I AM OFFICIALLY OUTING JETHRO BODINE!!!
SUPER SECRET DOUBLE OUGHT SPY!!!
Posted on 07/14/2005 8:27:58 PM PDT by freedrudge
Rove Reportedly Held Phone Talk on C.I.A. Officer
WASHINGTON, July 14 - Karl Rove, the White House senior adviser, spoke with the columnist Robert D. Novak as he was preparing an article in July 2003 that identified a C.I.A. officer who was undercover, someone who has been officially briefed on the matter said Thursday. Skip to next paragraph Multimedia Graphic The White House on the Leak Related White House Quotes on the C.I.A. Leak Case (July 11, 2005) At Leak Inquiry's Center, a Circumspect Columnist (Dec. 31, 2004)
Wilson: What I Didn't Find in Africa (July 6, 2003)
Mr. Rove has told investigators that he learned from the columnist the name of the C.I.A. officer, who was referred to by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and the circumstances in which her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, traveled to Africa to investigate possible uranium sales to Iraq, the person said.
After hearing Mr. Novak's account, the person who has been briefed on the matter said, Mr. Rove told the columnist: "I heard that, too."
The previously undisclosed telephone conversation, which took place on July 8, 2003, was initiated by Mr. Novak, the person who has been briefed on the matter said.
Six days later, Mr. Novak's syndicated column reported that two senior administration officials had told him that Mr. Wilson's "wife had suggested sending him" to Africa. That column was the first instance in which Ms. Wilson was publicly identified as a C.I.A. operative. The column provoked angry demands for an investigation into who disclosed Ms. Wilson's name to Mr. Novak.
The Justice Department appointed Patrick J. Fitzgerald, a top federal prosecutor in Chicago, to lead the inquiry. Mr. Rove said in an interview last year that he did not know the C.I.A. officer's name and did no
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Fake but accurate, right???
Anyone up to going over to the psych ward (DU) to sample the mood?
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now that's funny. I don't care who you are that's funny right there.
No, I saw no humor in that statement...just amazement the NY Times actually thinks that BS will sell!
That's how I read it.
You really think Judy Miller talks to Bob Novak? I doubt it. He is a columnist for a rival paper. Why would she blab to him about her biggest source in the CIA?
"He LIED to US! He preyed on our FEARS!!"
"In addition to focusing new attention on Mr. Rove and whether he can survive the political fallout, the revelation is sure to create new partisan pressure on Mr. Bush."
I see the language about the Supreme Court pick. But I'm stunned the NYT can spin this like it puts more pressure on Rove rather than vice versa. Pravda.
I expect we'll see all sorts of people were talking about Mrs. Wilson.
Also, I think these are leaks from the Rove camp that the desperate NYT tried to spin as harmful to Rove. I don't recall a NYT article that so strived to tell the readers how to think about the information reported.
I can't WAIT to hear Novak's response to this bullshit article.
NOT GUILTY NOT GUILTY NOT GUILTY
I'm puzzled by some of the posts on this thread. This article says one thing to me: Case closed.
Doesn't matter. The Left doesn't care about what is actually said or the actual facts. For them it's about what they THINK was said and what they BELIEVE to be the facts. And, of course, they always know their lies are reality.
The Dummies are freaking over this article because they know this shows that Rove WASN'T the source. Rove didn't leak anything--he was approached by reporters. He wasn't shopping the info; the information was leaked to him.
This article shows why Rove isn't a target of the investigation. He didn't leak.
Ultimate desperation. There is a plaintive "Pleeeeeaaaaase? Just this once?" between the lines.
"Why would she blab to him about her biggest source in the CIA?"
Miller wasn't Novak's source. But she may have spoke to other reporters and officials. Why? To brag about her knowledge perhaps, or to serve a source wishing to get the information out.
Always
So, exactly why does this amount to "news fit to print." Novak testified to the grand jury long ago, and Rove's lawyer says he has been notified by the prosecutor that Rove is not a target of the investigation. And Novak called Rove, not the other way around. What does this add to where we were yesterday morning? Redundancy. Nothing more. How the NYT gets away with masquarading this as news mystifies me; and gets a whirling siren and giant RED headlines from Matt Drudge to pump it, to boot!
Somehow I thought the New York Times might hew to a higher standard, after the Dan Rather debacle. Silly me!
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.