In an interesting twist, this is not the first time Rove and Novak have been in the same bed together:

""Karl Rove was fired from the 1992 re-election campaign of Bush Sr. for allegedly leaking a negative story about Bush loyalist/fundraiser Robert Mosbacher to Novak. Novak's piece described a meeting organized by then-Senator Phil Gramm at which Mosbacher was relieved of his duties as state campaign manager because "the president's re-election effort in Texas has been a bust." Rove was fired after Mosbacher fingered him as Novak's source."

http://dailykos.com/story/2005/7/2/231117/1028

Of course Rove denies all wrongdoing just as he is doing now but this is just way too coincidental to ignore: it's highly likely Rove leaked negative, politically damaging information to Robert Novak in the past. Funny how Rove and Novak once again find themselves up to their turkey-necks in the same type of negative leak when Rove sees a political threat, this time in the form of Joe Wilson.

"Twist"? This is a decade and a half old. Some twist. Also, the two leaks are not similar at all, and I suspect this would be apparent to someone with even a 2nd grader's reading comprehension.

In an interesting twist, this is not the first time Rove and Novak have been in the same bed together:

""Karl Rove was fired from the 1992 re-election campaign of Bush Sr. for allegedly leaking a negative story about Bush loyalist/fundraiser Robert Mosbacher to Novak. Novak's piece described a meeting organized by then-Senator Phil Gramm at which Mosbacher was relieved of his duties as state campaign manager because "the president's re-election effort in Texas has been a bust." Rove was fired after Mosbacher fingered him as Novak's source."

http://dailykos.com/story/2005/7/2/231117/1028

Of course Rove denies all wrongdoing just as he is doing now but this is just way too coincidental to ignore: it's highly likely Rove leaked negative, politically damaging information to Robert Novak in the past. Funny how Rove and Novak once again find themselves up to their turkey-necks in the same type of negative leak when Rove sees a political threat, this time in the form of Joe Wilson.

Anyone else read this amicus brief LINK (http://www.bakerlaw.com/files/tbl_s10News/FileUpload44/10159/Amici%20Brief%20032305%20(Final).PDF) submitted by the media in defense of reporters refusing to reveal their sources? It makes the claim (rather convincingly in my opinion) that no crime was committed. Main point is that Plame's identity was not classified, thus identifying her could not be considered a leak of classified information. If the media cannot be held in violation of leaking classified information by the reasons presented on pages 30-33 (labeled 7-10) of the brief, then it seems very hard to argue that Rove is guilty of leaking confidential information. I'd copy the text, but the PDF linked won't allow me to select text. Read it for yourselves. The brief argues that no leak of classified information took place with respect to Plame's identity, in large part because there was apparently no classified information to leak. She had already been compromised years prior. Furthermore when Novak called the CIA to verify her employment they acknowledged her employment and failed to request that her identity be kept confidential (something not done for deep cover operatives). If the CIA did not treat her identity as confidential, why should the press or anyone else?

Do I think Rove dropped names to discredit Wilson? Absolutely. Do I think this compromised the identity of a covert agent and is a punishable crime? Probably not. I'm not 100% convinced, but it seems the evidence points strongly to the fact that there was no covert information to leak...at least with respect to Plame's identity.

"Twist"? This is a decade and a half old. Some twist.

So you don't think that Rove's alleged involvement in a leak to Robert Novak and firing from GHWBs campaign as a result has any bearing at all on the current events concerning another high-profile leak swirling around the same Karl Rove and Robert Novak?

And yes, a "twist". I had not seen it mentioned here and thought it an interesting addendum to the case against Rove...a little gristle for all the die-hard apologists to chew on.

Also, the two leaks are not similar at all, and I suspect this would be apparent to someone with even a 2nd grader's reading comprehension.

An interesting statement from someone with the chutzpah to carry this in their sig:

"If I haven't responded to your personal attack, it's probably because my doing so is against the TOS."

:eek7:

Do I think Rove dropped names to discredit Wilson? Absolutely. Do I think this compromised the identity of a covert agent and is a punishable crime? Probably not. I'm not 100% convinced, but it seems the evidence points strongly to the fact that there was no covert information to leak...at least with respect to Plame's identity.

