Did Karl Rove expose an undercover CIA?
 

Link to the Article

Discuss among yourself.

Re: Did Karl Rove expose an undercover CIA?
 

"While Mr. Rove did identify the operative in a conversation with Mr. Cooper, Mr. Rove did not use her name - Valerie Plame, as she has been called in news accounts, or Valerie Wilson, as she prefers - or refer to her covert status, Newsweek said. "

If anything sinister or illegal happened, it will be brought out soon.

-Rudey

Rudey, do you know what's going on with Novak? It seems he is interestingly silent on all of this.

I have a feeling that certain blogs will post something in the coming weeks, but I don't know.

I think everyone will stay silent so that the lawyers make sure they don't say anything incriminating.

-Rudey

Does it count if he didn't identify her by name? One of the articles I read (one of the MSNBC links, I think) said Rove didn't give her name, just that she was "Wilson's wife." Finding out who Wilson's wife was wouldn't be too hard if you had enough time to search for a marriage license or ask around.

I think it's interesting that talk has been quiet about him overall, even though he was the one who brought all this attention in his column.

I know he still is refusing to talk or answer questions about the situation.

Novak has promised to write a column telling all, at the appropriate time.

This case is interesting, since it was pushed as a way to neutralize Novak, but to date two liberal bunches (Time and NYTimes) and two liberal writers have gotten the heat (one is now jailed).

In all, I think it is better that the media is now reducing the use of anonymous sources (USAToday says 75% less this year).

Two sides to this issue; and again, I haven't been a practicing journalist in a couple of years, so others (DeltAlum specifically) would be better-qualifed to speak on this issue.

Throughout my time as a reporter (as well as in J-school), we were almost discouraged from using anonymous sources, except in the most extreme of cases (rape victims, high-placed people whose jobs would be in jeopardy, etc.). Even then, most times my editor would have to clear the use of a nameless source. Now, I was just a run-of-the-mill reporter, so those with more experience (and better jobs) may have been given more leeway.

On the other side of this - there are some reporters and some stories where working without anonymous sources would be impossible. Some stories just cannot be broken without such sources, and the stories need to be written.

There's a balance to be sought, for sure. I just hope we don't get to a point where journalists can't use such sources.

Fill me in. I haven't followed this too close.

Rove spoke to Cooper, but wasn't it Novak that identified Wilson's wife as a CIA agent. Who was Novak's source? Isn't that person the leak?

Did Cooper identify Wilson's wife as a CIA agent.

According to reports today, Rove talked to at least one reporter.

As long as anonymous sources aren't hiding behind journalists to score cheap political points by jeapordizing national security, I think we'll be okay.

My legal understanding of this issue is that for Rove to have violated the law, *ALL* of the following would have to be true:

1. The agent was on covert (undercover) status at the time;
2. The government was trying to keep her identity secret;
3. Rove knew #1 and #2;
4. Despite knowing #1 and #2, Rove revealed her name intentionally.

Given that the agent was in DC at the time, and not overseas, it's not necessarily a given that she was on covert status. Even if she was a covert agent, I also don't think that they've cleared up whether Rove knew it. And I'm almost positive that no one has established that Rove referred to her by name.

So was Rove an idiot? Yep. Did he break the law? Nope. This isn't much of a story.

Houston Chronicle article

Disclaimer: I voted for Bush, so clearly I don't know what I'm talking about. I must be part of that Evil Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. :rolleyes:

What is that supposed to mean?

My understanding was that she was on covert status (the fact that she wasn't oversees on assignment is irrelevant). But I do agree that they won't be able to prove that he broke the law. They have to be able to show that he intended to identify an agent he knew was on covert status. So far they haven't been able to do that.
However, there is another issue. Bush said that he would fire anyone in the administration who he found to be a source of the leak and clearly Rove was. He may not have intended to reveal a covert agent, but he did in fact do so. Bush has now backed himself into a serious corner. If he doesn't fire him, it's going to seem like Bush only takes national security seriously when it's not his buddy who is getting fired.

