Novak confirms Rove was Plame source

[BuckNaked]

Originally Posted by BuckNaked
OK, I haven't read this whole thread, but based on what I've heard on the news, I thought Novak said that he got the info that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, then confirmed it with Rove.
According to the title of this post, Novak got Plame's name from Rove.

Hmmm, who to believe?

That's not what he said. Not even close. Read again and ponder

Not even close? From the Washington Post:

Regarding Wilson's CIA-sponsored trip, Novak said he told Rove, "I understand that his wife works at the CIA and she initiated the mission." The columnist said Rove replied, "Oh, you know that, too."

According to the Post, it's not only close, it's exactly what he said.

So, what sources are you using?

 

[BuckNaked]

I just read the linked article in the OP, and even it says that Novak got the info from someone other than Rove, then confirmed it with Rove.

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.

So, what did I get wrong sodaseller, and what source are you using to claim that I got it wrong?

 

[salmoneous]

Questioning that Joe & Val will be exposed to? For starters, they might actually be asked some critical questions about exactly how secret Val's employment was with the Agency.

That'll take all of 10 seconds. The CIA has said she was an undercover operative. What else is there left to ask?

 

[NELSON]

I was refering to how it's not done anything for you, nor have you been able to take down men your side has made out to monsters. Rove was supposed to go down for this and be frog marched out of the WH in handcuffs. It didn't happen and this Wilson/Plame case turned out to be the Goose who laid a stinky turd instead of the Golden egg, which you and your party desired. I really have no dog in this hunt and I find the whole thing amusing, to tell the truth. I read the Liberal thread on these boards started by Spam and found a lot of the comments laughable. You leftwingers bet the farm that GWB and company was doomed, Rove was going to jail and maybe Cheney as well. As I said before: For a man like GWB that's supposed to be an idiot, he seems to keep beating the odds of your party taking him down.

Well said, bro. And that thread is on a Disney message board. You want a real fright? Go over to dailykos or dim underground (wear protection). The young patriots at truth out can't even be honest with themselves, the kossacks have "imagine there's no Israel" on their home page. It's pretty funny, but not as funny as their reaction after the elections is going to be.
As for Plame and Wilson, I guess they'll get 16 minutes instead of 15.

HA HA

 

[TheDoctor]

As far as I know, it isn't a crime to confirm that someone works for the CIA. Should he have, crime or not?

Do you have a security clearance? If so, you may want to re-read your confidentiality agreement and briefing booklet attached to it. Here is an excerpt from the briefing booklet for the standard US govt. confidentiality agreement (which was signed by Rove). http://www.fas.org/sgp/isoo/sf312.html That booklet provides that confirming confidential information is no different from the original disclosure of such confidential information.

However, before disseminating the information elsewhere or confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not, further dissemination of the information or confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure.

Rove clearly breached his confidentiality agreement by confirming Valerie Plame was a CIA agent. That is one reason why Karl Rove's security clearance really needs to be pulled.

 

[BuckNaked]

Do you have a security clearance? If so, you may want to re-read your confidentiality agreement and briefing booklet attached to it. Here is an excerpt from the briefing booklet for the standard US govt. confidentiality agreement (which was signed by Rove). http://www.fas.org/sgp/isoo/sf312.html That booklet provides that confirming confidential information is no different from the original disclosure of such confidential information. Rove clearly breached his confidentiality agreement by confirming Valerie Plame was a CIA agent. That is one reason why Karl Rove's security clearance really needs to be pulled.

The key here is that the person confirming the information has to know that the information was classified in order for there to be a violation. Whether Rove knew it was classified or not, I have no idea. If he knew it was classified and he disclosed it, then yes, there was a violation. If he didn't know that it was classified, then that is not a violation.

That's the subtle difference that is understood by people that actually have clearances as opposed to those that have to look up the rules on the internet.

 

[Geoff_M]

Right wingers talking about "Bush ahtred" after the 90s is like Sadaam complaining about the lack of due process

No, in this contest, for the Left, it was "game, set, match" a long time ago. The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (tm) can't even begin to compete in the "Unhinged" category. The VRWC wasn't running around claiming all the elections were "stolen", Charleton Heston wasn't threatening to move to another country, Rush wasn't making periodic assassination jokes (GOP officials either, for that matter), people weren't claiming that a kitten died every time you voted for a Democrat. People weren't claiming that the previous Administration was trying to kill you.

 

[TheDoctor]

The key here is that the person confirming the information has to know that the information was classified in order for there to be a violation. Whether Rove knew it was classified or not, I have no idea. If he knew it was classified and he disclosed it, then yes, there was a violation. If he didn't know that it was classified, then that is not a violation.

That's the subtle difference that is understood by people that actually have clearances as opposed to those that have to look up the rules on the internet.

Again, if you really do have a security clearance, then you really should re-read the briefing book and your confidentiality agreement. First you implied that there was some difference between confirming confidential information and the actual disclosure of such information. I was glad to clear this matter up in that it is clear that there is no difference between confirming a fact as compared to being the person to initially disclose such fact.

Now you imply that Rove was protected if he did not know that information was confidential. In order to keep you out of trouble, I call to your attention this section of the standard agreement.

I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it....

It was Karl Rove's duty and burden to determine whether Ms. Plame's status as a covert agent was covered by his confidentiality agreement. At best, Rove was negligent in the disclosure of confidential information which is also grounds for termination of his security clearance.

I hope that this explanation of the standard security agreement will assist in keeping you from any breaches of your security clearance (assuming that you actually have a security clearance).

 

[sodaseller]

I was refering to how it's not done anything for you, nor have you been able to take down men your side has made out to monsters. Rove was supposed to go down for this and be frog marched out of the WH in handcuffs. It didn't happen and this Wilson/Plame case turned out to be the Goose who laid a stinky turd instead of the Golden egg, which you and your party desired. I really have no dog in this hunt and I find the whole thing amusing, to tell the truth. I read the Liberal thread on these boards started by Spam and found a lot of the comments laughable. You leftwingers bet the farm that GWB and company was doomed, Rove was going to jail and maybe Cheney as well. As I said before: For a man like GWB that's supposed to be an idiot, he seems to keep beating the odds of your party taking him down.

I think your attitude reveals much. You look at politics as only a game of power, not a function of Right and Wrong. It only matters who "wins" not what is right.

In point of fact, we're not sure why Rove avoided indictment, but I have no problem concluding he didn't commit a crime. But you take that as evidence that he has been morally exonerated. Law is not a substitute for morality

In reality, under our system, a President's actual power waxes and wanes pursuant to how much he reflects popular confidence. This President does not any more. This scandal was more synecdoche than seminal, but it is seen as part of a pattern of abuse of power and misjudgment that has eroded his power.

But in the Machiavellain morality of the Right, avoiding indictment and removal from office is moral exoneration

 

[sodaseller]

I just read the linked article in the OP, and even it says that Novak got the info from someone other than Rove, then confirmed it with Rove.



So, what did I get wrong sodaseller, and what source are you using to claim that I got it wrong?

I misread your post as saying that he got her identity from the CIA, then confirmed with Rove. If you read his article, he had three "sources", according to his lexicon, although calling Bill Harlow a source is not really honest. According to him, if you believe him, and this is somewhat inconsistent with what he said before, he first got it from someone not a gunslinger, i.e. not Rove, then casually confirmed it with Rove. Then he called the CIA before he went with the story and Harlow tried to duissuade him from running it. I thought you were stating that Harlow was the original source, which has been some idiotic musings on the RW blogs, so on this one you accurately characterized what Novak is saying now, although not what the thread title states. He did chacaterize Rove as a source (his term, not mine), and appropriate media lexicon.

I donlt find his account of his Rove conversation particulalrly convincing, but that is what he said now

 

[sodaseller]

The key here is that the person confirming the information has to know that the information was classified in order for there to be a violation. Whether Rove knew it was classified or not, I have no idea. If he knew it was classified and he disclosed it, then yes, there was a violation. If he didn't know that it was classified, then that is not a violation.

That's the subtle difference that is understood by people that actually have clearances as opposed to those that have to look up the rules on the internet.

Rove knew her identity was classified. The circulation of the memo on AF1 confirmed that. Not only that, the OEP, as opposed to the OVP, went to pains not to disclose it. That's why I was initially skeptical that Rove was involved as it was really a fight between the OVP and the CIA, not the WH. And if Novak hadn't made inconsistent statements about being directed to the information by those who wanted him to know it, as opposed to his current story that Rove merely said words to the effect that "Oh you know that too", then it might make sense that Rove only casually confirmed it. But that is not what Novak said before, when he faced testifying again, and is not what other reporters reported and rumored two years ago, namely that there was an Admin campaign to get this out to at least six reporters.

