[osiris]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Amazing. They're still scraping flesh, blood, and guts from the walls in London, and the #1 priority of the the liberals is to bitch and whine about Karl Rove. If that doesn't tell you where their priorities are, nothing else woll.

The fact remains - everybody in Washington DC knew who Plame and Wilson were. Wilson even had his wife and her name highlighted on his personal website at the time (though it has been since "removed". This entire episode is much ado about nothing, other than a bunch of weenie liberals and Democrats trying to further their only agenda... utilizing their surrogates in the media to convince the general population to hate Bush.

It's going to be another rout for the Republicans in 2006.

oh, christ. ...and paaaleeez, agenda? F'n AGENDA? The Democrats can't flush a toilet without a Republican's okay. The only agenda is to find the truth - something you may be blissfully unaware of - partially due to the over-politicizing of every GD issue we read about these days. If government officials are corrupt, it's our job as AMERICANS to do something about it.

[GSixZero]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Amazing. They're still scraping flesh, blood, and guts from the walls in London, and the #1 priority of the the liberals is to bitch and whine about Karl Rove. If that doesn't tell you where their priorities are, nothing else woll.

I think the two are very related. Why would the Administration out a CIA agent during the war on terror? Our intelligence agencies have a hard enough job as it is, and don't need any extra pressures from domestic sources.

[Y3a]

<< Why would the Administration out a CIA agent during the war on terror? Our intelligence agencies have a hard enough job as it is, and don't need any extra pressures from domestic sources. >>

Are you ASSUMING that Rove DID out the Agent?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by GSixZero

I think the two are very related. Why would the Administration out a CIA agent during the war on terror? Our intelligence agencies have a hard enough job as it is, and don't need any extra pressures from domestic sources.

She wasn't a "CIA Agent." at the time. Even Joe Wilson for all his bluster has finally admitted that. Link

WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.

She hadn't been an undercover agent for years:

A former CIA covert agent who supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career yesterday took issue with her identification as an "undercover agent," saying that she worked for more than five years at the agency's headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee.

"She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat," Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990, told The Washington Times.

Washington Times

Wilson confirms this in his own book:

In The Politics of Truth, former ambassador Joseph Wilson writes that he and his future wife both returned from overseas assignments in June 1997. Neither spouse, a reading of the book indicates, was again stationed overseas. They appear to have remained in Washington, D.C., where they married and became parents of twins.

USA Today

So the premise is wrong. She wasn't a spy, she was an analyst. There's a difference.

[GSixZero]

I never said she was a spy, but if she weren't undercover in some fashion, why would would we have a special prosecutor assigned by the Justice department? If she were just some random CIA janitor, we wouldn't be spending millions to find out what happened.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by GSixZero

I never said she was a spy, but if she weren't undercover in some fashion, why would would we have a special prosecutor assigned by the Justice department? If she were just some random CIA janitor, we wouldn't be spending millions to find out what happened.

That's simple. This is a politicized case where some wild accusations were made. Then Attorney General Ashcroft would normally have had the ultimate authority to decide whether a prosecution was warranted or not. But because it was so high-profile and politicized he decided to recuse himself and the Justice Department and appoint an independent prosecutor (Fitzgerald).

It's looking very much like Fitzgerald will ultimately conclude that the law was not broken. The statute has a number of requirements, all of which have to be met. She had to actually be under cover, whoever leaked had to know she was under cover, had to get that information from classified information obtained from government employment, and had to act with malice toward the employee. So far it doesn't appear that any of these requirements are met, but if even one of them doesn't apply, then there is no violation of the statute that this all revolves around. Of course, there could be other violations (e.g. lying under oath, obstruction of a grand jury investigation), and that could be why the investigation is still under way.

Just because there is an investigation does not mean that the investigation in hindsight was warranted. In fact, historically most independent counsel investigations have turned into wild goose chases that uncover little if anything that they were originally set up to uncover. The classic example is the Starr investigations. Pretty much all the accusations that Starr started following ended up as dead ends. He got a couple of convictions for minor fraud (Webster Hubble) and so forth, but nothing like what people assumed the evidence would lead to. Clinton was finally only caught perjuring himself in the investigation itself. It was a collossal waste of time and money. But that is in hindsight, you don't know that at the time when you begin.

The same probably goes here. At the time the investigation was started it looked like there might be something there. It now looks very much like there is not. Only unfortunately, it is still politicized, which is the only reason we are still talking about this.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

She wasn't a "CIA Agent." at the time. Even Joe Wilson for all his bluster has finally admitted that. Link

WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.

Oh come on. He's saying in that quote that she stopped being clandestine because of Novak, not before Novak. Is that what the talking point memos are degenerating into, twisting obvious statements around?

There's no doubt that she was covert at the time, it's been confirmed again and again, starting two years ago. I don't know whether she was overseas, but what I don't get is, why would this case be pursued if that basic qualification hadn't been met? It would take 10 minutes to figure that out.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Oh come on. He's saying in that quote that she stopped being clandestine because of Novak, not before Novak. Is that what the talking point memos are degenerating into, twisting obvious statements around?

Interesting spin. Of course, that isn't what he said or what the facts are. You are confusing clandestine -- a CIA career field -- with being under cover. A clandestine agent can have her cover blown and still be a clandestine agent. She'd be a clandestine agent until reassigned.

[BRussell]

Right, it's spin and I'm confused.

That's simply a bogus talking point you got hold of, along with virtually every other one going around right now, like "Wilson said Cheney sent him."

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Right, it's spin and I'm confused.

That's simply a bogus talking point you got hold of, along with virtually every other one going around right now, like "Wilson said Cheney sent him."

And "he broke the law, march him away in handcuffs."

It is fun watching the disappointment.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Heh heh. Every time the left goes batshit over Rove it's entertaining!

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

She wasn't a "CIA Agent." at the time. Even Joe Wilson for all his bluster has finally admitted that. Link

Exactly not:

NEW YORK The Associated Press this afternoon made a key addition to its widely-circulated story earlier this day reporting on an unnamed legal source's description of parts of White House aide Karl Rove's grand jury testimony in the Plame case.

