Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Did Rove Blow a Spook's Cover? The White House Won't Say (article from 2003)
Slate ^ | September 16, 2003 | Timothy Noah

Posted on 07/01/2005 8:45:26 PM PDT by YaYa123

A minor flap has been brewing since syndicated columnist Robert Novak, citing "two senior administration officials," reported in July that Joseph C. Wilson IV was married to a Central Intelligence Agency specialist on "weapons of mass destruction" named Valerie Plame.

Wilson is the former diplomat sent by the CIA last year to check out allegations that Iraq had purchased uranium from Niger. He caused the Bush administration no small embarrassment by stating, in a July 6 op-ed, that he'd reported "it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place." Novak hasn't particularly supported the Iraq war, and his column essentially took Wilson's side. But the fact that Novak blew Plame's cover (in the course of relating that Wilson was sent at Plame's suggestion) gave The Nation's David Corn the opportunity to accuse the Bush administration of compromising national security, in violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982.

(Excerpt) Read more at slate.msn.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: novak; plame; rove
I'm posting this old article because Drudge has put up the following headline;

"Lawrence O'Donnel on McLaughlin Group: 'I'm probably gonna get pulled into the grand jury for saying this, but it will be revealed in Cooper's notes that it is Karl Rove who leaked Plame's identity'... Developing..."

(McLaughlin is such a blowhard! He would have his viewers believe he's the first one to name Rove.)

This old Slate column (conveniently) fails to chide David Corn, or even mention, prosecuting someone for violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, requires proving intent. Neither Novak nor Rove had intent. In one of Novak's columns published shortly after his column naming Plame, he wrote, this administration source, (presumably Rove), asked him not to use Plame's name.

1 posted on 07/01/2005 8:45:27 PM PDT by YaYa123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Comment #2 Removed by Moderator

To: topekakid

Welcome to FR.


3 posted on 07/01/2005 8:53:14 PM PDT by Junior_G
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: topekakid

"Who ever exposed this patriot to death needs to be put to death. Rove is finished."

Do you think Karl Rove is stupid enough to do something like that? Do you think those reporters would risk prison to save Rove? Guess again.


4 posted on 07/01/2005 8:53:20 PM PDT by AngieGOP (I never met a woman who became a stripper because she played with Barbie dolls as a kid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AngieGOP

Valarie Plame wasn't a "patriot." She was an incompetent hack who sent her husband on a mission to try to undermine the case for war with Iraq. She deserved whatever she got.

And, in any case, until we find out, I maintain that it could have been anyone who leaked her identity. By Joe Wilson's own admission, she told him her real job during a "heavy make-out session" on their third date.


5 posted on 07/01/2005 9:02:07 PM PDT by furquhart (Cheney-Bush '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: YaYa123

I have had a horrible, horrible feeling this was what was going to come out of this...hopefully it proves wrong. The guy'll just be crucified by the media.


7 posted on 07/01/2005 9:23:26 PM PDT by Grn_Lantern (Let's go to work...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grn_Lantern

If true, it would likely, almost certainly lead to Rove being fired from the WH staff.

And Bush would be tarnished by it greatly.

I sure hope he didn't do it. I can't imagine Rove doing this, but if he did, and it comes out, it will be a big, big, big, big, big problem.


8 posted on 07/01/2005 9:26:28 PM PDT by rwfromkansas (http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: furquhart
Thank you! I hope you don't confuse the poster with the facts! Sheesh. The woman was already exposed by her own husband to begin with!
9 posted on 07/01/2005 9:29:19 PM PDT by ladyinred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000972839

Here's one I found at another forum..The left is having an orgy of expectation.


10 posted on 07/01/2005 9:36:55 PM PDT by MEG33 (GOD BLESS OUR ARMED FORCES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123

Who really cares about Valarie? She was a nobody acting like a somebody and someone outted her as a nobody. Whoever did should get the Civilian Service Award.


11 posted on 07/01/2005 9:58:10 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123
Lawrence O'Donnel is a democratic operative. Should it come as a surprise that he'd finger Karl Rove?

I don't know whether or not it is true, but this seems to be right up their alley. Throw out an allegation and then shriek conspiracy when it can't be proven.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see how this pans out.

12 posted on 07/01/2005 10:08:58 PM PDT by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jess35

Unless O'Donnell is just committing suicide or was smoking too much weed, this is a strange and awfully explosive accusation to make. I guess we'll find out.

www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000972839
Editor and Publisher magazine: MSNBC Analyst Says Cooper Documents Reveal Karl Rove as Source in Plame Case
Now that Time Inc. has turned over documents to federal court, presumably revealing who its reporter, Matt Cooper, identified as his source in the Valerie Plame/CIA case, speculation runs rampant on the name of that source, and what might happen to him or her. Tonight, on the syndicated McLaughlin Group political talk show, Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, claimed to know that name--and it is, according to him, top White House mastermind Karl Rove.

