DEBATING A LEAK: THE INVESTIGATION; Democrats Want Ashcroft Out of Inquiry
By CARL HULSE AND RICHARD W. STEVENSON; ERIC LICHTBLAU AND GLEN JUSTICE CONTRIBUTED TO THIS REPORT. (NYT)
1126 wordsPublished: October 3, 2003
Correction Appended
WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 - Democrats insisted on Thursday that Attorney General John Ashcroft remove himself from the investigation into the disclosure of an undercover C.I.A. officer's identity, defying Republican efforts to contain the furor over the affair.
The clamor will probably be fed by financial data underscoring the close political ties between Mr. Ashcroft and Karl Rove, the presidential adviser whose role in the leak has come into question. Campaign finance data show that Mr. Rove's former company received more than $300,000 from Mr. Ashcroft's 1994 Senate campaign in Missouri for direct-mail work and other services, in addition to his role in two earlier Ashcroft campaigns.
''Does anyone really believe that this attorney general can with a straight face say they're going to investigate these people when they work for them, they have close ties?'' Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, asked on the Senate floor on Thursday.
Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said on Thursday that Mr. Ashcroft should recuse himself immediately. Mr. Schumer said three or four Republicans had come to him and said, ''You guys are right on this issue.''
Justice Department officials said they were leaving open all options.
Republicans in Congress described the controversy as a ''tempest in a teapot'' and said Joseph C. Wilson IV, the former ambassador married to the officer whose identity was disclosed to the syndicated columnist Robert Novak, was becoming viewed as a partisan figure.
One senior Republican aide said that if the uproar did not abate, some Republicans were considering proposing that the White House allow the F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, to appoint a prosecutor.
''The problem with Mr. Ashcroft is that he is not seen as an independent figure,'' the aide said.
But publicly, no Republicans have broken ranks with the White House and the Justice Department by calling for Mr. Ashcroft to recuse himself or appoint an outside counsel.
So much is riding on Republican unity that CNN caused a brief flurry on Thursday by reporting that Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, had called on Mr. Ashcroft to recuse himself.
But the senator quickly put out a press release saying he had been misquoted and said later in an interview that the decision was best left to the attorney general. He said he was confident that career Justice Department lawyers could ably oversee the investigation.
The two Republican chairmen of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees said their panels were not pursuing the matter. Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas and Representative Porter J. Goss of Florida said that in their own view, based on limited knowledge, the disclosure was inadvertent. But both men said that if it turned out it was calculated they would treat it very seriously.
''I would say there is much larger dose of partisan politics going on right now than there is worry about national security,'' said Mr. Goss, a former C.I.A. agent. ''But I would never take lightly a serious allegation backed up by evidence.''
He added, referring to the independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr's inquiry into former President Clinton, ''If somebody sends me a blue dress and some DNA, I will have an investigation.''
Three female Democratic senators raised furious objections to the disclosure of the name, saying that whoever dragged Mr. Wilson's wife into a political dispute over his work on a weapons of mass destruction went far beyond accepted limits of partisan infighting.
''This betrayal by someone or some people in the administration has reached a new low by attacking the family of one of its own,'' said Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana. ''There's an unwritten rule in politics that no matter how rough the politics gets, families are off limits, particularly spouses and children.''
With interest in investigation intense, the F.B.I. said today that it was developing a protocol to help ensure investigators access to witnesses and documents.
''There's a protocol we're developing on the way investigators will handle the interviews and the records and how we obtain those,'' said Susan Whitson, a spokeswoman for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which is leading the inquiry. ''Our whole purpose here is get to the bottom of an unauthorized disclosure.''
Ms. Whitson said the interviews could begin within days. ''We're going to be very aggressive in this investigation, and any tool or legal methods that we use in criminal cases will be used here,'' she said.
Ms. Whitson declined to discuss details, but current and former law enforcement officials said from past experience that they expected that a gatekeeper at the White House and the Central Intelligence Agency -- probably in the counsel's offices -- would act as a clearinghouse for interview and document requests.
In the White House, it was Alberto Gonzales, counsel to the president, who issued a staff-wide directive this week that any records relevant to the investigation not be destroyed.
The C.I.A. received similar instructions, and a government official disclosed today that the State Department and the Defense Department did as well. But the official stressed that the move was simply standard procedure based on who had access to classified C.I.A. information.
Scott McClellan, Mr. Bush's spokesman, said he was not aware of anyone at the White House having been contacted by the F.B.I. in the case.
White House officials have pledged their cooperation, but the F.B.I. could seek grand jury subpoenas if needed.
Under Justice Department policy on investigations involving reporters, a subpoena for something like a journalist's telephone records would have to be approved by Mr. Ashcroft.
For now at least, the investigation will be led by investigators in the F.B.I.'s inspections division, officials said. It will be overseen by lawyers in the Justice Department's counter-espionage section within the criminal division.
Mr. McClellan said any decision about Mr. Ashcroft recusing himself rested with the Justice Department. But he signaled again that Mr. Bush is not pressing for any changes in the investigation.
''The Department of Justice has publicly stated that all legal options are on the table,'' Mr. McClellan said. ''That's where it stands. But I would remind you that career Justice Department officials are the ones who are leading this investigation. These are individuals with vast experience and are in the best position to get to the bottom of this.''
Mr. Bush ''has made it very clear that he wants to get to the bottom of this,'' he added. ''Unfortunately, there are some that are looking through the lens of political opportunism. There are some that are seeking partisan political advantage. I don't need to go into names. We all know who they are.''
Correction: October 4, 2003, Saturday Because of an editing error, an article yesterday about Democratic demands that Attorney General John Ashcroft remove himself from the investigation into the disclosure of a C.I.A. officer's identity misattributed the statement that interviews in the case could begin within days. It was made by government officials who spoke on condition of anonymity -- not by Susan Whitson, an F.B.I. spokeswoman; she refused to discuss the timeline of the case under any circumstances.
Saturday, December 31, 2005
K N O W L I N G L Y ??????
Yesterday (July 4, 2005), Karl states,
"Who me? Out any CIA agents? No, not me.
"Today (July 5, 2005), Karl's Lawyer states, "
Knowingly, Karl Rove never did anything "W"rong !!!
"KNOWINGLY ?
Name dropping is name dropping when it comes to espionage and national security, babe.
Karl Rove is a Homeland Security Risk.
Tomorrow?
HOW DEEP DOES IT GO ???
...............................................
July 5, 2005, approx. 4:30 pm :: The ultimate Propagandists, CNN's John King and Dana Bash, the fastest talking heads on the planet. BACK PEDDLE, BACK PEDDLE, Get Karl out of this, the ship is sinking, the ship is sinking.Ever wonder if Dana Bash is an alien? She is so gaunt that even when she is on camera she looks like a Spielberg Alien from "Close Encounters of the Third Kind."
...................................................................
Things are taking shape.
How deep does it go?
Bush/Cheney easily.
July 5, 2005. 10:34 PM
There is doubt Karl Rove had the type of security clearance needed to know Ms. Plame was an agent. However, Bush would know. He would be very concerned as Commander and Chief and so would Cheney over a 'loose cannon' regarding the 'Yellow Cake' in Africa in Joe Wilson. It would also be all too easy to be 'just angry enough' with Karl Rove in the Oval Office and the door closed to have a weak moment and reveal to Rove the name of Wilson and Plame in the same breath as a 'traitor husband and wife team' along with her advocating for Joe's next assignment.
How deep does it go?
All the way to the top.
They are all dirty as they come.
"Who me? Out any CIA agents? No, not me.
"Today (July 5, 2005), Karl's Lawyer states, "
Knowingly, Karl Rove never did anything "W"rong !!!
"KNOWINGLY ?
Name dropping is name dropping when it comes to espionage and national security, babe.
Karl Rove is a Homeland Security Risk.
Tomorrow?
HOW DEEP DOES IT GO ???
...............................................
July 5, 2005, approx. 4:30 pm :: The ultimate Propagandists, CNN's John King and Dana Bash, the fastest talking heads on the planet. BACK PEDDLE, BACK PEDDLE, Get Karl out of this, the ship is sinking, the ship is sinking.Ever wonder if Dana Bash is an alien? She is so gaunt that even when she is on camera she looks like a Spielberg Alien from "Close Encounters of the Third Kind."
...................................................................
Things are taking shape.
How deep does it go?
Bush/Cheney easily.
July 5, 2005. 10:34 PM
There is doubt Karl Rove had the type of security clearance needed to know Ms. Plame was an agent. However, Bush would know. He would be very concerned as Commander and Chief and so would Cheney over a 'loose cannon' regarding the 'Yellow Cake' in Africa in Joe Wilson. It would also be all too easy to be 'just angry enough' with Karl Rove in the Oval Office and the door closed to have a weak moment and reveal to Rove the name of Wilson and Plame in the same breath as a 'traitor husband and wife team' along with her advocating for Joe's next assignment.
How deep does it go?
All the way to the top.
They are all dirty as they come.
People who know him say he is a nice man. It brings into question his friends character as well.
Karl (Marx) Rove.
The Treasonist.
He thumbs his nose at the world, at Bush and the American people.
His ego needs to be stroked so frequently it is fabled the media who want to be closest to priviledge promote The ExxonMobile "The Brain" Commercial in respect of Bush's Brain.
Bush's Idea of Freedom and Democracy does not include Peace !
Before God: A Shi'ite man prays next to an artificial leg on Friday under a scorching sun in Baghdad's Sadr City. A top aide to Iraq's Shi'ite spiritual leader was among 18 people killed in insurgent attacks across the country on Friday, including a bombing near an office of Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari. (Ahmad Al-Rubaye, AFP)
The Price for Freedom should never be this high when the rest of the world is at Peace.
Adnan Hamid held his son, Hassan, as his wife, Zainab, held their daughter, Benin, in May. Hamid?s brother Kaiss (R) also lives with the family in Sadr City. (World Picture News File Photo / Scott Nelson)
The Promises of Holy Men - People Face Adversity in the Faith of Islam
For Iraqi family, scars slow to heal
Casualties of war struggling amid poverty, grief
By Thanassis Cambanis, Globe Staff July 4, 2005
BAGHDAD -- Benin Hamid, now a coquettish 4-year-old, swings the stuffed yellow duck that has been her constant companion in a short life punctuated by an invasion and two uprisings that forced her and her family to flee their home in Sadr City.
She has never named the duck, and it is not clear how well she remembers her older brother and her two sisters, who were killed with her aunt, on the catastrophic day in April 2003 when a mortar struck the house.
Life goes on in the Hamid household, a two-story jumble of rooms that contains four scarred families whose uneven progress since the US invasion mirrors the struggles of many in the Shi'ite Muslim slum where they live.
Casualties of war struggling amid poverty, grief
By Thanassis Cambanis, Globe Staff July 4, 2005
BAGHDAD -- Benin Hamid, now a coquettish 4-year-old, swings the stuffed yellow duck that has been her constant companion in a short life punctuated by an invasion and two uprisings that forced her and her family to flee their home in Sadr City.
She has never named the duck, and it is not clear how well she remembers her older brother and her two sisters, who were killed with her aunt, on the catastrophic day in April 2003 when a mortar struck the house.
Life goes on in the Hamid household, a two-story jumble of rooms that contains four scarred families whose uneven progress since the US invasion mirrors the struggles of many in the Shi'ite Muslim slum where they live.
The Naked Truth for sale.
Hear Novak Tell All!
You pay only $595.
That's right. Only $595.
by Sydney H. SchanbergAugust 23rd, 2005 11:54 AM
Robert Novak, whose "confidential" sources helped him light the match that set off the Plamegate wildfire, is now on the Internet blithely hawking "confidential" sessions with Washington's power elite. He's only asking $595 a person. The invitation says: "This meeting is 100% off the record." The e-mail letter goes on to explain that the secrecy is necessary so that the speakers can speak candidly and tell the truth. The truth, in the nation's capital—that's certainly worth $595.
You pay only $595.
That's right. Only $595.
by Sydney H. SchanbergAugust 23rd, 2005 11:54 AM
Robert Novak, whose "confidential" sources helped him light the match that set off the Plamegate wildfire, is now on the Internet blithely hawking "confidential" sessions with Washington's power elite. He's only asking $595 a person. The invitation says: "This meeting is 100% off the record." The e-mail letter goes on to explain that the secrecy is necessary so that the speakers can speak candidly and tell the truth. The truth, in the nation's capital—that's certainly worth $595.
Novak confirms Rove was Plame source
PETE YOST
Associated Press
Lauren Shay, Associated Press file
Karl Rove, left, and Robert Novak are pictured together in Washington, D.C. in this June 2003 file photo. Novak said for the first time July 11, 2006 that he cooperated with the investigation into who leaked the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame.
WASHINGTON - Now that Karl Rove won't be indicted, now that the president won't fire him, now that it really doesn't matter anymore, more details of the Valerie Plame leak investigation trickle out.
