Lexis

The media has been jam packed with the story of who leaked Valerie Plame's name to the media but the story is full of twists.

So, I want to spark some discussion about this complicated story. Here are some questions to get us going.

1) Did Karl Rove behave inappropriately? Does referring to a CIA agent as "Wilson's Wife" but not using her full name constitute a criminal offense?

2) If so, what should happen to him? Will Bush fire/pardon him?

3) Should he be fired for is conduct thus far, even if he is not convicted?

4) Will this scandal damage the Bush administration?

Aside from the obvious ethical, moral failures of leaking an agents name/identity, one of the things that really concerns me is the changing of the goal posts. One moment Bush will fire anyone who leaked the name - the next minute, only if the person is convicted will they be kicked out of their job.

And as for the Press Secretary... I really don't feel that he has handled this whole situation well. The Press Corps are going to be happy with him after this.

UnsilentMajorty

What Karl Rove did was paramount to a breach of National Security -- Not to mention the safety of Valerie Plame herself -- And is classified as treason and traitorous actions under the USMCJ (US Military Code of Justice). This offense is punishable by death...

But since this isn't be tried in a military tribunal, we are going to get a "white-washing" of its severity. (It's ironic the Republican's "you're with us, or against us" mantra can be "withdrawn" if one of their own, Rove, via their actions, invadvertantly turns against them, huh?)

I'll be honest. I can't answer each of your questions, but I will say the implications of this event are more important than the event itself in a lot of ways.

This is a clear example of the Bush administration acting in a Facist-like manner in the whole reason Valarie Palme's name may have been leaked is/was in retalation for her husband, former US Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, being publically against the invasion of Iraq saying there was no proof of WMDs... Specifically, no traces of weapons-grade uranium production or sales... Or any other justification for an invasion.

Bush defenders... Press Secretary included, obviously... Can say this has nothing to do with invading Iraq and that Karl Rove didn't behave inappropriately, but I think even they are realizing that Rove may be a liability more than asset and Bush may [have to] cut him loose depending on the outcome considering Bush is not doing as well as he had hoped his second term, no matter what anybody tells you.

The main issue is the never-ending war in Iraq, not to mention a majority of the public... Including former Republicans who used to be ardent supporters... Don't think his Social Security reforms are that great and will cause more economic damage if they are enacted. There are other failings, but even the talking heads of the RNC can't spin what is so evident to not just the general public, but even grumblings of dissent and dissolution within their own party which is something that just isn't going to go way and they can't blame the Democrats for.

AlexEvans

Was Plame a covert operative? Not anymore. She'd been working at Langley in plain sight for years.

It should be noted that the New York Times and a consortium of other newsmedia including ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, AP, Newsweek, Reuters America and the Washington Post have filed a court statement asserting that no crime has been committed in this matter. (And therefore reporters shouldn't have to reveal their sources.) They argue among other things that Plame's former status had long ago been revaled to both the Soviet Union and Cuba - the latter due to a screw-up by the CIA.

What's absolutely certain is that Wilson told the CIA one thing (he reported Iraq attempted to buy yellowcake) and the press and public another.

ceilirose

The only place where you hear that Valerie Plame was no longer a covert agent is the right wing media, blog, pundits. The fact that it was known in the DC cocktail party circuit comes from a statement by Cliff May who is a hardcore Bush/Republican/Neocon supporter. It should be taken with a grain of salt. The CIA itself asked for an investigation by the Justice Department after Novak exposed her in his column. In fact Rove says he heard about Plame from the media and Novak says he heard about it from two WH sources. Someone isn't telling the whole truth.

The special prosecutor is a Bush appointee and I doubt that if he learned two years ago that Plame was not a covert agent that this investigation would still be on. It's a complex case and whether a crime was committed or a bad judgement made that could have compromised national security is still to be decided. Throw in the State Department classified memo that may have fallen into the hands of those who weren't authorized to read it then the complexity of the case deepens.

BTW I don't think it's the media's place to determine whether a crime had been committed. It's up to the judicial system. So that consortium of media sources can say a crime hasn't happened but it's really not their call.

For all the angst and breast beating that's going on with the media they seem to have overlooked the fact that they are protecting a source who may have leaked classified information. They're not protecting a whistleblower whose information is going to do the public good. The only reason this information came out was to discredit the reputation of a Bush critic.

ETA - This link is what some former CIA agents think of this whole issue:

http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_webl...genc.html#more

TokyoNiGHTS

I think so. While he might've not said her name specifically, as some have said it wouldn't take too much work for someone to just look up who his wife is. He knew what he was doing.

What should happen to him, at the very least, is he should be fired. This should've happened once it was proven that he did basically tell her name. Bush shouldn't try to spin it in any way. Get rid of the guy.

Now what will happen? I think Bush will figure out a way to get around it and keep him.

Absolutely

It'll do damage if Rove isn't fired. The latest poll numbers had the amount people trust Bush under 50%. This will make it fall even further. How much will that matter though? If he can survive the complete screw up that is the Iraq war, then this shouldn't be much trouble.

Ms Carolyn

Yes.

He should get tried for treason. But no, I don't think Dubya has either the desire or the stones to dump Wonder Boy.

Should be, yes. Will be? Not likely.

More like, "How much damage has it done already?" A recent poll shows that 75% of the American public doesn't believe that the Bush administration can be trusted to tell the truth. Since trust is the only currency a President has with the people, that's pretty serious.

In Fair Verona

TokyoNiGHTS

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=IJWRAX1A74E9

It doesn't seem like Bush is going ot fire him. As some figured, he's already figuring out a way to wiggle out of this as he has on many issues. Even though if he actually kept to his original statement, Rove would be out the door.

WalkingOnSunshine

The critics of this adminstration have been looking for an opportunity to take Bush down. And, what better way to do that than to go after Rove? Rove is seen as the man behind this presidency. The man that does take control & steer this President the way he needs to go. A man that needs to hit the road in the eyes of many, if not all, on the Left.

Hasn't Matt Cooper testified to the grand jury that Rove didn't mention her name? Didn't Plame’s former CIA Supervisor, Fred Rustin, confirmed that she was an overt, not covert, employee during the suggested time frame? The 1982 law covering the outing of CIA agents which specifically states that the CIA agent had to have been covert within the last 5 years (of said outing) and overseas at the time - which it seems Mrs. Wilson was not.

So in regards to the questions:

It is not a crime unless the law applies to it. So in my opinion, No.

No, Bush should not fire him. Only if Rove is convicted should Rove then resigned before being fired. I have a feeling if, and that is a big if, Rove is convicted he will resigned to take some of the heat off Bush.

As to the claim that Bush is backing down now by adding the phrase "if convicted" when discussing whether or not he would fire the person(s) involved. But, back in September of 2003, Bush said exactly that.

No.

Not badly. This "scandal" is too confusing and not really much substance involved to completely damage a President's term.

I doubt Scott McClellan could do much right in the eyes of the media. There is a frenzy going on right now and the media wants this adminstration to go down in flames.

Raonaild

It's Bush who's taking himself down on this, not the critics. He could save himself by taking a strong stand against this sort morally questionable behaviour, whether it's technically illegal or not. Instead, he goes all wishy-washy and lets the controversy fester.

Not that this is surprising anyone. The fact that Bush hasn't fired Rove already is just confirming in the minds of many that morally questionable behaviour and dirty politics are perfectly acceptable in this administration.

ceilirose

You can look at it two ways though. Initially he was lying to protect Rove and his gang when they said he had nothing to do with it. Or..he was lied to by Rove and now he's being hung out to dry by Bush and his gang.

Either way he's in the worst position of anyone at the moment until any indictments are handed down.

They're playing word games with this in their explanations but even though the case is complicated most people understand that leaking classified information is wrong. Most Americans understand that CIA agents put their lives on the line everyday and they should not be used as a political fodder no matter who they're married to.

Also there's a theory floating out there that the leak may not be the big crime here. Rove apparently was less than forthcoming in his interviews with federal investigators and that might be the real issue. The link explains more:

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?...rticleId=10016

Lexis

Even though I've been following this case online (the British press are covering it too but obviously, the news here has been dominated by other stories) but I haven't read very much about the bare bones of the testimony - could you provide a link or point me in the direction of some good analysis? This is an open question, not just directed at you WalkingOnSunshine.

I couldn't find that quote - I did find these those (helpfully compiled at Daily Kos).

For me, a leak implies that the person doing the leaking cannot be trusted with that information given to them. I believe that appropriate action would then constitute the dismissal of the leaker.

But fair enough, he doesn't say the word ""fire" - but helpfully, his Press Secretary pretty much fills in the gap.

So either Scott isn't getting all his memos or there has been a shift in the criteria applied for someone involved in the leak to be booted out of the administration.

That was a few days ago.

All I'm pointing out is that journalists don't like being lied too - they have a job to do and when they feel like a major fountain of information is not just spinning but possibly lying about something that needs to be investigated, it irritates them. I imagine this is true of reporters of all political stripes.

Can you tell my why the media wants the administration to go down in flames? Cause as a journalists in training, I was under the impression that my job was to find and objectively report the facts. The media wants the truth - if the truth is that a member of Bush's staff was involved in a leak, they have the duty to report it and question what's going on.

ceilirose

Time Magazine has it online but it's for subscribers only. Here's a link from dailykos though where the diarist summarized it:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/17/75734/9437

Frenzy is a pretty relative term. My definition of frenzy is what went on during the whole Lewisnsky/stained blue dress escapade.

I think the media is sensitive to this because one of their own is sitting in jail over the leak. Also they took plenty of criticism when they didn't question the existence of WMD in the run up to the war but just took the Administration's word for it.

There's also a great video of Rove taken in 2003 where he absolutely denies any involvement in the leak. Depending on your political outlook it's a pretty funny sound bite.

Ms Carolyn

To work in the White House is (or at least should be) rather to be like Caesar's wife. One must be above blame, with no question of impropriety in one's public life. And by identifying Valerie Plame (and please, don't pick the nit that he didn't name her by name, because that's just fluffy semantics -- he identified her), Karl Rove undermined national security. He also put Plame's life in danger. All out of petty spite.

Yeah, that's the man we want pulling the President's strings. Uh-huh.

Sparrowhawk

"Didn't identify her by name" is a crock and you know it.

Could you link to the testimony of Fred Rustin from a non-partisan source? I get different information, whether she was covert or not. That of course is an important question.