# Karl Rove - CIA leaker? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 3, 2005, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896 "2005-07-03T04:01:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 20
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2005, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/381 "2005-07-19T17:02:32Z")
> [@Twin](#): > > I don’t read it that way. I read it as he was for firing if a crime was violated in 2003. Then in 2004, his answer was viewed as saying that if anyone was involved (no mention of a crime) then they would be fired - which moved the goalposts. He issued a clarifying comment this week restating his intention to fire anyone if a crime was violated. This led to the outcry that the goalposts had been moved. I could be wrong, but that is how I see it. I think **Squink** [has already shown](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6381949&postcount=367) that Bush originally established ground rules much more consistent with his affirmative response to the question than his specification of requiring a crime having been committed. > [@](#): > > …This means avoiding even the appearance of problems. This means checking and, if need be, double-checking that the rules have been obeyed. This means never compromising those rules. No one in the White House should be afraid to confront the people they work for, for ethical concerns. And no one should hesitate to confront me, as well. We’re all accountable to one another. And above all, we’re all accountable to the law and to the American people. My White House Counsel, Al Gonzalez, is my point man on these issues. If you have even a hint of ethical doubt I urge you to talk to Al. > > Second, we must remember that high standards of conduct involve not only obeying the law, but showing civility. As we go about our work there is no excuse for arrogance, and never a reason for disrespect toward others. > > People who work here are highly visible throughout the government. In many ways, in many of your dealings, you’ll be the face and voice of the White House staff. You will be my representative. I expect each of you, as an official of this administration, to be an example of humility and decency and fairness. So, it seems to me that he was actually for firing before he was against firing before he was for firing before he was against it. In other words it all depends on what the meaning of the words “Karl’s the one who got his tit in the wringer” are. ---
**Author:** ![Spavined\_Gelding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@Spavined\_Gelding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spavined_Gelding)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2005, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/382 "2005-07-19T17:21:28Z")
I’m not at all sure that standing four-square for the proposition that anyone who commits a criminal offense under color of official position and in line of duty is an especially brave and bold stance. That is a little like a bank president announcing that any teller who is convicted of embezzling from his bank, by God, is going to lose their job. It sure doesn’t sound like a pronouncement designed to restore honor to the White House and honesty to government to me. It looks like the least the President could do. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2005, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/383 "2005-07-19T17:54:32Z")
> [@squeegee](#): > > I’m told that it’s all a vast left-wing conspiracy.There’s been some speculation that Bush will name a SC nominee this week for precisely that reason, to get Rove off the front pages. It had been signaled by the WH that someone would be named a month from now, but the current rumor is that it’s been moved up. Desperate times, and all that. Tonight. But what makes you think the nominee won’t be Rove? That’d “take care of him” as the president promised. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2005, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/384 "2005-07-19T18:18:14Z")
> [@squeegee](#): > > There’s been some speculation that Bush will name a SC nominee this week for precisely that reason, to get Rove off the front pages. I think that’s a stretch. As long as Bush’s strategy (or maybe it’s Rove’s) is to keep Rove from getting fired, it’s gonna be in the news for a long time to come. But he has to submit a nomination pretty soon no matter what. If Rove was going to walk the plank, it would have happened by now. Now, it’s too late for Bush to get any credit for it even if it did happen, so he might as well try to stonewall it out anyway. That complaint is like the constant one from the GOP partisans that anything Clinton did as President over a period of several years was intended to draw attention away from the Monica story. At some point, the President has job duties to fulfill no matter what else is going on. The timing might even be good _for us_ - if Bush names a moderate, he might recover some of his “political capital” and partly defuse Rovegate, but if he names a firebreather while not in a position to force it through, he might never recover and the damage might be felt in 2006 in Congress and 2008 in the general campaign, whoever’s in it. ---
**Author:** ![Stephe96](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Stephe96](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stephe96)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2005, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/385 "2005-07-19T18:21:10Z")
> [@squeegee](#): > > .There’s been some speculation that Bush will name a SC nominee this week for precisely that reason, to get Rove off the front pages. Where, precisely, is this being ‘speculated?’ ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2005, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/386 "2005-07-19T18:25:38Z")