The special prosecutor and grand jury will make the final assessment about whether or not laws were broken, not just involving the leaking of Plame's identity...it may also include charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.

Regardless, I don't understand how it's somehow forgiveable that senior WH officials, Libby and Rove so far that we know of, are talking about agents' identities with backpocket reporters at all. Why did they not simply refer the reporters to the WH communications people and McClellan? Why did Rove think he'd "already said too much" if there's no harm at all? According to The Times Online:

"Cooper, recounting testimony he gave last week to a federal grand jury investigating the leak, said that Mr Rove did not disclose the woman’s name, or say anything to suggest that he knew she was a covert agent. But Cooper said he was told by Mr Rove that information was about to be “declassified” and made public to discredit the woman’s husband, Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador who had accused the Bush Administration of exaggerating the threat of Iraq’s weapons."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1698497,00.html

If it was "about to be declassified" that means it was still classified and Rove is talking freely to reporters about it?? This is "okay"?

Given their security clearances, what else are these men leaking when it's politically advantageous to do so, and to whom?

So you don't think that Rove's alleged involvement in a leak to Robert Novak and firing from GHWBs campaign as a result has any bearing at all on the current events concerning another high-profile leak swirling around the same Karl Rove and Robert Novak?

Not really. There aren't many right-leaning journalist these days, and I suspect that Rove and Noval have had a pretty open relationship because of that fact.

If Rove denied he said so at that time, and there was never any proof furnished otheriwse, I have no reason to suspect it occured; as a matter of fact, I have every reason to believe it didn't occur as is described. Why would Bush jr. pick hiim up if he was sure he was so "leak-prone"? Hmmm?




"If I haven't responded to your personal attack, it's probably because my doing so is against the TOS."
:

It' s always possible I suspect incorrectly. Don't bet on it, though.

Not really. There aren't many right-leaning journalist these days, and I suspect that Rove and Noval have had a pretty open relationship because of that fact.

Then you're probably in the minority: most people would raise an eyebrow to hear Rove has been accused of leaking information before to Bob Novak of all people when considering the current case. If Novak is Rove's vector to get damaging information out 'cause they're friends and right-wingers and all, for political gain, do you not get the willies when it's apparent that Rove will even start dealing out CIA agents' names to achieve his political ends?

If Rove denied he said so at that time, and there was never any proof furnished otheriwse, I have no reason to suspect it occured; as a matter of fact, I have every reason to believe it didn't occur as is described.

You're not being objective:

"Rove was the "only one with a motive to leak": Mosbacher says: "I said Rove is the only one with a motive to leak this. We let him go." The motive in question? Mosbacher had given Rove only a quarter of the $1 million spent on direct mail contracts for the 92 campaign; Rove, who in 1988 had the entire direct mail contract, therefore had an axe to grind with Mosbacher. Novak's column stated: "Also attending the session was political consultant Karl Rove, who had been shoved aside by Mosbacher.""

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/7/11/155029/380

Rove had motive and the wording of Novak's "shoved aside by Mosbacher" indicates that the crybaby Rove was axe-grinding through Novak.

Another interesting note:

"Karl Rove got his start in politics when he ran for president of the College Republicans, and met Lee Atwater in 1972. Shortly afterward Rove was investigated by the Republican National Committee for teaching political campaign "dirty tricks" to college students. Young George W. Bush worked with Atwater and Rove to create the Willie Horton scandal that scuttled Dukakis in 1988."

Why would Bush jr. pick hiim up if he was sure he was so "leak-prone"? Hmmm?

Family friend. The HW fire him or was it a campaign man? Neocon...think GWB has the brains - or desire - to weed out high power neocons, especially one willing to do whatever is necessary to win, from his staff?

http://sanderhicks.com/bushbrain.html

Ahh, nice. Rove AND Novak denied he was the leak.

The special prosecutor and grand jury will make the final assessment about whether or not laws were broken, not just involving the leaking of Plame's identity...it may also include charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.

Yet to date, most of the focus has been on Rove's leaking Plame's identity. Little to no mention of the perjury or obstruction of justice charges. I agree that the special prosecutor and grand jury should be left to complete their jobs.


