Finally someone (Bob Herbert) has the guts to tell it like it is. In his New York Times column today, Herbert writes:

“A wiser leader would begin to cut some of these losses (in Iraq). But the whole point of this war, it seems, was to establish a long-term military presence in Iraq to ensure American domination of the Middle East and its precious oil reserves, which have been described, the author Daniel Yergin tells us, as “the greatest single prize in all history.
You can run through all the wildly varying rationales for this war: the weapons of mass destruction (that were never found), the need to remove the unmitigated evil of Saddam (whom we had once cozied up to), the connection to Al Qaeda (which was bogus), and, one of President Bush’s favorites, the need to fight the terrorists “over there” so we won’t have to fight them here at home.

All the rationales have to genuflect before “The Prize,” the title of Mr. Yergin’s Pulitzer-Prize-winning book.

It’s the oil, stupid…

(What) should be understood by the people who think that the formation of a permanent Iraqi government will lead to the withdrawal of American troops… (is that) There is no real withdrawal plan. The fighting and the dying will continue indefinitely.”

Just as the unveiling of the Watergate break-in was the “tip of the iceberg” in exposing a pattern of paranoia and illegal activities in the Nixon White House, so may the Valarie Plame affair serve as a spotlight on similar activities int he George W. Bush administration.

As Frank Rich states in his New York Times piece “Eight Days in July“:

When a conspiracy is unraveling, and it’s every liar and his lawyer for themselves, the story takes on a momentum of its own. When the conspiracy is, at its heart, about the White House’s twisting of the intelligence used to sell the American people a war - and its desperate efforts to cover up that flimflam once the W.M.D. cupboard proved bare and the war went south - the story will not end until the war really is in its “last throes.”

The problem is that Nixon’s Watergate did not result in the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians and thousands of American soldiers as is Bush’s War in Iraq.

As Bill Diamond describes: the President today reiterated his pledge to immediately fire anyone in his administration found to have leaked the identity of an undercover CIA operative. BUT, he did add some stipulations to his firm pronouncement. (more…)

From Chortler.com

	Karl, you screwed up big time.
	Yes, Mr. President, I know.
	And you know what happens to people in this administration who screw up?
	Yes, sir.
	Well then you would know what happened to Condoleezza Rice who as National Security Advisor provided me with the false information that Iraq was trying purchase uranium from Africa.
	Yes, sir. You promoted her to Secretary of State.
	Then you would also know about L. Paul Bremer III who as US administrator in Iraq oversaw that country’s descent into anarchy.
	Yes, sir. You awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
	Well then Karl, as someone who committed the illegal and treasonous act of revealing the identity of a CIA agent, you leave me no other choice but to nominate you for the new opening at the Supreme Court.

Here’s the AP report:

Some of the denials, other comments, at media briefings by White House spokesman Scott McClellan when asked by reporters whether President Bush’s top political adviser, Karl Rove, was involved in the leak of a CIA officer’s identity:

Sept. 29, 2003

Q: You said this morning, quote, “The president knows that Karl Rove wasn’t involved.” How does he know that?

A: Well, I’ve made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place. … I’ve said that it’s not true. … And I have spoken with Karl Rove.

Q: It doesn’t take much for the president to ask a senior official working for him, to just lay the question out for a few people and end this controversy today.

A: Do you have specific information to bring to our attention? … Are we supposed to chase down every anonymous report in the newspaper? We’d spend all our time doing that.”

Q: When you talked to Mr. Rove, did you discuss, “Did you ever have this information?”

A: I’ve made it very clear, he was not involved, that there’s no truth to the suggestion that he was.

___

Oct. 7, 2003

Q: You have said that you personally went to Scooter Libby (Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff), Karl Rove and Elliott Abrams (National Security Council official) to ask them if they were the leakers. Is that what happened? Why did you do that? And can you describe the conversations you had with them? What was the question you asked?

A: Unfortunately, in Washington, D.C., at a time like this there are a lot of rumors and innuendo. There are unsubstantiated accusations that are made. And that’s exactly what happened in the case of these three individuals. They are good individuals. They are important members of our White House team. And that’s why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt with that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it’s accurate before I report back to you, and that’s exactly what I did.

___

Oct. 10, 2003

Q: Earlier this week you told us that neither Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams nor Lewis Libby disclosed any classified information with regard to the leak. I wondered if you could tell us more specifically whether any of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?

A: I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that’s where it stands.

Q: So none of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?

A: They assured me that they were not involved in this.

Q: They were not involved in what?

A: The leaking of classified information.

___

July 11, 2005:

Q: Do you want to retract your statement that Rove, Karl Rove, was not involved in the Valerie Plame expose?

A: I appreciate the question. This is an ongoing investigation at this point. The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, that means we’re not going to be commenting on it while it is ongoing.

Q: But Rove has apparently commented, through his lawyer, that he was definitely involved.

A: You’re asking me to comment on an ongoing investigation.

Q: I’m saying, why did you stand there and say he was not involved?

A: Again, while there is an ongoing investigation, I’m not going to be commenting on it nor is … .

Q: Any remorse?

A: Nor is the White House, because the president wanted us to cooperate fully with the investigation, and that’s what we’re doing.

OK. I do not like that Judy Miller served as a mouthpiece for the Bush administration FOR YEARS and published their LIES on WMD and the untruthful reasons to go to war.

We now know that she got her info on Valarie Plame directly from Karl Rove.

BUT reporters should NOT be compelled to disclose their secret sources. Want to know why? Read the Secret Man by Bob Woodward on how Deep Throat helped to save the nation from Nixon’s crime machine. The fact that Woodward would NEVER release Mark Felt’s name was why Felt talked as Deep Throat.

Send a message to Judy Miller at the address below supporting her stance of NOT releasing her sources.

ThinkProgress and Reuters have outlined the method used by Rove to attempt to conceal his involvement in outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

It was the same method that DID NOT work for Bill Clinton in trying to conceal his sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky. The method could be called “wordsmithing and the careful-parsing of statements” or it could be called “LYING”. Bill Clinton was impeached and lost his law license for a similar offense. What will happen to Karl Rove? (more…)

Evidence appears to be mounting for two criminal activities to have been committed by Karl Rove, the key White House advisor often referred to as “Bush’s Brain.”

According to the Newsweek story today, at 11:07 on a Friday morning, July 11, 2003 Time magazine correspondent Matt Cooper sent the following e-mail to his bureau chief, Michael Duffy:

“Subject: Rove/P&C,” (for personal and confidential)
“Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation…” “please don’t source this to rove or even WH [White House]”
“it was, KR said, wilson’s wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip.”

“The trip” that was being referred to was that of former ambassador Joseph Wilson February 2002 to investigate charges that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from the African country of Nigeria which Wilson said he had found no evidence to support the claim. Wilson’s wife was the former covert CIA operative Valerie Plame.

The leak of Plame’s identity was first reported by columnist Robert Novak on July 14, 2003. According to Murry Wass of The American Prospect “Rove also adamantly insisted to the FBI that he was not the administration official who leaked the information that Plame was a covert CIA operative to conservative columnist Robert Novak last July… Rove insisted, he had only circulated information about Plame after it had appeared in Novak’s column.”

But wait… Cooper’s e-mail about Rove was dated July 11, 2003, three days before Novak’s article was published! That means that Rove disclosed Plame’s identity to Cooper before it appeared in Novak’s column.

The evidence appears to be mounting for two criminal activities to have been committed by Karl Rove:

• First, the outing of the identity of a CIA operative. According to David Corn of The Nation: “This is not only a possible breach of national security; it is a potential violation of law. Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, it is a crime for anyone who has access to classified information to disclose intentionally information identifying a covert agent. The punishment for such an offense is a fine of up to $50,000 and/or up to ten years in prison.
• Second, possible lying to the FBI and to a Grand Jury. We do know from the Newsweek story today and other sources, that Rove had testified before the grand jury “two or three times” and signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him. As I have stated in this blog, before if Karl Rove testified before the Grand Jury under oath that he was NOT the source of the Plame outing to Cooper when in fact he WAS the source, this could result in a perjury rap for Mr. Rove.

Editor & Publisher reports that Lawrence O’Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, believes that recent documents released by Time Inc. finger Karl Rove as the White House insider who leaked the identity of Valarie Plame as a CIA agent.

The E&P article suggests that if true and if Karl Rove told the Grand Jury in the Plame/CIA case that the grand jury he did not leak the information to reporters, that the result could be a perjury rap for Rove.

Paul Krugman in today’s New York Times puts it succinctly:

“Since a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would, Mr. Bush claims, be a victory for Al Qaeda, Americans have to support this war - and that means supporting him. After all, you wage war with the president you have, not the president you want.”
“But America doesn’t have to let itself be taken hostage. The country missed the chance to say no before this war started, but it can still say no to Mr. Bush’s open-ended commitment, and demand a timetable for getting out.”

As I have stated on this blog before, American troops presence in Iraq reduces the opportunity for stability in Iraq and puts all Americans at greater risk from terrorist attacks from Muslim fundamentalist anger. (more…)