Karl Rove - Valerie Plame - Joseph Wilson - Exposing a CIA covert operative

[michaeledward]

Reports are appearing today that Valerie Plame's work at the CIA dealt largely with Iran's nuclear weapon development programs.


If these reports end up being true, as the Nation gets more concerned Iran's program, it could be that by releasing Ms. Plame's name and status to the media does damage to our national security in a very tangible manner.

 

[michaeledward]

Prosecutor Fitzpatrick filed some papers with the court today that indicate that it was President Bush who authorized Lewis Libby to leak classified information.

It is nearing time for the President to answer questions under oath on this topic.

 

[Phil Elmore]

That information does not, apparently, include the release of this woman's name.

 

[michaeledward]

This article is a calmer version of this week's events concerning this issue.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040800916.html

Notable, is this paragraph near the end of the article

They were not alone. Fitzgerald reported for the first time this week that "multiple officials in the White House"-- not only Libby and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, who have previously been identified -- discussed Plame's CIA employment with reporters before and after publication of her name on July 14, 2003, in a column by Robert D. Novak. Fitzgerald said the grand jury has collected so much testimony and so many documents that "it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to 'punish' Wilson."

The Spin from the White House has been that by revealing information from the classified document, the National Intelligence Estimate, was done to rebut claims and allegations in the media in the late Spring / early Summer of 2003.

The evidence suggests that the secret information revealed had already been disproved by the time Mr. Libby indicated he was directed, by the President through the Vice President, to leak the secret information to the reporters Woodward and Miller.

Another spin item seen this week, was the floating of a trial balloon that President Bush had left the operational details of 'getting the information out' to the Vice President. Being 'out of the loop' seemed to work for the first President Bush visa vie Iran-Contra. I think this line of defense will disappear quickly. I don't think Vice President Cheney will be willing to play the part of sacrificial lamb.

 

[Marginal]

That information does not, apparently, include the release of this woman's name.

Don't know why it'd matter. Bush would simply state that he had power to waive security clearances as the presidency is all powerful anyway so nothing he did was illegal even if the document had directly named her.

 

[michaeledward]

This from David Sanger and David Johnson from the New York Times.

A senior administration official confirmed for the first time on Sunday that President Bush had ordered the declassification of parts of a prewar intelligence report on Iraq in an effort to rebut critics who said the administration had exaggerated the nuclear threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
. . .
The disclosure appeared intended to bolster the White House argument that Mr. Bush was acting well within his legal authority when he ordered that key conclusions of the classified National Intelligence Estimate, which was completed in the fall of 2002, should be revealed to make clear that intelligence agencies believed Mr. Hussein was seeking uranium in Africa.

We know that President Bush did not read the 90 plus page National Intelligence Estimate in its entirety.

With the numerous caveats included in the NIE summary President Bush is reported to have read, one must wonder if the President comprehended those caveats.

It does not seem to make sense, amid accusations of skepticism about Iraq's nuclear intentions, to release / leak / declassify a document that clearly states we should be skeptical of intelligence on the issue.

 

[Don Roley]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460_pf.html

I don't expect that the damage will be undone. So many people have heard this story, got worked up over it and now look on things in a biased way that even though they hear the truth won't change their opinions of the administration.

End of an Affair
It turns out that the person who exposed CIA agent Valerie Plame was not out to punish her husband.
Friday, September 1, 2006; A20

WE'RE RELUCTANT to return to the subject of former CIA employee Valerie Plame because of our oft-stated belief that far too much attention and debate in Washington has been devoted to her story and that of her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, over the past three years. But all those who have opined on this affair ought to take note of the not-so-surprising disclosure that the primary source of the newspaper column in which Ms. Plame's cover as an agent was purportedly blown in 2003 was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage.

Mr. Armitage was one of the Bush administration officials who supported the invasion of Iraq only reluctantly. He was a political rival of the White House and Pentagon officials who championed the war and whom Mr. Wilson accused of twisting intelligence about Iraq and then plotting to destroy him. Unaware that Ms. Plame's identity was classified information, Mr. Armitage reportedly passed it along to columnist Robert D. Novak "in an offhand manner, virtually as gossip," according to a story this week by the Post's R. Jeffrey Smith, who quoted a former colleague of Mr. Armitage.

It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue. The partisan clamor that followed the raising of that allegation by Mr. Wilson in the summer of 2003 led to the appointment of a special prosecutor, a costly and prolonged investigation, and the indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury. All of that might have been avoided had Mr. Armitage's identity been known three years ago.

