have to pass all 3 for a crime to be comitted.

You put all these factors together, there is simply no crime here, at least not by Karl Rove.

The only reason the partisan press is focused on Rove is that he has made the Democrats angry and the biased ones want to do anything they can to weaken Bush before the supreme court nomination battle to come.

The only possible criminal charges are probably aimed at Judith Miller (see *d* above), and those are only at the fringes of the law. Its highly unlikely there is enough to convict Miller or her source, except on very technical matters - ones that would likely not stand a "reasonable doubt" test in court.

As I said before, there is no "there" there. Nothing of substance from the *facts* that we have at hand. The only reason this is a news item is that the partisan political peopel in the press have made it so.

President Bush has done a good job with his "No Comments" line of action. Much like the whole "Rathergate" thing, he is giving the press enough rope to hang themselves, which they are surely doing right now:

The mask is off and much of the press is revealing itself to be not reporters of fact, but an operative wing of liberal politics. Their self evisceration (which is happening now) will help Bush when the nomination fight comes, because the general public will disregard anything these partisan hacks have to say.

Posted by OldSpook 2005-07-15 08:47|| 2005-07-15 08:47|| Front Page Top

#52 Re: #47 (Robert Crawford:
He didn't intend to. Hypothetical: Wilson's talking to a reporter, supposedly on background, reporter asks him, "Why would the CIA send you?"

I think the main question was rather, "How do you know that Cheney received your Niger report before President Bush's State of the Union Address?"

Wilson then answered that he, Wilson, knew because his own wife was in a position to know, because of her position as a WMD expert in the CIA.

The issue that Wilson had raised in his NYT article was that the Niger item should not have been in the State of the Union Address, because Cheney should have received Wilson's Niger report before the State of the Union Address was given.

Then the issue was that Cheney responded that he had never heard of Wilson or of his report. So, then Wilson and Plame told Miller that Cheney must have known, because Plame's position qualified her to authoritatively say so.

So then Miller started asking lots of administration officials about this, and so then a lot of such officials knew about it and a couple confirmed it to Novak and Cooper. But at that time the issue was: did Cheney know about Wilson's Niger report before the State of the Union Address?

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2005-07-15 08:51|| 2005-07-15 08:51|| Front Page Top

#53 The problem with your issues Mikey is that the report - as seen by the Senate Comittee that reviewd this - did not indicate nor support a complete denial of the yellow cake for sale to Iraq angle. It was inconclusive at best.

Do some research on it. Joe Wilson publicly mischaracterized (lied about) what he put in that report, and you are going into this based on a lie by Wilson. You might want to reconsider.

Want proof? Right from the horse's mouth: CIA Director George Tenet.

âBecause this report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking Uranium from abroad, it was given a normal and wide distribution, but we did not brief it to the President, Vice-President or other Senior Administration Officials.â (Central Intelligence Agency, âStatement By George J. Tenet, Director Of Central Intelligence,â Press Release, 7/11/03, emphasis added by me)

And referencing the question of the state of the union speech, you're wrong again as well, as the British investigation shows.

âWe conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Governmentâs dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bushâs State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: âThe British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.â was well-founded.â (The Rt. Hon. The Lord Butler Of Brockwell, âReview Of Intelligence, On Weapons Of Mass Destruction,â 7/14/04)

Posted by OldSpook 2005-07-15 09:14|| 2005-07-15 09:14|| Front Page Top

#54 How come this doesn't get brought up in the discussion more often? Anybody know more about Brewster Jennings? Is it the area where the real problem lies?

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-07-15 09:14|| 2005-07-15 09:14|| Front Page Top

#55 Correction for 2 posts back:

e) The emails in question say that ~~cheney~~ Rove ...

Posted by OldSpook 2005-07-15 09:17|| 2005-07-15 09:17|| Front Page Top

#56 ooh Mikey - ouch. Crashed and burned. haha.

Posted by 2b 2005-07-15 09:28|| 2005-07-15 09:28|| Front Page Top

#57 I've been waiting for someone to come out and say these things... and they finally did. This is way I was hinting about when we first discusees this - remember I said somethign about CIA ass covering? That was what the rumors were "inside" the walls.

