Karl Rove doin' the perp walk soon?

[tristano's ghost]

Oh, what delight! A Bushie official has turned on his colleagues... For those not familiar with this story, which has now made today's Washington Post and NY Times, two as-yet-unnamed Bush administration officials blew the cover of a CIA operative this summer in retaliation for her husband's revelation regarding the Bushies' "Saddam tried to purchase uranium in Niger" claim. They blew her cover to conservative columnist Robert Novak, and, it now appears, several other reporters. Said husband was Ambassador Joseph Wilson; his wife was a CIA agent specializing in weapons of mass destruction. Now, not only did these Bush officials compromise national security in the interest of partisan retaliation and political gain--they broke the law. As David Corn pointed out earlier this summer:

This is not only a possible breach of national security; it is a potential violation of law. Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, it is a crime for anyone who has access to classified information to disclose intentionally information identifying a covert agent. The punishment for such an offense is a fine of up to $50,000 and/or up to ten years in prison.

Well, well! The national media has been sitting on this one, apparently afraid to act--but now the CIA has asked the FBI to open an investigation into the whole affair. Wilson himself said in late August, "At the end of the day, it's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs." The story is in today's NY Times and Washington Post, the latter of which includes this stunning turn on the Bush administration by one of its own officials:

Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. Wilson had just revealed that the CIA had sent him to Niger last year to look into the uranium claim and that he had found no evidence to back up the charge. Wilson's account touched off a political fracas over Bush's use of intelligence as he made the case for attacking Iraq.
"Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge," the senior official said of the alleged leak.
Sources familiar with the conversations said the leakers were seeking to undercut Wilson's credibility. They alleged that Wilson, who was not a CIA employee, was selected for the Niger mission partly because his wife had recommended him. Wilson said in an interview yesterday that a reporter had told him that the leaker said, "The real issue is Wilson and his wife."
A source said reporters quoted a leaker as describing Wilson's wife as "fair game."
The official would not name the leakers for the record and would not name the journalists. The official said there was no indication that Bush knew about the calls.
It is rare for one Bush administration official to turn on another. Asked about the motive for describing the leaks, the senior official said the leaks were "wrong and a huge miscalculation, because they were irrelevant and did nothing to diminish Wilson's credibility."

You can read the whole article here:

WashPostonBushscandal

A despicable, treasonous pack of hypocrites, eh? Evidently national security and intell ops involving WMDs don't matter a damn when it comes to intimidating whistle-blowers... How would Karl Rove look in prison denims?

[Uli]

What is interesting for me is that this story makes the headlines now. It has been out for a couple of months.
I think the tied has turned. Bush is a goner.

[Pete C]

Sisco started a thread on this called "Finally." One could easily miss a thread with a title like that.

[tristano's ghost]

Originally posted by Pete C
Sisco started a thread on this called "Finally." One could easily miss a thread with a title like that.

Damn! Well, I'd like to think that mine is more catchy...

You're right--this story has been floating around since late July, and David Corn wrote it up in the Nation long ago. Now that it's in the Times and the Wash. Post (those paragons of "liberal media," cough, cough), it's going to be much, much harder for other media to ignore.
Gee, I wonder what Fox's spin is gonna be on it...

[bluenoter]

Originally posted by Uli
I think the tied has turned. Bush is a goner.

I fervently hope so, but I can't draw that inference from this story. Most voters don't read this stuff, know this stuff, or care.

That's "tide," Mr. Typo Pointer-Outer.

[tristano's ghost]

Originally posted by bluenoter
I fervently hope so, but I can't draw that inference from this story. Most voters don't read this stuff, know this stuff, or care.

I'd usually agree with you, but this story has an angle that most can pick up on fairly quickly: someone in an administration that took us into war over alleged WMDs has blown the cover on a CIA agent who specialized in, yep, WMDs. Short and simple: the White House broke the law and compromised national security in an attempt to silence would-be whistleblowers.
I think it might have legs.

[Uli]

Originally posted by bluenoter
I fervently hope so, but I can't draw that inference from this story. Most voters don't read this stuff, know this stuff, or care.

That's "tide," Mr. Typo Pointer-Outer.

