Here's the thing that everyone hated about the Clinton Admin...this parsing of words. This saying one thing, doing another and then saying what you meant isn't what you meant.

Now most liberals keep jumping around talking about how this was vengance and WHY would Rove have released the name. Most conservatives keep jumping around talking about how it didn't matter anyway, that Rove didn't know exactly what she was doing and Rove didn't actually say the name.

It doesn't matter. Karl Rove disclosed the identy of a CIA agent who was undercover as a CIA agent. It doesn't matter why. If this were not a time of war it would be fairly disturbing that Rove put politics over the life of an operative for the US government, but we could get over it. In a time of war it is, in my mind, a criminal act.

And now the Bush administration is parsing their words, going back on what they clearly indicated, that they would fire whomever was responsible for the leak.

I think, if the Bush administration wants to have any credibility with me, then they will ask Rove directly whether he did it. If he says yes (which I think his lawyer pretty much did already) then he should be gone. Period. There is no standard of proof for losing ones job. You don't have to be guilty of a criminal act. Rove doesn't have a contract and I bet DC is a right to work district.

No parsing of words, no "it depends what you mean by 'fired'". Rove should be gone. And if Rove really cared about the Republican Party, he would fall on his sword and offer his resignation right now. And so would Libby.

It's fun for everyone to indulge their contempt for the opposition through projection, but this is far too confusing a situation for anyone to make a reasonable speculation given the limited information we have and the tight lips of Mr. Fitzgerald and his close cohorts. Somebody is in the slammer and no matter what you've heard about Club Fed, it's still the slammer. I sort of like the due process thingy. I'll wait till we know more.

I would second Richard's thoughts: we have no conclusive evidence regarding what Rove said proving that he met the rather stringent requirements for breaking this particular law.

After all, does the man keep a Rolodex of undercover CIA agents next to his list of campaign contributors? He heard about Plame from someone else.

In addition, if the case were as transparent as the left-wing MSM and the Democrats make it out to be, Fitzgerald would have concluded his investigation and Rove would have been gone long ago.

The fact that the investigation is on-going at this juncture indicates to me that the profound national security issues Fitzgerald alludes to in court filings probably indicates that he has uncovered a conspiracy within CIA to sabotage the Bush administration's policies and to leak politically embrassing stories at the most opportune moment.

In the end, I would not be surprised to find Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame and/or other members of the national security apparat together with assorted members of the media and the Democratic party being the ones indicted, not Rove.

I'm with Richard. Let's see what the investigation turns up. If all that Rove did was generally explain how someone outside of the CIA came to be sent on a CIA mission to Niger - and that seems to be exactly what Rove was doing - then, no, I don't think this is a hanging offense. It would seem that more people in Washington knew Plame worked for the CIA than knew she was classified as "covert" and if that's how this mess happened, I blame the inaccurate classification and not Rove.

But if the investigation turns up evidence indicating an intentional leak or smear, then I agree that Rove must go.

"The fact that the investigation is on-going at this juncture indicates to me that the profound national security issues Fitzgerald alludes to in court filings probably indicates that he has uncovered a conspiracy within CIA to sabotage the Bush administration's policies and to leak politically embrassing stories at the most opportune moment.

In the end, I would not be surprised to find Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame and/or other members of the national security apparat together with assorted members of the media and the Democratic party being the ones indicted, not Rove."

So...there is not yet conclusive evidence that Rove was involved in any wrong doing so we shouldn't assume the worst. But on the other-hand you're prepared to believe that Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson, members of the "liberal" Media, and THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY (all of them) are going to be indicted. Some might call that a double-standard.

funny comments, you guys a parody or what?n

Patrick Leahy leaking classified data, an act known to have cost the life of an Egyptian operative. Karl Rove is accused of naming a CIA operative without having mentioned her name; no deaths have been linked to the alleged incident. If Leahy can avoid prosecution and keep his job (while losing a committee chairmanship), then, assuming the allegations can be ruled as an offense, seems that Rove should recieve far lighter punishment.

That should be "leaked classified data."

This Fitzgerald fellow has a reputation, I'm told, as a serious prosecutor. This argues that his investigation is taking as long as it has because he thinks some kind of serious crime was committed.

Does it appear from the information that is public now that this crime involves Rove's blowing Plame's cover? Not as far as I can see, not with their being questions about whether a CIA official at a Langley desk job was covert anything and whether Rove knew her status. Now I could be wrong. If I'm not, either Fitzgerald is just dragging this investigation out or he is investigating something else. It could involve Plame, or Rove, or both, or neither.

