Why is the Rove/Plame issue important?

[Skyhunter]

Here's a thought ...
(My role of sarcasm supplier notwithstanding)
In an effort to bring 'truth in government' to the fore, Why don't they just have done with it and rename the post of 'Special Prosecutor' to 'Witchfinder General'?
(Or would that be considered insulting to Mathew Hopkins?)

Fitzgerald is not a 'Special Prosecutor'. He is a just a regular federal prosecutor. He has none of the special powers that Kenneth Starr had.

 

[faust9]

Fitzgerald is not a 'Special Prosecutor'. He is a just a regular federal prosecutor. He has none of the special powers that Kenneth Starr had.

Who told you this? What powers does he lack?

 

[Skyhunter]

Who told you this? What powers does he lack?

Sorry, I confused the terms.

He is not an 'Independent prosecutor' with the following powers.

The prosecutor, who was appointed by a special panel of the Federal DC appeals court, could investigate allegations of any misconduct, with an unlimited budget and no deadline, and could only be dismissed by the Attorney General or a panel of three federal judges. As the president could not dismiss those investigating the executive branch it was felt that the independence of the office would insure impartiality of any reports presented to Congress. However, there have been many critics of this law including Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Many argued the new Independent Counsel's office was a sort of "fourth branch" of government that had virtually unlimited powers and was answerable to no one. However, the constitutionality of the new office was ultimately upheld in the 1988 Supreme Court case Morrison v. Olson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Office_of_the_Independent_Counsel
He is a 'special prosecutor' appointed by the office of the Attorney General after Ashcroft recused himself for conflict of interest.

A special prosecutor is a lawyer from outside the government appointed by the attorney general or Congress to investigate a federal official for misconduct while in office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_prosecutor

 

[Mercator]

So they got a scapegoat, and how long after the facts?
TSM, we were right about everything on the other thread, but I must confess I was wrong about one thing: I always believed that eventually a vast majority of Americans would not take the bs anymore, but this veaudeville keeps going on and on and most Americans sleep on. If this thing stops with Libby then I am definitively cured from my naivity.

 

[chaos_5]

It’s not important at all. The whole thing is one big non-issue. The only reason we hear about it so much is because the news media/left wants to see the president and/or anyone in the upper leadership of the administration made into criminals. This story is an attempt to prove a false premise. That false premise is the war is about a lie. It’s really quite funny how divorced from reality that premise is, and how despite some are to validate it. I suspect in a few weeks this will be old news, as the media gloms onto the next thing it thinks will bring down the "evil Bush administration".

 

[Mercator]

It’s not important at all. The whole thing is one big non-issue. The only reason we hear about it so much is because the news media/left wants to see the president and/or anyone in the upper leadership of the administration made into criminals. This story is an attempt to prove a false premise. That false premise is the war is about a lie. It’s really quite funny how divorced from reality that premise is, and how despite some are to validate it. I suspect in a few weeks this will be old news, as the media gloms onto the next thing it thinks will bring down the "evil Bush administration".

You see? They don't even have scruples about a presidency that does not hesitate to screw one of their own if he does not want to confirm their lies. And some Americans just seem to love to be screwed.

 

[SOS2008]

You see? They don't even have scruples about a presidency that does not hesitate to screw one of their own if he does not want to confirm their lies. And some Americans just seem to love to be screwed.

For those of you outside the U.S., always consider the source. There are about 20% hardcore Bush supporters who are as you describe, and one should take what they say with a grain of salt.

In fact, that is what this investigation is all about--trying to discredit someone. The irony is they were trying to discredit Wilson primarily with accusations of cronyism (i.e., his wife being instrumental in his selection for the investigation). It is not true--both had job descriptions appropriate for the roles played, and how much a role played by Valerie Plame was exaggerated. But it is really ironic that the Bush administration was trying to use cronyism to discredit Wilson.

Then some like Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas, who has been indicted before) have tried to diminish crimes considered to be felonies. As I’ve stated, anyone trying to discredit Fitzgerald would be a complete idiot. People with some logical reasoning can see that the Bush administration wanted to suppress Wilson's findings. Findings that were clearly in direct conflict with the case they were trying to build for the war--findings found to be correct, and contrary to Bush's speech thereafter, which was incorrect. Those looking for a logical explanation as to why a smart lawyer like Libby got caught in a web of lies, well here is your answer.

This is no big deal? Okay, it's no big deal.

 

[faust9]

Libby is going the Reagan route "I can't be expected to remember a series of conversations..."

Why not, I tend to remember basic details of important conversations for years.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/29/leak.probe.ap/index.html

Andrew Sullivan has a good write up

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index...05_10_23_dish_archive.html#113054808801359975

 

[Manchot]

It’s not important at all. The whole thing is one big non-issue. The only reason we hear about it so much is because the news media/left wants to see the president and/or anyone in the upper leadership of the administration made into criminals. This story is an attempt to prove a false premise. That false premise is the war is about a lie. It’s really quite funny how divorced from reality that premise is, and how despite some are to validate it. I suspect in a few weeks this will be old news, as the media gloms onto the next thing it thinks will bring down the "evil Bush administration".

Patrick Fitzgerald is not a member of the news media/left, and even the Bush administration must think that he is impartial (since he was appointed to the case by James Comey, Deputy Attorney General and Bush appointee). He is in charge of the case, and along with a Grand Jury, decided to indict Libby for committing perjury, a serious crime (and certainly not a non-issue). Sorry, but this is not politically motivated, no matter how you try to spin it.

 

[chaos_5]

Patrick Fitzgerald is not a member of the news media/left ... Sorry, but this is not politically motivated, no matter how you try to spin it.

Perhaps the Prosecutor is acting in a professional manner, and simply doing his job. I give you that point; however there are far more important issues that should dominate the news cycle. The political aspect of this story is the coverage, and the conclusions some are drawing about the meaning of the indictment.

 

[Manchot]

Perhaps the Prosecutor is acting in a professional manner, and simply doing his job. I give you that point; however there are far more important issues that should dominate the news cycle. The political aspect of this story is the coverage, and the conclusions some are drawing about the meaning of the indictment.

Ok, if the indictment of the Vice President's Chief of Staff is not among the most important piece of news in the past year, what is? The kidnapping of a girl in Aruba? The Michael Jackson trial?

 

[Astronuc]

however there are far more important issues that should dominate the news cycle.

Perhaps, but the fact that the VP's top aide may have violated the law (exposing the identity of a CIA agent) and then lied about it to the FBI and Grand Jury is pretty significant. The question then becomes why, and then did he act alone - or with others in a conspiracy?
Ostensibly, the Bush administration was retaliating agains Joe Wilson who challenged the fabrication of evidence by the Bush administration as justification of a war in Iraq.

But now - Lawyer for Libby Plans Lack-of-Memory Defense, By PETE YOST, AP.

WASHINGTON (Oct. 29) - The lawyer for Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide is outlining a possible criminal defense that is a time-honored tradition in Washington scandals: A busy official immersed in important duties cannot reasonably be expected to remember details of long-ago conversations.

Then Cheney better high a more competent individual. On the other hand, Libby made notes.

However, I can't imagine that one would forget activities related to violating federal law, unless of course he violates the law so frequently, he can't distinguish one violation from another. Kind of like the organized crime bosses. Maybe Libby can start wearing a bathrobe in public and wandering the Mall in hopes that he will get not guilty by reason of insanity. But then that didn't work for Vincent Gigante.
If he didn't remember, then he should have stated that he couldn't remember, rather than fabricate false testimony.

Libby Said to Concoct Story in Leak Case
By LARRY MARGASAK and PETE YOST

WASHINGTON - The prosecution's conclusion: Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff zealously pursued information about a critic who said the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to make the case for war.
The view of the president and vice president: I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby is a dedicated public servant who has worked tirelessly on behalf of his country.
Is Libby an influential White House adviser who lied? Or is he a man with a hectic schedule who happens to remember events differently from the reporters and administration figures who will eventually be called to testify against him?

"As lawyers, we recognize that a person's recollection and memory of events will not always match those of other people, particularly when they are asked to testify months after the events occurred," Libby's lawyer, Joseph Tate, said in a statement.

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald drew his detailed portrait of Libby based on a two-year investigation that pulled dozens of witnesses in for questioning, including President Bush and Cheney.

Libby, the indictment against him concludes, received information from Cheney, the State Department and the CIA about covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, whose husband was attacking an administration unable to find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Libby then spread the information to reporters and later concocted a story that his information had come from reporters, the indictment says.

The other portrait of Libby, the favorable version, shows a deeply committed conservative who has been a player on the Washington scene since the early days of the Reagan administration.

Reagan made up stuff - seems to be contagious in the Regan - Bush circles.

 

[Astronuc]

In 1992, Libby and former Pentagon deputy Paul Wolfowitz wrote a paper favoring the use of pre-emptive force to prevent countries from developing weapons of mass destruction. The paper later won praise from the neoconservative Project for the New American Century, which called it "a blueprint for maintaining U.S. pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival."

Libby Said to Concoct Story in Leak Case - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051029/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_reconstruction

 

[The Smoking Man]

Ok, if the indictment of the Vice President's Chief of Staff is not among the most important piece of news in the past year, what is? The kidnapping of a girl in Aruba? The Michael Jackson trial?

Only if you listen to Gretta VanSustren on Fox.

Didn't she get her start on the OJ Channel?

 

[SOS2008]

Reagan made up stuff - seems to be contagious in the Regan - Bush circles.

Reagan suffered from early stages of Alzheimer’s disease toward the end of his presidency, but those who know Libby say he has excellent memory (in addition to his notes). Also, he was inconsistent about seven times. That's like stabbing someone seven times and then claiming it was an accident.

 

[Astronuc]

Reagan suffered from early stages of Alzheimer’s disease toward the end of his presidency, but those who know Libby say he has excellent memory (in addition to his notes). Also, he was inconsistent about seven times. That's like stabbing someone seven times and then claiming it was an accident.

Reagan was making false claims during his first campaign in 1980, especially his comments about those on welfare. And then he mislead the nation in Iran-Contra, and the support of non-democratic governments in S. and Central America.

 

[SOS2008]

Reagan was making false claims during his first campaign in 1980, especially his comments about those on welfare. And then he mislead the nation in Iran-Contra, and the support of non-democratic governments in S. and Central America.

As an actor, Reagan had great memory skills, and why he could give long speeches and not use prompters. The WH/government is always going to try to keep things from the American people. In terms of severity (how the deceit is done, how often, how serious, how damaging) Bush and administration take the cake.

Speaking of which, Rove is known for his great memory of details, statistics, etc. The “I don’t recall” answer won’t cut it for him either.

 

[Astronuc]

Libby testified that he heard CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity from Tim Russert of NBC News when, in fact, he learned of Plame's identify from other government officials, the indictment alleged.

"Mr. Libby's story that he was at the tail end of a chain of phone calls, passing on from one reporter what he heard from another, was not true," Fitzgerald said.

"He was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls -- the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter -- and then he lied about it afterwards, under oath and repeatedly," he said.

from CNN - http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/28/leak.probe/

 

[Astronuc]

On the other hand - an alternative perspective - which was published by the NY Times, Oct 30, 2005, which is periodically disparaged as one the "Liberal Media" -

Excerpts from "The Prosecutor's Diagnosis: No Cancer Found"
By DAVID BROOKS, Op-Ed Columnist, NY Times

. . . Patrick Fitzgerald has just completed a 22-month investigation of the Bush presidency. One thing is clear: there is no cancer on this presidency. Fitzgerald, who seems to be a model prosecutor, enjoyed what he called full cooperation from all federal agencies. He found enough evidence to indict one man, Scooter Libby, on serious charges.

But he did not find evidence to prove that there was a broad conspiracy to out a covert agent for political gain. He did not find evidence of wide-ranging criminal behavior. He did not even indict the media's ordained villain, Karl Rove. And as the former prosecutors Robert Ray and Richard Ben-Veniste said on "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer," he gave little indication he was going to do that in the future.

Fitzgerald went as far as the evidence led him. In so doing, he momentarily punctured the wave of hysteria that had been building around the case. Over the past few weeks, oceans of ink and an infinity of airtime have been devoted to theorizing about Rove's conspiratorial genius and general culpability - almost all of it hokum. Leading Democratic politicians filled the air with grand conspiracy theories that would be at home in the John Birch Society.

