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

Skip to comments.

Byron York: There's a lot we don't know yet about the CIA flap
The Hill ^ | 7/13/05 | Byron York

Posted on 07/13/2005 3:28:51 PM PDT by Jean S

Please allow me to share with you some of the things I don’t know. 

I don’t know what Valerie Plame’s status with the CIA was in July 2003 when Robert Novak wrote his column mentioning that she was an “agency operative” and had recommended her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, for a fact-finding trip to Niger. Was Plame a covert agent then? If not, how recently had she been a covert agent?

I don’t know.

I also don’t know what’s going on with The New York Times’ Judith Miller.

Since top presidential adviser Karl Rove and top vice-presidential adviser Lewis Libby signed strongly worded waivers releasing all reporters from any pledges of confidentiality, why hasn’t Miller testified? Does that mean her source was someone else who has not signed a confidentiality waiver?

I don’t know.

I also don’t know why Miller is involved in all this at all, since she never wrote a story about it. Was she some sort of “carrier,” as is now being theorized, and actually helped spread word of Plame’s identity?

I don’t know.

For that matter, I don’t know what Time magazine’s Matthew Cooper was doing either. Rove’s lawyer says Rove signed the waiver about a year and a half ago and has never changed it. Why was that waiver not acceptable to Cooper for 18 months and then, on the brink of going to jail, Cooper agreed to testify?

I don’t know.

I don’t know anything about the role the other journalists caught up in the case — Tim Russert, Walter Pincus and Glenn Kessler — played. Apparently on the basis of waivers signed by sources, they all gave information to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. What did they say?

I don’t know.

And of course I also don’t know what is happening with Novak. Given Fitzgerald’s aggressiveness in dealing with all figures in this case, Novak must have made some sort of accommodation. Did he testify? Refuse to testify?

I don’t know.

I also don’t know why many in the press, most notably The New York Times, were once so enthusiastic about the Fitzgerald investigation. On Dec. 30, 2003, the Times published an editorial headlined “The Right Thing, At Last,” which said, “After an egregiously long delay, Attorney General John Ashcroft finally did the right thing yesterday when he recused himself from the investigation into who gave the name of a CIA operative to columnist Robert Novak.” Why did the Times do that?

I don’t know.

And then, why did the Times change its position and condemn Fitzgerald who, the paper said, “can’t even say whether a crime has been committed.” Why would the Times say that, when it had once been so sure that a crime had been committed?

I don’t know.

I also don’t know about the actions of Joseph Wilson. For example, in his book, The Politics of Truth, he wrote, “The assertion that Valerie had played any substantive role in the decision to ask me to go to Niger was false on the face of it. ...Valerie could not — and would not if she could — have had anything to do with the CIA decision to ask me to travel to [Niger].” But later, the Senate Intelligence Committee, in its bipartisan report, said that “interviews and documents provided to the committee indicate that [Wilson’s] wife, a CPD employee [a reference to the CIA’s Counterproliferation Division], suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told committee staff that the former ambassador’s wife ‘offered up his name’ and a memorandum to the deputy chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from [Wilson’s] wife says, ‘my husband has good relations with both [Niger’s prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.’” So why did Wilson say his wife played no “substantive role” in it?

I don’t know.

I also don’t know why Wilson’s defenders accuse the White House of “smearing” him. What was the smear? Was it a smear to say that Wilson got the Niger assignment, at least in part, because his wife recommended him? If so, then the Senate committee “smeared” him, too. If not, what is the smear?

I don’t know.

And finally, I don’t know about Karl Rove’s public statements on the case. Last year on CNN, he said of Plame, “I didn’t know her name and didn’t leak her name.” Even if he hadn’t passed on Plame’s name — just mentioned her as Wilson’s wife — why not just say nothing, especially since the whole thing is under criminal investigation?

I don’t know.

The bottom line is, some of the most critical facts in the whole Wilson/Plame/CIA matter are just not known, at least not known by anyone outside of the Fitzgerald investigation.

But don’t worry. At least we can be sure that we will someday know them, right?

I don’t know.

York is a White House correspondent for National Review. His column appears in The Hill each week.
E-mail:
byork@thehill.com


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: byronyork; cialeak; plame; rove
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-247 next last

1 posted on 07/13/2005 3:28:54 PM PDT by Jean S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JeanS

I don't know ..