Now its confirmed! (Thanks to powerline)

A former CIA covert agent who supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career yesterday took issue with her identification as an "undercover agent," saying that she worked for more than five years at the agency's headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee. "She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat," Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990, told The Washington Times.

"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."

AHA!

I told you guys so. Someone in CIA, when asked by the president's office if Plame was undercover, foudn the mistake, but rather than correct it, lied to the president's people about the ACTUAL status and gave them the "book" status. Trying to cover their ass that they forgot to change her status as required by agency regulations. And the CIA clammed up after this to avoid embarassement of having (once again) misinformed the President.

THIS is the "red meat" the press should be going after. Were the Whitehouse Press Corps doing their jobs as reporters of fact instead of political axe-grinding, *this* info would be in the headlines.

And I get to say "I told you so!".

I can hardly wait to see those partisan reporters (Moran the Moron especially) when this turns on them and really emphasizes that the reporters are not reporters anymore, and ALL of them deserve to be fired not only for bias, but for INCOMPETENCE.

Posted by OldSpook 2005-07-15 09:36|| 2005-07-15 09:36|| Front Page Top

#58 Moderators: please close my "em" tag just BEFORE the "AHA", and then delete this message.

I have to go to a meeting - I'll write more later.

Posted by OldSpook 2005-07-15 09:38|| 2005-07-15 09:38|| Front Page Top

#59 And Captain's Quarters has this nuggett, EFL:

Novak Told Rove About Plame

The New York Times now has a source within the grand jury proceedings in the Robert Fitzgerald investigation into the alleged leak of Valerie Plame's status as a CIA operative. The new article for tomorrow's edition by David Johnston and Richard Stevenson reveals that Karl Rove spoke with Robert Novak before he released his column -- but that Novak told Rove about Plame, including her name, and not the other way around:

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."

The previously undisclosed telephone conversation, which took place on July 8, 2003, was initiated by Mr. Novak, the person who has been briefed on the matter said.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-07-15 09:43|| 2005-07-15 09:43|| Front Page Top

#60 Re #53 (Old Spook)
Please explain what any of that has to do with anything I have written.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2005-07-15 09:48|| 2005-07-15 09:48|| Front Page Top

#61 It fits with other things we've heard that Novak would have told Rove.

As for her neighbors knowing - if we are talking 1997 - then her security clearances should show what her neighbors/friends knew or didn't know about her. Of course, a reporter worth their salt, could easily get that same information.

Posted by 2b 2005-07-15 09:51|| 2005-07-15 09:51|| Front Page Top

#62 The only thing I wrote yesterday is that it's not true that Wilson ever said or implied that he was sent to Niger by Cheney.

What I wrote here today is essentially only that the original issue was that Wilson did imply that Cheney should have had Wilson's Niger report before Bush mentioned Niger in his State of the Union Address. And that the events then evolved from that particular issue of what Cheney knew and when he knew it.

What you write about, Old Spook, has nothing at all to do with what I wrote about.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2005-07-15 09:54|| 2005-07-15 09:54|| Front Page Top

#63 whatever Mike...the discussion has moved beyond your natttering.

The agency never changed her cover status."
Doesn't the CIA do their own security clearances. Seems to me that it would be fairly easy to see if they screwed up by not changing her status. It's been more than 5 years since 1997 - so they would have had to do one in that time. And if the CIA failed to pick up that neighbor/friends/co-workers knew - they are equally screwed. And it's not like the CIA can go back and change anything, unless they want to eliminate the sources.

Either friends/co-workers/neighbors knew or they didn't know. All's anyone has to do is ask. But if friends/neighbors/co-workers did know in the last 5 years and the CIA didn't change her status, no amount of "clamming up" will change that fact.

Posted by 2b 2005-07-15 10:05|| 2005-07-15 10:05|| Front Page Top

#64 Clearance is not the same as cover status.

Posted by 98C7 2005-07-15 10:07|| 2005-07-15 10:07|| Front Page Top

#65 This whole story is so incredibly STUPID that I can't believe that it's up to #62 already.

Sending Wilson to Niger was a shot in the dark at best. All he could do is question untrustworthy sources and maybe, just maybe, raise a new lead or two.

His wife is neither James Bond nor P. Galore. Her identity would be no secret unattainable by a good reporter. Unfortunately, there may be no more good reporters in Washington, D.C. They all think they work for the tabloids now. Maybe they do.

Karl Rove is the clear media target here and I haven't seen ONE FACT that suggests that he should even get a slap on the wrist.

The President and his Press Secretary are refusing to join this sorry game and I'm glad of it.

The CIA clearly screwed up. Joe Wilson clearly screwed up. Joe Wilson's wife clearly screwed up. And any reporter that would go to jail rather that tell the truth to a grand jury clearly screwed up and can rot in jail for all I care.

Posted by Neutron Tom 2005-07-15 10:12|| 2005-07-15 10:12|| Front Page Top

#66 NT - the best part of this (as by others better than I) is that this whole thing might blow up again in the Donk's face, particularly Sen ~~Scumbag~~ Schumer

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-07-15 10:27|| 2005-07-15 10:27|| Front Page Top

#67 Clearance is not the same as cover status.

My point is that she would have had a clearance done since 1997 - by the CIA (I believe). The clearance would have turned up if it was common knowledge where she worked. If the CIA does their own clearances then they have no excuse for mislabeling her COVER STATUS.

Posted by 2b 2005-07-15 10:34|| 2005-07-15 10:34|| Front Page Top

#68 and my main point being that those are records that can be pulled and reviewed to see exactly whose behind is to blame. Not that we'll see them.

Besides, NT is right. It's already clear that the CIA screwed up.

Posted by 2b 2005-07-15 10:40|| 2005-07-15 10:40|| Front Page Top

#69 I think we need two quote clarifications here. First, some people STILL insist Wilson is talking about the infamous "16 words." And I think that Wilson thinks he is too. But the last word of those 16 was "Africa," not "Niger." The whole thing was stoopid from the get-go, but the administartion never really bothered to say, "Fine, not from Niger. But here's the evidence is was from elsewhere on the dark continent."

Second, that quote from CNN the other night by Wilson: "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity." This is being misinterpreted by nearly everyone. All he is saying here is that his wife was clandestine, until Novak outed her. He's not confessing she was not covert; he's saying Novak outed her.

Posted by growler 2005-07-15 10:40|| 2005-07-15 10:40|| Front Page Top

#70 he's saying Novak outed her. I agree, though I also believe it is possible that it was a carefully crafted comment - but who knows.

but that's kind of my point. It's very easy to see if that is a lie or not. All that a reporter has to do is go knock on the neighbors/friends/coworkers doors. Either they knew or they didn't. And the written proof will be in her security clearances as to whether they knew or not.

Posted by 2b 2005-07-15 10:47|| 2005-07-15 10:47|| Front Page Top

#71 And in the link Dr Steve provided in his inline comment in the other story on this topic, there is an embedded link to an NRO piece from Sept 2003 that utterly ridicules the notion that Novak outted her. I provided this embedded link in #35.

Posted by .com 2005-07-15 10:55|| 2005-07-15 10:55|| Front Page Top

#72 I agree it's clear that Novak didn't out her, but I do agree that the comment made by Wilson can be read either way you want it to read. I think it was intended to imply that Novak outed her, without actually saying it, cause he knows it's not true. More I think about it, I think it was a carefully crafted comment.

Posted by 2b 2005-07-15 10:59|| 2005-07-15 10:59|| Front Page Top

#73 I think you've zoomed in on it, 2b. Werdz are his "bidness", but he jumped the shark, i.e. outright lied, on so many other points that his craftiness on this point is lost in the noise. I'm sure, being the darling of the Moonbats and so precious to their cause, he will find succor on the idiot circuit for awhile, yet.

Go, Goss, Go! More! Faster! Lol!

Posted by .com 2005-07-15 11:05|| 2005-07-15 11:05|| Front Page Top

#74 I know everyone is probably getting ticked at my wasting bandwidth on this - but I think my point should not be overlooked. If we had a respectable media - all they would have to do is make a few phone calls to see who knew and when. Friends/neighbors/coworkers knew or they didn't know and they can tell you the answer to that question. Yes, I knew Valerie worked for the CIA. The CIA already knows the answer because they did her clearance in the last 5 years. It's written record, so people can't lie and tell a new tale.