Of course my inference is a bit hopeful too. But somehow to me in the past it has boiled down to whether the press liked an incumbent. Reagan survived so many scandals it's unbelievable. But the press always liked him.

and thanks for pointin it out.

[Jazzmoose]

Wow, what timing for Rove...just after Ashcroft announces "no more plea bargains!"

[Tom Storer]

This is juicy indeed. The White House gives the lie to its more-patriotic-than-thou stance by traitorously blowing the cover of an undercover CIA agent, while at the same time forcing CIA Director George Tenet to take the blame for having vetted Bush's State of the Union speech without removing the Nigerian uranium canard, even though Tenet had already told the White House months earlier that the information was false. Meanwhile the unity of Bush's inner circle must have some serious cracks if a "senior administration official" is shopping two of his mates, probably including Karl Rove, to the Washington Post...

Wilson said, "At the end of the day, it is of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs. And trust me, when I use that name, I measure my words." He's either foolishly over-confident, or Rove should be packing his bags.

[RBS]

This story isn't leaving anytime soon. It's too real, dishonest and hypocritical.

I never thought I'd say this, but these guys make Nixon look good.

[Gary Sisco]

This one's a no-brainer. I raised the issue on the same day the story broke, months ago. There are people doing life in fed pens for providing this kind of information to foreign intelligence services, and these guys purposefully provided it to the world media. Off with their heads. And, as Ashcroft has put it so well, all federal prosecutors have been directed by the AG to seek the maximum sentences for *all* federal cases. No plea bargains.

Ok, Dems, if there is any life left in your alleged party, now is the time: Attack, Attack, Attack! Goddammit go on the offensive right now you miserable currs!!!!! Charlie don't surf and I smell victory. For crissake charge, motherfuckers!

[Clay Fink]

Originally posted by RBS
This story isn't leaving anytime soon. It's too real, dishonest and hypocritical.

I never thought I'd say this, but these guys make Nixon look good.

I don't know, Nixon was REALLY bad. Dick's got Bush beat on the total number of unecessary US military deaths, at least so far. They're cut from the same cloth, though. Hell, there a lot of the same people. I don't think, however, that this will topple King George or the Right in this country. They got too much money and power.

[Gary Sisco]

Fuck that. So far is the key word, there.

Adjusted for population, Iraq compared to the US in similar circumstances, the US would have sustained more than 140,000 civilian casualties since George II's invasion alone.

These guys are every bit as vicious and powermad as Nixon and maybe more. Nixon never invaded another country with the US military in a completely unprovoked attack.

Never mind that, if you read the back pages, the past couple of months have seen *extremely* intense combat in their rear, in Afghanistan (remember that?), that's hardly being discussed at all.

The Dems have a strategic opportunity to pound the Bushists.

We'll see if they can remember how to go on the offensive, like any opposition party is supposed to do and expected to do.

No offensive, no vote. That's my new party line.

No balls, no vote.

Attack, attack, attack is the order of the day and will stand tomorrow and etc.

Move you motherfuckers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[RBS]

Originally posted by Clay Fink
I don't know, Nixon was REALLY bad. So far Dick's got Bush beat on the total number of unecessary US military deaths, at least so far. They're cut from the same cloth, though. Hell, there a lot of the same people. I don't think, however, that this will topple King George or the Right in this country. They got too much money and power.

You're absolutely right on the first part -- especially about the unnecessary US military deaths. I think what I'm trying to say is that this group of thieves is so much more OBVIOUSLY flouting the law and not giving a rat's ass about what people think. Also, Nixon did some good for the environment and opened doors to China and the Soviet Union.

They are cut from the same cloth, but Bush is far more ignorant and callous, I think.

I miss this guy, flawed as he is, and am unashamed to admit it:

[Gary Sisco]

I don't miss anyone who would pound a medicine factory with cruise missiles.

[RBS]

I know. Understood.

[Gary Sisco]

Sheeit. I smell blood and I want to get some. There must be one of the Dems in the pack who knows how to pound an anvil with a big fucking hammer. Right? One? Please?

[Tom Storer]

Gary, I share your eagerness and impatience. Why wait? Democrats, go for the jugular! Make as big a fuss as possible - even if the leakers are never identified, the administration's reputation will be tarnished, and as the 2000 election showed, every tenth of a percentage point counts! ON, YOU HUSKIES!

[Al in NYC]

Originally posted by Gary Sisco
Sheeit. I smell blood and I want to get some. There must be one of the Dems in the pack who knows how to pound an anvil with a big fucking hammer. Right? One? Please?

I sure wouldn't count on it...

[Clay Fink]

Originally posted by Gary Sisco
Sheeit. I smell blood and I want to get some. There must be one of the Dems in the pack who knows how to pound an anvil with a big fucking hammer. Right? One? Please?

Joe Leiberman is just the right guy to step up and flail them with a wet noodle.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally posted by Clay Fink
Joe Leiberman is just the right guy to step up and flail them with a wet noodle.

Some rotten gefilte fish should do the trick.

[RBS]

Originally posted by jesus marion joseph
Some rotten gefilte fish should do the trick.

Real funny, that borderline anti-Semitic joke.

[RainyDay]

Flood your Congress persons with letters and e-mails and let them know how how you feel.

[Jazzmoose]

Originally posted by Clay Fink
Joe Leiberman is just the right guy to step up and flail them with a wet noodle.

Leiberman? Speaking of jokes...

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally posted by RBS
Real funny, that borderline anti-Semitic joke.

Yet another example of how you do *not* have a "pretty good sense of humor".

[Dr Dave]

It's not going away. Even Republicans are basically saying an independent prosecutor is a good idea. I'm not all that surprised that none of the Ten Little Native Americans have decided to swing for the fences on this one. It is so scandalously callous as to defy belief. Blowing a CIA agent's cover because you're pissed you didn't get the answer you wanted from one of your own? Wow. Some may wonder whether it's really true, and don't want to get out in front of something that could turn on them. On the other hand, I'm kinda disappointed that Dean hasn't come out slashing--I was under the impression that he's got some attack dog in him.

[Tom Storer]

I check out the CNN International site (fewer American man-bites-dog stories, more European man-bites-dog stories), and have been fascinated to see the changing headlines.

Yesterday morning: White House to Cooperate But Not Investigate

Last night: White House Vows to Cooperate with CIA Leak Investigation

This morning: Bush Engulfed by CIA Leak Claim

A more or less neutral headline, changing to a positive slant, changing again to a negative slant, all in 24 hours. Meanwhile the story under the headline has barely changed at all - maybe a paragraph has been added. One wonders what influences the headline decisions.

And now Novak is saying no, it wasn't anyone in the White House who gave him the leak. And yet his original column cited "two senior administration officials." Where do senior administration officials have their office? Are they not part of the executive branch if they are "senior administration officials," and isn't the executive branch more or less "the White House" even if their offices are elsewhere? Maybe the terminology is not used the way I expect it to be, but still... And what about the *other* "top White House official" who was cited by the Washington Post this weekend as pointing the finger at the other two?

Investigate, investigate! Don't take Novak's word for it!

[jesus marion joseph]

I think this is a matter that screams for an independent prosecutor. But didn't that law die during the term of that-former-president-whose-name-I'm-not-allowed-to-say?

[Uli]

congress can always make a new law, no? Do they still have that power?

[Gary Sisco]

Any law can be made again, with a raise of hands in Congress. They do it all the time. If the Repubs refused to do it, it would just add gasoline to the fire.

There's no skipping out on this one. Hell, it was immediately clear to me, a civilian, way back last summer. These Dem wannabes had better kick up their heels and charge, dammit, or they'll lose my vote. If they can't attack on this issue, they deserve to lose the election.

Plus, the Bush admin is digging in its heels on the matter, calling the Constitution into question again as they continue to assume and further centralize power in the exec branch. Who rules here? Where does power lie -- with the people or with the president?

Fuck 'em. Charge, goddamit. Nixon refused to cooperate, too. It just fanned the flames of the blowback for him, nothing more.

Now, is the time of trial. We'll see now if the Dem wannabes or even the party understand what it means to be an opposition party instead of a lapdog.

Victory is in the air and it can be had by the one who goes for it.

Or lost by those who won't.

Their choice.