Did the CIA “Out” Valerie Plame?

[PACKY]

With each passing day, the manufactured "scandal" over the publication of Valerie Plame's relationship with the CIA establishes new depths of mainstream-media hypocrisy. A highly capable special prosecutor is probing the underlying facts, and it is appropriate to withhold legal judgments until he completes the investigation over which speculation runs so rampant. But it is not too early to assess the performance of the press. It's been appalling.


http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/mccarthy/mccarthy200507180801.asp

 

[arnegrim]

Wow... VERY interesting if true!

 

[Voegelin]

Same thing the liberal media did with Dan Rather's fake story. Sail right along with it as if nobody knew different until it all crashed into and broke up on the rocks.

 

[sidiousmax225]

Same thing the liberal media did with Dan Rather's fake story. Sail right along with it as if nobody knew different until it all crashed into and broke up on the rocks.

Ohh that evil liberal media and their dastardly ways! Curse you traitors and various evil-doers!!

 

[Billy Batson]

uh, no, the cia would not out one of their own. it's in their best interest to see karl rove out of the white house regardless of whether or not he's broken a law or not. the appearance of a compromised white house gives field agents 2nd thoughts. it's detrimental to the agency because it's known fact that rove did in fact talk to the press about the agent he "didn't know the name of."

 

[nathanel]

I guess someone should have alerted Scott McClellen to that eh?

Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
"And with that, I will be glad to go to your questions. Terry.

Q Does the President stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in the leak of a name of a CIA operative?

MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, I appreciate your question. I think your question is being asked relating to some reports that are in reference to an ongoing criminal investigation. The criminal investigation that you reference is something that continues at this point. And as I've previously stated, while that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it. The President directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, we made a decision that we weren't going to comment on it while it is ongoing.

Q Excuse me, but I wasn't actually talking about any investigation. But in June of 2004, the President said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak, to press of information. And I just want to know, is that still his position?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, but this question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation, and that's why I said that our policy continues to be that we're not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation from this podium. The prosecutors overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference to us that one way to help the investigation is not to be commenting on it from this podium. And so that's why we are not going to get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation, or questions related to it.

Q Scott, if I could -- if I could point out, contradictory to that statement, on September 29th, 2003, while the investigation was ongoing, you clearly commented on it. You were the first one who said, if anybody from the White House was involved, they would be fired. And then on June 10th of 2004, at Sea Island Plantation, in the midst of this investigation is when the President made his comment that, yes, he would fire anybody from the White House who was involved. So why have you commented on this during the process of the investigation in the past, but now you've suddenly drawn a curtain around it under the statement of, "We're not going to comment on an ongoing investigation"?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, John, I appreciate the question. I know you want to get to the bottom of this. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the President of the United States. And I think the way to be most helpful is to not get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation. That's something that the people overseeing the investigation have expressed a preference that we follow. And that's why we're continuing to follow that approach and that policy.

Now, I remember very well what was previously said. And at some point, I will be glad to talk about it, but not until after the investigation is complete.

Q So could I just ask, when did you change your mind to say that it was okay to comment during the course of an investigation before, but now it's not?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think maybe you missed what I was saying in reference to Terry's question at the beginning. There came a point when the investigation got underway when those overseeing the investigation asked that it would be their -- or said that it would be their preference that we not get into discussing it while it is ongoing. I think that's the way to be most helpful to help them advance the investigation and get to the bottom of it.

Q Scott, can I ask you this; did Karl Rove commit a crime?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to an ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don't think you should read anything into it other than we're going to continue not to comment on it while it's ongoing.

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?"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20050711-3.html

 

[Doctrine1st]

Manufactured scandal?

More tripe of an article. Heck, even the President thought enough of the situation to state he would fire anyone who leaked anything. They have a Justice inquiry, so how is this manufactured? The CIA pushed the issue, so how is this manufactured? Three quarters of American think anyone in the Whitehouse who leaked anything should be fired, so how is this manufactured?

Even if according to yet another anonymous source her identity was disclosed during the course of her work as an agent, that gives no right, and in fact it flies against signed security disclosure aggreements, for anyone in the Whitehouse to out her for partisan hackery.