For much of the day, conservative news outlets, Web sites, and talk radio headlined one paragraph in the AP story: a report on a comment by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson (husband of Valerie Plame) on CNN on Thursday, in which he allegedly said that ``my wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.''

But this afternoon, while not deleting that quote, AP added to the original story, by John Solomon, the following:

"In an interview Friday, Wilson said his comment was meant to reflect that his wife lost her ability to be a covert agent because of the leak, not that she had stopped working for the CIA beforehand.

"His wife's `'ability to do the job she's been doing for close to 20 years ceased from the minute Novak's article appeared; she ceased being a clandestine officer,' he said."

The fact that the CIA forwarded the case to the DOJ is prima facie evidence that the CIA considered her an undercover agent. If you would like to dispute that, please take it up with the CIA.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

Exactly not:

NEW YORK The Associated Press this afternoon made a key addition to its widely-circulated story earlier this day reporting on an unnamed legal source's description of parts of White House aide Karl Rove's grand jury testimony in the Plame case.

For much of the day, conservative news outlets, Web sites, and talk radio headlined one paragraph in the AP story: a report on a comment by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson (husband of Valerie Plame) on CNN on Thursday, in which he allegedly said that ``my wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.''

But this afternoon, while not deleting that quote, AP added to the original story, by John Solomon, the following:

"In an interview Friday, Wilson said his comment was meant to reflect that his wife lost her ability to be a covert agent because of the leak, not that she had stopped working for the CIA beforehand.

"His wife's `'ability to do the job she's been doing for close to 20 years ceased from the minute Novak's article appeared; she ceased being a clandestine officer,' he said."

The fact that the CIA forwarded the case to the DOJ is prima facie evidence that the CIA considered her an undercover agent. If you would like to dispute that, please take it up with the CIA.

Post hoc spin from a political figure.

[Mithras]

or explanation of a quote from the person that was quoted?

[BRussell]

Oh Mithras, you are so naive. There are no objective "facts" any more. It's all just spin from both sides. What did Joe Wilson say? Are there WMDs or no WMDs? It's not a question of objective truth, it's just what side you're on that's important.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Oh Mithras, you are so naive. There are no objective "facts" any more. It's all just spin from both sides. What did Joe Wilson say? Are there WMDs or no WMDs? It's not a question of objective truth, it's just what side you're on that's important.

That's been the case for a long time. It's obvious that the fuel for this is partisan dislike of Rove (because he is seen as being a successful backer of Bush, the Devil incarnate), and because the left has never gotten beyond the go-to-war issue from 2 and now almost 3 years ago and you are bogged down by your "Bush lieeeed" mythology. Those are issues that only motivate a minority.

That is exactly why this scandal is going nowhere and why you are getting so frustrated. In every case where a scandal has serious legs, it is because there is a degree of agreement across partisan lines that there is really something there beyond the partisanship. Here it is becoming increasingly clear that there isn't, and so it dies.

I know it is annoying for you. It's the same emotion the most partisan Republicans felt when they were unable to convince the American public to hate Clinton. The difference is that Republicans eventually realized that they had to stand for something to win elections. You can't just rely on "scandals" that only the most committed perceive. So far the Democrats have not learned that lesson, and so you keep losing.

Edit: John Tierney in an Op-Ed in the New York Times nicely sums up exactly why this story has fallen apart. It never lived up to its billing, and Wilson's claims one by one have turned out to be either false, or at least wildly exaggerated. It's the truth that partisans will find hard to read.

So what exactly is this scandal about? Why are the villagers still screaming to burn the witch? Well, there's always the chance that the prosecutor will turn up evidence of perjury or obstruction of justice during the investigation, which would just prove once again that the easiest way to uncover corruption in Washington is to create it yourself by investigating nonexistent crimes.

For now, though, it looks as if this scandal is about a spy who was not endangered, a whistle-blower who did not blow the whistle and was not smeared, and a White House official who has not been fired for a felony that he did not commit. And so far the only victim is a reporter who did not write a story about it.

It would be logical to name it the Not-a-gate scandal, but I prefer a bilingual variation. It may someday make a good trivia question:

What do you call a scandal that's not scandalous?

Nadagate.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

That's been the case for a long time. It's obvious that the fuel for this is partisan dislike of Rove (because he is seen as being a successful backer of Bush, the Devil incarnate), and because the left has never gotten beyond the go-to-war issue from 2 and now almost 3 years ago and you are bogged down by your "Bush lieeeed" mythology. Those are issues that only motivate a minority.

Yes, the ultimate question here is whether the president misled the country into war. This is a relatively small part of that, but it's important because 1) it involved some of the most serious accusations - nukes - that 2) the administration has subsequently acknowledged shouldn't have been made, but 3) attacked a critic of that accusation anyway in 4) a probably illegal manner. Simply put, it's no mythology that "Bush lied" to send the country to war, and this Wilson investigation is a small but representative part of that larger issue.

Well, if war ain't serious, I truly don't know what is. But this just hits too close to home for Bush supporters. It's probably impossible to support Bush and yet believe that he misled the country into war. And despite what you suggest, that's a conundrum that Democrats simply don't have. I'm not a Bush supporter for plenty of other reasons - his handling of the federal budget comes right to mind. Even if he had never gone to war with Iraq, I still wouldn't have voted for him or believe in Republicans policies. In short, Democrats don't need this to be true, but Republicans desperately need it to be false.

That is exactly why this scandal is going nowhere and why you are getting so frustrated. In every case where a scandal has serious legs, it is because there is a degree of agreement across partisan lines that there is really something there beyond the partisanship. Here it is becoming increasingly clear that there isn't, and so it dies.

So, if a party has good discipline, they can do no wrong? Perhaps there's some truth to that, in a post-modern kind of way. But 1) there is a prosecutor who will release facts about this eventually, and 2) no matter what he finds, Bush's war will forever define his presidency.

I know it is annoying for you. It's the same emotion the most partisan Republicans felt when they were unable to convince the American public to hate Clinton. The difference is that Republicans eventually realized that they had to stand for something to win elections. You can't just rely on "scandals" that only the most committed perceive. So far the Democrats have not learned that lesson, and so you keep losing.