In his latest syndicated column, released Wednesday, columnist Robert Novak revealed his side of the story in the Plame affair, saying Rove was a confirming source for Novak's story outing the CIA officer, underscoring Rove's role in a leak that President Bush once promised to punish.
As Rove's legal problems grew a year ago, the president qualified his earlier pledge to fire anyone involved in the Plame leak, saying it would apply to "someone who committed a crime."
The columnist said he learned of Plame's CIA employment from a source he still refuses to publicly identify, and then confirmed with Rove and then-CIA spokesman Bill Harlow, whose roles in talking to Novak have been previously reported.
Novak said for the first time that prosecutors looking into the leaks already knew his sources when he agreed to disclose them. The columnist was to appear Wednesday on Fox News.
Novak comes late to the Plame game, long after several other reporters talked publicly about the involvement of Rove and of Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, in leaking the CIA identity of the wife of Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson. Novak says he kept his mouth shut so long because prosecutors asked him to.
A month ago, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald said he didn't anticipate seeking charges against Rove. Novak wrote that, more recently, Fitzgerald told his lawyer that after 2 1/2 years his investigation of the CIA leak case concerning matters directly relating to Novak has been concluded, freeing him to talk now.
Triggering the criminal investigation that resulted in Libby being charged with perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI, Novak revealed Plame's CIA employment on July 14, 2003, eight days after her husband went on the attack against the Bush administration.
Initially refusing to identify his sources to the FBI, Novak knew that Fitzgerald had obtained signed waivers from every official who might have provided Novak information about Plame. Despite that, Novak was prepared to resist. He says he relented in early 2004 when it became clear that Fitzgerald "knew the names of my sources."
Novak could still have protected his sources, but his lawyer told him "I was sure to lose a case in the courts at great expense."
In contrast to other reporters whose news organizations footed the bill for lengthy and expensive legal battles, the fact that Novak was a no-show in contentious court proceedings fed a rumor mill.
"Published reports that I took the Fifth Amendment, made a plea bargain with the prosecutors or was a prosecutorial target were all untrue," Novak writes. The facts were simpler. He was telling prosecutors everything he knew, and taking a beating in public for not talking about it.
Keeping quiet had the effect of providing protection for the Bush White House during the 2004 presidential campaign, because the White House had denied Rove played any role in the leak of Plame's CIA identity.
Now that he's finally opening up, Novak is stirring up more trouble, saying without elaboration that his recollection of his conversation with Rove about Plame differs from Rove's. Rove's spokesman says the difference amounts to very little.
"I have revealed Rove's name because his attorney has divulged the substance of our conversation, though in a form different from my recollection," Novak wrote. Novak did not elaborate.
A spokesman for Rove's legal team, Mark Corallo, said that Rove did not even know Plame's name at the time he spoke with Novak, that the columnist called Rove, not the other way around, and that Rove simply replied he had heard the same information that Novak passed along to him regarding Plame.
"There was not much of a difference" between the recollections of Rove and Novak, said Corallo.
Novak says he told Fitzgerald that Harlow of the CIA had confirmed information about Plame.
Harlow declined to comment Tuesday night. But a U.S. intelligence official familiar with the matter denied that Harlow had been a confirming source for Novak on the story. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Harlow repeatedly tried to talk Novak out of running the information about Plame and that Harlow's efforts did not in any way constitute confirming Plame's CIA identity.
The official spoke on condition of anonymity because Harlow may end up being a witness in a separate part of Fitzgerald's investigation, the upcoming criminal trial of Libby.
On the Web:
Chicago Sun-Times report:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-leak11.html
Associated Press
Lauren Shay, Associated Press file
Karl Rove, left, and Robert Novak are pictured together in Washington, D.C. in this June 2003 file photo. Novak said for the first time July 11, 2006 that he cooperated with the investigation into who leaked the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame.
WASHINGTON - Now that Karl Rove won't be indicted, now that the president won't fire him, now that it really doesn't matter anymore, more details of the Valerie Plame leak investigation trickle out.
In his latest syndicated column, released Wednesday, columnist Robert Novak revealed his side of the story in the Plame affair, saying Rove was a confirming source for Novak's story outing the CIA officer, underscoring Rove's role in a leak that President Bush once promised to punish.
As Rove's legal problems grew a year ago, the president qualified his earlier pledge to fire anyone involved in the Plame leak, saying it would apply to "someone who committed a crime."
The columnist said he learned of Plame's CIA employment from a source he still refuses to publicly identify, and then confirmed with Rove and then-CIA spokesman Bill Harlow, whose roles in talking to Novak have been previously reported.
Novak said for the first time that prosecutors looking into the leaks already knew his sources when he agreed to disclose them. The columnist was to appear Wednesday on Fox News.
Novak comes late to the Plame game, long after several other reporters talked publicly about the involvement of Rove and of Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, in leaking the CIA identity of the wife of Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson. Novak says he kept his mouth shut so long because prosecutors asked him to.
A month ago, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald said he didn't anticipate seeking charges against Rove. Novak wrote that, more recently, Fitzgerald told his lawyer that after 2 1/2 years his investigation of the CIA leak case concerning matters directly relating to Novak has been concluded, freeing him to talk now.
Triggering the criminal investigation that resulted in Libby being charged with perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI, Novak revealed Plame's CIA employment on July 14, 2003, eight days after her husband went on the attack against the Bush administration.
Initially refusing to identify his sources to the FBI, Novak knew that Fitzgerald had obtained signed waivers from every official who might have provided Novak information about Plame. Despite that, Novak was prepared to resist. He says he relented in early 2004 when it became clear that Fitzgerald "knew the names of my sources."
Novak could still have protected his sources, but his lawyer told him "I was sure to lose a case in the courts at great expense."
In contrast to other reporters whose news organizations footed the bill for lengthy and expensive legal battles, the fact that Novak was a no-show in contentious court proceedings fed a rumor mill.
"Published reports that I took the Fifth Amendment, made a plea bargain with the prosecutors or was a prosecutorial target were all untrue," Novak writes. The facts were simpler. He was telling prosecutors everything he knew, and taking a beating in public for not talking about it.
Keeping quiet had the effect of providing protection for the Bush White House during the 2004 presidential campaign, because the White House had denied Rove played any role in the leak of Plame's CIA identity.
Now that he's finally opening up, Novak is stirring up more trouble, saying without elaboration that his recollection of his conversation with Rove about Plame differs from Rove's. Rove's spokesman says the difference amounts to very little.
"I have revealed Rove's name because his attorney has divulged the substance of our conversation, though in a form different from my recollection," Novak wrote. Novak did not elaborate.
A spokesman for Rove's legal team, Mark Corallo, said that Rove did not even know Plame's name at the time he spoke with Novak, that the columnist called Rove, not the other way around, and that Rove simply replied he had heard the same information that Novak passed along to him regarding Plame.
"There was not much of a difference" between the recollections of Rove and Novak, said Corallo.
Novak says he told Fitzgerald that Harlow of the CIA had confirmed information about Plame.
Harlow declined to comment Tuesday night. But a U.S. intelligence official familiar with the matter denied that Harlow had been a confirming source for Novak on the story. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Harlow repeatedly tried to talk Novak out of running the information about Plame and that Harlow's efforts did not in any way constitute confirming Plame's CIA identity.
The official spoke on condition of anonymity because Harlow may end up being a witness in a separate part of Fitzgerald's investigation, the upcoming criminal trial of Libby.
On the Web:
Chicago Sun-Times report:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-leak11.html
'Slime and Defend'
By PAUL KRUGMAN (NYT)
732 wordsPublished: October 3, 2003
On July 14, Robert Novak published the now-famous column in which he identified Valerie Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, as a C.I.A. ''operative on weapons of mass destruction,'' and said ''two senior administration officials'' had told him that she was responsible for her husband's mission to Niger. On that mission, Mr. Wilson concluded -- correctly -- that reports of Iraqi efforts to buy uranium were bogus.
An outraged President Bush immediately demanded the names of those responsible for exposing Ms. Plame. He repeated his father's statement that ''those who betray the trust by exposing the names of our sources'' are ''the most insidious of traitors.'' There are limits to politics, Mr. Bush declared; Mr. Wilson's decision to go public about his mission had embarrassed him, but that was no excuse for actions that were both felonious and unpatriotic.
Everything in the previous paragraph is, of course, false. It's what should have happened, but didn't. Mr. Bush took no action after the Novak column. Before we get bogged down in the details -- which is what the administration hopes will happen -- let's be clear: we already know what the president knew, and when he knew it. Mr. Bush knew, 11 weeks ago, that some of his senior aides had done something utterly inexcusable. But as long as the media were willing to let the story lie -- which, with a few honorable exceptions, like David Corn at The Nation and Knut Royce and Timothy Phelps at Newsday, they were -- he didn't think this outrage required any action.
And now that the C.I.A. has demanded a Justice Department inquiry, the White House's strategy isn't just to stonewall, Nixon-style; as one Republican Congressional aide told The New York Times, it will ''slime and defend.''
The right-wing media slime machine, which tries to assassinate the character of anyone who opposes the right's goals -- hey, I know all about it -- has already swung into action. For example, The Wall Street Journal's editorial page calls Mr. Wilson an ''open opponent of the U.S. war on terror.'' We've grown accustomed to this sort of slur -- and they accuse liberals of lacking civility? -- but let's take a minute to walk through it.
Mr. Wilson never opposed the ''war on terror'' -- he opposed the war in Iraq precisely because it had no obvious relevance to the campaign against terror. He feared that invading a country with no role in 9/11, and no meaningful Al Qaeda links, would divert resources from the pursuit of those who actually attacked America. Many patriots in the military and the intelligence community agreed with him then; even more agree now.
Unlike the self-described patriots now running America, Mr. Wilson has taken personal risks for the sake of his country. In the months before the first gulf war, he stayed on in Baghdad, helping to rescue hundreds of Americans who might otherwise have been held as hostages. The first President Bush lauded him as a ''truly inspiring diplomat'' who exhibited ''courageous leadership.''
In any case, Mr. Wilson's views and character are irrelevant. Someone high in the administration committed a felony and, in the view of the elder Mr. Bush, treason. End of story.
The hypocrisy here is breathtaking. Republicans have repeatedly impugned their opponents' patriotism. Last year Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, said Democrats ''don't want to protect the American people. . . . They will do anything, spend all the time and resources they can, to avoid confronting evil.''
But the true test of patriotism isn't whether you are willing to wave the flag, or agree with whatever the president says. It's whether you are willing to take risks and make sacrifices, including political sacrifices, for the sake of your country. This episode is a test for Mr. Bush and his inner circle: a true patriot wouldn't hesitate about doing the right thing in the Plame affair, whatever the political costs.
Mr. Bush is failing that test.
Correction: Many people, including Paul Bremer in recent testimony and myself in my Sept. 30 column, have linked Churchill's remark about the ''most unsordid act'' to the Marshall Plan. In fact, Churchill was referring to an earlier program, Lend-Lease. But one suspects that he wouldn't have minded the confusion.
By PAUL KRUGMAN (NYT)
732 wordsPublished: October 3, 2003
On July 14, Robert Novak published the now-famous column in which he identified Valerie Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, as a C.I.A. ''operative on weapons of mass destruction,'' and said ''two senior administration officials'' had told him that she was responsible for her husband's mission to Niger. On that mission, Mr. Wilson concluded -- correctly -- that reports of Iraqi efforts to buy uranium were bogus.
An outraged President Bush immediately demanded the names of those responsible for exposing Ms. Plame. He repeated his father's statement that ''those who betray the trust by exposing the names of our sources'' are ''the most insidious of traitors.'' There are limits to politics, Mr. Bush declared; Mr. Wilson's decision to go public about his mission had embarrassed him, but that was no excuse for actions that were both felonious and unpatriotic.
Everything in the previous paragraph is, of course, false. It's what should have happened, but didn't. Mr. Bush took no action after the Novak column. Before we get bogged down in the details -- which is what the administration hopes will happen -- let's be clear: we already know what the president knew, and when he knew it. Mr. Bush knew, 11 weeks ago, that some of his senior aides had done something utterly inexcusable. But as long as the media were willing to let the story lie -- which, with a few honorable exceptions, like David Corn at The Nation and Knut Royce and Timothy Phelps at Newsday, they were -- he didn't think this outrage required any action.
And now that the C.I.A. has demanded a Justice Department inquiry, the White House's strategy isn't just to stonewall, Nixon-style; as one Republican Congressional aide told The New York Times, it will ''slime and defend.''
The right-wing media slime machine, which tries to assassinate the character of anyone who opposes the right's goals -- hey, I know all about it -- has already swung into action. For example, The Wall Street Journal's editorial page calls Mr. Wilson an ''open opponent of the U.S. war on terror.'' We've grown accustomed to this sort of slur -- and they accuse liberals of lacking civility? -- but let's take a minute to walk through it.
