Karl Rove, the man behind the cretin

[Guest Phil1934]

Seems like all the terrrorist postings quickly degenerate into a hate fest, so let's try this one. I have to say I have felt sorry for Scott McClelland the last few days, trying to duck the questions. The print media has finally found some cajones although TV has not. Tonight they said Bush said in Sept 2003 he would fire a person who has violated the law. He said in June 2004 he would fire anyone in his administration found to have leaked. Ambassador Wilson said as early as Aug 2003 he wanted to see Rove marched out of the White House in handcuffs. His wife was outed by Novak a few days after Wilson challenged Bush's claim that Saddam had tried to buy uranium in Niger. Interestingly, Rove was fired by Bush Sr. after leaking info to Novak. So what should Bush do? Continue stonewalling by refusing to comment on an ongoing investigation? The last press conference had the media stating the GOP is still giving out talking points so this doesn't fly. Smear Wilson? He's firing back and it's immaterial anyways. Wait for a judicial decision? This is a trusted advisor in a high security position. Do you need the court to determine what was done? Continue with lame excuses like he didn't name her, just said Ambassador Wilson's wife? Might stump one person I can think of, but the rest of the US could figure it out. That he did not out her intentionally? Then what's he doing with a security clearance?

[JMortensen]

If Rove leaked the info and Bush doesn't fire him, that would be insanely hypocritical. I seem to remember Bush going on a tirade about leaking info right around the start of the war in Iraq. If there is any doubt, his security clearance should be revoked ASAP. I wouldn't fire him based on a newspaper article, and I haven't been following this one closely enough to pronounce judgement on Rove, but if the allegations are true he should be dealt with severely IMO.

[innerware]

I didn't think she was oversees at all. Isn't her desk in D.C.? If she wasn't an operative on foriegn soil then he didn't oust anyone. Where was she when she was called out? Is this really an issue at all? I guess I just don't know enough about it. Then again does anyone really? The left is saying one thing and the right is saying another. Blah blah blah I know.

[Guest Phil1934]

Chief presidential adviser Karl Rove testified to a grand jury that he originally learned about the operative from the news media and not government sources.

 

Rove testified last year that he remembers specifically being told by columnist Robert Novak that Valerie Plame, the wife of a harsh Iraq war critic, worked for the CIA.

 

Rove testified that Novak originally called him the Tuesday before Plame's identity was revealed in July 2003 to discuss another story. Rove testified that Novak told him he planned to report in a weekend column that Plame had worked for the CIA.

 

Rove told the grand jury that by the time Novak had called him, he believes he had similar information about Wilson's wife from another member of the news media but he could not recall which reporter had told him about it first.

 

Rove told the grand jury that he had a phone conversation with Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper and in an effort to discredit some of Wilson's allegations informally told Cooper that he believed Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, though he never used her name.

 

Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, said Thursday his client truthfully testified to the grand jury and expected to be exonerated.

 

But at the same time, Wilson acknowledged his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak's column first identified her.

[Guest zfan]

I agree with Mike Kelly. If he did leak it on purpose I would not only fire his butt but prosecute to the full exstent of the law. Forget wether your a Republican or Democrat. If he is guilty Bush better back it up!

 

Mike

[johnc]

Agreed, leakers should be fired. But on Aaron Brown's CNN show earlier this week his headline was, "Another Watergate?" Give me a break! And Wilson is one of the slimiest people in DC.

 

Rove probably didn't commit a crime but his discussions with reporters was inappropriate and he should resign.

[Chaparral2f]

Whatrever happens to Rove is better than he deserves. This man has built a career out of smears and dirty tricks. When Shrub was running for governer of texas, "someone" started rumors about Ann Richards sexual preferance. Later during the presidential primaries rumors surfaced about John McCain's time as a prisoner in Veit Nam. Unless of course you want to believe that he was a colaborater. Of course then there was the Swift Boat campaign. Valerie Plame, despite what some might think, was not a "disgruntled Democrat". Ambasador Wilson said that there was no Yellow Cake deal, and as much as some of you may hate to admit it, he was right.

Rove first gained fame by stealing letterhead paper from a desk and using it to sabotage the campaign an opponent.

Although I am sure many of you will say this is all circumstantal, it seems to me that a trail of slime follows this man. Am I a bitter uptight Liberal? you betcha I am! I have explained what I have learned about Carl Rove. Now someone explain how lying to congress about a BJ is worse than lying to the country about the reason to go to war.

[Zoldman]

Plame is not a covert operative, and has not been overseas within the five year window that the law proscribes.