That's not to say that Mr. Libby and other White House officials are blameless. As prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has reported, when Mr. Wilson charged that intelligence about Iraq had been twisted to make a case for war, Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney reacted by inquiring about Ms. Plame's role in recommending Mr. Wilson for a CIA-sponsored trip to Niger, where he investigated reports that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium. Mr. Libby then allegedly disclosed Ms. Plame's identity to journalists and lied to a grand jury when he said he had learned of her identity from one of those reporters. Mr. Libby and his boss, Mr. Cheney, were trying to discredit Mr. Wilson; if Mr. Fitzgerald's account is correct, they were careless about handling information that was classified.

Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

 

[michaeledward]

I don't expect that the damage will be undone. So many people have heard this story, got worked up over it and now look on things in a biased way that even though they hear the truth won't change their opinions of the administration.

Explain for me, if you can, the Josephy Wilson New York Times Article, in the possession of Special Prosecutor Fitzgerads, upon which there are Vice President Cheney's handwritten notes? And what are the significance of those handwritten notes?

That Richard Armitage was Mr. Novak's first source does not negate the actions of intent of Vice President Cheney, Karl Rove, and Irving Lewis Libby.

The damage that was done, could easily have not been done, had Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby honored the oath they signed when accepting responsibility for handling classified information.

The truth is, Armitage, is at fault. The leak served both him, and his boss, Secretary of State Powell, despite the current story's pleas of accidental release of covert information.

The truth also is - and your comment here indicates that you are unwilling to change an opinion because of your bias - that the Vice President's office orchestrated a smear campaign to destroy a political enemy using tactics that included releasing classified information to an additional six reporters before Mr. Novak's story broke.

And, didn't the President of the United States say something about, whoever leaked the information would no longer work in his Administration?

Mr. Rove? Mr. Rove? Paging Mr. Rove?


EDIT - P.S. The news that Richard Armitage was Mr. Novak's original source for Valerie Plame's name and occupation has been widely speculated since March of this year. The first people to confirm and print this fact are David Corn of The Nation magazine, and Michael Isikoff of Newsweek Magazine in the soon-to-be-released book 'HUBRIS'. From the hints of the content of this book Mr. Corn has released on his blog, I wonder if those who view the 'sourcing' of Armitage will be willing to embrace all of the facts and content included in this book. Or, as Mr. Corn speculates, there will be much selected cherry picking of information from the book.

http://www.amazon.com/Hubris-Inside...=pd_bbs_1/102-3093505-3891320?ie=UTF8&s=books

END EDIT

 

[Don Roley]

Micheal,
I hardly expect you to change your tone.

I was posting for others. Someone else has been identified as the initial leak and there was never an intent to destroy someone's career.

No one tried to destroy someone by knowingly leaking classified information. But I do not expect that to make you change your tune.

 

[michaeledward]

Micheal,
I hardly expect you to change your tone.

I was posting for others. Someone else has been identified as the initial leak and there was never an intent to destroy someone's career.

No one tried to destroy someone by knowingly leaking classified information. But I do not expect that to make you change your tune.

Don Roley ... I too often post for to put the information out for lurkers.

Your reply, however, does not address those items that I mention.

1 - Richard Armitage and Colin Powell also had motivation and received benefit from leaking Valerie Plame's name and status - remember they were the reluctant warriors.

2 - That Richard Armitage apparently had no malice, does not change the apparent facts that the Vice President's office did act with malice. Your last sentence, denies this fact, and is incorrect. It does serve to muddy the waters a bit, though, doesn't it?

 

[Don Roley]

Nope.

You are trying to convict Richard Amritage of being part of a conspiracy without facts- and the few facts we do know seem to be that he would not be part of something like this. Nor is there proof of malice from the vice presidents office in knowingly trying to reveal Valarie's status. There was ill feeling towards her husband who had attacked them, but not a single bit of proof that the white house knowingly tried to expose her as the commonly made accusation goes.

The facts are there that her status was revealed by mistake by someone who did not support the war and was not trying to ruin her career. Later Rove was confronted with her status and responded with the comment, "so you heard that too." Which is not exactly a confirmation and more of something you come up with after being surprised. It is in far contrast to the stories that Rove went around and called reporters to try to get them to carry the story as has been charged.

Of course, by now most people have heard the accusation that the Bush white house broke the law in trying to expose Valerie Plame so often that they have accepted it. Repeat something often enough and people will believe it.

 

[michaeledward]

Nope.

You are trying to convict Richard Amritage of being part of a conspiracy without facts- and the few facts we do know seem to be that he would not be part of something like this. Nor is there proof of malice from the vice presidents office in knowingly trying to reveal Valarie's status. There was ill feeling towards her husband who had attacked them, but not a single bit of proof that the white house knowingly tried to expose her as the commonly made accusation goes.

