Miller: Protecting the Constitution or a Criminal?
NY Times reporter Judith Miller decided on Wednesday to accept jail time instead of releasing her sources in the Valerie Plame case. For those of you unfamiliar with the case, Valerie Plame’s husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, wrote an Op-Ed saying that, in making its case for the Iraq war, the Bush Administration had misrepresented the facts about Iraq trying to buy uranium from Niger.
Robert Novak in an article later disclosed the fact that Wilson's wife Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA agent---of the highest security level, a so-called NOC. The leak is thought to have come from someone in the White House in an attempt to punish or discredit Ambassador Wilson. Revealing Mrs. Plame’s identity destroyed her security (and her career) as well as jeopardized anyone she had worked with while in the CIA. In other words, it undermined the security interests of the United States in the war on terror.
In an editorial the NY Times defended Judith Miller’s decision.
The media certainly does need to be protected. There are many times when the media skirts the limit of legality when releasing confidential information. These gray areas need to be protected as the NY Times points out. We want a media that uncovers the truth and people who can give anonymous tips to the media so they can find this truth. But:
There are instances when releasing information is clearly wrong and illegal. In my opinion releasing the identity of an undercover CIA agent for no reason other than her husband is in the news is criminal. It endangers people’s lives and puts America at risk. This is not a time the media needs protection but a time the media needs to help uncover the perpetrator of this crime against America.
What do you think? Is Miller a patriot or is she protecting a criminal?
-- Posted by Sam John Buffone
Robert Novak in an article later disclosed the fact that Wilson's wife Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA agent---of the highest security level, a so-called NOC. The leak is thought to have come from someone in the White House in an attempt to punish or discredit Ambassador Wilson. Revealing Mrs. Plame’s identity destroyed her security (and her career) as well as jeopardized anyone she had worked with while in the CIA. In other words, it undermined the security interests of the United States in the war on terror.
In an editorial the NY Times defended Judith Miller’s decision.
The point of this struggle is to make sure that people with critical information can feel confident that if they speak to a reporter on the condition of anonymity, their identities will be protected.
The media certainly does need to be protected. There are many times when the media skirts the limit of legality when releasing confidential information. These gray areas need to be protected as the NY Times points out. We want a media that uncovers the truth and people who can give anonymous tips to the media so they can find this truth. But:
Responsible journalists recognize that press freedoms are not absolute and must be exercised responsibly. This newspaper will not, for example, print the details of American troop movements in advance of a battle, because publication would endanger lives and national security.
There are instances when releasing information is clearly wrong and illegal. In my opinion releasing the identity of an undercover CIA agent for no reason other than her husband is in the news is criminal. It endangers people’s lives and puts America at risk. This is not a time the media needs protection but a time the media needs to help uncover the perpetrator of this crime against America.
What do you think? Is Miller a patriot or is she protecting a criminal?
-- Posted by Sam John Buffone
posted by Anonymous at 3:32 PM
26 Comments:
I;m not sure the point you're trying to make is clear Hans. Are you agreeing with the NYT's position not to release the name of the informant or do you want to know who tipped Wilson? Wilson knows the name, she can 'uncover' the criminal, so if you think that the media needs to find out who outed Wilson's wife then you should back the judge in this case and write to the NYT to release the information.
The whole 'anonymous source' is getting out of hand in the media, and while I'm sure Novak got his information from an actual person there are cases daily in which a reporter is unable to back up a story based on such mysterious sources. In the case of a federal crime reporters should not obstruct justice and allow this person to be prosecuted. This isn't like some wistleblower pointing out illegal activities, this was a source who committed a crime by divulging top secret information.
In the above post I meant Miller not Wilson.
Protecting sources is one thing but this goes beyond the line. For national security reasons the sources need to be revealed. Who knows what they might leak next and to whom.
I haven't made up my mind on this issue but to give an additional point to consider, it's not like people can't leak anonymously to the press by anonymous phone call or something so having the court try to solve the whole problem by calling this contempt is somewhat shortsided.
I guess I'm thinking that if the law required that testimony could be compelled only with a leak of top secret info that didn't reveal a crime or government dishonesty, I think that would be the right balance.
I'd like everyone to consider that in WWII the only reason Britain wasn't completely unprepared was that Churchill was getting leaks of top secret military stats of both british and german capabilities and made speeches about it in parliament. He often lost arguments because of Britain's official secrets act making it a crime to leak info for any reason. So in short, be careful not to make all leaking illegal since it *can* definitely enhance national security. Bush will never tell you that though.
If Bush wants the leaker found all he has to do is give that person up. If has so much control of message in his administration than he asks who leaked the info and that person would be brought to justice, plain and simple. The person is of too much importance(Rove) and has too much control(Rove) that Bush must protect the leaker(Rove). Bush and Cheney and the rest of them know who the leaker is and defintiely were involved in the decision to exact revenge on Wilson by putting his wife's, Plame, life in jeopardy to quiet him as a whislteblower in the fake yellowcake documents. if they didn't know then the adminsitration is in complete chaos. Plausible deniability will be there excuse but Rove should face the music.
Why Healthcare and Education are the two most important issues that face America ...and the Republcians have no plan for either.
Why Toyota chose Canada over Alabama/Mississippi.
They got a $125 Million is subsidies from the Canadians. But that wasn't what sealed the deal, because several southern states offered nearly double the subsidies. What sealed the deal was the quality of education that their potential workers in Canada possesed.
The extra subsidies offered by the U.S. state would have been eaten up by the need to train and educate the workers in those states to the standards of a modern mechanized and digitized automobile plant. CBC news reports:
The factory will cost $800 million to build, with the federal and provincial governments kicking in $125 million of that to help cover research, training and infrastructure costs.
Several U.S. states were reportedly prepared to offer more than double that amount of subsidy. But Fedchun said much of that extra money would have been eaten away by higher training costs than are necessary for the Woodstock project.
He said Nissan and Honda have encountered difficulties getting new plants up to full production in recent years in Mississippi and Alabama due to an untrained - and often illiterate - workforce. In Alabama, trainers had to use "pictorials" to teach some illiterate workers how to use high-tech plant equipment.
"The educational level and the skill level of the people down there is so much lower than it is in Ontario," Fedchun said.
It's ironic that those southern states were willing to fork over the money to get the plant, but not to spend the same money to raise the educational standards in their schools. It's a classic penny-wise, pound-foolish approach.
But what about a northern state with better education. Well too bad northern states, you also are being "penny-wise and pound-foolish".
Only now it's health care that is a show stopper"
In addition to lower training costs, Canadian workers are also $4 to $5 cheaper to employ partly thanks to the taxpayer-funded health-care system in Canada, said federal Industry Minister David Emmerson.
"Most people don't think of our health-care system as being a competitive advantage," he said.
Tanguay said Toyota's decision on where to build its seventh North American plant was "not only about money."
"It's about being in the right place," he said, noting the company can rely on the expertise of experienced Cambridge workers to help get Woodstock up and running.
Day 6: WH Press Corps Silent on Rove
The White House just released the transcript of today’s Gaggle.
For the fourth straight time since his lawyer admitted that Rove was one of Matt Cooper’s sources, no member of the White House press corps asked a question about Rove’s role. (And there are plenty of questions to ask.)
A major figure in the White House is deeply entangled in a major scandal. Why is the White House press corps ignoring the story?
Ummm. Because there is no story. I know in little Erik world there would be nothing better than successful terrorist attacks in the US and Rove entangled in a conspiracy, but sometimes reality strays from little Erik world.
If you think a reporter knew Rove leaked a CIA agent's identity and didn't use that against Bush in the last election, you are crazy.
Keep hope alive Erik. No original ideas, just hope that something will make the administration look bad whether it be terrorists or some crackpot conspiracy theory about Rove. Its really pathetic
Ryan, the only one that is keeping hope alive is you. Hope that Bush isn't as inept as you know he is and that eventually he will leave office so the adults can fix the problems that plague us instead of trying to forge a Republican majority. But of course you attack me as opposed to offering any relevancy to the debate. Ryan, ye of small mind.
erik, Rove's attorney said he was not the leak, besides I find it hard to believe that those reporters would go to jail to protect Karl Rove, I could be wrong, but I find it highly unlikely.
Just for the record, I'm not against anonymous sources, but I feel that the use of such sources without verifying the information is the cause of much of the public's current distrust with the media.
Way to play with words Sean. Now you beleive what hated trial lawyers say. Rove was Coopers source and is the source that released Cooper to make his appearance before the grand jury. Cooper has already sdtated this as fact as has Rove's lawyer. Now Luskin is playing with words that Rove didn't "knowingly" leak any classified info. Is that someone playing word games? Unfortunately Rove committed a treasonous offense not get a blowjob.
And Ryan you truly are a 30%er if you think it is a crackpot conspiracy theory. The leak about plame came from someone in the admin this is known. It is also a treasonous offense. What would you do if someone tried to hurt your wife because you told the truth about a false claim they made?n You think this is proper conduct? Please explain your thoughts.
I explain my thoughts by saying there is no evidence whatsoever that Rove leaked anything. If he did and there is proof, then he will pay for it.
erik, do you have access to Cooper's documents outlining the source? If so please tell us, because up till now the only person who has said he knows is MSNBC's O'Donnell and there has been no word from Rove's lawyer that he leaked anything, only that he met with Cooper and thats hardly an admission of guilt. Rove is the white house deputy chief of staff and someone who talks to reporters all the time, so trying to make 2+2=5 in this case is a bit of a stretch.
I'd wait until the court releases the name, and if it is Rove then he should have the book thrown at him, but until that time I suggest you just relax and stop making accusations based on hearsay and conjecture.
At least that you guys beleive that the book should be thrown at Rove. Maybe you aren't the 30%er's that I thought you were. Maybe I owe you guys an apology. But unfortunately Rove is Coopers source and is currently playing word games: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html
Valerie Plame and Karl Rove
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Balz writes in The Washington Post: "The jailing of New York Times reporter Judith Miller on Wednesday put the issue of press freedom and the confidentiality of sources on front pages across the country, but the heart of the case remains what it has been from the outset: whether senior Bush officials broke the law in the disclosure of a CIA covert operative's identity. . . .
"Now, a fast-moving series of decisions over the past week involving Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper have brought a renewed public focus on what role White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove may have played in disclosing the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame."
What about all those public denials that Rove was involved? Could Rove's lawyer and White House spokesmen have just been playing word games? Balz raises that possibility.
"In an interview with The Washington Post on Wednesday, Luskin denied that Cooper had received a call from Rove releasing him from his confidentiality pledge. Yesterday, however, Luskin declined to comment on a New York Times report that the release came as a result of negotiations involving Rove's and Cooper's attorneys, nor would he speculate that Cooper was released from his pledge in some other fashion than a direct conversation with Rove. 'I'm not going to comment any further,' Luskin said.
"The admission that Rove had spoken to Cooper appeared at odds with previous White House statements. In retrospect, however, these statements -- which some interpreted as emphatic denials -- were in fact carefully worded."
David Corn weighed in on the issue twice yesterday. In the Nation, he adds this "intriguing wrinkle" to Cooper's last-minute release from confidentiality. "Cooper's source only granted him a waiver to speak before the grand jury. He is not free, Cooper told me after the hearing, to discuss in public this source and the contents of his conversation with this source. In essence, the source made sure that Cooper -- if he were going to cooperate with [special prosecutor Partrick] Fitzgerald--would not be able to ID him (or her) in public."
Everyone knows that Rove is the control room and only blind partisans would beleive otherwise.
Getting out more and reading the news would do you guys good. I thought that you guys didn't like the word games that Clinton played. At least his word games were only about sex that the country as a whole didn't care about. Rove's actions put people's lives in danger.
You still beleive Rove's lawyer:
July 3, 2005: Rove’s Lawyer Lies To Bloomberg
Here’s what Karl Rove’s lawyer, Robert Luskin told Bloomberg News on July 3, 2005:
[Karl Rove] did nothing wrong, did not disclose Plame’s identity, and did not reveal any confidential information.
According to TIME reporter Matt Cooper’s e-mail, here is what Karl Rove told him sometime before July 11, 2003:
[I]t was, KR [Karl Rove] said, wilson’s wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd issues who authorized the trip.
This was before the Novak column appeared on July 14. At that time, the fact that Joe Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA was confidential information.
(On other occasions, Luskin has said Rove never “knowingly” disclosed classified information. But he did not use that qualifier with Bloomberg News.)