 

[sodaseller]

No, in this contest, for the Left, it was "game, set, match" a long time ago. The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (tm) can't even begin to compete in the "Unhinged" category. The VRWC wasn't running around claiming all the elections were "stolen", Charleton Heston wasn't threatening to move to another country, Rush wasn't making periodic assassination jokes (GOP officials either, for that matter), people weren't claiming that a kitten died every time you voted for a Democrat. People weren't claiming that the previous Administration was trying to kill you.

You still can't hold a campaign to Falwell's "the Clinton Chronicles", the Clinton Body Count, impeachment, 4000 independent counsel and Congressional investigations, etc., Congressman holding press conferences conducting ballistic tests on watermelon. We have no one that compares to Tom Delay in pure partisan venom. Not even close. Still light years away

 

[Geoff_M]

You still can't hold a campaign to Falwell's "the Clinton Chronicles", the Clinton Body Count...

Sure there were the "Hillary Whacked Vince" wackos, but perhaps you should browse the book section at your local B&N. Instead of such unhinged works being the products of specialty presses or self-publishing, they've gone "mainstream" this time around. I noticed last evening that it appears that John Dean is the latest to enter the "Bu$h Co. has stolen Amerika and destroyed it!" hardback meme. Sure, there's the occasional Coulter or O'Reily book, but the numbers are way in the other direction. When the GOP invites Rev. Jerry to sit next to Bush 41 in the VIP box at the their shin-dig in 2008, let me know.

impeachment,

Last time, that was pretty much a self-inflicted wound.

4000 independent counsel and Congressional investigations, etc.,

You and I both know that the only thing that's spared Bush from that this go-round was the lapsing of the IC authorization.

We have no one that compares to Tom Delay in pure partisan venom.

I'll see your "Hammer" (who had plenty of enemies in his own party) and raise you Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, John Lewis, John Conyers, and Cynthia McKinney (to only name a few). What the Democrats lack in a tower of vemon, they more than make up in sheer numbers. I've lost track of the number of Democrats that have openly suggested that it would be a good thing if the current occupant of the White House be "blown away" for the good of the country.

 

[sodaseller]

I respectfully disagree. You may be younger than I or less involved in politics at the time. First, there was far more than a few videos. Jerry Falwell peddled one, and Dan Burton held Congressional hearings on it, shooting a watermelon at one point. There were regular Congressional Hearings on matters like the WH Christmas Card list.

Bush has not been spared because the statute was not reauthorized. It wasn't active when Clinton took office either, and that stopped nothing. In fact, a lot of people forget about the history of the OIC with the invented scandal of Whitewater, that was a fabrication of the "liberal" NY Times. There was no OIC statute, so AG Reno was pressured to appoint one and appointed Robert Fiske. When he conclude that Foster wasn't murdered, Lauch Faircloth and other elected officials screamed for him to be replaced. They got their wish. Faircloth illegally lobbied David Sentelle, the DC Circuit Judge supervising, and in a display of chutzpah worthy of the kid who murders his parents and asks for mercy as an orphan, Fiske was replaced because he was not considered independent enough because Reno appointed him, even though she did so as a result of GOP Pressure. Then the Hack Starr came in, and he wasn't even allowed to resign until he fed the Mellon-Scaife crowd (there is no left wing equivalent of Mellon-Scaife, for that matter).

Starr was a monster, and I always noted that the only "reform" that came out of the Whitewater nonscandal was the bipartisan consensus never to let there be another one like him. But independent prosecutors can still be appointed by the DOJ like Fitzgerald. It's just that Congress won't let it happen for real scandals when they did so for invented scandals all during the 90s.

I know about the books. I have them peddled to me all the time, though I have little taste for the hack pieces. I admit that we have adopted some of the worst tactics used against us, but it's still not close as matter of degree. I am somewhat glad that we have failed (though tried) to build a Counter Conintern, the slavish obedient media that produces talking points for all to mindlessly repeat with amazing discipline, and pronounce the night as day with strong consensus

And none of the MCs you mention come close to matching Delay's pure vitriol (or his power, for that matter). I still find it funny that in 1998 Dems were castigated for their dirty tricks in leaking Bob Livingstone's affairs. 8 years later we learn it was Delay.

