Karl Rove revealed as CIA Leak


Recommended Posts

The newsmagazine has obtained documentary evidence that White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove was indeed a key source for Time magazine's Matt Cooper and that Rove--prior to the publication of the Bob Novak column that first publicly disclosed Valerie Wilson/Plame as a CIA official--told Cooper that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife apparently worked at the CIA and was involved in Joseph Wilson's now-controversial trip to Niger.

http://www.newsamericanow.com/2005/07/claim_newsweek.html

Discuss this here.

My thoughts: This story is nowhere to be seen in the news, just as I suspected. White House apologists everywhere can rejoice, as it appears nothing may be done about this. If, however, it turns out that Rove lied to the Grand Jury in his testimony, then we may be getting somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's nice to see the press actually doing their job, instead of continually lobbing softballs at these press briefings. Although I haven't quoted it, McClellan and Bush stated in the past that anyone in his administration who might have leaked anything about the identity of a CIA officer would be fired. It will be interesting to see if they actually follow through with this.

Video link for posterity.

Oct. 10, 2003

Q: Earlier this week you told us that neither Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams nor Lewis Libby disclosed any classified information with regard to the leak. I wondered if you could tell us more specifically whether any of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?

A: I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that's where it stands.

Q: So none of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?

A: They assured me that they were not involved in this.

Q: They were not involved in what?

A: The leaking of classified information.

Guardian Unlimited

Q Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003 when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliott Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this" -- do you stand by that statement?

MR. McCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time, as well.

Q Scott, I mean, just -- I mean, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us after having commented with that level of detail and tell people watching this that somehow you decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium, or not?

MR. McCLELLAN: And again, David, I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said, and I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation --

Q Why are you choosing when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?

MR. McCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish --

Q No, you're not finishing -- you're not saying anything. You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke out about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation? Was he involved, or was he not? Because, contrary to what you told the American people, he did, indeed, talk about his wife, didn't he?

MR. McCLELLAN: David, there will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.

Q Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question.

Go ahead, Terry.

Q Well, you're in a bad spot here, Scott, because after the investigation began, after the criminal investigation was underway, you said -- October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby, as I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this." From that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began. Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization Terry, and I think you are well aware of that. We know each other very well, and it was after that period that the investigators had requested that we not get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation. And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this, because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the President of the United States. I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point, I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I'm just not going to do that.

Q Do you recall when you were asked --

Q Wait, wait -- so you're now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore, and since then, you haven't?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you're continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation, and I'm just not going to respond any further.

Q When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you peg down a date?

MR. McCLELLAN: Back at that time period.

Q Well, then the President commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan?

MR. McCLELLAN: John, I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response.

WhiteHouse.gov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow, I don't know how to take it, but if this is completely clear as it was laid out there, Rove should be fired. But that isn't going to happen. Rumsfeld should have been fired after the prison torture but that didn't happen either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gee really... could have told you that months ago ... Rove is a stupid ******... serving the Global Elite (N)

(EDIT) of course nothing's going to be in the news about it... he'll be safe from the law b/c he's serving his "masters" and the mass media will keep it under wraps thus keeping the average citizen brain dead and mentally captive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if Bush follows his promise of firing anyone who gives out a leak, then I guess Rove is gone.

586201398[/snapback]

Forget the promise to have him fired, his actions were criminal and should be treated as such.

(EDIT) of course nothing's going to be in the news about it... he'll be safe from the law b/c he's serving his "masters" and the mass media will keep it under wraps thus keeping the average citizen brain dead and mentally captive.

I'm reminded of a song lyric

"It's not the secrets of the Government that are keepin' ya dumb;

No its the other way around..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.newsamericanow.com/2005/07/claim_newsweek.html

Discuss this here.

My thoughts:  This story is nowhere to be seen in the news, just as I suspected.  White House apologists everywhere can rejoice, as it appears nothing may be done about this.  If, however, it turns out that Rove lied to the Grand Jury in his testimony, then we may be getting somewhere.