You know, there's something about this whole post of yours that I couldn't quite put my finger on, but this section triggered it for me - it's your total focus on electoral issues. It almost seems that, for you, this is not about principle or right or wrong, it's about who can win, it's about who can best spin this "scandal," and it's about who can win the next election. Please tell me I'm wrong. Hopefully we can all admit that we want our favorite politicians to win, but what's in the country's best interests is more important. Right?

Edit: John Tierney in an Op-Ed in the New York Times nicely sums up exactly why this story has fallen apart. It never lived up to its billing, and Wilson's claims one by one have turned out to be either false, or at least wildly exaggerated. It's the truth that partisans will find hard to read.

Wilson said the Iraq-Africa-nuke story shouldn't have been used. The administration has since admitted it shouldn't have been used. But Wilson was attacked by the administration for saying so anyway. In the course of attacking him, the administration revealed a CIA agent. They shouldn't have done that.

All the rest is obfuscation.

[BRussell]

I was thinking to myself, "BRussell, what if the shoe was on the other foot. Wouldn't you be madly spinning to defend your guys?" So I was trying to think of a similar situation, and I thought of the Sandy Berger stolen files matter. I went back and found the thread on it and looked for my posts:

"He should be prosecuted if he intentionally took classified documents/notes." Then I guessed at possible motives, including a cover-up of something.

and

"But maybe there was something critical in that report, and Berger was trying to steal it so no one else would have it (keeping in mind that these were copies of the docs). Or he could have taken something in order to help prepare for his testimony."

It's not exactly the same situation, but it was during the investigation (not after the plea when he admitted it), and it was also right in the height of election season, a few days before the Democratic convention last summer. And needless to say I'm a pretty partisan fellow. So I'm still waiting for Simey or another Republican here to say anything like what I said in that thread. So far there's not even been a hint of even-handedness.

[Y3a]

So the same organization (CIA) who Lied to the President about the WMD's hired Plaine and her husband, who was also a critic. You don't see any connection in the game of politics?

The Department of Snakes is also to blame.

Why does the UK still say that the uranium cake story IS TRUE?

I guess if someone you trusted told you a lie, and you repeated it YOU WOULD ALSO BE A LIAR??
Did you intentionally lie? NO. But according to YOU you would STILL BE A LIAR.

I find this amazing, coming from lib's who defended scumbag Clinton when he lied under oath,
because it is somehow OK to lie about sex since all the lib's lie about sex.

You fail to follow the information to the SOURCE on the Rove item. Since Rove does NOT have access to the names of those who are clandestine, someone WHO DID (CIA AGAIN) is the one who must be punished. Why do several versions of the story exist anyway? Novak's, Plaime, Rove, etc. Rove was told that he was not the target of the investigation. Rove followed gov't policy when he reported the conversations to the security folks.

You also have a short memory when it comes to the war. what happened at the end of the 1st war in Iraq? Remember the UN? resolution 1441 etc? Bring back any memories yet? Weapons inspectors.. Remember those bufoons, who got their chains yanked for a few years by Saddam & Company? Remember that they called it quits after they had enough? the UN(see corrupt world organizations) threw around a few more resolutions and Saddam laughed at them. Finally a few nations who's inept intel agents said that they had WMD's also reported his progress(Inept, or trying to make Bush look bad?)as being pretty far along. The UN said teh WMD's existed, but they were lying too right? UK too?, Germany?? Russia?? So we gave final warning after final warning. Finally we invaded. By then the WMD's were hidden in Syria. other big caches of weapons were hidden all over Iraq. We found another just a few weeks ago, so I guess the first pass at looking for WMD's might have also been as lousy as the search for the other caches of weapons. (CIA Again)

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I was thinking to myself, "BRussell, what if the shoe was on the other foot. Wouldn't you be madly spinning to defend your guys?" So I was trying to think of a similar situation, and I thought of the Sandy Berger stolen files matter. I went back and found the thread on it and looked for my posts:

"He should be prosecuted if he intentionally took classified documents/notes." Then I guessed at possible motives, including a cover-up of something.

and

"But maybe there was something critical in that report, and Berger was trying to steal it so no one else would have it (keeping in mind that these were copies of the docs). Or he could have taken something in order to help prepare for his testimony."

It's not exactly the same situation, but it was during the investigation (not after the plea when he admitted it), and it was also right in the height of election season, a few days before the Democratic convention last summer. And needless to say I'm a pretty partisan fellow. So I'm still waiting for Simey or another Republican here to say anything like what I said in that thread. So far there's not even been a hint of even-handedness.

This is just becoming a personal attack. I said above to zigzag, that IF there is a violation of the statute, that could change my position, but so far I see no evidence of any lawbreaking, and thus no reason t change my position. That is virtually exactly the same as your statement about Sandy Burglar.

"He should be prosecuted if he intentionally took classified documents/notes."

Notice that you place a condition on your statement. "If" and "intentionally" are conditions. Without those conditions, you arrive at a statement saying that Burglar shouldn't be prosecuted. Well, of course, Burglar was prosecuted, and is awaiting sentence.

And that, of course, is the difference in this case. Burglar was convicted of an actual crime. There is no sign that Rove broke any law, or will be prosecuted for any violation of the law. Sure, if he broke the law then he should be prosecuted -- but it is apparent by now that he didn't break the law.

What you are saying is that you want a double standard. When a Democrat is under fire, you say only that you will criticize if he broke the law, but if a Republican is implicated then Republicans should join in the attacks even though he did nothing wrong.

Bah!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Yes, the ultimate question here is whether the president misled the country into war.

He didn't. Glad we settled that.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

This is just becoming a personal attack. I said above to zigzag, that IF there is a violation of the statute, that could change my position, but so far I see no evidence of any lawbreaking, and thus no reason t change my position. That is virtually exactly the same as your statement about Sandy Burglar.

Your posts have been nothing like mine in that thread. You have been criticizing Wilson, calling him a liar, complaining about Democrats, claiming that the investigation is pure partisanship, the Democrats have nothing to offer but scandal, etc. I made a simple statement that Berger should be prosecuted if he did it and speculated on why he might have done it, including the possibility that it was a cover-up for the Clinton administration that I voted for. No covering for him, no criticizing anyone other than him. And in this very post, you're claiming that Rove is obviously innocent, right when the investigation is heating up:

but it is apparent by now that he didn't break the law.

