Politics Karl Rove and Valerie Plame

Jamison

Cadet
This has been getting an enormous amount of coverage the past week, and rightly so.

Karl Rove's game 
The New York Times

THURSDAY, JULY 14, 2005


Far be it from us to denounce leaks. Newspapers have relied on countless government officials to divulge vital information that their bosses want to be kept secret. There is even value in the sanctioned leak, such as when the White House, say, lets out information that it wants known but does not want to announce.

But it is something else entirely when officials peddle disinformation for propaganda purposes or to harm a political adversary. And Karl Rove seems to have been playing that unsavory game with the CIA officer Valerie Plame and her husband, Joseph Wilson IV, a career diplomat who ran afoul of President George W. Bush's efforts to justify the invasion of Iraq. An e-mail note provided by Time magazine to the federal prosecutor investigating the case shows that Rove's aim in talking about Wilson to Matthew Cooper, a Time reporter, was to discredit Wilson, perhaps to punish him.

Wilson had published an Op-Ed article in The New York Times about being assigned to investigate allegations that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium from Niger - a claim that was popular among the White House and Pentagon officials eager to make the case for war with Iraq. Wilson said the allegation was unsupported by evidence, and it was later withdrawn, to Bush's embarrassment.

Before that happened, Rove gave Cooper a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Rove said the origins of Wilson's mission were "flawed and suspect" because, according to Rove, Wilson had been sent to Niger at the suggestion of his wife, who works for the CIA. To understand why Rove thought that was a black mark, remember that the White House considers dissenters enemies and that the CIA had cast doubt on the administration's apocalyptic vision of Iraq's weapons programs.

Cooper's e-mail note does not say that Rove mentioned the name of Wilson's wife, which later appeared in a column by Robert Novak. White House supporters are emphasizing that fact in an effort to argue that Rove did not illegally unmask a covert officer. We don't need to judge that here. But there remains the issue of whether the White House used Wilson's wife for political reasons, and it's obvious that Rove did.

The White House has painted itself into a corner. More than a year ago, Bush vowed to fire the leaker. Then Scott McClellan, the president's spokesman, repeatedly assured everyone that the leaker was not Rove, on whom the president is so dependent intellectually that he calls Rove "the architect."

Until this week, the administration had deflected attention onto journalists by producing documents that officials had been compelled to sign to supposedly waive any promise of confidentiality. Our colleague Judith Miller, unjustly jailed for protecting the identity of confidential sources, was right to view these so-called waivers as meaningless.

Rove could clear all this up quickly. All he has to do is call a press conference and tell everyone what conversations he had and with whom. While we like government officials who are willing to whisper vital information, we like even more government officials who tell the truth in public.

This is a mess that isn't going to be easily cleaned up. We already have a reporter in jail for having information (but never printing a story) because she wouldn't give up the name of her source. Nothing happened to Robert Novak, though, and it's doutable anything substantial (such as jail time) will be given to Karl Rove.

What's your take?
 
I'm actually quite surprised that the MSM has done coverage on this. Last night the Daily show had a segment about it too. Things are not looking good for Mr. Rove (Bush has not commented on it..) and it pisses me off the Novak isn't the one in jail! And, New York has the absolute shield law, what happened to that???
 
My history teacher predicted that this story would be big when it first broke about a year and a half ago. Since the Bush administration places so much emphasis on national security, a leak of this nature is serious.
 
ms.katejones said:
My history teacher predicted that this story would be big when it first broke about a year and a half ago. Since the Bush administration places so much emphasis on national security, a leak of this nature is serious.
[post="1418801"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​


Yet nothing will be done. This is such a serious issue, yet it seems that none of the bad guys are behind bars, and that they ever will be. Apparently Novak talked to the grand jury behind closed doors, and for his services can't be prosecuted. Matthew Cooper won't go to jail because he decided to give up his source. If Karl Rove is prosecuted I will be very, very surprised, because a person who has money and power is just above the law :rolleyes: Then you have poor Judith Miller, who didn't even write an article, but wanted to keep journalistic integrity and not give up her source who gave her some information ends up in jail. The whole thing is ridiculous.