What does seem clear is that in the summer of 2003 the White House was trying to place blame on other agencies, particularly the CIA, for a variety of mistakes including the "16 words" in that year's State of the Union speech about enriched uranium from Africa. The point in this specific instance was supposed to be that Wilson did not travel to Niger pursuant to a request of the Vice President, but at the instance of CIA officials including his own wife.

Two things about this: first, a golden rule of cover-ups is that no matter how opaque or elaborate they are, the thing they are covering up is usually pretty simple. In this case, the White House wanted to put blame for intelligence mistakes on CIA and distance Vice President Cheney from any connection with the 16 words. If we think about it for a moment we can see easily how stupid this was. Had the White House stuck to an early line laid down by then-NSA Rice -- that the President's African uranium comment did not belong in a State of the Union address -- this entire business would have been a 48-hour story. The statement was wrong, it shouldn't have been there, we screwed up. Game over -- except it wasn't, because someone in the White House was upset enough about it to effectively repudiate Rice's line and want a new one started that placed blame for the misleading statement squarely on CIA. Vice President Cheney, not Karl Rove, is the obvious suspect.

The second point is more general, and is not being made more often in Washington because standards in that town have sunk pretty low in recent years. All questions of criminality aside, Karl Rove is essentially a campaign consultant, an electioneering hand. There is no way on earth that he should ever have been within ten miles of anything having to do with CIA, foreign policy, or national security. There is no way any reporter should have granted him anonymity while using him as a source on a story of this kind.

Democrats who know that Bob Shrum would have taken up in a Kerry administration much the same role Rove has in this one -- indeed, who are so dependent on campaign consultants that they can't imagine another arrangement -- have never objected in a serious way to Rove's position in the Bush White House, until about three days ago. But in truth Rove's role in this administration has been an invitation to trouble from the very beginning.

Campaign operatives who can do government work at a high level are pretty rare -- the skills required for the two fields are very different. One can see this whenever political professionals -- the Carvilles, Begalas, Matalins and so forth -- show up on the tube and start discussing substance. There's no nice way to say this: they're idiots. Morons. They don't know anything, and they don't care. They can come very close to power if they work for politicians who become dependent on them during a campaign, and George Bush became very dependent indeed on Karl Rove. All domestic policy now goes through Rove's office, one reason domestic policy in this administration moves forward like molasses in January when it moves at all. And Rove has enough independence that he gets to muck around on things like the Niger uranium business.

Well, Bush asked for trouble when he brought this person into the White House, and now he's got it. Barring an indictment, Rove will stay on -- Bush cares about what people have done for him, not whether they serve the public effectively -- but the way the White House has handled this means it will fester for weeks or months. And if there were an indictment and Rove had to leave I don't know what Bush would do.

"Some might call that a double-standard."

a) in light of the allegations being made in the MSM about Rove??

b) What is being alleged about Rove is quite simple, yet the investigation is on-going and only 1 person is currently in jail: Judith Miller. Who is she protecting? Accoring to the WaPo, Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis I. Libby heard about Plame's employment from a member of the media, and Mr. Wilson concealed his wife's involvement in arranging his involvement in the Niger investigation, though it was revealed as part of the Senate report.

Who has more to hide? Rove? Or Joe Wislon and the media with their fawning connections to Democratic party members and apparatchik activists in the permamnent government like Joe Wilson?

Zathras, your capacity for cutting through b.s. is awesome.

Oh, Aspen is lovely in high summer. I hope you enjoy the fresh mountain air.

About this Rove/Plame brouhaha: how "covert" can a CIA operative be if it's common knowledge in Washington circles that she works at the agency? I think this is the background Rove was operating in when he mentioned her role to Mr. Cooper. Not just that, I would wager that Rove did not even know her name at the time, only the role she had played in Wilson's trip and would never have mentioned her at all if he had known she was classified a "covert" operative. It seems to me that Rove was actually doing Mr. Cooper a solid by warning him not to go out too far on the Wilson story. As the saying goes, no good deed goes unpunished. Of course, if you think Rove is the devil's spawn everything he says or does will be evidence of his fiendish and sinister ways. I suppose he tried to manipulate Mr. Cooper by telling him the truth; fiendish, indeed.

Some people have some serious difficulty understanding a very simple story. There is a legal investigation led by Fitzgerald, everyone should wait to see the facts before making a LEGAL determination.

The other story is that McLlellan told the American public that the WH had NOTHING to do with the leak. Rove's lawyer, Luskin, has now acknowledged he talked with Cooper about Plame (with the legalese we all know). Regardless of the criminal acts- either McLlellan lied to the press, or Rove lied to McLlellan.

May not be criminal, but WH officials who blatantly lie should be gone.

We should all agree on a higher standard of behvior from our government officials than this.

Just another attack by the mainstream media press against their favorite enemy, Bush and his staff. When this battle is over, they will return to attacking Bush's nominees to the court.

If this media had been around during WWII, we would have lost to both the Germans and the Japanese. Do they realize how partisan they look to mainstream America?

TPM Cafe has a piece up by a colleague of Plame's discussing why this is not good. I found it pretty interesting, but I suck at linking.

Here it is.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340

By the way, the reporter Libby got the information from is reportedly none other than the illustrious Judy Miller.

a) Ms. Miller apparently blew an investigation into a Palestinian terror-funding group by Fitzgerald;

b) Wilson leaked still classified information from his report and lied about his wife's involvement in arranging the trip in hisNY Times op-ed;

c) the NY Times blew the cover of the CIA airline and personnel involved in renditions;

So who exactly is lying and has more to hide here, the Bush administration; or Democratic operatives lurking in the government and their lackeys in the press?

see here

Yes, Pierre, you have id'd what are now the GOP's marching orders, which finally materialized after several days and several drafts, from Podhuretz on down. I, personally, have absolutely no idea who has "more to hide" in this mess. And, I suspect that you don't either. However, as JB noted above, it's the White House's peddling of outright lies to the American Public of Rove's involvement in this that has given the story a sturdy pair of legs, and for me, is what raises my ire. (But, of course, accourding to you, they were lying about something where there was nothing to hide.)

Shorter Republican party.

Dissent to Bush = treason.

Burning a covert CIA operative to get short-term political advantage for Bush = promotion.

A lot of funny stuff here. The best:
"Zathras, your capacity for cutting through b.s. is awesome" said Guy.
"May not be criminal, but WH officials who blatantly lie should be gone" said JB.

Huggy says, "
Just like the Clintons, Carl Rove will be gone from the WH in 2009. Zathras was farting."

I know you're on vacation, Dan, but if you're going to put up an old post on a WaPo article, you ought to at least check around and make sure your whole post hasn't already been debunked.

how "covert" can a CIA operative be if it's common knowledge in Washington circles that she works at the agency?

It hasn't been established that this was "common knowledge" -- anybody have sources for this? (I know Clifford May and Andrea Mitchell said this -- dates?)

Here's a link to one of the most honest discussions of the Karl Rove mess ... at least until the end when he goes all soft and squishy:

http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/000767.html

Interestingly, this appears the ultimate source for the Andrea Mitchell quote. I checked MSNBC but could not find it there..

The Republicans high card since Sept 11 2001 and before is that they cared more about national security than the Democrats did. In addition that they were more ethical and honest. When the Wilson scandal broke, the President himself said and his press secretary repeated that if anyone in the White House was involved they would be fired. We now know that Karl Rove as a consultant(he was not on the White House payroll as staff at the time the story broke regarding Wilson's wife) was involved by the admittance of his lawyer. Given this if the white House fails to fire him immediately we will know the following.

One, the President of the USA is a liar. He is a liar because he would not do what he said he would do if someone in his White House was involved in exposing Wilson's wife.

Two, the Republican party's claim to moral and ethical superiority, let alone the claim they care more about the country's security will have been shot down in flames by the actions of its highest offical because for pure political purposes an CIA operative cover was deliberately exposed. Regardless of whether or not anyone knew she worked for the CIA or not, exposing her has blown her cover as a future covert operative and any networks she developed or worked with. By simply backtracking her travel and examing whom she met regardless of whether or not they were operatives they are now compromised for the past and ruined for the future. Alan K Henderson speaks about the deaths Leahy caused undoubtedly there have been some since Wilson's wife was exposed. Where Mr Henderson is wrong is that two wrongs to not make a right. The reality is the situation is even more dire than in 1985 regarding America's security situation.

For these reasons Rove must leave the White House. If he does not the President's crediblity will be severely damaged politically and personally. He will not be able to disassociate himself from the spectre of Clintonian parsing.
If Rove is found guilty of breaking the law he must be given a 9mm headache for treason.

Thank you, Gov. Dean.

Interestingly, this appears the ultimate source for the Andrea Mitchell quote. I checked MSNBC but could not find it there..

Hmmmm... the only source we have for the Andrea Mitchell "quote" is a paraphrase emailed to Powerline and published on their blog three days ago. Without a date, a direct quote and the context we can file this one under 3 pounds of salt.

"undoubtedly there have been some since Wilson's wife was exposed."

Yeah, from alcohol poisoning on the embassy cocktail circuit, no doubt, judging from the accuracy of the intel provided by Plame et alia.

"If Rove is found guilty of breaking the law he must be given a 9mm headache for treason."

Pfffft!

My irritation has now passed over to amusement because the loons here, in the press and the Democratic party are now passing over into melodramatic farce in their frantic efforts to manufacture yet another 'scandal'.

I saw Bush at the press conference today, with Rove in the background. My overwhelming impression was that the man was desperately trying to keep from bursting out laughing at the preposterousness of the media questioning, no doubt in part because he knows the real target(s) of Fitzgerald's investigation.

Y'all have taken the bait again.

Some people have some serious difficulty understanding a very simple story. There is a legal investigation led by Fitzgerald, everyone should wait to see the facts before making a LEGAL determination.
-JB

Quite right.

Furthermore, the facts that are known don't make sense. The person who is in jail didn't write a story about it, the person who wrote the story isn't. With that in mind, watching so many people leaping to conclusions about someone's guilt is rather distasteful. Whatever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'? Is it only applicable to Democrats these days?

Rosignol-

Let's add you to the list of people you are having the hard time understanding. Regardless of the legal investigation, Rove's lawyer has already admitted that Rove was involved in the leak.

McLlellan had announced no one was involved in the leak. Rove is lying or McLlellan is lying.

Someone needs to go.

The USA deserves better WH officials than this- regardless of the legal determination of guilt.

The USA deserves better WH officials than this- regardless of the legal determination of guilt.

You've got till November 2008 to find them. Good luck.

Alan K Henderson speaks about the deaths Leahy caused undoubtedly there have been some since Wilson's wife was exposed.

Got any evidence of that?

Where Mr Henderson is wrong is that two wrongs to not make a right.

I made no such statement. My point is that Rove, if he is guilty of wrongdoing at all, did not commit as great an indiscretion as Leahy and should therefore receive less harsh punishment.

(There seems to be some debate as to whether Plame was a covert agent. If not, than Rove can't be accused of leaking classified information.)

Maybe Rove could salvage his reputation if he were to stuff classified documents in his boxers and have them shredded.

Let's add you to the list of people you are having the hard time understanding. Regardless of the legal investigation, Rove's lawyer has already admitted that Rove was involved in the leak.

McLlellan had announced no one was involved in the leak. Rove is lying or McLlellan is lying.

Mm. Seeing as the leak had come come from someone, it seems likely that McLlellan is the one being less than truthful. Why would Rove admit involvement in this if it wasn't true?

Rove may be trying to parse words, a la Clinton. Or you may be right- and McLlellan has lied and he needs to go.

One thing is clear, one of them has lied and needs to go.

One other request on my end: can we not use Washington DC speak? In the rest of America, people don't use the term "less than truthful," its called lying. Unless of course, you're one of them...

Kate:
It doesn't matter. Karl Rove disclosed the identy of a CIA agent who was undercover as a CIA agent

Ummmm... Kate?

Actually, no.

Bithead,

I know this is hard to understand, but citing to someone's post in a blog is not fact. It is opinion. It is an interpretation of fact. I interpret those facts differently. I could easily cite to atrios or DailyKos or Pandagon or Digby and they would just as easily "prove" the opposite. It's not proof of anything, it is opinion.

Here is what I know from the facts:

Plame worked for the CIA. She had a cover "job" and her undercover job. Some people knew that she worked for the CIA. It is unclear who did.

Joe Wilson, who was an expert in both Iraq and Africa and had worked for the Bush I administration (and had been in favor of the first Iraq war) was sent to Niger to find out information regarding Yellow Caker Uranium and Iraq. He found no connection.

Bush said in the State of the Union address that a connection had been found.

Joe Wilson wrote an op-ed piece saying that was not true.

Sometime later a) Rove told Matt Cooper that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and b) Confirmed with Novak that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA.

this should not have happened.

Subsequently, Scott McClellen said that whenever they found who leaked the information regarding Valerie Plame's association with the CIA, they would be fired and, later, when President Bush was asked whether whomever released that information would be fired if discovered, he said yes.

Rove should have never released the information, he should have never confirmed the information, and this has nothing to do with Joe Wilson except it gave a substantial motive for the White House to have released the information. And I find it all pretty disturbing.