Waas On Rove And Plame

Murray Waas has extensive background on the Plame investigation, the Rove connection, and Ashcroft's recusal, all in the Village Voice, with more at his blog.  Comic highlight:

What has not been previously reported until now (a blog breaks news!?), is that not only could Rove not remember the name of the journalist who purportedly might have told him of Plame's CIA employment, but he also claimed to remember virtually nothing about the circumstances of the purported conversation. He could not even recall whether the conversation took place on the phone or in person.

If only it were September, we could add a soundtrack - "Try To Remember", or perhaps "Memories".  NO, "You Don't Send Me Flowers" can't be right!

I am currently blogging from an insecure remote location with a glitchy connection, but I expect to have some independent thoughts on this eventually.

UPDATE:  If I had a red pen, I would suggest some changes to this article:

Wilson reported back to the CIA that the allegations were most likely the result of a hoax.

What Wilson or anyone else knew about the Niger forgeries in March 2002 is a fascinating question.  Let's agree that Wilson said an actual sale was out of the question.

When Wilson sought out White House officials, believing they did not know all the facts, he was rebuffed. He then went public with his criticism of the Bush administration. It was then that senior administration officials began their campaign to discredit Wilson as a means of countering his criticisms of them.

Rove and Libby, and to a lesser extent then deputy National Security Council (NSC) adviser Stephen J. Hadley (who is currently Bush's NSC adviser), directed these efforts. Both Rove and Libby discussed with Novak, Cooper, and other journalists the fact that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, and that she was responsible for sending him to Niger, in an effort to discredit him.

How do we know that Rove and Libby "directed" these efforts?  Why not Condi Rice, or Ari Fleischer, or Dick Cheney, Libby's boss?

Plame's employment with the CIA had been detailed in a highly classified State Department memorandum—circulated to senior Bush administration officials—in the days jut prior to conversations between Rove and Libby and journalists regarding Plame.

Dated June 10, 2003, the memo was written for Marc Grossman, then the undersecretary of state for political affairs. It mentioned Plame, her employment with the CIA, and her possible role in recommending her husband for the Niger mission because he had previously served in the region. The mention of Plame's CIA employment was classified "Secret" and was contained in the second paragraph of the three-page classified paper.

On July 6, 2003, Wilson published his now famous New York Times op-ed and appeared on "Meet the Press." The following day, on July 7, the memo was sent to then secretary of state Colin L. Powell and other senior Bush administration officials, who were scrambling to respond to the public criticism. At the time, Powell and other senior administration officials were on their way to Africa aboard Air Force One as members of the presidential entourage for a state visit to Africa.

TIME magazine was very tough on that timeline, noting that after a Walter Pincus article on June 13, the memo was much discussed in Admin circles.

As to "The mention of Plame's CIA employment was classified "Secret" ', well, not exactly.  Per the WSJ, her name was mentioned in a paragraph that was labeled secret.  However, folks who work with classified documents have explained that it may well have been some other element of the paragraph that attracted the classification.  For example, the paragraph may have mentioned the (once classified) information that the CIA sponsored a fact-finding trip to Niger.  It may be that Ms. Plame's name was what made that paragraph classified, but again, folks who do this for a living have found the idea that a NOC would be casually mentioned in an inter-agency memo to be absurd.

Finally, as to Rove's omission of his mention of his conversation with Matt Cooper about Ms. Plame - it is probably worth noting that an e-mail between Rove and Hadley noted their talk (but not the details), so it is quite possible that Rove's memory was jogged by a review of his own e-mails (by his lawyers, presumably), rather than by Fitzgerald's investigators.

Secondly, the first round of subpoenas in October 2003 did not mention Cooper or TIME (No, I can't explain why that was).  TIME was picked up (along with the White House Iraq Group e-mails, such as Rove-Hadley) in January 2004, after Fitzgerald took over.

Comments

[Marcel]

For Karl Rove, it just keeps getting worse. Indictment or no indictment, it is time for Rove to spare further embarrassment to the President.

[TM]

Jeralynn Merritt has thoughts here. My quick reax - Rove's e-mail to Hadley mentioned Cooper. However, that was picked probably picked up in a WHIG subpoena from Jan 2004, after Fitzgerald took over.

Other parts of Rove's story have never been good.

[Cecil Turner]

Interesting. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to see Ashcroft's recusal as proof-positive of Administration guilt . . . or whether his checking to see if there was an actual case is proof-positive of collusion (since he shouldn't be allowed to see any of the facts before he recuses himself). But I don't see how it can be both.

On Rove's apparent memory lapses, it seems to me they're consistent with the view that he didn't know Plame was covert. If he could cite minute details of each contact with whom he discussed her, it'd be a pretty good indicator that he was paying a lot more attention than an anonymous CIA analyst's tangential involvement in the Wilson case would warrant.

[Syl]

I have no thoughts on Ashcroft, but I agree with Cecil this meshes with the idea that Rove did not know Plame was covert.

I've never believed, and still don't, that Rove 'outed Wilson's wife to punish him'.

The Harlow boo-boo looms large. BTW, I think Harlow is no longer CIA spokesman. When did that happen?

[Anonymous Liberal]

"On Rove's apparent memory lapses, it seems to me they're consistent with the view that he didn't know Plame was covert. If he could cite minute details of each contact with whom he discussed her, it'd be a pretty good indicator that he was paying a lot more attention than an anonymous CIA analyst's tangential involvement in the Wilson case would warrant."

I'm not sure I follow this line of reasoning. Rove is said to have an amazing memory for detail. And he did, after all, recall his conversations with both Novak and Cooper in some detail. And Rove's initial interview wasn't all that long after all these events took place. Couldn't we just as easily infer that Rove's memory lapse is evidence of consciousness of guilt? I'm not saying that Rove committed a crime. I have no idea. But your inference seems weak to me.

[Cecil Turner]

"Couldn't we just as easily infer that Rove's memory lapse is evidence of consciousness of guilt?"

Not sure we're too far apart here. Waas, et al, seem to be suggesting that's the only explanation. Hence my observation that they're "consistent" with the inadvertent outing theory. (I'd further suggest that it's the simplest explanation, since under the "nefarious mastermind" theory you'd expect evil Rove Vader to concoct a more plausible story . . . unless of course he's working a reverse Vulcan jujitsu mind-meld . . .)

[Martin]

or perhaps Rove has early onset Alzheimers?

I scoffed at Reagan's frequent "I don't recall" during Iran-Contra and look what transpired.

So Alzheimers? Nah-Rove is just a criminal and a scumbag.

[Syl]

"And he did, after all, recall his conversations with both Novak and Cooper in some detail"

Conversation with Novak: "I heard that too."
Conversation with Cooper had a memo to jog his memory.

Rove may be a scumbag and I have nothing invested in him beyond the fact he got Bush re-elected. Come 2008 the whole crew will back in Texas and we'll prolly never hear from any of them again. Makes all this fuss and stuff seem such a waste of time.

[jukeboxgrad]

CECIL: "If he [Rove] could cite minute details of each contact with whom he discussed her, it'd be a pretty good indicator that he was paying a lot more attention than an anonymous CIA analyst's tangential involvement in the Wilson case would warrant."

It's true that Plame played only a "tangential" role, at most, in Wilson's trip. This is what Wilson has been telling us all along. And whatever role she played is not relevant to the more important question of what Wilson found (and didn't find) on his trip. As the WSJ pointed out: "That Ms. Plame recommended her husband doesn't undercut Mr. Wilson's credentials for the job of trying to figure out whether Saddam Hussein was seeking the raw material for a nuclear weapon in Africa."

Anyway, it's highly entertaining to hear you endorsing Wilson's perspective on this point (for the purpose of explaining away Rove's odd memory lapse), since this perspective is very much at odds with the spin coming from Rove et al. Rove and his pals have been quite emphatic about encouraging folks to take a very close look at Plame's role in Wilson's trip. This is reflected in Rove telling Cooper (according to Cooper's email) that Plame "authorized" the trip. This is also reflected in the talking points coming from folks like Mehlman. Mehlman's official RNC news release on this subject lists 5 major points. Number two on the list is "Wilson Denied His Wife Suggested He Travel To Niger, But Documentation Showed She Proposed His Name."

So it's a little tough for Karl to have it both ways. He can't simultaneously claim that Plame's role is significant (and this is what Rove has been doing all along, and is still doing, as the RNC release indicates), and then also claim (as you seem to be doing on his behalf) that he can't be expected to remember how he heard about Plame since this is only a matter of "an anonymous CIA analyst's tangential involvement."

In your later message I notice what looks like some hedging, so feel free to let me know if I've totally misunderstood you.

"under the 'nefarious mastermind' theory you'd expect evil Rove Vader to concoct a more plausible story"

Even "nefarious masterminds" often end up choking on their own hubris. Besides, Rove had good reason to calculate that it would never get this far. Things were looking pretty good for Rove until Fitz cracked open Pearlstine and Cooper. Who was betting such things would ever happen (especially since these folks had covered for Rove in the period prior to 11/2/04)?

[kim]

Still wrong JBG. He may well not have heard or understood the impact of her involvement in the choice of her husband at the time of his poorly recollected conversation.

That is IF this latest Rove oriented leak has any more lasting power than the others.

Joe is the villain. He can't escape his fate, nor apparently can you escape being wrong in this matter.
==========================================

[Anonymous Liberal]

Well put, JBG, your analysis is spot on.

Regarding Rove's story, here's another thing I don't understand. By all accounts, Rove did not mention his conversation with Cooper in his initial FBI interview. Here's what strikes me as strange about that. Other than Novak's column, Cooper's "War on Wilson" article in Time was the most significant article to mention Plame's name. In it, Cooper writes that:

"[S]ome government officials have noted to Time in interviews (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."

If I were one of the FBI agents who first interviews, one of the first questions I would ask all of the officials I interviewed is whether they were one of Cooper's sources for the "War on Wilson" article. Failing to ask that question would be almost inexcusable incompetence. So is it that Rove absent-mindedly forgot to mention his conversation with Cooper, or did he affirmatively deny being Cooper's source? If the latter, I understand why prosecutors were so anxious to appoint a special prosecutor. If Rove denied being Cooper's source, that would be textbook obstruction of justice.

[MJW]

There's a curious sentence in the article: "Wilson reported back to the CIA that the allegations were most likely the result of a hoax." Curious, because it seems to be referring to the phony yellowcake documents (if not, what?). I thought it was well-established that, despite Wilson's later claims, his report to the CIA didn't mention the fake documents. Both Tenet's press release and the 9/11 Commission report support this view.

I also think the sentence, "The mention of Plame's CIA employment was classified 'Secret' and was contained in the second paragraph of the three-page classified paper," states as a fact what is only an inference. Though it's reportedly true that the paragraph she's mentioned in is marked [S] for secret, I haven't heard anyone confirm that it was her CIA employment, rather than some other fact, that resulted in the paragraph's classification.

[kim]

When you try to recall from whom and to whom you spoke of a name that is on everyone's tongue, it is likely that the details are fuzzy.

It cannot be proven that Rove was the sole source from which came the news that broke V's cover, and a jury would not find criminality. A competent prosecutor would not press the case, and Fitz is competent.

Perjury is Fitz's game now, and Wilson is the natural perjurer.

Unless, of course, it's the Yellow Cake Mystery Fitz is after.
================================================

[jukeboxgrad]

KIM: "He [Rove] may well not have heard or understood the impact of her involvement in the choice of her husband at the time of his poorly recollected conversation."

If Cooper's email is to be trusted (and I haven't heard anyone put forth a good reason why it shouldn't), it was on 7/11/04 that Rove said to Cooper that Plame "authorized" Wilson's trip. Obviously at this moment Rove viewed Plame's role as important (or at least was trying to convince someone else that Plame's role was important). Since your claim seems to be that Rove's source communicated the idea (either explicitly or by omission) that Plame's role was "tangential," then it's even harder to explain what is already hard to explain: why did Rove say "authorized?"

The bottom line is that there are only two basic possibilities. One possibility is that Rove had no reason to think Plame had an important role, and simply pulled "authorized" out of his hat. That's not good. The other possibility is that someone gave Rove a reason to think that Plame had an important role. If so, Rove has a hard time convincing anyone that he would remember next to nothing about a conversation where he picked up information that he treated as important (important enough to pass along to Cooper in an emphatic manner).

"It cannot be proven that Rove was the sole source"

You can be counted on to say something both irrelevant and foolish.

I don't think anyone has claimed that Rove was "the sole source" of anything. He apparently had help from folks like Libby. Anyway, SF-312 doesn't say a leak is OK as long as other folks are doing it too. A leak is still a leak. We already know that Rove told Cooper about Plame. That's not good. You're speculating that other folks may have been having similar conversations, before, during and after the time of the Cooper-Rove conversation. We're still waiting patiently for you to explain the legal and/or moral principle which explains how this gets Rove off the hook. It doesn't.

[jukeboxgrad]

ANON: "Well put"

Thanks.

"If I were one of the FBI agents who first interviews, one of the first questions I would ask all of the officials I interviewed is whether they were one of Cooper's sources for the 'War on Wilson' article"

This is a good question that I haven't seen anyone ask. I wonder if a cagy interviewer would simply say "did you talk to anyone about Plame," and simply leave it at that. In other words, from a certain perspective the interviewer is helping the witness by reminding them about the Cooper article. If the interviewer is inclined to let the witness hang himself, the interviewer may be happy to not give the witness that extra help.

This is just guesswork on my part; I have no idea what guidelines or practices the FBI would follow in a situation like that.

[Jonah D. Wail]

It's been fun reading this thread with all the who what when why and how this Plame affair as transpired. Although it is all but speculation on everyone's part. Yeah - it's fun to be an armchair sleuth - but no one here can come close to what Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, his team, and the grand jury have at their disposal to work with.

Does anyone have an attention span longer than a 12 column inch of the New York Times or a one minute blurb from CNN?

If so - have a read through this:

Plame in the Courtroom

Is the Intelligence Identities Protection Act really impossible to prove?



By Elizabeth de la Vega

Pundits right, left, and center have reached a rare unanimous verdict about one aspect of the grand jury investigation into the Valerie Plame leak: They've decided that no charges can be brought under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, because it imposes an impossibly high standard for proof of intent. Typically, writing for Slate on July 19th, Christopher Hitchens described the 1982 Act as a "silly law" that requires that "you knowingly wish to expose the cover of a CIA officer who you understand may be harmed as a result." Similarly, columnist Richard Cohen, in the July 14 Washington Post, said he thought Rove was a "political opportunist, not a traitor" and that he didn't think Rove "specifically intended to blow the cover of a CIA agent." Such examples could be multiplied many times over.

Shocking as it may seem, however, the pundits are wrong; and their casual summaries of the requirements of the 1982 statute betray a fundamental misunderstanding regarding proof of criminal intent.

Do you have to intend to harm a CIA agent or jeopardize national security in order to violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act?

The answer is no.

Ms. de la Vega's explaination continues at TomsDispatch.com

< http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=11747 >

Now - if you did read that one - take a little trip over to the commentaries in FindLaw and allow Professor Louis Klarevas explain how the actors in this sordid affair (whoever they may shake out to be) may possibly be liable within the scope of U.S. Code : TITLE 18 Section: 793 paragraphs (d) and (j). Commonly known as the Espionage Act. Read on:

Monday, Aug. 15, 2005

[Tomorrow,] August 16, a former Pentagon official and two former employees of a pro-Israel lobby organization, the American-Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC), are scheduled to be arraigned in a federal district courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia. All three are being charged by U.S. Attorney Paul McNulty with violating a little known provision of the Espionage Act.This provision makes it a crime to conspire to communicate classified information without proper authorization.

Meanwhile, across the Potomac River in Washington, D.C., Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald will be continuing his grand jury investigation. Fitzgerald has been making headlines with his probe into whether senior Bush administration officials who leaked classified information regarding the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame (a.k.a. Valerie Wilson) to columnist Robert Novak and others in the press committed a crime.

So far, defenders of the White House have been quick to point out that Karl Rove and others who appear, from information so far made public, to have played a role in disclosing Plame's identity have not violated the stringent thresholds of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. That Act makes it a crime to publicly disclose the identity of a secret agent in certain circumstances.

But those circumstances may not apply in the Plame case - as FindLaw columnist John Dean has explained. The IIPA sets a high threshold for prosecution, including proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew the person being outed had "covert" status. This, in turn, requires a variety of conditions relating to "covertness" to first be established. (For example, the prosecution must prove that the agent had served outside the U.S. within the past five years).

In contrast, the Espionage Act requires no such proof of "covert" status. For this and other reasons, it can be construed more broadly than the IIPA.

I will argue below that, if McNulty's interpretation of the Espionage Act serves as a guide, then the Plame leak, too, could easily be construed as a violation of the Act. 

Klarevas' explaination continues at FindLaw.com

< http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20050815_klarevas.html >

Now... Only time will tell . . .

[Cecil Turner]

"It's true that Plame played only a "tangential" role, at most, in Wilson's trip."

Well, she certainly didn't tag along. And she wasn't in a position to send him on her own authority. I'd call that "tangential." Of course, contrary to Wilson's protestations, she had a definite hand in recommending him for the role:

Some CPD officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife "offered up his name" and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador's wife says, "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity."

"Regarding Rove's story, here's another thing I don't understand. By all accounts, Rove did not mention his conversation with Cooper in his initial FBI interview."

And yet provided them with an e-mail documenting the exchange. If it's nefarious, it's one of the worst thought-through plots on record.

[kim]

Your supposed 'leak', JBG, was into the ocean. Some leak. There is so much reasonalble doubt in this case that prosecution, if at all, will not be for 'leaking'.

Of course, I could be completely wrong. I don't think so, though, ho, ho.
=========================================

[kim]

And when, JBG, are you going to learn that ad hominems sometimes strengthen your argument but only AFTER you've refuted points.
===============================================

[jukeboxgrad]

CECIL: "she wasn't in a position to send him on her own authority"

That seems to be true, which is exactly why Rove's apparent use of the word "authorized" seems to be an outright lie.

"I'd call that 'tangential.' "

You and me and Wilson all seem to agree on that. Trouble is, Rove has been singing a different tune. I notice you haven't addressed this.

"she had a definite hand in recommending him for the role"

We're quite familiar with what SSCI says about this. Trouble is, although SSCI refers to "documents," all it offers is one sentence from a memo she wrote. How odd that we don't get to see more of her memo, and how odd that exactly zero details are offered about the other "documents." Anyway, Wilson has his own explanation for the sentence quoted, which seems entirely plausible. Also, SSCI also does not explain (and neither do you) why one or more CIA officials have directly denied the assertion SSCI made on this point.

In other words, calling the SSCI claim "definite" is quite a stretch.

"[Rove] provided them [FBI] with an e-mail documenting the exchange [between Rove and Cooper]"

Your statement could convey the impression that Rove's email mentioned that he told Cooper about Plame. But it didn't. This is relevant, because I'm not entirely convinced it's as simple as saying "Rove did not mention [to the FBI] his conversation with Cooper." Maybe it's more a matter of Rove did not mention he told Cooper about Plame. After all, maybe Rove and Cooper had one or more other conversations around this time, on a variety of subjects (like welfare reform, for example). Without a transcript of Rove's FBI interview, I think it's unwise to make too many assumptions about this.

[jukeboxgrad]

KIM: "There is so much reasonalble doubt in this case that prosecution, if at all, will not be for 'leaking'."

This is what the court said on 2/15/05 (pdf): "On the record before us, there is at least sufficient allegation to warrant grand jury inquiry that one or both journalists received information concerning the identity of a covert operative of the United States from government employees acting in violation of the law by making the disclosure ... I have no doubt that the leak at issue was a serious matter ... considering the gravity of the suspected crime."

The judges who offered this opinion are definitely talking about "leaking," and they're definitely talking about government employees (not reporters or Wilson) as the leakers, and they don't seem to share your belief that there is an excess of "reasonable doubt." If they did, they would probably not be arguing (as they did in this opinion) in favor of throwing Miller and Cooper in jail. And needless to say, these judges have seen a lot of evidence that you haven't.

Let us know if there's anything in this 83-page court document which supports your claim regarding "so much reasonable doubt."

"ad hominems"

If you make foolish statements in public, you shouldn't be surprised if every now and then someone points out that you've done so. If you don't like this, you should adjust your behavior and/or your expectations.

[kim]

The phrqse 'at least sufficient allegation to warraant inquiry' covers a multitude of sins. Your sin is to read more into it than it says.

Ad hominem ad nauseum.
==============================================

[kim]

You sound like a broken record.
================================

[MJW]

I previously mentioned that I find curious the article's acceptance of the dubious story that Wilson exposed the Niger uranium allegations as a hoax. Now I notice something that seems curiouser: To me, the Village Voice piece is pretty much old-news marinated in a rich sauce of innuendo. The blog allegation that Rove claims to not remember any of the circumstances under which he learned of Plame's employment, is, however, somewhat newsworthy. So why did he leave the juiciest detail out of the more prominant published article?

I also find it odd that anyone would attach any significance to John Conyers' fulminations. Conyers questions the integrity of the Bush administration -- Stop the presses!

[Cecil Turner]

"That seems to be true, which is exactly why Rove's apparent use of the word "authorized" seems to be an outright lie."

If, of course, he said that, it appears inaccurate. However, calling him a liar from a single parsed word from a secondhand account of the conversation seems a bit of a stretch. And if we're to believe Novak's original column came from the same source, it's worth noting the phrasing there: "Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger," which appears perfectly accurate.

Contrast that with Wilson's:

"Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson wrote in a memoir published this year. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."

That's a lot closer to my definition of "outright lie."

[kim]

And I'm hoping that investigation of Wilson's little 'mispeak' about exposing the Yellow Cake forgeries will reveal a perjuriferous 'outright lie'.
=================================================

[kim]

You follow it so well, JBG, what do you think of MJW's point that the Village Voice somehow expects us to believe that Wilson exposed the forgeries?
===============================================

[Les Nessman]

"calling him a liar from a single parsed word from a secondhand account of the conversation seems a bit of a stretch."

If you had to pick one phrase that sums up all the tens of thousands of words written about this non-story, that would be it.

[TM]

If I were one of the FBI agents who first interviews, one of the first questions I would ask all of the officials I interviewed is whether they were one of Cooper's sources for the "War on Wilson" article. Failing to ask that question would be almost inexcusable incompetence.

Oh, you are going to love this, from Oct 2003 - the first subpoena from DoJ to the White House:

After receiving a Justice Department letter detailing the scope of its inquiry, Gonzales sent out a second memo at day's end, directing White House staff to retain e-mails, telephone records, computer discs, notes and diary entries relating to:

• Wilson or his wife's "purported relationship" with the CIA.

• Wilson's 2002 travels, on behalf of the CIA, to Niger.

• Contacts with syndicated columnist Robert Novak of the Chicago Sun-Times and reporter Knut Royce and bureau chief Timothy Phelps, both of Newsday, a Long Island newspaper.

"You must preserve all documents relating, in any way, directly or indirectly, to these subjects," Gonzales wrote, "even if there would be a question whether the document would be a presidential or federal record or even if its destruction might otherwise be permitted."

No notice of TIME by out DoJ sleuths?

A *possible* early explanation - the story only appeared on the TIME website, it came out after Novak, and it *may* have seemed to investigators that TIME was simply noting that Novak had been given certain info.

Look, I am not going to flack for the DoJ on this - obviously, they blew it. But if they weren't asking about TIME, Rove might not have been remembering it, either.

[TM]

Let's add this link to an old post from Jan 2004 - apparently, that is when the TIME reporters were added to the subpoena (although one presumes that they had come up in conversation before then).

[trrll]

If, of course, he said that, it appears inaccurate. However, calling him a liar from a single parsed word from a secondhand account of the conversation seems a bit of a stretch.

Perhaps, but that turns out to be a critical word when the goal is to undermine Wilson's report. It seems clear that the substance of the leak was that Wilson's trip was some sort of rogue operation run by his wife without authorization from her superiors, which was clearly false. After all, there would be no impropriety--and no point to the leak--if Wilson's wife merely recommended him to her superiors; indeed, if she believed that he was qualified for the mission, it would have been her duty to do so.

Ironically, many of the same people who are anxious to give Rove the benefit of the doubt for his misstatements are equally anxious to condemn Wilson as a liar based on parsing of the single word "recommended." In fact, the Committee never was able to come up with clear evidence that the idea to consider Wilson for the trip originated with his wife (and some people at the CIA still say that it did not), and whether an accurate statement of his qualifications constitutes a "recommendation" is certainly debated.

[Cecil Turner]

"It seems clear that the substance of the leak was that Wilson's trip was some sort of rogue operation run by his wife without authorization from her superiors, which was clearly false."

I don't think that's clear at all. The "substance of the leak" refers to Wilson's claim that he was sent pursuant to a request by VP Cheney to check on the Niger MOAs:

I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake . . .

Leaving aside the obvious point that the MOAs hadn't been yet been seen, Wilson implies VP knowledge of, and interest in, his mission. He emphasizes it again in his conclusion:

Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government.

In fact, Wilson's mission provided little useful data, wasn't passed along, and was in fact viewed as partial confirmation. Again referring to Novak's column, the substance directly challenges Wilson's pretense to a high-level mission:

The CIA's decision to send retired diplomat Joseph C. Wilson to Africa in February 2002 to investigate possible Iraqi purchases of uranium was made routinely at a low level without Director George Tenet's knowledge.

"Ironically, many of the same people who are anxious to give Rove the benefit of the doubt for his misstatements are equally anxious to condemn Wilson as a liar based on parsing of the single word "recommended.""

Hardly. This isn't a matter of using a single wrong word in a casual conversation. He published a comprehensive denial:

"Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson wrote in a memoir published this year. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." [emphasis added]

It now appears she had everything to do with the matter, and this joins Wilson's other claims (e.g., the VP sent him, the MOAs, "Niger" vs "Africa") as "dubious at best."

[martin]

Hey CT-since you have now passed judgment on who's lying based on word construals and whether was Plame was 'involved' ("she had everything to do with it") in Wilson's "boondoggle"-do you consider this a lie by Scott McClellan or not?

Press Conference 9-29-03

"QUESTION: Has the President either asked Karl Rove to assure him that he had nothing to do with this; or did Karl Rove go to the President to assure him that he . . .

McCLELLAN: I don't think he needs that. I think I've spoken clearly to this publicly . . . I've just said there's no truth to it.

QUESTION: Yes, but I'm just wondering if there was a conversation between Karl Rove and the President, or if he just talked to you, and you're here at this . . .

McCLELLAN: He wasn't involved. The President knows he wasn't involved."

Let's concentrate on "He [Rove] wasn't involved."

I think the White House lied to me on 9-29-03. What do you think?

[jukeboxgrad]

TM: "No notice of TIME by out DoJ sleuths?"

You're referring to a news article which is describing a memo sent by Gonzales, which, in turn, was prompted by a DOJ letter. True, this news article doesn't mention Cooper's Time piece. But that doesn't mean the Time piece was not mentioned in the Gonzales memo. Further, even if the Time piece was not mentioned in the Gonzales memo, that doesn't prove that DOJ was not aware of the Time piece, or did not mention the Time piece in its letter to Gonzales. In other words, you're making an assumption about the contents of the DOJ letter even though your source (the AJC article) is two steps removed from that letter. You could be right, but the proof is weak.

"if they weren't asking about TIME, Rove might not have been remembering it, either"

If Rove was asked "who did you talk to about Plame," he was obligated to answer truthfully. He doesn't get to say "I forgot to mention Cooper because you didn't remind me that he wrote about Plame."

[jukeboxgrad]

CECIL: "calling him a liar from a single parsed word from a secondhand account of the conversation seems a bit of a stretch"

To begin with, it would be nice if you didn't insist on ignoring all the qualifications in my sentence (two "seems" and one "apparently").

Aside from that, I wonder if you'd like to explain the difference between "a single word" and "a single parsed word." It's not as if there's anything highly ambiguous (i.e., in need of parsing) about the word "authorized."

Aside from that, an email written by the other participant in the conversation is not "secondhand." It's firsthand. Cooper is a direct witness to what Rove said. And Cooper's email was written very soon after the conversation. Cooper is someone who makes a living by using words expertly. There's no reason to think he would be careless or dishonest in this step he took to document his conversation with Rove. On the contrary.

By the way, Cooper's email is closely corroborated by Cooper's recent account: "Rove added that she ... was responsible for sending Wilson."

There's room to imagine that perhaps "authorized" was not the exact word that Rove used. However, it's clear enough that "authorized" is the gist of the message that Cooper understood, from whatever exact words Rove did use.

"if we're to believe Novak's original column came from the same source, it's worth noting the phrasing there: 'Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger,' which appears perfectly accurate."

That's "perfectly accurate" only if you take SSCI at face value, and I've already explained why that's not a good idea. I notice you can't be bothered to address or acknowledge anything I said about that.

Aside from that, all you're pointing out is that Novak wrote something less dishonest than what Rove apparently told Cooper. This does nothing to get Rove off the hook for saying "authorized" (or something darn close to that) to Cooper.

By the way, if Luskin is to be trusted, all Rove ever said to Novak is "I heard that, too" (that Plame worked for the CIA). In other words, just as you did very recently regarding Rove's strange memory lapse, you're trying to have it both ways on Rove's behalf. Rove can't take credit for Novak's use of the word "suggested" while also claiming that he barely said anything at all about Plame (to Novak).

"Contrast that with Wilson's"

Like a lot of people, you like quoting Schmidt, even though in her haste to crucify Wilson she forgot how to tell the difference between Iraq and Iran (speaking of being careful with words). See the correction sidebar. Notwithstanding the correction, this Iraq/Iran misinformation by Schmidt has traveled far and wide.

Of course another problem with Schmidt is that like you, she quotes Wilson out of context. Like lots of people, you and Schmidt both suggest that Wilson flatly said "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter." For some odd reason you and Schmidt choose to overlook these important words Wilson said: "apart from being the conduit of a message from a colleague in her office asking if I would be willing to have a conversation about Niger's uranium industry, Valerie had had nothing to do with the matter."

Strangely enough, this account corresponds exactly with what has been stated by one or more sources within the CIA, as reported by Novak himself: "At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help."

By the way, I already addressed this exact distortion by Schmidt, here. Why would you be rehashing misinformation (and I notice you couldn't resist posting this exact misinformation again, in bold) when the truth was already placed under your nose? Is it that you're an incorrigible hack, or is it that you have memory issues similar to Rove's?

By the way, do you always blindly accept whatever misinformation the NYT might happen to publish, or only when it's misinformation you find rhetorically useful?

"Wilson implies VP knowledge of, and interest in, his mission"

The bottom line is that Wilson's account corresponds with the account in SSCI: Cheney asked a question, and some folks in the CIA decided that Wilson should go to Africa in order to help provide an answer.

[trrll]

I don't think that's clear at all. The "substance of the leak" refers to Wilson's claim that he was sent pursuant to a request by VP Cheney to check on the Niger MOAs:

Actually, if you'll read your own quote, you will discover that Wilson only said that this is what he was told by "officials at the Central Intelligence Agency." Nobody has yet produced a shred of evidence that this not what Wilson was told, or, indeed, that the trip was not motivated by the inquiry by Cheney's office (not Cheney himself; again, read your own quote).

The CIA's decision to send retired diplomat Joseph C. Wilson to Africa in February 2002 to investigate possible Iraqi purchases of uranium was made routinely at a low level without Director George Tenet's knowledge.

Well, duh! The notion that Director Tenet normally micromanages CIA operations to the extent of approving individual fact-finding missions seems fairly ridiculous. Presumably this was indeed the "routine" way the CIA handles such requests coming from the White House staff. Wilson has been repeatedly accused (e.g. in the notorious Republican Party Talking Points memo) of claiming that his mission was personally authorized by Cheney or Tenet, but nobody has ever managed to produce a shred of evidence that Wilson ever made such a claim. So this seems to be yet another nugget of disinformation planted as part the campaign to paint Wilson as a liar.

It now appears she had everything to do with the matter

Since she clearly did not authorize the mission, or even have the power to do, she obviously did not have everything to do with it. It is certainly clear that she had nothing to do with the actual decision to send him. So the only remaining question is whether she had "something to do" with mentioning his qualifications in the first place. Recollections differ as to who had the initial idea, but there is certainly no definitive evidence to disprove Plame's recollection that the idea was initially raised by her boss at the CIA. Of course, it is entirely irrelevant whether or not Wilson is mistaken in believing that his wife did not raise his name first--if she knew of his qualifications, and if her superiors for some reason did not remember that Wilson had successfully carried out a similar mission in the past, she would have had a positive duty to remind them of that fact. Clearly, however, the decision as to whether Wilson's previous experience made him a good choice for this mission was never hers to make.

In fact, Wilson's mission provided little useful data, wasn't passed along, and was in fact viewed as partial confirmation.

Wilson's report was rated "good" by the CIA. That it was considered confirmatory of what the CIA already believed merely verifies that the CIA already had a good idea that the claims that Iraq was acquiring uranium from Niger were false. This is of course how real intelligence gathering works--by corroborating evidence from multiple sources. A single report that provides novel information is by definition suspect. Indeed, the WMD intelligence failures stem almost entirely from the White House and CIA Director Tenet seizing upon unconfirmed individual reports that supported their preconceptions (such as the forged documents that apparently sparked the inquiry from Cheney's office that ultimately led to Wilson being dispatched).

[Cecil Turner]

Martin:

"I think the White House lied to me on 9-29-03. What do you think?"

Buildings don't lie. McClellan may well not have known Rove was involved. ISTM he also qualified "involved" later in that exchange (as having to do with leaking classified information, IIRC). In any event, while I wouldn't defend them on either of those points, Wilson's is obviously worse (first-hand, written, obviously false).

JBG:

"To begin with, it would be nice if you didn't insist on ignoring all the qualifications in my sentence (two "seems" and one "apparently")."

"Insist on ignoring"? When you end a sentence with "an outright lie," I don't think "calling him a liar" is mischaracterizing the point.

"Aside from that, I wonder if you'd like to explain the difference between "a single word" and "a single parsed word.""

Sure. A single parsed word is one taken from a larger context. As in this case, where we're debating whether the Vice President or Mrs Wilson sent Mr Wilson to Niger. (As opposed to, say, a question: "Did Plame 'authorize' the trip . . . or just 'suggest' it?") So if in a conversation about whose idea it was to send Wilson to Niger, Rove said Plame "authorized the trip" (meaning it was her idea and not the VP's), he might at worst be guilty of a minor misstatement. If he claimed she "authorized" the trip (overstepping her authority), it'd be a lie.

"Aside from that, an email written by the other participant in the conversation is not "secondhand." It's firsthand."

No. Rove's statement is first-hand. Cooper repeating what he thought Rove said is second-hand. American Heritage: "Received from the original source: firsthand information" [emphasis added].

"That's "perfectly accurate" only if you take SSCI at face value, and I've already explained why that's not a good idea. I notice you can't be bothered . . . "

No, I found your argument weak and unconvincing. They cite her recommendation letter, co-workers, and the timeline on Wilson's selection, all of which fits neatly. It's also by far the most plausible scenario for his being chosen. And with all the other riveting commentary on word usage, I just couldn't work up the interest for trying to hash that one out.

[Cecil Turner]

"Actually, if you'll read your own quote, you will discover that Wilson only said that this is what he was told by "officials at the Central Intelligence Agency.""

Yeah, I know what he said. I also know he's married to one of the folks who works in that section. Somehow I doubt he's entirely ignorant of what goes on there.

"Well, duh! The notion that Director Tenet normally micromanages CIA operations to the extent of approving individual fact-finding missions seems fairly ridiculous."

No sh**. It's even more ridiculous to suggest it's being micromanaged by the VP. But that's exactly the impression Wilson tried to give.

"That it was considered confirmatory of what the CIA already believed merely verifies that the CIA already had a good idea that the claims that Iraq was acquiring uranium from Niger were false."

Hardly. Not only did they report in October: ""Iraq also began vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake," but they also took Wilson's report (specifically his comments about the trade delegation) as confirmation of earlier reports:

Conclusion 13. The report on the former ambassador's trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal . . . [emphasis added]

[martin]

"Buildings don't lie."

Actually I was using the ancient rhetorical device of metonymy; whereas you continue to engage in the equally ancient art of political hackery.

I'll try not to use post high school stuff when communicating with you in the future.

It's not what McClellan knew-he's a simpleton and a tool. It's what Bush and Rove allowed him to put out there. That was a lie directly from Rove (through McCllelan's mouth).

I see you don't like being lied to by Wilson so I can't fathom why you're willing to so readily take it from Rove.

[Cecil Turner]

"Actually I was using the ancient rhetorical device of metonymy; whereas you continue to engage in the equally ancient art of political hackery."

If so, I apologize. But it appeared to me you were trying to get around the fact that you were trying to prove Rove lied by relying on a quote from McClellan. (Which is no more valid than trying to prove he lied by quoting Cooper.)

"It's what Bush and Rove allowed him to put out there. That was a lie directly from Rove (through McCllelan's mouth)."

Oops, apology retracted. Rove said nothing of the kind--and unless he had a choke chain on McClellan, or could predict the questions--he's not going to be able to control all his responses. (Though he's still in hot water over the statement, properly, because he then had a duty to correct the false impression.)

[martin]

"because he then had a duty to correct the false impression"

Ok-lets compromise here. I just happen to think Rove IS the reason there was a false impression in the first place.

And note-that false impression would still be operative if Time did not release his notes/Cooper had joined Miller in jail rather than testifying.

[Cecil Turner]

"Ok-lets compromise here. I just happen to think Rove IS the reason there was a false impression in the first place."

I think they were trying to parse the denial a little too closely, and left a guy at the podium with insufficient information. Which amounts to the same thing.

"And note-that false impression would still be operative if Time did not release his notes/Cooper had joined Miller in jail rather than testifying."

The false impression is a relatively minor issue--the special prosecutor is the big one--and the rest of the story will come out soon. (Or at least as much of it as we're ever going to get.) IMO, they shut up too late, not too early.

[jukeboxgrad]

CECIL: "McClellan may well not have known Rove was involved"

If Scottie didn't know whether or not Rove was involved, then Scottie should have said "I don't know whether or not Rove was involved." Instead Scottie said "he wasn't involved." That means that either someone in the White House lied to Scottie, or Scottie lied to us. Not good.

"ISTM he also qualified 'involved' later in that exchange (as having to do with leaking classified information, IIRC"

I'm not sure why this matters, but I'll try to figure it out. I think you're suggesting a scenario where Scottie knew that Rove had been telling folks (like Cooper, for example) about Plame, but it was still perfectly OK to say Rove was not "involved" in leaking "classified information" because ostensibly Plame's identity as a CIA WMD operative was not "classified information." How lame. If this is what we're supposed to believe, then Scottie should simply have said this: "Rove was indeed involved in telling folks about Plame, but Rove was not involved in leaking classified information; Plame's identity as a CIA WMD operative is not classified information, and therefore it's perfectly fine that Rove was telling folks like Cooper about Plame."

Scottie said nothing of the sort. Instead he issued categorical denials such as "there has been absolutely nothing brought to our attention to suggest any White House involvement ... it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place [to suggest that Rove was involved] ... it is simply not true ... I've said that it's not true. And I have spoken with Karl Rove ... there is simply no truth to that suggestion. And I have spoken with Karl about it ... If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration ... I've made it very clear that he was not involved, that there's no truth to the suggestion that he was ... it is not something I needed to ask him, but I like to, like you do, verify things and make sure that it is completely accurate. But I knew that Karl would not be involved in something like this" (link).

If you're impressed by the idea that Scottie "qualified 'involved,' " that simply indicates we're well-into the "I did not inhale" phase of the Bush presidency.

"In any event, while I wouldn't defend them on either of those points"

If you weren't defending them, then I guess I totally misinterpreted your two prior sentences.

"Wilson's is obviously worse (first-hand, written, obviously false)."

I pointed out why your claims about Wilson are baloney. Among other things, you're misquoting him, and failing to take responsibility for doing so. In your usual style, you're completely ignoring facts you find inconvenient, and blithely going about your business of repeating the same old nonsense.

"When you end a sentence with 'an outright lie,' I don't think 'calling him a liar' is mischaracterizing the point."

I realize you can't grasp the difference between saying "you seem to be a liar" or "apparently, you're a liar" as compared with flatly saying "you're a liar." Then again, you're the guy who can't tell the difference between a weapon and a program, so I'm not surprised.

"So if in a conversation about whose idea it was to send Wilson to Niger, Rove said Plame 'authorized the trip' (meaning it was her idea and not the VP's)"

You're the one doing all the parsing here, and your Clintonesque contortions are adorable. Cooper's email said "authorized," and Cooper's Time article said "she ... was responsible for sending Wilson" (in both cases Cooper is describing what he was told by Rove). Neither of those formulations corresponds with "suggested" or "recommended" or "it was her idea." Authorized means authorized, not "it was her idea."

Notice that Cooper's email did not say "Rove said the trip was Plame's idea." Likewise for Cooper's Time article.

If my kid says "let's go to Disneyworld," I'm not going to say my kid "authorized" the trip, or was "responsible" for sending us. I might say "it was her idea." I guess this is another simple distinction that's over your head.

Anyway, nice job trying to redefine the meaning of simple English words like "authorized" and "responsible for sending." Your enthusiasm to defend Rove requires you to rip up the dictionary. This is more "I did not inhale" stuff from you.

"Cooper repeating what he thought Rove said is second-hand"

That would be true if Cooper wasn't there, and heard about Rove's words via someone else. But Cooper was listening to Rove. Therefore it's not a question of what Cooper "thought Rove said." Cooper knows what Rove said, because Cooper was there, and he has ears. Therefore Cooper is an original (firsthand) source of information with regard to the question of what Rove said. Incidentally, this is exactly why Fitz is so interested in Cooper. It's comforting to realize that Fitz understands these matters better than you do.

"I found your argument weak and unconvincing"

English translation: "Since I'm a partisan hack, I'm ignoring all information I find inconvenient, such as the fact that Novak himself quoted a CIA official who corroborated Wilson's account."

"that's exactly the impression Wilson tried to give."

Welcome to mind-reading territory. Since you can't hang Wilson in the honest way, by referring to what he actually said, you choose to resort to the realm of the psychic. Let us know when we get to apply these novel rules to folks like Bush and Scottie, and condemn them on the basis of the "impression" we claim they "tried to give."

By the way, since you want to hang your hat on "impression[s]," let us know what "impression" Scottie was trying to give when he told us Rove wasn't "involved." Or maybe the "impression" Bush was trying to give when he said "we found the weapons of mass destruction."

"you were trying to prove Rove lied by relying on a quote from McClellan"

It's pretty clear that at least one of them lied. That's a problem.

"Which is no more valid than trying to prove he lied by quoting Cooper"

Why is it not valid to prove Rove lied by quoting Cooper? I'm wondering who you consider a credible source on this matter. I have a feeling that your definition of a credible source on this matter is any source who helps Rove look good.

"Though he's still in hot water over the statement, properly, because he then had a duty to correct the false impression."

Everyone once in a while you say something to indicate that you're not completely untethered from reality.

[Cecil Turner]

"If Scottie didn't know whether or not Rove was involved . . ."

I suspect WH spokesmen aren't experts on any particular subject . . . they're told what to say. In this case (best guess): "Rove wasn't involved in leaking classified information." (And making up pet names for people you don't know doesn't add.)

"I pointed out why your claims about Wilson are baloney."

Again the tension between the bipartisan commission and the all-knowing JBG. I'll stick with the commission, thanks. You're welcome to believe that "apart from being the conduit of a message from a colleague in her office asking if I would be willing to have a conversation about Niger's uranium industry, Valerie had had nothing to do with the matter." I'm convinced by the rest of the evidence (e-mail, timeline, meeting, testimony) that she recommended him for the trip.

"Why is it not valid to prove Rove lied by quoting Cooper?"

Uh, possibly because Cooper may be misquoting Rove? I note you admit the possibility above ("or something darn close to that"), as long as it doesn't affect your ability to claim Rove is a liar.

"Everyone once in a while you say something to indicate that you're not completely untethered from reality."

Every once in a while, I manage to find a point from the opposition that makes sense. You've yet to. Cheers.

[kim]

You are making a grave error in judgement to rely on Joe Wilson.

Maybe you could use a little Moliere. Wilson has Tartuffian strains although in his case the refuge is (you fill in the blank) rather than religion.
==================================================

[TM]

This was from Jukebox, I believe:

There's room to imagine that perhaps "authorized" was not the exact word that Rove used. However, it's clear enough that "authorized" is the gist of the message that Cooper understood, from whatever exact words Rove did use.

As best I recall, Cooper's conversation with Libby the next day amounted to Cooper telling the story to Libby and Libby saying very Rovian like "I heard that too".

On the basis of his chats with Rove and Libby, Cooper then published in Time.

And what did he publish? The man who is ever so careful with words wrote this:

And some government officials have noted to TIME in interviews, (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These officials have suggested that she was involved in her husband's being dispatched Niger to investigate reports...

Well, if Rove said "authorized", and Libby said "I heard that, too", why did Cooper write "suggested"?

And who cares? If Rove was misinformed and passed it along, on a point he did not consider to be important, is that a "lie"?

Shouldn't a lie be a material statement known to be false (or made with reckless disregard for the truth), made with the intention to deceive? If Rove believed his bad info (for example, the State Dept memo, or the third hand version of it Libby gave him from Judy), he's not lying, he's just misinformed.

My impression is that the meme that Rove "lied" about "authorized" is a big deal to the folks hung up on the Bush Brute Sqaud conspiracy theory.

Unfortunately, simpler explanations come to mind - Rove was misinformed, or Cooper exaggerated in his e-mail. And a simpler motive, as suggested by Mr. Turner - he is just answering the question of who did send Wilson.

This was from Jukebox, on the question of the original subpoenas:

In other words, you're making an assumption about the contents of the DOJ letter even though your source (the AJC article) is two steps removed from that letter. You could be right, but the proof is weak.

Ain't it always? Even if I had a photocopy of the subpoena, that would not *prove* that a second subpoena had not been issued later the same day.

However, there is no particular reason to think that (a) the reporter randomly dropped the fact that TIME was mentioned in the October 2003 subpoena, and (b) a different reporter told us that TIME was included in a Jan 2004 subpoena, when in fact they were part of the original subpoena.

If Rove was asked "who did you talk to about Plame," he was obligated to answer truthfully. He doesn't get to say "I forgot to mention Cooper because you didn't remind me that he wrote about Plame."

Good point. However, he does get to say things like "To the best of my recollection", and "I have agreed to this interview in order to cooperate with the investigation on an expedited schedule even though my legal team and I have not completed our review of my diaries, e-mails, and notes, so I will do me best but I may miss a few conversations..."

If Fitzgerald sees a pattern of non-cooperation, he may try to play "Gotcha", but one forgotten conversation (which Rove's team may have pointed out to Fitzgerald later) is probably not going to do it, IMHO.

[jukeboxgrad]

CECIL: "they're told what to say"

If Mr. McClennan (is that better?) was told to say "Rove wasn't involved in leaking classified information," that means Mr. McClennan was instructed to mislead us. As I explained, the honest statement (if this is what they really believed) would have been "Plame was not covert, so it's fine that Rove talked about her."

Anyway, the idea that the White House was in a position to be confident that Plame's identity was not classified information is ludicrous. The CIA, the DOJ, the FBI, Fitz and a variety of judges are clearly operating under the belief that there is at least a strong possibility that Plame's identity was classified information. Mr. McClennan's categorical denial (paraphrase: "Rove wasn't involved in leaking classified information") was quite hollow, unless Mr. McClennan or the people guiding him had access to decisive information (regarding the non-classified nature of Plame's identity) that all those other folks have somehow managed to overlook.

"I'm convinced by the rest of the evidence (e-mail, timeline, meeting, testimony)"

What "email?" Do you mean one sentence from Plame's memo? And what "meeting?" The meeting where Plame was present for a few minutes and then left? And you claim this proves what?

By the way, nice job still not managing to admit that you repeatedly misquoted Wilson. And nice job not bothering to acknowledge that Novak himself quoted a CIA source who corroborated Wilson's version of events (and other journalists got the same answer from one or more CIA sources). And nice job not bothering to explain why these sources are less credible to you than the unnamed sources cited by SSCI. And nice job not bothering to explain why SSCI quoted only one ambiguous sentence from one memo, even though they suggested they had a variety of other "documents."

By the way, although you like to talk about how the report is "bipartisan," nice job not mentioning that the most emphatic statements claiming Plame was behind the trip are reserved for an addendum that only three Republican senators put their names on.

"possibly because Cooper may be misquoting Rove"

Let us know when you can offer a reason why Cooper would do that (especially since what Cooper wrote in the email two years ago is congruent with what he just wrote in a major magazine article). You can also let us know why the far-from-reticent Luskin has not suggested that Cooper is misquoting Rove (certainly not insofar as "authorized" is concerned). And nice job sidestepping my earlier question, which was essentially this: under what circumstances (assuming someone was reporting on Rove's words in an unfavorable manner, as Cooper is) would you not resort to an arbitrary blanket defense of "misquoting?"

"I note you admit the possibility above ('or something darn close to that')"

Nice job distorting my meaning. Cooper's email, or my reference to Cooper's email, does not appear to claim that someone is sure Rove used the exact word "authorized." The claim is that Rove used that word or words interchangeable with it. So no, you have no basis to claim that I "admit the possibility" that Cooper misquoted Rove.

(The fact is I do "admit the possibility," just like I "admit the possibility" that flying monkeys might jump out of Dubya's butt during his next news conference. It's just not likely. Anyway, nothing I wrote before this post gave you a basis to claim that I "admit the possibility," and your detour into this little semantical rathole was just another of your typical distortions.)

[jukeboxgrad]

TM: "Well, if Rove said 'authorized', and Libby said 'I heard that, too', why did Cooper write 'suggested'?"

This is a perfectly reasonable question, and I think there are some perfectly reasonable answers. There are a variety of scenarios, but here's the one that seems most likely to me. Cooper decided it would be wise (both for his own sake and for the sake of his sources) to not get "too far out" with these statements. Maybe he guessed, correctly, that Rove had been indulging in a little "literary flair." Maybe this guess on Cooper's part was just based on his intuition of how the CIA operates. Or maybe it was based on specific things he heard from other sources (before or after his conversations with Rove and Libby).

Speaking of quoting carefully, please don't misquote Cooper. Your sentence could imply that Cooper wrote something like this: "These officials have suggested that she _suggested_ that her husband be dispatched." That's not what Cooper said. He said "These officials have suggested that she was _involved_ in her husband's being dispatched."

"Involved" is obviously a broad term (broad enough to cover both the "suggested" scenario as well as the "authorized" scenario), and I'm sure intentionally so. If Rove's "authorized" was literally correct, then Cooper's statement ("involved") is truthful. But if Rove's "authorized" was "literary flair," then Cooper's "involved" is still truthful. Cooper was being a careful journalist. Mostly he was covering his own butt, but I imagine that a small part of his motivation was that he was not eager to trap Rove in what Cooper perhaps knew was an obvious exaggeration/misstatement/lie. In other words, in a way he was giving Rove some slack. I think Cooper is basically a nice guy.

A closely related perspective is that Cooper sensed that Rove was trying to use Cooper as a vehicle for an exaggerated partisan attack, and Cooper decided to be less of a stenographer and more of a journalist, which meant toning down the partisan rhetoric.

A variation on all this is that we obviously don't know exactly what was said between Libby and Cooper. Maybe Cooper was intentionally vague ("Rove said Plame was involved"). If Libby's answer was "I heard that too" (as compared with "Plame authorized the trip"), that would influence Cooper to lean in the safe direction and stick with something broad and vague like "involved."

"And who cares? If Rove was misinformed and passed it along, on a point he did not consider to be important, is that a 'lie'?"

"Authorized" should be kept in perspective. The main complaint about Rove is not that he said "authorized." The main complaint against Rove is that he outed Plame, and then covered it up. However, "authorized" is worth a bit of attention, especially since Rove's claim is that he was just trying to make sure journalists had accurate information (the irony is obvious). And especially since all of Wilson's words have been placed under a microscope.

As far as "a point he did not consider to be important," sorry, that doesn't hold up. A major feature of the GOP campaign against Wilson is to claim that Plame had an important role in sending him. So indeed Rove did not say "authorized" by accident. This was an important part of his message.

"he's not lying, he's just misinformed"

Rove is a big boy. Talking to a reporter about stuff like this is serious business. If Rove wasn't sure that what he was saying was true, he should have checked first, or he should have kept his mouth shut.

Anyway, "authorized" is beyond even what appears in the most partisan portions of SSCI. This tends to create the impression that it's something Rove simply pulled out of his hat, to serve a specific purpose. If it was really, as you suggest, something third-hand via someone like Judy, it was highly irresponsible (and self-serving) for Rove to pass it along without (apparently) lifting a finger to verify.

"Cooper exaggerated in his e-mail"

Not just his email, but also his major article two years later, and also (apparently) his grand jury testimony. There is nothing about Cooper to explain why he would be this sloppy and/or dishonest. By the way, how come Luskin hasn't suggested that "authorized" is a case of Cooper exaggerating? Luskin has hardly been reticent about anything else. It's pretty remarkable that you're willing to go further out on a limb for Rove than Luskin is.

Anyway, as far as "simpler explanation," only if you assume that Rove is more honest than Cooper. What would be your basis for making that assumption?

"he is just answering the question of who did send Wilson."

Trouble is, he apparently didn't answer that question truthfully.

"Even if I had a photocopy of the subpoena"

I agree that maybe DOJ didn't mention the Time article, and I agree that maybe this is slightly interesting. Among other things, it could have been a simple and innocent mistake. But as one obsessive (on this subject) to another, I think one has to be pretty obsessed to care too much about this. If you claim (as you just did) "who cares" with regard to the question of "authorized," I think your priorities are skewed if you care too much about this particular subpoena question.

"one forgotten conversation (which Rove's team may have pointed out to Fitzgerald later)"

Speaking of keeping a broad perspective, I agree with you that "one forgotten conversation" may not be earth-shattering. It depends on zillions of other details that Fitz knows but we don't.

[Cecil Turner]

"By the way, nice job still not managing to admit that you repeatedly misquoted Wilson."

The master of picking single words from a quote out of context is claiming that I must include a non-pertinent qualifier from one of Wilson's? Laughable nonsense.

"your detour into this little semantical rathole was just another of your typical distortions."

Yet another of the vastly rewarding exchanges precipitated by your leaping into a conversation, minutely parsing every phrase, and calling everyone involved a liar. (And personally, I like how posting an opinion contrary to yours--even if it happens to coincide with that of the group commissioned to study the particular issue--makes me a "partisan hack." I also like how every commission finding critical of the Administration is immediately adopted as Gospel, while those tending to support are "baloney.") Gotta admit I'm starting not to notice the insults. (Kinda blend into the background.) I do occasionally wonder if you could complete a post without them . . . but I suspect the answer is "no." You're welcome to continue, because it isn't making me look stupid.

[TM]

Speaking of quoting carefully, please don't misquote Cooper.

Oh, for heaven's sake - I excerpted the whole darn paragraph in question!

And your theory that Cooper recognized Rove was exaggerating is not consistent with a "Rove lied" argument.

And eventually, we will cover whether Rove himself really suggested that the chat be on double super secret background, or if that was Cooper himself engaging in a bit of exaggeration and distortion in what he knew was an informal e-mail, not a published article or a deposition.

A major feature of the GOP campaign against Wilson is to claim that Plame had an important role in sending him. So indeed Rove did not say "authorized" by accident. This was an important part of his message.

Sure it was - at the DU, maybe.

Back in reality, we had Ari Fleischer, Condi Rice, and George Tenet all rebutting Wilson *without* mentioning his wife.

And exactly *one* reporter, Novak, got a leak about the wife and published it (I am scoring Cooper as a "me-too!", since they published after the Corn scandal-mongering article).

FWIW, the correct Dem talking point is that the White House leaked her name to punish Wilson and intimidate other whistleblowers - in that context, Rove and the rest of the Bush Brute Sqaud could care less whether her involvement is reported as "authorized", "involved", or whatever.