586191210[/snapback]

of course its not in the news, why would it be? u see that news isnt interesting, michael jackson and the run away bride are so that gets more attention. anything that would harm the administration is bad so why report it? /sarcasm :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

finally a real reporter that actually cuts through the bs and trys to get to the truth, thats awesome! nah rove wont be fired, bush will probably not even comment on this, he doesnt care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, we haven't gotten any flamebait from the conservative right yet. Well, I'll up the ante:

I wonder if the Bush administration gave out the name of Valerie Plame in order to comprimise national security - maybe to get back at the CIA for something? Revealing her identity lead to the comprimise of hundreds of CIA agents - what Rove said is certainly criminal- I wonder what will happen next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, we haven't gotten any flamebait from the conservative right yet.  Well, I'll up the ante:

I wonder if the Bush administration gave out the name of Valerie Plame in order to comprimise national security - maybe to get back at the CIA for something?  Revealing her identity lead to the comprimise of hundreds of CIA agents - what Rove said is certainly criminal- I wonder what will happen next.

586202001[/snapback]

That seems extremely far fetched, I hope you are just pulling that out of your ass and don't beleive it. I am loving how the media is hardly playing this down and actually calling bush out a bit on him saying he woudl fire whoever it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I see it he should be either fired or severely reprimanded.

Possibility #1. Corruption/Saliscious Intent. He may have outed her as a CIA agent to try and make Wilson look bad.

Possbility #2. Incompetence. He may have outed her as a CIA agent due to incompetence. If he wasn't sure if the knowledge of sensitive or not then he should have checked it out first rather than yap about it to a reporter.

So it comes down to corruption or incompetence. Take you pick, both are pretty bad. I don't think it matters if it was technically legal or not.

And this guy was supposed to be one the brains behind the neo-cons? You're supposed to not get caught.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, we haven't gotten any flamebait from the conservative right yet.  Well, I'll up the ante:

I wonder if the Bush administration gave out the name of Valerie Plame in order to comprimise national security - maybe to get back at the CIA for something?  Revealing her identity lead to the comprimise of hundreds of CIA agents - what Rove said is certainly criminal- I wonder what will happen next.

586202001[/snapback]

Oh please, Plame was a pencil pusher for christs sake, not James Bond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh please, Plame was a pencil pusher for christs sake, not James Bond.

586204982[/snapback]

Batter up!

Firstly, US national security doesn't depend on agents like James Bond. Second of all, Plame ran a company that was investigating the nuclear ties between Nigeria and Iraq, and from what I can see, was developing several other connections in the middle east. Any betrayal of US national interest is a crime - treason, in fact. Rove, of course, will probably get away with a slap on the wrists, but you're still wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My response? Its not a big deal. To me, Rove was making a clarification, not leaking the info, but whatever.

We just got over the whole Durbin thing, just with the tables turned now. By this standard, lets just requre Rove to give a pseudo-apology and be done with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any betrayal of US national interest is a crime - treason, in fact.  Rove, of course, will probably get away with a slap on the wrists

586205428[/snapback]

Probably not even that, he'll get a medal for sure. :whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My response? Its not a big deal. To me, Rove was making a clarification, not leaking the info, but whatever.

We just got over the whole Durbin thing, just with the tables turned now. By this standard, lets just requre Rove to give a pseudo-apology and be done with it.

586205758[/snapback]

Wait a damn minute here. Durbin excercised his right to free speech, whoever misguided it was, so therefore he broke no law. Rove on the other hand leaked a name of a CIA operative. Firstly, according to Bush's promise, he should be fired. Secondly, leaking a name of a CIA operative in a time of war is treason. The difference between the two scenarios is immense. Turn the tables? How about flip them over, break all the dishes, and refuse to pay up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forget the promise to have him fired, his actions were criminal and should be treated as such.

586201508[/snapback]

agreed. where's the problem? he leaked the name. he did wrong. he is responsible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

agreed.  where's the problem?  he leaked the name.  he did wrong.  he is responsible.

586206989[/snapback]

I know this is gonna sound like flamebait to the neo-cons, but it is true.

Rove is seens as a demi-god among conservatives, and as such, he is infallable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.