Did Karl Rove expose an undercover CIA agent?

moe.ron · #1 07-11-2005, 10:45 AM

Link to the Article

Discuss among yourself.

Rudey · #2 07-11-2005, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by moe.ron
Link to the Article

Discuss among yourself.

"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

moe.ron · #3 07-11-2005, 10:54 AM

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

Rudey · #4 07-11-2005, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by moe.ron
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

bekibug · #5 07-11-2005, 12:17 PM

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.

KSigkid · #6 07-11-2005, 12:37 PM

Quote:

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

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.

hoosier · #7 07-11-2005, 01:13 PM

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).

KSigkid · #8 07-11-2005, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hoosier

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.

madmax · #9 07-11-2005, 02:50 PM

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.

DeltAlum · #10 07-11-2005, 04:24 PM

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

Kevin · #11 07-13-2005, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KSigkid
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.

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.

G8Ralphaxi · #12 07-13-2005, 07:06 AM

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.

moe.ron · #13 07-13-2005, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by G8Ralphaxi
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.

What is that supposed to mean?

HelloKitty22 · #14 07-13-2005, 10:14 AM

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.

Rudey · #15 07-13-2005, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HelloKitty22
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