<p>But, if anything should be clear by now it is that Novak knew Plame’s name, CIA connection and role in the Niger trip before talking with Rove. So how is it that Rove “leaked” the name?</p>
<p>Those messy facts keep getting in the way of the lynch mob.</p>
<p>Welcome back, driver.</p>
<p>How Novak knew is absolutely irrelevant to whether Rove leaked (and didn’t inform the Pres. that he had done so.)</p>
<p>I hope he stays around for a long, long time. No lynching here. Let him stay.</p>
<p>“The important point is the FIRST sentence.”</p>
<p>No, the two sentences are equally important, because a “leak” isn’t necessarily a crime. It happens all the time. And it has become increasingly obvious that no matter how much the media continue to flog this, the likelihood of anyone being charged with “outing” a non-secret agent is nil, and any mention of Wilson’s wife was made in the context of examining his bona fides–i.e., how a partisan goober like him got such an assignment in the first place. But, continue enjoying the fantasy, all of you. I repost this link, for your viewing pleasure.
<a href=“http://www.politicalpuzzle.org/Photos/6ixhtu.jpg[/url]”>http://www.politicalpuzzle.org/Photos/6ixhtu.jpg</a></p>
<p>“Bush replied “yes” when asked in June 2004 if he would fire anyone who leaked the agent’s name.”
Actually, he was asked by a reporter if he would stand by his pledge to fire anyone “involved,” a pledge he never made. And said yes. Ah well, that’s my Bush. He’s standing by the pledge he actually made, which is what I would hope for.</p>
<p>A letter to the President has some interesting points in regard to pResident *.</p>
<p>Waxman: Bush Statement on Rove Conflicts with Executive Order
By Rep. Henry A. Waxman
YubaNet</p>
<p>Monday 18 July 2005</p>
<p>Dear Mr. President:</p>
<p>In June 2004, you said that you would fire anyone found to be involved in the disclosure of Valerie Wilson’s identity as a covert CIA agent. <1> Today, you significantly changed your position, stating that you would remove Karl Rove or other White House officials involved in the security breach only “if someone committed a crime.” <2></p>
<p>Your new standard is not consistent with your obligations to enforce Executive Order 12958, which governs the protection of national security secrets. The executive order states: “Officers and employees of the United States Government … shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently … disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified.” <3> Under the executive order, the available sanctions include “reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions.” <4></p>
<p>Under the executive order, you may not wait until criminal intent and liability are proved by a prosecutor. Instead, you have an affirmative obligation to take “appropriate and prompt corrective action.” <5> And the standards of proof are much different. A criminal violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald is investigating, requires a finding that Mr. Rove “intentionally disclose” the identity of a covert agent. <6> In contrast, the administrative sanctions under Executive Order 12958 can be imposed without a finding of intent. Under the express terms of the executive order, you are required to impose administrative sanctions - such as removal of office or termination of security clearance - if Mr. Rove or other officials acted “negligently” in disclosing or confirming information about Ms. Wilson’s identity.</p>
<p>I think that Rove should be busted and that the White House should take some legal actions. George W. Bush should put his foor where his mouth is and do something. Rove is sly and evil and he is never going to get away with what he did. He could have put that woman into serious danger. Yeah… there was no weapeons of mass destruction in Africa… the White House should find out where they really are (if they exist…) and stop trying to ruion someonone’s life for telling the truth.</p>
<p>Um, save yourself some time and see post #243, above. Henry Waxman. That’s truly rich.</p>
<p>"Whats been overlooked, however, is another part of Coopers account. Cooper said his notes reveal that Rove then added that material was going to be declassified in the coming days that would cast doubt on Wilsons mission and his findings. In ending the conversation, Rove said, Ive already said too much, according to Cooper.</p>
<p>Roves assertion that he knew about plans to declassify material on Wilson indicates that Rove was not just a loose-lipped talker repeating stuff hed heard from reporters, but he was a participant in internal White House discussions about how to counteract Wilsons criticisms by releasing then-secret information."</p>
<p>more;<a href=“http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/071805.html[/url]”>http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/071805.html</a></p>
<p>Are you talking to me?</p>
<p>REPORTER: Given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney’s discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, suggesting that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leak the agent’s name? And do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?
BUSH: Yes. And that’s up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts. [End of Excerpt]</p>
<p>What I don’t get is why Bush doesn’t know anything…he has said he doesn’t have all the facts…haven’t Libby and Rove been asked by the President exactly what happened? That would have been my first action, - So Karl, what’s going on here dude?</p>
<p>And if President does know, why does he say he doesn’t?</p>
<p>You can read what Cooper says he said to the grand jury right at Time.com. If what he said is true, there’s no crime. Period.