The facts are there that her status was revealed by mistake by someone who did not support the war and was not trying to ruin her career. Later Rove was confronted with her status and responded with the comment, "so you heard that too." Which is not exactly a confirmation and more of something you come up with after being surprised. It is in far contrast to the stories that Rove went around and called reporters to try to get them to carry the story as has been charged.

Of course, by now most people have heard the accusation that the Bush white house broke the law in trying to expose Valerie Plame so often that they have accepted it. Repeat something often enough and people will believe it.

Did Karl Rove tell Tim Russert "Valerie Plame is Fair Game" or not?

 

[Don Roley]

Don't know, and it is not relevant to the false idea that someone was out to punish Valerie by illeagally exposing her.

Interesting read,

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansa...84.htm?source=rss&channel=kansascity_politics

Novak first revealed that Plame worked for the CIA in a July 14, 2003, column.

Novak’s article was published eight days after a column by Wilson appeared in the in The New York Times describing a trip he took to Niger for the CIA in February 2002 to assess a report that the African nation was selling nuclear bomb-making material to Iraq.

By the authors’ account, Armitage disclosed at the end of a July 8, 2003, interview with Novak in his State Department office that Plame worked for the CIA. He later contacted State Department officials about his role after reading the October Novak column, fearing, as he reportedly told one colleague, that “I may be the guy who caused this whole thing.”

So the Novak article came out July 14th and the Wilson article came out eight days before that- i.e. July 6th. So by July 8th they had convinced Armatige- a guy who opposed the war and was on the other side of the opinion- to arrange to reveal information to punish a woman for what her husband said. Yeah, right..... And for benefits that I can't see.

I find it interesting that some of the people that have said that we should have waited until we knew with 100 percent certainty if Hussein had WMDs or not before acting went out and made accusations without all the facts being known.

More sources

http://www.unionleader.com/article....+of+the+affair:+No+blame+in+Plame+game"'%<>:$
http://www.record-eagle.com/2006/sep/02editc.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/30/politics/main1949676.shtml

 

[michaeledward]

So the Novak article came out July 14th and the Wilson article came out eight days before that- i.e. July 6th. So by July 8th they had convinced Armatige- a guy who opposed the war and was on the other side of the opinion- to arrange to reveal information to punish a woman for what her husband said. Yeah, right..... And for benefits that I can't see.

Why can't you conceive of the idea that Armitage's disclosure was either, designed to insulate the State Department from the bad press the invasion was beginning to receive concerning pre-war intelligence or an innocent oversight, and at the same time, the Vice President's office was attempting to destroy a political critic.

I don't think it is that difficult a concept; different people, different motivations.

I find it interesting that some of the people that have said that we should have waited until we knew with 100 percent certainty if Hussein had WMDs or not before acting went out and made accusations without all the facts being known.

Now, isnt' that a great example of ... "The Big Lie" ... didn't you reference that a few posts back .... let me check.

Repeat something often enough and people will believe it.

So, what was the Big Lie being repeated before the war, that Ambassador Wilson disputed in that article ....

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

And, the day after Mr. Wilson's article, the government did say it was inappropriate to include this language in the State of the Union.
So if the language was incorrect, why did Rove disclose Plame's identity to Mr. Novak and Mr. Cooper. Why did Mr. Libby disclose Plame's identity to Ms. Miller? Why was Wilson's Wife "Fair Game"?

 

[Don Roley]

Why can't you conceive of the idea that Armitage's disclosure was either, designed to insulate the State Department from the bad press the invasion was beginning to receive concerning pre-war intelligence or an innocent oversight, and at the same time, the Vice President's office was attempting to destroy a political critic.

Because the idea is silly and one of the biggest reaches in logic that I have ever seen and there is no proof. Armitage had no real motivation nor reward for pulling off that type of smear campeign. Armitage made the leak by mistake and Rove was caught by Novak and outside of outright lying to the press (a bad thing) anything he would have said would have tipped that it was true. Even the comment "so you heard that too" was enough for Novak to know that his original source was correct.

Up to now we have heard that the white house went out of its way to destroy a CIA operative. Now we see that it was an unintential leak by one person in sympathy with the anti- war side of things and damn good work by a reporter. But the conspiracy theories will continue on.

 

[michaeledward]

Because the idea is silly and one of the biggest reaches in logic that I have ever seen and there is no proof. Armitage had no real motivation nor reward for pulling off that type of smear campeign. Armitage made the leak by mistake and Rove was caught by Novak and outside of outright lying to the press (a bad thing) anything he would have said would have tipped that it was true. Even the comment "so you heard that too" was enough for Novak to know that his original source was correct.