-----

Well, Get crackin', Byron.. ;-)


2 posted on 07/13/2005 3:33:36 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... "To remain silent when they should protest makes cowards of men." -- THOMAS JEFFERSON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JeanS

I don't care.


3 posted on 07/13/2005 3:36:06 PM PDT by PzLdr ("The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am" - Darth Vader)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JeanS

Well, I sure as heck don't know. But I would bet real American dollars that Rove will let us know when he is good and ready. Probably right after he is fired.


4 posted on 07/13/2005 3:38:51 PM PDT by Bar-Face
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
I am happy to know that I am not the only one WHO DOES NOT KNOW. :-)
5 posted on 07/13/2005 3:39:34 PM PDT by Spunky ("Everyone has a freedom of choice, but not of consequences.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
I don’t know.

Funny how the libs and reporters who are constantly whining about Bush not admitting mistakes never admit to these three simple words (unless in the context of saying the White House is "secretive" and "holding back" facts.)

That bunch of popcorn brains knows nothing, and never, ever admit mistakes. Yet they pump out a nonstop sludge of half-truths, lies, spin and Dem talking points daily and call it news.

6 posted on 07/13/2005 3:40:00 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 ("Familiarity doesn't breed contempt, it IS contempt."--Florence King)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
"I also don’t know why Wilson’s defenders accuse the White House of “smearing” him. What was the smear? Was it a smear to say that Wilson got the Niger assignment, at least in part, because his wife recommended him? If so, then the Senate committee “smeared” him, too. If not, what is the smear?"

I've been trying to make this point for the last year. How was mentioning that Wilson's wife recommended him for the assignment supposed to discredit him, punish him, or smear him? The whole premise of the Dems' argument is based on a non sequitor. And I certainly don't buy the wacko idea that the White House was trying to jeopardize Plame's safety.
7 posted on 07/13/2005 3:44:33 PM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JeanS

My take on this latest Democrat/MSM story.

I don’t know what Valerie Plame’s status with the CIA was in July 2003 when Robert Novak wrote his column mentioning that she was an “agency operative” and had recommended her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, for a fact-finding trip to Niger. Was Plame a covert agent then? If not, how recently had she been a covert agent?

NO.

I also don’t know what’s going on with The New York Times’ Judith Miller.

Since top presidential adviser Karl Rove and top vice-presidential adviser Lewis Libby signed strongly worded waivers releasing all reporters from any pledges of confidentiality, why hasn’t Miller testified? Does that mean her source was someone else who has not signed a confidentiality waiver?

Yes.

I also don’t know why Miller is involved in all this at all, since she never wrote a story about it. Was she some sort of “carrier,” as is now being theorized, and actually helped spread word of Plame’s identity?

Yes.

For that matter, I don’t know what Time magazine’s Matthew Cooper was doing either. Rove’s lawyer says Rove signed the waiver about a year and a half ago and has never changed it. Why was that waiver not acceptable to Cooper for 18 months and then, on the brink of going to jail, Cooper agreed to testify?

I don’t know.

I don’t know anything about the role the other journalists caught up in the case — Tim Russert, Walter Pincus and Glenn Kessler — played. Apparently on the basis of waivers signed by sources, they all gave information to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. What did they say?

I don’t know.

And of course I also don’t know what is happening with Novak. Given Fitzgerald’s aggressiveness in dealing with all figures in this case, Novak must have made some sort of accommodation. Did he testify? Refuse to testify?

I don’t know.

I also don’t know why many in the press, most notably The New York Times, were once so enthusiastic about the Fitzgerald investigation. On Dec. 30, 2003, the Times published an editorial headlined “The Right Thing, At Last,” which said, “After an egregiously long delay, Attorney General John Ashcroft finally did the right thing yesterday when he recused himself from the investigation into who gave the name of a CIA operative to columnist Robert Novak.” Why did the Times do that?

They still thought they could spin it in their favor.

And then, why did the Times change its position and condemn Fitzgerald who, the paper said, “can’t even say whether a crime has been committed.” Why would the Times say that, when it had once been so sure that a crime had been committed?

They found out they couldn't spin it in their favor.