Here is the transcript of O'Donnell's remarks:

"What we're going to go to now in the next stage, when Matt Cooper's e-mails, within Time Magazine, are handed over to the grand jury, the ultimate revelation, probably within the week of who his source is.

"And I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of...for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time magazine's going to do with the grand jury."

Other panelists then joined in discussing whether, if true, this would suggest a perjury rap for Rove, if he told the grand jury he did not leak to Cooper


13 posted on 07/01/2005 10:47:34 PM PDT by RDangerfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RDangerfield; cyncooper

Thank you for leading me to the following:

"MSNBC Analyst Says Cooper Documents Reveal Karl Rove as Source in Plame Case

By E&P Staff

Published: July 01, 2005 11:30 PM ET

NEW YORK Now that Time Inc. has turned over documents to federal court, presumably revealing who its reporter, Matt Cooper, identified as his source in the Valerie Plame/CIA case, speculation runs rampant on the name of that source, and what might happen to him or her. Tonight, on the syndicated McLaughlin Group political talk show, Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, claimed to know that name--and it is, according to him, top White House mastermind Karl Rove.

Here is the transcript of O'Donnell's remarks:

"What we're going to go to now in the next stage, when Matt Cooper's e-mails, within Time Magazine, are handed over to the grand jury, the ultimate revelation, probably within the week of who his source is.

"And I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of...for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time magazine's going to do with the grand jury."

Other panelists then joined in discussing whether, if true, this would suggest a perjury rap for Rove, if he told the grand jury he did not leak to Cooper."


http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000972839


14 posted on 07/02/2005 1:18:06 AM PDT by YaYa123 (@I Will Support President Bush on his Supreme Court nominees.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jess35; taxesareforever; MEG33; Grn_Lantern; AngieGOP; furquhart; Baynative; rwfromkansas; ...

((note the date on this Novak column. Written before he clammed up, and most likely reflects what he told Fitzgerald and the grand jury, certainly what they knew even before Fitzgerald gets Cooper's notes.)



http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/29/novak.cia/


Novak: 'No great crime' with leak
Wednesday, October 1, 2003 Posted: 5:38 PM EDT (2138 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Newspaper columnist and CNN co-host Robert Novak said Monday that while he learned the identity of a CIA operative from administration officials, there was "no great crime" and that he was not the recipient of a planned leak.

Novak, a nationally syndicated columnist who writes for the Chicago Sun-Times and co-host of CNN's "Crossfire," said he learned of Valerie Plame's identity as he was preparing a column to be published July 14.

That column looked at the role of Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, in investigating claims about Iraq's nuclear ambitions -- specifically reports that Iraq had tried to buy uranium ore in Niger and elsewhere in Africa.

President Bush made the assertion in his 2003 State of the Union address as part of the rationale for going to war, attributing the report to British intelligence. The information was later discredited as being based at least in part on forged documents, and the White House has since backed off the statement.

Wilson, who was acting U.S. ambassador to Iraq just before the Persian Gulf War of 1991, alleges White House officials revealed his wife's identity to Novak in retaliation for his exposing flaws in prewar intelligence on Iraq.

"Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this," Novak said on "Crossfire." "There is no great crime here."

Novak said Monday that he was working on the column when a senior administration official told him the CIA asked Wilson to go to Niger in early 2002 at the suggestion of his wife, whom the source described as "a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction."

Another senior administration official gave him the same information, Novak said, and the CIA confirmed her involvement in her husband's mission.

In his column, Novak attributed the information about Plame's involvement in Wilson's trip to Africa to two unnamed senior administration officials.

"They asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else. According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative and not in charge of undercover operators," Novak said.

The Washington Post quoted a "senior administration official" in a story Sunday as saying that two top White House officials disclosed the identity of Wilson's wife in calls to at least six Washington journalists. Novak was the only recipient of the information who published it, the Post reported.

Wilson at one point suggested that senior Bush adviser Karl Rove could have been behind the leak, which the White House denied. He backed off that assertion somewhat Monday, accusing Rove of at least condoning it.

Wilson described the leak as a punitive move, noting that Novak's column appeared one week after he had written an op-ed article in The New York Times that was critical of the administration's handling of intelligence on Iraq.

"I think it comes out of the White House political office," Wilson said.

Novak said Monday that he will not reveal the names of his sources.

Novak also contacted Wilson for the column and was told, "I will not answer any question about my wife," according to a quotation Novak used in the column.

Wilson disputed that in an interview Monday night on CNN's "Paula Zahn Now."

"Bob Novak called me before he went to print with the report and he said a CIA source had told him that my wife was an operative," Wilson said. "He was trying to get a second source. He couldn't get a second source. Could I confirm that? And I said no."