As for Michael Moore and the suite, that's embarrassing, but there are two strong distinguishing factors. First, Moore is an unfair polemicists, but he is still a humorist at the core. Nothing close to the venomous, soulless attack mantra of the Falwells and the Coulters. Plus, ya'll are smarter about appearances, so your whacks avoid photo ops, but they have a lot more real influence over appointments and policy. Let's not forget that the true Dominion whacko are consulted on judicial appointments. It's likely a function of the pendulum, but your wackos are far more integrated into the power structure.

But back to the main point. As far as "Bush hatred" vs. Clinton hatred, still not close. In fact, "Bush hatred" is a term used by the Right as a rhetorical device to stifle debate. Clinton hated was not a label affixed by the Left - it was a proud garland chosen by the Right. And remember that Clinton was far closer to the center, pilloried because he "stole" Republican ideas. Bush, OTOH, governs from the far right and in 2002 deliberately picks a fight over DHS so that he can have the issue and prevent consensus on the war to amass greater political power.

Now much of the differences in investigations from Congress and bipartisanship are a function of different times - Clinton had a Republican Congress and had to compromise more. But that still doesn't account for the pure partisanship and agglomeration of Executive Power that Bush has accomplished. He is far more partisan. Clinton may have polarized due to some deep seated psychological implications of voting the first baby boomer in office that grew up during the 60s, but Bush comes by his polarization honestly - he seeks and creates conflict

 

[TheDoctor]

Joe Wilson leaked her name himself when he listed himself in "Who's Who" and stated what his wife did.

You have made this charge before and I just to make sure that you realize how wrong it is. Here is the pdf of Ambassador Joesph Wilson's listing in Who's Who.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/wilson.whoswho.pdf Please show me where that listing shows that Valerie Plame is a CIA agent? You keep using this talking point from the Free Republic when it is clearly false and wrong.

Again, you are wrong when you claim that Ambassador Joesph Wilson's listing in Who's Who outed Valerie Plame as a CIA agent. If you want to dispute this, then read the listing and show us where that listing says that Ms. Plame worked for the CIA.

 

[TheDoctor]

Here is part of a great letter from Valerie Plame that was posted on a poltiical blog. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/7/15/182823/090

July 14, 2006

Dear Special Friends and Family,

As you know, three years ago today, my name and covert employment with the CIA was leaked to the press. In its wake came a political scandal and media storm that destroyed my family's privacy, significantly heightened concerns for our security, and challenged Joe and me in a myriad of ways we could not have imagined when this episode began. After years of service to my country, I felt compelled to resign from the CIA in January because I could no longer effectively perform the job that I was trained and honored to do. The right wing has sought to destroy Joe's reputation, despite his 23 years of service to his country, and mounted a searing and relentless smear campaign against him. It has been a disheartening and discouraging time for those who care about the rights of citizens to hold their government accountable for their words and actions.

And yet, we have also been humbled and gratified by the show of support
from people across the nation who were outraged that this administration
would endanger national security for purely political purposes. We also
believe that the Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, assigned to investigate the leak of my identity, is a man of integrity who will do all in his power to ensure that our judicial system continues to function independently. In October 2005, the Special Prosecutor indicted the Vice President's Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby, on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements. His trial is set to begin in January 2007. Karl Rove, the President's chief political advisor, will not be indicted for reasons that still remain unclear, despite uncontested evidence that he did discuss my name and classified employment with several members of the press. It is clear that the Administration has repeatedly sought to punish those who speak out against it in an effort to muzzle future critics and whistleblowers.

I am writing to update you that, as a consequence of these events, and after much discussion between us, Joe and I have decided to file a civil suit
against those known to be involved in the effort to discredit Joe for
speaking the truth and for illegally disclosing my employment with the CIA. The rules governing civil trial procedures are very different from those in criminal proceedings. Often times individuals who are not criminally prosecuted or convicted in criminal court are nevertheless held accountable in civil court. This civil suit will allow Joe and I, as well as our fellow citizens, to expose the truth about the Administration's attempt to intimidate and silence a critic who revealed the inaccuracies in the President's stated reasons for going to war with Iraq. ....

Again, the right wing can not deal with the truth of Ambassador Wilson's story (i.e. that Iraq was not purchasing yellowcake from Niger) and so have attacked the messenger. If the Bushies had any real evidence that Saddam was a threat, they would not have to use made up or fixed intelligence or to engage in the attacks on Ambassador Wilson.