 

[Duke of Marlborough]

Manufactured scandal?

More tripe of an article. Heck, even the President thought enough of the situation to state he would fire anyone who leaked anything.

That's not entirely true. The President said back in 2003 that he wanted to know who the leaker was and then if a law was broken then the leaker would be dealt with, read fired.

They have a Justice inquiry, so how is this manufactured?

It's manufactured because the press have no idea what the Special Prosecutor thinks of Rove's involvement.

The CIA pushed the issue, so how is this manufactured? Three quarters of American think anyone in the Whitehouse who leaked anything should be fired, so how is this manufactured?

Plame's former boss at the CIA was on the radio yesterday and he agreed that this was MUCH ado about nothing. The press want the head of the President, if they can't get it then Rove's is the next best.

Even if according to yet another anonymous source her identity was disclosed during the course of her work as an agent, that gives no right, and in fact it flies against signed security disclosure aggreements, for anyone in the Whitehouse to out her for partisan hackery.

You have the text of any agreements so we can see just exactly how they were violated?

 

[Billnew]

Hey fire them! before the truth comes out!!!!
Hurry!hurry!

If he leaked it, and a law was broken, then fire him.
If he didn't or a law wasn't broken, then announce this.

It's called, innocent until proven guilty.
Except for politicians? or is except for republicans on the hit list?

 

[kermit]

Hey fire them! before the truth comes out!!!!
Hurry!hurry!

If he leaked it, and a law was broken, then fire him.
If he didn't or a law wasn't broken, then announce this.

It's called, innocent until proven guilty.
Except for politicians? or is except for republicans on the hit list?

For me, this has nothing to do with crimes or republican on some hit list. For me it has to do with judgement. Rove works for me and every other citizen. IMO, he did not pratice the type of judgement needed for his job. I doesn't matter if someone else outed Plame (though it's important to find out who), Rove told classified information to a reporter. No matter how people try to spin this the simple fact is grounds for termination, IMO.

So far the only thing the right has is that:
1) Rove may not have been the first to leak the information
2) Wilson and Plame are partisan hacks
3) It might not be a crime

If that's the best the right can do well I guess Rove will have to learn to enjoy his retirement because none of those 3 absolve him.

 

[Doctrine1st]

That's not entirely true. The President said back in 2003 that he wanted to know who the leaker was and then if a law was broken then the leaker would be dealt with, read fired.

Yes, that's what he said....................today.

Kind of like the rational for invading Iraq, the goal posts are moving.

t's manufactured because the press have no idea what the Special Prosecutor thinks of Rove's involvement.

The press is not going out on a limb making statements on what the Prosecuter knows, they are reporting the story. They are asking questions. They are asking why McClellen insists on lying. Why the Whitehouse insists on lying. They have finally found their kahoonas here lately.

Plame's former boss at the CIA was on the radio yesterday and he agreed that this was MUCH ado about nothing. The press want the head of the President, if they can't get it then Rove's is the next best.

Who is he? And name the radio program or provide transcripts for some reason I highly doubt that someone within the managment of the CIA has no problem with Government officials and the press dropping names of CIA operatives.

You have the text of any agreements so we can see just exactly how they were violated?

HERE (warning PDF)

 

[Billy Batson]

the press are going after this story stronger than they've been in the past. it's like they found a backbone again. most people have become docile with the news.

one of their own is in jail. they smell blood and are going after it to see to it something like this won't happen again.

and yes, rove did break a law. he admitted he talked to reporters and his lawyer has stated so. he signed a non-discloure form when he came to the white house, which he's broken. the paper states he won't divulge information that is classified at all, and can be prosecuted for it, even if the disclosure was accidental.

 

[nathanel]

...
You have the text of any agreements so we can see just exactly how they were violated?

Sure here you go:

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Karl Rove's Nondisclosure Agreement [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Executive Order 12958 governs how federal employees are awarded security clearances in order to obtain access to classified information. It was last updated by President George W. Bush on March 25, 2003, although it has existed in some form since the Truman era. The executive order applies to any entity within the executive branch that comes into possession of classified information, including the White House. It requires employees to undergo a criminal background check, obtain training on how to protect classified information, and sign a "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement," also known as a SF-312, promising not to reveal classified information. [1] The nondisclosure agreement signed by White House officials such as Mr. Rove states: "I will never divulge classified information to anyone" who is not authorized to receive it. [2] [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] The Prohibition against "Confirming" Classified Information [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Mr. Rove, through his attorney, has raised the implication that there is a distinction between releasing classified information to someone not authorized to receive it and confirming classified information from someone not authorized to have it. In fact, there is no such distinction under the nondisclosure agreement Mr. Rove signed. [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] One of the most basic rules of safeguarding classified information is that an official who has signed a nondisclosure agreement cannot confirm classified information obtained by a reporter. In fact, this obligation is highlighted in the "briefing booklet" that new security clearance recipients receive when they sign their nondisclosure agreements: [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Before ... confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not, ... confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure. [3] [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] The Independent Duty to Verify the Classified Status of Information [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Mr. Rove's attorney has implied that if Mr. Rove learned Ms. Wilson's identity and occupation from a reporter, this somehow makes a difference in what he can say about the information. This is inaccurate. The executive order states: "Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information." [4] [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Mr. Rove was not at liberty to repeat classified information he may have learned from a reporter. Instead, he had an affirmative obligation to determine whether the information had been declassified before repeating it. The briefing booklet is explicit on this point: "before disseminating the information elsewhere ... the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified." [5] [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] "Negligent" Disclosure of Classified Information [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Mr. Rove's attorney has also implied that Mr. Rove's conduct should be at issue only if he intentionally or knowingly disclosed Ms. Wilson's covert status. In fact, the nondisclosure agreement and the executive order require sanctions against security clearance holders who "knowingly, willfully, or negligently" disclose classified information. [6] The sanctions for such a breach include "reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions." [7] [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] The White House Obligations under Executive Order 12958 [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Under the executive order, the White House has an affirmative obligation to investigate and take remedial action separate and apart from any ongoing criminal investigation. The executive order specifically provides that when a breach occurs, each agency must "take appropriate and prompt corrective action."8 This includes a determination of whether individual employees improperly disseminated or obtained access to classified information. [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] The executive order further provides that sanctions for violations are not optional. The executive order expressly provides: "Officers and employees of the United States Government ... shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently ... disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified." [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] There is no evidence that the White House complied with these requirements. [/font][/font]


[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] End Notes [/font][/font] [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [1] Executive Order No. 12958, Classified National Security Information (as amended), sec. 4.1(a) (Mar. 28, 2003) (online at www.archives.gov/isoo/policy_documents/executive_order_ 12958_amendment.html).
[2] Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement, Standard Form 312 (Prescribed by NARA/ISOO) (32 C.F.R. 2003, E.O. 12958) (online at http://contacts.gsa.gov/webforms.nsf/ 0/03A78F16A522716785256A69004E23F6/$file/SF312.pdf).
[3] Information Security Oversight Office, National Archives and Records Administration, Briefing Booklet: Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement (Standard Form 312), at 73 (emphasis added) (online at www.archives.gov/isoo/training/standard_form_312.pdf).
[4] Executive Order No. 12958, sec. 1.1(b).
[5] Briefing Booklet, supra note 3, at 73.
[6] Executive Order No. 12958, sec. 5.5(b) (emphasis added).
[7] Id. at 5.5(c). 8 Id. at 5.5(e)(1). 9 Id. at 5.5(b).
[/font][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][source]

emphasis added
[/font][/font]

 

[Duke of Marlborough]

Yes, that's what he said....................today.

No, that's what he said in September 2003. And here is a link where he said it again on February 11, 2004 a full 4 months before the quote the media is trying yank out of context:

• "If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of." - transcript on CNN.com of President Bush impromptu news conference

I'll keep looking for a link to the September 2003 quote if you want.

Kind of like the rational for invading Iraq, the goal posts are moving.

The only people moving the goal posts in this is the press.

The press is not going out on a limb making statements on what the Prosecuter knows, they are reporting the story. They are asking questions. They are asking why McClellen insists on lying. Why the Whitehouse insists on lying. They have finally found their kahoonas here lately.

The White House was not lying and neither was McClellan as I've just demonstrated above. The press have found their cajones because they know that when the truth comes out in this story that it will be their butts in a sling and not the Administration's.

Why, over 40 media organizations have submitted friend of the court briefs saying that the reporters involved, Miller, et. al., broke no law for doing what they are accusing Karl Rove of doing. So, MSM, which is it.....legal or illegal?

Who is he? And name the radio program or provide transcripts for some reason I highly doubt that someone within the managment of the CIA has no problem with Government officials and the press dropping names of CIA operatives.

I'll look for the guy's name but he was on Hannity's show yesterday afternoon.

I found his name -- Fred Rustmann. Here is an excerpt from an interview with him in the Washington Times:

• A former CIA covert agent who supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career yesterday took issue with her identification as an "undercover agent," saying that she worked for more than five years at the agency's headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee. "She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat," Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990, told The Washington Times. "Her neighbors knew this, her friends knew this, his friends knew this. A lot of blame could be put on to central cover staff and the agency because they weren't minding the store here. ... The agency never changed her cover status." Mr. Rustmann, who spent 20 of his 24 years in the agency under "nonofficial cover" -- also known as a NOC, the same status as the wife of Mr. Wilson -- also said that she worked under extremely light cover. In addition, Mrs. Plame hadn't been out as an NOC since 1997, when she returned from her last assignment, married Mr. Wilson and had twins, USA Today reported yesterday. The distinction matters because a law that forbids disclosing the name of undercover CIA operatives applies to agents that had been on overseas assignment "within the last five years." "She was home for such a long time, she went to work every day at Langley, she was in an analytical type job, she was married to a high-profile diplomat with two kids," Mr. Rustmann said.

 

[Duke of Marlborough]

Sure here you go:

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Karl Rove's Nondisclosure Agreement [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Executive Order 12958 governs how federal employees are awarded security clearances in order to obtain access to classified information. It was last updated by President George W. Bush on March 25, 2003, although it has existed in some form since the Truman era. The executive order applies to any entity within the executive branch that comes into possession of classified information, including the White House. It requires employees to undergo a criminal background check, obtain training on how to protect classified information, and sign a "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement," also known as a SF-312, promising not to reveal classified information. [1] The nondisclosure agreement signed by White House officials such as Mr. Rove states: "I will never divulge classified information to anyone" who is not authorized to receive it. [2] [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Prohibition against "Confirming" Classified Information [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Mr. Rove, through his attorney, has raised the implication that there is a distinction between releasing classified information to someone not authorized to receive it and confirming classified information from someone not authorized to have it. In fact, there is no such distinction under the nondisclosure agreement Mr. Rove signed. [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]One of the most basic rules of safeguarding classified information is that an official who has signed a nondisclosure agreement cannot confirm classified information obtained by a reporter. In fact, this obligation is highlighted in the "briefing booklet" that new security clearance recipients receive when they sign their nondisclosure agreements: [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Before ... confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not, ... confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure. [3] [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Independent Duty to Verify the Classified Status of Information [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Mr. Rove's attorney has implied that if Mr. Rove learned Ms. Wilson's identity and occupation from a reporter, this somehow makes a difference in what he can say about the information. This is inaccurate. The executive order states: "Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information." [4] [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Mr. Rove was not at liberty to repeat classified information he may have learned from a reporter. Instead, he had an affirmative obligation to determine whether the information had been declassified before repeating it. The briefing booklet is explicit on this point: "before disseminating the information elsewhere ... the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified." [5] [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Negligent" Disclosure of Classified Information [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Mr. Rove's attorney has also implied that Mr. Rove's conduct should be at issue only if he intentionally or knowingly disclosed Ms. Wilson's covert status. In fact, the nondisclosure agreement and the executive order require sanctions against security clearance holders who "knowingly, willfully, or negligently" disclose classified information. [6] The sanctions for such a breach include "reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions." [7] [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The White House Obligations under Executive Order 12958 [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Under the executive order, the White House has an affirmative obligation to investigate and take remedial action separate and apart from any ongoing criminal investigation. The executive order specifically provides that when a breach occurs, each agency must "take appropriate and prompt corrective action."8 This includes a determination of whether individual employees improperly disseminated or obtained access to classified information. [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The executive order further provides that sanctions for violations are not optional. The executive order expressly provides: "Officers and employees of the United States Government ... shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently ... disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified." [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There is no evidence that the White House complied with these requirements. [/font][/font]

Has it been shown that Valerie Plame's name or identity was "classified" information?

Oh, and a special prosecutor is an arm of the administration. So it is investigating.

 

[Duke of Marlborough]

the press are going after this story stronger than they've been in the past. it's like they found a backbone again. most people have become docile with the news.

one of their own is in jail. they smell blood and are going after it to see to it something like this won't happen again.

and yes, rove did break a law. he admitted he talked to reporters and his lawyer has stated so. he signed a non-discloure form when he came to the white house, which he's broken. the paper states he won't divulge information that is classified at all, and can be prosecuted for it, even if the disclosure was accidental.

Was Valerie Plame/Wilson's name "classified" information?

Why is that reporterette sitting in jail? Rove gave blanket permission for reporters to reveal him as their source if he was their source. So who is she protecting?

I think the blood they smell is their own and this is not going to end good for the press.

 

[poretz]

...Why is that reporterette sitting in jail? Rove gave blanket permission for reporters to reveal him as their source if he was their source. So who is she protecting?...

Rove isn't the only one in question you know: Scooter Libby (and by implication VP Cheney), could also explain her keeping quite if they didn't give the same release for her to speak openly about her "source".

 

[Doctrine1st]

No, that's what he said in September 2003. And here is a link where he said it again on February 11, 2004 a full 4 months before the quote the media is trying yank out of context:

• "If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of." - transcript on CNN.com of President Bush impromptu news conference

• Yes, and that person is being "taken care of" Bush does reward loyalty no matter how unethical the deeds of the individual.

The White House was not lying and neither was McClellan as I've just demonstrated above. The press have found their cajones because they know that when the truth comes out in this story that it will be their butts in a sling and not the Administration's.

"In September 2003, Mr. McClellan said flatly that Mr. Rove had not been involved in disclosing Ms. Plame's name. Asked about the issue on Sept. 29, 2003, Mr. McClellan said he had "spoken with Karl Rove," and that it was "simply not true" that Mr. Rove had a role in the disclosure of her identity. Two weeks earlier, he had called suggestions that Mr. Rove had been involved "totally ridiculous." On Oct. 10, 2003, after the Justice Department opened its investigation, Mr. McClellan told reporters that Mr. Rove, Mr. Abrams and Mr. Libby had nothing to do with the leak."

We now know that is not the truth. Along with the notion that Rove can't remember how it came about he heard of Plame.

Why, over 40 media organizations have submitted friend of the court briefs saying that the reporters involved, Miller, et. al., broke no law for doing what they are accusing Karl Rove of doing. So, MSM, which is it.....legal or illegal?

From what I understand Miller, although she had converstions with "some people" regarding Plame, she wrote no story.

I found his name -- Fred Rustmann. Here is an excerpt from an interview with him in the Washington Times:

• A former CIA covert agent who supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career yesterday took issue with her identification as an "undercover agent," saying that she worked for more than five years at the agency's headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee. "She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat," Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990, told The Washington Times. "Her neighbors knew this, her friends knew this, his friends knew this. A lot of blame could be put on to central cover staff and the agency because they weren't minding the store here. ... The agency never changed her cover status." Mr. Rustmann, who spent 20 of his 24 years in the agency under "nonofficial cover" -- also known as a NOC, the same status as the wife of Mr. Wilson -- also said that she worked under extremely light cover. In addition, Mrs. Plame hadn't been out as an NOC since 1997, when she returned from her last assignment, married Mr. Wilson and had twins, USA Today reported yesterday. The distinction matters because a law that forbids disclosing the name of undercover CIA operatives applies to agents that had been on overseas assignment "within the last five years." "She was home for such a long time, she went to work every day at Langley, she was in an analytical type job, she was married to a high-profile diplomat with two kids," Mr. Rustmann said.

I bolded the most important statement made by this "gentleman" who retired 15 years ago and who was her supevisor "early" in her career. Begs the question how early? How does he know, and if the case is how he portrays it, why would the CIA ask for an investigation? The "even her neighbors knew" kind of flies in the face of their direct statements:

Plame's neighbors reaction to her outing" from the New York Times, Tuesday 05 July 2005

"Before this whole affair, no one would ever have thought of her as an undercover agent," said David Tillotson, a next-door neighbor for seven years who got to know the Wilsons well over back-fence chats, shared dinners and play dates for their grandchildren with the Wilsons' children, Trevor and Samantha.
"She wasn't mysterious," Mr. Tillotson said. "She was sort of a working soccer mom."

He recalled his incredulity on July 14, 2003, when his wife, Victoria, spotted in The Washington Post, in a syndicated column by Robert Novak, a line identifying their neighbor by her maiden name and calling her an "agency operative." Ms. Tillotson kept calling out: "This can't be! This can't be!"

The Wilsons' neighbor on the other side, Christopher Wolf, was similarly aghast. As he sat on his deck staring at the Novak column, Mr. Wilson came out his back door.

"I said: 'This is amazing! I had no idea,' " Mr. Wolf recalled. "He sort of motioned to me to keep my voice down."

 

[UberLutheran]

Hey fire them! before the truth comes out!!!!
Hurry!hurry!

If he leaked it, and a law was broken, then fire him.
If he didn't or a law wasn't broken, then announce this.

It's called, innocent until proven guilty.
Except for politicians? or is except for republicans on the hit list?

The rest of us "hate freedom" and "support terrorism" and are doing our level best to destroy Western civilization as we know it.

Or at least that's what I've been told.

 

[nathanel]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]By Ray McGovern
[/font][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Tuesday 19 July 2005 [/font][/font] [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] The key issue in the affair has little directly to do with former U.S. ambassador Joseph Wilson; or his wife, Valerie Plame; or Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby; or even President George W. Bush's alter ego, Karl Rove. White House v. Wilson/Plame is about Iraq, where our sons and daughters - and many others - are daily meeting violent death in an unwinnable war. [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] And it's about manipulation. [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] It's about how our elected representatives were deceived into voting for an unprovoked war and what happened when one man stood up and called the administration's bluff. And it's about the perfect storm now gathering, as: [/font][/font]