(Your emphasis).

But you accuse me of wanting a double standard?

On the surface, it's hard to understand why Republicans defend this "most insidious treason" as Bush 41 put it. It could just be that world-renown Republican party discipline. But I think it's something deeper:

He didn't. Glad we settled that.

That's it. Despite the fact that the administration admitted that "those 16 words should not have been included in the State of the Union," the very words that this Wilson issue is all about, it's just too much dissonance to have supported this administration, and yet acknowledge the truth that they misled this country into war. It's just too much. And that's why not even an inch can be given on this. It's a slippery slope into madness.

(OK that's a little dramatic, but I've made my point. )

[SimeyTheLimey]

Link

[spacefreak]

If it weren't for Simey, this page would be as dead as the actual story.

[bewebste]

President Bush has claimed that if there's a leak coming from the White House, he wants to know about it. Surely, the simplest thing for him to do would be to ask his staff if any of them had talked to any reporters about Valerie Plame, yes? Well, maybe he did ask. If he did ask Karl Rove, and Rove told him he'd talked to Novak and Cooper, that means that Bush has known about it for two years and hasn't said a word. If Rove didn't tell him, then Bush has had his own staff lying to him to his face. If he didn't ask at all, then it seems he doesn't really want to get the bottom of it after all and was just lying to the press and the American people. None of these cases is good for the president, and I think he has some explaining to do.

[mojo2]

I reserve the right to alter this comment if, once I read the preceding posts, I learn something that materially changers the dynamics of the situation.

I am an avowed Bushy. I think the President and the Nation are indebted to Karl Rove.

However, it appears he MAY have made a VERY serious mistake.

"In 1999 this president's father said that, 'those who would expose covert sources are the most insidious of traitors.' Six years later, we have now, documentary evidence that Mr. Rove gave my wife, a covert operative's [sic] name, to a reporter. A week after that documentary evidence has appeared, not a single Republican of national standing has stepped forward and said, 'this is wrong,' to my knowledge." Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson on CBS Face the Nation 7/17/2005

If Amb. Wilson is correct then I agree.

With the latest spin indicating that Rove MAY be due an apology as there is some question as to who gave up Wilson's wife's identity, I am reminded of the types of spin we saw during the election. Not only is the accused INNOCENT as the spin would suggest, but that the accusers owe the accused an apology.

This smells like it might be a Rove spin job and if it is, AFAIK, it STINKS!

If guilty Rove should take it like a man. If guilty, the President should ask him to step aside.

It's bordering on being shameful. Ambassador Wilson and his wife have my apology (FWIW) that it happened because of ANYONE's loose lips. As a Bush supporter I call for the President to come out with everything on this matter and if Karl Rove did it, get his ass out of town asap!

This is NOT partisan politics this is a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY.

[Spliffdaddy]

Weeks later:

There's still no evidence that Rove ever commited a crime in his entire life.

Notice how the mainstream media has all but dropped the story in an attempt to save face.

The Democrats have suffered an eroding base of support for the last decade - and it just keeps getting worse for them. Every election they lose more power. Worse yet, they still haven't accepted the fact that they're losing elections because their message has been rejected. "It must be a neocon conspiracy!" "VOTER FRAUD!" "The machines were rigged!"

The majority of Americans simply do not share the Democratic 'vision'. So the Democrats must depend on unelected Supreme Court justices in order to impose their liberal beliefs on the majority of Americans.

The majority of socialist and European countries LOVE liberal Democrats. And this makes the Democrats believe their message is 'mainstream'. Well, it's mainstream globally - but foreigners can't vote in America. Thank God. Else the USA would be nothing more than a mediocre country - like all other countries.

Suck it up, liberals. You've got almost four years of Rove and Dubya left - then we'll let Rove kick the Democrats asses again in 2008 by getting another Republican president elected.

[zigzag]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I reserve the right to alter this comment if, once I read the preceding posts, I learn something that materially changers the dynamics of the situation.

I am an avowed Bushy. I think the President and the Nation are indebted to Karl Rove.

However, it appears he made a VERY serious mistake.

I agree.

With the latest spin indicating that Rove MAY be due an apology as there is some question as to who gave up Wilson's wife's identity, I am reminded of the types of spin we saw during the election. Not only is the accused INNOCENT as the spin would suggest, but that the accusers owe the accused an apology.

This smells like a Rove spin job and if you ask me, it STINKS!

Rove should take it like a man. The President should ask him to step aside.

It's bordering on being shameful. Ambassador Wilson and his wife have my apology (FWIW) as a Bush supporter but I call for the President to come out with everything on this matter and if Karl Rove did it, get his ass out of town asap!

This is NOT partisan politics this is a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY.

I applaud you for being willing to call it what it is. I fail to see how anyone could condone it. It doesn't matter whether it's illegal or not: they targeted one of our own intelligence agents in order to punish her husband. I don't care if her husband's an ***hole or not - that did not make his wife "fair game," as Rove is said to have put it. I don't need criminal indictments or convictions to conclude that it stinks.

[spauldingg]

this says it all, in my opinion...

http://www.iht.com/protected/article...ion/edrich.php

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Weeks later:

There's still no evidence that Rove ever commited a crime in his entire life.

Notice how the mainstream media has all but dropped the story in an attempt to save face.

The Democrats have suffered an eroding base of support for the last decade - and it just keeps getting worse for them. Every election they lose more power. Worse yet, they still haven't accepted the fact that they're losing elections because their message has been rejected. "It must be a neocon conspiracy!" "VOTER FRAUD!" "The machines were rigged!"

The majority of Americans simply do not share the Democratic 'vision'. So the Democrats must depend on unelected Supreme Court justices in order to impose their liberal beliefs on the majority of Americans.

The majority of socialist and European countries LOVE liberal Democrats. And this makes the Democrats believe their message is 'mainstream'. Well, it's mainstream globally - but foreigners can't vote in America. Thank God. Else the USA would be nothing more than a mediocre country - like all other countries.

Suck it up, liberals. You've got almost four years of Rove and Dubya left - then we'll let Rove kick the Democrats asses again in 2008 by getting another Republican president elected.

Spliffdaddy, Karl Rove reminds me of the zealot that sometimes HAS to be jettisoned when the leader decides to go in another direction.

I recall the zealous aide to the Senator (played by Gene Hackman in the Costner film, "No Way Out."

He served Hackman with a passion that went too far and when faced with evidence of same Hackman had to cut him loose (this, in part, to save himself too).

White House staffers and Administration officials sign a non-disclosure agreement when they start working there. It SEEMS he MAY have violated the non-disclosure.

If he is guilty and drags down the presidency the President will have failed himself, his party and the country.

Rove was a necessary evil when the election was in jeopardy. But now we see the Peter Principle at work...maybe.

[SimeyTheLimey]

A couple of factual references might put this in perspective. First, why was the law changed to protect covert agents overseas, and what was it that caused the first President Bush to make his quote that is now being misunderstood. The reason is that in the early 1970s Philip Agee, a rogue former CIA agent, revealed the names of over 2000 CIA agents working under cover around the world, leading to the deaths of at least one of them. After his act of treachery, a law was drafted for that narrow and specific situation. That law became the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act. That was the act which former Director of Central Intelligence George HW Bush lobbied for, and it was the Agee situation he was referring to. It just doesn't apply here by its own terms.

Being a CIA employee is an important position, but it isn't illegal, or in any way unethical to know that a person is simply a CIA officer and to mention that fact if it is common knowledge. Maybe this is somewhere where inside the beltway and outside the beltway part company. Outside the beltway you probably don't know too many CIA employees. Around here it isn't uncommon to run into a person who is CIA and when you hear that someone is CIA you don't immediately assume that means someone is a covert agent under cover or ever was a covert agent under cover. Frankly, you assume it means desk officer, because that is what the vast majority of CIA employees are. There are literally thousands of them. And just because they work for the CIA does not mean they run around with a glowing shield of virtuosity that protects them from the slings and arrows of ordinary criticism. You are allowed to criticize them, even by name. They are not saints, they are simply government workers.

This is a complete storm in a teacup.

[TheMosco]

New stuff in the news this monday morning.

Cooper: Rove, Libby Spoke of Wilson's Wife [Fox News]

But John Podesta, former White House chief of staff in the Clinton administration, said the White House's assurance in 2003 that Rove was not involved in the leak "was a lie." Rove's credibility "is in shreds," said Podesta, who appeared with Mehlmen.

On Sunday, Cooper also said there may have been other sources for his information. He declined to elaborate.

Federal prosecutors are reportedly looking into a State Department memo that mentions Valerie Plame's name -- as Valerie Wilson -- and discusses Joe Wilson's Africa trip. The New York Times reports Fitzgerald's grand jury is reviewing the circulation of that memo, which at one point was given to former Secretary of State Colin Powell but may also have been handed over to the White House. The memo was said to be circulating just days before Plame's name was revealed in the Novak column.

Cheney aide confirmed CIA agent's identity, reporter says [CNN]

"The underlying issue here is, whether or not Joe Wilson said things rightly or wrongly, he was right -- flat right -- that Niger was not selling yellowcake to Iraq, which was a justification for going to war," Biden said. "This was all about whether or not those who had access to intelligence information in this administration used it appropriately, not just whether or not the agency was right."

He added, "Anybody who's ever made a mistake in this administration has never paid at all. Everyone who has been right in this administration has been fired."

Republican spokesmen have accused Wilson of lying about the origins of his mission and say his report actually bolstered the report -- which later turned out to have been bogus -- that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger.

I don't really know what to think. I generally tend to think like the Biden with this one. I think that even if what Rove did wasn't illegal, it was def an abuse of power on his part.

Watching the sunday morning television, it seemed suggested that there was alot more to this investigation then just what rove did or didn't say. I guess time will tell what happens and to who.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Biden and Podesta. There are two neutral and unbiased sources.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

A couple of factual references might put this in perspective. First, why was the law changed to protect covert agents overseas, and what was it that caused the first President Bush to make his quote that is now being misunderstood. The reason is that in the early 1970s Philip Agee, a rogue former CIA agent, revealed the names of over 2000 CIA agents working under cover around the world, leading to the deaths of at least one of them. After his act of treachery, a law was drafted for that narrow and specific situation. That law became the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act. That was the act which former Director of Central Intelligence George HW Bush lobbied for, and it was the Agee situation he was referring to. It just doesn't apply here by its own terms.

Being a CIA employee is an important position, but it isn't illegal, or in any way unethical to know that a person is simply a CIA officer and to mention that fact if it is common knowledge. Maybe this is somewhere where inside the beltway and outside the beltway part company. Outside the beltway you probably don't know too many CIA employees. Around here it isn't uncommon to run into a person who is CIA and when you hear that someone is CIA you don't immediately assume that means someone is a covert agent under cover or ever was a covert agent under cover. Frankly, you assume it means desk officer, because that is what the vast majority of CIA employees are. There are literally thousands of them. And just because they work for the CIA does not mean they run around with a glowing shield of virtuosity that protects them from the slings and arrows of ordinary criticism. You are allowed to criticize them, even by name. They are not saints, they are simply government workers.

This is a complete storm in a teacup.

Face the Nation (CBS News) - Sunday, July 17, 2005

Ms. JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG (The Chicago Tribune): Well, could we go back to the ambassador in this? You declined to say
whether she served abroad within five years of those conversations, but did anyone know that she
was working at the agency or driving to Langley? Did her friends or neighbors? Did anyone
know that your wife worked for the CIA.
Amb. WILSON: No. No.
Ms. GREENBURG: So what did they understand her occupation to be?
Amb. WILSON: Well, they understood her to be an energy analyst, an energy consultant.
Ms. GREENBURG: For a private...
Amb. WILSON: For a private corporation. That's correct.

Her reasons for establishing this facade is what? Seems like an Ambassador and his professional spouse wouldn't bother with such charades if it wasn't important to her job or her or HIS safety. She was more than your average government worker.