Wilson said he called Novak after the article appeared citing sources in the Bush administration.

"What was it, CIA or senior administration?" Wilson said he asked Novak. "He said to me, 'I misspoke the first time I spoke to you.' "

The Justice Department, at the CIA's request, is investigating whether anyone in the administration broke the law by leaking Plame's name. The White House has said it will cooperate with the investigation.

Such a leak could constitute a felony. According to the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, a federal employee with access to classified information who is convicted of making an unauthorized disclosure about a covert agent faces up to 10 years in prison and as much as $50,000 in fines.

CNN's David Ensor contributed to this report.


15 posted on 07/02/2005 1:43:29 AM PDT by YaYa123 (@I Will Support President Bush on his Supreme Court nominees.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123; cyncooper
and the CIA confirmed her involvement in her husband's mission.

Heh.

As did the 9-11 Commission.

16 posted on 07/02/2005 1:49:33 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

EX=PROSECUTOR: PLAME LEAK NOT ILLEGAL
NEWSMAX ^ | 2/22/05


Posted on 02/22/2005 1:14:45 PM EST by areafiftyone


The former prosecutor who helped draft the law that Democrats say was violated when someone in the Bush administration leaked a CIA worker's name to columnist Robert Novak now says that no laws were broken in the case.

Writing with First Amendment lawyer Bruce Sanford in the Washington Post recently, former Assistant Deputy Attorney General Victoria Toensing explained that she helped draft the law in question, the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

Says Toensing, "The Novak column and the surrounding facts do not support evidence of criminal conduct."

For Plame's outing to have been illegal, the one-time deputy AG says, "her status as undercover must be classified." Also, Plame "must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years."

Since in neither case does Plame qualify, Toensing says: "There is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as 'covert.'"

The law also requires that the celebrated non-spy's outing take place by someone who knew the government had taken "affirmative measures to conceal [the agent's] relationship" to the U.S., a prospect Toensing says is unlikely.

Other signs that no laws were broken include the fact that after Plame was outted, the CIA's general counsel took no steps to prosecute Novak, as has been done to other reporters under similar circumstances.

Neither did then-CIA Director George Tenet or his deputy pick up the phone to tell Novak that the publication of her name would threaten national security and her safety, as is also routinely done when the CIA is serious about prohibiting publication.

In fact, the myth that laws were violated in the Plame case began to unravel in October 2003, in a column by New York Times scribe Nicholas Kristof, who explained that Valerie Plame had abandoned her covert role a full nine years before.

"The C.I.A. suspected that Aldrich Ames had given [Plame's] name [along with those of other spies] to the Russians before his espionage arrest in 1994. So her undercover security was undermined at that time, and she was brought back to Washington for safety reasons."

Kristof also noted that Plame had begun making the transition to CIA "management" even before she was outted, explaining that "she was moving away from 'noc' – which means non-official cover ... to a new cover as a State Department official, affording her diplomatic protection without having 'C.I.A.' stamped on her forehead."

Noted the Timesman: "All in all, I think the Democrats are engaging in hyperbole when they describe the White House as having put [Plame's] life in danger and destroyed her career; her days skulking along the back alleys of cities like Beirut and Algiers were already mostly over."

So why – with a special prosecutor now threatening to toss Time magazine's Matthew Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller in jail if they don't give up their sources in the Plame case – aren't their lawyers invoking the "no laws were broken" defense?

Explains the National Review's Rich Lowry: The Miller-Cooper defense hasn't made this argument because it would be too embarrassing to admit that the Bush administration's "crime of the century" wasn't really a crime at all, especially after a year and a half of media chest-beating to the contrary.

"It was just a Washington flap played for all it was worth by the same news organizations now about to watch their employees go to prison over it," says Lowry.

"That's the truth that the media will go to any length to avoid."


17 posted on 07/02/2005 1:54:21 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

many thanks for your valuable addition to this thread!!! Excellent info on Victoria Toensing!!


18 posted on 07/02/2005 2:00:25 AM PDT by YaYa123 (@I Will Support President Bush on his Supreme Court nominees.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123

I love that woman.


19 posted on 07/02/2005 2:04:06 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123

FYI, here is the Kristof column:

http://healthandenergy.com/outing_of_valarie_plame.htm

The Victoria thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1319121/posts


20 posted on 07/02/2005 2:10:40 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123
26 August 2003: Wilson participated in a "public panel in Washington" on Thursday, August 21st, and is quoted as having said "At the end of the day, it's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs. And trust me, when I use that name, I measure my words." See transcript of August 21st panel discussion.
21 posted on 07/02/2005 2:20:32 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123
Neither Novak nor Rove had intent

The problem with this theory is Rove would have to know about the Wilson trip in order to be able to leak about it. Since he didn't he couldn't.