• [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]more lies are exposed (whether in journalists' e-mails or in the minutes of high-level meetings at 10 Downing Street),[/font][/font]
• [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]the guerrilla war escalates in Iraq, and[/font][/font]
• [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]more and more Americans find themselves agreeing with Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., that administration leaders seem to be "making it up as they go along."[/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] It wasn't envisaged this way by the naïve "neoconservative" ideologues that got us into the quagmire in Iraq. Actually they still seem to believe that all will be well if the Iraqi people can only get it into their heads that we are liberators, not occupiers. [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] So much smoke is being blown over White House v. Wilson/Plame that it is becoming almost impossible to see the forest for the trees. Bewildered houseguests from outside the Beltway throw up their hands: "It's all just politics...and character assassination." And that may well be precisely the impression the media wish to leave with us. Otherwise, left to our own devices, we might conclude they served us poorly with the indiscriminate, hyper-patriotic cheerleading that helped slide us into the worst foreign policy debacle in our nation's history. [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Our weekend guests had a hard time trying to understand why the White House two years ago blew the cover of CIA operative Valerie Plame, wife of former ambassador Joseph Wilson. Sure, Wilson had caught and exposed the Bush administration in a very serious lie. But almost immediately, top officials conceded that Ambassador Wilson was essentially correct in dismissing the flimsy report that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium in Africa. [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Betrayal of Trust [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] So why the neuralgic reaction? Why go to such lengths to impugn Wilson's credibility; and what purpose would be served by harming his wife as well? At first blush, it does seem awfully petty. But dig a little deeper and you'll get a glimpse of what lies beneath the White House campaign against the Wilsons. [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Revenge? There was certainly a strong desire to retaliate. And Karl Rove did tell NBC's Chris Matthews at the time that wives were "fair game." Angry at White House dissembling, Wilson had doffed his ambassadorial hat and thrown down the gauntlet when he told the press that the Iraq-Niger caper "begs the question about what else they are lying about." And, indeed, how many more untruths have been uncovered over the past two years? [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Was the relentless White House campaign to vilify the Wilsons aimed primarily at serving notice that a similar fate awaits any whose conscience might prompt them to expose still more of the lies used to "justify" the attack on Iraq? That, too, was surely part of it. And, sad to say, it has worked - at least until now. Yes, we have learned about the misdiagnosed aluminum tubes, the "Curveball" deception on Iraqi biological warfare, and the "unpiloted aerial vehicles" (UAVs) that Congress was told could threaten our coastal cities. But it was basic physics that held administration arguments up to eventual ridicule. None of the exposés came from the mouths of people like Joe Wilson, who simply could not abide crass deception in matters of war and peace. [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] The main motivation of the White House character assassins had more to do with the particular lie that Joseph Wilson exposed and the essential role it played in the administration's plans. For a nuclear-armed Iraq was the most compelling threat that could be peddled to our elected representatives and senators to deceive them into approving a war launched for reasons unrelated to any putative Iraqi WMD program. [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] The Big Lie [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] The Bush administration needed to assert that Iraq was on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. Taking that line posed a huge challenge. On the one hand, a new threat had to be created/hyped out of thin air; and, on the other, the pundits had to be too lazy to refresh their memories on what senior U.S. officials had said about Iraq's military capability before 9/11. [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] "Saddam Hussein has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." (Colin Powell, Feb. 24, 2001) [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." (Condoleezza Rice, July 29, 2001) [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] These statements went quickly down the memory hole. Immediately after 9/11, administration officials, with Vice President Dick Cheney in the lead, began to warn that Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" were just over the horizon. On August 26, 2002, a month after senior U.S. officials had explained to their British counterparts that intelligence was being "fixed" around a policy of war, Vice President Dick Cheney was the first to use that fabricated and twisted intelligence to deceive Americans at large. In a major speech he claimed: [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] "We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Among other sources, we've gotten this from the firsthand testimony of defectors - including Saddam's own son-in-law." [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] In fact, Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, had told us just the opposite: "All weapons - biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed," he told his debriefers in 1995. Everything else he told them was true. And so was that. Kamel had been in charge of those programs; the weaponry was destroyed at his command. [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] But no matter. Cheney's speech, and the subsequent National Intelligence Estimate cooked to his recipe, allowed the president to raise the specter of mushroom clouds over U.S. cities, to force a yes vote in Congress for war and, not incidentally, to win back the Senate the following month. [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] The Iraq-Niger lie was thus both the cornerstone of the Bush agenda for war and the key to unraveling how the "fixing" worked. Rove, master of the administration's strategy yet only two years out of Texas, joined by Cheney's chief of staff I. Lewis ("Scooter") Libby spread red herrings to divert reporters off the scent and wound up triggering the eventual appointment of a special prosecutor and the convening of a grand jury. [/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] So it was the president's and vice president's own men who brought the skunk to the picnic - Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. He shows no inclination to join in the fun and games, and still less to speak prematurely, or to speak at all. Rather, Fitzgerald appears to be a real pro, and as long has he can avoid being fired, he could potentially take all the fun out of things. "Neo-conservative" pundit William Kristol was clearly reflecting growing uneasiness when he commented recently that Fitzpatrick is "the problem for the White House; we have no idea what he knows." [/font][/font]



[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Ray McGovern works at Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. He had a 27-year career as an analyst at CIA and is on the Steering Committee of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. This article appeared first on TomPaine.com.[/font][/font]