Everyone knows the truth:

Some people just don't tell it.  (Thanks, Al)

Bush starts to auger in.  You can imagine what the effect will be on his approval numbers.  Now the hammer and the anvil.  The Christian Right does not understand that Bush's position has degraded to the point it has.  If they push him on his nominee and retreat from him they way they have deserted the Republicans in the Senate, there's no limit to how low Bush can go.  The 25% here who believe Bush is cooperating with the prosecutor are probably his floor.  They'll believe he always tells the truth.  They haven't realized it yet.  Pretty much everyone else knows he lies all day long.

Ironically, they don't even know the danger.   True believers, they are eating up what Ken Mehlman has to say right now.  That means that they do not understand the danger and will push for a conservative nominee, undermining Bush at his weakest.  Too bad for them it appears some people from the White House are going to be indicted.

Another hammer and anvil--the August 15 deadline for Iraq to write a constitution.  The Sunnis will be out in main force strength.  We need to beef up troops IMMEDIATELY.  I hope they have planned for a big upsurge in violence.  Iraq needs us now and Bush keeps letting it down.

The worst of it?  Afghanistan is the deep dark secret Bush doesn't want you to know.   

How about Tim Russert coming to life?  Everybody, a hand for Rusty Jr.

Yep, he stood up and did what we asked: Put Ken Mehlman on the spot about whether they were going to go after the prosecutor.

MR. RUSSERT:  You say you have tremendous confidence in Pat Fitzgerald.

MR. MEHLMAN:  I do.

MR. RUSSERT:  If, in fact, he indicts White House officials, will you accept that indictment and not fight it?

MR. MEHLMAN:  First of all, I'm the chairman of the Republican National Committee.  I'm not an attorney for anybody.  The fact is I look forward to his getting to the bottom of this.  I can't speak for...

MR. RUSSERT:  But if he indicts White House officials...

MR. MEHLMAN:  Right.

MR. RUSSERT:  ...will you pledge today, because you have tremendous confidence in him, that you will not criticize his decision?

MR. MEHLMAN:  Again, I'm not going to speculate.  I have tremendous confidence in him.  I look to getting to the bottom of this.  Whatever he does, I can assure you, people are going to follow and are going to look to abide by.

MR. PODESTA:  Just say "yes," Ken.

Podesta:  "Just say "yes," Ken."  Brutal.  That's the problem with the Big Lie.  You can't stop.

Once again, if you weren't paying attention.  Karl Rove's confirmation of Valerie Plame's CIA status to Robert Novak is enough to trigger liability if he knew of her covert status.  Its all in the code: 50 U.S.C. sec. 421: 

(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent

    Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified 
information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any          
information identifying such covert agent to any individual not 
authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the 
information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the 
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert 
agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined          
not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

If Rove confirmed that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent, he has disclosed information identifying a covert agent. This is how it should be.  Information confirming information heard from another source is extremely valuable.  That's why reporters and spies double and triple source information.  That information should not be passing to reporters and spies.

By the way, it appears there is a subersive at the University of Missouri who has the gall to post the security laws of the United States where its citizens can see it.  Don't go to this site!

UPDATE: Sunday 11:52 PM: Turns out that my interpretation is right.  Karl Rove was required to sign an SF-312 (.pdf) a form consisting of the agreement.  Specifically mentioned in the Form is the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.  Lets hear Tim Russert tell it: 

MR. RUSSERT:    When one is given classified clearance, they are asked to sign an oath, and they are given a briefing book with form--Standard Form 312, it's called.  And if you read this briefing book, it says this:  . . . "If it has not...confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure."

So by confirming a story from Robert Novak or sharing information with Matt Cooper, no matter where it came from, if, in fact, it was classified information, without seeking to determine whether it was declassified, it is an unauthorized disclosure.

MR. MEHLMAN:  Well, you're making an assumption that it's classified information.

And Mehlman passes right over Russert's insight that Rove has admitted to almost every element of the crime in the public discourse.

Hell, the damn thing gives the U.S. Government to go after book royalties made off the disclosure.

Sherman Adams, the chief of staff to President Dwight D. Eisenhower, left the White House in a cloud of scandal in 1958 after accepting a vicuna fur coat from a business friend who had interests at the White House.

I couldn't after the first two paragraphs.

Since the blow-up over Rove has reignited the need of partisan Republicans to go after the Wilson's one more time, I think we should knock another talking point down before it crops up here at The Iron Mouth. 

Now I don't know what number it is in the list sent out by the RNC, but a popular attack line against Joe Wilson that usually fits somewhere between, "Rove was just warning Cooper off a bad story" and "His wife sent him to Niger, not Dick Cheney" is "After all, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence investigated this and said that Wilson's conclusion were wrong."  As the Brookings Institution's Ivo Daalder notes, the Iraq Survey Group, who scoured the country for the better part of a year and a half, concluded in its final report that there was no evidence, I repeat, no evidence that Iraq tried to buy radioactive materials from another country after 1991.   