CGM, I realize you’re spouting the meme-du-jour, but again, have a look at #243.</p>
<p>"Officials from the CIA s DO Counter Proliferation Division (CPD) told Committee staff that in response to questions from the Vice Presidents Office and the Departments of State and Defense on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal, CPD officials discussed ways to obtain additional information. Who could make immediate inquiries into the reporting, CPD decided to contact a former ambassador to Gabon who had a posting early in his career in Niger.</p>
<p>The Senate Intelligence report provides an incomplete and disingenous account of who hired Joe Wilson to go to Niger:</p>
<p>Some CPD officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former Ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassadors wife offered up his name and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002 , from the former ambassadors wife says, my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.</p>
<p>I say disingenuous for the following reasons. First, the normal procedure when a PDB briefer comes back to headquarters with a request for additional information from the President or Vice President is to inform the Office Chief who in turn informs the Division Chief who then informs the Branch Chief. The Office Chief, the Division Chief, and the Branch Chief are the only decision makers at the CIA outside of the DCI himself who can make a decision to send someone on a trip overseas. Valerie Plame was a member of a branch in the Counter Proliferation Division. She was not and is not the Branch Chief nor the Division Chief nor the Office Chief. She simply was an undercover operative in an operations job that required her to travel under non-official cover overseas.</p>
<p>The memo referenced dishonestly in the Senate Intelligence Committee report neglects to mention that it was written in response to a request from one of Valerie’s managers (i.e., the Division Chief or Branch Chief). But the most important aspect of this is that Valerie had no authority to make the decision to send her husband, Joe Wilson, to Niger.</p>
<p>What is really laughable and sad about the White House smear of Valerie Plame is that it is insinuating that the bad news Joe Wilson brought back regarding the absence of any evidence that Iraq was trying to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger was part of a devious plot hatched by Ms. Plame a full year before President Bush made the mistaken speech claiming that such evidence did exist. Val was a great case officer but not even she could pull off such a sly plan. Moreover, even if she had the authority to send her husband Joe to, she could not guarantee he would return with confirmation that such a plot existed."</p>
<p><a href=“http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/07/mr_bush_have_yo.html#more[/url]”>http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/07/mr_bush_have_yo.html#more</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/071805Q.shtml[/url]”>http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/071805Q.shtml</a></p>
<p>[1] Press Conference: President Discusses Job Creation With Business Leaders (Sept. 30, 2003).
[2] Bush: CIA Leaker Would Be Fired if Crime Committed, Reuters (July 18, 2005); Bush: Any Criminals in Leak to Be Fired, Associated Press (July 18, 2005).
[3] Executive Order 12958, sec. 5.5(b)
[4] Id. at sec. 5.5(c).
[5] Id. at sec. 5.5(e).
[6] 50 USC sec. 421(a).
[7] Executive Order 12958, sec. 5.5(b).</p>
<p>-------If anyone would like to read Bush’s quotes and the Executive order referred to in Waxman’s letter you may do so by going to the link at the top, scroll down until you see the links I copied here. This is the best way I know for you to see and decide on your own what information is correct.</p>
<p>Bush is EVIL!!! Plain and short.</p>
<p>“Xiggi, this is one of the rare cases where I’m going to hold your age against you. You were approximately 13 or 14 when Clinton left office and with all due respect, I think you know diddly about the Clinton years beyond the propaganda you were exposed to in Bushevik Texas.”</p>
<p>TheDad, in a departure. I won’t hold your age against you and forgive you for not having caught the fact that I was NOT making references to THE consensual sex act, but to other transgressions of the Clintons. As far as recalling the facts of Clinton’s presidency, I’d rather let history be the final judge and use reports than relying on haphazardly the selective recollection and biased interpretation of someone who obviously wears heavy tinted glasses when it comes to democrats misdeeds.</p>
<p>I am happy to admit that my opinion of the Clintons and FOB is biased and that I will never change my opinion about them. However, it mirrors your position on Bush to a tee, except that you do not freely admit your obvious bias.</p>
<p>Xiggi, have you ever seen the movie “The Hunting of the President”? Never changing an opinion shows a lack of intelligence. You are much too young and intelligent to get locked into an ideology.</p>
<p>Xiggi, at your age you should seek out information that may lead to a questioning of opinions. In fact, we should do that at any age.</p>
<p>dstark, I think your missive would have been better directed to #254, above. :)</p>
<p>Driver, have you ever seen the movie “The Hunting of the President”? How about “The Control Room or the Corporation?”</p>
<p>“You are much too young and intelligent to get locked into an ideology.”</p>
<p>Xiggi, </p>
<p>The lesson it would seem is not to be too young; locking into an ideological belief is the righteous business of only those who are jaded enough to plow through the adage do as I say and not as I do much like the enlightened “sage” who upon spitting into the wind claims it is raining.</p>
<p>FountainSiren, my message goes for you too. You should also read the last sentence in the post #254.</p>
![http://www.politicalpuzzle.org/Photos/6ixhtu.jpg[/url]](http://www.politicalpuzzle.org/Photos/6ixhtu.jpg%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
