Rove under fire
White House won't answer questions on new evidence in leak
Richard W. Stevenson, New York Times

Tuesday, July 12, 2005


Printable Version
Email This Article




Washington -- Nearly two years after stating that any administration
official found to have been involved in leaking the name of an
undercover CIA officer would be fired, and assuring that Karl Rove and
other senior aides to President Bush had nothing to do with the
disclosure, the White House refused on Monday to answer any questions
about new evidence of Rove's role in the matter.

With the White House silent, Democrats rushed in, demanding that the
administration provide a full account of any involvement by Rove, one
of the president's closest advisers, turning up the political heat in
the long- simmering case and leaving some Republicans worried about the
possible effects on Bush's second-term agenda.

Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic minority leader, cited Bush's
past statements about firing anyone involved in the leak and said, "I
trust they will follow through on this pledge."

Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and a private group, Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, called on Bush to suspend
Rove's security clearances, shutting him out of classified meetings.

And Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said it is
"disturbing that this high-ranking Bush adviser is not only still
working in the White House, but now has a significant role in setting
our national security policy."

In two contentious news briefings, the White House press secretary,
Scott McClellan, would not directly address any of a barrage of
questions about Rove's involvement, a day after new evidence surfaced
suggesting that Rove had discussed the CIA officer with a reporter from
Time magazine in July 2003 without identifying her by name.

Under often hostile questioning, McClellan repeatedly declined to say
whether he stood behind his previous statements that Rove had played no
role in the matter, saying he could not comment while a criminal
investigation was under way.

He brushed aside questions about whether the president would follow
through on his pledge, reiterated just over a year ago, to fire anyone
in his administration found to have played a role in disclosing the
officer's identity. And he declined to say when Bush learned that Rove
had mentioned the CIA officer in his conversation with Time magazine
reporter Matthew Cooper.

No comment

Rove made no public comment. A senior administration official, who
spoke on the condition of anonymity because the White House now says
its position is not to comment on the case while it is under
investigation by a federal special prosecutor, said Rove had gone about
his business as usual Monday.

The criminal investigation into how the CIA officer's name came to
appear in a syndicated newspaper column two years ago continued largely
out of public view. But the disclosure in recent days of evidence that
Rove had discussed the CIA officer's identity, albeit in a vague way,
thrust the case squarely back into the political arena, reflecting
Rove's standing as among the most powerful men in Washington and his
place in the innermost councils of the White House.

Because of the powerful role Rove plays in shaping policy and deploying
Bush's political support and machinery throughout the party, few
Republicans were willing to discuss his situation on the record. Asked
for comment on Monday, several Republican senators said they did not
know enough or did not want to venture an opinion.

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, merely responded to
the comments by his counterpart, Dean, by saying: "It's disappointing
that once again, so many Democratic leaders are taking their political
cues from the far left. ...The bottom line is the Democrats are engaged
in blatant partisan political attacks."

Rove, Bush's senior adviser, deputy chief of staff and political
strategist, was plunged into the center of the matter Sunday, when
Newsweek reported that an e-mail written by a Time magazine reporter
had recounted a conversation with Rove in July 2003 in which Rove had
discussed the CIA operative at the heart of the case without naming
her.

Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, has said the e-mail showed that Rove was
not taking part in any organized effort to disclose the identity of the
operative, Valerie Plame Wilson, the wife of Joseph Wilson. Wilson is a
former diplomat who traveled to Africa on behalf of the CIA before the
Iraq war to investigate reports concerning Saddam Hussein's efforts to
acquire nuclear material.

In July 2003, several months after Hussein was toppled, Wilson publicly
disputed one of the administration's claims about the Iraqi nuclear
program. He has suggested that the White House sought retribution by
publicly identifying his wife, first in a syndicated column written by
Robert Novak, effectively ending her career as a covert operative.

Flat denial

In the fall of 2003, McClellan said flatly that Rove had not been
involved in disclosing Plame's name. Asked about the issue on Sept. 29,
2003, McClellan said he had spoken with Karl Rove, and that it was not
true that Rove had a role in the disclosure of her identity.

Two weeks earlier, he had called suggestions that Rove had been
involved ridiculous. On Oct. 10, 2003, after the Justice Department
opened its formal investigation, he said Rove, national security aide
Elliot Abrams and I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of
staff, had nothing to do with the leak.

McClellan and Bush have both made clear that the White House would
consider leaking Plame's identity a firing offense. Bush was asked
about that position most recently a little over a year ago, when he was
asked whether he stood by his pledge to fire anyone found to have
leaked the officer's name. "Yes," he replied, June 10, 2004.

Under some circumstances, it can be against the law to disclose the
identity of a covert CIA operative. Luskin has said he has been told by
the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, that Rove is not a target of the
investigation.

wrote in message
ups.com...
Luskin has said he has been told by
the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, that Rove is not a target of the
investigation.

Rove "isn't a target of the investigation", and yet the Democrats and
liberal press are jumping all over him. Would you like to bet that the
critics have egg on their collective faces once this investigation unfolds
completely?

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

wrote in message
ups.com...
Luskin has said he has been told by
the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, that Rove is not a target of the
investigation.

Rove "isn't a target of the investigation", and yet the Democrats and
liberal press are jumping all over him. Would you like to bet that the
critics have egg on their collective faces once this investigation unfolds
completely?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...0/AR2005071001
000_pf.html

"Cooper, according to an internal Time e-mail obtained by Newsweek magazine,
spoke with Rove before Novak's column was published. In the conversation,
Rove gave Cooper a "big warning" that Wilson's assertions might not be
entirely accurate and that it was not the director of the CIA or the vice
president who sent Wilson on his trip. Rove apparently told Cooper that it
was "Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on [weapons of mass
destruction] issues who authorized the trip," according to a story in
Newsweek's July 18
issue."........................................... ...............

"Rove did not mention her name to Cooper," Luskin said. "This was not an
effort to encourage Time to disclose her identity. What he was doing was
discouraging Time from perpetuating some statements that had been made
publicly and weren't true."

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

wrote in message
ups.com...
Luskin has said he has been told by
the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, that Rove is not a target of the
investigation.

Rove "isn't a target of the investigation", and yet the Democrats and
liberal press are jumping all over him. Would you like to bet that the
critics have egg on their collective faces once this investigation unfolds
completely?

You're a funny guy, you know? Who do you think decides who's a target?

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

wrote in message
ups.com...
Luskin has said he has been told by
the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, that Rove is not a target of the
investigation.

Rove "isn't a target of the investigation", and yet the Democrats and
liberal press are jumping all over him. Would you like to bet that the
critics have egg on their collective faces once this investigation
unfolds completely?

You're a funny guy, you know? Who do you think decides who's a target?

The prosecutor.

Now don't ask me who pulls *his* strings, because I'm fully aware that *all*
investigations in Washington are a case of the fox guarding the hen house.

It's really no different from Jamie Gorelick sitting on a committee
investigating 9/11 failures (and cover-ups a la Sandy Berger). She drafted
the damn memo that had us handling terrorism as a domestic criminal act
rather than an international act of war.

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

wrote in message
ups.com...
Luskin has said he has been told by
the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, that Rove is not a target of the
investigation.

Rove "isn't a target of the investigation", and yet the Democrats and
liberal press are jumping all over him. Would you like to bet that the
critics have egg on their collective faces once this investigation
unfolds completely?

You're a funny guy, you know? Who do you think decides who's a target?

The prosecutor.

Now don't ask me who pulls *his* strings, because I'm fully aware that
*all* investigations in Washington are a case of the fox guarding the hen
house.

It's really no different from Jamie Gorelick sitting on a committee
investigating 9/11 failures (and cover-ups a la Sandy Berger). She
drafted the damn memo that had us handling terrorism as a domestic
criminal act rather than an international act of war.

Just wanted to make sure that in your own head, you weren't living in a
fairy tale (again). :-)

Rove "isn't a target of the investigation", and yet the Democrats and
liberal press are jumping all over him. Would you like to bet that the
critics have egg on their collective faces once this investigation
unfolds completely?


How many years has it taken so far? Wanna bet the next 3 1/2 years fly
by with not conclusion?

You're a funny guy, you know? Who do you think decides who's a target?


The prosecutor.

Now don't ask me who pulls *his* strings, because I'm fully aware that
*all* investigations in Washington are a case of the fox guarding the hen
house.


Maybe President Bush's declaration that he'd get to the bottom of this
was just as feeble as his declaration that he'd get Osama Bin Laden.


It's really no different from Jamie Gorelick sitting on a committee
investigating 9/11 failures (and cover-ups a la Sandy Berger). She
drafted the damn memo that had us handling terrorism as a domestic
criminal act rather than an international act of war.


Doug Kanter wrote:
Just wanted to make sure that in your own head, you weren't living in a
fairy tale (again). :-)


Oh, he's still living in a fairy tale... notice how it's the Dems fault
that Rove is possibly under suspicion in a case the Bush declared a
horrible crime that he'd pursue no matter who it was? Notice how NOBBY
retreated to insisting that Clinton was worse (blow job! evil!)?

Reality just doesn't exit for NOBBY.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...

Oh, he's still living in a fairy tale... notice how it's the Dems fault
that Rove is possibly under suspicion in a case the Bush declared a
horrible crime that he'd pursue no matter who it was? Notice how NOBBY
retreated to insisting that Clinton was worse (blow job! evil!)?

Reality just doesn't exit for NOBBY.

DSK


Doug, you know as well as I do that Monica could have choked to death during
her generous act of kindness. Therefore, Clinton's crime was just as serious
as the one committed by whomever "outed" the CIA agent, which might have
resulted in similar loss of one human life.

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:35:48 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Luskin has said he has been told by
the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, that Rove is not a target of the
investigation.

Rove "isn't a target of the investigation", and yet the Democrats and
liberal press are jumping all over him. Would you like to bet that the
critics have egg on their collective faces once this investigation unfolds
completely?






Bush promised to "take appropriate action" if any member of his
administration was found involved in the matter.


"Involved" doesn't mean criminal activity.

Why hasn't Rove been fired?

"...involved in the matter..." and "... leaking the name of an
undercover CIA officer..." are not the same Harry.

Rove did not leak a name.

--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:35:48 -0400, HarryKrause
wrote:

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Luskin has said he has been told by
the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, that Rove is not a target of the
investigation.

Rove "isn't a target of the investigation", and yet the Democrats and
liberal press are jumping all over him. Would you like to bet that the
critics have egg on their collective faces once this investigation
unfolds
completely?






Bush promised to "take appropriate action" if any member of his
administration was found involved in the matter.


"Involved" doesn't mean criminal activity.

Why hasn't Rove been fired?

"...involved in the matter..." and "... leaking the name of an
undercover CIA officer..." are not the same Harry.

Rove did not leak a name.

If was "involved" before a name was leaked, it was his patriotic duty to
have the soon-to-be-guilty party busted, and fast.

Notice the word "if", which indicates conjecture, just like your "Rove did
not...." comment.