Fruitless dig by Rove-ing reporters?

[roseBudd]

snip

Rove-aphobia is one of those summer stories that Washington cooks up when there's nothing else to do. You could go on vacation for two weeks and never even miss it or care about it when you get home.

Meanwhile, a lot of the press is trying to lynch someone without evidence. Rove, loathed by the left for masterminding the Bush defeat of John Kerry, is accused of leaking the name of a double-secret CIA agent to get even with the spy's husband, who had criticized Bush in a New York Times op-ed column.

Except that she was no undercover agent when the leak occurred. "Jane Bond" and her husband were so Maxwell Smart "secret," they posed for Vanity Fair celebrity photos. And it looks like Rove never revealed her name. He only offered a helpful tip to a Time magazine reporter - who repaid the favor by trashing Rove. Classy guy.

snip

Bush is scorched in the New York Times three times a day. We're supposed to believe Rove risked jail and disgrace to get even for one lame op-ed?

E-mail [e-mail] or call [phone].



or demand a retraction:

Tom Callinan Editor 513-768-8551 [e-mail]

Byron McCauley Deputy editorial page editor 513-768-8473 [e-mail]

David Wells Assistant Managing Editor: Editorial page 513-768-8310 [e-mail]

[Desperadoe]

1. Link?

nt

[yardwork]

2. Please post a link to the original piece

Valerie Plame was undercover - that is proven now.

The Vanity Fair article appeared almost a year after she was outed. I own it.

[roseBudd]

3. link added...

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050724/COL05/507240347/1004

[Why Syzygy]

4. TIMELINE! TIME LINE!

Wilson / Plame posed for Vanity Fair AFTER the blowing of her cover ! ! !

DO NOT EVEN THINK ABOUT accepting the winger's portrayal of this (or any other) issue.

1. Rove and Novak blew Plame's cover (treason)

2. Wilson / Plame posed for Vanity Fair (NOT treason)

So glad I'm not the underbelly of a snake. That occupation is occupied.

[roseBudd]

5. be sure and point this out to right wingnut Peter Bronson and complain to

his editors.

[e-mail]

Tom Callinan Editor 513-768-8551 [e-mail]

Byron McCauley Deputy editorial page editor 513-768-8473 [e-mail]

David Wells Assistant Managing Editor: Editorial page 513-768-8310 [e-mail]

[Why Syzygy]

6. Yeah . in fact

They were photographed four months LATER and didn't print for another three months.

There is reason to believe that KR is getting a baked brain at this point and takes us all for fools who don't remember basic recent history.

See:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2091907/



—Vanity Fair, January 2004 (on newsstands today). The photograph, by Jonas Karlsson, was taken Nov. 8 and "styled by" Ann Caruso. Hair, makeup, and grooming by Terri Grauel for T.H.E. Artist Agency.

"The pictures should not be able to identify her, or are not supposed to," Wilson said yesterday. "She's still not going to answer any questions and there will not be any pictures that compromise her." The reason, said Wilson, is that "she's still employed" by the CIA "and has obligations to her employer."

[warrens]

7. My email

Sir: Are you in the habit of letting your columnists just lie at will? In his column, Bronson repeats the repeatedly debunked Rush Limbaugh lie that Valerie Plame wasn't undercover because she posed for a story in a national magazine. Well, yeah, she did. SIX MONTHS AFTER ROVE OUTED HER TO REPORTERS.

How much exactly does Bronson get from the RNC to repeat their bogus talking points? I guess there has to be a replacement for the discredited Jeff Gannon, and Peter looks to be a likely lad.

All the best

[roseBudd]

9. me likey!! I emailed Bronson himself, he never admits to being wrong...

still it is fun

[skip fox]

8. This isn't just a reporters' wet dream! It's NOT going away

Rove and Libby cooked up the "I heard Plame's name from reporters," banking on at least one reporter remaining mute. That way no one can say that one reporter didn't give Plame's name to Libby and Rove. (Banking on the professional integrity of another to cover-up their crimes! Brilliant.)

But it's not going away.


