Posted on 07/12/2005 5:23:40 AM PDT by Fierce Allegiance
(CNSNews.com) -- Democrats think they've found a way to get rid of President Bush's political adviser Karl Rove, who has long been a favorite target of liberal wrath.
"Karl Rove and his high priced lawyers might disagree, but the truth is Rove betrayed the identity of an undercover officer fighting on the front lines in the war on terror. These actions are particularly egregious in a time of war," said Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean in a statement released Monday evening.
Dean said President Bush should demonstrate his commitment to the war on terror by holding Rove "accountable."
"It is disturbing that this high-ranking Bush adviser is not only still working in the White House, but now has a significant role in setting our National Security policy," Dean said.
Rove, who serves as deputy White House chief of staff, mentioned a CIA agent in passing, during a July 2003 conversation with Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper.
But Rove's lawyer now tells the Washington Post that Rove did not identify the agent by name and had no intention of "outing" her. (It is illegal to deliberately expose a covert agent whose identity the government is trying to conceal.)
Valerie Plame, the secret agent in question, is the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a man who publicly challenged the Bush administration's claim that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger. Wilson accused the Bush administration of "outing" his wife as retaliation for his criticism.
'Wilson's wife'
Rove reportedly told Cooper that it was "Wilson' wife, who apparently works at the agency" -- who had arranged Wilson's trip to Niger.
A few days later, columnist Robert Novak named Valerie Plame as a CIA operative in a July 2003 column. It was Novak's column that prompted a grand jury investigation into the White House leak.
It's not clear if Rove was also Novak's source. It's also not clear if Rove is a target of the ongoing grand jury investigation
This week, Rove's lawyer told the Washington Post that Rove did not know the name of Wilson's wife when he spoke with Cooper, and he did not mention Wilson's wife to make her identity public. Rove mentioned "Wilson's wife" only to let Cooper know that no one in the Bush administration had sent Wilson to Niger -- and that Time shouldn't believe everything it was hearing from Wilson.
On the other hand, Democrats don't believe anything they're hearing from Rove.
They say his conversation with Time magazine's Cooper "raises a host of new unanswered questions," including:
-- Who told Rove about Wilson's wife? "Rove had to find out about Plame and her job from someone. Where did this information come from? Who else leaked besides Rove?" the DNC is asking.
-- Who in the Bush administration told New York Times reporter Judith Miller about Plame? "The information cannot have come from Rove, since Rove has 'released' Cooper from confidentiality," the DNC said. " If Rove were Miller's source, wouldn't he do the same for her? So who was Miller -- a reporter working on WMDs -- talking to?" (Miller is now serving time in jail for refusing to reveal her confidential source.)
-- Why did Rove previously deny his involvement in the Plame controversy? The DNC noted that in August 2004, Rove told reporters he didn't know Plame's name in July 2003 and did not leak her name.
But the DNC isn't buying that: "Since Wilson obviously had only one wife and everyone knew who it was, Rove unquestionably did identify Plame."
The DNC also is angry with White House Press Secretary Scott McClellen.
In October 2003, McClellan was asked at a White House briefing, "Scott, earlier this week you told us that neither Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams nor Lewis Libby disclosed any classified information with regard to the [Valerie Plame] leak. I wondered if you could tell us more specifically whether any of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?"
McClellan responded: "Those individuals -- I talked, 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."
"Did Rove commit perjury in front of the grand jury?" the DNC is now asking. "We know his initial public statements and his statements to Scott McClellan were false. And we know that after testifying once, they (the grand jury) called him back. Did Rove change his answers to the grand jury the same way he changed his answers to the press?"
Suspend Rove's security clearance
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a group with ties to Democrats, has sent a letter to President Bush, asking him to immediately suspend Karl Rove's security clearance, pending the outcome of the federal investigation into the leak of Valerie Plame's name.
"The evidence uncovered so far raises serious questions about Mr. Rove's conduct and his ability to safeguard highly sensitive classified information," Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW, said in a press release.
"Until those questions are resolved, CREW believes it is not appropriate for Mr. Rove to have continued access to classified information. Anything short of suspension raises an unacceptable risk to our nation's security," Sloan wrote to Bush.
The White House is not commenting on the allegations involving Rove, citing the ongoing grand jury investigation.
President Bush previously said he would deal with anyone in his administration who leaked sensitive information.
