A Bad Day to Be Scott McClellan

[Alexander's Horse]

its despicable to blow the cover of an intelligence officer any way you look at it

[Drake Tungsten]

So is lying to embarass an administration you don't like. Hard to give a **** when both sides are playing dirty...

[Alexander's Horse]

there are many ways to deal with that and keep it inhouse

[Drake Tungsten]

Well, if Rove's lawyer is telling the truth, Rove never wanted the information to get out in the first place.

In an interview with National Review Online, Luskin compared the contents of a July 11, 2003, internal Time e-mail written by Cooper with the wording of a story Cooper co-wrote a few days later. "By any definition, he burned Karl Rove," Luskin said of Cooper. "If you read what Karl said to him and read how Cooper characterizes it in the article, he really spins it in a pretty ugly fashion to make it seem like people in the White House were affirmatively reaching out to reporters to try to get them to them to report negative information about Plame."

First the e-mail. According to a report in Newsweek, Cooper's e-mail to Time Washington bureau chief Michael Duffy said, "Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation..." Cooper said that Rove had warned him away from getting "too far out on Wilson," and then passed on Rove's statement that neither Vice President Dick Cheney nor CIA Director George Tenet had picked Wilson for the trip; "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd issues who authorized the trip." Finally — all of this is according to the Newsweek report — Cooper's e-mail said that "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly that there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger..."

A few days after sending the e-mail, Cooper co-wrote an article headlined "A War on Wilson?" that appeared on Time's website. The story began, "Has the Bush administration declared war on a former ambassador who conducted a fact-finding mission to probe possible Iraqi interest in African uranium? Perhaps."

The story continued:

Some government officials have noted to Time in interviews (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These officials have suggested that she was involved in her husband's being dispatched to Niger to investigate reports that Saddam Hussein's government had sought to purchase large quantities of uranium ore, sometimes referred to as yellow cake, which is used to build nuclear devices.

Plame's role in Wilson's assignment was later confirmed by a Senate Intelligence Committee investigation.

Luskin told NRO that the circumstances of Rove's conversation with Cooper undercut Time's suggestion of a White House "war on Wilson." According to Luskin, Cooper originally called Rove — not the other way around — and said he was working on a story on welfare reform. After some conversation about that issue, Luskin said, Cooper changed the subject to the weapons of mass destruction issue, and that was when the two had the brief talk that became the subject of so much legal wrangling. According to Luskin, the fact that Rove did not call Cooper; that the original purpose of the call, as Cooper told Rove, was welfare reform; that only after Cooper brought the WMD issue up did Rove discuss Wilson — all are "indications that this was not a calculated effort by the White House to get this story out."

"Look at the Cooper e-mail," Luskin continues. "Karl speaks to him on double super secret background...I don't think that you can read that e-mail and conclude that what Karl was trying to do was to get Cooper to publish the name of Wilson's wife."

Nor, says Luskin, was Rove trying to "out" a covert CIA agent or "smear" her husband. "What Karl was trying to do, in a very short conversation initiated by Cooper on another subject, was to warn Time away from publishing things that were going to be established as false." Luskin points out that on the evening of July 11, 2003, just hours after the Rove-Cooper conversation, then-CIA Director George Tenet released a statement that undermined some of Wilson's public assertions about his report. "Karl knew that that [Tenet] statement was in gestation," says Luskin. "I think a fair reading of the e-mail was that he was trying to warn Cooper off from going out on a limb on [Wilson's] allegations."

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200507121626.asp

[Ninot]

Yay, Jon Stewart has it covered.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
its despicable to blow the cover of an intelligence officer any way you look at it

She wasn't undercover.

[Berzerker]

Sounds about right, Drake. Innocent mistake...if that... Even makes Rove look decent, trying to warn a reporter before they make a mistake. Ironic...the friendly warning was turned into a conspiracy with many fooled, including me. Reporters are like cops - both have jobs requiring a highly suspicious mind.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
She wasn't undercover.

Really?

The CIA declined to discuss Plame's intelligence work, but an agency official disputed suggestions that she was a mere analyst whose public exposure would have little consequence. "If she was not undercover, we would have no reason to file a criminal referral," the CIA official said, insisting on anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Sounds about right, Drake. Innocent mistake...if that... Even makes Rove look decent, trying to warn a reporter before they make a mistake. Ironic...the friendly warning was turned into a conspiracy with many fooled, including me. Reporters are like cops - both have jobs requiring a highly suspicious mind.

Even if technically correct, which I'm highly skeptical, it appears Karl Rove either outright lied to Scott McClellan or McClellan outright blatantly lied to the press on this matter. This is extremely serious and no laughing matter.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Mordoch
Even if technically correct, which I'm highly skeptical, it appears Karl Rove either outright lied to Scott McClellan or McClellan outright blatantly lied to the press on this matter. This is extremely serious and no laughing matter.

Don't forget lying to the grand jury, too.

Even if it wasn't leaked with the intent to out an agent, the fact that it did so should result in Rove losing his security clearance. Hell, he should have it suspended while he's under investigation. Why should someone under investigation for a security breach be permitted to retain his security clearance in the meantime?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Really?

Yes.

Since Plame had been living in Washington for some time when the July 2003 column was published, and was working at a desk job in Langley (a no-no for a person with a need for cover), there is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as "covert."

[GePap]

The only thing that matters is that the press is inscandal mode and pressing the admin. therefore weakening its hands.

Its great to see the cowardly corporate press turn on this WH, even for this small moment. There are so many things this admin. should have been crucified for before, but if this is what gets the press' blood boiling, well, go for it.

Hang them out to dry boys

[Asher]

If she wasn't undercover why did they have a front...?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Yes.

Since Plame had been living in Washington for some time when the July 2003 column was published, and was working at a desk job in Langley (a no-no for a person with a need for cover), there is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as "covert."

How does that support your categorical assertion that she wasn't covert? This just says it's in question, it doesn't disprove it. And the CIA source in my link says she was indeed covert, or at least qualified under the statute (which means she could have been covert status as far back as 1998).

Let's see, what do I believe more...supposition on her status from an op-ed, or a quoted CIA source? Dilemma, dilemma.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Let's see, what do I believe more...supposition on her status from an op-ed the person that wrote the law in question, or a quoted CIA anonymous source? Dilemma, dilemma.

It stumps me as well.