Jackson Free Press

Big news today was that Karl Rove was a source in a Time magazine story that helped out undercover CIA investigator Valerie Plame. Newsweek reports:

"Some government officials have noted to Time in interviews... that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction," said Cooper's July 2003 Time online article.

The e-mails surrendered by Time Inc., which are largely between Cooper and his editors, show that one of Cooper's sources was White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, according to two lawyers who asked not to be identified because they are representing witnesses sympathetic to the White House. Cooper and a Time spokeswoman declined to comment. But in an interview with NEWSWEEK, Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed that Rove had been interviewed by Cooper for the article. It is unclear, however, what passed between Cooper and Rove.

[...]The controversy began three days before the Time piece appeared, when columnist Robert Novak, writing about Wilson's trip, reported that Wilson had been sent at the suggestion of his wife, who was identified by name as a CIA operative. The leak to Novak, apparently intended to discredit Wilson's mission, caused a furor when it turned out that Plame was an undercover agent. It is a crime to knowingly reveal the identity of an undercover CIA official. A special prosecutor was appointed and began subpoenaing reporters to find the source of the leak.

Previous Comments

ID

87410

Comment

Is it possible to be a more dispicable human being than Karl Rove? Gag. For the record, I don't believe the media should protect their sources on treason.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-07-05T16:37:07-06:00

ID

87411

Comment

Interesting article about the couple at the heart of this controversy, Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson, in the New York Times today: Clandestine service officers working under such "nonofficial cover" - rather than the traditional guise of diplomat - are considered to hold the most sensitive and vulnerable jobs in intelligence, lacking the protection of diplomatic immunity if they are unmasked overseas. Disclosing the C.I.A. employment of officers under cover can endanger the officers, their operations and their agents, as well as violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, the law that prompted the current leak investigation. "This situation has been very hard on her, professionally and personally," said Melissa Boyle Mahle, a former C.I.A. case officer and a friend of Ms. Wilson. "Not only have you removed from the playing field a very knowledgeable counterproliferation officer at a time when we really need her services. But before this she was on a fast track as a candidate for senior management at the agency. With something like this, her career will never recover." It is truly amazing that a political operative would out someone in such a sensitive position and put her life in danger. Are there any morals left in this administration? If so, they should figure out who did this and send them up on treason charges. Otherwise, they're covering for them. It seems rather simple to me. Some smart folks are out there keeping predicting this is bigger than Watergate, and certainly than of Clinton's philandering. I thought both of those were impeachable offensesóand this seems much, much worse, especially since they were clearly trying to cover up the lie about WMD to boot, that has gotten so many Americans killed.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-07-05T16:53:33-06:00

ID

87412

Comment

Some smart folks are out there keeping predicting this is bigger than Watergate, and certainly than of Clinton's philandering. I thought both of those were impeachable offensesóand this seems much, much worse . . . I agree, and am waiting with bated breath to see what happens (or doesn't happen) to Mr. Rove. I still don't understand why Robert Novak doesn't appear to be in trouble for this - can you explain it to me?

Author

C.W.

Date

2005-07-05T17:59:14-06:00

ID

87413

Comment

Didn't he make a deal with the prosecutor? I don't think that "journalist" was going to go to jail for anybody. I shudder when I think of how horrible this isóand how many people are, so far, turning a blind eye to what this administration has been capable of. That's changing, though. It's just too bad that so many people ignored the warning signs for so long.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-07-05T18:01:14-06:00

ID

87414

Comment

I really like this piece by Bill Israel in Editor & Publisher today: Save the First Amendment--from Karl Rove A man who taught with Karl Rove, and considers him a friend, writes that in the Valerie Plame case, Rove is using journalists, and the First Amendment, "to operate without constraint, or to camouflage breaking the law." That's why neither reporters Cooper and Miller, nor their publications, should protect the behavior of Rove (or anyone else) "through an undiscerning, blanket use of the First Amendment that weakens its protections by its gross misuse." [...] But the Valerie Plame-CIA case that threatens jail time for reporters from Time and The New York Times this week is the exception that shatters the rule. In this case, journalists as a community have been played for patsies by the presidentís chief strategist, Karl Rove, and are enabling him to abuse the First Amendment, by their invoking it.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-07-05T18:06:19-06:00

ID

87415

Comment

A bit more from Israel; good stuff: he problem, as always, in dealing with Rove, is establishing a clear chain of culpability. Rove once described himself as a die-hard Nixonite; he is, like the former president, both student and master of plausible deniability. (This past weekend, in confirming that Rove was indeed a source for Matthew Cooper, Rove's lawyer said his client "never knowingly disclosed classified information.") That is precisely why prosecutor Fitzgerald in this case must document the pattern of Roveís behavior, whether journalists published, or not. For in this case, Rove, improving on Macchiavelli, has bet that reporters wonít rat their relationship with the administrationís most important political source. How better for him to operate without constraint, or to camouflage breaking the law, than under the cover of journalists and journalism, protected by the First Amendment? This captures my feelings exactly. I feel like journalists are being duped in the worst way possible here by Rove et. alóplaying against us what we hold dear: the First Amendment. But, treason is treason, and I don't get protecting someone who put the life of an intelligence officialóa true patriot if you ever saw oneóat danger by outing her over a petty political squabble (and a lie, at that). And I don't give a damn who they are, or what party they're in.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-07-05T18:09:31-06:00

ID

87416

Comment

Ari Fleischer's "surprise" departure from the White House was announced right about the time that the administration would have been getting wind of Wilson's intention to go public with his information. Novak published his article on the day that Fleischer's resignation became effective. This timing makes it seem like Fleischer didn't want to stand in front of a room full of reporters and declare like Scott McLellan did: "Those individuals ó I talked ó I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And thatís where it stands." "Well, the investigators will ask our staff about what people did or did not do. This is a town of -- where a lot of people leak. And I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks, particularly leaks of classified information...I mean this town is a -- is a town full of people who like to leak information. And I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official. Now, this is a large administration, and there's a lot of senior officials. I don't have any idea." Your president, making things perfectly clear.

Author

Count No Account

Date

2005-07-06T10:02:57-06:00

ID

87417

Comment

you know, i (generally) agree with the principles of the reporter and value the 1st Amendment, but contextually this isn't so flag-wavingly righteous. note Miller's comments: Judith Miller told the judge that if U.S. troops could risk death in their fight for freedom in Iraq, "surely, I can face prison to defend a free press." "I have chronicled the dark side of the world, where the law is an arbitrary foil that serves the powerful," she said in court, Washington Post staff writer Carol Leonnig reported. "I also know that the freest and fairest societies are . . . those with a free press . . . publishing information the government does not want to reveal," Miller said. ------- Uh, Yeah. the only problem is Judy wasn't exactly putting the government's feet to the fire. She was taking info the White House wanted publicized in order to take revenge on someone that had given the government trouble. They were (literally) upset with the press' scrutiny. In this case i'm not so sure she'sa champion of rights as much as she's the the president's rube. It sorta loses that sense of righteous indignation when her source WAS the government using her as an agent of their propaganda. my sympathies run thin.

Author

jp!

Date

2005-07-07T08:26:21-06:00

ID

87418

Comment

Judy did some of the worst reporting of the last 50 years on Iraq, helping justify the war there, and now she is falling on her sword to protect her "source," which very possibly committed treason. It's not a test case I particularly wanted backing up my rights as a journalist, either.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-07-07T09:54:59-06:00