Up to now we have heard that the white house went out of its way to destroy a CIA operative. Now we see that it was an unintential leak by one person in sympathy with the anti- war side of things and damn good work by a reporter. But the conspiracy theories will continue on.

You seem to be unware of Mr. Rove and Mr. Novaks' prior history. To assume that Rove accidentally or unitentionally was the second source for Novak just ignores their history.

You also continue to ignore Rove's conversations with Cooper and Russert and Libby's conversations with Miller.

Whether the White House went 'out of its way' to destroy a CIA operative or whether it was 'offhand', members of the White House violated their oaths concerning classified information. The President stated that if someone in his White House leaked the information, they would no longer be working in the White House.

Rove was Cooper's first source.
Libby was Miller's first source.

Armitage is no longer working for the Federal government.
Libby is no longer working for the Federal government.
Rove is still employed in the White House.

I'm sorry, Mr. President, didn't you say something about those responsible wouldn't be working for you?

You were aware that Ms. Plame was working on Nuclear proliferation concerns in Iran prior to her outing. Gee, I'm sure we don't need any experts in that field now do we?

 

[Don Roley]

You seem to be unware of Mr. Rove and Mr. Novaks' prior history. To assume that Rove accidentally or unitentionally was the second source for Novak just ignores their history.

I am not assuming anything. We have the word of Novak and Armatige that your conjecture about a ocastrated campeign is without merit.

 

[michaeledward]

I am not assuming anything. We have the word of Novak and Armatige that your conjecture about a ocastrated campeign is without merit.

Don Roley ... I have not stated that Armitage's role in revealing Plame's name to Woodward and Novak was part of an orchestrated campaign.

I have said that such a revalation served the interests of the State Department. Follow along ... the probability of finding WMD in Iraq was getting lower; State was the reluctant warrior, although Powell presented the Administration's argument before the world, showing a nepotistic CIA was a benefit to the State Department.

The White House, at Cheney's direction, and Libby's specific request, assembled a dossier on Wilson, and Plame. The Vice President's office had every reason to attempt to tear down the credibility of Wilson; he was publically saying things that put pressure on pre-invasion claims.

Why can't Armitage's role be minor, AT THE SAME TIME AS Cheney, Rove & Libby's roles are nefarious?

For evidence of this possibility; there are handwritten notes by the V.P. on Wilson's New York Times Article, there is Matthew Cooper, there is Judith Miller, there is Tim Russert,

Why did Libby lie to the FBI and to Prosecutor Fitzpatrick about hearing Plame's name from Reporters - when, in fact, he was giving her name and status to reporters?

I do not want to give Armitage a pass on this. He is reported as being a common gossip. It is further reported that he was unaware of Ms. Plame's covert status when revealing that information - although I am not certain I believe that assertion. However, Armitage left the government by his own choice. Armitage cooperated completely and fully with the investigation, even providing his wife's laptop computer to the office of Special Council.

But, regardless of what Armitage did or did not do ... it does not absolve the actions of Rove, Libby and Cheney ... no matter how the Right Wing media mouthpieces for the Administration try to spin this news.

 

[Don Roley]

Why can't Armitage's role be minor, AT THE SAME TIME AS Cheney, Rove & Libby's roles are nefarious?

Why can't there be no conspiracy of any sort? The "proof" you give is about the same as you can find for me killing my mother in law. Less in fact. Possible (note- possible) motivation and a few notes.....

Considering that the accusations are that federal law was broken knowingly and the security of America was comprimised you had better have more proof from a reliable source than what you show.

 

[michaeledward]

Why can't there be no conspiracy of any sort? The "proof" you give is about the same as you can find for me killing my mother in law. Less in fact. Possible (note- possible) motivation and a few notes.....

Considering that the accusations are that federal law was broken knowingly and the security of America was comprimised you had better have more proof from a reliable source than what you show.

Don Roley, you are now getting into an absolutely ridiculous argument.

You make no attempt to answer any of the questions I raise .... Matthew Cooper? Judith Miller? You dismiss them.

I have made no claim of federal law being broken ... Straw Man Argument.

My statement is that the Rove & Libby (& Armitage) violated the oaths they signed when given access to classified information.

My statement is that the President said that any persons in his White House found to be violating those oaths would be dismissed.

My statement is that the White House - specifically, the Vice President's office, - has made America less safe in the ability to track nuclear materials in Iraq because of a personal vendetta against Ambassodor Wilson.

My sources are confirmed.

Rove did reveal Plame's name and occupation to Matthew Cooper, and did tell Tim Russert that she was 'Fair Game'.

Libby did reveal Plame's occupation to Judith Miller.



Have you admitted to the Special Prosecutor that you killed your mother in law? Because Karl Rove has admitted to the Special Prosecutor that he did expose a covert agent to reporters.