The more we know, the more it seems that there will be multiple indictments for "high administration officials" in Fitzgerald's final report including at least two for Rove. (If not indictments, we'll have notifications of non-indictable wrongful activities--or some such--in the prosecutor's final report).

I say this because in learning about multiple leakers for the six reported contacts and multiple confirming sources, it becomes apparent what occurred. One administrative official discovered the Plame-Wilson-Niger relationship, took it to the White House Iraq Group, turned it over to Rove, who on the spot assigned tasks to different primary leakers/sources assuring no source called another source's contact (so as not to appear too eager), that no source's "pitch" was exactly the same but that their information was all given in an "off hand" manner (e.g., "Don't go too far out on this Wilson thing, I don't want you burnt").

Simply "doing the numbers" has told me this all along, but as new information comes out my analysis is being confirmed. We knew there were at least 6 initial leaks/contacts. Now we know that there were at least three different initial leakers (Fleicher Rove, Libby) and of the 6 reporters 4 are confirmed as Miller, Novak, Cooper, and Pincus. We also realize that there must have been a number of other confirming sources (because you cannot assure who the reporter will call for confirmation).

A master-mind would have been necessary to coordinate all these calls by different people AND would have to insure that a number of other officials were ready and willing to confirm the initial leaks.

They would have gone to Rove immediately and he, probably in an emergency of the White House Iraq Group, assigned the roles, the stories and the stances, etc.

So he not only leaked by was the mastermind of a conspiracy to leak.

We can only hope he lead a cover-up and committed perjury as well.

[roseBudd]

10. my followup email to Bronson after he assured me Plame wasn't covert...

Yes, sir Ken Mehlman, whatever you say

Oops, I guess the CIA must have forgotten the status
of it's employee. Silly Justice Department, they could
have spared us all this trouble.

How dare Vanity Fair publish a photo illlustration of
a Hitchcock heroine eight months after superpatriotic
hero Novak published her identity.

DOUBLE EXPOSURE
—Vanity Fair, January 2004 . The photograph, by Jonas
Karlsson, was taken Nov. 8 and "styled by" Ann Caruso.
Hair, makeup, and grooming by Terri Grauel for T.H.E.
Artist Agency.

drip drip

--- "Bronson, Peter" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Thanks for the note. There's just one problem: It
> seems clear now that
> Plame was not undercover and had not been a
> clandestine agent for at
> least five years.
>
> Working for the CIA is not the same as being a spy.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Peter Bronson
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Susan
> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 11:15 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: bravo
>
> Testimony of James Marcinkowski
> July 22, 2005
> What is important now is not who wins or loses the
> political battle or who may or may not be indicted;
> rather, it is a question of how we will go about
> protecting the citizens of this country in a very
> dangerous world. The undisputed fact is that we have
> irreparably damaged our capability to collect human
> intelligence and thereby significantly diminished
> our
> capability to protect the American people.
>
> Understandable to all Americans is a simple,
> incontrovertible, but damning truth: the United
> States
> government exposed the identity of a clandestine
> officer working for the CIA. This is not just
> another
> partisan "dust-up" between political parties. This
> unprecedented act will have far-reaching
> consequences
> for covert operations around the world. Equally
> disastrous is that from the time of that first
> damning
> act, we have continued on a course of self-inflicted
> wounds by government officials who have refused to
> take any responsibility, have played hide-and-seek
> with the truth and engaged in semantic parlor games
> for more than two years, all at the expense of the
> safety of the American people. No government
> official
> has that right.
>
> For an understanding of what is at stake it is
> important to understand some fundamental principles.
> No country or hostile group, from al Qaeda to any
> drug
> rings operating in our cities, likes to be
> infiltrated
> or spied upon. The CIA, much like any police
> department in any city, has undercover
> officers--spies, that use "cover."
>
> To operate under "cover" means you use some ruse to
> cloak both your identity and your intentions. The
> degree of cover needed to carry out any operation
> varies depending on the target of the investigation.
> A
> police officer performing "street buys" uses a
> "light"
> cover, meaning he or she could pose as something as
> simple as a drug user, operate only at night and
> during the day and, believe it or not, have a desk
> job
> in the police station. On the other hand, if an
> attempt were made to infiltrate a crime syndicate,
> visiting the local police station or drinking with
> fellow FBI agents after work may be out of the
> question. In any scenario, your cover, no matter
> what
> the degree, provides personal protection and safety.
> But it does not end there. Cover is also used to
> protect collection methodology as well as any
> innocent
> persons a CIA officer may have regular contact with,
> such as overseas acquaintances, friends, and even
> other U.S. government officials.
>
> While cover provides a degree of safety for the case
> officer, it also provides security for that
> officer's
> informants or agents. In most human intelligence
> operations, the confidentiality of the cover used by
> a
> CIA officer and the personal security of the agent
> or
> asset is mutually dependent. A case officer cannot
> be
> identified as working for the CIA, just as the
> informant/agent cannot be identified as working for
> the CIA through the case officer. If an informant or
> agent is exposed as working for the CIA, there is a
> good chance that the CIA officer has been identified
> as well. Similarly, if the CIA officer is exposed,
> his
> or her agents or informants are exposed. In all
> cases,
> the cover of a case officer ensures not only his or
> her own personal safety but that of the agents or
> assets as well.
>
> The exposure of Valerie Plame's cover by the White
> House is the same as the local chief of police
> announcing to the media the identity of its
> undercover
> drug officers. In both cases, the ability of the
> officer to operate is destroyed, but there is also
> an
> added dimension. An informant in a major
> sophisticated
> crime network, or a CIA asset working in a foreign
> government, if exposed, has a rather good chance of
> losing more than just their ability to operate.
>
> Any undercover officer, whether in the police
> department or the CIA, will tell you that the major
> concern of their informant or agent is their
> personal
> safety and that of their family. Cover is safety. If
> you cannot guarantee that safety in some form or
> other, the person will not work for you and the
> source
> of important information will be lost.
>
> So how is the Valerie Plame incident perceived by
> any
> current or potential agent of the CIA? I will
> guarantee you that if the local police chief
> identified the names of the department's undercover
> officers, any half-way sophisticated undercover
> operation would come to a halt and if he survived
> that
> accidental discharge of a weapon in police
> headquarters, would be asked to retire.
>
> And so the real issues before this Congress and this
> country today is not partisan politics, not even the
> loss of secrets. The secrets of Valerie Plame's
> cover
> are long gone. What has suffered perhaps
> irreversible
> damage is the credibility of our case officers when
> they try to convince our overseas contact that their
> safety is of primary importance to us. How are our
> case officers supposed to build and maintain that
> confidence when their own government cannot even
> guarantee the personal protection of the home team?
> While the loss of secrets in the world of espionage
> may be damaging, the stealing of the credibility of
> our CIA officers is unforgivable....
>
> And so we are left with only one fundamental truth,
> the U.S. government exposed the identity of a covert
> operative. I am not convinced that the toothpaste
> can
> be put back into the tube. Great damage has been
> done
> and that damage has been increasing every single day
> for more than two years. The problem of the refusal
> to
> accept responsibility by senior government officials
> is ongoing and causing greater damage to our
> national
> security and our ability to collect human
> intelligence. But the problem lies not only with
> government officials but also with the media,
> commentators and other apologists who have no clue
> as
> to the workings of the intelligence community. Think
> about what we are doing from the perspective of our
> overseas human intelligence assets or potential
> assets.
>
> I believe Bob Novak when he credited senior
> administration officials for the initial leak, or
> the
> simple, but not insignificant confirmation of that
> secret information, as I believe a CIA officer in
> some
> far away country will lose an opportunity to recruit
> an asset that may be of invaluable service to our
> covert war on terror because "promises of
> protection"
> will no longer carry the level of trust they once
> had.
>
>
> Each time the leader of a political party opens his
> mouth in public to deflect responsibility, the word
> overseas is loud and clear--politics in this country
> does in fact trump national security.