Sorry, the Iraq Survey Group gets the last word on the subject and basically confirmed what Wilson was saying about Niger yellow cake and Iraq in 2003.  Frankly, I think I'll take the word of the people who wasted all those months tearing Iraq apart looking for WMD's that weren't there over "cover your ass" political documents like the Butler report and the findings of the SSCI any day.

As for the Wilson quote I refer you to the transcript:

BLITZER:  But the other argument that's been made against you is that you've sought to capitalized on this extravaganza, having that photo shoot with your wife, who was a clandestine officer with the CIA, and that you've tried to enrich yourself writing this book and all of that..

What do you make of those accusations, which are serious accusations,as you know, that have been leveled against you?

WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.
BLITZER:  But she hadn't been a clandestine officer for some time before that?

WILSON:  That's not anything I can talk about.  And indeed I go back to what I said earlier, the CIA believed that a possible crime had been committed, and that's why they referred it to the Justice Deparment.

If "context" means anything, then you'd agree that they are talking about Wilson's actions (Vanity Fair, book deal etc.) since his wife was outed.  Wilson is not confirming that his wife wasn't undercover but is instead attacking Novak.  Poorly worded, but an attack nonetheless otherwise there really isn't anything to keep him from confirming Blitzer's assertion that she wasn't undercover previous to being revealed by Novak.  Instead, he says, as he should, the he can't directly talk about it and refers to the actions taken by the CIA as he has repeatedly in the past.

Quick someone tell Fox that the London bombings haven't stirred an anticipated upsurge in support for the President.

I think if you're the media you have to ask yourself, "How many times does a man have to get hit in the head before he knows whose doing the hitting?"  I particularly love the New York Times using an obviously disinterested and anonymous White House source, a.k.a "someone who has officially been briefed on the matter" to help back up the new Rove defense strategy of blaming somebody else, a.k.a "a reporter". 

The recent full court press of Republican operatives blanketing the news shows with the same mendacious talking points purporting some altruistic patriotic whistleblower trying to undermine some treacherous peacenik hiding behind his CIA wife's skirt evidently didn't create enough obfuscation?

Payback delivering beatdowns to the Bush Administration.

The Republicans defended Karl Rove to the man today.  Why, when White House officials privately indicate that they expect at least one indictment by the end of the year?  Because they don't want Rove to be the indicted one.  They've selected a fall guy.  The only question is: is Libby Liddy?

Four.  [gufawwing]

What is the number of car bombings in Fallujah in recent weeks?

What do the Democratic National Convention, Plamegate, and Bush Political Intelligence Leaks have in common?

This

Simon, start up the Waaaay-back Machine.

Cut to the Democratic National Convention, Boston, Mass.  The Administration has an unwelcome suprise for the Kerry campaign.  A "special terrorist alert," nationally annouced, which covered only a few buildings in the entire country.  To counter charges of playing politics, the Administration included, for the first time, evidence of the source of the intelligence came from.  It came from Naeem Noor Khan.  

Khan was a first--a live Al Qaeda leader who agreed to work as a double agent.

Khan's computer contained two sets of plans--one for a coordinated attack on the financial buildings Bush's "alert" concerned.  The other plans involved a multiple-bomb plot on the London Underground.  Pakistani intelligence had opened Pandora's box.  They were able to infiltrate an active Al Qaeda operation while it was going on.  This was more than stopping a plot, it was the intelligence opportunity of the war--the inner workings of Al Qaeda at our fingertips.  

The operation was paying off, too.  Mr. Naeem Noor Khan was in communication with an Al Qaeda cell in Luton, England.  MI-5 had them in their sights.  They were going to reel in the whole lot.

Until Bush's announcement, that is.  The Pakistanis were tipped by the announcement--and the British police swept 12 of them up.  The Administration publicly apologized to Britain for the incident in September, 2004. 

Unbeknownst to the British, 6 other members avoided the dragnet.  On Thursday, July 7, 2005, four of them left for London on the train from Luton.

Bush needs allies and his right wing badly.  Expect the SCOTUS nomination to please Dobson now.  Its exactly what Bush doesn't need.

Any time he gets his mug on TV, every reporter and Democratic talking head needs to ask Ken Mehlman:  Do you think this prosecutor is a good prosecutor?  Do you think he has run an honest investigation?  We need him saying it on tape at least fifty times.  Because they will be singing another tune soon enough.

I recommend former CIA agent Larry Johnson's post knocking down most of the nonsense being spread about Valerie Plame's status at the CIA.  Frankly,the attempt by some to defend Rove and others who leaked her identity by saying she was just an analyst or desk jockey at Langley just doesn't hold up.  Even if you accept that Plame was just an analyst we still don't talk about or publicly name CIA analysts who currently work for the Agency, and we sure as hell don't mention them if they still list a seemingly unaffiliated company as their place of work.  Ask yourself when was the last time you saw a current CIA analyst on CNN or MSNBC or FOX answering questions about say the Iraqi insurgency?  Doesn't happen.  You're more likely to see the Director or a former analyst but never a currently serving officer.  Why?  Hate to break it to you but even the people manning a desk at Langley eventually get an opportunity to go overseas and work in the field or at embassies and consulates; they don't go out of their way to tell people they work at the CIA and they sure as hell don't talk about what they are working on, period!  I know people who work in the intelligence community and the most they'll tell you is they work for a government agency and nothing more.  Somebody needs to think a little bit more before they pass on the "analyst" defense cause it just doesn't fly!

Like the Col. up the Mekong.  Legal Analysts Critical of N.Y. Times Reporter's Stance in Leak Probe.  When she talks, its all over.  Judy Miller's career will never, ever be the same again anyway. 

Red Alert in Freeperdom!  All units report to education centers.  All Units!

PARTISAN ATTACKS ON KARL ROVE RESEARCH AND TALKING POINTS
E-Mail forwarded by Texas GOP National Committeewoman, Denise McNamara | 7/12/05 | Scott Jennings

Posted on 07/12/2005 10:05:04 PM PDT by anymouse

- The Democrats Are Engaging In Blatant Partisan Political Attacks.

- Karl Rove Discouraged A Reporter From Writing A False Story Based On A False Premise.

- The False Premise Was Joe Wilson’s Allegation That The Vice President Sent Him To Niger And That His Report Was Shown To The Vice President.

- The Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Confirmed That Rove Was Right And Wilson Was Wrong: The Vice President Didn’t Send Wilson Anywhere.

- Both The Senate Select Committee On Intelligence And The CIA Found Claims Wilson Has Made To Be Inaccurate.

- Karl Rove Has Fully Cooperated With This Investigation For More Than A Year And Has Permitted Any Reporter He Spoke With About Joe Wilson To Discuss Their Conversations.

- Government Investigators Have Specifically Asked Every Witness In This Case, Including Karl Rove, Not To Discuss The Subject Matter Of The Investigation.

- Time Magazine Reporter Matt Cooper Called Karl Rove, Rove Didn’t Call Cooper.

- Cooper Told Rove He Called To Discuss Welfare Reform And Brought Up Wilson In Their Conversation.

- Rove Said He Was Willing To Discuss The Wilson Situation Only If Cooper Promised Not To Use, In An Effort To Kill An Inaccurate Story.

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)

Karl Rove’s Lawyer, Robert Luskin: “A Fair-Minded Reading Of Cooper’s E-Mail Is That Rove Was Trying To Discourage Time Magazine From Circulating False Allegations About Cheney, Not Trying To Encourage Them By Saying Anything About Wilson Or His Wife.” (Pete Yost, “White House In A Bind Over Rove E-Mail,” The Associated Press, 7/12/05)

· Luskin: “The Fair Inference ... Is That Rove Was Trying To Warn Time ... Away From Perpetuating Things That Turned Out To Be False, And Not Try To Encourage Him To Say Anything About Wilson’s Wife.” (Richard Simon and Richard B. Schmitt, “Democrats Take Aim At Rove In Leak Case,” Los Angeles Times, 7/12/05)

Rove Didn’t Know Wilson’s Wife Name; Rove Didn’t Say Her Name:

From Freerepublic:

The Democrats have gotten sinewy in these lean years.  There is a thin strength in them now.  Take the following comment from Daily Kos right after the election:

Well then (none / 0)

I wish they would hury up and pick him so we can move on to other discussion.  Like what the top level intends to do about this losing record.  I haven't heard shit from the people at the top yet.  I know it's only a few days but that's a few days less we have with a unified message.

by wph on Sun Nov 7th, 2004 at 05:50:53 PDT
[ Parent ]

Right away people went back into it right after the election.  We just kept going.  Its paying off.

Also of interest to investigators have been a series of telephone contacts between Novak and Rove, and other White House officials, in the days just after press reports first disclosed the existence of a federal criminal investigation as to who leaked Plame's identity. Investigators have been concerned that Novak and his sources might have conceived or co-ordinated a cover story to disguise the nature of their conversations. That concern was a reason-- although only one of many-- that led prosecutors to press for the testimony of Cooper and Miller, sources said.

Lending credence to those suspicions was that a U.S. government official questioned by investigators said Novak specifically asked him whether Plame had some covert status with the CIA. The official told investigators that Novak appeared uncertain whether she was undercover or not. That account, on one hand, might lend credence to the claims by Rove and other Bush administration officials that they did not know Plame was a covert CIA officer. Conversely, however, the fact that Novak asked the question in the first place appeared to indicate that he might have indeed been told Plame was a covert operative, and was seeking confirmation of that fact.

What's that?  Conspiracy after the fact.

Just commented on Americablog. 

Wow. Mehlman just said that Rove "has stated that he's not the leaker." Why all of this parsing from a crowd who never knew a lie they didn't spew? What do they have, Rove on tape leaking? Oh.

Rove "has stated that he's not the leaker."  What the hell is that?  That's like saying "David Lee Roth has stated he's hot for teacher."  Mehlman isn't asserting that Rove isn't the leaker, he's asserting that Rove said he wasn't the leaker.  They are spinning and parsing so hard that it really makes one wonder what they are hiding from.  What do they have, Rove on tape at Neverland passing around the Jesus Juice?   This just isn't like them.  They're scared.

LA Times, today:

   Luskin declined to say whether Rove knew that Plame was a covert agent.

For those of you scoring at home, that's really, really bad for Karl.

Why would you switch to stonewalling after month after month of confident lying?  Because they've got your ass in a sling.  If there's no chance you're going to get caught, you'd just keep on lying.  Bodes ill for the White House.

From the Adjudicative Guidelines for Federal Security Clearances:

Guideline J
Criminal Conduct

The Concern. A history or pattern of criminal activity creates doubt about a person's judgment, reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

a. Allegations or admissions of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged;

b. A single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses.

Guideline K
Security Violations

The Concern: Noncompliance with security regulations raises doubt about an individual's trustworthiness, willingness, and ability to safeguard classified information.

Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

a. Unauthorized disclosure of classified information;

b. Violations that are deliberate or multiple or due to negligence.

Note that allegations of criminal conduct alone are enough.  His security violation was deliberate.  I defend people like Rove for a living.  He should not retain his clearance.  If he was anyone else, it would have been suspended months ago.

working on the edge
losing my self respect
for a man the presides over me
the principles of his creed . . . .
Minutemen, Double Nickels On The Dime

General "Little Mac" Scotty McCllellan suffered a terrible reverse at the Battle of the Pressroom today.
The opening salvo indicated exactly how the day would go:

Q Does the President stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in the leak of a name of a CIA operative?

MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, I appreciate your question. I think your question is being asked relating to some reports that are in reference to an ongoing criminal investigation. The criminal investigation that you reference is something that continues at this point. And as I've previously stated, while that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it. The President directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, we made a decision that we weren't going to comment on it while it is ongoing.

Q Excuse me, but I wasn't actually talking about any investigation.

It never got any better for the little man from Texas:

Q Scott, can I ask you this; did Karl Rove commit a crime?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to an ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don't think you should read anything into it other than we're going to continue not to comment on it while it's ongoing.

Q Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003 when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliott Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this" -- do you stand by that statement?

MR. McCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time, as well.

Q Scott, I mean, just -- 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 decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium, or not?

MR. McCLELLAN: And again, David, I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said, and I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation --

Q Why are you choosing when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?

MR. McCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish --

Q 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 out 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?

Ouch.
Looks like he'll go to Fox's Carl Cameron, always good for a save:

Carl, go ahead. I'll come to you, David, in a second.

Q Does the President continue to have confidence in Mr. Rove?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, these are all questions coming up in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation. And you've heard my response on this.

Q So you're not going to respond as to whether or not the President has confidence in his Deputy Chief of Staff?

MR. McCLELLAN: Carl, you're asking this question in the context of an ongoing investigation. And I would not read anything into it other than I'm simply not going to comment on an ongoing --

Q Has there been -- has there been any change --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- investigation.

Q Has there been any change or is there a plan for Mr. Rove's portfolio to be altered in any way?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you have my response to these questions.

Wow.  When Scotty ain't got Carl "I post fake news stories about fake Kerry manicures" Cameron, you know its a bad day.

Q Who is Karl Rove as it relates to this administration?

MR. McCLELLAN: Do you have questions on another topic?

Q No, no, no, no.

Maybe at the end he'll get some relief;

Q Scott, I think you're barrage today in part because we -- it is now clear that 21 months ago, you were up at this podium saying something that we now know to be demonstratively false. Now, are you concerned that in not setting the record straight today that this could undermine the credibility of the other things you say from the podium?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I'm going to be happy to talk about this at the appropriate time. Dana, you all -- you and everybody in this room, or most people in this room, I should say, know me very well and they know the type of person that I am. And I'm confident in our relationship that we have. But I will be glad to talk about this at the appropriate time, and that's once the investigation is complete. I'm not going to get into commenting based on reports or anything of that nature.

Instead, looks like a chill entered the room.

Bob, go ahead.

Q Yes, in your dealings with the special counsel, have you consulted a personal attorney?