I was so happy watching the briefing the other day where the reporters acted like reporters! It was so refreshing (and rather funny) to see them go after McClellan.
 
karl rove (known also as porky pig) is
a fascist idealogue who deserves prison
for knowingly revealing the identity
of a noc operative of the cia
 
:laughbounce: Serious????? I don't understand how this could be serious. First of all, I don't think Rove meant to do it. It certainly wasn't to get back at her husband for saying stuff about the Bush administration. Second, she wasn't really all that undercover. My newspaper has a story that says:

...it's an absurdity to contend that Rove violated the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which says as one of its chief provisions that there has been no violation unless the agent had been abroad in the five years before being named and the CIA was taking steps to keep the identity a secret.  The woman, Valerie Plame, worked at CIA hedquarters in Virginia, where she could have been easily spotted driving to work and back.  The CIA took steps to hide her identity only to the extent it did not erect a billboard saying in giant letters, "Valerie Plame works here."

The story goes on to say (jokingly):

Since when is it a fatal insult to slam someone with the disclosure that a spouse is a CIA employee?  "Psst," our ill-willed informer syas, "old Joe over there may look like a nice enough guy, but get this:  He's married to a CIA agent!"

I do believe though, that Rove should resign for perjuring (sp?) himself in court. I just disagree with the notion that this was a "serious" breach -_-
 
facade47 said:
:laughbounce:  Serious?????  I don't understand how this could be serious.  First of all, I don't think Rove meant to do it.  It certainly wasn't to get back at her husband for saying stuff about the Bush administration.  Second, she wasn't really all that undercover.  My newspaper has a story that says:
The story goes on to say (jokingly):
I do believe though, that Rove should resign for perjuring (sp?) himself in court.  I just disagree with the notion that this was a "serious" breach -_-
[post="1419714"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

How is it not serious? :blink:

He broke the law, in several regards. It's against the law to name a secret CIA operative, and he lied about it. Just because you could see her driving to work, doesn't mean it shouldn't be kept secret. She can no longer do any investigations or field work because of this.

And I'm sorry, but it seems way too coincidental that her husband challenged the Bush administration on their reasoning for going to war and weeks later her name is revealed by Rove. Just doesn't really add up.
 
Karl Rove should be punished for this--but he won't be. this is ridiculous

sugababyboo said:
Last night the Daily show had a segment about it too. 
[post="1418344"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

i saw that too!


Jamison said:
I was so happy watching the briefing the other day where the reporters acted like reporters!  It was so refreshing (and rather funny) to see them go after McClellan.
[post="1418887"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

that was so great! and on the daily show, jon stewart showed the clip of the reporters grilling McClellan and said "We've secretly replaced the white house press with actual reporters" since they actually kept asking questions! fantastic! haha

but seriously now, Rove deserves some punishment, and the only way that's going to happen is if the reporters keep pushing for answers and results--and i just don't think they'll be able to keep it up
 
So, I got this from NY times!

Karl Rove's America
By PAUL KRUGMAN

John Gibson of Fox News says that Karl Rove should be given a medal. I agree: Mr. Rove should receive a medal from the American Political Science Association for his pioneering discoveries about modern American politics. The medal can, if necessary, be delivered to his prison cell.

What Mr. Rove understood, long before the rest of us, is that we're not living in the America of the past, where even partisans sometimes changed their views when faced with the facts. Instead, we're living in a country in which there is no longer such a thing as nonpolitical truth. In particular, there are now few, if any, limits to what conservative politicians can get away with: the faithful will follow the twists and turns of the party line with a loyalty that would have pleased the Comintern.

I first realized that we were living in Karl Rove's America during the 2000 presidential campaign, when George W. Bush began saying things about Social Security privatization and tax cuts that were simply false. At first, I thought the Bush campaign was making a big mistake - that these blatant falsehoods would be condemned by prominent Republican politicians and Republican economists, especially those who had spent years building reputations as advocates of fiscal responsibility. In fact, with hardly any exceptions they lined up to praise Mr. Bush's proposals.

But the real demonstration that Mr. Rove understands American politics better than any pundit came after 9/11.

Every time I read a lament for the post-9/11 era of national unity, I wonder what people are talking about. On the issues I was watching, the Republicans' exploitation of the atrocity began while ground zero was still smoldering.

Mr. Rove has been much criticized for saying that liberals responded to the attack by wanting to offer the terrorists therapy - but what he said about conservatives, that they "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war," is equally false. What many of them actually saw was a domestic political opportunity - and none more so than Mr. Rove.

A less insightful political strategist might have hesitated right after 9/11 before using it to cast the Democrats as weak on national security. After all, there were no facts to support that accusation.