Mr. Wilson never opposed the ''war on terror'' -- he opposed the war in Iraq precisely because it had no obvious relevance to the campaign against terror. He feared that invading a country with no role in 9/11, and no meaningful Al Qaeda links, would divert resources from the pursuit of those who actually attacked America. Many patriots in the military and the intelligence community agreed with him then; even more agree now.
Unlike the self-described patriots now running America, Mr. Wilson has taken personal risks for the sake of his country. In the months before the first gulf war, he stayed on in Baghdad, helping to rescue hundreds of Americans who might otherwise have been held as hostages. The first President Bush lauded him as a ''truly inspiring diplomat'' who exhibited ''courageous leadership.''
In any case, Mr. Wilson's views and character are irrelevant. Someone high in the administration committed a felony and, in the view of the elder Mr. Bush, treason. End of story.
The hypocrisy here is breathtaking. Republicans have repeatedly impugned their opponents' patriotism. Last year Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, said Democrats ''don't want to protect the American people. . . . They will do anything, spend all the time and resources they can, to avoid confronting evil.''
But the true test of patriotism isn't whether you are willing to wave the flag, or agree with whatever the president says. It's whether you are willing to take risks and make sacrifices, including political sacrifices, for the sake of your country. This episode is a test for Mr. Bush and his inner circle: a true patriot wouldn't hesitate about doing the right thing in the Plame affair, whatever the political costs.
Mr. Bush is failing that test.
Correction: Many people, including Paul Bremer in recent testimony and myself in my Sept. 30 column, have linked Churchill's remark about the ''most unsordid act'' to the Marshall Plan. In fact, Churchill was referring to an earlier program, Lend-Lease. But one suspects that he wouldn't have minded the confusion.
In this photograph taken in June 2003, Karl Rove, senior advisor to President Bush and Robert Novak are pictured together at a party marking the 40th anniversary of Novak's newspaper column at the Army Navy Club in Washington DC.
Karl Rove and Bob Novak
What is there to understand here?
You have a group of private sector losers turned treasonists because it is the only way they can have their wealth and keep it, too.
Cheney and Halliburton.
There are questions about all these relationhips?
Rove Reportedly Held Phone Talk on C.I.A. Officer
By DAVID JOHNSTONand RICHARD W. STEVENSON
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.
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 with CNN last year that he did not know the C.I.A. officer's name and did not leak it.
The person who provided the information about Mr. Rove's conversation with Mr. Novak declined to be identified, citing requests by Mr. Fitzgerald that no one discuss the case. The person discussed the matter in the belief that Mr. Rove was truthful in saying that he had not disclosed Ms. Wilson's identity.
On Oct. 1, 2003, Mr. Novak wrote another column in which he described calling two officials who were his sources for the earlier column. The first source, whose identity has not been revealed, provided the outlines of the story and was described by Mr. Novak as "no partisan gunslinger." Mr. Novak wrote that when he called a second official for confirmation, the source said, "Oh, you know about it.
"That second source was Mr. Rove, the person briefed on the matter said. Mr. Rove's account to investigators about what he told Mr. Novak was similar in its message although the White House adviser's recollection of the exact words was slightly different. Asked by investigators how he knew enough to leave Mr. Novak with the impression that his information was accurate, Mr. Rove said he had heard parts of the story from other journalists but had not heard Ms. Wilson's name.
Robert D. Luskin, Mr. Rove's lawyer, said Thursday, "Any pertinent information has been provided to the prosecutor." Mr. Luskin has previously said prosecutors have advised Mr. Rove that he is not a target in the case, which means he is not likely to be charged with a crime.In a brief conversation on Thursday, Mr. Novak declined to discuss the matter. It is unclear if Mr. Novak has testified to the grand jury, and if he has whether his account is consistent with Mr. Rove's.
The conversation between Mr. Novak and Mr. Rove seemed almost certain to intensify the question about whether one of Mr. Bush's closest political advisers played a role in what appeared to be an effort to undermine Mr. Wilson's credibility after he challenged the veracity of a key point in Mr. Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech, saying Saddam Hussein had sought nuclear fuel in Africa.
The conversation with Mr. Novak took place three days before Mr. Rove spoke with Matthew Cooper, a Time magazine reporter, whose e-mail message about their brief talk reignited the issue. In the message, whose contents were reported by Newsweek this week, Mr. Cooper told his bureau chief that Mr. Rove had talked about Ms. Wilson, although not by name.
After saying in 2003 that it was "ridiculous" to suggest that Mr. Rove had any role in the disclosure of Ms. Wilson's name, Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, has refused in recent days to discuss any specifics of the case. But he has suggested that President Bush continues to support Mr. Rove. On Thursday Mr. Rove was at Mr. Bush's side on a trip to Indianapolis.
As the political debate about Mr. Rove grows more heated, Mr. Fitzgerald is in what he has said are the final stages of his investigation into whether anyone at the White House violated a criminal statute that under certain circumstances makes it a crime for a government official to disclose the names of covert operatives like Ms. Wilson.
The law requires that the official knowingly identify an officer serving in a covert position. The person who has been briefed on the matter said Mr. Rove neither knew Ms. Wilson's name nor that she was a covert officer.
Mr. Fitzgerald has questioned a number of high-level administration officials. Mr. Rove has testified three times to the grand jury. I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, has also testified. So has former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. The prosecutor also interviewed Mr. Bush, in his White House office, and Mr. Cheney, but they were not under oath.
The disclosure of Mr. Rove's conversation with Mr. Novak raises a question the White House has never addressed: whether Mr. Rove ever discussed that conversation, or his exchange with Mr. Cooper, with the president. Mr. Bush has said several times that he wants all members of the White House staff to cooperate fully with Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation.
In June 2004, at Sea Island, Ga., soon after Mr. Cheney met with investigators in the case, Mr. Bush was asked at a news conference whether "you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found" to have leaked the agent's name.
"Yes," Mr. Bush said. "And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts.
"Mr. Novak began his conversation with Mr. Rove by asking about the promotion of Frances Fragos Townsend, who had been a close aide to Janet Reno when she was attorney general, to a senior counterterrorism job at the White House, the person who was briefed on the matter said.
Mr. Novak then turned to the subject of Ms. Wilson, identifying her by name, the person said. In an Op-Ed article for The New York Times on July 6, 2003, Mr. Wilson suggested that he had been sent to Niger because of Mr. Cheney's interest in the matter. But Mr. Novak told Mr. Rove he knew that Mr. Wilson had been sent at the urging of Ms. Wilson, the person who had been briefed on the matter said.
Mr. Rove's allies have said that he did not call reporters with information about the case, rebutting the theory that the White House was actively seeking to intimidate or punish Mr. Wilson by harming his wife's career. They have also emphasized that Mr. Rove appeared not to know anything about Ms. Wilson other than that she worked at the C.I.A. and was married to Mr. Wilson.
This is not the first time Mr. Rove has been linked to a leak reported by Mr. Novak. In 1992, Mr. Rove was fired from the Texas campaign to re-elect the first President Bush because of suspicions that he had leaked information to Mr. Novak about shortfalls in the Texas organization's fund-raising. Both Mr. Rove and Mr. Novak have denied that Mr. Rove had been the source.
Mr. Novak's July 14, 2003, column was published against a backdrop in which White House officials were clearly agitated by Mr. Wilson's assertion, in his Op-Ed article, that the administration had "twisted" intelligence about the threat from Iraq.
But the White House was also deeply concerned about Mr. Wilson's suggestion that he had gone to Africa to carry out a mission that originated with Mr. Cheney. At the time, Mr. Cheney's earlier statements about Iraq's banned weapons were coming under fire as it became clearer that the United States would find no stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons and that Mr. Hussein's nuclear program was not far advanced.
Mr. Novak wrote that the decision to send Mr. Wilson "was made at a routinely low level" and was based on what later turned out to be fake documents that had come to the United States through Italy.
Many aspects of Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation remain shrouded in secrecy. It is unclear who Mr. Novak's other source might be or how that source learned of Ms. Wilson's role as a C.I.A. official. By itself, the disclosure that Mr. Rove had spoken to a second journalist about Ms. Wilson may not necessarily have a bearing on his exposure to any criminal charge in the case.
But it seems certain to add substantially to the political maelstrom that has engulfed the White House this week after the reports that Mr. Rove had discussed the matter with Mr. Cooper, the Time reporter.
Mr. Cooper's e-mail message to his editors, in which he described his discussion with Mr. Rove, was among documents that were turned over by Time executives recently to comply with a subpoena from Mr. Fitzgerald. A reporter for The New York Times, Judith Miller, who never wrote about the Wilson case, refused to cooperate with the investigation and was jailed last week for contempt of court. In addition to focusing new attention on Mr. Rove and whether he can survive the political fallout, it is sure to create new partisan pressure on Mr. Bush. Already, Democrats have been pressing the president either to live up to his promises to rid his administration of anyone found to have leaked the name of a covert operative or to explain why he does not believe Mr. Rove's actions subject him to dismissal.
The Rove-Novak exchange also leaves Mr. McClellan, the White House spokesman, in an increasingly awkward situation. Two years ago he repeatedly assured reporters that neither Mr. Rove nor several other administration officials were responsible for the leak.The case has also threatened to become a distraction as Mr. Bush struggles to keep his second-term agenda on track and as he prepares for one of the most pivotal battles of his presidency, over the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice.
As Democrats have been demanding that Mr. Rove resign or provide a public explanation, the political machine that Mr. Rove built to bolster Mr. Bush and advance his agenda has cranked up to defend its creator. The Republican National Committee has mounted an aggressive campaign to cast Mr. Rove as blameless and to paint the matter as a partisan dispute driven not by legality, ethics or national security concerns, but by a penchant among Democrats to resort to harsh personal attacks.
But Mr. Bush said Wednesday that he would not prejudge Mr. Rove's role, and Mr. Rove was seated conspicuously just behind the president at a cabinet meeting, an image of business as usual. On Thursday, on the trip with Mr. Bush to Indiana, Mr. Rove grinned his way through a brief encounter with reporters after getting off Air Force One.
Mr. Bush's White House has been characterized by loyalty and long tenures, but no one has been at Mr. Bush's side in his journey through politics longer than Mr. Rove, who has been his strategist, enforcer, policy guru, ambassador to social and religious conservatives and friend since they met in Washington in the early 1970's. People who know Mr. Bush said it was unlikely, if not unthinkable, that he would seek Mr. Rove's departure barring a criminal indictment.
David E. Sanger contributed reporting for this article.
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.
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 with CNN last year that he did not know the C.I.A. officer's name and did not leak it.
The person who provided the information about Mr. Rove's conversation with Mr. Novak declined to be identified, citing requests by Mr. Fitzgerald that no one discuss the case. The person discussed the matter in the belief that Mr. Rove was truthful in saying that he had not disclosed Ms. Wilson's identity.
On Oct. 1, 2003, Mr. Novak wrote another column in which he described calling two officials who were his sources for the earlier column. The first source, whose identity has not been revealed, provided the outlines of the story and was described by Mr. Novak as "no partisan gunslinger." Mr. Novak wrote that when he called a second official for confirmation, the source said, "Oh, you know about it.
"That second source was Mr. Rove, the person briefed on the matter said. Mr. Rove's account to investigators about what he told Mr. Novak was similar in its message although the White House adviser's recollection of the exact words was slightly different. Asked by investigators how he knew enough to leave Mr. Novak with the impression that his information was accurate, Mr. Rove said he had heard parts of the story from other journalists but had not heard Ms. Wilson's name.
Robert D. Luskin, Mr. Rove's lawyer, said Thursday, "Any pertinent information has been provided to the prosecutor." Mr. Luskin has previously said prosecutors have advised Mr. Rove that he is not a target in the case, which means he is not likely to be charged with a crime.In a brief conversation on Thursday, Mr. Novak declined to discuss the matter. It is unclear if Mr. Novak has testified to the grand jury, and if he has whether his account is consistent with Mr. Rove's.
The conversation between Mr. Novak and Mr. Rove seemed almost certain to intensify the question about whether one of Mr. Bush's closest political advisers played a role in what appeared to be an effort to undermine Mr. Wilson's credibility after he challenged the veracity of a key point in Mr. Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech, saying Saddam Hussein had sought nuclear fuel in Africa.
The conversation with Mr. Novak took place three days before Mr. Rove spoke with Matthew Cooper, a Time magazine reporter, whose e-mail message about their brief talk reignited the issue. In the message, whose contents were reported by Newsweek this week, Mr. Cooper told his bureau chief that Mr. Rove had talked about Ms. Wilson, although not by name.
After saying in 2003 that it was "ridiculous" to suggest that Mr. Rove had any role in the disclosure of Ms. Wilson's name, Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, has refused in recent days to discuss any specifics of the case. But he has suggested that President Bush continues to support Mr. Rove. On Thursday Mr. Rove was at Mr. Bush's side on a trip to Indianapolis.