 

She is a desk bound analyst at CIA headquarters who put in a good word with her CIA bosses for her unemployed hubby (Joe Wilson) so he could get a little job.

 

He repaid her kindness by coming home from Niger and acting as if he was now the world's authority on Saddam and his nuclear program. He went before every media outlet that would have him and proclaimed that although Dick Cheney had sent him to find the goods on Saddam, he was exposing the lies that Cheney and Bush were foisting on an unsuspecting public.

 

Dick Cheney never sent him, doesn't know him, and wouldn't have sent a well known leftist in any case if he wanted a "whitewash" of the situation.

 

Rove did not "out" Plame, he was answering a reporter's question about why Cheney would have sent Wilson, who was known to be unfriendly to the Bush administration. Rove replied that he had it wrong; Cheney did not send anyone to Niger. He told the reporter that Wilson was sent by the CIA, likely due to the fact that his wife worked there and got him the job. He was trying to keep this reporter from publishing a false story, not expose a "covert operative" who isn't covert and isn't an operative either.......

 

You can hate Rove, his boss, and all the rest, but get the facts straight. That means don't listen to anyone who has an agenda, which is everyone in Washington, on the right or the left. They would all sell their mothers for another 10 points in the polls.

 

Bill

[Guest zfan]

So True!

[Guest Phil1934]

You may have noticed how the London bombings prompted the first security alert since the election. Prior to that they were issued whenever there was a political advantage to be gained, specifically the one immediately after the Democratic National Convention, which stole the headlines. Here's the rest of the story, and for those who think leaking classified info is grounds for firing, I present G.W. Bush.

 

ABC News just reported that the British authorities say they have evidence that the London attacks last week were an operation planned by Al Qaeda for the last two years. This was an operation the Brits thought they caught and stopped in time, but they were wrong. The piece of the puzzle ABC missed is that this is an operation the Bush administration helped botch last year.

 

I.e., last year Bush botched the effort to thwart the London subway attacks.

 

1. The London bombers, per ABC, are connected to an Al Qaeda plot planned two years ago in Lahore, Pakistan.

 

2. Pakistani authorities recovered the laptop of a captured Al Qaeda leader, Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan, on July 13, 2004. On that laptop, they found plans for a coordinated series of attacks on the London subway. According to an expert interviewed by ABC, "there is absolutely no doubt that Khan was part of a worldwide Al Qaeda operation, not just in the United States but also in Great Britain and throughout the west."

 

Also important, but not reported by ABC this evening, after his arrest Khan started working for our side - sending emails to his other Al Qaeda buddies, working as our mole.

 

3. ABC reports that names in Khan's computer matched a suspected cell of British citizens of Pakistani decent, many of who lived near the town of Luton, England - Luton is the same town where, not coincidentally, last week's London bombing terrorists began their day. According to ABC, authorities thought they had stopped the subway plot with the arrest of more than a dozen people last year associated with Khan. Obviously, they hadn't.

 

4. Those arrests were the arrests that the Bush administration botched by announcing a heightened security alert the week of the Democratic Convention. The alert was raised because of information found on Khan's computer (this is in the public record already, see below). In its effort to either prove that the alert was serious, or to try and scare people during the Dem Convention, the administration gave the press too much information about WHY they raised the alert. This put the media on the trail of Khan - they found him, and they published his name.

 

Because the US let the cat out of the bag, the media got a hold of Khan's name and published the fact that he had been captured - his Al Qaeda contacts thus found out their "buddy" was actually a mole, and they fled. Our sole source inside Al Qaeda was destroyed. As a result, the Brits had to have a high speed chase to catch some of Khan's Al Qaeda associates as they fled, and, according to press reports, the Brits and Pakistanis both fear that some slipped away.

 

Again, these were guys connected to the plot to blow up the London subway last week. Some may have escaped because of Bush administration negligence involving a leak. And in fact, ABC News' terrorism consultant says the group that bombed London was likely activated just after the arrests:

"It is very likely this group was activated last year after the other group was arrested," Debat said.

MORE DETAIL

 

The NYT reported on August 17, 2004 that Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge announced on August 1, 2004 that we had information about an "unusually specific" threat against "the New York Stock Exchange and Citigroup in Manhattan, Prudential's headquarters in Newark and the headquarters buildings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in Washington."

 

We now know that this threat info came from Mr. Khan's computer that we got our hands on only weeks before. As a result of the heightened security alert, the media dug into the story to find out what the heightened alert was based on, and they got a hold of Mr. Khan's name and made it public.