But Mr. Rove understood that the facts were irrelevant. For one thing, he knew he could count on the administration's supporters to obediently accept a changing story line. Read the before-and-after columns by pro-administration pundits about Iraq: before the war they castigated the C.I.A. for understating the threat posed by Saddam's W.M.D.; after the war they castigated the C.I.A. for exaggerating the very same threat.

Mr. Rove also understands, better than anyone else in American politics, the power of smear tactics. Attacks on someone who contradicts the official line don't have to be true, or even plausible, to undermine that person's effectiveness. All they have to do is get a lot of media play, and they'll create the sense that there must be something wrong with the guy.

And now we know just how far he was willing to go with these smear tactics: as part of the effort to discredit Joseph Wilson IV, Mr. Rove leaked the fact that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for the C.I.A. I don't know whether Mr. Rove can be convicted of a crime, but there's no question that he damaged national security for partisan advantage. If a Democrat had done that, Republicans would call it treason.

But what we're getting, instead, is yet another impressive demonstration that these days, truth is political. One after another, prominent Republicans and conservative pundits have declared their allegiance to the party line. They haven't just gone along with the diversionary tactics, like the irrelevant questions about whether Mr. Rove used Valerie Wilson's name in identifying her (Robert Novak later identified her by her maiden name, Valerie Plame), or the false, easily refuted claim that Mr. Wilson lied about who sent him to Niger. They're now a chorus, praising Mr. Rove as a patriotic whistle-blower.

Ultimately, this isn't just about Mr. Rove. It's also about Mr. Bush, who has always known that his trusted political adviser - a disciple of the late Lee Atwater, whose smear tactics helped President Bush's father win the 1988 election - is a thug, and obviously made no attempt to find out if he was the leaker.

Most of all, it's about what has happened to America. How did our political system get to this point?

E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com
 
Why there hasn't been more attention on Novak does not make any sense.

And according to this article Novak and Rove have a history of leaking information...

C.I.A. Leak Case Recalls Texas Incident in '92 Race
By ELISABETH BUMILLER

WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 - These hot months here will be remembered as the summer of the leak, a time when the political class obsessed on a central question: did Karl Rove, President Bush's powerful adviser, commit a crime when he spoke about a C.I.A. officer with the columnist Robert D. Novak?

Whatever a federal grand jury investigating the case decides, a small political subgroup is experiencing the odd sensation that this leak has sprung before. In 1992 in an incident well known in Texas, Mr. Rove was fired from the state campaign to re-elect the first President Bush on suspicions that Mr. Rove had leaked damaging information to Mr. Novak about Robert Mosbacher Jr., the campaign manager and the son of a former commerce secretary.

Since then, Mr. Rove and Mr. Novak have denied that Mr. Rove was the source, even as Mr. Mosbacher, who no longer talks on the record about the incident, has never changed his original assertion that Mr. Rove was the culprit.

"It's history," Mr. Mosbacher said last week in a brief telephone interview. "I commented on it at the time, and I have nothing to add."

But the episode, part of the bad-boy lore of Mr. Rove, is a telling chapter in the 20-year friendship between the presidential adviser and the columnist. The story of that relationship, a bond of mutual self-interest of a kind that is long familiar in Washington, does not answer the question of who might have leaked the identity of the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson, to reporters, potentially a crime.

But it does give a clue to Mr. Rove's frequent and complimentary mentions over the years in Mr. Novak's column, and to the importance of Mr. Rove and Mr. Novak to each other's ambitions.

"They've known each for a long time, but they are not close friends," said a person who knows both men and who asked not to be named because of the investigation into a conversation by Mr. Novak and Mr. Rove in July 2003 about Ms. Wilson, part of a case that has put a reporter for The New York Times, Judith Miller, in jail for refusing to testify to the grand jury.

The two men share a love of history and policy, as well as reputations as aggressive partisans and hotheads.

People who have been officially briefed on the case have said Mr. Rove was the second of two senior administration officials cited by Mr. Novak in his column of July 14, 2003, that identified Ms. Wilson by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and said she was a C.I.A. operative.

The larger question has been whether Mr. Rove might have been using the columnist to confirm Ms. Plame's identity to punish or undermine her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, who had accused the Bush administration of leading the nation to war with Iraq on false pretenses.

Mr. Novak, who stalked out of a live program on CNN on Thursday after uttering a profanity on the air, declined to be interviewed for this article.

