Who did it?

[Ninong]

We may not have to wait too much longer to find out who told Robert Novak that Amb. Joe Wilson was chosen for the task of investigating Saddam's alleged attempt to buy yellow cake uranium in Niger only because his wife, Valerie Plame, a covert CIA agent, recommended him. Whoever it was was obviously upset that Wilson's report said the allegations were false and based on forged documents.

The Supreme Court has refused to take up the case, so it looks like Time Warner and possibly the New York Times will turn over their reporters' notes identifying their confidential source. (The New York Times is pretending to be upset that Time is caving in but I can't see them letting Judy go to jail if the other reporter is spared. Besides, she didn't actually write anything.) Even Robert Novak, who first wrote about this, now says that he will "tell all" after the issue is resolved. I have yet to figure out why Matt and Judy were being asked to "tell all" and not Novak???

So...

Who did it?

(1) Karl Rove

(2) Lewis "Scooter" Libby

(3) Elliott Abrams

(4) None of the above

In the beginning most people were guessing it was Rove. Then the speculation shifted to Libby. A few people have mentioned Elliott Abrams as a possibility. This is almost as much fun as trying to figure out the identity of Watergate's "Deepthroat."

Who do you think did it?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...a060014D07.DTL

P.S. -- For extra credit, try to predict the White House's response. Remember that the President has been diligently looking for the "leaker" for more than a year now.

(1) Shocked and dismayed. (Only possible if Option 4 above is true.)

(2) No crime was committed. (Plausible even if Options 1 or 2 are true.)

(3) We had nothing to do with it. (Possibly true.)

(4) Activist federal judges are out of control.

It is a crime to reveal the identity of a covert CIA agent. (They might get killed.) What if the person revealing the identity thought at the time that that information was already known? Does that make a difference, even if it was known to only a few people?

P.P.S. -- Bonus question: Was Jeff Gannon lying when he said that he was shown a secret CIA memo on this issue by a senior White House source that he refuses to identify? If not, how did he know about it when he interviewed Amb. Wilson on his radio program the day before the story broke in the WSJ?

Dept. of Corrections:

I just realized while reading an updated item on this story that Novak claimed to have verified what his administration source told him with a second administration source. So does that count as two leakers or just one leaker and one verifier?

[almostdiva]

Ninong,

I SAW THIS EARLIER! I think it was the AP who posted that Time had announced they would release the material after they lost the appeal.

I cannot for the life of me figure out why these two got SUCH heat and nobody said "boo" about/to Novack...I guess he's thatconnected

My personal money is on Libby (at Rove's directive...Karl never gets his own hands dirty, he just moves the pieces around the chess board). Expect Answer #3 from the WH, incongruous as that sounds...

Bonus answer: This is the ONE THING (probably.. ) Gannon/Guckert isn't lying about.

Rebecca

[Ninong]

Rebecca,

I think it's possible that the leak of Valerie Plame's status as a covert CIA agent was unintentional. It's possible. It's also possible that it was deliberate.

Picture this. Novak is complaining to this senior White House source that Amb. Wilson was a lousy choice for this task since his report refuted claims made by the White House. They could have chosen a more reliable person for this sensitive task. And then the senior White House person lets it slip that the only reason he got the job was because he was recommended by his wife, who worked for the CIA in its WMD discovery program. That would be the accidental slip scenario.

The deliberate slip scenario would be that this senior White House person initiated the contact with Novak (a very reliable friend of the administration) and suggested the story as payback for Amb. Wilson's unhelpful report. As much as I disagree with most of the administration's policies, I find this scenario difficult to believe. It just doesn't ring true. Why deliberately reveal the identity of a covert CIA agent to anyone, especially a reporter? Why pick on his wife?

They should have just let the matter drop. Wilson's report was accurate. The British were taken in by forged documents that were so phony it was hilarious. They were all printed in the Italian press in late March 2003. Bush was warned prior to his speech that this claim had not been verified and that there were serious questions about its validity.

[Ninong]

In case anyone is unfamiliar with the background on this, the President made a statement in his 2003 State of the Union address as follows:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

The President had planned to include something about Iraq's alleged attempts to acquire uranium from Niger in a speech he gave in Cincinnati in October 2002. He was persuaded to remove that comment only after a phone call from CIA Directer Tenet plus two CIA memos to his Deputy National Security Advisor to the effect that the claims could not be substantiated. What we didn't know at the time of the State of the Union address was that he had been warned previously by the State Department and by the report from Ambassador Joseph Wilson that there was no proof to back up the earlier British reports. In fact, it had been determined that the documents involved in that report were phony.

The International Energy Agency revealed in March 2003 that those documents were forgeries and an Italian newspaper published them in late March 2003. They were obvious forgeries with misspellings, incorrect letterhead and one document was signed by a Nigerois minister who had left office 12 years earlier.

The President's statement was carefully worded but it shouldn't have been included in the first place. After Amb. Wilson went public with the fact that he had investigated those claims and reported them to be false prior to the President's speech, all hell broke loose.

At first Ari Fleisher said that the President's statement was "based and predicated on the yellow cake from Niger," but then later he contradicted that claim by asserting that the President's statement was based on "additional reporting from the CIA, separate and apart from Niger."

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice claimed that the government had reports that Saddam was reconstituting his nuclear weapons program but later investigation showed that the reports stated exactly the opposite. The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research said the government was "lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program."

Then in July 2003, the President made matters worse at a press briefing following a meeting with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. Bush said the following: "The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

Of course that is blatantly untrue. Saddam did let UN weapons inspectors into Iraq in late 2002 and they remained there until soon before the war began.

This entire story takes on new meaning now that the Downing Street memos have been made public.

[schrocat]

Rove.

[almostdiva]

Rove.

Schroat,

AGREED!!!!!


What the heck is he going to do with himself in 3.5 years, when Dubbya is outta the WH and he can no longer run what happens in the world???

Surely he's just not gonna go quietly back to Texas??

Rebecca

[Ninong]

Surely he's just not gonna go quietly back to Texas??

Rebecca

Well, as the second most powerful man in Washington (after Cheney), I'm sure he will be offered the chairmanship of some friendly oil services company or defense industry company. Cheney managed to cash in his experience as Secretary of Defense in Poppy Bush's administration for $50 million at Halliburton.

Or, maybe Jeb Bush will be nominated and Rove can run his campaign? Obviously Katherine Harris is no longer a viable option for running anything for the Bush Brothers: http://craiggie.blogspot.com/2005/06...ne-harris.html

I'm sure George P. Bush will be ready to run for something within another 8 or 9 years so there's another potential 'client.'

[schrocat]

"Et Tu Dumbya?"
-Kathrine Harris

[Ninong]

Rove.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

We have a winner!

At least it appears that Rove was the source for Matt Cooper according to someone familiar with the notes that Time turned over yesterday.

Over Cooper's objections, Time yesterday turned over notes and e-mails of Cooper's that were stored in a computer. The magazine, which faces a $1,000-a-day fine that had reached $270,000, said it hoped that by complying it would keep Cooper out of jail.

Both Matt Cooper and Judy Miller are still refusing to reveal their sources and it's possible that the court will order them incarcerated. Maybe if the Special Counsel informs the court that their testimony is no longer required they will be off the hook but maybe not.

This is beginning to sound a lot like Martha Stewart in that the coverup may be more important that the original act. What if Rove -- and possibly the second administration source -- lied to the grand jury? PERJURY!

Then we could get into that familiar parlor game of "What did the President know and when did he know it?"

I wonder if the cable news channels can handle more than one hot story at a time? Probably not, based on past experience. Next week they will have the Downing Street Memo flare-up, the pending nomination to fill the Supreme Court vacancy and the Matt & Judy show all at the same time. All of those stories would be pre-empted by another runaway bride or a missing 18-yr-old female blonde teenager.

P.S. -- If Rove was the initial administration source, then there wouldn't have been a need for Novak to confirm with a second source. This makes me believe that Rove was probably the confirming source and someone else was the original source, like Scooter Libby or Elliott Abrams. Maybe the original source told Novak that they got it from Rove?

[schrocat]

Uniform colors!!!!!

Ya see...Karl wears a darker shade black suit than the other Corporate Welfare Taliban members.


