The Raw Story | Cheney's role in outing of CIA agent under examination, sources close to prosecutor say

Filed by Jason Leopold


Cheney's role in CIA outing not known


Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is trying to determine whether Vice President Dick Cheney had a role in the outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame-Wilson, individuals close to Fitzgerald have confirmed. Plame’s husband was a vocal critic of prewar intelligence used by President George W. Bush to build support for the Iraq war.

The investigation into who leaked the officer's name to reporters has now turned toward a little known cabal of administration hawks known as the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), which came together in August 2002 to publicize the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. WHIG operated out of the Vice President’s office and was chaired by Karl Rove, Bush's senior advisor.

Fitzgerald’s examination centers on a group of players charged with not only selling the war, but according to sources familiar with the case, to discredit anyone who openly “disagreed with the official Iraq war” story.

The group’s members included Deputy White House chief of staff Karl Rove, Bush advisor Karen Hughes, Senior Advisor to the Vice President Mary Matalin, Deputy Director of Communications James Wilkinson, Assistant to the President and Legislative Liaison Nicholas Calio, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley and I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby - Chief of Staff to the Vice President and co-author of the Administration's pre-emptive strike policy.

Rice was later appointed Secretary of State; her deputy Hadley was made National Security Advisor. Wilkinson departed to become a spokesman for the military's central command, and later for the Republican National Convention. Hughes was recently appointed Undersecretary of State.

Several members of the group have testified before Fitzgerald’s grand jury.

Cheney’s role under scrutiny

Two officials close to Fitzgerald told RAW STORY they have seen documents obtained from the White House Iraq Group which state that Cheney was present at several of the group's meetings. They say Cheney personally discussed with individuals in attendance at least two interviews in May and June of 2003 Wilson gave to New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof and Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus, in which he claimed the administration “twisted” prewar intelligence and what the response from the administration should be.

Cheney was interviewed by the FBI surrounding the leak in 2004. According to the New York Times, Cheney was asked whether he knew of any concerted effort by White House aides to name Ms. Wilson.

Sources close to the investigation have also confirmed that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is trying to determine Vice President Cheney's role in the outing of Mrs. Wilson, more specifically, if Cheney ordered the leak.

Those close to Fitzgerald say they have yet to uncover any evidence that suggests Cheney ordered the leak or played a role in the outing of Mrs. Wilson. Still, the sources said they are investigating claims that Cheney may have been involved based on his attendance at meetings of the Iraq group. Previous reports indicate Cheney was intimately involved with the framing of the Iraq war.

On Wednesday, The Wall Street Journal confirmed that the Iraq group was under scrutiny.

“Formed in August 2002, the group, which included Messrs. [Karl] Rove and [Lewis] Libby, worked on setting strategy for selling the war in Iraq to the public in the months leading up to the March 2003 invasion,” the Journal reported. “The group likely would have played a significant role in responding to [former Ambassador Joseph] Wilson's claims” that the Bush administration twisted intelligence when it said Iraq tried to acquire yellow-cake uranium from Africa.

Rove's "strategic communications" task force operating inside the group was instrumental in writing and coordinating speeches by senior Bush administration officials, highlighting in September 2002 that Iraq was a nuclear threat.

Background

The White House Iraq Group operated virtually unknown until January 2004, when Fitzgerald subpoenaed for notes, email and attendance records. Bush Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. created the group in August of 2002.

“A senior official who participated in its work called it "an internal working group, like many formed for priority issues, to make sure each part of the White House was fulfilling its responsibilities," according to an Aug. 10, 2003, Washington Post investigative report on the group’s inner workings.

Senior Bush adviser Karl Rove chaired meetings of the group.

The group relied heavily on New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who, after meeting with several of the organization’s members in August 2002, wrote an explosive story that many critics of the war believe laid the groundwork for military action against Iraq.

On Sunday, Sept. 8, 2002, Miller wrote a story for the Times quoting anonymous officials who said aluminum tubes found in Iraq were to be used as centrifuges. Her report said the "diameter, thickness and other technical specifications" of the tubes -- precisely the grounds for skepticism among nuclear enrichment experts -- showed that they were "intended as components of centrifuges."

She closed her piece by quoting then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice who said the United States would not sit by and wait to find a smoking gun to prove its case, possibly in the form of a “a mushroom cloud." After Miller’s piece was published, administration officials pursued their case on Sunday talk shows using Miller’s piece as evidence that Iraq was pursuing a nuclear bomb, even though those officials were the ones who supplied Miller with the story and were quoted anonymously.

Rice's comments on CNN’s “Late Edition” reaffirmed Miller’s story. Rice said that Saddam Hussein was "actively pursuing a nuclear weapon" and that the tubes -- described repeatedly in U.S. intelligence reports as "dual-use" items -- were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs."

Cheney, on NBC's "Meet the Press," also mentioned the aluminum tubes story in the Times and said "increasingly, we believe the United States will become the target" of an Iraqi atomic bomb. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, on CBS's "Face the Nation," asked viewers to "imagine a September 11th with weapons of mass destruction.”

President Bush reiterated the image of Rice’s mushroom cloud comment in his Oct. 7, 2002 speech.

The International Atomic Energy Agency later revealed that Iraq’s aluminum tubes were never designed to enrich uranium.

In February of 2003, WHIG allegedly scripted the speech Powell made to the United Nations presenting the United States’ case for war.

Powell’s speech to the UN, United Press International reported, “was handled by the White House Iraq Group, which… provided Powell with a script for his speech, using information developed by Feith's group. Much of it was unsourced material fed to newspapers by the OSP. Realizing this, Powell's team turned to the now-discredited National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. But some of Feith's handiwork ended up in Powell's mouth anyway.”

Miller appears in Jury room again

Miller’s second appearance before the grand jury investigating the CIA leak seems to be tied to her meeting and discussions in June of 2003 with I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, sources close to the investigation said. The meeting came one year before the New York Times printed a lengthy mea culpa discrediting a half-dozen of Miller’s prewar stories on the Iraqi threat.

Fitzgerald’s investigation resulted when allegations surfaced that Bush Administration officials had called reporters to circulate the name of the CIA officer, Valerie Plame-Wilson, in an attempt to discredit her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a critic of the administration's Iraq policy.

Wilson went to Niger in 2002 at the request of the CIA to investigate reports that Iraq was trying to buy uranium "yellow cake" to develop nuclear weapons. He found that the reports were not credible.

Until now, Fitzgerald’s two-year investigation has focused on conversations Karl Rove and Lewis “Scooter” Libby have had with individual journalists, including Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

That has now changed. Fitzgerald has retraced his steps to an earlier period when he first began to examine the White House Iraq Group.

During its very first meetings, Card's Iraq group ordered a series of white papers showing Iraq’s arms violations. The first paper, "A Grave and Gathering Danger: Saddam Hussein's Quest for Nuclear Weapons," was never published. However, the paper was drafted with the assistance of experts from the National Security Council and Cheney's office.

“In its later stages, the draft white paper coincided with production of a National Intelligence Estimate and its unclassified summary. “But the WHIG, according to three officials who followed the white paper's progress, wanted gripping images and stories not available in the hedged and austere language of intelligence,” according to the Post.

Eight months later, Joseph Wilson began to question the veracity of the Bush administration’s prewar intelligence in private conversations with reporters. His talk threatened to undercut the administration’s successful marketing campaign: that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States and its neighbors in the Middle East.

Wilson’s allegations threatened to chip away at the credibility of individuals such as Cheney, who, in dozens of speeches just a few months prior had said that Iraq was dangerously close to acquiring a nuclear weapon. It also threatened to ruin Miller’s credibility. It was then that Administration officials started to discredit Wilson.

Now Fitzgerald is trying to find out whether Cheney was involved.

Larisa Alexandrovna contributed research for this report.

Judge Lifts Contempt of Court Citation for Miller

By E&P Staff

Published: October 12, 2005 8:45 PM ET

NEW YORK Judith Miller's second appearance before the grand jury probing the Plame/CIA leak case on Wednesday lasted only a little more than an hour but it was enough to earn a judge's order releasing The New York Times reporter from the contempt-of-court citation that landed her in jail.

The order was still in place until her testimony was complete.

Besides liberating Miller, it also means The New York Times can no longer cite that order as a roadblock to keep it from presenting a full accounting of related matters.

"I am delighted that the contempt order has been lifted, and Judy is now completely free to go about her great reporting as a very principled and honorable reporter," said Robert Bennett, one of Miller's attorneys.

Bill Keller, executive editor of the Times, had said in a letter to newsroom staffers on Tuesday that once Ms. Miller's "obligations to the grand jury are fulfilled, we intend to write the most thorough story we can...." He also criticized "armchair critics" and those who had spread rumors and "myths" about the case.

A New York Times spokeswoman told E&P the paper had no comment about Wednesday's proceedings and would not say when any major article would appear.

A report by Reuters' Adam Entous on Wednesday raised the issue of the waiver received by Miller from her source, I. Lewis Libby. Entous wonders if that waiver had only applied to the two July 2003 conversations that he had with Miller; perhaps he did not mean for it to apply to the June 23, 2003, talk that she discussed today with the grand jury.

That leaves Karl Rove, the White House, to testify this week, for the fourth time. Thursday appears to be the likely date and Fitzgerald may move quickly after that to produce indictments.

Meanwhile, appearing on MSNBC's "Hardball," Mike Allen of The Washington Post said officials inside the White House are readying this legal defense: the Valerie Plame information came from the press to them, not the other way around. One problem: Some people at the State Department (including Colin Powell) may have testified that the White House specifically requested information about Plame.

'NY Times' 'Frustrated' by Miller Story

By SETH SUTEL, AP Business Writer

Published: October 12, 2005 6:50 PM ET

NEW YORK (AP) Now that New York Times reporter Judith Miller has testified again in the investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's name, many are wondering when the newspaper will publish the detailed account it has promised on their own reporter's role in the case.

That story may yet have to wait: Even after her second round of grand jury testimony Wednesday, it remains unclear whether Miller's cooperation with the probe has finished. A spokesman for Patrick Fitzgerald, the special counsel who is leading the investigation, declined to comment.

Miller was freed on Sept. 29 after nearly three months in jail for refusing to reveal her source for information about the operative. That information never made it into a story.

She has been advised by her lawyers not to discuss her grand jury testimony until it has been completely finished, the Times's executive editor Bill Keller told Times employees in a memo sent Tuesday.

Miller was still under a contempt-of-court order and was "not yet clear of legal jeopardy," Keller said. "As we've told readers, once her obligations to the grand jury are fulfilled, we intend to write the most thorough story we can of her entanglement with the White House leak investigation."

The delay, Keller said, "may be frustrating to our armchair critics, and it is frustrating to all of us," though he noted that other reporters who have testified also have not disclosed what they told the grand jury.

Fitzgerald is investigating whether a crime was committed when officials from the Bush administration became involved in leaking the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame, after her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, suggested that the administration had twisted prewar intelligence about Iraq's nuclear weapons program.

Miller agreed to testify about conversations she had with I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, after Libby released her from a pledge of confidentiality. Prior to that, Miller spent 85 days in jail for refusing to cooperate.

The Times is in a difficult spot in this case, with its own reporter involved in a major national story even as the paper says it would be legally unwise to fully disclose her role.

Those following the case are eager to know what Miller knows about Plame affair, and also why she spent time in jail when Libby's lawyers contend he had previously released her from her pledge of confidentiality. Miller has said she wasn't convinced that Libby's previous waiver of the pledge wasn't coerced.

The Times' silence so far about what Miller knew in the Plame affair has led some pundits to criticize the paper, such as New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen. "Not only is the Times not operating properly, it's unable to say to readers: here's why we're not," Rosen wrote on his media commentary site called PressThink.

Several newspaper editors said they support the Times' handling of its delicate situation and expressed confidence that the paper would publish a thorough account of Miller's role when it was possible.

"It's always very difficult for a newspaper to report on itself, and it's compounded in this case because of the legal situation they find themselves in," said Charlotte Hall, editor of the Orlando Sentinel. "I have confidence that they will report fully and fairly on this."

Dennis Ryerson, editor of The Indianapolis Star, said that newspaper editors everywhere could do a better job of communicating with their readers the reasons why they make decisions about what to put in the paper.

"I don't think in the long run this should cause them great damage, but we're in a different era now" because of the Internet, Ryerson said. "Internal discussions are now being weighed like never before."

Tom Rosensteil, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, a research institute affiliated with Columbia University, noted that if it were a politician or public figure who were in the Times's position, his aides would advise him to disclose what he knows as quickly as possible.

"It becomes increasingly awkward for any news organization when they find themselves in this spot, all the more so when you're the most important newspaper in the country," Rosensteil said.

Will Judith Miller Probe Go 'Public'?

By Joe Strupp

Published: October 12, 2005 3:20 PM ET

NEW YORK As New York Times public editor Byron Calame comes under scrutiny for declining to comment on the newspaper's current coverage of the Judith Miller saga, former public editor Daniel Okrent tells E&P this is the kind of issue he would love to tackle were he still on the job.

Calame, meanwhile, told E&P today, "When I have something to say, I will say it first to the readers. I am watching the developments and doing it with special interest." When asked what would prompt him to weigh in on the paper's coverage (which has been criticized for being so muted), he added "if I decide that's important, I will tell the readers."

He would not say why he had not written about Miller's jailing, release, or testimony yet, and rejected the notion, floated by some, that the Times should have assigned the task of writing a full account of the Miller affair to someone outside the newsroom -- namely, Calame.

While Okrent declined to comment on how the Times had been covering the Miller story, or on Calame's decision so far not to write about it, he indicated he would have savored such an issue to review.

"If I were there, this is exactly the kind of issue I would want to get my teeth into. It is interesting stuff and it is important," Okrent said during a phone interview from Cape Cod, where he is working on a book about Prohibition.

Okrent, the paper's first public editor who left the post after 18 months in May, also revealed that a compilation of his Times columns was in the works. He said a contract with Public Affairs Books had been signed last month, with publication likely in May 2006.

He noted that he had written at least three public editor columns related to Judith Miller. The first, in May 2004, discussed a controversial editors' note the Times ran the same week admitting mistakes in its past WMD coverage. In that column, Okrent noted "the flimsiness" of a Miller story in 2003 related to WMDs.

The other columns were a Feb. 6, 2005 piece in which Okrent criticized Miller for breaking news about her case on MSNBC rather than in the Times, while a brief portion of his last column in May 2005 said the prospect of Miller being jailed for protecting a source was "nausea-inducing."

Miller's showdown with the special prosecutor "is important, the world is talking about it and the paper should pay attention," Okrent said about the ongoing saga. "But I don't want to comment on how they are doing it. I have chosen not to comment on what the Times does these days."

Calame, who took over the public editor column in June and has a two-year contract to write it, declined to comment on Okrent's views. He hinted, however, that he may eventually have to write something about the Miller coverage, given the interest from readers and the fact that the newspaper is busily preparing its promised report on Miller's involvement.

The current public editor said he did not want to be part of the expected news report. "I don't think the public editor should be involved," he said. "It is pretty clear they are doing something and pressing ahead with it as fast as they can. You will get my opinion when I see what they do."

Calame also declined to comment on why the paper had printed so few letters to the editor on Miller, or why no columnists (besides Frank Rich) have written about her lately. "I can't speak for the editorial page at all," he said. "I am not part of [that] department."

Reporter testifies again in CIA case | Reuters.com

By Adam Entous

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A New York Times reporter, under pressure to explain a previously undisclosed conversation with a top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, made a second appearance on Wednesday before the federal grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA operative's identity.

Times reporter Judith Miller made no comment as she entered the federal courthouse after turning over notes detailing her June 23, 2003, conversation with Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby. An entry in her notes referred to Joseph Wilson, covert CIA operative Valerie Plame's diplomat husband.

That conversation could help federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald establish whether the White House started targeting Wilson and possibly his wife in the weeks before Wilson publicly accused the Bush administration of twisting intelligence on Iraq.

During that period, reports had surfaced of a CIA-funded trip Wilson took to Africa in which he investigated administration charges about Iraqi attempts to buy nuclear materials and found they had little foundation.

The leak investigation has spotlighted freedom-of-press issues and the Bush administration's aggressive efforts to defend its Iraq policy against critics.

In a memo to New York Times staff on Tuesday, Executive Editor Bill Keller said Miller, who first testified before the grand jury on September 30 after spending 85 days in jail, may not yet be clear of legal jeopardy.

President George W. Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, has also been summoned to make a fourth appearance before the grand jury later this week, and prosecutors have told him they can make no guarantees he will not be indicted.

During her September 30 grand-jury appearance, Miller testified about her two previously disclosed conversations with Libby -- on July 8 and July 12, 2003.

It is unclear how Fitzgerald first learned about the June 23, 2003, conversation.

Legal sources close to Miller said she discovered the notes after she testified.

UNDISCLOSED CONVERSATION

According to a National Journal report, in two appearances before the federal grand jury, Libby did not disclose the June 23 conversation with Miller. Nor did Libby disclose the conversation when he was twice interviewed by FBI agents.

Fitzgerald has not indicated whether he intends to bring indictments in his nearly two-year-old investigation into who leaked Plame's identity and whether any laws were broken.

Fitzgerald could bring charges against officials for knowingly revealing the identity of an undercover CIA operative, but some lawyers involved in the case say his focus may be shifting to conspiracy, perjury and obstruction-of-justice charges.

Libby's June 23, 2003, conversation with Miller could bolster a conspiracy or perjury case because the conversation was not initially disclosed and suggests a preemptive effort to discredit Wilson, those lawyers say.

Wilson asserts that administration officials outed his wife, damaging her ability to work undercover, to discredit him for criticizing Bush's Iraq policy in 2003 after Wilson made a CIA-funded trip to investigate whether Niger helped supply nuclear materials to Baghdad.

Miller's June 23, 2003 conversation with Libby was two weeks before Wilson publicly criticized the administration's Iraq policy in a New York Times opinion piece on July 6, 2003.

A column by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times on May 6, 2003 contained the first public mention of Wilson's mission to Niger in 2002, though Wilson was not identified by name. It also said the mission came after Cheney's office had asked for an investigation of the uranium deal.

Top Cheney aides were eager to dispel Wilson's assertion that he was sent to Niger at the urging of the vice president, sources involved in the case said.

WSJ.com - Focus of CIA Leak Probe Appears to Widen

By JOHN D. MCKINNON, JOE HAGAN and ANNE MARIE SQUEO
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
October 12, 2005; Page A3

The New York Times reporter who went to jail to avoid testifying in the CIA leak case was quizzed by the special prosecutor again yesterday and has agreed to return to the grand jury today.

Judith Miller's additional testimony comes as the endgame is intensifying in the legal chess match that threatens to damage the Bush administration.

There are signs that prosecutors now are looking into contacts between administration officials and journalists that took place much earlier than previously thought. Earlier conversations are potentially significant, because that suggests the special prosecutor leading the investigation is exploring whether there was an effort within the administration at an early stage to develop and disseminate confidential information to the press that could undercut former Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife, Central Intelligence Agency official Valerie Plame.

Mr. Wilson had become a thorn in the Bush administration's side, as he sought to undermine the administration's claims that Iraq had sought to buy materials for building nuclear weapons from other countries, such as uranium "yellowcake" from Niger. Ultimately, his wife's name and identity were disclosed in a newspaper column, prompting the investigation into whether someone in the administration broke the law by revealing the identity of an undercover agent.

Ms. Miller, the Times reporter, was interviewed again yesterday to discuss conversations she had with I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the vice president's chief of staff. She testified on Sept. 30 before a grand jury about conversations she had with Mr. Libby in July 2003.


Since then, her lawyers have told Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor investigating the leak of the CIA agent's identity, that Ms. Miller's notes show that she also spoke with Mr. Libby in late June, information that was not previously given to the grand jury.

Mr. Fitzgerald's pursuit now suggests he might be investigating not a narrow case on the leaking of the agent's name, but perhaps a broader conspiracy.

Mr. Wilson's initial complaints were made privately to reporters. He went public in a July 6 op-ed in the New York Times and in an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press." After that, White House officials, who were attempting to discredit Mr. Wilson's claims, confirmed to some reporters that Mr. Wilson was married to a CIA official. Columnist Robert Novak published Mr. Wilson's wife's name and association with the agency in a column that suggested she had played a role in having him sent on a mission to Niger to investigate the administration's claims.

Until now, Mr. Fitzgerald appeared to be focusing on conversations between White House officials such as Mr. Libby and Karl Rove, President Bush's senior political adviser, after Mr. Wilson wrote his op-ed. The defense by Republican operatives has been that White House officials didn't name Ms. Plame, and that any discussion of her was in response to reporters' questions about Mr. Wilson, the kind of casual banter that occurs between sources and reporters.

Mr. Rove, who has already testified three times before the grand jury and was identified by a Time magazine reporter as a source for his story on Mr. Wilson, is expected to go back to the grand jury, potentially as early as today, to clarify earlier answers.

Lawyers familiar with the investigation believe that at least part of the outcome likely hangs on the inner workings of what has been dubbed the White House Iraq Group. Formed in August 2002, the group, which included Messrs. Rove and Libby, worked on setting strategy for selling the war in Iraq to the public in the months leading up to the March 2003 invasion. The group likely would have played a significant role in responding to Mr. Wilson's claims.

Given that the grand jury is set to expire on Oct. 28, it is possible charges in this case could come as early as next week. Former federal prosecutors say it is traditional not to wait for the last minute and run the risk of not having enough jurors to reach a quorum. There are 23 members of a grand jury, and 16 are needed for a quorum before any indictments could be voted on. This grand jury has traditionally met on Wednesdays and Fridays.

Since Ms. Miller first testified to the grand jury on Sept. 30, she has not published an article about her conversations with Mr. Libby in the New York Times, though she has given interviews to the paper and other media outlets. She hasn't publicly disclosed what she told the prosecutor.

In a memo to staffers yesterday, New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller confirmed that Ms. Miller would return to the grand jury "to supplement her earlier testimony," and noted that this means Ms. Miller is "not yet clear of legal jeopardy."

Mr. Keller had earlier said the paper would publish a full account of everything Ms. Miller knew, but her continuing legal exposure has prevented the Times from doing so. Mr. Keller said yesterday in his memo that once Ms. Miller's "obligations to the grand jury are fulfilled, we intend to write the most thorough story we can of her entanglement with the White House leak investigation."

Newsview: Bush Could Lose Rove Over Probe on Yahoo! News

By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer


For nearly a quarter century, Karl Rove has been George Bush's political mentor. Bush calls him "the architect," the "boy genius." Others have called him "Bush's brain."

Now, with a federal grand jury nipping at Rove's heels in its CIA leak investigation, the president may have to contemplate the previously unthinkable: managing without his right-hand man.

Rove helped Bush create a political persona and steered him to victory in two Texas gubernatorial and two presidential races. He polished Bush's message, nurtured ties with conservatives, oversaw crisis control and helped frame major policy initiatives.

"He's the president's alter ego on political and domestic policy," said veteran Republican strategist Charles Black. While Rove's most important past service to Bush — as a campaign strategist — is no longer needed by Bush, "he's still very valuable in terms of running domestic policy," Black said.

Rove is also helping to steer GOP efforts to expand their congressional majorities in the 2006 midterm elections and is seen by some as a would-be GOP kingmaker for 2008.

If Rove, 54, is forced to resign, it would be a major blow to a presidency already reeling from low approval ratings, the war in Iraq, rising gas prices and the aftermath of two Gulf Coast hurricanes.

Some Republicans suggest the investigation has already taken a toll, weakening and distracting Rove. Some even suggest the botched early response to Hurricane Katrina and the flash of indignation from the political right over the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination might have been averted had Rove been more hands-on.

It's hard to imagine Bush without Rove. Some Rove colleagues say, privately, that he is all but irreplaceable. They suggest nobody else now on the scene combines Rove's intimate knowledge of both politics and policy while also enjoying the full confidence of the president.

Rove's title, that of deputy White House chief of staff, hardly shows the enormous influence he wields.

Rove has already testified three times in the probe into whether an administration official deliberately leaked the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame, whose husband is an administration critic. Rove has agreed to testify again, possibly this week, and prosecutors have told him they can no longer assure him he'll escape indictment.

Knowingly revealing the identity of a covert agent is a federal crime.

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is trying to determine if White House aides violated the law in an attempt to get back at Plame's husband, former career diplomat Joseph Wilson for his assertions that the administration intentionally exaggerated Iraq's nuclear capability to pump up support for an invasion.

Rove has acknowledged that he discussed Wilson's allegations with reporters, but he said he was not the one who revealed Plame's identity. Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, also has acknowledged talking to reporters about the Plame case.

People familiar with Rove's testimony have told The Associated Press that Bush asked him in the fall of 2003 for assurances he was not involved in an effort to divulge Plame's identity and punish Wilson — and Rove told the president he was not.

At first, the White House flatly denied that Rove had been involved. Bush promised to fire anyone on his staff responsible for such a leak. He later stepped back, saying just that he would remove aides who committed crimes.

At a news conference last week, Bush declined to say whether he would remove an aide under indictment. On Tuesday, he told NBC's "Today" show: "I'm not going to talk about the case."

Rich Galen, a Republican consultant, said that Bush — the only U.S. president with a master's degree in business administration — was following the corporate model in delegating his political portfolio to Rove and then giving him considerable leeway, as a company chief executive might do with a trusted manager.

In Rove's case, his influence has grown well beyond the political portfolio because he and Bush "have been on the same wave length for so long," Galen said.

Frank Luntz, a pollster and analyst who often works for Republicans, warns against counting Rove out based on what may look like ominous signs from the grand jury.

"Rove has always been a survivor. He's brilliant at understanding the right thing to do at the right moment. He specializes in the ability to handle a crisis. What he has done for the president, I actually expect him now to do for himself," Luntz said. "He'll know what to do and what to say."

The Raw Story | Report: Lawyers say investigation into CIA leak widens to probe 'broader conspiracy' around Iraq

There are signs that prosecutors now are looking into contacts between administration officials and journalists that took place much earlier than previously thought, the Wall Street Journal will report Wednesday, RAW STORY can reveal. Excerpts from the coming story:

Earlier conversations are potentially significant, because that suggests the special prosecutor leading the investigation is exploring whether there was an effort within the administration at an early stage to develop and disseminate confidential information to the press that could undercut former Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife, Central Intelligence Agency official Valerie Plame.

Mr. Wilson had become a thorn in the Bush administration's side, as he sought to undermine the administration's claims that Iraq had sought to buy materials for building nuclear weapons from other countries, such as uranium "yellowcake" from Niger. Ultimately, his wife's name and identity were disclosed in a newspaper column, prompting the investigation into whether someone in the administration broke the law by revealing the identity of an undercover agent.

Mr. Fitzgerald's pursuit now suggests he might be investigating not a narrow case on the leaking of the agent's name, but perhaps a broader conspiracy.

Mr. Wilson's initial complaints were made privately to reporters. He went public in a July 6 op-ed in the New York Times and in an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press." After that, White House officials, who were attempting to discredit Mr. Wilson's claims, confirmed to some reporters that Mr. Wilson was married to a CIA official. Columnist Robert Novak published Mr. Wilson's wife's name and association with the agency in a column that suggested she had played a role in having him sent on a mission to Niger to investigate the administration's claims.

Until now, Mr. Fitzgerald appeared to be focusing on conversations between White House officials such as Mr. Libby and Karl Rove, President Bush's senior political adviser, after Mr. Wilson wrote his op-ed. The defense by Republican operatives has been that White House officials didn't name Ms. Plame, and that any discussion of her was in response to reporters' questions about Mr. Wilson, the kind of casual banter that occurs between sources and reporters.

Mr. Rove, who has already testified three times before the grand jury and was identified by a Time magazine reporter as a source for his story on Mr. Wilson, is expected to go back to the grand jury, potentially as early as today, to clarify earlier answers.

Lawyers familiar with the investigation believe that at least part of the outcome likely hangs on the inner workings of what has been dubbed the White House Iraq Group. Formed in August 2002, the group, which included Messrs. Rove and Libby, worked on setting strategy for selling the war in Iraq to the public in the months leading up to the March 2003 invasion. The group likely would have played a significant role in responding to Mr. Wilson's claims.