The anchor of the program, "Inside Politics," Ed Henry, has said he was preparing later in the broadcast to ask Mr. Novak about his role in the leak case.

Mr. Rove also declined to be interviewed.

But Mr. Novak, through his office manager, Kathleen Connolly, provided the information about his first encounter with Mr. Rove. Mr. Novak, by his recollection, met Mr. Rove in Texas in the mid-80's, when Mr. Novak turned up to write columns about the state's shifting out of Democrats' hands into those of Republicans.

In those years, Mr. Rove regularly had dinner with Mr. Novak when the columnist went to Austin. Mr. Rove, in his mid-30's, was a rising political operator who in 1981 founded his direct-mail consulting firm, Karl Rove & Company. Gov. William P. Clements, a Republican, was one of his first clients.

Mr. Novak, in his mid-50's, was big political game for Mr. Rove. He was the other half, with Rowland Evans Jr., of a much read and increasingly conservative column that was syndicated by The Chicago Sun-Times and published weekly in The Washington Post. Evans and Novak, as it was called - Mr. Evans retired in 1993 -closely chronicled the Reagan era, and it would have been a sign of Mr. Rove's arrival on the national scene for Mr. Novak to mention him in print.

Still, a computer search of Mr. Novak's columns shows that Mr. Rove's name did not appear under his byline until 1992, when Mr. Novak wrote the words that got Mr. Rove into such trouble.

"A secret meeting of worried Republican power brokers in Dallas last Sunday reflected the reality that George Bush is in serious trouble in trying to carry his adopted state," the column began.

The column said that the campaign run by Mr. Mosbacher was a "bust" and that he had been stripped of his authority at the "secret meeting" by Senator Phil Gramm, the top Republican in the state.

Also at the meeting, Mr. Novak reported, was "political consultant Karl Rove, who had been shoved aside by Mosbacher."

Specifically, Mr. Mosbacher told The Houston Chronicle in 2003 that he had given a competitor of Mr. Rove the bulk of a $1 million contract for direct mail work in the campaign.

"I thought another firm was better," Mr. Mosbacher told The Chronicle. "I had $1 million for direct mail. I gave Rove a contract for $250,000 and $750,000 to the other firm."

The other firm belonged to Mr. Rove's chief competitor, John Weaver, and Mr. Rove was so angry, Texas Republicans say, that he retaliated by leaking the information about Mr. Mosbacher to Mr. Novak.

Mr. Mosbacher fired Mr. Rove. As a result, Mr. Weaver, who later faced off against Mr. Rove as the political director of Senator John McCain's presidential campaign in 2000, walked away with Mr. Rove's $250,000, too.

"That's about the only time that a Novak column benefited me," Mr. Weaver said this week in a telephone interview.

Mr. Rove again turned up in Mr. Novak's columns in 1999, when Gov. George W. Bush was running for president. Mr. Rove, Mr. Bush's national campaign strategist, was quoted briefly on the record in at least three columns, even though Mr. Novak has said on CNN, "I can't tell you anything I ever talked to Karl Rove about, because I don't think I ever talked to him about any subject, even the time of day, on the record."

Whether Mr. Novak forgot about the 1999 mentions is unclear. What is clear is that Mr. Rove has made frequent appearances in Mr. Novak's column in a positive light, often in paragraphs that imparted information about the inner workings of Mr. Bush's operation, feeding perceptions here that Mr. Rove is one of the columnist's most important anonymous sources.

In April 2000, under the headline "Bush Thriving Without Insiders," Mr. Novak wrote of the fears of the Republican old guard about the triumvirate of "rookies" in Austin - led by Mr. Rove - who were running Mr. Bush's "supposedly fading" presidential campaign.

"Actually," Mr. Novak wrote, "the Austin triumvirate has managed the most effective Republican campaign since Dwight D. Eisenhower's in 1952."

Last December, Mr. Novak wrote that the "retention of John Snow as secretary of the treasury was viewed in the capital's inner circles as a defeat for presidential adviser Karl Rove, who wanted a high-profile manager of President Bush's second-term economic program."

Although Mr. Novak did not directly debunk that view, he did suggest a different turn of events when he wrote that two Wall Street executives had said no to the position and that it was "decided at the White House to relieve Snow from his uncertainty and keep him in office."