> [@Stephe96](#): > > Where, precisely, is this being ‘speculated?’ [Here](http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/19/scotus.bush.ap/index.html), for one. > [@](#): > > Any announcement would turn the spotlight in Washington toward the Supreme Court vacancy and away from news about Bush’s top political adviser, Karl Rove, and the ongoing federal probe into who leaked the name of a CIA officer. Such speculation is pure political common sense. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2005, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/387 "2005-07-19T18:34:57Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > More bad news for those carrying the water here: Apparently the memo about Plame’s status that was circulated on Air Force One, and is emerging as central to the matter, clearly indicated that the information was classified and not to be released. Reportedly the Wall Street Journal has an article on the matter, reproduced in part at [Atrios](http://atrios.blogspot.com/). Is this the same memo that the CIA found objectionable? The one that I asked about here? > [@PatriotX](#): > > Supposedly, there’s a disagreement on the part of the CIA over Mrs. Wilson’s role in sending/recommending Mr. Wilson for the trip. (ie They say she didn’t) > I’ve not been able to find the document yet, though I have seen two references to it, and heard one reference to it. > Has anyone seen it? > Here’re the print references to it > [http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2005/07/14/plame/print.html](http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2005/07/14/plame/print.html) > The three-page addendum by the ranking Republicans followed the now well-worn attack lines: “The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested by the former ambassador’s wife, a CIA employee.” > > The CIA subsequently issued a statement, as reported by New York Newsday and CNN, that the Republican senators’ conclusion about Plame’s role was wholly inaccurate. > and > [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/16/AR2005071601364\_pf.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/16/AR2005071601364_pf.html) > CIA officials maintain that Plame never ordered up the trip. > > I’d like to see the actual CIA response, or failing that, the news articles discussing the CIA’s response. If anyone has seen either of these and knows where to direct me, I’d be much obliged. The same one referenced here? > **[The Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News and Analysis](https://www.washingtonpost.com/?pagename=article&contentId=A30842-2003Dec25¬Found=true)** > > Breaking news and analysis on politics, business, world national news, entertainment more. In-depth DC, Virginia, Maryland news coverage including traffic, weather, crime, education, restaurant reviews and more. Sources said the CIA is angry about the circulation of a still-classified document to conservative news outlets suggesting Plame had a role in arranging her husband’s trip to Africa for the CIA. The document, written by a State Department official who works for its Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), describes a meeting at the CIA where the Niger trip by Wilson was discussed, said a senior administration official who has seen it. CIA officials have challenged the accuracy of the INR document, the official said, because the agency officer identified as talking about Plame’s alleged role in arranging Wilson’s trip could not have attended the meeting. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2005, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/388 "2005-07-19T18:39:23Z")
Cause if it s the same memo and it is inaccurate the way that the CIA says it was, then it becomes very pertinent who wrote the inaccurate (or, posssibly ‘intentionally misleading’) document. The doc is the source of the Plame sent Wilson charge as well as being suspected as a possible source for the leaker of (Mrs. Wilson’s) Plame’s status. If inaccuracies were intentionally intorduced that raises a whole new round of issues and questions. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2005, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/389 "2005-07-19T18:40:46Z")
Btw, has anyone found out any more about the CIA’s objections to the memo? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2005, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/390 "2005-07-19T19:02:23Z")
Here’s some interesting info from one of the concurring opinions in the appeal case of Judith Miller. It doesn’t sound like this judge, who had presumably reviewed the evidence at that time, thinks that this is a trivial matter. [http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200502/04-3138a.pdf](http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200502/04-3138a.pdf) > [@](#): > > In essence, seeking protection for sources whose > nefariousness he himself exposed, Cooper asks us to protect > criminal leaks so that he can write about the crime. The greater > public interest lies in preventing the leak to begin with. Had > Cooper based his report on leaks about the leaks—say, from a > whistleblower who revealed the plot against Wilson—the > situation would be different. > [@](#): > > Were the leak at issue in this case less harmful to national > security or more vital to public debate, or had the special > counsel failed to demonstrate the grand jury’s need for the > reporters’ evidence, I might have supported the motion to quash. > Because identifying appellants’ sources instead appears essential > to remedying a serious breach of public trust, I join in affirming > the district court’s orders compelling their testimony. ---
**Author:** ![Stephe96](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Stephe96](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stephe96)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2005, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/391 "2005-07-19T19:03:36Z")
> [@This Year's Model](#): > > [Here](http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/19/scotus.bush.ap/index.html), for one. > > Such speculation is pure political common sense. It’s common sense that a SC nominee will grab headlines, yes…but that’s hardly ‘speculation’ that Bush is making the announcement _for the express purpose_ to take the spotlight away from Karl Rove. Your original quote: “There’s been some speculation that Bush will name a SC nominee this week for precisely that reason, to get Rove off the front pages.” The CNN story hardly ‘speculates’ about such a thing. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2005, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/392 "2005-07-19T19:05:23Z")
“…the lot against Wilson…”? Oh, my. Oh, dear. Oh, goody gumdrops. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2005, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/393 "2005-07-19T19:17:02Z")
> [@Stephe96](#): > > Your original quote: The quote was from **squeegee** , not me. Not that I disagree with it. I’m speculating it, **squeegee** ’s speculating it, hell, **elucidator** is probably speculating it - though he’d likely put it: “vagrant thoughts cross my mind, forcing me, as unbelievably untrustworthy as this may sound, to doubt, nay, to mildly distrust, the words of those who associate foursquare and stalwart next our valiant leader that this is so.” Or something like that. I’m beginning to wonder if you’re paying attention. Not only did you not notice that your quote attribution was wrong, your comment in the earlier digression about Bush/Clinton/and or Carter running in '08 shows that you completely missed the part about the 22nd Amendment being overturned. ---
**Author:** ![Stephe96](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Stephe96](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stephe96)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2005, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/394 "2005-07-19T19:24:22Z")
> [@This Year's Model](#): > > The quote was from **squeegee** , not me. Not that I disagree with it. I’m speculating it, **squeegee** ’s speculating it, hell, **elucidator** is probably speculating it - though he’d likely put it: “vagrant thoughts cross my mind, forcing me, as unbelievably untrustworthy as this may sound, to doubt, nay, to mildly distrust, the words of those who associate foursquare and stalwart next our valiant leader that this is so.” Or something like that. > > I’m beginning to wonder if you’re paying attention. Not only did you not notice that your quote attribution was wrong, your comment in the earlier digression about Bush/Clinton/and or Carter running in '08 shows that you completely missed the part about the 22nd Amendment being overturned. What I noticed was that the CNN link provided as a source confirming there was “speculation” didn’t even mention Karl Rove. At all. I’ll ask again: where is this speculation that Bush is naming his SC choice to deliberately force the Karl Rove story onto the back pages? Unless, of course, you think “there has been some speculation” is the same as “this is what my friend thinks.” ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2005, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/395 "2005-07-19T19:29:56Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > …but Bush is quite shrewd and is very bright _tactically_. He may be blind to the fact that his path will take us over a cliff, but he will be very good at surveying the roads and plotting the path that will take us to the cliff’s edge in the fastest vehicle available. I’m curious as to where the support is for this. All signs I’ve seen indicate that the tactical brilliance in GWB’s political career have been almost entirely due to his handlers, most notably Rove. I continue to maintain that, if it wasn’t for his family connections and smarter puppetmasters, Bush couldn’t succeed in anything more than being a greeter at Wal-Mart. Evidence to the contrary would be interesting reading. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2005, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/396 "2005-07-19T19:31:44Z")
> [@Stephe96](#): > > What I noticed was that the CNN link provided as a source confirming there was “speculation” didn’t even mention Karl Rove. At all. I’ll ask again: where is this speculation that Bush is naming his SC choice to deliberately force the Karl Rove story onto the back pages? Unless, of course, you think “there has been some speculation” is the same as “this is what my friend thinks.” My quote was taken from my linked story. It appears CNN has updated the story; the listing of other candidates besides Ms. Clement was not in it then. C’est le Internet. Are regular people no longer allowed to speculate? Must I purchase a speculation license before I begin to wonder about the motives of the government? I don’t do blogs, but I have no doubt there’s some out there. There’s some in my office, there’s some on this message board, there was some on CNN. Why is the non-existance of speculation so important to you, anyway? ---
**Author:** ![Mal\_Adroit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df788c/32.png) [@Mal\_Adroit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mal_Adroit)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2005, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/397 "2005-07-19T19:36:06Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > If Rove was going to walk the plank, it would have happened by now. Naw, are you kidding? These hosers wouldn’t admit wrongdoing on anyone’s part until the desk in the Oval Office actually started to buckle. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2005, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/398 "2005-07-19T19:36:32Z")
> [@This Year's Model](#): > > [Such speculation is pure political common sense. I’m sure our Republican politicians would loudly and forcibly denounce such a blatant attempt to “wag the do–” **snigger_guffaw_chorcle** BWAHAHAHAHAHA! …sorry, I just couldn’t keep the straight face… 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Stephe96](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Stephe96](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stephe96)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2005, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/399 "2005-07-19T19:38:45Z")
> [@This Year's Model](#): > > My quote was taken from my linked story. It appears CNN has updated the story; the listing of other candidates besides Ms. Clement was not in it then. C’est le Internet. > > Are regular people no longer allowed to speculate? Must I purchase a speculation license before I begin to wonder about the motives of the government? I don’t do blogs, but I have no doubt there’s some out there. There’s some in my office, there’s some on this message board, there was some on CNN. Why is the non-existance of speculation so important to you, anyway? Speculation is meaningless…unless you can prove that such ‘speculation’ is occurring at the highest levels. Think about yet: there’s been speculation that the moon landings were faked. Does that make it likely? ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2005, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/400 "2005-07-19T19:41:23Z")
> [@Stephe96](#): > > Speculation is meaningless…unless you can prove that such ‘speculation’ is occurring at the highest levels. :dubious: Highest levels of what? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896.md?page=21)