 

The Americans say it was Pakistani officials who leaked Khan's name. Pakistan says it was the Americans. But as Juan Cole notes:

had Ridge not made his announcement, the press would have had no occasion to go searching for the source of his information. The Bush administration decision to go public put a powerful spotlight on the Pakistani arrests of June and July.... The Bush administration at the very least bears indirect responsibility for the outing of Khan. Without the Ridge announcement, reporters would have had no incentive to seek out the name of the source of the information.

Now, why did it matter if Khan's name went public?

 

That was important because Khan was remaining in touch with his Al Qaeda contacts AFTER his arrest - he was our mole - and the authorities were thus tracking INSIDE Al Qaeda. Once the American official made the info about Khan's arrest public, our mole inside the cell was blown, and the British police, caught off guard, had to make a high speed chase, literally, to catch Khan's contacts before they fled. THAT'S the raid that ABC is talking about. And it's that raid that - guess what? - didn't catch everybody who was plotting to blow up London last week. That's the raid that got botched.

 

And I quote from the Associated Press, August 10, 2004:

The disclosure to reporters of the arrest of an al-Qaida computer expert jeopardized Pakistani efforts to capture more members of Osama bin Laden's terrorist network, government and security officials said Tuesday.

 

Two senior Pakistani officials said initial reports in "Western media" last week of the capture of Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan had enabled other al-Qaida suspects to get away, but declined to say whether U.S. officials were to blame for the leak.

 

"Let me say that this intelligence leak jeopardized our plan and some al-Qaida suspects ran away," one of the officials said on condition of anonymity....

 

But the Pakistani officials said that after Khan's arrest, other al-Qaida suspects had abruptly changed their hide-outs and moved to unknown places.

 

The first official described the initial publication of the news of Khan's arrest as "very disturbing."

 

"We have checked. No Pakistani official made this intelligence leak," he said.

 

Without naming any country, he said it was the responsibility of "coalition partners" to examine how a foreign journalist was able to have an access to the "classified information" about Khan's arrest. (NOTE: In this story, it quotes Condi Rice saying the Americans leaked the name - she later retracted that assertion.)

And this from CNN.com, August 9, 2004:

The effort by U.S. officials to justify raising the terror alert level last week may have shut down an important source of information that has already led to a series of al Qaeda arrests, Pakistani intelligence sources have said.

 

Until U.S. officials leaked the arrest of Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan to reporters, Pakistan had been using him in a sting operation to track down al Qaeda operatives around the world, the sources said.

 

In background briefings with journalists last week, unnamed U.S. government officials said it was the capture of Khan that provided the information that led Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to announce a higher terror alert level....

 

Law enforcement sources said some of the intelligence gleaned from the arrests of Khan and others gave phone numbers and e-mail addresses that the FBI and other agencies were using to try to track down any al Qaeda operatives in the United States.

 

Then on Friday, after Khan's name was revealed, government sources told CNN that counterterrorism officials had seen a drop in intercepted communications among suspected terrorists....

 

One senator told CNN that U.S. officials should have kept Khan's role quiet.

 

"You always want to know the evidence," said Sen. George Allen.

 

"In this situation, in my view, they should have kept their mouth shut and just said, 'We have information, trust us.' "....

 

"The Pakistani interior minister, Faisal Hayat, as well as the British home secretary, David Blunkett, have expressed displeasure in fairly severe terms that Khan's name was released, because they were trying to track down other contacts of his," Schumer told CNN.

And this from the NY Daily News, August 7, 2004:

A captured Al Qaeda computer whiz was E-mailing his comrades as part of a sting operation to nab other top terrorists when U.S. officials blew his cover, sources said yesterday.

 

Within hours of Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan's name being publicized Monday, British police launched lightning raids that netted a dozen suspected Al Qaeda terrorists, including one who was nabbed after a high-speed car chase....

 

Now British and Pakistani intelligence officials are furious with the Americans for unmasking their super spy - apparently to justify the orange alert - and for naming the other captured terrorist suspects.

 

Pakistani Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayyat expressed dismay the trap they had hoped would lead to the capture of other top Al Qaeda leaders, possibly even Osama Bin Laden, was sprung too soon.

 

"The network is still not finished," Hayyat said. It "remains a potent threat to Pakistan, and to civilized humanity."

 

"It makes our job harder," a British security source said. British officials denied press reports yesterday that several suspects were able to escape the net....

 

"His arrest was kept secret and he was made to remain in touch with his contacts," a Pakistani government official told The Times of London. "During his detention, he regularly communicated through E-mail with the Al Qaeda operatives in Britain and other countries. That helped us to identify them."