As the political debate about Mr. Rove grows more heated, Mr. Fitzgerald is in what he has said are the final stages of his investigation into whether anyone at the White House violated a criminal statute that under certain circumstances makes it a crime for a government official to disclose the names of covert operatives like Ms. Wilson.
The law requires that the official knowingly identify an officer serving in a covert position. The person who has been briefed on the matter said Mr. Rove neither knew Ms. Wilson's name nor that she was a covert officer.
Mr. Fitzgerald has questioned a number of high-level administration officials. Mr. Rove has testified three times to the grand jury. I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, has also testified. So has former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. The prosecutor also interviewed Mr. Bush, in his White House office, and Mr. Cheney, but they were not under oath.
The disclosure of Mr. Rove's conversation with Mr. Novak raises a question the White House has never addressed: whether Mr. Rove ever discussed that conversation, or his exchange with Mr. Cooper, with the president. Mr. Bush has said several times that he wants all members of the White House staff to cooperate fully with Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation.
In June 2004, at Sea Island, Ga., soon after Mr. Cheney met with investigators in the case, Mr. Bush was asked at a news conference whether "you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found" to have leaked the agent's name.
"Yes," Mr. Bush said. "And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts.
"Mr. Novak began his conversation with Mr. Rove by asking about the promotion of Frances Fragos Townsend, who had been a close aide to Janet Reno when she was attorney general, to a senior counterterrorism job at the White House, the person who was briefed on the matter said.
Mr. Novak then turned to the subject of Ms. Wilson, identifying her by name, the person said. In an Op-Ed article for The New York Times on July 6, 2003, Mr. Wilson suggested that he had been sent to Niger because of Mr. Cheney's interest in the matter. But Mr. Novak told Mr. Rove he knew that Mr. Wilson had been sent at the urging of Ms. Wilson, the person who had been briefed on the matter said.
Mr. Rove's allies have said that he did not call reporters with information about the case, rebutting the theory that the White House was actively seeking to intimidate or punish Mr. Wilson by harming his wife's career. They have also emphasized that Mr. Rove appeared not to know anything about Ms. Wilson other than that she worked at the C.I.A. and was married to Mr. Wilson.
This is not the first time Mr. Rove has been linked to a leak reported by Mr. Novak. In 1992, Mr. Rove was fired from the Texas campaign to re-elect the first President Bush because of suspicions that he had leaked information to Mr. Novak about shortfalls in the Texas organization's fund-raising. Both Mr. Rove and Mr. Novak have denied that Mr. Rove had been the source.
Mr. Novak's July 14, 2003, column was published against a backdrop in which White House officials were clearly agitated by Mr. Wilson's assertion, in his Op-Ed article, that the administration had "twisted" intelligence about the threat from Iraq.
But the White House was also deeply concerned about Mr. Wilson's suggestion that he had gone to Africa to carry out a mission that originated with Mr. Cheney. At the time, Mr. Cheney's earlier statements about Iraq's banned weapons were coming under fire as it became clearer that the United States would find no stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons and that Mr. Hussein's nuclear program was not far advanced.
Mr. Novak wrote that the decision to send Mr. Wilson "was made at a routinely low level" and was based on what later turned out to be fake documents that had come to the United States through Italy.
Many aspects of Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation remain shrouded in secrecy. It is unclear who Mr. Novak's other source might be or how that source learned of Ms. Wilson's role as a C.I.A. official. By itself, the disclosure that Mr. Rove had spoken to a second journalist about Ms. Wilson may not necessarily have a bearing on his exposure to any criminal charge in the case.
But it seems certain to add substantially to the political maelstrom that has engulfed the White House this week after the reports that Mr. Rove had discussed the matter with Mr. Cooper, the Time reporter.
Mr. Cooper's e-mail message to his editors, in which he described his discussion with Mr. Rove, was among documents that were turned over by Time executives recently to comply with a subpoena from Mr. Fitzgerald. A reporter for The New York Times, Judith Miller, who never wrote about the Wilson case, refused to cooperate with the investigation and was jailed last week for contempt of court. In addition to focusing new attention on Mr. Rove and whether he can survive the political fallout, it is sure to create new partisan pressure on Mr. Bush. Already, Democrats have been pressing the president either to live up to his promises to rid his administration of anyone found to have leaked the name of a covert operative or to explain why he does not believe Mr. Rove's actions subject him to dismissal.
The Rove-Novak exchange also leaves Mr. McClellan, the White House spokesman, in an increasingly awkward situation. Two years ago he repeatedly assured reporters that neither Mr. Rove nor several other administration officials were responsible for the leak.The case has also threatened to become a distraction as Mr. Bush struggles to keep his second-term agenda on track and as he prepares for one of the most pivotal battles of his presidency, over the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice.
As Democrats have been demanding that Mr. Rove resign or provide a public explanation, the political machine that Mr. Rove built to bolster Mr. Bush and advance his agenda has cranked up to defend its creator. The Republican National Committee has mounted an aggressive campaign to cast Mr. Rove as blameless and to paint the matter as a partisan dispute driven not by legality, ethics or national security concerns, but by a penchant among Democrats to resort to harsh personal attacks.
But Mr. Bush said Wednesday that he would not prejudge Mr. Rove's role, and Mr. Rove was seated conspicuously just behind the president at a cabinet meeting, an image of business as usual. On Thursday, on the trip with Mr. Bush to Indiana, Mr. Rove grinned his way through a brief encounter with reporters after getting off Air Force One.
Mr. Bush's White House has been characterized by loyalty and long tenures, but no one has been at Mr. Bush's side in his journey through politics longer than Mr. Rove, who has been his strategist, enforcer, policy guru, ambassador to social and religious conservatives and friend since they met in Washington in the early 1970's. People who know Mr. Bush said it was unlikely, if not unthinkable, that he would seek Mr. Rove's departure barring a criminal indictment.
David E. Sanger contributed reporting for this article.
Grand Jury set to expire in October
Rove assistant appears before grand jury
RICHARD B. SCHMITT
Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON - A top assistant to White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove appeared last week before the federal grand jury investigating possible criminal wrongdoing by the Bush administration in the exposing of a CIA operative, a person familiar with the case said Tuesday.
The interest in Susan Ralston, Rove's longtime executive assistant, was unclear; but it comes as special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has been focusing on differences in witness statements made to federal agents and the grand jury investigating who revealed the identity of Valerie Plame.
Ralston's appearance Friday followed grand-jury testimony last month by Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, who recounted a conversation he had with Rove in July 2003 in which Rove alluded to Plame without mentioning her by name. Cooper and columnist Robert Novak subsequently wrote stories identifying Plame after talking with administration officials.
It can be a violation of federal law to disclose the name of a covert CIA agent. Some people close to the case have said they believe Fitzgerald has begun focusing on whether other laws may have been broken, such as perjury, obstruction of justice or making "misstatements" to investigators.
Cooper's version of his conversation with Rove differed from the version Rove has offered investigators. Some people close to the case said Fitzgerald apparently was seeking to resolve the differences in the two stories.
A person familiar with Cooper's testimony said Ralston's name did not come up during the reporter's grand-jury appearance. That indicates Fitzgerald may be interested in her testimony for other reasons.
Ralston could not be reached for comment.
The prosecutor earlier said in court papers that his investigation essentially was complete as of last October except for the testimony of Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller. Miller was jailed four weeks ago for refusing to cooperate and remains incarcerated. Fitzgerald, who has been leading the investigation since December 2003, has not indicated when he intends to be done. The grand jury that has been hearing testimony is set to expire in October, although it could be renewed.
WHY isn't Steven Hadley involved with this investigation? The History of the SAME people is too significant to overlook.
Julian Borger Names Karl Rove
"Several of the journalists are saying privately 'yes it was Karl Rove who I talked to.'"
Prior Reputation of Karl Rove and Robert Novak (They are subversives by reputation):
"Sources close to the former president say Rove was fired from the 1992 Bush presidential campaign after he planted a negative story with columnist Robert Novak about dissatisfaction with campaign fundraising chief and Bush loyalist Robert Mosbacher Jr."
Mr. Rove told the columnist: "I heard that, too."
But, Karl, who did you hear that from?
And what is with Libby's Color Coded Folders to keep the Sources Straight.
A source close to Rove, who declined to be identified because he did not wish to run afoul of the prosecutor or government investigators, added that there was "absolutely no inconsistency" between Cooper's e-mail and what Rove has testified to during his three grand-jury appearances in the case. "A fair reading of the e-mail makes clear that the information conveyed was not part of an organized effort to disclose Plame's identity, but was an effort to discourage Time from publishing things that turned out to be false," the source said, referring to claims in circulation at the time that Cheney and high-level CIA officials arranged for Wilson's trip to Africa.
Rove told then-deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley in the July 11, 2003, e-mail that he had spoken with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper and tried to caution him away from some allegations that CIA operative Valerie Plame's husband was making about faulty Iraq intelligence.July, 14, 2003 - Novak's Article stating Valerie Plame and outing her as a CIA Agent.What goes on between Novak and the Bushes?
Robert Novak has a security clearance to the USA for purposes of pundancy?
The plot thickens and it seems to me everyone is running for cover.
"Several of the journalists are saying privately 'yes it was Karl Rove who I talked to.'"
Prior Reputation of Karl Rove and Robert Novak (They are subversives by reputation):
"Sources close to the former president say Rove was fired from the 1992 Bush presidential campaign after he planted a negative story with columnist Robert Novak about dissatisfaction with campaign fundraising chief and Bush loyalist Robert Mosbacher Jr."
Mr. Rove told the columnist: "I heard that, too."
But, Karl, who did you hear that from?
And what is with Libby's Color Coded Folders to keep the Sources Straight.
A source close to Rove, who declined to be identified because he did not wish to run afoul of the prosecutor or government investigators, added that there was "absolutely no inconsistency" between Cooper's e-mail and what Rove has testified to during his three grand-jury appearances in the case. "A fair reading of the e-mail makes clear that the information conveyed was not part of an organized effort to disclose Plame's identity, but was an effort to discourage Time from publishing things that turned out to be false," the source said, referring to claims in circulation at the time that Cheney and high-level CIA officials arranged for Wilson's trip to Africa.
Rove told then-deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley in the July 11, 2003, e-mail that he had spoken with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper and tried to caution him away from some allegations that CIA operative Valerie Plame's husband was making about faulty Iraq intelligence.July, 14, 2003 - Novak's Article stating Valerie Plame and outing her as a CIA Agent.What goes on between Novak and the Bushes?
Robert Novak has a security clearance to the USA for purposes of pundancy?
The plot thickens and it seems to me everyone is running for cover.
CNN Suspends Novak After He Walks Off Set
By DAVID BAUDER
The Associated Press
Friday, August 5, 2005; 12:42 AM
NEW YORK -- CNN suspended commentator Robert Novak indefinitely after he swore and walked off the set Thursday during a debate with Democratic operative James Carville.
The live exchange during CNN's "Inside Politics" came during a discussion of Florida's Senate campaign. CNN correspondent Ed Henry noted when it was over that he had been about to ask Novak about his role in the investigation of the leak of a CIA officer's identity.
A CNN spokeswoman, Edie Emery, called Novak's behavior "inexcusable and unacceptable." Novak apologized to CNN, and CNN was apologizing to viewers, she said.
"We've asked Mr. Novak to take some time off," she said.
A telephone message at Novak's office was not immediately returned Thursday.
Carville and Novak were both trying to speak while they were handicapping the GOP candidacy of Katherine Harris. Novak said the opposition of the Republican establishment in Florida might not be fatal for her.
"Let me just finish, James, please," Novak continued. "I know you hate to hear me, but you have to."
Carville, addressing the camera, said: "He's got to show these right wingers that he's got a backbone, you know. It's why the Wall Street Journal editorial page is watching you. Show 'em that you're tough."
"Well, I think that's bull---- and I hate that," Novak replied. "Just let it go."
As moderator Henry stepped in to ask Carville a question, Novak walked off the set.
Only two weeks ago, CNN executives defended their decision to keep Novak on the air during the ongoing probe into the revelation of CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity. In a July 2003 newspaper column, Novak identified Plame, the wife of administration critic and former U.S. ambassador Joseph Wilson, as a CIA operative.
Wilson has said the leak of his wife's name was an attempt by the administration to discredit him. Two other reporters connected to the case openly fought the revelation of their sources, and Judith Miller of The New York Times has been jailed for refusing to cooperate with prosecutors.
Novak has repeatedly refused to comment about his role in the federal investigation.
After Novak walked off on Thursday, Henry said that Novak had been told before the segment that he was going to be asked on air about the CIA case.
"I'm hoping that we will be able to ask him about that in the future," Henry said.
Novak has been a longtime contributor to CNN, taking the conservative point of view during the just-canceled "Crossfire" show.