Senator Frank Lautenberg assented that Rove was guilty of treason. Howard Dean talked about a "huge cover-up." Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York said: "The C.I.A. leak issue is only the tip of the iceberg. This is looking increasingly like a White House conspiracy aimed at misleading our country into war.

One may wish it, but that doesn't make it so. We do know that the White House lied about who was involved in calling reporters. But as for traitorous behavior, huge cover-ups and well-orchestrated conspiracies - that's swamp gas.

As it turned out, Fitzgerald's careful and forceful presentation of the evidence was but a brief respite from the tide of hysterical accusations. Fitzgerald may have pointed out that this case is not about supporting or opposing the war; it's about possible perjury and obstruction of justice.

. . . .

So some Democrats were not content with Libby's indictment, but had to stretch, distort and exaggerate. The tragic thing is that at the exact moment when the Republican Party is staggering under the weight of its own mistakes, the Democratic Party's loudest voices are in the grip of passions that render them untrustworthy.

On Friday we saw a man, Patrick Fitzgerald, who seemed like an honest and credible public servant. What an unusual sight that was.

Suscription required for access full text.

 

[Astronuc]

It was Mr. Russert's 20 minutes of sworn testimony to the special prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, in a Washington law office on a summer Saturday in 2004 that helped undermine the account of Mr. Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr.: that Mr. Russert first told him that Valerie Wilson, the wife of Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador and a sharp critic of the Bush administration's rationale for war with Iraq, worked at the C.I.A.

According to the indictment, Mr. Libby talked about Ms. Wilson's identity with at least six other people in the government, including Mr. Cheney, before talking with Mr. Russert, who says he learned about Ms. Wilson's name by reading Mr. Novak's column (and, good newshound that he is, he said he was irked not to have known it before). All those people have also told their stories and could be called to the stand.

NY Times, Oct 31.

The investigation is still not over. Mr. Novak hasn't been charged, and his contact (Libby or other) have yet to be indicted for that. Perhaps Fitzgerald is putting pressure on Libby.

 

[BobG]

Undersecretary for Defense http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3437921 , but requires registration to view.

An interesting excerpt:

The indictment says that Mr. Libby and Mr. Edelman spoke by telephone on or about June 19, 2003, before Mr. Wilson's name became public. It says that Mr. Edelman asked Mr. Libby in June 2003 whether information about Mr. Wilson's trip could be disclosed to the press to rebut allegations that Vice President Cheney had called for the trip. Mr. Libby replied that "there would be complications at the C.I.A." if information about the trip were disclosed publicly and "that he could not discuss the matter on a nonsecure telephone line," the indictment says.

 

[SOS2008]

MSNBC
Updated: 4:58 a.m. ET Nov. 11, 2005

WASHINGTON - Emerging from weeks of political hibernation, President Bush's longtime advisor Karl Rove told the right-wing Federalist Society that rulings by liberal judges will “provoke a strong counter-reaction” through laws or constitutional amendments to limit the judiciary.

“The public will reclaim its rights as a sovereign people,” Rove predicted, and “at the end of the day the views of the Founders will prevail.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9982264/

There were a couple of other little gems like that in the speech as broadcast on CNN last night.

 

[BobG]

MSNBC
Updated: 4:58 a.m. ET Nov. 11, 2005

WASHINGTON - Emerging from weeks of political hibernation, President Bush's longtime advisor Karl Rove told the right-wing Federalist Society that rulings by liberal judges will “provoke a strong counter-reaction” through laws or constitutional amendments to limit the judiciary.

“The public will reclaim its rights as a sovereign people,” Rove predicted, and “at the end of the day the views of the Founders will prevail.”

This argument always bothers me - they never really explain what they mean. The original "views of the Founders" were reflected in the Articles of Confederation approved in 1777. They lasted about 11 years until replaced by "the revised views of the Founders" instituted via the US Constitution. "The revised views of the Founders" lasted unchanged for all of two years until they realized that all those things that should go without saying needed saying - in other words, they added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution to develop "the new, improved version of the revised views of the Founders".