"If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action," Bush said on Sept. 30, 2003. He called the investigation into the leak, launched that same day, "a good thing."
The White House is not likely to do anything or say anything more until that federal investigation is complete, but Democrats and liberal interest groups -- furious at the Bush administration for a number of reasons -- are not expected to let the matter rest.
That's true, but there's more to it than that. They want George Bush impeached more than anything else in the world. They want it both as payback for Clinton's impeachment, and to completely discredit the War on Terror and all our policies since 9/11.
Everything else they've tried to bring about Bush's impeachment (tying him to Enron, claiming that he knew about the 9/11 attacks and did nothing, claiming that he masterminded the 9/11 attacks so he could have an excuse to go to war, the Downing Street Memos, feel free to add any others I've missed) has failed miserably because there's nothing there, and their allies in the press no longer have the power to make something out of nothing. So this is just the next manufactured scandal to come down the pipe. Once it fails to generate a huge public demand for impeachment, they'll move on to something else.
The RATS just don't get it because they're blinded by hate and their quest for power. They need to stop declaring war on the Bush Administration and declare war on terrorism.
Right you are!!
Anyone who thinks Valerie Plame was the female equivalent of James Bond, doing "covert", undercover operations, is delusional. She was a paper pusher. Period!!
Besides, if an "outting" occured, she did it to herself. Did anyone else have a chance to see her photo with her husband in Vanity Fair. She doesn't look very "undercover" to me.
Funny thing, though. Here I am, sitting at home, laughing at the democRats for attempting to make a big deal of this. At the same time, the DU'ers are lurking here at the Free Republic, trying to find out how upset we are.
I've got just one thing to say to the DU'ers: GOTCHA!! You DUmmies fell into Karl Rove's trap again!! hehehehehe
From the article you pointed me to:
---"If Matt Cooper is going to jail to protect a source," Mr. Luskin told The Journal, "it's not Karl he's protecting."---
That quote is specific to Cooper. There is no mention of Miller. If Rove was Miller's source, why didn't Luskin mention her in the quote. I still believe that Miller has another source, one that the Times does not want to reveal. Why is the Times stone-walling. Who are they protecting?
I don't know why Luskin didn't mention Miller. It could be, like you think, that Rove is not her source. Alternatively, since we don't have the full context Luskin's quote, one possibility is that the question or the conversation was specifically about Cooper. An attorney would be normally be careful not to answer more than was asked.
You are right that Miller might have a different source. I'm just saying that just because Cooper got a release that doesn't necessarily mean that Miller has a different source. She could have multiple sources, even. If Rove gave her a release, but Scooter Libby did not then she still can't talk.
I still believe that Miller has another source, one that the Times does not want to reveal. Why is the Times stone-walling. Who are they protecting?
The Times does not want to reveal any secret sources. If they reveal the name of a source, they are less likely to get secret information next time they talk to someone.
The real question is why Time Magazine released the emails between Cooper and his editor. Time burned Rove. Why would anyone ever talk to a Time reporter again?
So if everyone knew who it was, it really wasn't much of a secret then, was it?
For it supposedly being so secret, Wilson himself loved to brag about his wife being CIA..
One has to wonder if perhaps Ms Miller was actually Rove's source for the info he passed on to Cooper.
It would explain a lot.
Considering the activities of the Dems during the last election, I wouldn't doubt that the Dems outed Valerie Plame themselves in an effort to try and 'emvbarrass' the President.
Look at the effort to influence the election by having the "Killian memos" thing pop out and then the Kerry campaign ad mentioning the memos miraculously showing up right about the same time.
So you CAN respond!!
How about searching FR first.
You'll be amazed at what has been found.
Troll.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1050423/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1033857/posts
Keywords to look up for you troll: Valerieplame, plame, wilson, jowwilson...
Get the picture?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/999405/posts
Text from above link:
"When Wilson wrote an op-ed in The New York Times in July and revealed that he had gone to Niger on a CIA assignment, he called attention to his wife. " -October 2003.
WELL?
Anything to add?
Did yo know that Valerie Plame recommended Wilson for the Nigeria 'investigation'?
The memo on that was found.
Did you also know that Wilson did very little investigating, but instead spoek to officials in his hotel room and had cushy dinners with said officials?
What kind of an investigation is THAT?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.