The Associated Press
Friday, August 5, 2005; 12:42 AM
NEW YORK -- CNN suspended commentator Robert Novak indefinitely after he swore and walked off the set Thursday during a debate with Democratic operative James Carville.
The live exchange during CNN's "Inside Politics" came during a discussion of Florida's Senate campaign. CNN correspondent Ed Henry noted when it was over that he had been about to ask Novak about his role in the investigation of the leak of a CIA officer's identity.
A CNN spokeswoman, Edie Emery, called Novak's behavior "inexcusable and unacceptable." Novak apologized to CNN, and CNN was apologizing to viewers, she said.
"We've asked Mr. Novak to take some time off," she said.
A telephone message at Novak's office was not immediately returned Thursday.
Carville and Novak were both trying to speak while they were handicapping the GOP candidacy of Katherine Harris. Novak said the opposition of the Republican establishment in Florida might not be fatal for her.
"Let me just finish, James, please," Novak continued. "I know you hate to hear me, but you have to."
Carville, addressing the camera, said: "He's got to show these right wingers that he's got a backbone, you know. It's why the Wall Street Journal editorial page is watching you. Show 'em that you're tough."
"Well, I think that's bull---- and I hate that," Novak replied. "Just let it go."
As moderator Henry stepped in to ask Carville a question, Novak walked off the set.
Only two weeks ago, CNN executives defended their decision to keep Novak on the air during the ongoing probe into the revelation of CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity. In a July 2003 newspaper column, Novak identified Plame, the wife of administration critic and former U.S. ambassador Joseph Wilson, as a CIA operative.
Wilson has said the leak of his wife's name was an attempt by the administration to discredit him. Two other reporters connected to the case openly fought the revelation of their sources, and Judith Miller of The New York Times has been jailed for refusing to cooperate with prosecutors.
Novak has repeatedly refused to comment about his role in the federal investigation.
After Novak walked off on Thursday, Henry said that Novak had been told before the segment that he was going to be asked on air about the CIA case.
"I'm hoping that we will be able to ask him about that in the future," Henry said.
Novak has been a longtime contributor to CNN, taking the conservative point of view during the just-canceled "Crossfire" show.
The Plot Against the Constitution
For one, I am grateful for Michael Moore. He let all of us know a vitally important meeting was occurring when absolutely no other news agency did.
Thank you, Michael.
I know this won't make anything to those don't want to hear it, but, I am convinced more than ever that the crafting of Iraq and the exposure of Valerie Plame occurred within the Oval Office.
There was a final statement between Representative Jay Inslee and Jim Marcinkowski that threw open a window to this entire mystery.
Before I get into it I never realized how dearly these people who testified today wanted to be heard. They are great patriots. Their testamony should be required reading for every American.
They had intimate information regarding Valerie Plame. She was outed it didn't matter what they knew anymore and these were retired agents. Valeri's service to this country goes back to 1985. She was a very valuable asset to this country. We profoundly lost not just our intelligence credibility globally but an agent that I am convinced will never be replaced.
She was a very deep agent. She was not a paper pusher as the White House would have us believe. Not only that she was a risk taker in her role as a consultant at the covertly created company "Bruster-Jennings."
She did this.
She put her life on the line to establish connections with people in other countries who could bring back to our intelligence agencies information regarding weapons of mass destruction. She is a brave and valient woman who needs to be appreciated and not ridiculed.
Understanding that set a very serious tone about the underpinnings of the covert operations of the CIA.
In making the next statement I would like to have readers understand I do a lot of interviewing for a variety of reasons. Inevitably when I think the interview is concluded (always an information finding interview, not personnel interview) and we are about to say good-bye I always ask one more question; "Is there anything, I mean anything, I didn't think to ask you that you would like me to know?" This interaction between Mr. Marcinkowski and Rep. Jay Inslee reminded me of that moment at the conclusion of an interview.
At the end of hours of testimony Mr. Marcinkowski reached out to Rep. Jay Inslee to MAKE A POINT. He stated, intelligence is supposed to come to the Executive Branch from the bottom up. Untainted. He was grossly concerned this administration was not accepting the intelligence as it was learned and recorded; but; was creating it from the top down to justify their agenda.
This light went on and I immediately went: Tony Blair.
The secret Downing Street memo
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL
UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
NOT ONLY THAT, but, in the early days of this administration there was a complaint and I want to say the best remembrance of it's ridicule was a Maureen Dowd Op-Ed whereby Dick Cheney was making visits to young and new CIA agents. The practice was unprecedented by a vice president and suspect to influence peddling. I firmly believe "The Downing Street Memo" was co-authored by Bush and Cheney with the information he found in remote and irrelevant files of the CIA maintained by low level agents who were impressed with the authority of the vice president.
After that meeting was complete on C-Span I recalled something I read and I found this in a profile about Cheney:
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/cheney_r/cheney_r.php
According to a Washington Post article on September 29, 2003 , Cheney, working with two key advisers--Stephen Hadley and I. Lewis Libby--worked hard to make sure references to the alleged meeting appeared in speeches and policy briefings even after the intelligence regarding the event had been discredited.
This effort apparently alienated some officials in the Bush administration. Reports the Post: "Behind the scenes, the Atta meeting remained tantalizing to Cheney and his staff. Libby--along with deputy national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, a longtime Cheney associate--began pushing to include the Atta claim in Powell's appearance before the UN Security Council a week after the State of the Union speech. Powell's presentation was aimed at convincing the world of Iraq 's ties to terrorists and its pursuit of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. On January 25, 2003 , with a stack of notebooks at his side, color-coded with the sources for the information, Libby laid out the potential case against Iraq to a packed White House situation room.
On January 25, 2003 , with a stack of notebooks at his side, color-coded with the sources for the information, Libby laid out the potential case against Iraq to a packed White House situation room.
… with a stack of notebooks at his side, color-coded with the sources for the information, Libby laid out the potential case against Iraq …
… stack of notebooks at his side, color-coded with the sources for the information, Libby …
... stack of notebooks at his side, color-coded with the sources for the information, Libby ...
... stack of notebooks at his side, color-coded with the sources for the information, Libby ...
Rove, Libby Accounts on Plame Differ With Reporters' (Update3)
July 22 (Bloomberg) -- Two top White House aides have given accounts to a special prosecutor about how reporters first told them the identity of a CIA agent that are at odds with what the reporters have said, according to people familiar with the case.
Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, told special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that he first learned from NBC News reporter Tim Russert of the identity of Central Intelligence Agency operative Valerie Plame, the wife of former ambassador and Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson, one person said. Russert has testified before Fitzgerald that he didn't tell Libby of Plame's identity, the person said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aBsQ1ErWEsAk&refer=us
Thank you, Michael.
I know this won't make anything to those don't want to hear it, but, I am convinced more than ever that the crafting of Iraq and the exposure of Valerie Plame occurred within the Oval Office.
There was a final statement between Representative Jay Inslee and Jim Marcinkowski that threw open a window to this entire mystery.
Before I get into it I never realized how dearly these people who testified today wanted to be heard. They are great patriots. Their testamony should be required reading for every American.
They had intimate information regarding Valerie Plame. She was outed it didn't matter what they knew anymore and these were retired agents. Valeri's service to this country goes back to 1985. She was a very valuable asset to this country. We profoundly lost not just our intelligence credibility globally but an agent that I am convinced will never be replaced.
She was a very deep agent. She was not a paper pusher as the White House would have us believe. Not only that she was a risk taker in her role as a consultant at the covertly created company "Bruster-Jennings."
She did this.
She put her life on the line to establish connections with people in other countries who could bring back to our intelligence agencies information regarding weapons of mass destruction. She is a brave and valient woman who needs to be appreciated and not ridiculed.
Understanding that set a very serious tone about the underpinnings of the covert operations of the CIA.
In making the next statement I would like to have readers understand I do a lot of interviewing for a variety of reasons. Inevitably when I think the interview is concluded (always an information finding interview, not personnel interview) and we are about to say good-bye I always ask one more question; "Is there anything, I mean anything, I didn't think to ask you that you would like me to know?" This interaction between Mr. Marcinkowski and Rep. Jay Inslee reminded me of that moment at the conclusion of an interview.
At the end of hours of testimony Mr. Marcinkowski reached out to Rep. Jay Inslee to MAKE A POINT. He stated, intelligence is supposed to come to the Executive Branch from the bottom up. Untainted. He was grossly concerned this administration was not accepting the intelligence as it was learned and recorded; but; was creating it from the top down to justify their agenda.
This light went on and I immediately went: Tony Blair.
The secret Downing Street memo
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL
UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
NOT ONLY THAT, but, in the early days of this administration there was a complaint and I want to say the best remembrance of it's ridicule was a Maureen Dowd Op-Ed whereby Dick Cheney was making visits to young and new CIA agents. The practice was unprecedented by a vice president and suspect to influence peddling. I firmly believe "The Downing Street Memo" was co-authored by Bush and Cheney with the information he found in remote and irrelevant files of the CIA maintained by low level agents who were impressed with the authority of the vice president.
After that meeting was complete on C-Span I recalled something I read and I found this in a profile about Cheney:
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/cheney_r/cheney_r.php
According to a Washington Post article on September 29, 2003 , Cheney, working with two key advisers--Stephen Hadley and I. Lewis Libby--worked hard to make sure references to the alleged meeting appeared in speeches and policy briefings even after the intelligence regarding the event had been discredited.
This effort apparently alienated some officials in the Bush administration. Reports the Post: "Behind the scenes, the Atta meeting remained tantalizing to Cheney and his staff. Libby--along with deputy national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, a longtime Cheney associate--began pushing to include the Atta claim in Powell's appearance before the UN Security Council a week after the State of the Union speech. Powell's presentation was aimed at convincing the world of Iraq 's ties to terrorists and its pursuit of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. On January 25, 2003 , with a stack of notebooks at his side, color-coded with the sources for the information, Libby laid out the potential case against Iraq to a packed White House situation room.
On January 25, 2003 , with a stack of notebooks at his side, color-coded with the sources for the information, Libby laid out the potential case against Iraq to a packed White House situation room.
… with a stack of notebooks at his side, color-coded with the sources for the information, Libby laid out the potential case against Iraq …
… stack of notebooks at his side, color-coded with the sources for the information, Libby …
... stack of notebooks at his side, color-coded with the sources for the information, Libby ...
... stack of notebooks at his side, color-coded with the sources for the information, Libby ...
Rove, Libby Accounts on Plame Differ With Reporters' (Update3)
July 22 (Bloomberg) -- Two top White House aides have given accounts to a special prosecutor about how reporters first told them the identity of a CIA agent that are at odds with what the reporters have said, according to people familiar with the case.
Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, told special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that he first learned from NBC News reporter Tim Russert of the identity of Central Intelligence Agency operative Valerie Plame, the wife of former ambassador and Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson, one person said. Russert has testified before Fitzgerald that he didn't tell Libby of Plame's identity, the person said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aBsQ1ErWEsAk&refer=us
Karl Rove Scandal and the Big Picture
by Stephen Crockett
http://www.opednews.com
Karl Rove Scandal and the Big PictureGeorge W. Bush seems to be placing personal loyalties and political loyalties over his Presidential obligations and image. Bush promised the American people publicly repeatedly that he would fire anyone responsible at the White House who was involved in revealing the identity of the CIA operative married to former Ambassador Wilson.
This illegal outing of a secret agent is extremely serious. It demonstrates that some White House operatives found it acceptable to break the law and endanger American national security for political advantage.
Wilson had served as an Ambassador to Iraq. He had faced down Saddam Hussein on behalf of the American government. Wilson understood both the power and limits of Iraq’s threat to peace under Saddam Hussein.
He was certainly no friend or supporter of the Iraqi dictator.He was selected by the Bush Administration to investigate the rumors that Iraq had tried to buy “yellowcake uranium” in the African nation of Niger. Wilson found the reports to be untrue. He reported these facts to the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration continued to spread the false rumors at every level seemingly to push the nation into war.
When Wilson acted to reveal the truth, his reputation was smeared. As part of this smear campaign, Karl Rove and other highly placed White House operatives attached to Vice President Cheney revealed that Wilson’s wife was a CIA covert agent. Her contacts were blown and their lives were placed at risk. Her effectiveness was destroyed. Her identity was revealed by columnist Robert Novak who received the information from Karl Rove.
Karl Rove is the long-time chief political adviser to George W. Bush. Rove seems to never act outside the wishes of Bush on political issues and tactics. The Bush White House has long denied that Bush was involved in this scandal. It is now clear that these denials were untrue!
Bush seems unwilling to keep his earlier promises to fire those responsible for outing the CIA agent wife of Ambassador Wilson. Recently, he has started adding new obstacles to keeping his word. He has started saying he would fire those responsible “IF THEY ARE CONVICTED OF A CRIME.” Bush added these qualifying statements seemingly to protect his closest political aide. Was Rove acting at the direction of Bush or Cheney?