Ms. JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG (The Chicago Tribune): Ambassador, I am just not clear
on something. The law actually covers and protects covert agents who served abroad within the
last five years. So if these conversations took place in 2003, does that law protect your wife?
Did she serve abroad as an agent since 1998?
Amb. WILSON: Well, I'm not a lawyer, first of all. But the CIA would not have frivolously
referred this to the Justice Department if they did not believe a possible crime had been
committed. The possible crime has now been investigated for two years by Mr. Fitzgerald and by
the FBI. It's taken two years, despite the fact that the president himself instructed all of his
employees to cooperate fully with the investigation.
Ms. GREENBURG: But...
Amb. WILSON: It's taken two years even though--it's taken two years and it's been litigated up
to the Supreme Court before we finally are now getting some movement on this in this
documentary evidence that is now being produced.
Ms. GREENBURG: But had she served abroad in the time period from...
Amb. WILSON: I would just tell you that she was covered according to the CIA, and the CIA
made the referral.

In the text above it seems the Ambassador is trying to keep from saying whether his wife did or didn't serve abroad during the span of time the law would protect a covert agent. This might be to avoid placing his wife in greater danger, to keep from saying something that might break a law or reveal sensitive information. He says that the CIA obviously felt she was covered by the protections of the law or else they wouldn't have referred the case to the Justice Dept.

The transcript repeats your assertion the law was enacted in 1982...

Rep. BLUNT: ...What I'm saying is I think often the CIA classifies things as
top secret that really don't need to be top secret. This could very well be a time when they have
continued to call an agent a covert agent long beyond the time when she would have met the
statute. This law was pa--was put in place in 1982 in specific response to a person in Greece
being assassinated and another former agent giving up the names of lots of people who were in place at the time. That is, it's a law that's hard to violate because of that...
Amb. WILSON: Well...
Ms. GREENBURG: And...
Rep. BLUNT: ...and I don't think it probably was violated, but that's what...
Ms. GREENBURG: Well, could we go to...
Rep. BLUNT: ...Mr. Fitzgerald's supposed to be deciding.

Amb. WILSON: In, I believe it was June 2004, at Sea Island, Georgia, the president in response to a question about whether he would fire somebody if he found that they had leaked this information said yes. The president is the man who prides himself on keeping his word. I do believe it's a question of trust with the American people. I also believe--and I've said this
repeatedly--that the president should fire Karl Rove. I believe that before this new documentary came out, this documentary evidence came out, because I believe that using the West Wing of the White House to be engaged in a smear campaign is an outrageous abuse of power.

Senator CHARLES SCHUMER (Democrat, New York; Judiciary Committee): Well, you know,
I talked to George Tenet. I had called originally for this investigation to be launched because I
was just outraged that the name of an agent was leaked for whatever reason. That's against the
law and shouldn't be done. And I called George Tenet a few days after and spoke to other CIA
officials. They were furious. They were not furious from a political point of view, they were
furious from an agency point of view that that isn't done.

And now what we've found, Bob, is we have not found that Karl Rove has violated the law. We
have found that he talked about the name of this agent, referring to her not using the name but
who her husband was, which is the same thing as using the name. Well, that doesn't violate the
law necessarily. That's for Prosecutor Fitzgerald to find out. But it does violate something called
the Non-Disclosure Agreement that every White House official is asked to sign. That Non-
Disclosure Agreement says, from what you it read here, it seems pretty clear that Karl Rove
violated it. And so his security clearance ought to be suspended or revoked.

You know, every child knows you tell someone a secret once and they reveal it, you don't tell
them another secret. And this Non-Disclosure Agreement, unlike the statute, it doesn't matter
whether you were told by a press person first or some other people knew it, you can't give up this information to anybody or confirm it unless the information is declassified. So Rove ought to have his security clearance revoked now, and it's for the president to decide whether he should stay on. You give the president some latitude in terms of who his advisers are. But he ought to be treated just the same as any other federal employee...
SCHIEFFER: OK.
Sen. SCHUMER: ...who violates this agreement.

[TheMosco]

I think Biden's point is valid whether you think he neutral or not. And I am pretty sure that Podesta is right too, whether or not Rove did anything wrong, he was involved.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Face the Nation (CBS News) - Sunday, July 17, 2005

Mojo: the Ambassador has lied repeatedly about what he reported, and what his wife's role in sending him to Niger was. He's not a trustworthy source, and obviously, not a neutral participant. His word carries no weight.

The fact is, his relationship to his wife was public knowledge, and she was not within the protections of the 1982 Act. Wilson is a shill and he lied on the pages of the New York Times. This is entirely a political storm in a teacup -- one in a long line of cooked up scandals the Democrats have tried to sell in an attempt to gain the traction they can't seem to win at the polls.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Mojo: the Ambassador has lied repeatedly about what he reported, and what his wife's role in sending him to Niger was. He's not a trustworthy source, and obviously, not a neutral participant. His word carries no weight.

The fact is, his relationship to his wife was public knowledge, and she was not within the protections of the 1982 Act. Wilson is a shill and he lied on the pages of the New York Times. This is entirely a political storm in a teacup -- one in a long line of cooked up scandals the Democrats have tried to sell in an attempt to gain the traction they can't seem to win at the polls.

Well, I didn't know the history of it all, and so, for that I thank you.

I have intentionally (albeit subconsciously) remained ignorant on this one. I have given about 5 minutes thought as to why I have done this.

One reason MAY be that I, too, felt it to be (why NOT use the word?) "tempest" in the teacup and would blow over in time.

Another reason MAY have been because I didn't/don't want the President and his men to be smeared by scandal.

Still another is that I have a real problem with the Jerry Springer, Judge Judy mentality of the average American these days. A rush to judgement before the jury decides and often without even hearing the case. "Well, I think she did it!" is heard before the trial even starts. That CAN'T be good for anyone.

But the reason I REALLY have trouble with is the possibility I may be emotionally involved in the DYNAMICS of this istuation.

Any man wants to protect his loved ones. A powerful and intelligent man may feel this desire or expectation more keenly than others. Here, we have a freakin Ambassador (although Ambassadorships ARE sometimes awarded for political patronage or financial contributions or favors or friendship I get the impression Wilson may be different in this regard) as high up as you can be without being elected or being a judge maybe...certainly he would be thought of as being UP THERE!