Of course, a couple more amendments had to be added by 1804, so maybe Rove was talking about "the new, improved, no-Presidential election controversies, version of the revised views of the Founders". Since many of the Founders had a part in that version, I think you could still say that qualifes as the "views of the Founders". Plus, there were no more amendments added for over 60 years. But that probably had more to do with triskaidekaphobia than satisfaction with the "views of the Founders". Even with no new amendments, the idea of federalism began a slow decline beginning after the War of 1812.

Then again, maybe 1804 is a little too far along the time scale to qualify as "the views of the Founders". I'm pretty sure Rove is talking about "the new, improved, but pre-Marbury vs. Madison, revised views of the Founders". I don't think Rove likes the idea of "Congress can not pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution, and it is the role of the federal courts to interpret what the Constitution permits". Or, wait a minute, maybe Rove is talking about "the new, improved, post-Marbury vs. Madison, revised views of the Founders". Rove might like the other part of Marbury vs. Madison - the part that says "Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional to the extent it purports to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution".

So just what the heck is Rove saying, anyway? (One thing's for sure, if Bush tries to explain which "views of the Founders" he'll supply a whole new volume of Bushisms )

Edit: I guess, when you think about, Rove is absolutely correct. The "views of the Founders" underwent so many revisions in the US's first thirty years that some version of the "views of the Founders" is bound to prevail. Ahh, but that still leaves one dilemma unresolved: which day is Rove talking about - he doesn't specify!

Edit: Interesting trivia: How many Presidents of the United States in Congress Assembled were there before the US Constitution and the election of George Washington as President of the United States?

 

[Skyhunter]

This argument always bothers me - they never really explain what they mean. The original "views of the Founders" were reflected in the Articles of Confederation approved in 1777. They lasted about 11 years until replaced by "the revised views of the Founders" instituted via the US Constitution. "The revised views of the Founders" lasted unchanged for all of two years until they realized that all those things that should go without saying needed saying - in other words, they added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution to develop "the new, improved version of the revised views of the Founders".
Of course, a couple more amendments had to be added by 1804, so maybe Rove was talking about "the new, improved, no-Presidential election controversies, version of the revised views of the Founders". Since many of the Founders had a part in that version, I think you could still say that qualifes as the "views of the Founders". Plus, there were no more amendments added for over 60 years. But that probably had more to do with triskaidekaphobia than satisfaction with the "views of the Founders". Even with no new amendments, the idea of federalism began a slow decline beginning after the War of 1812.
Then again, maybe 1804 is a little too far along the time scale to qualify as "the views of the Founders". I'm pretty sure Rove is talking about "the new, improved, but pre-Marbury vs. Madison, revised views of the Founders". I don't think Rove likes the idea of "Congress can not pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution, and it is the role of the federal courts to interpret what the Constitution permits". Or, wait a minute, maybe Rove is talking about "the new, improved, post-Marbury vs. Madison, revised views of the Founders". Rove might like the other part of Marbury vs. Madison - the part that says "Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional to the extent it purports to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution".
So just what the heck is Rove saying, anyway? (One thing's for sure, if Bush tries to explain which "views of the Founders" he'll supply a whole new volume of Bushisms )
Edit: I guess, when you think about, Rove is absolutely correct. The "views of the Founders" underwent so many revisions in the US's first thirty years that some version of the "views of the Founders" is bound to prevail. Ahh, but that still leaves one dilemma unresolved: which day is Rove talking about - he doesn't specify!
Edit: Interesting trivia: How many Presidents of the United States in Congress Assembled were there before the US Constitution and the election of George Washington as President of the United States?

I am sure that he is "cherry picking" to suit his best interests.

I sometimes think we need another constitutional convention, then I look at the caliber of statesmen we have available today and shudder.

 

[Dayle Record]

My two cents. We, as a nation, can not ask people to stick their necks out, so that we may cut off their heads. "Intelligence" is supposed to be just that, not supposition or sycophancy. "Intelligence" is not supposed to be delivering the noises that an administration or special interest, wants to hear; if that were the case we could save a lot of money and lives, by giving out ipods with an unlimited itunes subscription.

 

[BobG]

I sometimes think we need another constitutional convention, then I look at the caliber of statesmen we have available today and shudder.

Never! I've been in too many groups where some energetic young officer wants to rewrite an organization's training program from scratch. That sometimes works if you're talking about rewriting an organization's first ever training program since there's likely to be a whole lot of junk there that just doesn't work. Once you've got something that's at least somewhat workable you're a lot better off just fixing one problem at a time rather than putting a whole lot of time and effort into creating something that's likely to be worse than what it replaced.

The constitutional amendment process may be slow, but that's actually a good thing. If an idea is really good, it can outlast the amendment process. (We already have one amendment that had to be repealed by another amendment).

 

[Skyhunter]

Never! I've been in too many groups where some energetic young officer wants to rewrite an organization's training program from scratch. That sometimes works if you're talking about rewriting an organization's first ever training program since there's likely to be a whole lot of junk there that just doesn't work. Once you've got something that's at least somewhat workable you're a lot better off just fixing one problem at a time rather than putting a whole lot of time and effort into creating something that's likely to be worse than what it replaced.
The constitutional amendment process may be slow, but that's actually a good thing. If an idea is really good, it can outlast the amendment process. (We already have one amendment that had to be repealed by another amendment).

You are right, I wasn't actually considering a full blown convention. I was thinking about an amendment to address the problem of corporate rights being equal to personal rights, essentially making corporations more equal, since they control so many lobbies. Another is campaign and suffrage reform, that incorporates the advances in communication. Actually I think we could go back to something similar to the original electoral college.

About the only amendments being offered both put more restrictions on persons, like the anti-gay and anti flag desecration amendments. One discriminates against a subset of the population and the other places limits on freedom of expression.

I don't want to marry a man, or burn the flag, but I don't see any reason to amend our constitution over it.

I just don't trust the current crop of elected leaders to up to the task. They would more than likely make things worse.

 

[mathwonk]

what puzzles me is that her (chosen, legal) name is valery wilson, so why is she called valery plame by the media?

 

[edward]

what puzzles me is that her (chosen, legal) name is valery wilson, so why is she called valery plame by the media?

CIA operatives tend to do things like that. Movie stars do too for opposite reason.

 

[mathwonk]

the choice is apparently not hers but the medias, according to her husband who was interviewed on cable tv.

 

[edward]

the choice is apparently not hers but the medias, according to her husband who was interviewed on cable tv.

Her name didn't matter once her cover was blown. The media uses Plame because that is the name that is recognized by the public.

 

[Gokul43201]

More indictments on the way ?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=afR3bu__bPfs&refer=top_world_news

Fitzgerald to Give 2nd Grand Jury CIA Leak Evidence (Update1)

Nov. 18 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said he will present evidence to a second grand jury in his investigation into who leaked the identity of Central Intelligence Agency operative Valerie Plame.

The disclosure, contained in court papers and also announced at a court hearing today in Washington, suggests there may be new charges in the two-year probe.

"The investigation will involve proceedings before a different grand jury'' than the one that returned the indictment against Lewis "Scooter'' Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, Fitzgerald said. "The investigation is continuing.''

 

[edward]

A group of former intel officers have asked Bush to pull Roves security clearance. It is about time.

Posted on Tue, Nov. 15, 2005

Ex-intelligence officials want Rove's security clearance suspended

By Warren P. Strobel

Knight Ridder Newspapers



WASHINGTON - Sixteen former CIA and military intelligence officials on Tuesday urged President Bush to suspend his top political adviser Karl Rove's security clearance following revelations that he played a role in outing CIA officer Valerie Plame.


"We are asking that you immediately suspend the clearances of all White House personnel who spoke to reporters about (Plame's) affiliation with the CIA. They have mishandled classified information and no longer deserve the level of trust required to have access to this nation's secrets," the former officials, some of whom were covert operatives, wrote Bush.


Rove, who spoke to at least two journalists about the issue, hasn't been charged with wrongdoing in the case, but is believed to still be under investigation.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13175855.htm

 

[Gokul43201]

So, Woodward's source was Hadley, eh ?

 

[Skyhunter]

So, Woodward's source was Hadley, eh ?

That was my suspician as well.

Do you have a source?