From what I gather from previous administration critics, perjury is the worst crime in the entire spectrum of human behavior.

This is some serious stuff!
Someone could lose a hand or two.

[Ninong]

This whole story could be very revealing. It could shine a bright light on the administration's efforts to "fix" the intelligence around their plans to invade Iraq.

Here are a few points to consider:

Valerie Plame was working WMD discovery for the CIA. Both the CIA and the State Department were saying in no uncertain terms that there was no persuasive evidence that Saddam still had WMD or that he was actively pursuing them. This would have been very unhelpful to the administration.

Which is why Cheney and Rumsfeld decided to form the Office of Special Plans in the DoD. That way they would have their own guys digging up stuff that might prove helpful and piping it directly to them. And it's also why they were paying Chalabi to provide them with helpful intelligence. Chalabi was more than willing to provide them with whatever they needed, even if he had to invent it. In retrospect, some of the testimony from his hand-picked defectors is hilarious. No wonder we were reluctant to provide those details to the UN inspectors. (P.S. -- Colin Powell was telling them that Chalabi was a crook and not trustworthy but they never paid much attention to anything Colin said about anything else, so why start now.)

George Tenet, on the other hand, as a political appointee, was more than willing to do his utmost to provide the administration with anything that might prove helpful in spite of his uncooperative subordinates. Maybe that's how he ended up making that "slam dunk" comment. Bush awarded him the Medal of Freedom on the same day that the investigative commission released its report trashing the CIA as incompetent and poorly managed.

So...

Back to the speculation of how the leak came about.

(1) Rove deliberately initiated the contact with Novak, either personally or through another senior administration employee. Motive could have been an effort to discredit the CIA and its unhelpful intel.

(2) Novak was complaining to someone in the administration about Amb. Wilson's editorial attacking the administration's claims about Saddam trying to purchase uranium in Niger and that official explained that the only reason he got the job was because his wife worked for the CIA in WMD investigation.

[Ninong]

According to published reports, Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the case, has interviewed President Bush and Vice President Cheney and called Karl Rove, among others, to testify before the grand jury.

"The breadth of Fitzgerald's inquiry has led to speculation that it has evolved into an investigation of a conspiracy to leak Plame's identity," the Chicago Tribune observed on Friday, "or of an attempt to cover up White House involvement in the leak." http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/..._id=1000972839#


In reading that, I was struck by another possibility -- obstruction of justice! Anyone who was not truthful in answering Fitzgerald's questions could be charged with that crime. Anyone who lied to the grand jury could be charged with perjury. The President and the Vice President did not testify before the grand jury but they were interviewed by the special prosecutor.

[Ninong]

I'm sure the President will be happy to finally learn who did it. Remember this press opportunity way back in October 2003 when he was welcoming the President of Kenya. After their remarks, the President invited questions from the press. Looks like he closed the question and answer period after only one question, but it was a good one. Here is the exchange:



PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes, April.

Q Mr. President, on another issue, the CIA leak-gate. What is your confidence level in the results of the DOJ investigation about any of your staffers not being found guilty or being found guilty? And what do you say to critics of the administration who say that this administration retaliates against naysayers?

PRESIDENT BUSH: First of all, I'm glad you brought that question up. This is a very serious matter, and our administration takes it seriously. As members of the press corps here know, I have, at times, complained about leaks of security information, whether the leaks be in the legislative branch or in the executive branch. And I take those leaks very seriously.

And, therefore, we will cooperate fully with the Justice Department. I've got all the confidence in the world the Justice Department will do a good, thorough job. And that's exactly what I want them to do, is a good, thorough job. I'd like to know who leaked, and if anybody has got any information inside our government or outside our government who leaked, you ought to take it to the Justice Department so we can find out the leaker.

I have told my staff, I want full cooperation with the Justice Department. And when they ask for information, we expect the information to be delivered on a timely basis. I expect it to be delivered on a timely basis. I want there to be full participation, because, April, I am most interested in finding out the truth.

And, you know, there's a lot of leaking in Washington, D.C. It's a town famous for it. And if this helps stop leaks of -- this investigation in finding the truth, it will not only hold someone to account who should not have leaked -- and this is a serious charge, by the way. We're talking about a criminal action, but also hopefully will help set a clear signal we expect other leaks to stop, as well. And so I look forward to finding the truth.

Q What about retaliation? People are saying that it's retaliation -- PRESIDENT BUSH: I don't know who leaked the information, for starters. So it's hard for me to answer that question until I find out the truth. You hear all kinds of rumors. And the best way to clarify the issue is for full participation with the Justice Department.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0031006-4.html

[Ninong]

If Karl Rove really did it, if he's the traitor who divulged national security information putting the lives of CIA agents at risk, shouldn't he be interrogated to find out why he did it and who he's really working for? Does this make him an enemy combatant? Should he be sent to Guantanamo?

This is a very serious matter, especially in a time of war. I'm thankful that the President recognizes that whoever it is that did this traitorous, criminal act deserves to be brought to justice.

[schrocat]

...and as a bonus Karl gets to explode on the Sunday morning talk circuit during the July 4th weekend.

What a backdrop.

[Ninong]

"I'm inclined to believe that Fitzpatrick will simply close up shop, with or without the information from Matt Cooper and Judith Miller, because there is no case. Additionally, there are many more questions that will be raised if the probe results in an indictment." -- Jimmy/Jeff Gannon/Guckert, 6/30/05

Maybe he should have waited another day or two before offering his prediction. His second sentence could be prophetic.

P.S. -- Remember Jeff is the guy who claimed he was shown a secret CIA memo by a White House source that he refuses to name. He was interviewed by two FBI agents and nothing came of it so maybe he told them he just made that up? Maybe it was just pillow talk? Or something that happened in Rove's office, aka the de-briefing room.

[Ninong]

There is almost no doubt that Rove is mentioned as a source in the notes that Time turned over to the grand jury. That fact has now been confirmed with at least four or five people, including two attorneys with access to the information.

The question now is whether the White House will try to spin its way out of this predicament or ask Rove to fall on his spear. Considering the players involved, my best guess is that they will now go into "no crime took place" mode. Valerie Plame wasn't really covert because a few people already knew she was working WMD analysis for the CIA. Rove didn't knowingly commit a crime. He may have declined to contradict a statement made by Matt during that interview but that's not the same thing as being the one who told him in the first place. Or, if he was the one who told him in the first place, he didn't commit a crime because she wasn't really covert at the time.

Of course a lot depends on what Rove told the grand jury. According to his lawyer, he appeared before the grand jury two or three times.

[Ninong]

From the July 11th. issue of Newsweek that goes to press tomorrow: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8445696/site/newsweek

Be sure to read the very last paragraph!

I wonder if it will make the cover?

[Ninong]

This is the last paragraph in the Newsweek article (linked above) that is going to press tomorrow:

In early October 2003, NEWSWEEK reported that immediately after Novak's column appeared in July, Rove called MSNBC "Hardball" host Chris Matthews and told him that Wilson's wife was "fair game." But White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters at the time that any suggestion that Rove had played a role in outing Plame was "totally ridiculous." On Oct. 10, McClellan was asked directly if Rove and two other White House aides had ever discussed Valerie Plame with any reporters. McClellan said he had spoken with all three, and "those individuals assured me they were not involved in this."


Here is something Scott McClellan said back in September 2003 according to CNN:

McClellan said that if anyone at the White House leaked Plame's identity, he should be fired, and pursued to the "fullest extent."

"No one was authorized to do this. That is simply not the way this White House operates and if someone leaked classified information it is a very serious matter," he said. http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2003/A...29/wilson.cia/

[Ninong]

Here is what O'Donnell has to say about that statement from Rove's attorney yesterday: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblo...rove_3584.html

Meanwhile, the White House is putting out rumors right and left using the usual outlets. Their spin is that Rove didn't start trashing Valerie Plame until after Novak's column appeared. However, Rove's attorney has previously admitted that Rove met with Time's reporter three or four days before Novak's column appeared.

Poor Scott McClellan. He's going to have his hands full spinning this one at the next White House press briefing. I never imagined that anyone could possibly make Ari Fleisher look like a genius, but this guy has managed to pull it off. "Yes, Jeff, go ahead."

And the POTUS is out of town all week.

Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble...