Novak: Rove was a source in outing Plame

[jAZ]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060712/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_leak_novak

Novak: Rove was a source in outing Plame
By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer
Wed Jul 12, 5:24 AM ET

Now that Karl Rove won't be indicted, now that the president won't fire him, now that it really doesn't matter anymore, more details of the Valerie Plame leak investigation trickle out.

In his latest syndicated column released Wednesday, columnist Robert Novak revealed his side of the story in the Plame affair, saying Rove was a confirming source for Novak's story outing the CIA officer, underscoring Rove's role in a leak President Bush once promised to punish.

The columnist said he learned of Plame's CIA employment from a source he still refuses to publicly identify, and then confirmed with Rove and then-CIA spokesman Bill Harlow, whose roles in talking to Novak have been previously reported.

Novak said for the first time that prosecutors looking into the leaks already knew his sources when he agreed to disclose them.

Novak comes late to the Plame game, long after several other reporters talked publicly about the involvement of Rove and of Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, in leaking the CIA identity of the wife of Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson. Novak says he kept his mouth shut so long because prosecutors asked him to.

A month ago, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald said he didn't anticipate seeking charges against Rove. Novak wrote that, more recently, Fitzgerald told his lawyer that after 2 1/2 years his investigation of the CIA leak case concerning matters directly relating to Novak has been concluded, freeing him to talk now.

Triggering the criminal investigation that resulted in Libby being charged with perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI, Novak revealed Plame's CIA employment on July 14, 2003, eight days after her husband went on the attack against the Bush administration.

Initially refusing to identify his sources to the FBI, Novak knew that Fitzgerald had obtained signed waivers from every official who might have provided Novak information about Plame. Despite that, Novak was prepared to resist. He says he relented in early 2004 when it became clear that Fitzgerald "knew the names of my sources."

Novak could still have protected his sources, but his lawyer told him "I was sure to lose a case in the courts at great expense."

In contrast to other reporters whose news organizations footed the bill for lengthy and expensive legal battles, the fact that Novak was a no-show in contentious court proceedings fed a rumor mill.

"Published reports that I took the Fifth Amendment, made a plea bargain with the prosecutors or was a prosecutorial target were all untrue," Novak writes. The facts were simpler. He was telling prosecutors everything he knew, and taking a beating in public for not talking about it.

Keeping quiet had the effect of providing protection for the Bush White House during the 2004 presidential campaign, because the White House had denied Rove played any role in the leak of Plame's CIA identity.

As Rove's legal problems grew a year ago, Bush said he stood by his pledge to "fire anybody" in his administration shown to have leaked Valerie Plame's name. His press secretary, after checking with Rove and Libby, assured the public that neither man had anything to do with the leak.

Now that he's finally opening up, Novak is stirring up more trouble, saying without elaboration that his recollection of his conversation with Rove about Plame differs from Rove's. Rove's spokesman says the difference amounts to very little.

"I have revealed Rove's name because his attorney has divulged the substance of our conversation, though in a form different from my recollection," Novak wrote. Novak did not elaborate.

A spokesman for Rove's legal team, Mark Corallo, said that Rove did not even know Plame's name at the time he spoke with Novak, that the columnist called Rove, not the other way around, and that Rove simply replied he had heard the same information that Novak passed along to him regarding Plame.

"There was not much of a difference" between the recollections of Rove and Novak, said Corallo.

Novak says he told Fitzgerald that Harlow of the CIA had confirmed information about Plame.

Harlow declined to comment Tuesday night. But a U.S. intelligence official familiar with the matter denied that Harlow had been a confirming source for Novak on the story. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Harlow repeatedly tried to talk Novak out of running the information about Plame and that Harlow's efforts did not in any way constitute confirming Plame's CIA identity.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity because Harlow may end up being a witness in a separate part of Fitzgerald's investigation, the upcoming criminal trial of Libby.

[penchief]

In the end, this administration may have done all it could to cover it's future ass when pulling this stunt off, but that hardly means it was a cool thing to do. And it definitely doesn't mean that successfully covering your ass makes chickenshit behavior acceptable.

[mlyonsd]

Does this mean an indictment is imminent? Less than two weeks? Where do we stand on this? When can we expect Rove to be in handcuffs?

Too funny.

[mlyonsd]

In the end, this administration may have done all it could to cover it's future ass when pulling this stunt off, but that hardly means it was a cool thing to do. And it doesn't mean that successfully covering your ass makes chickenshit behavior acceptable.

Or it means that whistleblowers like Rove pointing to total/complete f'ups at the CIA will show the public what really happened.

[penchief]

Or it means that whistleblowers like Rove pointing to total/complete f'ups at the CIA will show the public what really happened.

Maybe......but I doubt it.

The world didn't just happen to start falling apart when these assholes tool control.

[jAZ]

Or it means that whistleblowers like Rove pointing to total/complete f'ups at the CIA will show the public what really happened.
Holy Shit!

ROFL

[Laz]

i never thought there was any kind of real chance that Rove was going anywhere.

he's a big power ... maybe the real power


it wasn't going to happen

[mlyonsd]

Holy Shit!

ROFL

Would you like to debate the CIA sending Wilson on a boondoggle?

And that the results of his trip only fueled the CIA's view Saddam had tried to buy yellow cake?

And that Wilson was chastised by the 911 commission for ommitting facts from his trip in his editorial?

Funny, you look at Rove as a weasel but won't look at Wilson with the same colored glasses.

[mlyonsd]

Funny, you look at Rove as a weasel but won't look at Wilson with the same colored glasses.

I stand corrected. That's typical partisanship.

[penchief]

Would you like to debate the CIA sending Wilson on a boondoggle?

And that the results of his trip only fueled the CIA's view Saddam had tried to buy yellow cake?

And that Wilson was chastised by the 911 commission for ommitting facts from his trip in his editorial?

Funny, you look at Rove as a weasel but won't look at Wilson with the same colored glasses.

You said, "boondoggle".........heh.

This administration made the (albeit, veiled) insinutation that they had nothing to do with the leak. They acted like they knew nothing about it. The president said so much on national television.

If they did nothing wrong why didn't they just claim their actions and announce their justifications? The simple fact that they denied it exemplifies the dishonesty with which they have operated under from the start and that they've applied within virtually every arena.

Who cares if Bush declassified classified information just so Cheney, Rove, and Whoever Else could propigate it for political gain while simultaneously undermining our country's valuable assets? As the Neocons say, "You're only a traitor if you question the intent or agenda of the current administration."

[jAZ]

Would you like to debate the CIA sending Wilson on a boondoggle?

And that the results of his trip only fueled the CIA's view Saddam had tried to buy yellow cake?

And that Wilson was chastised by the 911 commission for ommitting facts from his trip in his editorial?

Funny, you look at Rove as a weasel but won't look at Wilson with the same colored glasses.
I'll debate it (as time permits, kinda busy lately)... but you'll need to start by creating a post worthy of debate. By that I mean, something better sourced and more specific than the one above.

[mlyonsd]

You said, "boondoggle".........heh.

This administration made the (albeit, veiled) insinutation that they had nothing to do with the leak. They acted like they knew nothing about it. The president said so much on national television.

If they did nothing wrong why didn't they just claim their actions and announce their justifications? The simple fact that they denied it exemplifies the dishonesty with which they have operated under from the start and that they've applied within virtually every arena.

Who cares if Bush declassified classified information just so Cheney, Rove, and Whoever Else could propigate it for political gain while simultaneously undermining our country's valuable assets? As the Neocons say, "You're only a traitor if you question the intent or agenda of the current administration."

There it is again. Don't look at what actually happened and concentrate on "getting" the administration.

Your right, your choice, but in the end what Wilson actually reported to the CIA after his trip helped launch us into war. And then he lied about it.

I for one am glad I know the real truth. I suspect you would rather avoid it though.

[Bootlegged]

The unbiased AP & Pete Yost. ROFL

I wonder if this article was hard to write with tissues all over the keyboard.

[mlyonsd]

I'll debate it (as time permits, kinda busy lately)... but you'll need to start by creating a post worthy of debate. By that I mean, something better sourced and more specific than the one above.


wikpedia on Wilson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_C._Wilson)

Here are the facts as determined by the Senate Select Committee's investigation (pages 39-44):

The U.S. embassy in Niger issued a cable reporting that the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal warranted a hard look.

