Friday, July 15, 2005

Rove, Novak (Apparently) Contradict One Another

Chief presidential adviser Karl Rove testified to a grand jury that he talked with two journalists before they divulged the identity of an undercover CIA officer but that he originally learned about the operative from the news media and not government sources, according to a person briefed on the testimony.

The person, who works in the legal profession and spoke only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy, told the Associated Press that Rove testified last year that he remembers specifically being told by columnist Robert Novak that Valerie Plame, the wife of a harsh Iraq war critic, worked for the CIA.

Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Those two statements are not mutually exclusive. Novak is saying someone told him that Plame was CIA and then Rove just confirmed it. Rove also says some mysterious third journalist told him about Plame. It's convoluted so try and keep up with the shell-game...

"After hearing Novak's account ... Rove told the columnist: 'I heard that, too.'"

Rest is at SF Cronicle

7:17 PM  
Blogger Jami said...

anon is right.

i'm believing the NYT's "second source" line about karl rove, much as it came from an anonymous person probably in the white house.

both sources are guilty. that's key.

7:31 PM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

Agreed, but in order for these two statements to both be correct, you have to assume that Rove was not one of Novak's two government sources.

That would mean there are at least three White House leaks.

Houston, we have a problem. ...

10:55 PM  
Blogger The Uncooperative Blogger said...

Are you crazy? This is all a non-story. Watch when this is all said and done the left is going to have eggs on their faces, while trying to act like they don't.

How about trying to stop ALL spin on your site. This would require a full time job dealing with the democrats over the past four years.

Tell me how many ideas have the democrats come up with in four years? Hmmm? Come on list them. The Democrats are not anything I want to be part of anymore.

Not that I am a huge fan of the Republicans, but I just disagree with them allot less than the Communist Party of America, called the Democrats.

I suggest you people wake up.

11:05 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Can we assume, uncooperative, that you also go to conservative blogs and ask them to tackle all spin?

I didn't think so ...

12:39 AM  
Blogger Michael said...

It never fails. Do the freepers even bother to read the material on this site before they start poopin' in the pool with their ad hominem attacks and schoolyard bragging?

Hey Uncooperative, can you at least read the post next time so you can tailor your ranting to the context? Also, after I read your negativity, I found your "no ideas on offer" complaint to be, um, a little ironic.

If you're having trouble finding ideas offered by Dems it's because you haven't bothered to do the teeniest amount of research. How about looking at yesterday's post from David (do I need to include a link to JABBS?):

" July 14 Senate session, an amendment to the Homeland Security appropriations bill was offered to 'deny access to classified information to any federal employee who discloses a covert CIA agent's identity.'" That's right, voted down by the obstructionist Republicans.

3:10 AM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

Agreed, Dissident. There's a boatload of Democratic initiatives, but when you have a Republican-led Congress and a Republican administration, most of those initiatives are going to get shot down in committee or on the House or Senate floor.

It's tough when more often than not, the Democrats are facing the Republicans voting as one.

That's tough for people like uncooperative to understand, because let's face it, Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity don't get into such complicated matters. It's so much easier to repeat the mantra that "liberals are un-American EuroSocialists who side with the terrorists."

9:19 AM  
Anonymous Kenny said...

Let's not miss the big picture here...

Regardless of whether this should or does damage Rove - a question remains. Rove indicated he was refuting partisan statements made by Joe Wilson, he was "correcting inaccuracies". He was probably putting a spin on the article by Wilson that contradicted a 'Let's go to war in Iraq' speech by GWB. Joe Wilson said that he could not find evidence that Saddam was trying to buy uranium from Niger.

Rove's defense, in part, seems to be an altrusitic (ain't he sweet) effort to prevent the reporting of a fallacious story. Thus Rove himself must have been privvy to material that countered Wilson's partisan claims. Legalities and ethics aside, isn't this the essence of the story?

We need to call for the WH to produce the intelligence that they felt clearly refuted Wilson. Send a delegation to Niger if neccessary, retrace Wilson steps, show the world where Joe Wilson was wrong. What do they have to loose if Wilson was wrong?

If it cannot be produced then Rove's actions were likely what we suspect; the lowest kind of partisan politics.

10:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Short answer, Kenny: They won't do any of the things you suggest because Wilson was right and they the all about the "lowest kind of partisan politics". Unfortunately they are in power now, in every branch of the government (and I include the media in that) and the cult of the Red-State Right is too far gone to recognize things like the truth anymore.

Best we can do is to keep working at it. Thanks to blogs like this we are making some progress.

2:28 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares