TREASONGATE: IT'S NOT JUST KARL ROVE

By Ted Rall/The Nation

NEW YORK--Since Karl Rove surfaced last week as the White House official who probably unmasked a covert CIA agent, new developments appear to confirm that the deputy chief of staff and chief Bush political strategist has committed treason:

In 1985 CIA traitor Aldrich Ames sold the KGB the names of every U.S. spy in the Soviet Union in return for $2 million. Arrests and executions soon wiped out America's human assets in the Soviet Union. As they were caught unprepared by one shocker after another--glasnost, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the implosion of the USSR--intelligence professionals suspected a well-placed mole as the culprit. But Ames wasn't caught for another nine years.

Karl Rove, on the other hand, has already been found out as a likely traitor to the United States. Now we must work backwards. Does his exposure help to explain some of the Administration's most baffling foreign policy blunders?

No matter how remote, we must now consider the possibility that Karl Rove may in the employ of, and/or receiving money from, a terrorist organization such as Al Qaeda. Alternatively, could he be in the employ of a hostile foreign government? If he betrayed a CIA agent, Rove is a traitor and therefore capable of anything. Only an exhaustive investigation of his and his associates' anti-American activities, up to and including those committed by George W. Bush, can resolve these questions.

Internal sabotage offers a tempting explanation for the fact that so much has gone wrong for the United States since 2001. After 9/11 Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan--which had financed the Taliban and trained the hijackers at its camps--but Bush shocked analysts by attacking Afghanistan and Iraq instead. Was Bush's refusal to search for bin Laden in his nation of residence the result of spectacular incompetence--or a continuing alliance with the same Islamists his father's presidency had armed and funded? Are we losing the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq because of Rumsfeld's stubborn insistence on understaffing the military? Or are our leaders intentionally dragging out combat to accomplish their masters' aims: increasing the popularity of radical Islam and the recruitment of terrorists? Even Bush's domestic policies, from tax cuts paid to the rich people least likely to stimulate the economy to his attack on Social Security, seem designed to undermine U.S. stability and prosperity. Was Bush crossing his fingers when he swore to preserve and defend the constitution?

Maybe. Maybe not. The point is: we don't know. But we must find out.

National security is bipartisan. Democrats and Republicans may be divided over various ideological conflicts, but all patriotic Americans should be able to agree on a zero-tolerance policy for treason. Rove, those who worked with him and anyone who protected him must go.

Bush 'supports' embattled advisor

The White House says President Bush has confidence in senior aide Karl Rove who is at the centre of a scandal over the leaking of a CIA officer's identity.
Democrats called for a full account of the revelations that Mr Rove spoke to a journalist about the agent days before her identity was revealed in the press.

The White House has previously refused to comment on the affair, citing an ongoing criminal investigation.

A trusted Bush adviser, Mr Rove has denied being behind the 2003 leaking.

National security

This week, Newsweek magazine quoted Mr Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, as saying his client did discuss Ms Plame with Time magazine journalist Matthew Cooper in an email but did not mention her name.

Democrats called on the White House to reveal all the facts of the case.


Any individual who works here at the White House has the president's confidence
Scott McClellan
White House spokesman


"If these allegations are true this rises above politics and is about our national security," said Senate Minority leader Harry Reid.

He said he hoped President Bush would follow through on a pledge to sack anyone involved in leaking the agent's name.

The president himself did not respond to a question about Mr Rove at a press briefing on Tuesday.

But White House spokesman Scott McClellan confirmed Mr Bush still had faith in Mr Rove, breaking his silence after two days of pointed questioning on the affair.

"Any individual who works here at the White House has the president's confidence," Mr McClellan told reporters.

"They wouldn't be working here if they didn't have the president's confidence."

But he refused to discuss the matter in detail.

"I don't want to do anything to jeopardise the investigation. And just because I'm not commenting on a continuing investigation that doesn't mean you should read anything into it beyond that."

Prosecutors are investigating how the identity of Ms Plame was revealed in the media in 2003.

Deliberate exposure of a covert agent is a criminal offence in the US.

Tense stand-off

Although Ms Plame's name was leaked in a different newspaper, Mr Cooper and fellow journalist Judith Miller of the New York Times were both ordered to testify about their sources in the case.

Mr Cooper later agreed after Mr Rove apparently said he could do so.


PLAME AFFAIR TIMELINE
Feb 2002 : Joseph Wilson looks into reports that Iraq tried to buy uranium in Niger
6 July 2003 : Mr Wilson goes public about investigation
14 July 2003 : Columnist Robert Novak writes the trip was inspired by Ms Plame - Matthew Cooper reports that he had similar information
30 September : Justice department launches probe
24 June 2004 : President Bush testifies in case
15 July : Cooper and Judith Miller ordered to testify about sources
10 August : Miller and Cooper sentenced for contempt of court
28 June 2005 : Supreme Court refuses to hear appeal
6 July : Miller jailed after appeals fail, Cooper agrees to testify

But Ms Miller maintained her refusal - arguing that it was her duty as a journalist to protect her sources - and was jailed.

The affair has led to a tense stand-off between the government and the media over the right of journalists to keep contacts confidential.

Correspondents say that, while it is up to prosecutors to find out whether a crime has been committed, the government's credibility is now at stake because of previous denials by Mr Rove.

Ms Plame's husband, former US ambassador Joseph Wilson, has alleged that his wife's identity was made public in an attempt to discredit him after he challenged the government's arguments for going to war in Iraq.

Mr Wilson said he travelled to Niger to investigate a claim that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear material there but found no evidence to prove it.

Mr Luskin said Mr Rove's e-mail to Mr Cooper said that Ms Plame had authorised the trip.

Its purpose was to discourage Time magazine from publishing false allegations that Vice-President Dick Cheney was behind the trip, not to deliberately expose Ms Plame, he added.

The Niger claim was used by President Bush as one of the reasons for invading Iraq.

Sack Rove over spy leak, say Democrats

Julian Borger in Washington
Wednesday July 13, 2005

Guardian

Democratic party leaders yesterday called for the dismissal of President George Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, after evidence surfaced implicating him in the leaking of a CIA undercover agent's identity.
Mr Bush, who pledged last year to take action against anyone found responsible for the leak, ignored a journalist's question about Mr Rove's future yesterday.

But the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, having refused to discuss the issue on Monday, insisted that Mr Bush still had confidence in his aide. "Any individual who works here at the White House has the president's confidence. They wouldn't be working here if they didn't have the president's confidence," he told reporters.

The White House reticence was in sharp contrast to strong statements it issued in 2003 denying Mr Rove's involvement in the leak.

A grand jury is due to convene today to hear the latest evidence in the investigation sparked by the leak. It has been looking at whether administration officials disclosed the identity of Valerie Plame - a CIA undercover agent working in a counter-proliferation unit - to journalists two years ago, apparently to discredit criticism by her husband, Joseph Wilson, of the decision to go to war in Iraq.

An email by Time reporter Matt Cooper to his editors in July 2003 and published by Newsweek magazine on Sunday named Mr Rove as the source. Cooper said Mr Rove -the man Mr Bush lauded as "the architect" of his re-election victory - had told him on "double super secret background" that Mr Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

Knowingly revealing the identity of an undercover agent is a felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

Mr Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, acknowledged the authenticity of the Time email, but said it showed his client had not actually provided Mrs Wilson's maiden and professional name, Plame. However, the White House promised in 2003 to fire anyone who was even "involved" in the affair.

Meanwhile, the Republican National Committee distributed to its supporters "talking points" complaining of a political witchhunt.

More top Democrats yesterday called for his dismissal. Senator John Kerry, Mr Bush's opponent in last year's election, said at a congressional press conference: "Karl Rove ought to be fired." Hillary Clinton, a likely Democratic contender in 2008, nodded in agreement.

Political observers said it was too early to judge whether the controversy would cost Mr Rove his job. "You really can't say [whether or not] this is important to public opinion," said Andrew Kohut, the director of the Pew Research Centre, a Washington pollster.

"The key will be: how much support does Rove have among Republicans?"

So far, centrist Republicans have stayed silent, though the New York Times quoted "several prominent Republicans" as being "concerned about the possible effects on Mr Bush and his agenda ... because Mr Rove's stature makes him such a tempting target for Democrats".

The scandal was sparked by an article by a conservative commentator, Robert Novak.

Published on July 14 2003, it looked at Mr Wilson, a former US ambassador who a few days earlier had published a commentary questioning one of the claims made by Mr Bush as a justification for going to war in Iraq.

In his 2003 state of the union address, the president had cited British intelligence reports of Iraqi purchases of uranium in Africa, potential evidence that Saddam Hussein was working on a nuclear bomb. Mr Wilson discovered the claim referred to reports of uranium deals in Niger.

He had visited there the previous year on a CIA mission to look for evidence of such deals, but had found none.

Mr Wilson's commentary, four months after the invasion, caused uproar. The administration played down his claims. Novak questioned the seriousness of his mission. He wrote that he had been told by "two senior administration officials" that Mr Wilson's trip had been authorised by his wife, Valerie Plame, who was directly involved in monitoring the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The inquiry had faded from public view but made news recently after a judge ordered two journalists, Cooper and Judith Miller of the New York Times, to cooperate with it.

Novak did not receive such an order. He has refused to say whether he had already named to the grand jury his sources.

Time magazine handed over Cooper's notes and he agreed to testify after Mr Rove released him from his promise of anonymity. Miller was jailed last week for 120 days, after refusing to name her sources.

Niger, Iraq and the president's men


February 2002 Joseph Wilson, a former US ambassador, travels to Niger on behalf of the CIA to investigate claims Iraq was buying uranium. He finds no evidence

January 28 2003 George Bush repeats claim about Iraqi attempts to buy African uranium in his state of the union address laying out the case for war

July 6 2003 Wilson publishes account of Niger trip and questions Mr Bush's claims

July 14 2003 Robert Novak, a conservative commentator, quotes "two senior administration officials" as alleging Wilson's trip was authorised by his wife, Valerie Plame, a CIA agent. It is a federal offence to knowingly disclose the identity of an undercover CIA operative

September 26 2003 Justice department launches a criminal investigation

October 10 2003 White House denies any involvement by Karl Rove in the Plame affair

July 7 2005 New York Times reporter Judith Miller is jailed for failing to name government official who discussed Plame with her two years earlier. Novak refuses to say whether he has identified his own source to grand jury

July 10 2005 An email from Time reporter Matt Cooper to his editors, dated July 11 2003, names Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser, as a source on Plame's identity

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005

McClellan vs. Press Corps on Rove, Tuesday Edition

By Greg Mitchell

Published: July 12, 2005 2:10 PM ET

NEW YORK For the second day running, White House Press Secretary Scott McClelllan suffered through relentless grilling from reporters who demanded answers or at least comment on disclosures that top Bush aide Karl Rove had discussed CIA agent Valerie Plame with Time magazine's Matt Cooper.

McClellan at an afternoon briefing again refused to say much, claiming he did not want to jeopardize the “ongoing investigation.” He also would not discuss revoking Rove's “security clearance,” what President Bush knew about all this, or when Rove first told Bush that he had talked to Cooper.

More than yesterday, however, he clearly said that Rove still had the president's ”confidence,” although he put it in a somewhat lukewarm way: “Any individual who works here at the White House has the confidence of the president. They wouldn't be working here at the White House if they didn't have the president's confidence.”

Asked why he could not comment when Republicans had allegedly been given “talking points,” possibly by Rove himself, McClellan responded: “Ask the RNC.”

He also refused to respond when asked if the administration had a “credibility problem.” Instead, he said this line of questioning was not “constructive,” and asked for questions on other subjects.

“Do you not sense that perhaps you, the president or Karl need to say something more to close the credibility gap?” a reporter asked.

“I might harm the investigation by talking,” McClellan replied. “I'm not going to comment on news reports. We want to know what the facts are--the way to do that is let the investigators do their work.”

One exchange went like this, according to the official transcript:

"McCLELLAN: I think you're trying to get at the specific news reports and wanting me to comment on those specific news reports and --

"Q: But they're news reports that have been confirmed by Karl Rove's attorney, Scott.

"McCLELLAN: John, you can keep jumping in, but I'm going to try to keep going to other people in this room, as well. And we can have constructive dialogue here, I think, but that's not the way to do it.

"Q: It's not my job to have a constructive dialogue, Scott. Sorry."

But the questioning overall proved somewhat less intense than Monday's marathon, as it became clear that despite the innuendo and sarcasm, McClellan would stonewall.

President Bush, at an Oval Office photo opportunity Tuesday, was asked directly whether he would fire Rove -- in keeping with a pledge in June, 2004, to dismiss any leakers in the case. The president did not respond.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Mitchell (gmitchell@editorandpublisher.com) is editor of E&P.

Fox's Cameron parsed Bush's past statements on the fate of the CIA leaker: Bush "never actually said the word 'fired' "

Rather than presenting the facts about President Bush's past statements on the fate of administration officials found to have leaked the identity of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame, Fox News chief White House correspondent Carl Cameron claimed that Bush "never actually said the word 'fired.' " In fact, both Bush and White House press secretary Scott McClellan have clearly indicated that if found, the leaker would be fired. But Cameron attributed to "reporters and Democrats" suggestions that senior White House adviser Karl Rove could be fired for his role in outing Plame.

Bush at a June 10, 2004, press conference after the G8 summit:

Q: Given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President [Dick] Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?

BUSH: That's up to --

Q: And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

BUSH: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts.

McClellan at a September 29, 2003, press briefing:

McCLELLAN: The president has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the leaking of Plame's identity], they would no longer be in this administration.

[...]

Q: You continue to talk about the severity of this and if anyone has any information they should go forward to the Justice Department. But can you tell us, since it's so severe, would someone or a group of persons, lose their job in the White House?

McCLELLAN: At a minimum.

Q: At a minimum?

McCLELLAN: At a minimum.

From the July 11 edition of Fox News' Special Report With Brit Hume:

CAMERON: Early on in the leak's probe, the president himself said those responsible would be held accountable.

BUSH (clip): If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.

CAMERON: The president never actually said the word "fired," but that is what some reporters and Democrats seemed to expect.

SENATE MINORITY LEADER HARRY REID [D-NV] (clip): The White House promised, if anyone was involved in the Valerie Plame affair, they would no longer be in this administration, his administration. I trust they will follow through on this pledge.

CAMERON: Democrats have already begun to call for Rove's political scalp. Some want him fired, others want him suspended with his security clearances revoked. And still others are calling for congressional hearings with Rove to testify in person.

— N.C.

Posted to the web on Tuesday July 12, 2005 at 12:07 PM EST

RNC RESPONDS ON ROVE: PARTISAN POLITICAL ATTACK

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman has issued a statement, acquired by RAW STORY, saying questions about Rove's role in leaking the name of a CIA agent are part of a 'partisan attack.'

The following is a release, along with RNC research they believe supports their position.

#
"It's disappointing that once again, so many Democrat leaders are taking their political cues from the far-left, Moveon wing of the party. The bottom line is Karl Rove was discouraging a reporter from writing a false story based on a false premise and the Democrats are engaging in blatant partisan political attacks." -RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman

Cooper's Own Email Claims Rove Warned Of Potential Inaccuracies In Wilson Information:

"[Time Reporter Matt] Cooper Wrote That Rove Offered Him A 'Big Warning' Not To 'Get Too Far Out On Wilson.' Rove Told Cooper That Wilson's Trip Had Not Been Authorized By 'DCIA' - CIA Director George Tenet - Or Vice President Dick Cheney." (Michael Isikoff, "Matt Cooper's Source," Newsweek, 7/18/05)

Wilson Falsely Claimed That It Was Vice President Cheney Who Sent Him To Niger, But The Vice President Has Said He Never Met Him And Didn't Know Who Sent Him:

Wilson Says He Traveled To Niger At CIA Request To Help Provide Response To Vice President's Office. "In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. ... The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office." (Joseph C. Wilson, The New York Times, 7/6/03)

Joe Wilson: "What They Did, What The Office Of The Vice President Did, And, In Fact, I Believe Now From Mr. Libby's Statement, It Was Probably The Vice President Himself ..." (CNN's "Late Edition," 8/3/03)

Vice President Cheney: "I Don't Know Joe Wilson. I've Never Met Joe Wilson. ... And Joe Wilson - I Don't [Know] Who Sent Joe Wilson. He Never Submitted A Report That I Ever Saw When He Came Back." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 9/14/03) CIA Director George Tenet: "In An Effort To Inquire About Certain Reports Involving Niger, CIA's Counter-Proliferation Experts, On Their Own Initiative, Asked An Individual With Ties To The Region To Make A Visit To See What He Could Learn." (Central Intelligence Agency, 7/11/03)

Tenet: "Because This Report, In Our View, Did Not Resolve Whether Iraq Was Or Was Not Seeking Uranium From Abroad, It Was Given A Normal And Wide Distribution, But We Did Not Brief It To The President, Vice-President Or Other Senior Administration Officials." (Central Intelligence Agency, "Statement By George J. Tenet," 7/11/03)

Wilson Denied His Wife Suggested He Travel To Niger, But Documentation Showed She Proposed His Name:

Wilson Claims His Wife Did Not Suggest He Travel To Niger To Investigate Reports Of Uranium Deal; Instead, Wilson Claims It Came Out Of Meeting With CIA To Discuss Report. CNN'S WOLF BLITZER: "Among other things, you had always said, always maintained, still maintain your wife, Valerie Plame, a CIA officer, had nothing to do with the decision to send to you Niger to inspect reports that uranium might be sold from Niger to Iraq. ... Did Valerie Plame, your wife, come up with the idea to send you to Niger?" JOE WILSON: "No. My wife served as a conduit, as I put in my book. When her supervisors asked her to contact me for the purposes of coming into the CIA to discuss all the issues surrounding this allegation of Niger selling uranium to Iraq." (CNN's "Lade Edition," 7/18/04)

But Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Received Not Only Testimony But Actual Documentation Indicating Wilson's Wife Proposed Him For Trip. "Some [CIA Counterproliferation Division, or 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.'" ("Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq," U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)

Wilson's Report On Niger Had "Thin" Evidence And Did Not Change Conclusions Of Analysts And Other Reports:

Officials Said Evidence Was "Thin" And His "Homework Was Shoddy." "In the days after Wilson's essay appeared, government officials began to steer reporters away from Wilson's conclusions, raising questions about his veracity and the agency's reasons for sending him in the first place. They told reporters that Wilson's evidence was thin, said his homework was shoddy and suggested that he had been sent to Niger by the CIA only because his wife had nominated him for the job." (Michael Duffy, "Leaking With A Vengeance," Time, 10/13/03) Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Unanimous Report: "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." ("Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Assessments On Iraq, 7/7/04)

"For Most Analysts, The Information In The Report Lent More Credibility To The Original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Report On The Uranium Deal, But State Department Bureau Of Intelligence And Research (IN) Analysts Believed That The Report Supported Their Assessments That Niger Was Unlikely To Be Willing Or Able To Sell Uranium." (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, "Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Assessments On Iraq, 7/7/04)

CIA Said Wilson's Findings Did Not Resolve The Issue. "Because [Wilson's] report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad, it was given a normal and wide distribution, but we did not brief it to the president, vice president or other senior administration officials. We also had to consider that the former Nigerien officials knew that what they were saying would reach the U.S. government and that this might have influenced what they said." (Central Intelligence Agency, "Statement By George J. Tenet, Director Of Central Intelligence," Press Release 7/11/03) The Butler Report Claimed That The President's State Of the Union Statement On Uranium From Africa, "Was Well-Founded." "We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government's dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: 'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.' was well-founded." (The Rt. Hon. The Lord Butler Of Brockwell, "Review Of Intelligence, On Weapons Of Mass Destruction," 7/14/04) Sens. Roberts, Bond And Hatch All Dismissed Wilson's Claims:

Sens. Pat Roberts (R-KS), Kit Bond (R-MO) And Orrin Hatch (R-UT) All Stated, "On At Least Two Occasions [Wilson] Admitted That He Had No Direct Knowledge To Support Some Of His Claims And That He Was Drawing On Either Unrelated Past Experiences Or No Information At All." (Select Committee On Intelligence, "Additional Views Of Chairman Pat Roberts, Joined By Senator Christopher S. Bond And Senator Orrin G. Hatch; Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq," U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)

"The Former Ambassador, Either By Design Or Through Ignorance, Gave The American People And, For That Matter, The World A Version Of Events That Was Inaccurate, Unsubstantiated, And Misleading." ("Additional Views Of Chairman Pat Roberts, Joined By Senator Christopher S. Bond And Senator Orrin G. Hatch; Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq," U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)

"[J]oe Wilson Told Anyone Who Would Listen That The President Had Lied To The American People, That The Vice President Had Lied And That He Had 'Debunked' The Claim That Iraq Was Seeking Uranium From Africa ... Not Only Did He NOT 'Debunk' The Claim, He Actually Gave Some Intelligence Analysts Even More Reason To Believe That It May Be True." ("Additional Views Of Chairman Pat Roberts, Joined By Senator Christopher S. Bond And Senator Orrin G. Hatch; Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq," U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)

Wilson Tied To The 2004 Kerry Campaign For President:

Wilson Endorsed Kerry In October 2003. "Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who accused the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence to exaggerate the threat from Iraq, endorsed Democrat John Kerry for president ... In a conference call with New Hampshire reporters, Wilson said he and Kerry have shared the experience of challenging their government - Wilson when he questioned the 'rush to war' with Iraq, Kerry when he challenged America's role in Vietnam." (David Tirrell-Wysocki, "Former Ambassador Wilson Endorses Kerry In Presidential Race," The Associated Press, 10/23/03) "Wilson ... Said He Has Long Been A Kerry Supporter And Has Contributed $2,000 To The Campaign This Year. He Said He Has Been Advising Kerry On Foreign Policy For About Five Months And Will Campaign For Kerry, Including A Trip To New Hampshire ..." (David Tirrell-Wysocki, "Former Ambassador Wilson Endorses Kerry In Presidential Race," The Associated Press, 10/23/03) "In Mid-May, [Wilson] Began Talking To Kerry's Advisers About Helping The Campaign; He Made His First Donation May 23. Kerry Himself Had Not Met Wilson Until Tuesday Night At A Campaign Fund-Raiser In Potomac, Md., A Kerry Aide Said ..." (Patrick Healy and Wayne Washington, "In Probe Of CIA Leak, Two Sides See Politics," The Boston Globe, 10/2/03) "[Kerry Advisor Rand] Beers Said Wilson Communicates With Campaign Advisers At Least Once A Week." (Patrick Healy and Wayne Washington, "In Probe Of CIA Leak, Two Sides See Politics," The Boston Globe, 10/2/03)

Portions of Press Briefing by Scott McClellan

James S. Brady Briefing Room

12:56 P.M. EDT

......

Q Scott, some Democrats are calling for the revocation of Karl Rove's security clearance. Does the President see any need for that?

MR. McCLELLAN: John, I think there's a lot of discussion that's going on in the context of an ongoing investigation. This is based on some news reports that came out recently. I think you heard me talk about the importance of helping this investigation move forward. I don't think it's helpful for me from this podium to get into discussing what is an ongoing investigation. I think it's most helpful for me to not comment while that investigation continues. And these are all issues that some are trying to raise in the context of news reports. I don't think we should be prejudging the outcome of any investigation at this point.

Q But the issues of security clearance and criminal investigations are often on very separate tracks. So does the President see any reason, any necessity, at least in the interim, to revoke Karl Rove's security clearance?

MR. McCLELLAN: John, the President -- first of all, let me back up -- some of you asked a couple of questions about does the President still have confidence in particular individuals, specifically Karl Rove. I don't want to get into commenting on things in the context of an ongoing investigation. So let me step back and point out that any individual who works here at the White House has the confidence of the President. They wouldn't be working here at the White House if they didn't have the President's confidence. And in terms of security clearances, there are a number of people at the White House that have various levels of security clearance. And I'm confident that those individuals have the appropriate security clearance. I haven't gone around looking at what those security clearances are.

Q But, Scott, are you suggesting -- I think it's pretty clear to everybody at this point you don't want to comment on the investigation. But the President has also spoken about this when asked. So does the President --

MR. McCLELLAN: Spoken about?

Q Well, he has spoken about these questions that have come up as part of a leak investigation. So does he retain confidence in Karl Rove, specifically?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes. Any individual who works here at the White House has the President's confidence. They wouldn't be working here if they didn't have the President's confidence. That's why I stepped back from this and talked about it in the broader context.

Now, these questions are coming up in the context of an ongoing investigation, and I stated long ago, you all will remember, that the investigation is continuing, I want to be helpful to the investigation, I don't want to jeopardize anything in that investigation, and that's why I made a decision and the White House made a decision quite some time ago that we weren't going to get into commenting on questions related to that investigation.

Q But isn't the difficulty that you have said to the public, dating back to 2003, affirmatively, Karl Rove is not involved, and now we have evidence to the contrary? So how do you reconcile those two things? How does the President reconcile those two things?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, if I were to get into discussing this, I would be getting into discussing an investigation that continues and could be prejudging the outcome of the investigation. I'm not going to do that from this podium. You do point out some statements that were made. I remember well the comments that were made. After that point, I also remember going and testifying in this investigation. I remember well individuals who are involved overseeing this investigation expressing their preference personally to me that we not get into discussing what is an ongoing investigation. I think that's the way to be most helpful as they move forward, and that's why I'm in the position that I am. I'm not going to get into jumping on every news report as the investigation continues and trying to comment on them, because I don't think that's helpful.

So I think you have to step back from any individual news story or individual reports. Let's let the investigation take place. I look forward to talking about some of these matters once the investigation is complete. I welcome the opportunity to talk about some of these questions, but I don't think it's appropriate to do so at this time.

Q Let's just -- just one final --

MR. McCLELLAN: And I think the American people can understand and appreciate that.

Q Well, we'll see. But I just have one final question on this. The question of whether a law has been broken, a crime committed, is a separate matter. You're not going to resolve that; that's for a grand jury to decide. But we know what the facts are. We know that Karl Rove spoke about Joseph Wilson's wife, referring to the fact that she worked at the Agency. You've heard Democrats who say that -- say today that alone was inappropriate conduct. What was Karl Rove trying to accomplish by having the conversation he did? And does the President think that it was fair of him to do that? Was it fair game?

MR. McCLELLAN: Now, that's a question related to an ongoing investigation. The investigation continues, David. I think you know that very well. I've responded to that question. And if I were to start commenting on news reports or things related to the investigation, I'm getting into prejudging the outcome of that investigation. I don't want to do that from this podium. Let's let the investigation take place, and let's let the investigators bring all the facts together and draw the conclusions that they draw, and then we will know the facts at that point.

Q But, Scott, there's a difference between what's legal and what's right. Is what Karl Rove did right?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I mean, you can state the obvious. I understand and appreciate that, and I appreciate you all. I know you all want to get to the bottom of this. I want to get to the bottom of it; the President has said no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than he does. We want to see it come to a successful conclusion. The best way to help the investigation come to a successful conclusion is for me not to get into discussing it from this podium. I don't think that --

Q Well, wait, wait, wait --

MR. McCLELLAN: Wait -- I don't think that helps advance the investigation.

Q All right, you say you won't discuss it, but the Republican National Committee and others working, obviously, on behalf of the White House, they put out this Wilson-Rove research and talking points, distributed to Republican surrogates, which include things like, Karl Rove discouraged a reporter from writing a false story. And then other Republican surrogates are getting information such as, Cooper -- the Time reporter -- called Rove on the pretense of discussing welfare reform. Bill Kristol on Fox News, a friendly news channel to you, said that the conversation lasted for two minutes and it was just at the end that Rove discussed this. So someone is providing this information. Are you, behind the scenes, directing a response to this story?

MR. McCLELLAN: You can talk to the RNC about what they put out. I'll let them speak to that. What I know is that the President directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation. And as part of cooperating fully with that investigation, that means supporting the efforts by the investigators to come to a successful conclusion, and that means not commenting on it from this podium.

Q Well, if --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I understand your question.

Q Well, Fox News and other Republican surrogates are essentially saying that the conversation lasted for two minutes and that the subject was ostensibly welfare reform. They're getting that information from here, from Karl Rove.

MR. McCLELLAN: And again, you're asking questions that are related to news reports about an ongoing, continuing investigation. And you've had my response on that.

Q At the very least, though, Scott, could you say whether or not you stand by your statement --

MR. McCLELLAN: John, I'll come back to you if I can.

Q -- of September 29th, 2003, that it is simply not true that Karl Rove disclosed the identify of a CIA operative? Can you stand by that statement?

MR. McCLELLAN: John, I look forward to talking about this at some point, but it's not the appropriate time to talk about those questions while the investigation is continuing.

Q So should we take that as a yes or a no?

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Dick.

Q Can you explain why --

Q Scott, this was a statement you made, on the record, 21-months ago. You very confidently asserted to us and to the American people that Rove told you he had nothing to do with it. Can you stand by that statement now?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, and I responded to these questions yesterday.

Go ahead, Dick.

Q Can you explain why the President chose today to break with his usual practice of taking two questions from the American side at events with a foreign leader, and only taking one?

MR. McCLELLAN: Just last Friday, I think, with Prime Minister Blair, or Thursday, they did the same thing.

Q The practice in the Oval Office is to take two questions. I'm just curious why --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we did that last week with Prime Minister Blair, as well. You're going to have other opportunities to see him this week.

Q If he had responded to a question today about Karl Rove, would he have gone beyond your stance here of just not commenting?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you're going to have other opportunities to ask him questions. He takes questions on a fairly regular basis, Dick.

Q Let me -- let me just do what you did a few moments ago and step back from the context of the investigation to the President's agenda. Does Karl Rove, with all the attention being paid to him now, become a liability to the President, an impediment to his pushing his agenda?

MR. McCLELLAN: See, you're asking all these context in -- all these questions in the context of the news reports relating to an investigation --

Q I'm talking about it now in the larger sense of Rove being the Deputy Chief of Staff.

MR. McCLELLAN: We're continuing to move forward on our agenda, and the -- we're on the verge of accomplishing some very big things when it comes to the agenda. And --

Q But is Karl Rove an impediment now, with all this attention distracting from that push on your agenda?

MR. McCLELLAN: Everybody who is working here is helping us to advance the agenda, and that includes Karl in a very big way.

Q Has he apologized to you for telling you he is not involved?

MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, I'm not going to get into any private discussions.

Q He put you on the spot. He put your credibility on the line.

MR. McCLELLAN: And, Helen, I appreciate you all wanting to move forward and find the facts relating to this investigation. I want to know all the facts relating to the investigation.

Q You people are on the record, one quote after another.

MR. McCLELLAN: The President wants to get to the bottom of it. And it's just not appropriate. If you'll remember back two years ago, or almost two years ago, I did draw a line and I said, we're just not going to get into commenting on --

Q You also made comments in defending Mr. Rove.

MR. McCLELLAN: We're just not going to get into commenting on an investigation that continues. And I think you've heard me explain why I'm not going to do that. I do want to talk about this --

Q Do you regret putting yourself out on a limb, Scott?

MR. McCLELLAN: I do want to talk about this, and we will talk about it once the investigation is complete.

Q Do you regret what you said in 2003?

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead.

Q Do you regret putting yourself so far out on a limb when you don't know the facts?

MR. McCLELLAN: David, you had your opportunity. I'll try to come back to you if I can, but I think I've responded to those questions.

Q Well, you haven't responded to that. Do you think you went too far two years ago?

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead.

White House: Bush Has Confidence in Rove

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer


After two days of questions, the White House said Tuesday that President Bush continues to have confidence in Karl Rove, the presidential adviser at the center of the investigation into the leak identifying a female CIA officer. Meanwhile, prominent Democrats are calling for Rove to be fired.

Bush did not respond to a reporter's question Tuesday about whether he would fire Rove, in keeping with a June 2004 pledge to dismiss any leakers of Valerie Plame's identity.

At a White House briefing afterward, spokesman Scott McClellan was pressed about Rove's future.

"Any individual who works here at the White House has the confidence of the president. They wouldn't be working here at the White House if they didn't have the president's confidence," McClellan said.

The White House said two years ago that Rove wasn't involved in the leak. According to a July 2003 e-mail that surfaced over the weekend, Rove told Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper that the woman "apparently works" for the CIA. It added that the woman had authorized a trip to Africa by her husband, U.S. Ambassador Joe Wilson, to check out allegations that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger for nuclear weapons.

At the time of Rove's conversation with Cooper, Wilson had accused the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Cooper's e-mail is now in the hands of federal prosecutors who are hunting down the leakers inside the Bush administration who revealed Plame's name to the news media.

The revelation about Rove prompted Democratic calls for Bush to follow through on his promise to fire leakers of Plame's identity.

Former Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts said Tuesday that "Karl Rove ought to be fired." With Kerry on Capitol Hill was Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. a possible 2008 presidential contender, who indicated her agreement with Kerry's view.

"I'm nodding," she told reporters.

The issue triggered 61 questions during two press briefings Monday by McClellan. It was McClellan who had provided the previous assurances about no role for Rove, but he refused to repeat those assurances Monday.

"Did Karl Rove commit a crime?" a reporter asked McClellan.

"This is a question relating to an ongoing investigation," McClellan replied.

McClellan gave the same answer when asked whether President Bush has confidence in Rove, the architect of the president's successful political campaigns.

The investigation was ongoing in 2003 when McClellan assured the public Rove wasn't involved, a reporter pointed out, but the spokesman refused to elaborate.

In September and October 2003, McClellan said he had spoken directly with Rove about the matter and that "he was not involved" in leaking Plame's identity to the news media. McClellan said at the time: "The president knows that Karl Rove wasn't involved," "It was a ridiculous suggestion" and "It's not true."

Rove's own public denials at the time and since have been more narrowly worded: "I didn't know her name and didn't leak her name," Rove said last year.

Democrats pressed Bush to act.

"The White House promised if anyone was involved in the Valerie Plame affair, they would no longer be in this administration," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "I trust they will follow through on this pledge. If these allegations are true, this rises above politics and is about our national security."

Democratic consultant Paul Begala, appearing on ABC's "Good Morning America" Tuesday, said Rove has both a legal problem and a political problem.

He said the legal issue should be resolved by the grand jury. Begala also said the White House has a political problem because "people are going to look at this crowd and say, Gee, we can't trust a thing they say after the WMD (weapons of mass destruction) controversy.' "

New York Times reporter Judith Miller is in jail for refusing to reveal who in the administration talked to her about Plame.

Cooper had also planned to go to jail rather than talk, but at the last minute he agreed to cooperate with investigators when a source, Rove, gave him permission to do so. Cooper's employer, Time Inc., also turned over Cooper's e-mail and notes.

One of the e-mails was a note from Cooper to his boss in which he said he had spoken to Rove, who described the wife of former U.S. Ambassador and Bush administration critic Joe Wilson as someone who "apparently works" at the CIA, Newsweek magazine reported.

It said "Wilson's wife" — not CIA Director George Tenet or Vice President Dick Cheney — authorized a trip by Wilson to Africa. The purpose was to check out reports that Iraq had tried to obtain yellowcake uranium for use in nuclear weapons.

Rove's conversation with Cooper took place five days after Plame's husband suggested in a New York Times op-ed piece that the Bush administration had manipulated intelligence on weapons of mass destruction to justify the invasion of Iraq. Wilson's trip to Africa provided the basis for his criticism.

Robert Luskin, Rove's lawyer, said his client did not disclose Plame's name. Luskin declined to say how Rove found out that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and refused to say how Rove came across the information that it was Wilson's wife who authorized his trip to Africa.

___

On the Net:

White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov

Frog-Marching Time for Rove?

By Howard Kurtz / Washington Post

The liberal blogosphere is aflame with animosity toward Karl Rove, now that he's been sucked deeper into the Plame probe.

Some folks out there think he should just be thrown in the jail cell next to Judy Miller's, no indictment or trial necessary.

To some on the left, Rove is the epitome of all they despise about the administration. He is Bush's brain, pulling the strings from behind the scenes, injecting politics into every conceivable decision. Rove further infuriated his critics a couple of weeks ago when he seemed to use the 9/11 tragedy to score political points, saying Republicans wanted to wage war and liberals wanted to offer the terrorists therapy.

Add the fact that this controversy is about the runup to the Iraq war and an apparent White House effort to discredit a prominent Bush critic, Joe Wilson, and you have an incendiary mixture. (It was Wilson, Valerie Plame's husband, who once declared that "fun to see Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs.") And this dovetails nicely with the conviction that the press did a lousy job on WMD before the war and has been too soft on Karl & Co. ever since.

There are two issues here, it seems to me. Legally, what Rove said to Matt Cooper on "double super secret background" (according to this Mike Isikoff piece) may or may not have violated the law against identifying intelligence agents. There are questions about whether Rove knew that Plame was undercover, whether he was "knowingly" outing her, and so forth.

But politically, this is a bombshell. Rove, who has insisted he did not leak Plame's name, had something to do with this effort, even if he didn't "name" her. ( The defense: It all depends on the meaning of the word "leak?") He was attempting to undercut Wilson when he told Cooper that wifey had helped set up Wilson's fact-finding trip to Niger (where Wilson didn't find the facts the administration wanted on Saddam seeking uranium) and that the uranium business could still be true (it wasn't). And didn't the White House promise to fire anyone involved in the leak?

What does Rove do now? Give a couple of interviews and explain his role? Or remain in the background while his lawyer issues carefully parsed statements?

The newspapers all jump on the White House in stonewall mode, beginning with the New York Times:

"Nearly two years after stating that any administration official found to have been involved in leaking the name of an undercover C.I.A. officer would be fired, and assuring that Karl Rove and other senior aides to President Bush had nothing to do with the disclosure, the White House refused on Monday to answer any questions about new evidence of Mr. Rove's role in the matter.

"With the White House silent, Democrats rushed in, demanding that the administration provide a full account of any involvement by Mr. Rove, one of the president's closest advisers, turning up the political heat in the case and leaving some Republicans worried about the possible effects on Mr. Bush's second-term agenda. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, cited Mr. Bush's statements about firing anyone involved in the leak and said, 'I trust they will follow through on this pledge.'....

"In two contentious news briefings, the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, would not directly address any of a barrage of questions about Mr. Rove's involvement."

"Reporters at Monday's question-and-answer session at the White House peppered spokesman Scott McClellan with 41 questions in 35 minutes," says USA Today.

Chicago Tribune: "Sensing vulnerability on the part of a formidable political adversary, Democrats on Monday urged hearings into the conduct of presidential adviser Karl Rove and demanded his security clearance be revoked as the White House grew close-mouthed about allegations that Rove played a role in revealing a CIA employee's identity."

WP columnist Dana Milbank captures the tone:

"'This is ridiculous!'

"'You're in a bad spot here, Scott.'

"'Have you consulted a personal attorney?'

"The 32-minute pummeling was perhaps the worst McClellan received since he got the job two years ago. His eyes were red and tired. He wiggled his foot nervously behind the lectern and robotically refused to answer no fewer than 35 questions about Rove and the outing of the CIA's Valerie Plame. Twenty-two times McClellan repeated that an 'ongoing' investigation prevented him from explaining the gap between his past statements and the facts."

The Wall Street Journal notes: "In an email message to supporters, Mr. Bush's defeated 2004 election rival, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, wrote: 'It's perfectly clear that Rove -- the person at the center of the slash-and-burn, smear-and-divide tactics that have come to characterize the Bush administration -- has to go.'"

Here are some of the anti-Rove posts:

Slate's Tim Noah: "Inside the Bush administration, lying to reporters doesn't even come close to being a firing offense, so neither Rove nor Scott McClellan, who first called the accusation that Rove exposed Plame "totally ridiculous" and then flat-out said "it is simply not true," need fear for his job on that score. But Rove blew the cover of an undercover CIA official. If Dubya doesn't fire the man he nicknamed "Turd Blossom" for this offense, he's an even bigger hack than I think."

Blanton's and Ashton's

"Way to go Karl. Only in a Bush administration could you still be working at the White House instead of scrubbing toilets in prison. . . .

"Rove is attempting to wiggle away from criminal charges based on a literal interpretation of the law and a lot of weaselly little garbage. For instance, he is making sure to let everyone know he didn't 'name' Valerie Plame. No, he didn't. He just referred to Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife. So he didn't 'name' her, he merely identified her, but not by name, so be careful you don't say that he 'named' her. Dear Karl, do you actually feel good about yourself when you have to rely on that kind of maneuvering to look innocent?"

Newswriter

"Karl Rove is Mr. Disinformation himself. Mr. Smear. By refusing to give up his name, Judy Miller is aiding and abetting government corruption -- not much of a surprise, considering her stellar work in the lead-up to the war and in its early days as she danced around the desert with Super Secret troops declaring WMD found here and there."

Uh, small problem: We don't know whether Miller's source was Rove or someone else.

Carpetbagger

"I think there's ample evidence that Rove is in a world of legal trouble right now after intentionally disclosing information identifying an undercover CIA agent. But put that aside for a moment while the White House criminal investigation continues to unfold.

"Instead, let's consider the defense. Under the best case scenario, if Rove's conversations about Joseph Wilson's wife were not technically illegal, we still have the president's top political aide covering up a White House lie by smearing an opponent, going after his wife, and in the process 'accidentally' exposing an undercover CIA agent. For the White House, that's the best case scenario.

"Indeed, the defense isn't that Rove has acted in an ethical and principled fashion; the defense is that Rove is merely a vicious smear artist who helped disseminate classified information to cover his lies about Iraq. But it's not a problem, according to the defense theory, because he didn't literally leak Plame's name. Yeah, that's persuasive."

Andrew Sullivan

"ROVE WAS COOPER'S SOURCE: Well, we kinda knew this already, but it's good to have it confirmed. The salient fact is that Rove appears to have told Cooper about Wilson's wife working at the CIA before the Novak column appeared. Rove was clearly coordinating a message to discredit Wilson by linking him to his wife, and implying that Wilson had no real authorization from the senior levels of the administration. Rove may not be guilty of a crime, if he did not disclose her name and did not know she was undercover. He is guilty of sleaze and spin. But then that's also hardly news, is it?"

Craig Crawford ponders whether it was all a Rovian plot:

"If Karl Rove planned this -- which I doubt -- he really is a genius:

"1.) He leaks to Time's Matt Cooper in such a way that he avoids the law's intent requirement for criminal liability (Newsweek notes that Cooper's email shows nothing indicating Rove knew or revealed that Valerie Plame was an undercover agent, only that she worked at the CIA).

"2.) The ensuing grand jury investigation dramatically weakens the news media and future leakers, as reporters must decide whether to testify or go to jail, and even turns Rove's foes in the public against the reporters involved because they are seen as protecting him.

"In other words, by making himself a protected source who loses that protection, Rove makes it easier for the government to use federal courts to target all leakers. This would give Machiavelli a migraine."

John Hinderaker of Power Line explores the legal liability question:

"A violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act seems highly unlikely. It is doubtful whether Rove or any other administration source knew of Plame's affiliation with the CIA through access to classified materials; it is further questionable whether Rove or any other source knew that she was a 'covert' employee, or that the government was making an effort to keep her affiliation with the Agency a secret. (In fact, it is unclear whether the Agency did make such an effort.) As to the third situation covered by the statute, neither Rove nor any other administration source identified Plame as part of a 'pattern of activities intended to identify or expose covert agents' for the purpose of impairing national security.

"It is hard to see how Rove could be indicted for violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, and it is very unlikely that he would have been foolish enough to testify falsely before the grand jury about his conversations with journalists. None of this will matter much, though, when it is publicly acknowledged that Rove was one of the sources of the Plame 'leak.' (This isn't, by the way, the sort of communication that is ordinarily referred to as a 'leak.') We can expect a media feeding frenzy or potentially unprecedented proportions.

"Rove presumably told the President that he was one of the sources of the Plame information long ago. It is interesting that Bush didn't take the path of least resistance and ease Rove out of the administration at the end of his first term. The President's reputation for loyalty to has aides is certainly well-deserved."

Almost obscured in all this is the fact that Judy Miller is sleeping on a foam mattress on the floor of the Alexandria Detention Center. The Dallas Morning News gives Judy a standing O:

"Your decision to pay a personal price to protect the confidentiality of professional conversations sends powerful signals. It tells authorities that an ardor exists among journalists equal to the force of subpoenas. It tells would-be sources, who may want to reveal an awful truth, that it's still possible to speak in confidence.

"And it tells the public that an uncowed press -- the founders' desire -- still exists 214 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified."

David Kidwell of the Miami Herald measures the Time/Times fallout:

"It seems like such a simple concept that any 10-year-old can easily grasp. You make a promise, you keep it.

"But some in journalism's executive offices -- Norman Pearlstine among them -- are having a difficult time with it.

"Anyone who reads the paper or watches television is going to hear a lot of snarky criticism of Judith Miller in the coming days and weeks as she sits alone in a jail cell. You're going to hear about her personality quirks, her past mistakes as a journalist, even her perceived ulterior motives to enrich her career.

"All you really need to consider is this: If you were a government employee with a nagging conscience, if you had secret records that would expose corruption or lies at the highest levels, if your job was on the line and you needed to find a journalist whose promises you could trust with your life -- who would you call today: Matt Cooper and Time magazine, or Judith Miller and The New York Times?"

Times Editor Bill Keller, by the way, told me that criticism of Miller was "repellent" and coming from the "partisan fringe."

Romenesko has a pungent exchange between Keller and LAT op-ed editor Nick Goldberg, who was seeking a response for this Mike Kinsley column on Miller's plight.

GOLDBERG: "He's written various other pieces of the same sort since then and has another coming out tomorrow that once again states his position that a reporters' right to protect his or her source is not necessarily more important than the government's right to get the information it needs. He specifically takes on the long NYT editorial that ran a few days ago.

"This is a bit of a long shot, but I thought that perhaps Judy Miller would like to write some kind of rejoinder (especially now that Kinsley's columns and editorials, as I understand it, are being used by the prosecutor to help make his case). Is such a thing possible? Is there a way to contact her and ask if she's interested?"

KELLER: "How clever of the Los Angeles Times to propose that Judy Miller debate Mike Kinsley on the subject of press freedom. Sadly, Judy is not on a fellowship at some writers' colony. She is in JAIL. She is sleeping on a foam mattress on the floor, and her communications are, shall we say, constrained.

"I have to tell you that Mike's contrarian intellectualizing on the subject of reporters and the law was more amusing when it was all hypothetical. Back then it was just punditry. But that was before Norm Pearlstine embraced acquiescence as corporate policy, and before Judy Miller braved the real-world discomforts of the moral high ground. Of course this is an important issue, and clever minds should wrestle with it. But at the moment Kinsley and Pearlstine seem perversely remote from the world where actual reporters work."

Bush keeps quiet about aide's role in CIA leak

President Bush kept quiet on Tuesday when asked whether he would fire his top political adviser, Karl Rove, who has come under a cloud over his involvement in a CIA leak scandal.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan faced pointed questions about Rove's role for a second straight day -- and again refused to answer them -- while the Republican party's chairman dismissed criticisms of Rove as partisan attacks.

McClellan said the White House was asked to remain silent on the case by prosecutors investigating who leaked the identify of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame.

In an Oval Office meeting with the prime minister of Singapore, Bush did not respond to a reporter's shouted question about whether he intended to dismiss Rove.

Bush had pledged to dismiss any leakers in the case.

A growing number of Democrats are urging Bush to sideline Rove by suspending his access to classified information. Others say he should step down or be fired.

McClellan also declined to comment when asked for a second day whether Bush still had confidence in Rove, the deputy White House chief of staff.

"I don't want to do anything to jeopardize the investigation," McClellan said.

"And just because I'm not commenting on a continuing investigation doesn't mean you should read anything into it beyond that," he added.

The White House came under increasing pressure this week to explain Rove's role in the case following reports that Rove was one of the secret sources who spoke to Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper about Plame and her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson. Rove's lawyer was quoted as saying his client did not mention Plame by name.

Plame's name was leaked, her diplomat husband said, because of his criticism of the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war.

Faced with jail if he did not discuss his sources, Cooper agreed last week to testify in the investigation. New York Times reporter Judith Miller refused to testify and was jailed.

Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee, defended Rove against what he dismissed as "blatant partisan political attacks."

McClellan has refused to address what critics said were contradictory statements issued by the White House.

In September and October 2003, McClellan rejected as "ridiculous" any suggestion that Rove was involved in the Plame leak.

When asked at an Oct. 10, 2003, briefing whether Rove and two other White House aides had ever told any reporter that Plame worked for the CIA, McClellan said: "I spoke with those individuals... and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this... the leaking of classified information."




Copyright © 2005 Reuters Limited

White House Maintains Silence About Rove

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer

The White House is suddenly facing damaging evidence that it misled the public by insisting for two years that presidential adviser Karl Rove wasn't involved in leaking the identity of a female CIA officer.

President Bush, at an Oval Office photo opportunity Tuesday, was asked directly whether he would fire Rove — in keeping with a pledge in June, 2004, to dismiss any leakers in the case. The president did not respond.

For the second day, White House press secretary Scott McClellan refused to answer questions about Rove.

Rove told Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper that the woman "apparently works" for the CIA and that she had authorized her husband's trip to Africa to assess allegations that Iraq was trying to obtain yellowcake uranium for nuclear weapons, according to a July 11, 2003, e-mail by Cooper obtained by Newsweek magazine.

The e-mail is now in the hands of federal prosecutors who are hunting down the leakers inside the Bush administration who revealed the name of Valerie Plame to the news media.

The revelation about Rove prompted Democratic calls for President Bush to follow through on his promise to fire leakers of Plame's identity, and triggered 61 questions during two press briefings Monday by McClellan.

Former Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts said Tuesday that "Karl Rove ought to be fired." With Kerry on Capitol Hill was Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. a possible 2008 presidential contender, who indicated her agreement with Kerry's view.

"I'm nodding," she told reporters.

It was McClellan who provided the previous assurances about no role for Rove, but he refused to repeat those assurances Monday.

"Did Karl Rove commit a crime?" a reporter asked McClellan.

"This is a question relating to an ongoing investigation," McClellan replied.

McClellan gave the same answer when asked whether President Bush has confidence in Rove, the architect of the president's successful political campaigns.

The investigation was ongoing in 2003 when McClellan assured the public Rove wasn't involved, a reporter pointed out, but the spokesman refused to elaborate.

In September and October 2003, McClellan said he had spoken directly with Rove about the matter and that "he was not involved" in leaking Plame's identity to the news media. McClellan said at the time: "The president knows that Karl Rove wasn't involved," "It was a ridiculous suggestion" and "It's not true."

Rove's own public denials at the time and since have been more narrowly worded: "I didn't know her name and didn't leak her name," Rove said last year.

Democrats pressed Bush to act.

"The White House promised if anyone was involved in the Valerie Plame affair, they would no longer be in this administration," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "I trust they will follow through on this pledge. If these allegations are true, this rises above politics and is about our national security."

Democratic consultant Paul Begala, appearing on ABC's "Good Morning America" Tuesday, said Rove has both a legal problem and a political problem.

He said the legal issue should be resolved by the grand jury. Begala also said the White House has a political problem because "people are going to look at this crowd and say, Gee, we can't trust a thing they say after the WMD (weapons of mass destruction) controversy.' "

New York Times reporter Judith Miller is in jail for refusing to reveal who in the administration talked to her about Plame.

Cooper had also planned to go to jail rather than talk, but at the last minute he agreed to cooperate with investigators when a source, Rove, gave him permission to do so. Cooper's employer, Time Inc., also turned over Cooper's e-mail and notes.

One of the e-mails was a note from Cooper to his boss in which he said he had spoken to Rove, who described the wife of former U.S. Ambassador and Bush administration critic Joe Wilson as someone who "apparently works" at the CIA, Newsweek magazine reported.

It said "Wilson's wife" — not CIA Director George Tenet or Vice President Dick Cheney — authorized a trip by Wilson to Africa. The purpose was to check out reports that Iraq had tried to obtain yellowcake uranium for use in nuclear weapons.

Rove's conversation with Cooper took place five days after Plame's husband suggested in a New York Times op-ed piece that the Bush administration had manipulated intelligence on weapons of mass destruction to justify the invasion of Iraq. Wilson's trip to Africa provided the basis for his criticism.

Robert Luskin, Rove's lawyer, said his client did not disclose Plame's name. Luskin declined to say how Rove found out that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and refused to say how Rove came across the information that it was Wilson's wife who authorized his trip to Africa.

The Karl Rove connection

Tuesday, July 12, 2005


THE OFFICIAL silence from the White House on Monday was quite disturbing.

For many months, the White House has insisted that Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove was not involved with the "outing" of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame. President Bush had personally pledged to fire the source of that leak.

The Bush administration's outrage and pledge to fire the source suddenly vanished Monday. At a White House briefing, press secretary Scott McClellan said he would not respond to reports that Rove spoke with a Time reporter about Plame's role at the CIA -- not using her name, but identifying her as the wife of Joseph C. Wilson IV -- three days before Robert Novak exposed her identity in a syndicated column.

McClellan said he would talk about the case "at the appropriate time" -- explaining that would be after the investigation is completed.

It is important to remember the origins of the case. Wilson dealt a tremendous embarrassment to the White House justification for war by disclosing that his trip to Niger in 2002 found no evidence that Iraq was trying to buy uranium -- and that he reported his findings to top administration officials. Nevertheless, Bush reiterated the allegation against Iraq in his January 2003 State of the Union speech.

The "outing" of Plame effectively destroyed her career as a covert agent and may have undermined past and future U.S. intelligence operations. It sure smells like retribution against a public servant who dared contradict the White House party line. It also may have been a crime.

New York Times reporter Judith Miller sits in jail today for refusing to reveal the source of the information she received about Plame.

Meanwhile, Karl Rove continues to roam the White House, wielding great power as well as a security clearance.

There is something terribly wrong with this picture. At a minimum, Rove should be put on leave while the evidence that he may have used top-secret information for political purposes is being sorted out.

Page B - 6

Karl Rove implicated in leak of CIA agent's name

The World Today - Tuesday, 12 July , 2005 12:40:37
Reporter: Leigh Sales
ELEANOR HALL: In the United States, one of President George W. Bush's most trusted advisers has been implicated in a scandal about the leaking of an undercover CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) agent's name.

The saga has already led to the jailing of a New York Times journalist.

Now, Presidential Adviser, Karl Rove, has been revealed as a source for another journalist involved in the case.

While some say this means Mr Rove has broken the law, the legal implications at this stage remain unclear, as North America Correspondent, Leigh Sales, reports from Washington.

LEIGH SALES: The CIA leak controversy gets more complicated by the day.

Here's the story so far.

In July 2003, a former US ambassador, Joseph Wilson, wrote an opinion piece in The New York Times, claiming the Bush administration had twisted intelligence to exaggerate the threat posed by Iraq.

A short time later, his wife Valerie Plame, was outed as an undercover CIA agent in the media.

Ambassador Wilson alleges government officials leaked her name as payback for his criticism of the administration. But the leak could have constituted a crime.

A grand jury started investigating and ordered journalists to reveal who had told them Valerie Plame's name. One journalist refused to do so, citing source confidentiality, and has already been to sent to jail. That's Judith Miller of The New York Times.

Time Magazine agreed to hand over the notes of its journalist, Matt Cooper.

In the latest development, Newsweek magazine has obtained emails between Mr Cooper and his bureau chief, which prove the journalist spoke to one of the President's most important advisers, Karl Rove, just before the Plame story broke.

The reporter on the Newsweek story was Michael Isikoff.

MICHAEL ISIKOFF: We obtained an internal Time magazine email that Matt Cooper wrote, in which he says double super secret background not to be attributed to the White House or Rove, but Rove gave me a big warning about some of what Joe Wilson has been saying. He wasn't sent to Niger by George Tenet or Vice President Cheney. It was Wilson's wife who apparently works at the agency on WMD issues who authorised the trip. That's the quote from Matt Cooper to his editor right after talking to Karl Rove.

What that tells us is that Karl Rove did indeed discuss Joe Wilson, Joe Wilson's wife, Joe Wilson's wife's employment with a reporter, Matt Cooper.

LEIGH SALES: Karl Rove is considered one of the President's most important and trusted advisers.

He has a reputation as a brilliant strategist who's been instrumental in George W. Bush's political victories.

Previously, Mr Rove has denied he leaked Valerie Plame's name. That led to a heated exchange at the today's White House briefing, when spokesman, Scott McClellan, refused to answer questions on the topic.

SCOTT MCCLELLAN: As part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation we're not going to get into commenting on it.

REPORTER: I mean this is ridiculous, the notion that you're going to stand before us after having commented with that level of detail and tell people watching this that somehow you've decided not to talk?

SCOTT MCCLELLAN: And again David, I am well aware, like you, of what was previously said, and I would be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation…

REPORTER: …when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate…

SCOTT MCCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish…

REPORTER: No, you're not finishing, you're not saying anything. You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved, and now we find out that he spoke about Joseph Wilson's wife.

So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation? Was he involved or was he not? Because contrary to what you told the American people, he did indeed talk about his wife, didn't he?

SCOTT MCCLELLAN: David, there will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.

LEIGH SALES: It's not clear yet whether Karl Rove could be indicted. For a crime to have been committed, he would have had to identify Valerie Plame by name, and he would have had to have known she was a covert operative. The investigation is continuing.

This is Leigh Sales in Washington for The World Today

Bush Aide Deflects Questions On Rove

Democrats Seek Firing in Leak Case

By Mike Allen and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, July 12, 2005; A01



President Bush's aides put up a wall yesterday when questioned about revelations that White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove had discussed the role of CIA official Valerie Plame with a reporter despite past White House assertions that he was not involved in her unmasking.

Engulfed by questions at two combative briefings, White House press secretary Scott McClellan cited the continuing criminal investigation to say that he would not discuss conversations Rove had with a reporter about Plame before her name was published, or say whether Bush's pledge to fire anyone involved in leaking classified information still stands.

"No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States," McClellan said, echoing his two-year-old position on the case. "And I think the way to be most helpful is to not get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation."

Democrats, emboldened by having the White House on the defensive, began a campaign to pressure Rove to give up his security clearances, answer questions before Congress and even resign.

Whether a crime occurred remains the focus of special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald, but the latest revelations also leave White House credibility at stake, given past statements by the president, McClellan and others. Over the weekend, Newsweek reported that Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, in an internal e-mail from July 2003, cited Rove as saying that administration critic Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador, had gone to Niger on a fact-finding trip involving Iraq's nuclear weapons programs at the behest of his wife. At the same time, according to Cooper's account, Rove also noted that she worked for the CIA on issues of weapons of mass destruction.

The e-mail did not say that Rove identified Plame by name, and Rove has maintained from the beginning that he neither knew her name nor leaked it to anyone. Columnist Robert D. Novak first reported Plame's identity in July 2003. The law says that for a violation to occur, a government official must have deliberately identified a covert agent, and must have known that the agent was under cover and that the government was trying to keep the agent's identity secret. It was the issue of credibility, more than of criminal culpability, that produced some of the most aggressive questioning at a White House briefing in recent memory -- but no answers.

Asked about the matter on nine occasions over the years, Bush has said he welcomed the investigation, called the name disclosure "a very serious matter," and declared that the sooner investigators "find out the truth, the better, as far as I'm concerned."

"I want to know the truth," Bush told reporters in September 2003 after news of the investigation had burst into headlines. "If anybody has got any information, inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business."

In 2003, McClellan said it was "a ridiculous suggestion" that Rove was involved. "I've made it very clear, he was not involved, that there's no truth to the suggestion that he was," he said. He also said that any culprit in the White House should be fired "at a minimum."

At one point, McClellan vowed: "The president has set high standards, the highest of standards, for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration."

Bush replied "yes" when asked in June 2004 if he would fire anyone who leaked the agent's name.

Democrats seized on that statement yesterday, urging Bush to follow through by dismissing Rove and including a call for congressional hearings. Among the flurry of critical statements was one from Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), who said the leak must be treated as a breach of national security. "The White House promised if anyone was involved in the Valerie Plame affair, they would no longer be in this administration," he said. "I trust they will follow through on this pledge. If these allegations are true, this rises above politics and is about our national security."

Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), last year's Democratic presidential nominee, said in an e-mail to supporters: "It's perfectly clear that Rove -- the person at the center of the slash and burn, smear and divide tactics that have come to characterize the Bush Administration -- has to go."

McClellan demurred yesterday when asked several times whether Bush will stand by his pledge to fire anyone who leaked classified information. "This question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation," he said. "Our policy continues to be that we're not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation from this podium."

McClellan's previous denials of White House involvement over nearly two years also occurred when the matter was already under investigation. But he said yesterday that at some point after Fitzgerald's inquiry began, "those overseeing the investigation . . . said that it would be their preference that we not get into discussing it while it is ongoing."

In retrospect, it appears clear that many White House statements about the case were carefully constructed -- giving the impression of being general denials even as the words were narrowly focused on specific allegations. During briefings, McClellan repeatedly challenged reporters to provide him "specific information" when asking about Rove, and he frequently limited his answers about White House involvement in the case to mean the act of leaking classified information. On a few occasions, however, he offered broad denials about Rove and other top aides.

Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, acknowledged over the weekend that his client had discussed the subject -- without naming Plame -- with Cooper, one of the two reporters threatened with jail time for not cooperating with Fitzgerald. Cooper avoided jail last week after being granted a waiver by Rove to testify. New York Times reporter Judith Miller was sent to jail and remains there after refusing to testify.

Newsweek printed the contents of Cooper's July 2003 e-mail, in which he recounts to his bureau chief an interview with Rove that is typical of the cryptic exchanges that reporters often have with high-level officials on sensitive matters -- vague, but enough to help promote or squelch a story. Cooper said that the conversation was on "double super secret background" and that Rove gave him "a big warning not to get too far out on Wilson." It occurred as the White House engaged in a major damage-control effort after Wilson said there was no basis for saying Iraq was seeking nuclear weapons material in Africa.

Luskin said again yesterday that there is nothing inconsistent with what Cooper's e-mail said and what Rove has said throughout the inquiry, and he said his client continues to cooperate fully with Fitzgerald, including the prosecutor's request for Rove and his attorney not to publicly discuss the case.

"It puts Karl in a no-win position," Luskin said. "If he doesn't talk to [reporters], he subjects himself to criticisms like we're hearing from the Democrats on why he won't come forward and talk about his role. But if he does . . . he runs the risk of being accused of not cooperating with the investigation."

At a televised briefing yesterday reporters grilled McClellan repeatedly by quoting his own words back to him. "I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said," he responded, "and I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time."

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

Past White House Briefings on C.I.A. Leak Case

(via New York Times)

President Bush and Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, have discussed the disclosure of the identity of a covert C.I.A. operative at a variety of news conferences and briefings for reporters. Following are excerpts of transcripts of those sessions as recorded by the White House and Federal News Service.


President Bush on Oct. 7, 2003, talking with reporters after meeting with Cabinet members.


Q. Mr. President, beyond the actual leak of classified information, there are reports that someone in the administration was trying to - after it was already out - actively spread the story, even calling Ambassador Wilson's wife "fair game." Are you asking your staff is anyone did that? And would it be wrong or even a fire-able offense if that happened?


A. Well, the investigators will ask our staff about what people did or did not do. This is a town of - where a lot of people leak. And I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks, particularly leaks of classified information. And I want to know, I want to know the truth. I want to see to it that the truth prevail. And I hope we can get this investigation done in a thorough way, as quickly as possible.


But the Justice Department will conduct this investigation. The professionals in the Justice Department will be involved in ferreting out the truth. These are citizens who will - were here before this administration arrived and will be here after this administration leaves. And they'll come to the bottom of this, and we'll find out the truth. And that will be - that's a good thing for this administration.


Q. Mr. President, how confident are you the investigation will find the leaker in the C.I.A. case? And what do you make of Sharon's comment that Israel will strike its enemies at any place, any time?


A. This is the dual question. (Laughter.) I'm trying to figure out if I want to answer either of them, since you violated a major rule. (Laughter.) At least it's not a cell phone. (Laughter.)


Randy, you tell me, how many sources have you had that's leaked information that you've exposed or have been exposed? Probably none. I mean this town is a - is a town full of people who like to leak information. And I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official. Now, this is a large administration, and there's a lot of senior officials. I don't have any idea. I'd like to. I want to know the truth. That's why I've instructed this staff of mine to cooperate fully with the investigators - full disclosure, everything we know the investigators will find out. I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is - partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers. But we'll find out.


President Bush on Sept. 30, 2003, talking with reporters after meeting with business people at University of Chicago.


Q. Do you think that the Justice Department can conduct an impartial investigation, considering the political ramifications of the C.I.A. leak, and why wouldn't a special counsel be better?