Valerie Plame suggested her husband travel to Niger to look into it.
A WINPAC analyst sent an email saying the results "from this source" will be suspect and not believable but CIA decided to send Wilson anyway.
In February 2002, Wilson arrived in Niger and met with former officials of Niger, no current officials.

On March 1, 2002 the CIA published an intelligence assessment, Niger: Sale of Uranium to Iraq is Unlikely, unrelated to Wilson's trip. This assessment was not provided to Vice President Cheney.

On March 8, 2002 an intelligence report based on Wilson's trip was disseminated. The report indicated the former Prime Minister of Niger had said no contracts to sell uranium to Iraq were signed during his tenure. However, an Iraqi delegation had approached him in June 1999 to discuss "expanding commercial relations." The Prime Minister took this to mean uranium yellowcake sales. The PM let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq.

The Senate Report was critical of Wilson because his description of his findings differed from the DO intelligence report and his description of the information provided to him by the CIA differed from the CIA's account.

Wilson told the Senate his findings refuted the notion Iraq had sought uranium from Niger. The intelligence report actually confirmed that Iraq had approached Niger for increased trade, which was interpreted by the PM as seeking uranium.

Wilson claimed the CIA told him about documents pertaining to an alleged uranium sale to Iraq. The CIA reports officer denied giving Wilson any such information and noted there were no "documents" circulating at the time. (Pages 44-45)

Many further details of the trip can be found in the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq, which contains a 48-page section dealing with intelligence related to Niger.

[jAZ]

wikpedia on Wilson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_C._Wilson)

Here are the facts as determined by the Senate Select Committee's investigation (pages 39-44):

The U.S. embassy in Niger issued a cable reporting that the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal warranted a hard look.

Valerie Plame suggested her husband travel to Niger to look into it.
A WINPAC analyst sent an email saying the results "from this source" will be suspect and not believable but CIA decided to send Wilson anyway.
In February 2002, Wilson arrived in Niger and met with former officials of Niger, no current officials.

On March 1, 2002 the CIA published an intelligence assessment, Niger: Sale of Uranium to Iraq is Unlikely, unrelated to Wilson's trip. This assessment was not provided to Vice President Cheney.

On March 8, 2002 an intelligence report based on Wilson's trip was disseminated. The report indicated the former Prime Minister of Niger had said no contracts to sell uranium to Iraq were signed during his tenure. However, an Iraqi delegation had approached him in June 1999 to discuss "expanding commercial relations." The Prime Minister took this to mean uranium yellowcake sales. The PM let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq.

The Senate Report was critical of Wilson because his description of his findings differed from the DO intelligence report and his description of the information provided to him by the CIA differed from the CIA's account.

Wilson told the Senate his findings refuted the notion Iraq had sought uranium from Niger. The intelligence report actually confirmed that Iraq had approached Niger for increased trade, which was interpreted by the PM as seeking uranium.

Wilson claimed the CIA told him about documents pertaining to an alleged uranium sale to Iraq. The CIA reports officer denied giving Wilson any such information and noted there were no "documents" circulating at the time. (Pages 44-45)

Many further details of the trip can be found in the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq, which contains a 48-page section dealing with intelligence related to Niger.
What about this am I to debate?

[penchief]

There it is again. Don't look at what actually happened and concentrate on "getting" the administration.

Your right, your choice, but in the end what Wilson actually reported to the CIA after his trip helped launch us into war. And then he lied about it.

I for one am glad I know the real truth. I suspect you would rather avoid it though.

No, unless the liberal media pounds it into my head I'm not sure I can believe it.

Is the "real truth" defined as the ignorance of fact, reality, and grass roots sentiment? Because if it is, I know exactly what you mean.

[the Talking Can]

so, we're still claiming that is ok that Bush outed a covert CIA agent in retribution for her husband coming to the same conclusion that everyone else came to?

awesome...at least when principles are abandoned they don't go half way....

[jAZ]

so, we're still claiming that is ok that Bush outed a covert CIA agent in retribution for her husband coming to the same conclusion that everyone else came to?

awesome...at least when principles are abandoned they don't go half way....
Actually at this point they are lionizing Rove as whistle blower.

[penchief]

Actually at this point they are lionizing Rove as whistle blower.

But doesn't the new school of thought believe that whistleblowers are traitors? That is, if it can be proven that Rove is a whistleblower.

[jAZ]

But doesn't the new school of thought believe that whistleblowers are traitors? That is, if it can be proven that Rove is a whistleblower.
Ouch... that's gonna require a twister move to get out of... I'm curious to see.

[Donger]

"Rove was a source in outing Plame"?

How so?

[penchief]

"Rove was a source in outing Plame"?

How so?

Apparently, numbnuts Novak said that Rove was one of his three sources. This after the White House claimed no involvement and Rove being deemed in the clear.

While Rove may have been able to elude legal retribution for his part in this administration's betrayal of America's trust, I believe that Novak's claims only make Rove and the administration look more like the phonies that they are.

[Donger]

Apparently, numbnuts Novak said that Rove was one of his three sources.

Where did he say that?

[dirk digler]

Where did he say that?

Robert Novak revealed his side of the story in the Plame affair, saying Rove was a confirming source for Novak's story outing the CIA officer


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203239,00.html

HUME: Now, you subsequently said that was confirmed to you by Karl Rove.

NOVAK: That's right.

HUME: Did you call Rove or did he ...

NOVAK: I called Rove.

HUME: And did you call for the purpose of getting this confirmed or did this come up in passing?

NOVAK: I called him for several reasons. I wanted to talk about the column I was writing about the mission to Niger. Almost all of my conversations with Rove were not for attribution and in the course of that I told him. I asked him about Wilson's wife at the CIA, working with the CIA and initiating this visit and as I remember the conversation very distinctly, Karl said to me, "Yes, I know that, too."

HUME: "I know that too?"

NOVAK: Yes.

HUME: He didn't say, "You know that, too?"

NOVAK: No. He said, "Oh, you know that, too?"

HUME: And what did you take that to mean? Did you take that to mean he talked to other journalists who knew that?

NOVAK: No, I took that as a confirmation that she worked with the CIA and initiated it. He said, "Oh, you know that, too?"

Now Karl, the reason I'm using Karl's name is he talked to his lawyer about the conversation. As he remembered, he said to me, "Oh, you heard that, too?" I really distinctly remember him saying, "you know that too." There is a difference there.

[Donger]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203239,00.html

HUME: Now, you subsequently said that was confirmed to you by Karl Rove.

NOVAK: That's right.

HUME: Did you call Rove or did he ...

NOVAK: I called Rove.

HUME: And did you call for the purpose of getting this confirmed or did this come up in passing?

NOVAK: I called him for several reasons. I wanted to talk about the column I was writing about the mission to Niger. Almost all of my conversations with Rove were not for attribution and in the course of that I told him. I asked him about Wilson's wife at the CIA, working with the CIA and initiating this visit and as I remember the conversation very distinctly, Karl said to me, "Yes, I know that, too."

HUME: "I know that too?"

NOVAK: Yes.

HUME: He didn't say, "You know that, too?"

NOVAK: No. He said, "Oh, you know that, too?"

HUME: And what did you take that to mean? Did you take that to mean he talked to other journalists who knew that?

NOVAK: No, I took that as a confirmation that she worked with the CIA and initiated it. He said, "Oh, you know that, too?"

Now Karl, the reason I'm using Karl's name is he talked to his lawyer about the conversation. As he remembered, he said to me, "Oh, you heard that, too?" I really distinctly remember him saying, "you know that too." There is a difference there.


Thank you.

So, it seems that at the maximum, Rove confirmed what Novak already knew. Does that qualify as "Rove was a source in outing Plame"?

I honestly don't know.

[dirk digler]

Thank you.

So, it seems that at the maximum, Rove confirmed what Novak already knew. Does that qualify as "Rove was a source in outing Plame"?

I honestly don't know.

Listening to Novak I think he believes all 3 were his sources.

The mystery guy was clearly the most important one and that would be interesting to know who that was.

[Mr. Kotter]

Rove to be indicted in "two weeks"....again?

:rolleyes:

[patteeu]

It tickles me to see all these guys who don't give a damn about keeping classified information secret 99% of the time, obsessing over the Plame disclosure. It reminds me of the Clinton administration and the way they only used the military if they could be sure that American interests weren't involved.