Elementary, my dear.

:)

22 posted on 07/02/2005 8:00:17 AM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RDangerfield
Unless O'Donnell is just committing suicide or was smoking too much weed, this is a strange and awfully explosive accusation to make. I guess we'll find out.

It's not strange in the least. Remember Joe Wilson personally accused Rove of this early on and said he hoped to see Rove "frog-marched" out of the WH.

O'Donnell is simply assisting in another round of spin as these documents are delivered. Rove was a source AFTER the Novak column and that fact will be used to muddy the waters (as it has in the past). Because he said it, some loons will always believe it no matter what the truth is (which is that Rove and Scooter Libby, nor anyone at the WH had anything to do with leaking Valerie Plame's wretched name).

23 posted on 07/02/2005 8:08:37 AM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: AngieGOP
Rove is finished...

That was one serious kool-aid drinker. It keeps the DU'ers up at night thinking about Karl Rove and how they cannot lay a glove on him even as his calls them what they truly are on national TV. LOL
24 posted on 07/02/2005 8:09:32 AM PDT by TheForceOfOne (My tagline snapped the last time the MSM blew smoke up my ass. Now its gone forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

Aha! I had just referenced the infamous "frog-marched" nonsense from Wilson. Glad to see a cite posted.


25 posted on 07/02/2005 8:11:08 AM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper

You're the best!


I'd be really interested in your comments on Novak's early revelations, detailed here:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/29/novak.cia/


26 posted on 07/02/2005 8:18:32 AM PDT by YaYa123 (@I Will Support President Bush on his Supreme Court nominees.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123

O'Donnell has gone absolutely nuts with his hate of Bush and anybody close to him. THE PROSECUTOR SAID MONTHS AGO THAT KARL ROVE WAS NOT A TARGET OF HIS INVESTIGATION. This is just wishful thinking on the left's side.


27 posted on 07/02/2005 8:20:04 AM PDT by nightowl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nightowl

O'Donnell, like so many other lefties, have been consumed with an epic, growing hatred for Bush since 2000.


28 posted on 07/02/2005 8:22:32 AM PDT by YaYa123 (@I Will Support President Bush on his Supreme Court nominees.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123
Thanks! I've read the column before and a few thoughts:

The article states that the "16 words" turned out to be based on forged documents. That is false. The CIA headquarters was not in possession of the documents until February---after the SOTU. While this article was from early in the debacle, a very little fact-checking would have revealed this at that time.

Also this:

The Washington Post quoted a "senior administration official" in a story Sunday as saying that two top White House officials disclosed the identity of Wilson's wife in calls to at least six Washington journalists. Novak was the only recipient of the information who published it, the Post reported.

Is what I was referring to on this thread when *after* the Novak column 6 reporters said they were contacted. This was spun and twisted to try and convey that the same source for this was the same source Novak had. Rubbish.

Also note Novak initially told Wilson his sources were CIA and later said he "misspoke" (wouldn't reiterate, is more like it).

I read an excellent New York Sun editorial yesterday that agrees with my take. I am concernced that they note that Fitzgerald's court filings refer to an act of possible retaliation. I will be very aggravated if he started from the point of Wilsonian spin. He should have been dealing with "just the facts". If Plame wasn't undercover (Novak noted early on he was told she was an analyst) then even if Wilson's lies (about his trip and subsequent "findings") were true, how could revealing her role in sending him amount to retalation if a) that underlying fact was true and b) she wasn't undercover?!

The twisting these types take of simple facts makes my head hurt.

29 posted on 07/02/2005 8:41:48 AM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper

In all my time at FR, I've never seen anybody with the complete and total grasp of a story like you have of this one.

It's simply amazing.


30 posted on 07/02/2005 8:47:55 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123
Link to the NY Sun editorial is at #14 on this thread I'm about to link to and I commented and highlighted the points that caught my eye here:

public interest also obtains in disclosing the connection between Mr. Wilson and the CIA, because the CIA - one could almost say a renegade CIA - had opposed all along President Bush's policy of a democratic liberation of Iraq. It preferred a Baathist coup. So a CIA role in attacking the president publicly about the justification for the Iraq war takes on a sinister aspect all its own, and one could argue that the real whistle-blower in this case is the still-unnamed source or sources trying to warn Americans of what was going on.

~snip~

It's a point to remember as this case - which, again, involves a rogue CIA effort to undermine America's commander in chief during wartime - works its way through the courts. The real whistle-blowers and heroes here are those who understood this point and got word via the press to the American public.

31 posted on 07/02/2005 8:48:37 AM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

Thank you. Don't be giving me a big head now!

ha


32 posted on 07/02/2005 8:50:47 AM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson