yes, we all got the memo this morning. interestingly, the nice folks at quinnipac called me yesterday. none of their questions had anything to do with this supposed "scandal" leading me to believe it's all just a tempest in a beltway teapot.
more from the RNC TP memo machine...OMG, LOL!!!! http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200507121626.asp -- Lawyer: Cooper “Burned” Karl Rove Rove’s attorney talks to NRO. The lawyer for top White House adviser Karl Rove says that Time reporter Matthew Cooper "burned" Rove after a conversation between the two men concerning former ambassador Joseph Wilson's fact-finding mission to Niger and the role Wilson's wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, played in arranging that trip. Nevertheless, attorney Robert Luskin says Rove long ago gave his permission for all reporters, including Cooper, to tell prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald about their conversations with Rove. In an interview with National Review Online, Luskin compared the contents of a July 11, 2003, internal Time e-mail written by Cooper with the wording of a story Cooper co-wrote a few days later. "By any definition, he burned Karl Rove," Luskin said of Cooper. "If you read what Karl said to him and read how Cooper characterizes it in the article, he really spins it in a pretty ugly fashion to make it seem like people in the White House were affirmatively reaching out to reporters to try to get them to them to report negative information about Plame." First the e-mail. According to a report in Newsweek, Cooper's e-mail to Time Washington bureau chief Michael Duffy said, "Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation..." Cooper said that Rove had warned him away from getting "too far out on Wilson," and then passed on Rove's statement that neither Vice President Dick Cheney nor CIA Director George Tenet had picked Wilson for the trip; "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd issues who authorized the trip." Finally — all of this is according to the Newsweek report — Cooper's e-mail said that "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly that there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger..." A few days after sending the e-mail, Cooper co-wrote an article headlined "A War on Wilson?" that appeared on Time's website. The story began, "Has the Bush administration declared war on a former ambassador who conducted a fact-finding mission to probe possible Iraqi interest in African uranium? Perhaps." The story continued: Some government officials have noted to Time in interviews (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These officials have suggested that she was involved in her husband's being dispatched to Niger to investigate reports that Saddam Hussein's government had sought to purchase large quantities of uranium ore, sometimes referred to as yellow cake, which is used to build nuclear devices. Plame's role in Wilson's assignment was later confirmed by a Senate Intelligence Committee investigation. Luskin told NRO that the circumstances of Rove's conversation with Cooper undercut Time's suggestion of a White House "war on Wilson." According to Luskin, Cooper originally called Rove — not the other way around — and said he was working on a story on welfare reform. After some conversation about that issue, Luskin said, Cooper changed the subject to the weapons of mass destruction issue, and that was when the two had the brief talk that became the subject of so much legal wrangling. According to Luskin, the fact that Rove did not call Cooper; that the original purpose of the call, as Cooper told Rove, was welfare reform; that only after Cooper brought the WMD issue up did Rove discuss Wilson — all are "indications that this was not a calculated effort by the White House to get this story out." "Look at the Cooper e-mail," Luskin continues. "Karl speaks to him on double super secret background...I don't think that you can read that e-mail and conclude that what Karl was trying to do was to get Cooper to publish the name of Wilson's wife." Nor, says Luskin, was Rove trying to "out" a covert CIA agent or "smear" her husband. "What Karl was trying to do, in a very short conversation initiated by Cooper on another subject, was to warn Time away from publishing things that were going to be established as false." Luskin points out that on the evening of July 11, 2003, just hours after the Rove-Cooper conversation, then-CIA Director George Tenet released a statement that undermined some of Wilson's public assertions about his report. "Karl knew that that [Tenet] statement was in gestation," says Luskin. "I think a fair reading of the e-mail was that he was trying to warn Cooper off from going out on a limb on [Wilson's] allegations." Luskin also shed light on the waiver that Rove signed releasing Cooper from any confidentiality agreement about the conversation. Luskin says Rove originally signed a waiver in December 2003 or in January 2004 (Luskin did not remember the exact date). The waiver, Luskin continues, was written by the office of special prosecutor Fitzgerald, and Rove signed it without making any changes — with the understanding that it applied to anyone with whom he had discussed the Wilson/Plame matter. "It was everyone's expectation that the waiver would be as broad as it could be," Luskin says. Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller have expressed concerns that such waivers (top Cheney aide Lewis Libby also signed one) might have been coerced and thus might not have represented Rove's true feelings. Yet from the end of 2003 or beginning of 2004, until last Wednesday, Luskin says, Rove had no idea that there might be any problem with the waiver. It was not until that Wednesday, the day Cooper was to appear in court, that that changed. "Cooper's lawyer called us and said, "Can you confirm that the waiver encompasses Cooper?" Luskin recalls. "I was amazed. He's a lawyer. It's not rocket science. [The waiver] says 'any person.' It's that broad. So I said, 'Look, I understand that you want reassurances. If Fitzgerald would like Karl to provide you with some other assurances, we will.'" Luskin says he got in touch with the prosecutor — "Rule number one is cooperate with Fitzgerald, and there is no rule number two," Luskin says — and asked what to do. According to Luskin, Fitzgerald said to go ahead, and Luskin called Cooper's lawyer back. "I said that I can reaffirm that the waiver that Karl signed applied to any conversations that Karl and Cooper had," Luskin says. After that — which represented no change from the situation that had existed for 18 months — Cooper made a dramatic public announcement and agreed to testify. A few other notes: Luskin declined to say how Rove knew that Plame "apparently" (to use Cooper's word) worked at the CIA. But Luskin told NRO that Rove is not hiding behind the defense that he did not identify Wilson's wife because he did not specifically use her name. Asked if that argument was too legalistic, Luskin said, "I agree with you. I think it's a detail." Luskin also addressed the question of whether Rove is a "subject" of the investigation. Luskin says Fitzgerald has told Rove he is not a "target" of the investigation, but, according to Luskin, Fitzgerald has also made it clear that virtually anyone whose conduct falls within the scope of the investigation, including Rove, is considered a "subject" of the probe. "'Target' is something we all understand, a very alarming term," Luskin says. On the other hand, Fitzgerald "has indicated to us that he takes a very broad view of what a subject is." Finally, Luskin conceded that Rove is legally free to publicly discuss his actions, including his grand-jury testimony. Rove has not spoken publicly, Luskin says, because Fitzgerald specifically asked him not to.
Let’s see… Attack Plame and Wilson (again): Check Play down Rove’s involvement: Check Insist no laws are broken: Check Basso you’re following the talking points exquisitely! Bravo But I must admit, attacking Cooper (on the day he testifies to the grand jury no less) is a new one.
how could we attack him on the day he testifies to the grand jury before that day arrived?!? to paraphrase OperaMan: Bravo Rovo Non actus/mens rea, Ho!
Attack Plame and Wilson (again): Check It is important to note that the attacks are based on the same set of lies as the first go round. Plame sent her husband to Niger. Her husband's report was erroneous. etc. I find it amazing that the Republicans are still trying to play the credibility card.
Keith Olbermann rips Karl Rove a new hole ... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/ Karl Rove is a liability in the war on terror. Rove -- Newsweek’s new article quotes the very emails -- told a Time reporter that Ambassador Joe Wilson’s trip to investigate of the Niger uranium claim was at the behest of Wilson’s CIA wife. To paraphrase Mr. Rove, liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers; conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared to ruin the career of one of the country’s spies tracking terrorist efforts to gain weapons of mass destruction -- for political gain. Politics first, counter-terrorism second -- it’s as simple as that. In his ‘story guidance’ to Matthew Cooper of Time, Rove did more damage to your safety than the most thumb-sucking liberal or guard at Abu Ghraib. He destroyed an intelligence asset like Valerie Plame merely to deflect criticism of a politician. We have all the damned politicians, of every stripe, that we need. The best of them isn’t worth half a Valerie Plame. And if the particular politician for whom Rove was deflecting, President Bush, is more than just all hat and no cattle on terrorism, he needs to banish Rove -- and loudly. Because it’s starting again. I was in the checkout line in a supermarket last night when one of New York’s countless little old ladies barked out something at the cashier: “Miss? Who does this bag belong to?” Uncomprehending, the checkout woman blinked at her. The older woman pointed at a gym bag that had been left near the store’s entrance, on a ledge below the delicatessen cabinet. Gefilta fish is an unlikely terrorist target to say the least, but the woman was absolutely right. “We’re supposed to report unattended bags. There could be a bomb in there.” Silly, right? As silly as it would’ve been before last Thursday in London if somebody on the Underground had said to a fellow passenger, “There’s a bag of something here that doesn’t seem to belong to anybody.” You may not have lived through a Time of the Bags in your hometown, but I did, and I don’t want to go through it again. In the jittery New York of October, 2001, I once came within seconds of getting Yankee Stadium evacuated, because there it was, resting against the railing of the visitors’ dugout: a small backpack surrounded by hundreds of reporters who were all carrying their own backpacks. I asked several of my colleagues about it - none saw it placed there nor knew to whom it belonged. I called out loudly; nobody responded. The two or three other reporters with whom I’d been chatting suddenly announced I was in charge. Gee, thanks. I did the calculations: the Stadium was filling up. There were hundreds on the field, thousands already in the stands. The bag had a Super Bowl logo on the side - if designed to fit in with the environment, it was ideal. As my colleagues’ faces got whiter and whiter, I said I’d give it 30 seconds and one more shout. I saw a policeman about 20 feet to my left. The process wouldn’t take long. I gave one final shout seeking the identity of the owner. A goateed ESPN guy ambled over. “I’m pretty sure that’s, what’s his name, he’s down the other side of the dugout.” We didn’t call the cop. We called What’s His Name. He was from the Bay Area and though an otherwise intelligent man, he simply hadn’t yet had to consider exactly what was meant by the phrase “unattended bag.” He sheepishly reclaimed it. Not an hour later, I was finishing up dinner with one of my colleagues who had shared my Near Bag Experience. He had a press seat way out in leftfield and didn’t want to take his bag with him. So he promptly stuffed it under a desk in the Yankee Stadium press room. He’s a friend, and I swore at him as you can only swear at a friend. He took the bag with him. We’re back in those times, thanks to the London attacks. Needless to say, the 2001 bag at Yankee Stadium was no more threatening than the 2005 bag at the Associated Supermarket. But if we’re going to have to live our lives looking for them, I damn well don’t want political morons in positions where they can deliberately screw up counter-terrorism measures. I know we already have to live with the idea that they’ll do it accidentally. Any time I’ve criticized the current administration here or on the air, I’ve gotten the same idiotic emails from the same idiotic people who’ve never been touched by terrorism. They brand me a liberal who doesn’t understand that terrorists want the next unattended bag to be filled with WMD. Their position is incredible on its face; in the light of the confirmation of the Karl Rove revelation it would assume the quality of farce, were it not so deadly serious. And the bottom line is this: in the metaphoric department of the war on terror, Karl Rove not only leaves bags unattended - he does it intentionally.
You missed one... Claim this is all just a baseless partisan attack: Check I heard that one this morning. It really made me chuckle because Rove's motive behind the leak is to launch a partisan attack. Now he claims the retribution is partisian. ROFL. What a jerk.
Caught this piece earlier today, Carl Cameron of FoxNews who's covering the Plame story, played a newly discovered year-old audio clip by GW Bush, who said something like "If a person is found guilty of breaking the law (with regard to exposing the identity of a CIA operative), we will take care of him". Carl acted as if he got a breathing straw, saying "See the President didn't say the person will be prosecuted, he just said he will be taken care of". Then went on with playing the word game. Simply amusing. Also, I remember GWB once said, when referring to Al Qaeda, "These folks will be taken care of". I know lots of you here are Texans. So folks, what does it mean GW Bush taking cares of some folks? Is this typical (Texas) folklore?
If Rove did this then he really should do time, IMO. To out someone for 'payback' signals Rove has gone beyond smear tactic negative campaigning. While one might ignore his excesses (if you were a Bush supporter) because his ultimate goal was to get Bush elected, but this is completely outside the scope of that goal. It shows that Rove will use power to 'right' a perceived wrong in his mind, whether or not is has to do with the running of the country. THAT is crazy and unacceptable.
On FoxNews, Fred Barnes is really embarressing himself the way he brushes this whole thing off like it was no big deal. At least when Bill Kristol does this, he is polite and sly about it. Fred Barnes just looks like a tool.
Maybe you should pay attention to the actual case and not the cries of Democratic leadership, eh? The only reason the left is putting up this huge of a fight is because Rove just beats them senseless every election. Otherwise, they wouldn't be making that big of a deal because of the actual facts.
You are abosultely right, we should never lose focus on the connection between Bushies and Saudis - the mother of all evils.
...and? Captian Obvious checking in. Rove Lied. Rove has no morals and the sooner we can get him out of influencial positions the better the country will be. Rove will win at any cost. Rove is amoral He beats the Dems senselessy by banking on the stupidity and lack of attention of Americans by launching rumors and hoping most people don't bother to fact check for themselves. If that is a value that you think is admirable, well... Finally, did I mention Rove is a lier.
Sometimes its hard to be a woman Giving all your love to just one man You'll have bad times And he'll have good times Doing things that you don't understand But if you love him you'll forgive him Even though he's hard to understand And if you love him Oh be proud of him 'Cause after all he's just a man Stand by your man Give him two arms to cling to And something warm to come to When nights are cold and lonely Stand by your man And tell the world you love him Keep giving all the love you can Stand by your man Stand by your man And show the world you love him Keep giving all the love you can Stand by your man
Here are some facts. Plame was officially a CIA operative of NOC status. That is as deep of an undercover classification as it gets. Plame's department of expertise is WMD. We have soldiers dying and engaged in combat in something that started because of WMD. Plame's status was blown because somebody in the whitehouse told some reporters about Plame. Those are the facts. Do you believe that it is acceptable to out undercover agents who working on issues on the forefront of our national security? Because Wilson told the truth about Iraq/Niger uranium deals and even the whitehouse admits they were out to get Wilson. That is what happened. Those are the facts. No matter how people want to spin things another way, those facts that I mentioned still exist.