Regardless, I don't understand how it's somehow forgiveable that senior WH officials, Libby and Rove so far that we know of, are talking about agents' identities with backpocket reporters at all. Why did they not simply refer the reporters to the WH communications people and McClellan?
Forgiveable, maybe not. Understandable...sure. Politics is just plain dirty no matter who's playing it seems.

Why did Rove think he'd "already said too much" if there's no harm at all?

I think you have another possible conclusion right from the times source you linked....
Cooper said yesterday: “This could have meant he was worried about being indiscreet, or it could have meant he was late for a meeting . . . but that sign-off has been in my memory for two years.” Cooper also disclosed for the first time that the other White House source for an article he wrote about Mr Wilson in July 2003 was Vice-President Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis “Scooter ” Libby, who also did not mention Ms Plame by name.

But Cooper’s comments yesterday also appeared to help Mr Rove. It is a criminal offence knowingly to reveal the identity of a covert agent. “Did Rove leak Plame’s name to me, or tell me she was covert? No,” Cooper wrote in Time. This will bolster claims by Mr Rove’s friends that he was unaware that Ms Plame was a covert agent.

Of course that doesn't fit the Rove is guilty agenda, so you ignored that piece of the article. Fact is only Rove knows what he meant by that phrase, and that means we will never know for certain what was meant by it.

According to The Times Online:

"Cooper, recounting testimony he gave last week to a federal grand jury investigating the leak, said that Mr Rove did not disclose the woman’s name, or say anything to suggest that he knew she was a covert agent. But Cooper said he was told by Mr Rove that information was about to be “declassified” and made public to discredit the woman’s husband, Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador who had accused the Bush Administration of exaggerating the threat of Iraq’s weapons."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1698497,00.html

If it was "about to be declassified" that means it was still classified and Rove is talking freely to reporters about it?? This is "okay"?

Is it okay? To me personally, no. However, the acknowledgement that the information was about to be declassified indicates (to me at least) a strong likelihood that it would be declassified (very) soon. I'd be inclined to conclude the material would be declassified in days or few weeks...that the paperwork or whatever to declassify the material was in the works and only approvals were necessary. Maybe, I'd assume too much. Maybe this was a calculated move by Rove to lead Cooper to assume (like me) that the info was safe because its declassification was only moments away. So, to "leak" information that was about to be declassified, while technically illegal frankly doesn't seem to merit the same punishment as an intentional outing of an undercover operative, jeopardizing potentially dozens/hundreds of other agents. That's just my opinion...ultimately the Special Prosecutor and Grand Jury have to make that call.

Given their security clearances, what else are these men leaking when it's politically advantageous to do so, and to whom?
The answer is the same as with any administration anywhere....they're leaking whatever they're comfortable leaking, to whomever it is politically advantageous to do so. :eek:

Let the special prosecutor and grand jury handle the investigation and sentencing.

Just curious, but if they exonerate Rove, how will you respond? Are you going to conclude the investigation was a sham....that evidence of prior leaks by Rove somehow cast doubt upon anything other than guilty verdict/conviction of Rove?

I'd like to think I'll be able to accept a guilty verdict, but honestly have my doubts. Guess for me, in large part it will depend on the special prosecutor's findings.

Yet to date, most of the focus has been on Rove's leaking Plame's identity. Little to no mention of the perjury or obstruction of justice charges. I agree that the special prosecutor and grand jury should be left to complete their jobs.

Yep. The obstruction and perjury will, be definition, come much later in the process, if they are to come at all.

I think you have another possible conclusion right from the times source you linked....

Meh. It could have meant the kettle was boiling too or that Mork & Mindy re-runs were on. Given the context, I think we all accept what "I've said too much already" truly means: I think Rove knew he'd said too much about a CIA operative and not that he was late for lunch.

Of course that doesn't fit the Rove is guilty agenda, so you ignored that piece of the article.

No, I didn't "ignore" it. I saw it for what it is: a backpocket reporter giving his source the kid-glove treatment by transmogrifying "I've said too much already" after disclosing a CIA agent's name into "I'm late for a meeting."

And as far as "Rove is guilty", he's already admitted as much: by discussing anything intelligence-personnel related with a reporter he's guilty of nothing less than exceedingly poor judgement and quite possibly treasonous behavior in his zealotry to smear Wilson. He's not denying he discussed the issue...all he's denying is that he was the initial source.

Fact is only Rove knows what he meant by that phrase, and that means we will never know for certain what was meant by it.

Sort of like it depends on what the definition of "is" is?

Is it okay? To me personally, no. However, the acknowledgement that the information was about to be declassified indicates (to me at least) a strong likelihood that it would be declassified (very) soon. I'd be inclined to conclude the material would be declassified in days or few weeks...that the paperwork or whatever to declassify the material was in the works and only approvals were necessary.

And if these approvals were quashed before the declassification process was complete? It's mind boggling that Rove & Libby are being treated so lightly by folks for this. Even if Rove and/or Libby are not the initial sources, that they discussed still-classified CIA operative information with backpocket reporters is shameful and dangerous and none of you seem to care.

Going back it's hard to believe the attention Clinton got during the Lewinsky affair given how lackadaisical people are when it comes to Rove & Libby and matters of national secrecy and security.

Just curious, but if they exonerate Rove, how will you respond? Are you going to conclude the investigation was a sham....that evidence of prior leaks by Rove somehow cast doubt upon anything other than guilty verdict/conviction of Rove?

Depends on the full story. We only have access to bits & pieces right now and we all have our "pre-conclusions" as it were. I strongly suspect Rove and or Libby are the sources of Novak's information. Rove's "alleged" precedent back in 1992 with the same reporter, his long history of tactics and methodologies of political character assassination and "dirty games", he's on record as saying in 2003 that Wilson's wife was "fair game", his admitted communications with Cooper regarding her and his "I've said too much already" form a pretty compelling topical case against the man.

The WH has little credibility now too. So says the Washington Post:

"Certainly, the revelation that Mr. Rove discussed Mr. Wilson's wife with at least one reporter undermines the White House's highhanded pronouncements that it was "just totally ridiculous" to think that Mr. Rove had anything to do with the leak of Valerie Plame's identity."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/14/AR2005071401735.html

in an op-ed generally supportive of Rove.

He's got alot to explain. If the prosecution doesn't end up addressing it all then it will be a sham.

I'd like to think I'll be able to accept a guilty verdict, but honestly have my doubts. Guess for me, in large part it will depend on the special prosecutor's findings.

Right now, it seems to all sit with him. It seems he's not screwing around, which is good.

Even if no crime was committed, the liars in the WH staff have been further exposed.

Hey Judy [Miller], tell us your "source". They ain't no dam whistleblower.

And Novak said there were 2 WH admin. officials, so who's the other?

Daily Kos is a biased news source. Nice try.

Daily Kos is a biased news source. Nice try.

So...are you denying Rove was fired from daddy's 1992 campaign for allegedly leaking to Robert Novak? Or what?

"Adrian, Mich.: Is there any truth to a story I read that Karl Rove was fired by the Sr. Bush for leaking info in 1992?

Garrett M. Graff: Yes, there is. A bunch of people have been dredging that story up recently.

In 1992 Rove was working for the President Bush Sr.'s reelection campaign. The President's reelection campaign was really struggling at the time, and Bob Novak published a column focused on a Dallas meeting where the Texas state campaign manager, a guy named Robert Mosbacher, was taken to the woodshed.

Mosbacher was furious with the column and complained to campaign officials, and while Rove has long denied he was the source of the story, he was labeled the leaker and fired.

Depending on your viewpoint, there are two schools of thought coming out of this history lesson:

1) Rove was fired for leaking in 1992 and almost lost his career. He wouldn't be stupid enough to do it again in this case.

2) The fact that Rove has a history of leaking politically damaging information to Robert Novak shows that it's not much of a leap to see him do it again.

As I said, what you see is largely dependent in this case on where you stand."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/07/13/DI2005071301606.html

Is the Washington Post more credible?

If you have a problem with Kos...whatever...that's fine. But what's the substance of your case against the story itself?