A. Yes. Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There's leaks at the executive branch; there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.


And so I welcome the investigation. I - I'm absolutely confident that the Justice Department will do a very good job. There's a special division of career Justice Department officials who are tasked with doing this kind of work; they have done this kind of work before in Washington this year. I have told our administration, people in my administration to be fully cooperative.


I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business.


Q. Have you talked to Karl and do you have confidence in him …


A. Listen, I know of nobody - I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing.


And again I repeat, you know, Washington is a town where there's all kinds of allegations. You've heard much of the allegations. And if people have got solid information, please come forward with it. And that would be people inside the information who are the so-called anonymous sources, or people outside the information - outside the administration. And we can clarify this thing very quickly if people who have got solid evidence would come forward and speak out. And I would hope they would.


And then we'll get to the bottom of this and move on. But I want to tell you something - leaks of classified information are a bad thing. And we've had them - there's too much leaking in Washington. That's just the way it is. And we've had leaks out of the administrative branch, had leaks out of the legislative branch, and out of the executive branch and the legislative branch, and I've spoken out consistently against them and I want to know who the leakers are.


President Bush on June 10, 2004, at news conference after G-8 Summit in Sea Island, Ga.


Q. Given recent developments in the C.I.A. leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, suggestion that it might difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name? And ...


A. That's up …


Q. And do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so? And …


A. Yes.


Q. And finally …


A. And that's up to the U.S. attorney - to find the facts.


Q. My final point would be - or question would be, has Vice President Cheney assured you, subsequent to his conversations with them, that nobody in his office had anything …


A. I haven't talked to the vice president about this matter, and I suggest - recently, and I suggest you - you talk to the U.S. attorney about that.


Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, at a briefing Sept. 16, 2003.


Q. Two things. On the Robert Novak-Joseph Wilson situation, Novak reported earlier this year, quoting anonymous government sources telling him that Wilson's wife was a C.I.A. operative. Now, this is apparently a federal offense to [word unclear] the cover of a C.I.A. operative.Wilson now believes that the person who did this was Karl Rove. He's quoted from a speech last month as saying, "At the end of the day, it's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove marched out of the White House in handcuffs." Did Karl Rove tell …


A. I haven't heard that. That's just totally ridiculous. But we've already addressed this issue.


Q. But did Karl Rove …


A. If I could find out who anonymous people were - I just said it's totally ridiculous.


Q. But did Karl Rove do it?'


A. I said it's totally ridiculous.


Scott McClellan at a briefing Sept. 29, 2003.


Q. All right, let me just follow up. 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 saw some comments this morning from the person who made that suggestion backing away from that. And I said it is simply not true. So - I mean, it's public knowledge I've said that it's not true.


Q. Well, how …


A. And I have spoken with Karl Rove. I'm not going to get into conversations that the president has with advisers or staff, or anything of that nature. That's not my practice.


Q. But the president has a factual basis for knowing that Karl Rove …


A. Well, I said it publicly. I said that - and so, I've made it very clear.


Q. I'm not asking what you said, I'm asking if the president has a factual basis for saying - for your statement that he knows Karl Rove …


A. He's aware of what I said, that there is simply no truth to that suggestion. And I have - I have spoken with Karl about it.…


Q. But, Scott, it gets to the question, if you know - if the president knows that Karl Rove was not involved, then maybe you can tell us more about what the president specifically is doing to get to the bottom of this, or what has he ordered to be done within the White House to get to the bottom …


A. The president wants anyone, anyone who has information relating to this to report that information to the appropriate agency, the Department of Justice. That's what the president wants, and I've been very clear about that. If …


Q. So he's convinced that there was no White House involvement …


A. You know, if I could get - well, if I could get anonymous to fess up, that would make my life a whole lot easier. But there's been nothing - there has been absolutely …


Q. My question is, does he know, is he convinced that no one in the White House was involved with this?


A. There has been absolutely nothing brought to our attention to suggest any White House involvement. All we've seen is what is in the media reports. Media reports cite senior administration official, or senior administration officials.


Q. So they're wrong?


A. But I haven't seen anything before that. That's why it's appropriate for the Department of Justice, if something like this happened, to look into it.


Q. So those media reports are wrong, as far as the White House is concerned?


A. Well, we have nothing beyond those media reports to suggest there is White House involvement. And so …


Q. And the president …


A. There's been no specific information brought to my attention to suggest …


Q. He's not doing anything proactive?


Q. Let me - let me follow up on …


A. No, he's making it clear that this is a serious - through his spokesman, me, that this is a serious matter, and if someone did this, it should be looked into and it should be pursued to the fullest extent.…


Q. What do you say to people out there who are watching this and must be saying, you know, I voted for George Bush because he promised to change the way things work in Washington, and yet his spokesman …


A. And he has.


Q. … and yet his spokesman is saying that there's no internal even questioning of whether or not people were involved in this, and he's just letting that be handled at the Justice Department, letting it pursue more of a criminal investigation as opposed to almost an ethical


A. Dana, think about what you're asking. Do you have specific information to bring to our attention that suggests White House involvement?


Q. No, but - (off mike) -


A. There are anonymous reports all the time in the media. The president has set high standards, the highest of standards, for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.…


Q. Scott, we do know one thing that did happen, and that is that a name was leaked of a C.I.A. operative. Whoever did it, does the president want some type of Justice Department investigation into just that?


A. Well, like I said, one, I've only - I've seen the media reports, and from one report I saw, that the C.I.A. had neither confirmed nor denied that this individual was a covert operative for the C.I.A.


Q. Why don't they deny it …


A. But, yes, if something like this happened, a leak of highly classified information of this nature, the president would want it looked into and pursued to the fullest extent by the Department of Justice.…


Q. Okay, now, in terms of your efforts to - and in terms of the issue of whether or not to contact senior administration officials, are you saying it is inappropriate to contact them on behalf of the president, or that it's too difficult?


A. I'm sorry, contact - contact them in the sense of asking whether or not there was any involvement?


Q. Well, obviously someone contacted Karl Rove. There was some effort to knock down a specific allegation here. So I'm wondering, why not contact others? Were others contacted in the - among the president's senior advisers?


A. Well, there was a specific allegation leveled - I saw it was - has now since been backed away from - about Karl Rove, and that's why I responded to that question. But I think we could go down the White House directory of every single staff member and play that game. I'm not going to do that. What I've made clear is that if anybody has information relating to this, they need to report it to the Department of Justice, and the Department of Justice should pursue it to the fullest. It is a serious matter. But I'm not going to go down a list of every single staffer in the White House when there's not specific information that has been brought to my attention to suggest …


Q. - inappropriate, in your view, or is it just too diffuse, it's too difficult? I don't understand exactly what the reason is that you wouldn't expand the effort from Karl Rove to perhaps another dozen or so people who might have been …


A. Well, we've got important work to do here in Washington, D.C., for the people of this nation, and the president will continue to focus on the priorities we are pursuing: the war on terrorism; strengthening the economy. There are a number of important priorities we are focused on. There are a lot of anonymous media reports that happen all the time, and it's not our practice to go and try to chase down anonymous sources every time there's a report in the media. If there's specific information that comes to our attention, that's another matter. But there has not been any information beyond what we've seen in just anonymous media reporting to suggest that there was White House involvement.


Q. (Off mike.)…


Q. Scott, just one point. You said that the president knows that Karl Rove was not involved, and you specifically have spoken to Karl Rove and gotten these assurances. By those statements, you've implied that the president has not talk to Karl Rove specifically about this. Is that a correct assumption or …


A. No, I said that - what - I've already answered this question when Terry asked it earlier, and I said that it's not my habit to get into conversations the president has with staff or with advisers. So that's just not - I'm not going to get - I'm not going to get into those conversations. I've made it clear that it simply is not true, and I'm speaking on behalf of the White House when I say that.…


Q. Scott, just a couple quick clarifications. Weeks ago, when you were first asked whether Mr. Rove had the conversation with Robert Novak that produced the column, you dismissed it as ridiculous.


A. That's right.


Q. And I want to just make sure, at that time, had you talked to Karl?


A. I've made it very clear from the beginning that it is totally ridiculous. I've known Karl - I've known Karl for a long time, and I didn't even need to go ask Karl, because I know the kind of person that he is, and he is someone that is committed to the highest standards of conduct.


Q. So you didn't have a subsequent conversation with Mr. Rove in order to say that you had this conversation?


A. I have spoken with Karl about this matter.


Q. When did you talk to him?


A. I have spoken with Karl about this matter.


Q. When did you talk to him? Weeks ago, or just recently?


A. And I've already addressed. What I said then still applies today, and that's what I've made clear.


Q. I have one other follow-up.


A. Okay.


Q. Can you say for the record whether Mr. Rove possessed the information about Mr. Wilson's wife but merely did not talk to anybody about it? Do you know whether for a fact he knew?


A. I don't know whether or not - I mean, I'm sure he probably saw the same media reports everybody else in this room has.


Q. No …


Q. Before.


Q. When you talked to Mr. Rove, did you discuss, "Did you ever have this information?" Could you have talked …


A. Yeah, I mean, we're going down a lot of different roads here. I've made it very clear, he was not involved, that there's no truth to the suggestion that he was.


Q. No, I'm trying to ask …


A. And again, I'd say, I didn't - it's not something I needed to ask him, but I like to, like you do, verify things and make sure that it's completely accurate. But I knew that Karl would not be involved in something like this.