When HE can't use his intelligence, his pull and clout and power of his position to spare his wife an outing, that just freakin chaps my ass. I get steamed like I can't tell you. And when I saw him on Face the Nation yesterday and he wasn't yelling or screaming, he looked very determined and focused, I had to admire his composure. I would have caused a scene but that's one measure of why he is there and I'm here. (Here isn't bad, but it's not, 'there'...)

I thought, no, I FELT myself in that situation of having some clever slimeball orchestrate or participate in breaking/flaunting the freaking LAW to get at ME through my WIFE!!! I am thinking those bastards have a lot of freaking gall to do this in plain view of America. Playing petty politics, running roughshod over laws designed to PROTECT people such as my wife, a COVERT CIA agent. It's like Karl & George are the bandits in "Treasure of Sierra Madre," "Badges? Badges?!! We don't need no stinking badges!"

That is an obscenity, like raping her in front of me, a copy of the law in one hand and flipping me the bird with the other hand and there's nothing I can do.

Oh, those sons of bitches I would use every ounce of my power and will and wherewithal to get the LAST laugh.

Chill, mojo....

Well, you get the idea.

I think it may become more than a teacup sized issue if any of the other men in America who feel it their responsibility to protect their loved ones get emotionally involved.

It COMPLETELY separated me from ANY political considerations of righty/lefty.

And the funny thing is, I can just imagine Rove doing something like this and trying to get out of having to answer for it in JUST the way things are rolling out.

And it isn't right if that's what really IS happening.

OK. I gotta leave this alone for awhile.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Any man wants to protect his loved ones. A powerful and intelligent man may feel this desire or expectation more keenly than others. Here, we have a freakin Ambassador (although Ambassadorships ARE sometimes awarded for political patronage or financial contributions or favors or friendship I get the impression Wilson may be different in this regard) as high up as you can be without being elected or being a judge maybe...certainly he would be thought of as being UP THERE!

That's probably another place where I don't quite share the awe. My understanding is that Wilson was career foreign service. I have respect for that, but not awe. I know several ambassadors. Two were professors of mine, another was my academic advisor, and a fourth was the dean of my undergrad school. Oh, and I also had a classmate who was CIA and who turned down an ambassadorship. The ones I know are smart, and I respect them a great deal. But as much as I came to respect the ones I know, ambassadors are still just people, with the same vicissitudes of opinion that we all are subject to. Just because someone rose to a high rank in a government department doesn't per se make that person infallible, and it certainly doesn't make that person apolitical. Wilson pretty obviously has a political agenda here, and it bothers me that people are so wowed by his title that they can't see that.

The other reason why Wilson makes me recoil is that I perceive him as a hugely arrogant man. That can happen to some people who achieve high rank. He wrote a overtly political op-ed, and by doing so, willingly entered politics. Once he did that, he can't claim not to be a political figure, and cannot claim the status of private citizen. He became subject to political examination, and response. Once he thrust himself into the public realm the way he did, it was inevitable that sooner or later the skeletons in his closet would come out. Not just the fact that he lied in his op-ed but also the fact that he was sent to Niger by his wife, who it appears acted quite improperly. That was important information that should have come out. Without it, the public couldn't properly evaluate him or his claims. The fact that he subsequently lied about her involvement only undescores that fact.

And remember also that he is playing you for your emotions. Wilson knows perfectly well that his wife was never endangered. He may not have known that the law he falsely accused Rove of breaking wasn't in fact broken, but he certainly knew that she wasn't overseas undercover in some foreign capital. He knew she was safely in the Washington, DC area, and he felt comfortable enough about her safety to pose with her for Vanity Fair. His outrage strikes me as highly manufactured, a convenient way to deflect examination of the fact that what he wrote in the New York Times isn't what the 9/11 Commission said he told his superiors in his report. In other words, its a way to avoid discussing the fact he lied.

[bewebste]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

The fact is, his relationship to his wife was public knowledge, and she was not within the protections of the 1982 Act.

Is there any documented evidence for this? If so, please provide a source.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by zigzag

I applaud you for being willing to call it what it is. I fail to see how anyone could condone it. It doesn't matter whether it's illegal or not: they targeted one of our own intelligence agents in order to punish her husband. I don't care if her husband's an ***hole or not - that did not make his wife "fair game," as Rove is said to have put it. I don't need criminal indictments or convictions to conclude that it stinks.

Precisely! Certain people are focussing on details to distract attention from the overall picture. Even if she hadn't been a CIA agent, it was not right to destroy her career over something her husband did. What's worse is that he hadn't done anything reprehensible in this case.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by bewebste

Is there any documented evidence for this? If so, please provide a source.

Please, just look it up yourself. There is a ton of commentary dissecting the 1982 act and it's many conditions. On page one (I think it was) I posted a link to an op-ed by the authors of the act. Go read it. A couple of posts above this one, i posted the text of the act itself. Go read that. I also posted an op-ed from the NYT from a couple of days ago that summarized the situation. Read that too. Don't just keep demanding I post things if you can't be bothered to read what I link to.

As for the idea that she shouldn't have had her career affected for what Wilson did, that't unrealistic. Wilson said that the VP's office sent him and inferred that bolstered his opinion. In fact, Wilson's wife recommended him. How do you say "Wilson's wife sent him" without using the words "Wilson's wife"? It's impossible. But it was relevant information -- not to attack her, but to explain how Wilson came to be sent to Niger, and to impeach his false claim that the White House sent him when in fact it was wifey pulling strings.

What you are basically saying is that you can always shield wrongdoing by having a spouse do it for you. Wrong, wrong, wrong. She was an overt actor in this story.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

As for the idea that she shouldn't have had her career affected for what Wilson did, that't unrealistic. Wilson said that the VP's office sent him and inferred that bolstered his opinion. In fact, Wilson's wife recommended him. How do you say "Wilson's wife sent him" without using the words "Wilson's wife"? It's impossible. But it was relevant information -- not to attack her, but to explain how Wilson came to be sent to Niger, and to impeach his false claim that the White House sent him when in fact it was wifey pulling strings.

First off, no one ever claimed that Wilson's wife "sent him" to Niger. It's interesting how you shifted from "recommended" to "sent". It's common cause that she did not make the decision to send him so it was not necessary at all to say that his wife sent him. I don't see why they HAD TO involve his wife. Rove obviously just thought it was a convenient little tidbit to say that he was recommended for the task by his wife.