Rove is so powerful that his position may prevent him from being prosecuted by anyone working for the Bush Justice Department. It is widely rumored that Rove masterminds most important appointments of top government officials and judges for the Bush Administration. Are these same government officials to be trusted in handling his possible prosecution?
Clearly, public hearings in Congress are called for having equal representation and co-Chairpersons from both the Republican and Democratic Parties. Additionally, it is time to bring back the Special Independent Prosecutor. The scope of both enquiries should be very broad. Rove role in outing the CIA agent seems to be part of a much bigger picture. All the tactics used to push the nation into war in Iraq using false information should be explored. Using government positions for partisan Republican purposes should be explored. Already, it is clear that Rove was not acting alone.
Rove should be fired now unless he was acting under the direct orders of Bush. If so, Bush should publicly state that Rove was acting under his orders. Bush’s comments remind this writer of Nixon’s efforts to protect his aides in the early stages of the Watergate scandal. Bush should keep his word to the American people and stop trying to protect his political henchmen! Rove should be removed from office so he does not use his power in the White House to thwart an investigation.
Vice President Cheney has already successfully thwarted an effective investigation into his dealing with the oil industry concerning his Energy Taskforce. Cheney has used his office to hide his activities from the American public. We may never fully know if the Iraq War was being planned in part during those meetings. Does this help explain why Cheney’s aides were also involved in outing the CIA agent along with Rove? Does this explain why the Vice President seemed to play a key role is distorting the CIA intelligence reports given to Congress in ways that made war with Iraq likely? Does it explain why Cheney repeatedly tied Iraq to the 9-11 attacks when he knew those ties were largely non-existent?
Abuse of government power for partisan political purposes was at the root of the Watergate scandal. The collapse of the Nixon White House started with a simple burglary which revealed many other serious crimes. I suspect the Rove/Novak Traitorgate scandal is just the tip of the iceberg concerning the Bush Administration.
http://www.opednews.com
Karl Rove Scandal and the Big PictureGeorge W. Bush seems to be placing personal loyalties and political loyalties over his Presidential obligations and image. Bush promised the American people publicly repeatedly that he would fire anyone responsible at the White House who was involved in revealing the identity of the CIA operative married to former Ambassador Wilson.
This illegal outing of a secret agent is extremely serious. It demonstrates that some White House operatives found it acceptable to break the law and endanger American national security for political advantage.
Wilson had served as an Ambassador to Iraq. He had faced down Saddam Hussein on behalf of the American government. Wilson understood both the power and limits of Iraq’s threat to peace under Saddam Hussein.
He was certainly no friend or supporter of the Iraqi dictator.He was selected by the Bush Administration to investigate the rumors that Iraq had tried to buy “yellowcake uranium” in the African nation of Niger. Wilson found the reports to be untrue. He reported these facts to the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration continued to spread the false rumors at every level seemingly to push the nation into war.
When Wilson acted to reveal the truth, his reputation was smeared. As part of this smear campaign, Karl Rove and other highly placed White House operatives attached to Vice President Cheney revealed that Wilson’s wife was a CIA covert agent. Her contacts were blown and their lives were placed at risk. Her effectiveness was destroyed. Her identity was revealed by columnist Robert Novak who received the information from Karl Rove.
Karl Rove is the long-time chief political adviser to George W. Bush. Rove seems to never act outside the wishes of Bush on political issues and tactics. The Bush White House has long denied that Bush was involved in this scandal. It is now clear that these denials were untrue!
Bush seems unwilling to keep his earlier promises to fire those responsible for outing the CIA agent wife of Ambassador Wilson. Recently, he has started adding new obstacles to keeping his word. He has started saying he would fire those responsible “IF THEY ARE CONVICTED OF A CRIME.” Bush added these qualifying statements seemingly to protect his closest political aide. Was Rove acting at the direction of Bush or Cheney?
Rove is so powerful that his position may prevent him from being prosecuted by anyone working for the Bush Justice Department. It is widely rumored that Rove masterminds most important appointments of top government officials and judges for the Bush Administration. Are these same government officials to be trusted in handling his possible prosecution?
Clearly, public hearings in Congress are called for having equal representation and co-Chairpersons from both the Republican and Democratic Parties. Additionally, it is time to bring back the Special Independent Prosecutor. The scope of both enquiries should be very broad. Rove role in outing the CIA agent seems to be part of a much bigger picture. All the tactics used to push the nation into war in Iraq using false information should be explored. Using government positions for partisan Republican purposes should be explored. Already, it is clear that Rove was not acting alone.
Rove should be fired now unless he was acting under the direct orders of Bush. If so, Bush should publicly state that Rove was acting under his orders. Bush’s comments remind this writer of Nixon’s efforts to protect his aides in the early stages of the Watergate scandal. Bush should keep his word to the American people and stop trying to protect his political henchmen! Rove should be removed from office so he does not use his power in the White House to thwart an investigation.
Vice President Cheney has already successfully thwarted an effective investigation into his dealing with the oil industry concerning his Energy Taskforce. Cheney has used his office to hide his activities from the American public. We may never fully know if the Iraq War was being planned in part during those meetings. Does this help explain why Cheney’s aides were also involved in outing the CIA agent along with Rove? Does this explain why the Vice President seemed to play a key role is distorting the CIA intelligence reports given to Congress in ways that made war with Iraq likely? Does it explain why Cheney repeatedly tied Iraq to the 9-11 attacks when he knew those ties were largely non-existent?
Abuse of government power for partisan political purposes was at the root of the Watergate scandal. The collapse of the Nixon White House started with a simple burglary which revealed many other serious crimes. I suspect the Rove/Novak Traitorgate scandal is just the tip of the iceberg concerning the Bush Administration.
House Beats Back Challenges to Patriot Act
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
WASHINGTON, July 21 - The House voted Thursday to extend permanently virtually all the major antiterrorism provisions of the USA Patriot Act after beating back efforts by Democrats and some Republicans to impose new restrictions on the government's power to eavesdrop, conduct secret searches and demand library records.
The legislation, approved 257 to 171, would make permanent 14 of the 16 provisions in the law that were set to expire at the end of this year. The remaining two provisions - giving the government the power to demand business and library records and to conduct roving wiretaps - would have to be reconsidered by Congress in 10 years.
The House version of the legislation essentially leaves intact many of the central powers of the antiterrorism act that critics had sought to scale back, setting the stage for what could be difficult negotiations with the Senate, which is considering several very different bills to extend the government's counterterrorism powers under the act.
One version, approved unanimously Thursday by the Senate Judiciary Committee, would impose greater restrictions on the government's powers.
But a competing bill passed last month by the intelligence committee would broaden the government's powers by allowing the Federal Bureau of Investigation to demand records in terrorism investigations without a judge's order and to have sole discretion in monitoring the mail of some terrorism suspects. That proposal has the strong backing of the Bush administration.
In the House, a daylong debate about the Patriot Act turned into a referendum on the Bush administration's antiterrorism policies, as lawmakers sought to calibrate the proper balance between protecting national security and ensuring civil liberties.
Thursday was the first time either chamber of Congress gave an up-or-down vote to the act as a whole since it was passed by overwhelming margins in the weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks. The law has become a lightning rod for critics who say it invites abuses and Big Brother-like tactics by the government.
With the reauthorization of the law a top priority for the Bush administration, Republicans offered a spirited defense of it during Thursday's debate. They said that the government's expanded surveillance and law enforcement powers had given it the tools it needed to track terrorists and that it had broken down the bureaucratic walls that bottled up investigations before the Sept. 11 attacks.
The debate became personal and angry at times.
Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., the Wisconsin Republican who leads the Judiciary Committee, said critics were guilty of "false and irresponsible accusations" in attacking the act for its effect on civil liberties..
But critics of the law did not back down, charging that Republican leaders on the House Rules Committee had stifled debate by refusing to allow the full House to consider amendments that would have prevented the government from demanding library and bookstore records and would have forced a reconsideration of some surveillance provisions in 4 years instead of 10.
The provision preventing the government from reviewing library records passed the full House by a wide margin last month as an amendment to an appropriations bill, but the rules committee did not allow it to be considered Thursday. Representative Bernard Sanders, a Vermont independent who wrote the provision, said the committee's refusal to bring the issue to a vote was "an outrageous abuse of power."
Even some Republicans were alarmed by the exclusion of many amendments.
Representative C. L. Otter of Idaho said the action amounted to a "gag rule" that prevented a full debate on needed restrictions in the law. "I'm embarrassed to be on this side of the aisle," Mr. Otter said.
The House approved nearly all of 20 amendments offered as part of the Patriot Act proposal.
Among them was one requiring the F.B.I. director to personally approve demands for library and business records and another placing more limits on the bureau's use of what are called national security letters to demand records without a judge's approval. Under the amendment, anyone receiving such a letter could consult with a lawyer and seek to have a judge throw out the demand if compliance is deemed "unnecessary or oppressive."
But critics of the Patriot Act called the amendments to the House bill cosmetic and far short of what they said was needed to ease growing public concerns about the government's powers to fight terrorism.
"We think the House of Representatives missed an opportunity to enact real improvements to the Patriot Act, to enact real amendments that would protect our civil liberties and restore appropriate checks and balances," said Lisa Graves, senior counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, which has been a leading critic of the law.
On the Senate side, the Judiciary Committee's unanimous passage of its own bill came after several Democrats and Republicans successfully pushed to include a number of measures to require greater accountability to Congress on the use of the law, greater judicial oversight on government demands for business and library records and new restrictions on the use of "roving wiretaps" in monitoring suspects.
Staff members from both parties worked until 3 a.m. Thursday to hash out the compromise , officials said.
"This is not the bill that I, or anyone here, would have written if compromise were unnecessary," said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, ranking Democrat on the judiciary committee. "Americans can feel confident that through our bipartisan efforts, we have moved the law in the right direction."
WASHINGTON, July 21 - The House voted Thursday to extend permanently virtually all the major antiterrorism provisions of the USA Patriot Act after beating back efforts by Democrats and some Republicans to impose new restrictions on the government's power to eavesdrop, conduct secret searches and demand library records.
The legislation, approved 257 to 171, would make permanent 14 of the 16 provisions in the law that were set to expire at the end of this year. The remaining two provisions - giving the government the power to demand business and library records and to conduct roving wiretaps - would have to be reconsidered by Congress in 10 years.
The House version of the legislation essentially leaves intact many of the central powers of the antiterrorism act that critics had sought to scale back, setting the stage for what could be difficult negotiations with the Senate, which is considering several very different bills to extend the government's counterterrorism powers under the act.
One version, approved unanimously Thursday by the Senate Judiciary Committee, would impose greater restrictions on the government's powers.
But a competing bill passed last month by the intelligence committee would broaden the government's powers by allowing the Federal Bureau of Investigation to demand records in terrorism investigations without a judge's order and to have sole discretion in monitoring the mail of some terrorism suspects. That proposal has the strong backing of the Bush administration.
In the House, a daylong debate about the Patriot Act turned into a referendum on the Bush administration's antiterrorism policies, as lawmakers sought to calibrate the proper balance between protecting national security and ensuring civil liberties.
Thursday was the first time either chamber of Congress gave an up-or-down vote to the act as a whole since it was passed by overwhelming margins in the weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks. The law has become a lightning rod for critics who say it invites abuses and Big Brother-like tactics by the government.
With the reauthorization of the law a top priority for the Bush administration, Republicans offered a spirited defense of it during Thursday's debate. They said that the government's expanded surveillance and law enforcement powers had given it the tools it needed to track terrorists and that it had broken down the bureaucratic walls that bottled up investigations before the Sept. 11 attacks.
The debate became personal and angry at times.
Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., the Wisconsin Republican who leads the Judiciary Committee, said critics were guilty of "false and irresponsible accusations" in attacking the act for its effect on civil liberties..
But critics of the law did not back down, charging that Republican leaders on the House Rules Committee had stifled debate by refusing to allow the full House to consider amendments that would have prevented the government from demanding library and bookstore records and would have forced a reconsideration of some surveillance provisions in 4 years instead of 10.
The provision preventing the government from reviewing library records passed the full House by a wide margin last month as an amendment to an appropriations bill, but the rules committee did not allow it to be considered Thursday. Representative Bernard Sanders, a Vermont independent who wrote the provision, said the committee's refusal to bring the issue to a vote was "an outrageous abuse of power."
Even some Republicans were alarmed by the exclusion of many amendments.
Representative C. L. Otter of Idaho said the action amounted to a "gag rule" that prevented a full debate on needed restrictions in the law. "I'm embarrassed to be on this side of the aisle," Mr. Otter said.
The House approved nearly all of 20 amendments offered as part of the Patriot Act proposal.
Among them was one requiring the F.B.I. director to personally approve demands for library and business records and another placing more limits on the bureau's use of what are called national security letters to demand records without a judge's approval. Under the amendment, anyone receiving such a letter could consult with a lawyer and seek to have a judge throw out the demand if compliance is deemed "unnecessary or oppressive."
But critics of the Patriot Act called the amendments to the House bill cosmetic and far short of what they said was needed to ease growing public concerns about the government's powers to fight terrorism.
"We think the House of Representatives missed an opportunity to enact real improvements to the Patriot Act, to enact real amendments that would protect our civil liberties and restore appropriate checks and balances," said Lisa Graves, senior counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, which has been a leading critic of the law.
On the Senate side, the Judiciary Committee's unanimous passage of its own bill came after several Democrats and Republicans successfully pushed to include a number of measures to require greater accountability to Congress on the use of the law, greater judicial oversight on government demands for business and library records and new restrictions on the use of "roving wiretaps" in monitoring suspects.
Staff members from both parties worked until 3 a.m. Thursday to hash out the compromise , officials said.
"This is not the bill that I, or anyone here, would have written if compromise were unnecessary," said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, ranking Democrat on the judiciary committee. "Americans can feel confident that through our bipartisan efforts, we have moved the law in the right direction."
Plame's Identity Marked As Secret
Memo Central to Probe Of Leak Was Written By State Dept. Analyst
By Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei / Washington Post
A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.
Plame -- who is referred to by her married name, Valerie Wilson, in the memo -- is mentioned in the second paragraph of the three-page document, which was written on June 10, 2003, by an analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), according to a source who described the memo to The Washington Post.
The paragraph identifying her as the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was clearly marked to show that it contained classified material at the "secret" level, two sources said. The CIA classifies as "secret" the names of officers whose identities are covert, according to former senior agency officials.
Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame's name and did not describe her status as covert, the sources said. It is a federal crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for a federal official to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert CIA official if the person knows the government is trying to keep it secret.
Prosecutors attempting to determine whether senior government officials knowingly leaked Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative to the media are investigating whether White House officials gained access to information about her from the memo, according to two sources familiar with the investigation.
The memo may be important to answering three central questions in the Plame case: Who in the Bush administration knew about Plame's CIA role? Did they know the agency was trying to protect her identity? And, who leaked it to the media?
Almost all of the memo is devoted to describing why State Department intelligence experts did not believe claims that Saddam Hussein had in the recent past sought to purchase uranium from Niger. Only two sentences in the seven-sentence paragraph mention Wilson's wife.
The memo was delivered to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell on July 7, 2003, as he headed to Africa for a trip with President Bush aboard Air Force One. Plame was unmasked in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak seven days later.
Wilson has said his wife's identity was revealed to retaliate against him for accusing the Bush administration of "twisting" intelligence to justify the Iraq war. In a July 6 opinion piece in the New York Times and in an interview with The Washington Post, he cited a secret mission he conducted in February 2002 for the CIA, when he determined there was no evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium for a nuclear weapons program in the African nation of Niger.
White House officials discussed Wilson's wife's CIA connection in telling at least two reporters that she helped arrange his trip, according to one of the reporters, Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, and a lawyer familiar with the case.
Prosecutors have shown interest in the memo, especially when they were questioning White House officials during the early days of the investigation, people familiar with the probe said.
Karl Rove, President Bush's deputy chief of staff, has testified that he learned Plame's name from Novak a few days before telling another reporter she worked at the CIA and played a role in her husband's mission, according to a lawyer familiar with Rove's account. Rove has also testified that the first time he saw the State Department memo was when "people in the special prosecutor's office" showed it to him, said Robert Luskin, his attorney.
"He had not seen it or heard about it before that time," Luskin said.
Several other administration officials were on the trip to Africa, including senior adviser Dan Bartlett, then-White House spokesman Ari Fleischer and others. Bartlett's attorney has refused to discuss the case, citing requests by the special counsel. Fleischer could not be reached for comment yesterday.
Rove and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, have been identified as people who discussed Wilson's wife with Cooper. Prosecutors are trying to determine the origin of their knowledge of Plame, including whether it was from the INR memo or from conversations with reporters.
The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that the memo made it clear that information about Wilson's wife was sensitive and should not be shared. Yesterday, sources provided greater detail on the memo to The Post.
The material in the memo about Wilson's wife was based on notes taken by an INR analyst who attended a Feb. 19, 2002, meeting at the CIA where Wilson's intelligence-gathering trip to Niger was discussed.
The memo was drafted June 10, 2003, for Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, who asked to be brought up to date on INR's opposition to the White House view that Hussein was trying to buy uranium in Africa.
The description of Wilson's wife and her role in the Feb. 19, 2002, meeting at the CIA was considered "a footnote" in a background paragraph in the memo, according to an official who was aware of the process.
It records that the INR analyst at the meeting opposed Wilson's trip to Niger because the State Department, through other inquiries, already had disproved the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger. Attached to the INR memo were the notes taken by the senior INR analyst who attended the 2002 meeting at the CIA.
On July 6, 2003, shortly after Wilson went public on NBC's "Meet the Press" and in The Post and the New York Times discussing his trip to Niger, the INR director at the time, Carl W. Ford Jr., was asked to explain Wilson's statements for Powell, according to sources familiar with the events. He went back and reprinted the June 10 memo but changed the addressee from Grossman to Powell.
Ford last year appeared before the federal grand jury investigating the leak and described the details surrounding the INR memo, the sources said. Yesterday he was on vacation in Arkansas, according to his office.
By Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei / Washington Post
A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.
Plame -- who is referred to by her married name, Valerie Wilson, in the memo -- is mentioned in the second paragraph of the three-page document, which was written on June 10, 2003, by an analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), according to a source who described the memo to The Washington Post.
The paragraph identifying her as the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was clearly marked to show that it contained classified material at the "secret" level, two sources said. The CIA classifies as "secret" the names of officers whose identities are covert, according to former senior agency officials.
Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame's name and did not describe her status as covert, the sources said. It is a federal crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for a federal official to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert CIA official if the person knows the government is trying to keep it secret.
Prosecutors attempting to determine whether senior government officials knowingly leaked Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative to the media are investigating whether White House officials gained access to information about her from the memo, according to two sources familiar with the investigation.
The memo may be important to answering three central questions in the Plame case: Who in the Bush administration knew about Plame's CIA role? Did they know the agency was trying to protect her identity? And, who leaked it to the media?
Almost all of the memo is devoted to describing why State Department intelligence experts did not believe claims that Saddam Hussein had in the recent past sought to purchase uranium from Niger. Only two sentences in the seven-sentence paragraph mention Wilson's wife.
The memo was delivered to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell on July 7, 2003, as he headed to Africa for a trip with President Bush aboard Air Force One. Plame was unmasked in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak seven days later.
Wilson has said his wife's identity was revealed to retaliate against him for accusing the Bush administration of "twisting" intelligence to justify the Iraq war. In a July 6 opinion piece in the New York Times and in an interview with The Washington Post, he cited a secret mission he conducted in February 2002 for the CIA, when he determined there was no evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium for a nuclear weapons program in the African nation of Niger.
White House officials discussed Wilson's wife's CIA connection in telling at least two reporters that she helped arrange his trip, according to one of the reporters, Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, and a lawyer familiar with the case.
Prosecutors have shown interest in the memo, especially when they were questioning White House officials during the early days of the investigation, people familiar with the probe said.
Karl Rove, President Bush's deputy chief of staff, has testified that he learned Plame's name from Novak a few days before telling another reporter she worked at the CIA and played a role in her husband's mission, according to a lawyer familiar with Rove's account. Rove has also testified that the first time he saw the State Department memo was when "people in the special prosecutor's office" showed it to him, said Robert Luskin, his attorney.
"He had not seen it or heard about it before that time," Luskin said.
Several other administration officials were on the trip to Africa, including senior adviser Dan Bartlett, then-White House spokesman Ari Fleischer and others. Bartlett's attorney has refused to discuss the case, citing requests by the special counsel. Fleischer could not be reached for comment yesterday.
Rove and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, have been identified as people who discussed Wilson's wife with Cooper. Prosecutors are trying to determine the origin of their knowledge of Plame, including whether it was from the INR memo or from conversations with reporters.
The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that the memo made it clear that information about Wilson's wife was sensitive and should not be shared. Yesterday, sources provided greater detail on the memo to The Post.
The material in the memo about Wilson's wife was based on notes taken by an INR analyst who attended a Feb. 19, 2002, meeting at the CIA where Wilson's intelligence-gathering trip to Niger was discussed.
The memo was drafted June 10, 2003, for Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, who asked to be brought up to date on INR's opposition to the White House view that Hussein was trying to buy uranium in Africa.
The description of Wilson's wife and her role in the Feb. 19, 2002, meeting at the CIA was considered "a footnote" in a background paragraph in the memo, according to an official who was aware of the process.
It records that the INR analyst at the meeting opposed Wilson's trip to Niger because the State Department, through other inquiries, already had disproved the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger. Attached to the INR memo were the notes taken by the senior INR analyst who attended the 2002 meeting at the CIA.
On July 6, 2003, shortly after Wilson went public on NBC's "Meet the Press" and in The Post and the New York Times discussing his trip to Niger, the INR director at the time, Carl W. Ford Jr., was asked to explain Wilson's statements for Powell, according to sources familiar with the events. He went back and reprinted the June 10 memo but changed the addressee from Grossman to Powell.
Ford last year appeared before the federal grand jury investigating the leak and described the details surrounding the INR memo, the sources said. Yesterday he was on vacation in Arkansas, according to his office.
He has credentials that would allow access to high level information.
Lewis Libby with conflicting testimony.
I. Lewis Libby
(Redirected from Lewis Libby)
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby is a lawyer and currently Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.
"Sometimes called 'Dick Cheney's Dick Cheney,' Libby is an important foreign policy adviser inside the White House and is seen a possible successor to national security adviser Condoleezza Rice." [1]
Libby started his government career in the State Department in 1981 under President Ronald Reagan. He has also, at various times in his long career, held positions with the American Bar Association, the Rand Corporation, the Department of Defense, and the United States House of Representatives (as a Legal Advisor).
Libby graduated from Yale University in 1972, where one of his professors was Paul Wolfowitz and from Columbia University's law school in 1975. He also wrote The Apprentice, a novel published in 1996.
After graduating from law school, Libby went to work as a lawyer in Philadelphia, then got a job offer from Wolfowitz, now the deputy defense secretary. In 1981, Mr. Libby went to work for Mr. Wolfowitz at the State Department, then left in 1985 to go into private practice.
Libby has been identified as a...longtime lawyer for Marc Rich per antiwar.com and CNN.
Before joining the White House staff, "Scooter Libby was most recently managing partner of the Washington office of the international law firm of Dechert, Price & Rhoads. He also served as Legal Advisor to the House of Representatives' Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China, commonly known as the Cox Committee. [2]
Libby has held a variety of positions at the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Department of Defense. His previous government position was Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. He is a graduate of Yale University and received his J.D. from Columbia." [3]
Libby, a neo-conservative, and there is intense speculation about the possibility that he may have been the administration official who "outed" Valerie Plame, an undercover CIA agent for political gain, a crime punishable by up to 10 years in jail.The grand jury investigating the Plame leak has yet to hand down any indictments. His current office in the Old Executive Office Building was Theodore Roosevelt's when he was Assistant Secretary of the Navy.
Fraud is "The Rule of Law of the Bush White House"
Prosecutor to Speak Soon; No Indictment for Rove Today
By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON, Oct. 28 - I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff and one of the most powerful figures in the Bush administration, was formally accused today of lying and obstruction of justice during an inquiry into the unmasking of a covert C.I.A. officer.
A federal grand jury indicted Mr. Libby on one count of obstruction, two counts of perjury and two of making false statements in the course of an investigation that raised questions about the administration's rationale for going to war against Iraq, how it treats critics and political opponents and whether high White House officials shaded the truth.
The charges are felonies. Obstruction of justice carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison, while perjury and making false statements 5 years. Each of the five counts can also be punished with a $250,000 fine. Perjury is lying under oath, to a jury or other investigative body, while making false statements consists of lying to investigators while not under oath.
Karl Rove, President Bush's senior adviser and deputy chief of staff, was not charged today, but will remain under investigation, people briefed officially about the case said. Mr. Rove's lawyer confirmed that, according to The Associated Press. As a result, the people said, the special counsel in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, was likely to extend the term of the federal grand jury beyond its scheduled expiration today.
Mr. Libby resigned just before the indictment was handed up. The charges lodged today could spell professional ruin for the 55-year-old lawyer, unless he is acquitted or the charges are dismissed.
The prosecutor said Mr. Libby is accused of lying to F.B.I. agents who interviewed him on Oct. 14 and Nov. 26, 2003; perjured himself before the grand jury on March 5 and March 24, 2004, and engaged in obstruction of justice by impeding the grand jury's investigation into the leaking of Ms. Wilson's affiliation with the C.I.A. in the spring of 2003.
"When citizens testify before grand juries, they are required to tell the truth," Mr. Fitzgerald said in a statement. "Without the truth, our criminal justice system cannot serve our nations or its citizens. The requirement to tell the truth applies equally to all citizens, including persons who hold high positions in government."
The indictment constitutes a body blow to the White House, which has faced political problems on several fronts of late and where Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby have been powerful presences - Mr. Rove as the White House deputy chief of staff and top political adviser, and Mr. Libby as an important adviser to one of the most powerful vice presidents in American history.
The development also capped a politically bruising week for Mr. Bush. Earlier in the week the 2,000th American death in Iraq was recorded, and on Thursday the president's nominee to the Supreme Court, Harriet E. Miers, withdrew her candidacy after being attacked by conservatives and having her legal credentials questioned by lawmakers of both parties.
Months ago, President Bush said anyone in his administration who committed a crime in connection with the disclosure of the name of the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Plame Wilson, would not be a part of his administration.
More recently, the White House has retreated somewhat from that position, with Mr. Bush's chief spokesman, Scott McClellan, saying it would not be appropriate to comment in the course of the investigation.
Mr. McClellan said repeatedly at White House news briefings that both Mr. Libby and Mr. Rove had assured him they were not involved in unmasking Ms. Plame. So the charges lodged against Mr. Libby and the ongoing investigation of Mr. Rove offer abundant grist, at least for now, to critics who question the administration's commitment to truth and candor.
Democratic response was instantaneous. "These are very serious charges," Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate minority leader said. "They suggest that a senior White House adie put politics ahead of our national security and the rule of law. This case is bigger than the leak of highly classified information. It is about how the Bush White House manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster its case for the war in Iraq and to discredit anyone who dared to challenge the president."
As the charges were announced, President Bush was returning to Washington from Norfolk, Va., naval base, where he delivered a speech on terrorism.
If the charges announced today lead to a conviction or guilty plea, the episode will stand in Washington history as another example of a cover-up becoming more serious than the original wrongdoing.
Questions about the extent of Mr. Libby's involvement in the affair intensified this week, when lawyers involved in the case said that Mr. Libby first learned about Ms. Wilson from Vice President Cheney on June 12, 2003, rather than from journalists several weeks after that date. Ms. Wilson's husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, is a former diplomat who was highly critical of the Bush administration's case for going to war.
As recently as the last few days, F.B.I. agents questioned neighbors of the Wilsons in northwest Washington, seeking to determine whether it was commonly known that she was a C.I.A. officer, a person involved in the case said. Mrs. Wilson sometimes has been known by her maiden name, Valerie Plame.
Mr. Wilson learned of the indictment while at his home today. "If a crime was committed, it was a crime committed against the country," he said. "It's not about whether I'm vindicated or whether Valerie is vindicated, because this crime was not committed against us."
The indictment of Mr. Libby is the latest chapter in an episode that came to light in the summer of 2003. At first, the matter seemed like a tempest in a political teapot, driven by spite and revolving around the issue of whether anyone had violated an obscure federal statute that makes it illegal, under some circumstances, to unmask an undercover agent.
But well before the charges were announced, the affair had mushroomed into something far more serious. It resulted in the jailing of a New York Times reporter, Judith Miller, who had resisted Mr. Fitzgerald's pressure to testify, and it provided regular grist for administration critics to assert that the Bush White House routinely bullied its political opponents.
On July 6, 2003, Mr. Wilson wrote an Op-Ed article in The New York Times recounting a trip to Niger at the behest of the Central Intelligence Agency that left him highly skeptical of Bush administration assertions about Iraq's quest for nuclear material to make weapons.
Eight days after Mr. Wilson's article appeared, the columnist Robert D. Novak disclosed that Mr. Wilson's wife was a C.I.A. operative working on the issue of weapons of mass destruction, and that she had recommended her husband for the trip to Africa in 2002 to look into intelligence reports that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger that could be converted to weapons use. Mr. Novak wrote that he had learned of Mrs. Wilson's identity from two senior administration officials. The columnist has refused to say whether he testified before the grand jury.
The charge against Mr. Libby is not entirely a surprise. Both he and Mr. Rove testified several times before the grand jury about what seemed, at least on the surface, to be a relatively limited sequence of dates and events. Their repeated appearances before the panel stirred conjecture that the prosecutor was checking their testimony for contradictions with the accounts of other witnesses, or indeed to see if Mr. Libby or Mr. Rove had changed their own accounts over time.
News of the indictment came one day after President Bush's Supreme Court choice, Harriet E. Miers, withdrew her nomination after encountering criticism from both the political right and left.
The Bush administration has also been trying for weeks to get past criticism of its initial response to the hurricane-and-flood disaster that struck the Gulf Coast.
Moreover, the charges against Mr. Rove came not long after the indictment of Representative Tom DeLay, Republican of Texas, on campaign fund-raising charges, and amid an inquiry into Senator Bill Frist's sale of stock in a family-owned company. Mr. Frist, Republican of Tennessee, is the Republican majority leader.
Mr. DeLay, who had to step down as House majority leader after his indictment, has called the charges against him the work of a partisan, publicity-happy prosecutor. And Mr. Frist's lawyer has said the senator has done nothing wrong and is cooperating fully in the investigation, still in its early stages.
But the charges against Mr. Libby and the problems, momentary or otherwise, of Mr. DeLay and Mr. Frist have already led Democratic strategists to pronounce as corrupt the Republican stewardship in Washington - meaning the White House and both chambers of Congress - and they will no doubt enter the 2006 and 2008 campaigns portraying Republicans as arrogant and too comfortable with the trappings of power.
would be a political nightmare for Republicans if the charges against Mr. Libby go unresolved - or have been resolved against them - before the Senate and House elections of 2006.
By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON, Oct. 28 - I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff and one of the most powerful figures in the Bush administration, was formally accused today of lying and obstruction of justice during an inquiry into the unmasking of a covert C.I.A. officer.
A federal grand jury indicted Mr. Libby on one count of obstruction, two counts of perjury and two of making false statements in the course of an investigation that raised questions about the administration's rationale for going to war against Iraq, how it treats critics and political opponents and whether high White House officials shaded the truth.
The charges are felonies. Obstruction of justice carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison, while perjury and making false statements 5 years. Each of the five counts can also be punished with a $250,000 fine. Perjury is lying under oath, to a jury or other investigative body, while making false statements consists of lying to investigators while not under oath.
Karl Rove, President Bush's senior adviser and deputy chief of staff, was not charged today, but will remain under investigation, people briefed officially about the case said. Mr. Rove's lawyer confirmed that, according to The Associated Press. As a result, the people said, the special counsel in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, was likely to extend the term of the federal grand jury beyond its scheduled expiration today.
Mr. Libby resigned just before the indictment was handed up. The charges lodged today could spell professional ruin for the 55-year-old lawyer, unless he is acquitted or the charges are dismissed.
The prosecutor said Mr. Libby is accused of lying to F.B.I. agents who interviewed him on Oct. 14 and Nov. 26, 2003; perjured himself before the grand jury on March 5 and March 24, 2004, and engaged in obstruction of justice by impeding the grand jury's investigation into the leaking of Ms. Wilson's affiliation with the C.I.A. in the spring of 2003.
"When citizens testify before grand juries, they are required to tell the truth," Mr. Fitzgerald said in a statement. "Without the truth, our criminal justice system cannot serve our nations or its citizens. The requirement to tell the truth applies equally to all citizens, including persons who hold high positions in government."
The indictment constitutes a body blow to the White House, which has faced political problems on several fronts of late and where Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby have been powerful presences - Mr. Rove as the White House deputy chief of staff and top political adviser, and Mr. Libby as an important adviser to one of the most powerful vice presidents in American history.
The development also capped a politically bruising week for Mr. Bush. Earlier in the week the 2,000th American death in Iraq was recorded, and on Thursday the president's nominee to the Supreme Court, Harriet E. Miers, withdrew her candidacy after being attacked by conservatives and having her legal credentials questioned by lawmakers of both parties.
Months ago, President Bush said anyone in his administration who committed a crime in connection with the disclosure of the name of the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Plame Wilson, would not be a part of his administration.
More recently, the White House has retreated somewhat from that position, with Mr. Bush's chief spokesman, Scott McClellan, saying it would not be appropriate to comment in the course of the investigation.
Mr. McClellan said repeatedly at White House news briefings that both Mr. Libby and Mr. Rove had assured him they were not involved in unmasking Ms. Plame. So the charges lodged against Mr. Libby and the ongoing investigation of Mr. Rove offer abundant grist, at least for now, to critics who question the administration's commitment to truth and candor.
Democratic response was instantaneous. "These are very serious charges," Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate minority leader said. "They suggest that a senior White House adie put politics ahead of our national security and the rule of law. This case is bigger than the leak of highly classified information. It is about how the Bush White House manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster its case for the war in Iraq and to discredit anyone who dared to challenge the president."
As the charges were announced, President Bush was returning to Washington from Norfolk, Va., naval base, where he delivered a speech on terrorism.
If the charges announced today lead to a conviction or guilty plea, the episode will stand in Washington history as another example of a cover-up becoming more serious than the original wrongdoing.
Questions about the extent of Mr. Libby's involvement in the affair intensified this week, when lawyers involved in the case said that Mr. Libby first learned about Ms. Wilson from Vice President Cheney on June 12, 2003, rather than from journalists several weeks after that date. Ms. Wilson's husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, is a former diplomat who was highly critical of the Bush administration's case for going to war.
As recently as the last few days, F.B.I. agents questioned neighbors of the Wilsons in northwest Washington, seeking to determine whether it was commonly known that she was a C.I.A. officer, a person involved in the case said. Mrs. Wilson sometimes has been known by her maiden name, Valerie Plame.
Mr. Wilson learned of the indictment while at his home today. "If a crime was committed, it was a crime committed against the country," he said. "It's not about whether I'm vindicated or whether Valerie is vindicated, because this crime was not committed against us."
The indictment of Mr. Libby is the latest chapter in an episode that came to light in the summer of 2003. At first, the matter seemed like a tempest in a political teapot, driven by spite and revolving around the issue of whether anyone had violated an obscure federal statute that makes it illegal, under some circumstances, to unmask an undercover agent.
But well before the charges were announced, the affair had mushroomed into something far more serious. It resulted in the jailing of a New York Times reporter, Judith Miller, who had resisted Mr. Fitzgerald's pressure to testify, and it provided regular grist for administration critics to assert that the Bush White House routinely bullied its political opponents.
On July 6, 2003, Mr. Wilson wrote an Op-Ed article in The New York Times recounting a trip to Niger at the behest of the Central Intelligence Agency that left him highly skeptical of Bush administration assertions about Iraq's quest for nuclear material to make weapons.
Eight days after Mr. Wilson's article appeared, the columnist Robert D. Novak disclosed that Mr. Wilson's wife was a C.I.A. operative working on the issue of weapons of mass destruction, and that she had recommended her husband for the trip to Africa in 2002 to look into intelligence reports that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger that could be converted to weapons use. Mr. Novak wrote that he had learned of Mrs. Wilson's identity from two senior administration officials. The columnist has refused to say whether he testified before the grand jury.
The charge against Mr. Libby is not entirely a surprise. Both he and Mr. Rove testified several times before the grand jury about what seemed, at least on the surface, to be a relatively limited sequence of dates and events. Their repeated appearances before the panel stirred conjecture that the prosecutor was checking their testimony for contradictions with the accounts of other witnesses, or indeed to see if Mr. Libby or Mr. Rove had changed their own accounts over time.
News of the indictment came one day after President Bush's Supreme Court choice, Harriet E. Miers, withdrew her nomination after encountering criticism from both the political right and left.
The Bush administration has also been trying for weeks to get past criticism of its initial response to the hurricane-and-flood disaster that struck the Gulf Coast.
Moreover, the charges against Mr. Rove came not long after the indictment of Representative Tom DeLay, Republican of Texas, on campaign fund-raising charges, and amid an inquiry into Senator Bill Frist's sale of stock in a family-owned company. Mr. Frist, Republican of Tennessee, is the Republican majority leader.
Mr. DeLay, who had to step down as House majority leader after his indictment, has called the charges against him the work of a partisan, publicity-happy prosecutor. And Mr. Frist's lawyer has said the senator has done nothing wrong and is cooperating fully in the investigation, still in its early stages.
But the charges against Mr. Libby and the problems, momentary or otherwise, of Mr. DeLay and Mr. Frist have already led Democratic strategists to pronounce as corrupt the Republican stewardship in Washington - meaning the White House and both chambers of Congress - and they will no doubt enter the 2006 and 2008 campaigns portraying Republicans as arrogant and too comfortable with the trappings of power.
would be a political nightmare for Republicans if the charges against Mr. Libby go unresolved - or have been resolved against them - before the Senate and House elections of 2006.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)