The Niger uranium was hardly the only dubious evidence testifying to Saddam's supposed nuclear threat in the run-up to war. Judy Miller herself was one of two reporters responsible for a notoriously credulous front-page Times story about aluminum tubes that enabled the administration's propaganda campaign to trump up Saddam's W.M.D. arsenal. But red-hot uranium was sexy, and it was Mr. Wilson's flat refutation of it that drove administration officials to seek their revenge: they told the columnist Robert Novak that Mr. Wilson had secured his (nonpaying) African mission through the nepotistic intervention of his wife, a covert C.I.A. officer whom they outed by name. The pettiness of this retribution shows just how successfully Mr. Wilson hit the administration's jugular: his revelation threatened the legitimacy of the war on which both the president's reputation and re-election campaign had been staked.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/opinion/10rich.html?pagewanted=2&hp
Fox News slammed over 'callous' line
Julian Borger in Washington
Saturday July 9, 2005
The Guardian
Rupert Murdoch's Fox News channel was under fire yesterday for comments by some of its leading journalists in response to the London bombs.
Speaking about the reaction of the financial markets, Brit Hume, the channel's Washington managing editor, said: "Just on a personal basis ... I saw the futures this morning, which were really in the tank, I thought 'hmm, time to buy'."
The host of a Fox News programme, Brian Kilmeade, said the attacks had the effect of putting terrorism back on the top of the G8's agenda, in place of global warming and African aid. "I think that works to our advantage, in the western world's advantage, for people to experience something like this together, just 500 miles from where the attacks have happened."
Another Fox News host, John Gibson, said before the blasts that the International Olympic Committee "missed a golden opportunity" by not awarding the 2012 games to France. "If they had picked France instead of London to hold the Olympics, it would have been the one time we could look forward to where we didn't worry about terrorism. They'd blow up Paris, and who cares?" He added: "This is why I thought the Brits should let the French have the Olympics - let somebody else be worried about guys with backpack bombs for a while."
Media Matters for America, a watchdog and frequent critic of Fox, criticised the comments on its website. "I think it's absolutely sickening three Fox anchors had such callous reactions to the bombings that took dozens of lives," said the Jamison Foser, of the group.
The Fox News media relations office had not responded by the time the Guardian went to press yesterday.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1524856,00.html
This is what they think in Britain. They aren't like Americans. Politically they are much smarter and more involved in politics.
Amanpour Interrupted On Air; Man Speaks Truth On Iraq
http://www.dembloggers.com/story/2005/7/9/175847/3787
Like I said, wait until the court releases the documents and their findings before jumping to conclusions.
BTW, can you PLEASE start posting links instead of re-posting articles in separate posts? It really makes it hard to follow what is your opinion and what is just regurgitated from the media. You don't need five straight posts to get your point across.
First and foremost, Judith Miller is a journalist. As a fellow writer, I understand the need to protect your sources. It is a vow of integrity taken by most journalists. That being said, if this truly is a case of national security rather than media/political hype, then this is one of those rare instances in which sources should be revealed for the overarching good of the nation. In the end, it is not the media that will protect Ms. Miller; it is the United States of America that will at least try.
I love how Healthcare was brought in to this discussion by Erik. Absolutely nothing to do with the topic. But, since you brought it up, let's discuss. Do you know what the average wait time is in Canada for an operation? Do you know how many people in Canada cannot get their required operation as they were on the list too long and their conditioned worsened to the point the operation was useless? That is unless they come to the US to have it done. Liberals have been crying for a nationalized healthcare system since the 70's sighting England as it's model. Once the flaws were exposed in England's healthcare system they changed the model to Canada. As the flaws in Canada are slowing coming to plain view I am sure they will change it to somewhere else. Bottom line is that a nationalized healthcare system does not give people any incentive to be more reasonable when deciding to see a doctor. It leads to more Doctor visits, less time spent with patients, poorer quality of care given, long waiting lists and huge subsidies to pay for it for as long as the government is spending someone else's money on someone else, they have no incentive to be economical or to get the most bang for their buck. Now that I am finished with the longest run-on sentence in history, I would like you to point out one industry in which the Govt. runs more efficiently then private enterprise.
Billmon:
Vouching for Karl
If the eunuchs in the White House press corps ever remember where they misplaced their professional courage, and decide to ask Scotty McClellan a few questions about Karl Rove's role in the outing of Valerie Plame, this digest of past statements on the subject might come in handy.
QUESTION: The Robert Novak column last week . . . has now given rise to accusations that the administration deliberatively blew the cover of an undercover CIA operative, and in so doing, violated a federal law that prohibits revealing the identity of undercover CIA operatives. Can you respond to that?
McCLELLAN: Thank you for bringing that up. That is not the way this President or this White House operates. And there is absolutely no information that has come to my attention or that I have seen that suggests that there is any truth to that suggestion. And, certainly, no one in this White House would have given authority to take such a step.
Scott McClellan
Press Briefing
July 22, 2003
QUESTION: Scott, has there ever been an attempt or effort on the part of anyone here at the White House to discredit the reputations or reporting of former Ambassador Joe Wilson, his wife, or ABC correspondent Jeffrey Kofman?
McCLELLAN: John, I think I answered that yesterday. That is not the way that this White House operates. That's not the way the President operates . . . No one would be authorized to do that within this White House. That is simply not the way we operate, and that's simply not the way the President operates.
QUESTION: In all of those cases?
McCLELLAN: Well, go down -- which two?
QUESTION: Joe Wilson and his wife?
McCLELLAN: No.
Scott McClellan
Press Briefing
July 23, 2003
QUESTION: Wilson now believes that the person who did this was Karl Rove . . . Did Karl Rove tell that . . .
McCLELLAN: I haven't heard that. That's just totally ridiculous. But we've already addressed this issue. If I could find out who anonymous people were, I would. I just said, it's totally ridiculous.
QUESTION: But did Karl Rove do it?
McCLELLAN: I said, it's totally ridiculous.
Scott McClellan
Press Briefing
September 16, 2003
This morning, ABC News producer Andrea Owen happened to find herself near Karl Rove (who was walking to his car), and an ABC camera.
Owen: "Did you have any knowledge or did you leak the name of the CIA agent to the press?"
Rove: "No."
At which point, Mr. Rove shut his car door as Ms. Owen asked, "What is your response to the fact that Justice is looking into the matter?"
ABC News
The Note
September 29, 2003
(courtesy of Think Progress)
QUESTION: Has the President either asked Karl Rove to assure him that he had nothing to do with this; or did Karl Rove go to the President to assure him that he . . .
McCLELLAN: I don't think he needs that. I think I've spoken clearly to this publicly . . . I've just said there's no truth to it.
QUESTION: Yes, but I'm just wondering if there was a conversation between Karl Rove and the President, or if he just talked to you, and you're here at this . . .
McCLELLAN: He wasn't involved. The President knows he wasn't involved.
QUESTION: How does he know that?
McCLELLAN: The President knows.
Scott McClellan
Press Gaggle
September 29, 2003
QUESTION: Weeks ago, when you were first asked whether Mr. Rove had the conversation with Robert Novak that produced the column, you dismissed it as ridiculous. And I wanted just to make sure, at that time, had you talked to Karl?
McCLELLAN: I've made it very clear, from the beginning, that it is totally ridiculous. I've known Karl for a long time, and I didn't even need to go ask Karl, because I know the kind of person that he is, and he is someone that is committed to the highest standards of conduct.
QUESTION: Can you say for the record whether Mr. Rove possessed the information about Mr. Wilson's wife, but merely did not talk to anybody about it?
McCLELLAN: I don't know whether or not -- I mean, I'm sure he probably saw the same media reports everybody else in this room has.
QUESTION: When you talked to Mr. Rove, did you discuss, did you ever have this information?
McCLELLAN: We're going down a lot of different roads here. I've made it very clear that he was not involved, that there's no truth to the suggestion that he was.
Scott McClellan
Press Briefing
September 29, 2003
QUESTION: Yesterday we were told that Karl Rove had no role in it. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
QUESTION: Have you talked to Karl and do you have confidence in him . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action.
George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
September 30, 2003
McCLELLAN: Let me make it very clear. As I said previously, he [Karl Rove] was not involved, and that allegation is not true in terms of leaking classified information, nor would he condone it.
QUESTION: He does not condone people pointing reporters toward classified information that's been released; he would not condone that either? Is that what you're saying?
McCLELLAN: The President doesn't condone the activity that you're suggesting, absolutely he does not.
Scott McClellan
Press Briefing
October 1, 2003
QUESTION: Scott, you have said that you, personally, went to Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Elliot Abrams to ask them if they were the leakers . . . Why did you do that, and can you describe the conversations you had with them?
McCLELLAN: They're good individuals, they're important members of our White House team, and that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt of that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you, and that's exactly what I did.
QUESTION: So you're saying -- you're saying categorically those three individuals were not the leakers or did not authorize the leaks; is that what you're saying?
McCLELLAN: That's correct.
Scott McClellan
Press Briefing
October 7, 2003
QUESTION: Scott, earlier this week you told us that neither Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams nor Lewis Libby disclosed any classified information with regard to the leak. I wondered if you could tell us more specifically whether any of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?
McCLELLAN: I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that's where it stands.
QUESTION: So none of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?
McCLELLAN: They assured me that they were not involved in this.
Scott McClellan
Press Briefing
October 10, 2003
Rove also adamantly insisted to the FBI that he was not the administration official who leaked the information that Plame was a covert CIA operative to conservative columnist Robert Novak last July. Rather, Rove insisted, he had only circulated information about Plame after it had appeared in Novak's column.
The American Prospect
Plugging Leaks
March 8, 2004
I didn't know her name. I didn't leak her name.
Karl Rove
CNN Interview
August 31, 2004
"Karl did nothing wrong. Karl didn't disclose Valerie Plame's identity to Mr. Cooper or anybody else . . . Who outed this woman? . . . It wasn't Karl." Luskin said Rove "certainly did not disclose to Matt Cooper or anybody else any confidential information."
Rove attorney Robert Luskin
CNN Interview
July 4, 2005
Luskin confirmed that Rove and Cooper had spoken prior to the publication of the original Time article, but said that Rove “did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA” nor did he “knowingly disclose classified information.”
Newsweek
Turning Up the Heat
July 6, 2005
Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." Wilson's wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA's Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division . . . Rove was speaking to Cooper before Novak's column appeared; in other words, before Plame's identity had been published
Newsweek
Matt Cooper's Source
July 10, 2005
Crooks and Liars has the video of today's performance by Scotty.
The AP already has a story up on today's press gaggle (diary at top of recommended list here), and they drill Scotty (and his masters) something good:
WASHINGTON - For two years, the White House has insisted that presidential adviser Karl Rove had nothing to do with the leak of a CIA officer's identity. And President Bush said the leaker would be fired.
But Bush's spokesman wouldn't repeat any of those assertions Monday in the face of Rove's own lawyer saying his client spoke with at least one reporter about Valerie Plame's role at the CIA before she was identified in a newspaper column.
We still don't have all the facts on this story so anything posted in regards to Rove's guilt/innocence is speculation at best, but I find it interesting that people are jumping at the chance to declare what we know Rove did do as a violation and an illegal act when so far all we know is that he talked to a reporter and never gave a name. Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act it is only a crime to disclose the identity of a "covert agent." Which means Rove's discussion with Cooper would need to meet two basic criteria to qualify for him to get some bunk time with a man named Buba:
1) Rove would have needed to give the name of the CIA agent in question.
2) Plame's job at the CIA would have to be classified as covert and Rove would have had to have known she was a covert agent.
Now, you can debate if telling the reporter that Wilson's wife, who is a CIA agent, authorized his trip to Niger and not the VP qualifies as identifying Valerie Plame. You would have a decent leg to stand on, but one thing is for certain we do not know if Rove was even aware Plame was a covert agent or that she was even considered covert in the first place. We've heard stories ranging from her job being undercover to pushing papers on WMDs at the CIA. So far no one has come out and actually said what her job was, her security clearance and if her job at the time qualifies her for protection under the act (one report I read last year described her as being a previous covert agent, and was not covert when the news was released).
Also, if Plame wasn't named by Rove, did someone else name her to Novak or Miller? Was there a more substantial leak than Rove? Perhaps two officials gave away this information? In the end all of this is conjecture, until the court posts their findings I'm going to hold off on the tar and feathers a little while longer.
You're a fucking joke. Keep sticking your head up Bush/Rove's ass. Did they send you a batman cookie yet? When it's so obvious that he did it because he's a republican you want to give him the benefit of the doubt. Rove must go!
Funny all the wingers are playing the Clintonian word games. Depends what the meaning of "name" is. And if you think any of what you say is true, then I suggest you go read about Rove. Also Chris Matthews has already admitted that Rove told him that "Wilson's wife is fair game". Collect all the facts on the story first. It's been out there for two years.
Post a Comment
<< Home