Rove did NOT learn about Plame from Novak

[wookie294]

The headline "Rove Learned CIA Agent's Name From Novak" contradicts the body of the article. The article said: "When Novak inquired about Wilson's wife working for the CIA, Rove indicated he had heard something like that, according to the source's recounting of the grand jury testimony."

So, Rove knew about Plame before talking to Novak. Yet, today's media is spinning the story by saying Rove learned of Plame thru Novak, which isn't true.

ON EDIT: More spin....

The AP article goes on to say: "But at the same time, Wilson acknowledged his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak's column first identified her. 'My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity,' he said."

But the reason Wilson's wife was no longer undercover when Novak's article was published is because she was outed by the White House in the weeks prior to Novak's article when the administration was talking to reporters. So, a crime was still committed. But AP makes it appear that no crime was committed since Wilson "admitted" that his wife was "no longer undercover" when Novak's article was published.

[redqueen]

1. They're desperate. n/t

[Guckert]

2. That second source was Mr. Rove, the person briefed on the matter said.

How can the GOP Traitors spin that statement by their own source???????????? is there two meanings to "THE SECOND SOURCE WAS MR. ROVE??????
----------------------------------------
I hope he enjoys the Lemon chicken, you know it comes with two fruits and rice pilaf. And the view is spectacular.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

3. Yes, I saw that

The end result they are pushing for here is to confuse and misdirect the masses, I do believe.

A large block of their followers are not deep thinkers and enough misdirection will have them doubting.

[indie_voter]

7. what amazes me about all this is

No spin in the world is going to help when the Grand Jury returns with their findings.

All this nonsense to muddy the water might help Bush&Rove right now,but when the facts come out they are going to look even worse.

These guys are garden variety narcissistic sociopaths.

This isn't a PR game (although they think it is), it is a legal matter. The more they offer ridiculous spin, the worse they look.

I hate to raise his name, but this reminds me of the Scott Peterson case, he just said whatever lie came to his head to get out of whatever sticky situation he was in at the moment.

He tells one reporter he told the cops about his affair from day one, knowing full well he didn't. He says he didn't have an affair, knowing full well the evidence was against him, he didn't come clean until his mistress held her press conference.

Sociopaths seem to all behave the same way. Lie lie lie to protect yourself for the moment. Get caught, lie some more.

I will be very interested to read Matt Cooper's piece. His lawyer was on hardball, seems to think there is a serious case. Cooper's lawyer must know what Matt Cooper was asked and how he answered, from there they must be able to glean where this is heading.

[gkhouston]

12. but this seems to be classic behavior for a narcissistic sociopath

to live in the lie of the moment, not fully cognizant of how it connects with what you've said in the past and never fully believing that there will be a reckoning in the future. And it works for a surprisingly long time, if you keep moving on to new situations where you don't have a past but once you bump up against something intractable, like the judicial system, not so good. By then, though, the behavior seems so ingrained that they can't change; they just keep on with the same lie-off-the-top-of-your-head maneuvers. To someone on the outside, their stories seem batshit-crazy, but to them, they really believe their lies du jour. It's pathetic and frightening and funny, all at the same time.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

13. Exactly, they are stalling but it will do them no good in the end.

If there were some way for them to put this off until after the 2006 elections I would understand, but there isn't.

They are simply lying to put off the inevitable as long as possible.

I agree, they are narcissistic sociopaths, and as such they are compelled to lie and lie again when the first lie is uncovered. In a situation such as this one that can be illegal, however. It's almost as if they don't care that they are digging their hole deeper by the minute.

[alkaline9]

4. what i wanna know is...

...Did Novak tell Rove "her name" .... as he said he didn't know her name blah blah blah. Either way this is all very full of holes. I wouldn't doubt this "leak" from the GJ to be all made up to simply steer the gossip in a different direction.

[Kazak]

5. You mean, you actually read the articles?

:crazy:

;)

[bloom]

6. It figures they would say that

since they like to say the opposite of whatever is true.

[bluedog]

8. rove is NO SOLDIER

in times of combat..soldiers get captured.tortured to release information about their country;

Soldiers are taught the code: Name: Rank: Serial Number....

Rove could learn a valuable lesson from these soldiers.who put their lives on the line to defend our country and the agents who seek to prevent disasters bu nukes and many other means.........

Rove by all means.....Is a traitor to our country.....the GOP in Congress....are at the bottom of the barrel when they spout National Security.yet let a Traitor keep his/her Security Clearance...........

[dogday]

9. Oh What Tangled Webs They Weave

The web of lies grows on a daily basis.

[Lucille]

10. Novak contradicts this. He must be feeling nervous.

Because it looks like he's being set up to take a fall--unless of course, RN is participating in the coverup and changed his grand jury story from the one he told Newsday back in June of 2003. Then he said, "I didn't dig it out. It was given to me. They thought it was significant. They gave me the name, and I used it."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_07_10.php#006073

[grumpy old fart]

11. The main thing is for Fitzgerald to keep it st8...and to wrap up the hunt.

If Fitzgerald is true to his word, though I have my doubts given the length of time this has already dragged out, we will know the the whole truth some time soon....

[Zen Democrat]

14. Why do you think this is "dragged" out?

Fitzgerald was appointed December 30, 2003 - and 10 months later he said the case was virtually wrapped up except for the testimony of Cooper and Miller. It has taken this long for their appeals to get to the Supreme Court, who refused to hear the case. That's when this current flame ignited.

It's actually been a pretty tight investigation, I'd say.

[grumpy old fart]

19. You're right....my initial impression was it was being buried......

but given the stonewalling it really has been pretty reasonable. I was probably more frustrated at the time (Late 2003) that the press didn't put on the heat more, as it should have been a simple matter for the WH to "find out" who leaked.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Novak the first to publish it?

If so, then your last paragraph is wrong.

"But the reason Wilson's wife was no longer undercover when Novak's article was published is because she was outed by the White House in the weeks prior to Novak's article when the administration was talking to reporters."

If Novak's article was the first to out her, then she hadn't been outed until then. At least not publicly. If that were the case then there would have been no need to remove her from undercover work.

Just playing devil's advocate here.

[wookie294]

16. When the White House disclosed the name, her cover was blown

An article doesn't need to be published in order to "out" an undercover CIA agent. If the White House speaks to a reporter (in this case, it was something like 8 reporters), then a CIA agent's undercover status is blown -- even if no article is written.

Plame was outed before Novak's article when the White House disclosed her name to reporters.

[writes2000]

17. Correct, as I understand it.

[wookie294]

18. Also, Wilson said Plame was undercover until June 2003

Wilson said on CNN yesterday that Plame was outed "8 months" after Oct. 2002 (which means she was outed in June of 2003). Here's how he said it....

"WILSON: I received this on October 25th, 2002, at the very beginning of the serious debate on what U.S. policy toward Iraq should be, eight months after I made a trip to Niger, and eight months before my wife's identity was compromised."

He was speaking about something else there, but my point is to look at those dates he mentioned. She was undercover until June 2003.

Novak's article was written in July 2003. The White House outed Plame to reporters in June 2003. So, it's accurate to say she was no longer undercover on the day Novak published his article.

[wookie294]

20. And, to beat this dead horse further (hehehe)

Reporter David Gregory said on NBC Nightly News last night that he confirmed with government sources that Plame was undercover in 2003. See link for the audio of the newscast (about 8 minutes into the newscast is David's report)....

http://podcast.msnbc.com/audio/podcast/nightly-07-14-2005-165539.mp3

So, I don't know why everybody is saying she was not undercover? WTF?

[dogday]

22. CIA asked for this investigation

that should tell you what you need to know. The CIA demanded this investigation. Anything else said is a lie by the right to cover their their asses....

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Hate to quibble, but...

If Novak got from whatever source the info, but didn't publish it, then why would the CIA thugs remove her from her undercover job? Unless, they knew she had been outed? Or, were they in on the deal? Not that I doubt for a moment that they would comply with their bosses no matter how sleazy the doings.

The point is that the WH can say that Plame wasn't working undercover when she was outed by Novak.

The question to me is, who did Novak get his info from? The CIA? Rove? (Apparantly not according to the story). One of Rove's flunkies? Another reporter? Someone else?

It's all rather fascinating to watch but I'm sceptical that it's going to end in a catastrophe for Bush. More like an embarrassment.