And this from the Washington Times:

The Times quoted one unidentified "senior (police) commander" as saying Scotland Yard and MI5 had not expected the American announcements and had to move up the arrests, which were "part of a pre-planned, ongoing intelligence-led operation."

And this from Juan Cole, who tracked this story last year:

...had Ridge not made his announcement, the press would have had no occasion to go searching for the source of his information. The Bush administration decision to go public put a powerful spotlight on the Pakistani arrests of June and July.... The Bush administration at the very least bears indirect responsibility for the outing of Khan. Without the Ridge announcement, reporters would have had no incentive to seek out the name of the source of the information.... The appearance of Khan's name in the New York Times on August 2 caused the British to have to swoop down on the London al-Qaeda cell to which he was speaking. As it was, 5 of them heard about Khan's arrest and immediately fled. The British got 13, but it was early in their investigation and they had to let 5 go or charge them with minor offences

And this from IPS-Inter Press Service, August 9, 2004:

"By exposing the only deep mole we've ever had within al-Qaeda, it ruined the chance to capture dozens if not hundreds more," a former Justice Department prosecutor, John Loftus, told Fox News on Saturday.

[JMortensen]

Sounds to me like if anyone was to blame it was the New York Times. I think all of these investigative reporters need to know what to report and what not to report. But they don't take that into consideration because they want the "big story" and they don't care what the consequences are when they get it. Kind of similar to outing the CIA agent in a way. They could have kept that info under their hat, but no. Instead they go and put it out on the front page. Who's fault was that again? The Bush administrations, right Phil?

 

I personally love it when I see a story that says: "Look how vulnerable xxx is. All the terrorists would have to do is use xxx and they could kill thousands in one fell swoop". Responsible journalism there.

 

Sure, Bush could have NOT told us there was a terror threat, and then if something happened what would you have thought? Obviously not "I'm so glad Bush didn't raise the terror threat" I'm guessing. No, it would have been "Bush knew that he wouldn't be able to stop all the terrorists, but he cares more about catching them than saving us" or some other crap. Seems to me that your hatred for Bush overrides EVERYTHING else. The guy could fart Twinkies and you'd complain because you like Cup Cakes. He can't do ANYTHING right in your eyes, and it's pretty pointless arguing anything with someone so closed minded.

[Guest Phil1934]

The news story was that the Bush administration declared a terror alert based on three year old information found in a captured laptop. Remember that? Usually every candidate sees a five percent jump in the polls following his party's convention. This "urgent" terror alert overrode any momentum the convention may have generated.

They would all sell their mothers for another 10 points in the polls.

And if you believe that Valerie Plame was not an active CIA agent for at least five years, then ask yourself why there is a special prosecutor. Seems to me another special prosecutor is needed.

[Chaparral2f]

Phil,

isn't it interesting to see how far the right will go to protect Bu..sh..?

[Jsquared]

you criticize Bush and play down Clinton's perjury... what will it take to remind you that Clinton was a sleazebag too? Different end of the spectrum, same old politician BS. Don't forget he bombed Iraq during Ramadan coincidentally at the same time his impeachment proceedings were occuring. BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH, all you liberals ever do is complain. In case you didn't notice in Nov 2004, but you're in the minority in this country.

 

That said, I fail to see how Phil1934 is connecting the Bush Administration to the fact that the media (traditionally left-slanted) leaked Khan's name. As the one senator implied, if the information was withheld, they'd have accused the administration of playing political games. But they gave some information, then the media ran with it, dug up a name, outed the name, and killed the "in" they had with al-qaida. I'm not trying to defend George 2, I just get sick and tired of seeing the whiny-*** liberals blame the right for everything, and then seeing all the living-in-a-bubble conservatives think they never make mistakes.

[johnc]

Its looking more and more like Judith Miller from the NYT is one that leaked.

 

BTW... Keep this thread civil guys. There's a serious discussion going on with the admins about eliminating all political and religious speech on this board.

[Guest Phil1934]

Novak wrote the story that leaked Plame's name. Judith Miller wrote a series on WMD so I'm not sure how she is involved in all this. If someone can add some info on her, please do. Otherwise I'm happy to close this one. In fact I need to get back in driveway if I'm going to make the SE Drags. Besides, you know a topic has run its course when someone says "But Clinton..."

[Chaparral2f]

John,

if religous and political was banned all it would do for me is lower my blood pressure about 20 points.

[Heavy Z]

Here's a better look at the nondisclosure agreement Rove signed. Even if he didn't leak the info, he would be in violation if he confirmed it to outside sources. Taken from Yubanet, organized by Rep. Waxman, citations included so you can check the law out for yourself and come to your own conclusions.

 

 

KARL ROVE'S NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT

 

Executive Order 12958 governs how federal employees are awarded security clearances in order to obtain access to classified information. It was last updated by President George W. Bush on March 25, 2003, although it has existed in some form since the Truman era. The executive order applies to any entity within the executive branch that comes into possession of classified information, including the White House. It requires employees to undergo a criminal background check, obtain training on how to protect classified information, and sign a "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement," also known as a SF-312, promising not to reveal classified information.1 The nondisclosure agreement signed by White House officials such as Mr. Rove states: "I will never divulge classified information to anyone" who is not authorized to receive it.2

 

THE PROHIBITION AGAINST "CONFIRMING" CLASSIFIED INFORMATION

Mr. Rove, through his attorney, has raised the implication that there is a distinction between releasing classified information to someone not authorized to receive it and confirming classified information from someone not authorized to have it. In fact, there is no such distinction under the nondisclosure agreement Mr. Rove signed.

 

One of the most basic rules of safeguarding classified information is that an official who has signed a nondisclosure agreement cannot confirm classified information obtained by a reporter. In fact, this obligation is highlighted in the "briefing booklet" that new security clearance recipients receive when they sign their nondisclosure agreements:

 

Before confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not, confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure.3

 

THE INDEPENDENT DUTY TO VERIFY THE CLASSIFIED STATUS OF INFORMATION

 

Mr. Rove's attorney has implied that if Mr. Rove learned Ms. Wilson's identity and occupation from a reporter, this somehow makes a difference in what he can say about the information. This is inaccurate. The executive order states: "Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information."4

 

Mr. Rove was not at liberty to repeat classified information he may have learned from a reporter. Instead, he had an affirmative obligation to determine whether the information had been declassified before repeating it. The briefing booklet is explicit on this point: "before disseminating the information elsewhere ... the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified."5

 

"NEGLIGENT" DISCLOSURE OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION

 

Mr. Rove's attorney has also implied that Mr. Rove's conduct should be at issue only if he intentionally or knowingly disclosed Ms. Wilson's covert status. In fact, the nondisclosure agreement and the executive order require sanctions against security clearance holders who "knowingly, willfully, or negligently" disclose classified information.6 The sanctions for such a breach include "reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions."7

 

THE WHITE HOUSE OBLIGATIONS UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958

 

Under the executive order, the White House has an affirmative obligation to investigate and take remedial action separate and apart from any ongoing criminal investigation. The executive order specifically provides that when a breach occurs, each agency must "take appropriate and prompt corrective action."8 This includes a determination of whether individual employees improperly disseminated or obtained access to classified information.

 

The executive order further provides that sanctions for violations are not optional. The executive order expressly provides: "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."9

 

There is no evidence that the White House complied with these requirements.

 

ENDNOTES

 

* 1 Executive Order No. 12958, Classified National Security Information (as amended), sec. 4.1(a) (Mar. 28, 2003) (online at http://www.archives.gov/isoo/policy_documents/executive_order_12958_amendment.html).

* 2 Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement, Standard Form 312 (Prescribed by NARA/ISOO) (32 C.F.R. 2003, E.O. 12958 ) (online at http://contacts.gsa.gov/webforms.nsf/ 0/03A78F16A522716785256A69004E23F6/$file/SF312.pdf).

* 3 Information Security Oversight Office, National Archives and Records Administration, Briefing Booklet: Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement (Standard Form 312), at 73 (emphasis added) (online at http://www.archives.gov/isoo/training/standard_form_312.pdf).

* 4 Executive Order No. 12958, sec. 1.1(.

* 5 Briefing Booklet, supra note 3, at 73.

* 6 Executive Order No. 12958, sec. 5.5( (emphasis added).

* 7 Id. at 5.5©. 8 Id. at 5.5(e)(1). 9 Id. at 5.5(.

[Guest Phil1934]

Looks like it was all blown open on Meet the Press. Cooper named Libby (Cheney's aide) and Rove.

[johnc]

No, its still not that clear. Personally, I don't care who did what but at this point things are so confusing even a man as smart and politically connected as Tom MacGuire is having trouble figuring out who leaked what to whom:

 

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/07/novak_talked_to.html

 

We are most likely going to have to wait until Fitzgerald issues indictments (or not) to get a clear idea of what happened. A lot of the information is in the Grand Jury testimony (which is sealed but is being leaked by pretty my anyone involved).