No it's not.

Perhaps you should read some of the commentary that's out there that considers this to be minor to the American people and possibly even hurtful to Democrats if they try and politicize it.

There will be an investigation and if something comes out, then so be it.

-Rudey

Perhaps you should be less patronizing.

If you are referring to the fact that most americans don't care about this woman's name being revealed, I agree with you it is a small issue.

But the fact is that Bush MADE it a big deal. He and his own spokespeople talked about what a major leak this was, how it compromised national security, how it was illegal and how it would not be stood for in the white house. I'm sorry but the president's spokesperson said that "at a minimum" any person who was involved in the leak would be fired.

Furthermore, the fact is that there is a fair amount of circumstantial evidence that this was done in retaliation for dissent. That's a very serious allegation, and, now that it is clear that the leak didn't come from some lackey, it is even more disturbing. One of the President's closest allies went out and ended the career of a CIA operative, who had contacts and relationships which were lost, because they didn't like her husband's public opinion. What kind of message and values does that reflect?

Because you obviously have no clue I will repost:

No it's not.

Perhaps you should read some of the commentary that's out there that considers this to be minor to the American people and possibly even hurtful to Democrats if they try and politicize it.

There will be an investigation and if something comes out, then so be it.

-Rudey

I am sorry but I think it is really rude and inappropriate that you insult and patronize people when they post a legitimate thought or opinion which you don't agree with.
No matter how many inflamatory things you post I have never once insulted you like that. Your behavior is really disrespectful, and you should think about the way your posts reflect on whatever organization you represent.

Legitimate?

Nothing was inflammatory.

And given that I consider myself top-notch, that bodes very well for my org.

-Rudey

C'mon now, a little sarcasm never hurt anybody! ;)

I've just encountered a few too many people who assume that all conservatives just blindly follow the administration without question. Um, no. I wouldn't think that all Democrats agreed 100% with everything Clinton did, and it's likewise for Bush.

From my understanding, the whole purpose of the CIA is to BE covert whether they're actually overseas or not. I could be wrong though. They only way to not be covert is to retire or quit completely from the CIA. In order to completely seperate oneself from the CIA, the person does not contact their "contacts" while actively seeking info for CIA purposes.

Good article on what Rove might face if he is prosecuted.

Link to the Article

1 & 2
 

Victoria Toensing & Bruce Sanford op-ed...
2. If President Bush finds out that anyone within the administration acted illegally, maybe you'll see someone submit a letter of resignation. i doubt that anyone involved broke the law, but we're aren't privy to all of the information yet. it'll be instresting to see what Bob Novak writes about this when he can.

Plame's Identity Marked As Secret:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...002517_pf.html

Recalling all of the GC rhetoric during the elections, I keep wondering where the "Bush Flip-Flops" thread is.

Rove screwed up. Secretly, I hope he goes to jail.

Plame will be ok. She'll sign a multi-million dollar book deal. She'll land on her feet now that her cover is blown.

I dont know what kinda spy she was anyway. I'd think a 6ft. tall blond white woman asking a bunch of questions would stand out in Dar es Salaam.

lifesaver, Yes, Yes, and Yes on the damn book deal!\\

Rove has already been admited as the Snitch and that is waht He is a snitch=Rat.:mad: Oh isnt there another Rat, Libby?:mad:

They should be Prosecuted to the fullest. This is above and beyond the call of duty to G W Bush.:eek: Bush should seperate Himself first off unless He is and Idiot!:rolleyes: Dah!:rolleyes:

Placing someones life in danger to be a Good Old Boy Of the Organization, why was Nixon gone as a President?

This is throwing The People and The Country out of the window to be the Head Cheese in charge. Is it really that important and egotistical to have Your Minions do this and get away with it?:confused: