# 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:** 5
**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 12, 2005, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/81 "2005-07-12T17:09:29Z")
I asked about this in the Pit thread, and got no attempt at an explanation from anyone (although **kaylasdad** predicted that I probably would not. So, let me make one more try, and I will attempt to frame it more clearly. For the moment, let’s assume that the prevailing story at the moment is accurate: Karl Rove revealed the identity of a covert agent in retaliation for the husband of that agent having reported that the Niger yellow cake story was not true. How can this be resolved with the belief that the errors prevalent in the administration’s WMD case for war were simply innocent, well-intentioned mistakes due to faulty intelligence? To my mind, there is no way that both can be true. There is no way that the administration was making a good faith effort at appropriately using intelligence information AND vindictively (and criminally) attacking a person because they presented contradictory information. I would very much like to hear from either those who continue to put forward the innocent version (that Bush and his administration did not intentionally lie about WMD) as to how such a version withstands Rove’s intentional and criminal attack against Joseph Wilson. If such people are unable to help clarify, I would certainly welcome any advocacy on behalf of the devil from anyone else. Or, alternatively, does it matter? At innumerable stages during Bush’s administration, many have asked the famous question: “Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?” At every turn, there has been no answer, in keeping with **kaylasdad’s** prediction. Perhaps that is the answer. On the third hand, and perhaps more likely, my four letter flourishes have gotten me on so many ignore lists that very few will see the question. If so, I can only say, “Hi **kaylasdad**! How are you doing?” ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/82 "2005-07-12T18:23:27Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > We’re just guessing here but Rove isn’t GW’s chief advisor. He is the chief _political_ advisor. [Bush made him Deputy Chief of Staff last February](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9308-2005Feb8.html), although his real function is still obviously political. > [@](#): > > Maybe he has security clearance for intelligence information and maybe he doesn’t. I would suspect not. I would suspect he _does_, at least now if not then. > [@](#): > > In any case, I guess we’ll find out. Depends on if we let them get away with the stonewalling for a couple of years _more_. It isn’t even a “limited, modified hang-out” at this point. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/83 "2005-07-12T19:04:45Z")
The excuses by the Bush apologists are even more pathetic than Bill Clinton’s “I didn’t inhale” line. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/84 "2005-07-12T19:43:43Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > For the moment, let’s assume that the prevailing story at the moment is accurate: Karl Rove revealed the identity of a covert agent in retaliation for the husband of that agent having reported that the Niger yellow cake story was not true. I’m going to guess it’ll all boil down to the liberal media. Seriously. Whatever happened happened without Our Good Guys knowing anything about it. They were all sitting around polishing their halos when this happened. It was all an accident. Not only was it an accident, but it doesn’t really matter. Totally irrelevent. She wasn’t really covert anyways. The fact that she’s married to Wilson is pure coincidence. Did you know that more than 50% of all people have a spouse? Therefore it was really a 50/50 shot of Joe Wilson’s wife being the one to be accidentally outed (not that there was really any “outing” anyways - see above). It’s all a whole lot of nothing that has been blown out of all sense of scale by the [ECHO EFFECT]Liberal Media[/LIBERAL MEDIA]. -Joe ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/85 "2005-07-12T19:56:15Z")
And this just in [http://news.yahoo.com/fc/World/Media\_Watch](http://news.yahoo.com/fc/World/Media_Watch) > [@](#): > > After two days of questions, the White House said Tuesday that President Bush continues to have confidence in Karl Rove… Well, that’s it, isn’t it? Nothing more to see here, you looky-loos, move along. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/86 "2005-07-12T20:17:55Z")
The author of Bush’s Brain, a book about Rove, says Rove has top-level security clearance. Granted, the guy is a confirmed Rove-hater, but he’s done a lot of research and would probably know. ---
**Author:** ![Mehitabel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8797f3/32.png) [@Mehitabel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mehitabel)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/87 "2005-07-12T21:11:28Z")
Is that author this guy, Nicholas Lemann? He wrote this [profile of Rove](http://bnfp.org/neighborhood/Lemann_Rove_NYM.htm) in the Noo Yawka in 2003 which is worth re-reading now as the guy’s in the news. > [@](#): > > In Washington, Rove gets conversational credit for everything up to and including the war in Iraq, and Democrats, at least, use “Rove” as shorthand for “the Bush Ad ministration,” as in, “Is Rove going to invade Syria?” > > Rove has many times looked people in the eye and stoutly denied the Mark of Rove stories. On the other hand, it doesn’t seem to torment him that he’s the center of attention and speculation, or that he’s thought of as all-powerful. Rove is complicated. His usual mode is one of irony–sometimes there seems to be a twinkle in his eye as he professes outrage over the unfair attribution of enormous influence to him. At the same time, he seems to be genuinely thin-skinned. People who come from backgrounds suffused with love, praise, and security often have the ability to dismiss criticism out of hand; people who don’t, especially if they’re as smart as Rove, often devote great effort to building structures of refutation. If you mention any possible lacuna or shortcoming, his face reddens and he offers a well-thought-through rebuttal. > [@](#): > > Karl Rove reads mostly American history, but that doesn’t tell you much–everybody in Washington who reads reads American history. It’s possible, though, to derive from the specifics of his reading preferences a sense of his over-all ideas about politics. He often mentions a book edited by Michael Novak, the Catholic theologian and conservative intellectual, called “Democracy and Mediating Structures: A Theological Inquiry.” In conversations with me, Rove cited with great enthusiasm the work of Robert H. Wiebe, a historian at Northwestern who died not long ago. Ken Mehlman, Rove’s deputy, mentioned Wiebe, too, and also a book called “Populism and Elitism: Politics in the Age of Equality,” by Jeffrey Bell, a conservative who ran for the United States Senate from New Jersey in 1978. Rove is also a big fan of “Our Country,” by Michael Barone, the conservative Washington journalist. All these works fit together. Wiebe’s two best known books, “The Search for Order 1877-1920” (1967) (“Yeah!” Rove said, when I mentioned this one. “There we go, baby! There we go!”) and " Self Rule: A Cultural History of American Democracy’ (1995), are attacks on early-twentieth-century Progressivism; Wiebe presents the Progressives’ enshrinement of “good government” and "public policy’ as replacements for spoils-system party politics as having been a way for an educated elite to take more than its fair share of power. In the Rove schema, the large, centralized, public structures of the modem, regulated welfare state are to be mistrusted, and smaller, more private, more local forms of human organization are to be admired. It’s this view that accounts for his conviction—and that of many other Republicans–that their party is anti-elitist: they define elite status in non-economic terms. Big James Madison fan too. Interesting article. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2005, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/88 "2005-07-13T01:22:09Z")
[Bush’s Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471423270/ref=pd_sxp_f/103-3581622-5760664?v=glance&s=books)is by James Moore and Wayne Slater. Lou Dubose, Jan Reid, and Carl Cannon wrote [Boy Genius: Karl Rove, the Brains Behind the Remarkable Political Triumph of George W. Bush](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1586481924/ref=pd_sim_b_1/103-3581622-5760664?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance) ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2005, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/89 "2005-07-13T02:08:27Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > For the moment, let’s assume that the prevailing story at the moment is accurate: Karl Rove revealed the identity of a covert agent in retaliation for the husband of that agent having reported that the Niger yellow cake story was not true. > > How can this be resolved with the belief that the errors prevalent in the administration’s WMD case for war were simply innocent, well-intentioned mistakes due to faulty intelligence? To my mind, there is no way that both can be true. There is no way that the administration was making a good faith effort at appropriately using intelligence information AND vindictively (and criminally) attacking a person because they presented contradictory information. Okay, I’ll play devil’s advocate. I think it is quite easy. First, as you ask, we ASSUME that the reports on the WMDs were all innocent mistakes. Next we see that eventhough these mistakes were innocent (again, assume, for the purpose of this thread), that detractors of the war and/or Bush tried, with much effort, to show that the mistakes were not innocent. Now yet another detractor is at it, trying to paint an innocent reality in a false, evil light. Not only that, but they know/believe his assertions about yellowcake to be completely false. So they’re pissed. and say to themselves "Okay Joe Wilson, you want to screw with us, with information that probably even know to be false, well we can play tought, too. Make sense? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2005, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/90 "2005-07-13T02:08:47Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > For the moment, let’s assume that the prevailing story at the moment is accurate: Karl Rove revealed the identity of a covert agent in retaliation for the husband of that agent having reported that the Niger yellow cake story was not true. > > How can this be resolved with the belief that the errors prevalent in the administration’s WMD case for war were simply innocent, well-intentioned mistakes due to faulty intelligence? To my mind, there is no way that both can be true. There is no way that the administration was making a good faith effort at appropriately using intelligence information AND vindictively (and criminally) attacking a person because they presented contradictory information. Okay, I’ll play devil’s advocate. I think it is quite easy. First, as you ask, we ASSUME that the reports on the WMDs were all innocent mistakes. Next we see that eventhough these mistakes were innocent (again, assume, for the purpose of this thread), that detractors of the war and/or Bush tried, with much effort, to show that the mistakes were not innocent. Now yet another detractor is at it, trying to paint an innocent reality in a false, evil light. Not only that, but they know/believe his assertions about yellowcake to be completely false. So they’re pissed. and say to themselves "Okay Joe Wilson, you want to screw with us, with information that probably even know to be false, well we can play tough, too. Make sense? ---
**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 13, 2005, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/91 "2005-07-13T02:51:05Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Okay, I’ll play devil’s advocate. I think it is quite easy. First, as you ask, we ASSUME that the reports on the WMDs were all innocent mistakes. Next we see that eventhough these mistakes were innocent (again, assume, for the purpose of this thread), that detractors of the war and/or Bush tried, with much effort, to show that the mistakes were not innocent. Now yet another detractor is at it, trying to paint an innocent reality in a false, evil light. Not only that, but they know/believe his assertions about yellowcake to be completely false. So they’re pissed. and say to themselves "Okay Joe Wilson, you want to screw with us, with information that probably even know to be false, well we can play tough, too. > > Make sense? First, I didn’t ask that you assume that the reports on WMD were innocent mistakes. I asked that you assume the story that Rove outed an undercover CIA operative in retalliation were true. In your argument, however, how does someone innocently seeking correct WMD information: a) automatically see Joe Wilson as a “detractor”? What did he say or do to put him in the category of detractor other than to report that his investigation suggested the Niger yellowcake story was not true?); b) know or assume the yellowcake charge to be true when there is no supporting evidence (as we now know that there never was), especially since any recounting of the timeframe would indicate that the White House had acknowledged the erroneous nature of the yellowcake story **at least three days before** the actual outing occurred\*; c) choose to act vindictively and criminally when contradictory evidence is raised? How is this an appropriate or consistent response of a group of people engaged in an honest search for the truth? It really isn’t as easy as you seem to have thought. Your argument is inconsistent with the facts and history, and portrays not an administration making honest mistakes, but one responding to any contradictory evidence by labeling people as detrators and attacking them using illegal means. Doesn’t really add up to much of an argument. \* > [@](#): > > 8 July 2003 > "The president’s statement was based on the predicate of the yellow cake [uranium] from Niger. > > So given the fact that the report on the yellow cake did not turn out to be accurate, that is reflective of the president’s broader statement." > White House spokesman Ari Fleischer [BBC NEWS | Americas | Timeline: 'Niger uranium' row](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3051709.stm) ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2005, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/92 "2005-07-13T03:23:10Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > First, I didn’t ask that you assume that the reports on WMD were innocent mistakes. I asked that you assume the story that Rove outed an undercover CIA operative in retalliation were true. I misunderstood your post then. I was not–and will not–get into the WMD arguement. I will point out though, since you’re so interested in the facts and history, that there were two pieces of information pointing to yellowcake. One, weak, was from the US. The other, STILL not retracted, was from the British. But really, let’s not hijack this thread into an old argument. I understand your position completely. That said, back to your post. It seemed that you were asking if it was possible to reconcile two assumptions: > [@](#): > > How can this be resolved WITH the belief… (emphasis mine) So do you see how I might have been confused? I thought, Assumption One: The Rove story of revenge is true. Assumption Two: the WMD mistakes were innocent. How can one reconcile those two supposed realities. Isn’t that what you were asking? If not, oops. Maybe someone else will understand what you mean. ---
**Author:** ![Plynck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Plynck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Plynck)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2005, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/93 "2005-07-13T03:33:33Z")
> [@Mehitabel](#): > > Is that author this guy, Nicholas Lemann? He wrote this [profile of Rove](http://bnfp.org/neighborhood/Lemann_Rove_NYM.htm) in the Noo Yawka in 2003 which is worth re-reading now as the guy’s in the news. > > Big James Madison fan too. Interesting article. I would have expected to see [this book](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0553212788/qid=1121225272/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-3558980-0956058?v=glance&s=books) in his reading list. Or [this one.](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0008A9DVO/qid=1121225331/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-3558980-0956058?v=glance&s=books)😃 ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2005, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/94 "2005-07-13T03:40:20Z")
This easily has the potential to be at least as big as Watergate. Be not fooled by the fact that the story started in summer, in the shadow of the London bombings. Watergate started in the summer too, and contemporaneous accounts of the '72 campaign make it clear that not a lot of people paid a lot of attention to it at the time. It didn’t really blow up until sometime in '73, if I remember right, which I probably don’t, having been a mere teenager at the time. This one will probably blow up sometime next year, which would be very bad for Bush, since that would put the peak of this story smack in the middle of the Congressional campaign. It will probably take that long because you have to keep in mind that ALL of the levers of power are in the hands of Republicans, which means that there are going to be huge obstacles that need to be moved to get to the point where Rove is actually made to confront his treason. But once that point is reached - watch out! All of the issues that make Iraq a hot button are concentrated in this case, and the question posed by **Hentor the Barbarian** is going to become the front-and-center question. It will demand a confrontation with the actual truth of how we were bamboozled into going to war with Iraq, and that’s the last thing the Admin will want. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2005, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/95 "2005-07-13T03:42:13Z")
Josh Marshall points out that people like Novak never started denying that he had outed Wilson’s wife until after a series of phone calls with the White House and… Rove. ---
**Author:** ![zega](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/eada6e/32.png) [@zega](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zega)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2005, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/96 "2005-07-13T04:24:47Z")
The latest developments will hopefully have ramifications to the Bush administration. And I say hopefully because it would be nice if the US justice system worked like it was supposed to, and managed to punish Karl Rove for whatever underhanded filth comes up in the investigations. Of course he could come up clean, but I’m speculating otherwise for this post. **Pantom** , it is awfully tempting for the Democrats to tie the Iraq war into this. But although it seems likely, given how politicians are, I think that might be a mistake for the Democrats. The US is in Iraq, and both parties agree the job has to be done properly before reducing troops strengths. I think the focus should stay firmly on Karl Rove. That a man like that sits that close to the President, and that everyone in the administration basically _gives_ him that power because of his perceived magical election winning bag of tricks, is one of the most troubling things about the Bush administration. Frankly, I think Bush, and the Republican Party, can only benefit from excising Karl Rove. They might have a hard time winning the next election, being suddenly forced to play like actual upstanding citizens, probably an unfamiliar feeling given recent behaviour, but it may restore some civility in the party, maybe even as an example to not be all-out-no-holds-barred nasty. At least not all the time. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2005, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/97 "2005-07-13T04:46:20Z")
[Connecting the dots …Classified State Dept report on Wilson and Bush’s trip to Africa](http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/11/215143/824) > [@](#): > > how did they know that Valerie Plame, or Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA? What we do know is there was a classified State Department report that said this, that was taken by Secretary of State Powell with him on the > trip to Africa that President Bush was then on, and many senior White House aides were on. > > That classified State Department report appears to have been – or may well have been the source for the information that Rove and others were then dishing out to reporters. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2005, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/98 "2005-07-13T04:52:59Z")
> [@pantom](#): > > Watergate started in the summer too, and contemporaneous accounts of the '72 campaign make it clear that not a lot of people paid a lot of attention to it at the time. It didn’t really blow up until sometime in '73, if I remember right, which I probably don’t, having been a mere teenager at the time. You remember correctly. The break-in by itself never was and probably never would have been a big deal. It was when the threads of the cover-up started to unravel that all hell broke loose. ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2005, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/99 "2005-07-13T14:11:09Z")
> [@pantom](#): > > Be not fooled by the fact that the story started in summer, in the shadow of the London bombings. Be not fooled that it did any such thing. This story started in July of 2003 with [Novak’s column](http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Plame_Leak_timeline#July_14) outing Plame. It’s been developing for two 2 years now. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2005, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/100 "2005-07-13T14:11:11Z")
All the evidence of a cover-up is on the table. The key administration and administration water-carrying members have all changed their stories multiple times. After a federal investigation began, we know that Novak had several phone calls with the White House, and then started changing his story about his collumn. The White House denials became more and more legalistic and avoidant. It’s hard to buy that they did this because they believed they had done nothing wrong or that, as the Washington Times claims, that they were virtuous whistleblowers. Especially given that this administration has worked hard to seal up classified information even on long defunct agents and projects from decades ago, the idea that it’s somehow now ok to turn around and expose a front company, an agent, and hence all of her international sources and so forth, is simply bizarre and self-serving. A classmate of Plame’s writes to clarify: [http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340](http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340) > [@](#): > > Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA. I entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985. All of my classmates were undercover–in other words, we told our family and friends that we were working for other overt U.S. Government agencies. We had official cover. That means we had a black passport–i.e., a diplomatic passport. If we were caught overseas engaged in espionage activity the black passport was a get out of jail free card. > > A few of my classmates, and Valerie was one of these, became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed. > > The lies by people like Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, and P. J. O’Rourke insist that Valerie was nothing, just a desk jockey. Yet, until Robert Novak betrayed her she was still undercover and the company that was her front was still a secret to the world. When Novak outed Valerie he also compromised her company and every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company and with her. > > The Republicans now want to hide behind the legalism that “no laws were broken”. I don’t know if a man made law was broken but an ethical and moral code was breached. For the first time a group of partisan political operatives publically identified a CIA NOC. They have set a precendent that the next group of political hacks may feel free to violate. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896.md?page=6)