I also don’t know about the actions of Joseph Wilson. For example, in his book, The Politics of Truth, he wrote, “The assertion that Valerie had played any substantive role in the decision to ask me to go to Niger was false on the face of it. ...Valerie could not — and would not if she could — have had anything to do with the CIA decision to ask me to travel to [Niger].” But later, the Senate Intelligence Committee, in its bipartisan report, said that “interviews and documents provided to the committee indicate that [Wilson’s] wife, a CPD employee [a reference to the CIA’s Counterproliferation Division], suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told committee staff that the former ambassador’s wife ‘offered up his name’ and a memorandum to the deputy chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from [Wilson’s] wife says, ‘my husband has good relations with both [Niger’s prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.’” So why did Wilson say his wife played no “substantive role” in it?

He lied.

I also don’t know why Wilson’s defenders accuse the White House of “smearing” him. What was the smear? Was it a smear to say that Wilson got the Niger assignment, at least in part, because his wife recommended him? If so, then the Senate committee “smeared” him, too. If not, what is the smear?

Any attempt to correct Democrats lies are branded as VRWC lies.

And finally, I don’t know about Karl Rove’s public statements on the case. Last year on CNN, he said of Plame, “I didn’t know her name and didn’t leak her name.” Even if he hadn’t passed on Plame’s name — just mentioned her as Wilson’s wife — why not just say nothing, especially since the whole thing is under criminal investigation?

I don’t know.

The bottom line is, some of the most critical facts in the whole Wilson/Plame/CIA matter are just not known, at least not known by anyone outside of the Fitzgerald investigation.

But don’t worry. At least we can be sure that we will someday know them, right?

I don’t know.


8 posted on 07/13/2005 3:45:53 PM PDT by rocksblues (I support the war on terror)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
I don’t know what Valerie Plame’s status with the CIA was in July 2003 when Robert Novak wrote his column mentioning that she was an “agency operative” and had recommended her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, for a fact-finding trip to Niger. Was Plame a covert agent then? If not, how recently had she been a covert agent?

Well, Walter Pincus of the Washington Post claims she was a covert agent as late as 1999. Maybe someone should ask him how he came to 'know' that?

9 posted on 07/13/2005 3:46:31 PM PDT by piasa (Attitude Adjustments Offered Here Free of Charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JeanS

Bush and Rove must be privately laughing their asses off.


10 posted on 07/13/2005 3:50:10 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
One thing is certain. The MSM and the White House Press corps have definitely Jumped the Shark. They have gone absolutely bananas, and they are going to regret it? Why? This story is about to turn 90 degrees in direction.

Judith "the Drama Queen" Miller and Matthew "Another Donuts please" Cooper deceived the public by telling everyone that there was a last minute release signed by Rove that allowed them to disclose their source. As we now know, Rove's lawyer has disclosed that Rove signed a release 18 months ago. Byron York was on the Sean Hannity program today and released even more detail about this signed release. In short, the two reporters (and the rest of the MSM) were hoping and praying that the trap on the Bush White House and Rove would close shut before the details and facts were disclosed in full.

This inconvenient fact is going to destroy the reporters credibility (like they had any to begin with) and their story. These reporters (especially Miller) have probably been practicing their acceptance speech for the Pulitzer in front of their bathroom mirrors for months, pretending that their hair brushes are microphones.

The Jump the Shark moment for the MSM has truly arrived.

______________________________________________________________________

Q Scott, you know what, to make a general observation here, in a previous administration, if a press secretary had given the sort of answers you've just given in referring to the fact that everybody who works here enjoys the confidence of the President, Republicans would have hammered them as having a kind of legalistic and sleazy defense. I mean, the reality is that you're parsing words, and you've been doing it for a few days now. So does the President think Karl Rove did something wrong, or doesn't he?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, David, I'm not at all. I told you and the President told you earlier today that we don't want to prejudge the outcome of an ongoing investigation. And I think we've been round and round on this for two days now.

Q Even if it wasn't a crime? You know, there are those who believe that even if Karl Rove was trying to debunk bogus information, as Ken Mehlman suggested yesterday -- perhaps speaking on behalf of the White House -- that when you're dealing with a covert operative, that a senior official of the government should be darn well sure that that person is not undercover, is not covert, before speaking about them in any way, shape, or form. Does the President agree with that or not?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, we've been round and round on this for a couple of days now. I don't have anything to add to what I've said the previous two days.