[CRONUS]

It tickles me to see all these guys who don't give a damn about keeping classified information secret 99% of the time, obsessing over the Plame disclosure. It reminds me of the Clinton administration and the way they only used the military if they could be sure that American interests weren't involved.Sort of like the Bush admininstration using the military to occupy Iraq with no benefit to American interests. Plays both ways as I see it.

[dirk digler]

It tickles me to see all these guys who don't give a damn about keeping classified information secret 99% of the time, obsessing over the Plame disclosure. It reminds me of the Clinton administration and the way they only used the military if they could be sure that American interests weren't involved.

So patteeu, who is more egregious the leakers or the people who publish the leaks?

I know every administration has it share of leakers but IMVHO Bush has an unpredecented level of leakers in his OWN administration that want to undermine him.

When the NY Times published the NSA wiretap story the conservatives were screaming that they need to punish the leakers but they seemed to change their stance when the Times published the story about the terrorist money. So which is it? They can't have it both ways.

At every turn someone is leaking classified information about this administration and it is coming from inside Bush's OWN people. IMHO those who the anger should be pointed at.

[patteeu]

Sort of like the Bush admininstration using the military to occupy Iraq with no benefit to American interests. Plays both ways as I see it.

Iraq is in the middle of one of the most strategically valuable regions of the world. Haiti's claim to fame is that it's next to the Dominican Republic from which some fine baseball players hail.

You must be blind if you don't see that a chaotic Iraq, ultimately dominated by either al Qaeda types or Iran/Syria is not in our interest. Nor was a Saddam-led Iraq. The only question was whether or not we could eliminate the latter without creating the former and, afaics, the jury is still out on that one. You can argue about whether or not an Iraq invasion was the right way to deal with our interests in the region, but you can't argue that we have no interests there.

[DaKCMan AP]

And that the results of his trip only fueled the CIA's view Saddam had tried to buy yellow cake?



mmmmmmm....yellow cake :drool:

[patteeu]

So patteeu, who is more egregious the leakers or the people who publish the leaks?

The leakers.

I know every administration has it share of leakers but IMVHO Bush has an unpredecented level of leakers in his OWN administration that want to undermine him.

I agree. Bold leadership is more controversial than the poll-driven, risk-averse meanderings of previous administrations.

When the NY Times published the NSA wiretap story the conservatives were screaming that they need to punish the leakers but they seemed to change their stance when the Times published the story about the terrorist money. So which is it? They can't have it both ways.

I didn't notice any change in stance. AFAICS, conservatives screamed about punishing the leakers in both cases, as have I. Some even argued that the NYTimes should be punished in both cases, but I oppose that.

At every turn someone is leaking classified information about this administration and it is coming from inside Bush's OWN people. IMHO those who the anger should be pointed at.

You've got to realize that the Executive Branch is predominantly made up of career bureaucrats who remain on the job from administration to administration. It's erroneous, IMO, to characterize most of the people in the executive branch as "Bush's OWN people." I'd be willing to bet that most of the leakers come from this group of non-appointees. Certainly the woman who was forcibly retired for unauthorized discussions with reporters was not one of Bush's own.

[Chief Henry]

i never thought there was any kind of real chance that Rove was going anywhere.

he's a big power ... maybe the real power


it wasn't going to happen





You want to mention power ? What former president has had 12 former
bodyguards die of mostly un natural causes ?

[Radar Chief]

so, we're still claiming that is ok that Bush outed a covert CIA agent in retribution for her husband coming to the same conclusion that everyone else came to?

awesome...at least when principles are abandoned they don't go half way....

Jeezus you have a one track mind. Who, even among Liberals here, has claimed that “Bush outed a covert CIA agent”? :spock:

And what was that you were say’n ‘bout “principles” again? :rolleyes:

[dirk digler]

The leakers.

I agree

I agree. Bold leadership is more controversial than the poll-driven, risk-averse meanderings of previous administrations.

To be honest unless you know a leaker it would be hard to say for sure. Maybe they think he is a clown and makes bad decisions.

didn't notice any change in stance. AFAICS, conservatives screamed about punishing the leakers in both cases, as have I. Some even argued that the NYTimes should be punished in both cases, but I oppose that.

When the terrorist money story came out Bush didn't mention punish the leaker once but he did mention the NY Times multiple times.

You've got to realize that the Executive Branch is predominantly made up of career bureaucrats who remain on the job from administration to administration. It's erroneous, IMO, to characterize most of the people in the executive branch as "Bush's OWN people." I'd be willing to bet that most of the leakers come from this group of non-appointees. Certainly the woman who was forcibly retired for unauthorized discussions with reporters was not one of Bush's own.

Are there career bureaucrates in the WH? I know there are in all other areas but not sure of the WH.

I just go back to the sign on Harry Truman's desk that said "The buck stops here". Ultimately he is responsible for what happens on his watch and a true leader would take responsibility. Now that is not to say that he doesn't internally and in private and he just may not tell the public kind of like a head coach doesn't bash his players in public.

[patteeu]

When the terrorist money story came out Bush didn't mention punish the leaker once but he did mention the NY Times multiple times.

Here's a quote from Bush on the terrorist finances leak:

"Congress was briefed and what we did was fully authorized under the law. And the disclosure of this program is disgraceful. We're at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America, and for people to leak that program, and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America." - GW Bush

And here's a quote from Dick Cheney on the same subject:

"The leaks to The New York Times and the publishing of those leaks is very damaging." - Dick Cheney

As you can see, each of them mention both the leakers and the publisher. While I didn't see any explicit call for punishing the leakers, I don't think either of them mentioned punishing the NY Times either.

There is no doubt that they've turned up the heat on the NY Times, but IMO that's because the NY Times have been the common denominator for all of these leaks. I think it's appropriate to aggressively pursue and punish the leakers and, at the same, to jawbone the NY Times into more responsible behavior.

Are there career bureaucrates in the WH? I know there are in all other areas but not sure of the WH.

Probably not too many in policy-making positions at the WH, but there's no reason to think these leaks came from the WH as opposed to the agencies (e.g. CIA) where career bureaucrats are plentiful.

I just go back to the sign on Harry Truman's desk that said "The buck stops here". Ultimately he is responsible for what happens on his watch and a true leader would take responsibility. Now that is not to say that he doesn't internally and in private and he just may not tell the public kind of like a head coach doesn't bash his players in public.

I don't think that's what "the buck stops here" is supposed to mean. I think the President has to take credit or blame for the results of his policies and, on this subject for any lax discipline that might allow leaking to occur, but I don't think he's personally responsible for every specific action of every person who reports through the chain of command to him whether that person is one of his guys or not. Instead, I think he's responsible for making every effort to correct problems when they are identified. I certainly don't agree that he has any obligation to refrain from bashing his underlings in public when they do something wrong nor do I see that as evidence of a lack of leadership.

[dirk digler]

I don't think that's what "the buck stops here" is supposed to mean. I think the President has to take credit or blame for the results of his policies and, on this subject for any lax discipline that might allow leaking to occur, but I don't think he's personally responsible for every specific action of every person who reports through the chain of command to him whether that person is one of his guys or not. Instead, I think he's responsible for making every effort to correct problems when they are identified. I certainly don't agree that he has any obligation to refrain from bashing his underlings in public when they do something wrong nor do I see that as evidence of a lack of leadership.

Thanks patteeu for responding. :thumb:

Regarding your last sentence I agree with you I was just suggesting maybe he is the type of leader that doesn't make his displeasures known in public about his staff and there is nothing wrong that.

[mlyonsd]

Actually at this point they are lionizing Rove as whistle blower.

I have no problem with the administration reacting to Wilson's editorial by exposing the trip for what it was and that the editorial was disengenuous by saying one thing but in reality caused the CIA to think another.

He tried to come off as all holier than thou but in the end his trip helped launch us into war. He should own up to that.

This one incident (Wilson's trip) is a view into how the CIA was doing their job leading up to the war. It should have been exposed for what it was.

Sending ex-ambassadors on our tax dollars to ask questions? Ridiculous.

Mind you, I'm not talking about the outing of Plame. I still say if laws were broken those guilty should be brought to justice. I just find it funny the story within the story is completely missed on some of you.
Not surprising though, you just want to blame Bush and not look to the real problem which was our failed intelligience.