Secondly, the scandal was not that he claimed that the White House had sent him when in fact it hadn't. The firestorm was caused by his accusations that the administration had manipulated intelligence to build a case for war. He has said that his trip to Niger should have laid to rest any notion that Iraq sought uranium there and has said his findings were ignored by the White House. That was the accusation they had to respond to. I don't see how it was NECESSARY to destroy his wife's career to disprove those accusations.

[BRussell]

Simey can't provide any evidence that the act doesn't apply to her. It's also false that Wilson claimed the VP sent him. He did not say that. Cheney has admitted that he asked about this issue, and in response the CIA sent Wilson, who had done Africa work for them in the past. Republicans say that his wife originally suggested his name, but the only memo from her about him is a response to someone else's inquiry, not a recommendation.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

A couple of factual references might put this in perspective. First, why was the law changed to protect covert agents overseas, and what was it that caused the first President Bush to make his quote that is now being misunderstood. The reason is that in the early 1970s Philip Agee, a rogue former CIA agent, revealed the names of over 2000 CIA agents working under cover around the world, leading to the deaths of at least one of them. After his act of treachery, a law was drafted for that narrow and specific situation. That law became the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act. That was the act which former Director of Central Intelligence George HW Bush lobbied for, and it was the Agee situation he was referring to. It just doesn't apply here by its own terms.
...
This is a complete storm in a teacup.

That's interesting, but doesn't mean the law "doesn't apply." Megan's law was passed when a sex offender raped and strangled a 7-year-old, and then raped her dead body again before throwing it away. That doesn't mean that every application of Megan's law has to be in as horrible a case as that one.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Simey can't provide any evidence that the act doesn't apply to her. It's also false that Wilson claimed the VP sent him. He did not say that. Cheney has admitted that he asked about this issue, and in response the CIA sent Wilson, who had done Africa work for them in the past. Republicans say that his wife originally suggested his name, but the only memo from her about him is a response to someone else's inquiry, not a recommendation.

Oh for heavens sake, read this.

Of course, its a blog by a law professor. We can't expect the media to tell it like it is when there is water to carry for the Democrats.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Troll

I don't see how it was NECESSARY to destroy his wife's career to disprove those accusations.

Especially when the White House has admitted that Bush shouldn't have included that line about Africa nukes in his speech. That's what really gets me about this. They still go after him today despite the fact that they've admitted his whole point.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Oh for heavens sake, read this.

OK, it's a typical diatribe against Wilson. I don't see any evidence that the law doesn't apply to her. There's a question about whether she did work overseas in the past 5 years. I'm willing to bet that a CIA specialist on WMDs has been overseas, but I don't know that for sure, and neither do you or any of them. I do know that there's a vigorous investigation going on, and I doubt it would have gotten off the ground if this law didn't apply to her, a fact which wouldn't take two years nor the jailing of reporters to determine.

Of course, its a blog by a law professor. We can't expect the media to tell it like it is when there is water to carry for the Democrats.

Yeah, the media are biased liberals. But wait, I thought professors were all Democratic shills too. We also know that GHWBush appointees who give money to George W Bush, like Ambassador Wilson, are Democratic shills. Who isn't biased against you saintly Republicans?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Yeah, the media are biased liberals. But wait, I thought professors were all Democratic shills too. We also know that GHWBush appointees who give money to George W Bush, like Ambassador Wilson, are Democratic shills. Who isn't biased against you saintly Republicans?

Most are. I noticed for example this week that the Hamdan case came down (with a victory for the government). Right there in the caption as the counsel of record for the first amicus brief was my Federal Courts professor. Bah! Nice guy, but I was happy to see he lost.

Anyway, Volokh and his troop are kind of the exception, and they are right about this. It is highly unlikely there will be a prosecution under the 1982 act. This is kind of interesting too.

THE MEDIA TELLS THE COURT: PLAME'S COVER WAS BLOWN IN THE MID-1990s
As the media alleged to the judges (in Footnote 7, page 8, of their brief), Plame's identity as an undercover CIA officer was first disclosed to Russia in the mid-1990s by a spy in Moscow. Of course, the press and its attorneys were smart enough not to argue that such a disclosure would trigger the defense prescribed in Section 422 because it was evidently made by a foreign-intelligence operative, not by a U.S. agency as the statute literally requires.

The author is a former DOJ prosecutor. That story has been in the record for years, the spy was Aldrich Ames. But for some reason never seems to make it into press accounts. Nicholas Kristoff wrote about it in his article in the NYT way back in 2003. I was going to post it the other day, but it is behind their archive firewall. It's important though, because it explains why she was no longer working overseas under cover. Her cover was blown by a notorious traitor. Of course, the other reason was simply that she married a prominant diplomat and thus became more socially visible. And had twins by him.

[Troll]

More details from Simey. Point is, they destroyed a woman's career to punish her husband for not saying what they wanted him to say. Irrespective of whether they committed a crime in doing that, is this the kind of person you want in government. Bearing in mind that this is not an isolated incident for Rove. It's his standard MO.

[bewebste]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Please, just look it up yourself. There is a ton of commentary dissecting the 1982 act and it's many conditions.

Sorry, I misread a bit and should have been more specific. I wasn't referring to the conditions of the IIPA law, that I agree doesn't necessarily apply in this case (although there could certainly be other facts that we don't know yet that the grand jury does). I was questioning the claim that the law doesn't apply because she wasn't a covert agent, and that the fact she worked for the CIA was "public knowledge". Re-reading your post, though, I see you actually said "his relationship to his wife was public knowledge", which is true, and totally irrelevent with respect to the law. The classified information was the fact that she was an agent for the CIA, not the fact that she was Wilson's wife.

We don't have conclusive evidence at this point that Rove broke the law, but it certainly looks like he violated the non-disclosure agreement he signed. Remember that classified information is still classified even if has been revealed to someone, and it is still considered a leak to reveal or confirm that information to anyone. For example, even if Novak found out from someone else that Plame was CIA, confirming that information to him is not allowed because the info has not been declassified yet.