Q That's a different question, and it's not round and round --

MR. McCLELLAN: You heard from the President earlier.

Q It has nothing to do with the investigation, Scott, and you know it.

MR. McCLELLAN: You heard from the President earlier today, and the President said he's not --

Q That's a dodge to my question. It has nothing to do with the investigation. Is it appropriate for a senior official to speak about a covert

11 posted on 07/13/2005 3:52:01 PM PDT by SkyPilot (Eliminate, eradicate, and stamp out redundancy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: piasa

According to this Vanity Fair piece......."In 1997, Plame moved back to the Washington area, partly because (as was recently reported in The New York Times) the C.I.A. suspeccted that her name may have been on a list given to the Russians by the double agent Aldrich Ames in 1994."

http://www.jimgilliam.com/2004/01/vanity_fairs_profile_on_joseph_wilson_and_valerie_plame.php


12 posted on 07/13/2005 3:53:56 PM PDT by blogblogginaway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rocksblues

Good analysis, thanks.


13 posted on 07/13/2005 3:55:23 PM PDT by Jean S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

I think this is a nice response to all the errant speculation about Rove of recent days.


14 posted on 07/13/2005 3:57:34 PM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Bar-Face

"Probably right after he is fired."

I thought Karl was already fired for calling the liberals a bunch of wimps?;^)


15 posted on 07/13/2005 4:02:02 PM PDT by SwinneySwitch (Liberals-beyond your expectations! !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Shermy; Allan

Ping.


16 posted on 07/13/2005 4:02:53 PM PDT by Mitchell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JeanS

Brit Hume just said that Karl Rove heard about Valerie Plame from "a reporter."

My bet is that Judith Miller was that reporter -- and now Miller is refusing to say WHO told her about Plame.

So we can deduce that whoever told HER hasn't signed a waiver and she's covering up for them.

It's a Democrat.


17 posted on 07/13/2005 4:05:59 PM PDT by Howlin (Who is Judith Miller covering up for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bar-Face

He is not going to be fired; there's absolutely no reason to be fired.


18 posted on 07/13/2005 4:06:42 PM PDT by Howlin (Who is Judith Miller covering up for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: piasa
Well, Walter Pincus of the Washington Post claims she was a covert agent as late as 1999.

They brought her "inside" in 1994.

19 posted on 07/13/2005 4:08:46 PM PDT by Howlin (Who is Judith Miller covering up for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
Yet the MSM doesn't feel even the vaguest twinge of guilt for trying to blacken the reputation of Karl Rove.

And they wonder why nobody in their right mind trusts anything they say.

20 posted on 07/13/2005 4:09:23 PM PDT by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: piasa; Dog; Dolphy; Fedora
Pincus is one of the couple of dozen journalists subpoenaed in connection with the Wilson spy lie. I have nothing but contempt for him and the governmental sources that use him. -----20 posted on 04/21/2004 8:11:08 AM PDT by Dolphy

* Pincus, Ann & Walter : Apologize if this has been previously posted - more info on Walter and Ann Pincus: "Journalist Kenneth Timmerman said that when the congressional Cox Commission confirmed that China had committed nuclear espionage against the U.S., "the Washington Post assigned a journalist whose wife was a Clinton administration appointee to cover the story." That was Walter Pincus. Timmerman said that Pincus and his wife Ann were guests of the Clintons at Camp David. Timmerman said that after several years at the U.S. Information Agency, Ann Pincus was transferred in the late 1990s to the Office of Research and Media Reaction at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, the same office that "lost" a laptop computer loaded with highly classified intelligence documents in April 2000. Timmerman noted that, in his reports for the Post, Walter Pincus consistently sought to debunk the Chinese espionage allegations. Now he’s sliming the administration for acting against the Iraqi nuclear threat. No wonder the Democratic National Committee cites his work." entire story here: http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2003/08/28.html 42 posted on 10/09/2003 3:49 PM PDT by Ben Hecks

To: piasa
And Mrs. Pincus........worked with a Greg Thielmann.......who came out against Iraq......and resigned......made a big show of it.
1,983 posted on 04/13/2004 3:43:11 PM PDT by Dog

[* My note: Greg Thielman was a State Department kook who came out against the war and against his boss Powell because of Powell's address to the UN on Feb 5, 2003. Got a book deal out of it, too, as I recall. ------ piasa]

During the Clinton years Walter Pincus was consider to a mouthpiece for NSA adviser Sandy Berger who was also a former China lobbyist. Pincus' was wife also a Clinton Administration official. On two occasions Pincus was given time off by the Washington Post to work for J. W. Fulbright. These facts certainly help explain why Pincus savaged the Cox Committee intelligence report on Chinese espionage, whose conclusions he called "unwarranted" and whose language he falsely described as "inflammatory".
This is the same Pincus who maliciously described as a "Killer Warhead" missiles designed to protect Americans against nuclear attack. . .What is particularly interesting is that Pincus is tied in with the America-hating Marxist Institute for Policy Studies which from its inception in 1963 acted as a front for the KGB, even hosting KGB officers, until the collapse of the Soviet empire.
In September 1974 Pincus attended an IPS sponsored conference during which he and others present savaged the CIA, basically accusing it of being a criminal organisation. I have no idea at the stage whether any of the IPS' KGB friends were present.
(Incidentally, Anthony Lake was also attended the conference. Readers might recall that Clinton nominated Lake for director of the CIA. The nomination faced a barrage of outraged criticism and was withdrawn. Americans have no idea what a narrow escape they had).
The America-hating Richard Barnet, one of the founders of the IPS and conference sponsor, called for the destruction of the CIA, and even demanded that it cease monitoring international terrorist groups because it violated their civil liberties. . .
So what does Pincus do at the Washington Post? He writes on national security matters. This is a man who associates with America-haters, attacks national defence, maligned an intelligence committee when it produced unfavourable findings about Chinese espionage, and who now lies about Richard Clarke's statements. Now what does that tell us about the Washington Post? ------- "Pincus and Milbank: the low-down on two Washington Post Bush-hating reporters," by Gerard Jackson, BrookesNews.Com, April 5, 2004 , posted by FR's Fedora

21 posted on 07/13/2005 4:10:02 PM PDT by piasa (Attitude Adjustments Offered Here Free of Charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot; Mo1; cyncooper
there was a last minute release signed by Rove that allowed them to disclose their source

He said that very thing last Wednesday standing on the steps of the courthouse; even went "drama queen" on us, by saying he had already told his seven year old son good-bye because he knew he was going to prison before the phone call came as he was walking out the door.

22 posted on 07/13/2005 4:10:49 PM PDT by Howlin (Who is Judith Miller covering up for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: blogblogginaway

Sweet fine!


23 posted on 07/13/2005 4:11:31 PM PDT by Howlin (Who is Judith Miller covering up for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

Duh.......find!


24 posted on 07/13/2005 4:11:45 PM PDT by Howlin (Who is Judith Miller covering up for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
Her source is not Rove, but probley some high ranking Democrat that she is in league with to affect the next election. Why else would she pull a Susan McDougal?
25 posted on 07/13/2005 4:14:32 PM PDT by stockpirate (We can fight the Muslim Army in Iraq! Or we can fight them outback! Which do you prefer?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

Re#17 Sure seems that way. Rat or a presstitute. As York notes, why the change of tune at the NY Slimes. Hmmmm...


26 posted on 07/13/2005 4:17:49 PM PDT by eureka! (It will not be safe to vote Democrat for a long, long, time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: blogblogginaway

I know Plame's not been covert for 9 or more years if she ever really was - thanks for posting your snippet of info. I was just mentioning that one reporter- Pincus- claimed to know and he said it was 1999. We already know he's full of manure.


27 posted on 07/13/2005 4:18:31 PM PDT by piasa (Attitude Adjustments Offered Here Free of Charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: piasa; Txsleuth; Mo1; cyncooper
This was posted WHILE Cooper was making his little speech on the steps of that courthouse last Wednesday:

To: oceanview

They just said on Fox that Matthew Cooper received a communique from his "source" today, right before he was going to tell the judge that he WOULDN'T testify, releasing him from his promise not to reveal the name...

IOW, the source said "go ahead and reveal my name, keep yourself out of jail"...

19 posted on 07/06/2005 2:48:28 PM EDT by Txsleuth (Mark Levin for Supreme Court Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

And

****Fox reporting that Cooper said until shortly before the hearing he was not going to cave and then he claims that in somewhat dramatic fashion he was contacted by his source and the source relieved him from confidentiality.

Oh brother

18 posted on 07/06/2005 2:47:09 PM EDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Yet today he has changed his story once again.

Quite simply, he's a liar.

28 posted on 07/13/2005 4:19:20 PM PDT by Howlin (Who is Judith Miller covering up for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Howlin; Mitchell

""Brit Hume just said that Karl Rove heard about Valerie Plame from "a reporter.""

Does he have independent information, or is he relying on the reckless speculation of that poster Shermy again?


29 posted on 07/13/2005 4:20:27 PM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

Nope. She was in Brussels till at least '97.


30 posted on 07/13/2005 4:20:48 PM PDT by lugsoul ("She talks and she laughs." - Tom DeLay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul; ravingnutter; kcvl

First, the C.I.A. suspected that Aldrich Ames had given Mrs. Wilson'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.

Second, as Mrs. Wilson rose in the agency, she was already in transition away from undercover work to management, and to liaison roles with other intelligence agencies. So this year, even before she was outed, she was moving away from "noc" — which means non-official cover, like pretending to be a business executive. After passing as an energy analyst for Brewster-Jennings & Associates, a C.I.A. front company, she was switching to a new cover as a State Department official, affording her diplomatic protection without having "C.I.A." stamped on her forehead.


http://healthandenergy.com/outing_of_valarie_plame.htm


31 posted on 07/13/2005 4:22:24 PM PDT by Howlin (Who is Judith Miller covering up for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Bar-Face

If you haven't figured out by now that Rove won't be fired, you're dense.

Even the NYSlimes and WashCompost signed "friend of the court" type petitions stating that there was clearly NO CRIME committed EVEN IF ROVE HAD LEAKED HER NAME - and asked that the special prosecutor close up shop.

Something's afoot for sure, but it is NOT that Rove is in trouble. It could well be Wilson, or perhaps someone even higher up in the NYSlimes or the Demodog party we don't even know of yet.


32 posted on 07/13/2005 4:22:44 PM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Shermy

I never thought of you as reckless, pal!


33 posted on 07/13/2005 4:22:59 PM PDT by Howlin (Who is Judith Miller covering up for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

It's better---don't know if the judge or prosecutor could or would do anything though.

Those Fox reports were the reports of what Cooper said *in the courtroom* when he informed the judge he would cooperate.

He then repeated it later outside at the mikes.


34 posted on 07/13/2005 4:24:36 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: piasa

Excellent post outing the media/Clinton admin nexus in this Plame affair.


35 posted on 07/13/2005 4:25:35 PM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: blam

This situation now is as funny as the Demodogs' "filibuster" of the judicial nominees. They have lost so thoroughly. The bus left the station so long ago they can't even see it's tail lights.

Popcorn and Cold Duck for the show!


36 posted on 07/13/2005 4:26:44 PM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

I know - Pincus is the only reporter I know who claimed he knew some other date- I'm guessing he put that out to imply that she still fell within the protection of the law to try to counter the points legal folks had made that outing a agent who's been a desk jockey for ages wasn't illegal.


37 posted on 07/13/2005 4:27:31 PM PDT by piasa (Attitude Adjustments Offered Here Free of Charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

Are you listening to these poll numbers Nora O'Donnell is talking about???

Something smells


38 posted on 07/13/2005 4:30:11 PM PDT by Mo1 (We will stay in the fight until the fight is won ~~~ President G.W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper; Mo1
To: kcvl; Howlin

Cooper was just on FNC saying that his source just gave him permission THIS MORNING to talk


THIS SMELLS

136 posted on 07/06/2005 3:41:04 PM EDT by Mo1 (We will stay in the fight until the fight is won ~~~ President G.W. Bush)

39 posted on 07/13/2005 4:30:15 PM PDT by Howlin (Who is Judith Miller covering up for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: piasa

They sure are giving this all they've got.


40 posted on 07/13/2005 4:30:58 PM PDT by Howlin (Who is Judith Miller covering up for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
even went "drama queen" on us, by saying he had already told his seven year old son good-bye because he knew he was going to prison before the phone call came as he was walking out the door.

Yes Howlin, he is just a prince, isn't he?

I was listening to Byron York in amazement today when he was on the Hannity program. He also said that Cooper's lawyers had the iron clad release document in hand when they called Rove's lawyers last week. They asked him if the terms in the document (which the Special Prosecutor wrote!) that said "Mr. Rove authorizes any person to release his name as the source" meant Cooper. His lawyer, incredulously, said, "Yes--if he is a person, then any person means him."

The "drama queens" were not finished. After a flurry of phone calls and more reassurances, lawyers for Cooper only then gathered all their buddies from the media and held a soap opera press conference they hoped the public would swallow. This contained the teary eyed Cooper acting like he just received a gallows pardon from the Governor.

The only problem with this charade is that Rove signed the release in 2003!!!!! These two reporters and their lawyers have been caught red handed, lying to the American people.

41 posted on 07/13/2005 4:31:31 PM PDT by SkyPilot (Eliminate, eradicate, and stamp out redundancy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Sweet fine!

For a second there, I thought you were talking about me again.

42 posted on 07/13/2005 4:32:40 PM PDT by hole_n_one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

I am trying to find any article that discusses what Cooper said on the steps that day.

I want to read it word for word.


43 posted on 07/13/2005 4:33:17 PM PDT by Howlin (Who is Judith Miller covering up for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
Rove signed the waiver about a year and a half ago and has never changed it. Why was that waiver not acceptable to Cooper for 18 months and then, on the brink of going to jail, Cooper agreed to testify? I don’t know.

We're counting on you, Mr. York, to get to the bottom of this set up.

44 posted on 07/13/2005 4:34:15 PM PDT by Right_in_Virginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

Cooper took the podium in the court and told the judge, "Last night I hugged my son good-bye and told him it might be a long time before I see him again."

"I went to bed ready to accept the sanctions" for not testifying, Cooper said. But he told the judge that not long before his early afternoon appearance, he had received "in somewhat dramatic fashion" a direct personal communication from his source freeing him from his commitment to keep the source's identity secret.


45 posted on 07/13/2005 4:35:26 PM PDT by Howlin (Who is Judith Miller covering up for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper; Howlin

David Shuster just said that according to Cooper .. he was one of the final witnesses for the Grand Jury


46 posted on 07/13/2005 4:37:50 PM PDT by Mo1 (We will stay in the fight until the fight is won ~~~ President G.W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

Re: your tag line. ---- If Judith Miller remains silent through her incarceration, do we ever find out who she's covering for?


47 posted on 07/13/2005 4:38:24 PM PDT by Right_in_Virginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

Gergen: It appears that Rove does NOT have a legal problem.


48 posted on 07/13/2005 4:38:39 PM PDT by hole_n_one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

He said a source in the CIA leak investigation had phoned him this morning to release him from his pledge of confidentiality and encouraged him to testify. That source is believed to be White House political strategist Karl Rove, who has acknowledged speaking with Cooper but has denied unmasking the CIA agent's identity.

and

Another reporter who had been facing jail time on the same matter, Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, agreed today to testify to a grand jury about his confidential source on the same matter, thus avoiding jail. Mr. Cooper said he had decided to do so only because his source specifically released him from promises of confidentiality just before today's hearing.

--

Mr. Cooper told the judge that he had been prepared to go to jail until shortly before the hearing.

"Last night I hugged my son good-bye and told him it might be a long time before I see him again," Mr. Cooper said. But just before today's hearing, he had received "in somewhat dramatic fashion" a direct personal communication from his source freeing him from his commitment to keep the source's identity secret.

"It's with a bit of surprise and no small amount of relief that I will comply with the subpoena," he told the judge.

and

Separately, the White House correspondent for Time magazine, Matthew Cooper, said he would testify, breaking two years of silence, after his source consented in a "very sudden development" Wednesday morning....


49 posted on 07/13/2005 4:38:41 PM PDT by Howlin (Who is Judith Miller covering up for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Right_in_Virginia

No.


50 posted on 07/13/2005 4:39:00 PM PDT by Howlin (Who is Judith Miller covering up for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-247 next last

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