Posted by 2b 2005-07-15 11:06|| 2005-07-15 11:06|| Front Page Top

#75 More importantly Mike, did he believe it? Or maybe, assuming he did see it, he read the whole report, and made a subjective judgement? Maybe he didn't slice-and-dice the "true meaning" to suit his own agenda?

Or, you could be right.

Posted by Bobby 2005-07-15 11:41|| 2005-07-15 11:41|| Front Page Top

#76 As another reminder, Tom Maguire continues to be on this story like a tick on a dog.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2005-07-15 12:28|| 2005-07-15 12:28|| Front Page Top

#77 Re: #75 (Bobby):
My speculation is that 1) Cheney never heard of Wilson or his report until after Wilson published his article in the NYT and 2) then Cheney inquired about Wilson and his report, and 3) that inquiry revealed to Cheney that Wilson's trip had been recommended by Plame. The latter information was then thrown into the stew that eventually sloshed all over the place, making this mess.

I'm sure that Cheney was then informed formally about Wilson's report. Whatever Cheney thought of it at that time is beyond my own speculation.

I do think, though, that later events showed that the Niger matter should not have been mentioned in the State of the Union Address. Bush and Tenet themselves have admitted that much.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2005-07-15 12:46|| 2005-07-15 12:46|| Front Page Top

#78 The following is lifted from The Note, ABC News's snarky daily political thingee:

Raise your hand if you are surprised that Bob Novak talked to Karl Rove about Valerie Plame before he wrote his original column.

(Note that neither 41 nor 42 are raising their hands.)

That shocking revelation behind us, ask yourself:

1. Who was the source for the New York Times and AP stories breaking the Novak/Rove news? (Seems pretty obvious to us, but we are too polite to say it aloud. . .)

2. What was the source's motivation for revealing the information now?

3. What would Ken Mehlman do without the "angry left"?

4. Who was the target audience for yesterday's Bush-Rove walk-and-talk photo op?

5. Did it work?

6. Will the Republican National Committee circulate today's breathtakingly fair Washington Post editorial on Joe Wilson's flawed record and the White House's past statements about Rove's potential involvement? (Or perhaps they will circulate only the parts of it they don't want us to miss?) LINK

7. Does the reporter who allegedly first told Karl Rove about Valerie Plame know who he or she is?

8. How does Karl Rove feel these days about Harry Reid's level of partisanship, as compared to how he felt about Tom Daschle's?

9. How much of today's blockbuster-if-it-weren't-in-a-tabloid New York Daily News must read story is accurate? LINK (Note the DeFrank gold standard co-byline. . .)

10. Who wrote (and edited) the latest very awesome Republican talking points defending Rove that address the Novak situation and much more?

So, when might the White House have an opportunity to address the latest news on Karl Rove's conversation with Novak?

The White House schedule doesn't include a gaggle or briefing, but it didn't yesterday either and McClellan gaggled on the plane. . . so stay tuned.

Posted by growler 2005-07-15 13:00|| 2005-07-15 13:00|| Front Page Top

#79 Latest speculation from David May is that Wilson is the leaker, based on the first mention in the press that Plame may have been covert. Seems like a good case, and if Wilson did the same verbal game with Miller, it would explain why she went to jail to protect him.

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-07-15 13:44|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-07-15 13:44|| Front Page Top

#80 Side long BS it's all Aruba. Who was on the Gassy Knoll?

/Lucky

Posted by Shipman 2005-07-15 15:59|| 2005-07-15 15:59|| Front Page Top

00:00 Sock Puppet 0â Doom
23:49 CrazyFool
23:44 Snineter Snert9343
23:44 CrazyFool
23:33 Barbara Skolaut
23:32 MunkarKat
23:30 Barbara Skolaut
23:30 JackAssFestival
23:22 Robert Crawford
23:15 whitecollar redneck
23:05 Frank G
23:02 Sock Puppet 0â Doom
22:59 mac
22:53 Sock Puppet 0â Doom
22:49 .com
22:42 xbalanke
22:40 JosephMendiola
22:36 JosephMendiola
22:36 Frank G
22:34 Frank G
22:33 Kalle (kafir forever)
22:32 Frank G
22:30 Frank G
22:27 JosephMendiola
Merry-Go-Blog