These days, friends of the two men say they have not seen Mr. Rove and Mr. Novak at dinner together and note that there is little the two would have to celebrate. But in June 2003, The Chicago Sun-Times gave a party for Mr. Novak at the Army and Navy Club here to salute 40 years of his columns.

The biggest political celebrity guest, to no one's surprise, was Mr. Rove.


And as a side note did anyone catch Novak on Inside Politics the other day? It was priceless...absolutely priceless.
 
Jamison said:
Why there hasn't been more attention on Novak does not make any sense.

And according to this article Novak and Rove have a history of leaking information...
And as a side note did anyone catch Novak on Inside Politics the other day?  It was priceless...absolutely priceless.
[post="1445826"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​


I did and it was GRAND!! :lol: Oh Novak :rolleyes:
 
<span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>White House Denies Existance of Karl Rove</span>

WASHINGTON, DC - The White House denied rumors of wrongdoing by anyone named Karl Rove Monday, saying the alleged deputy chief of staff does not exist.

"To my knowledge, no one by the name of Karl Rove works for this president, his staff, or for that matter, anyone on earth, since he is not a real person," White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters Monday.

Despite White House denials, allegations have surfaced in recent weeks that Karl Rove is the man who leaked covert CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity to the press. He is rumored to be President Bush's senior advisor, chief political strategist, architect of the president's 2000 and 2004 election victories, and the current deputy White House chief of staff, as well as a frequent guest on televised political talk shows.

"None of these allegations are supported by the facts," McClellan said. "The opponents of this administration have created a mythical figure in order to discredit the president. All they have done is divert attention from the important work at hand—the war in Iraq and the war on terror. In doing so, they have dishonored the sacrifices of our brave men and women in uniform."

"This time," he added, "the Democrats have gone too far."

According to fringe journalist Lou Dubose, author of Boy Genius: Karl Rove, The Brains Behind The Remarkable Political Triumph Of George W. Bush, Rove was born Dec. 25, 1950 in Denver, CO. Dubose alleges that Rove lived in Colorado with his family until 1963, when he moved to Salt Lake City, UT. According to Dubose, the shadowy figure entered politics in college, quickly moving through the ranks to become the chairman of the College Republican National Committee at age 22.

The White House has called such reports "nonsense."

McClellan reiterated his denial of Karl Rove's existence 33 times during the press conference. When pressed, he distributed a list of "real, actual political figures about whom I'd be happy to comment." The list included only President George W. Bush and Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta.

Rumors of the figure's existence were given a boost early this month when, as part of the official investigation into the CIA leak, a Time magazine reporter named Rove as the source of the leak.

"This is a very clever fiction concocted by those on the other side of the aisle," Vice President Dick Cheney said. "It's preposterous at its core."

The phantom advisor has come under heavy fire in recent weeks from critics of the administration, who say he should be fired for his role in the scandal. President Bush has pledged that anyone in his administration found to be involved in the CIA leak will be dismissed.

"There is no such organization as the CIA," McClellan said. "This is tinfoil-hat stuff."

Initially demanding that the alleged Rove be fired, Democrats say they are now focusing their efforts on proving the figure's existence.

"I believe this deputy White House chief of staff is real, despite White House claims to the contrary," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said. "But to disprove this wild ghost story, we must begin an exhaustive fact-finding mission, for which I pledge all the time and resources of the entire Democratic party."

Source: http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4131&n=1

Anyone know how I can get clips of The Onion Radio News on the Internet? I keep hearing them occasionally on the Howard Stern show, but I find their humor to be top-notch.
 
Wow, I don't think anyone could have predicted how this unfolded so far. Now with Libby being indicted..this gets more interesting by the minute. Although I'm still confused about Novak? He chose to publish Plame's identity yet, he hasn't received any kind of punishment.
 
You do all realize that the indictment has nothing to do with the possible leak of a kinda-undercover agent....


I think we all realize that. Doesn't make the indictments any less significant. If Libby is convicted he could face a fine of over a million dollars and 30 years in jail...that's serious stuff. While his indictments don't have anything to do with the leak directly, obviously he was trying to hide something. And obviously a leak did occur...we (as in the public) just don't know who that leak came from though. Hopefully we'll get answers, though I'm not convinced we will.

I think people fail to see how very serious this was. They try to blow it off as not a big deal, but it is. Having your own governement out a CIA operative for political reasons is awful...especially when it could've caused potential death and injury to other agents (which the CIA is still investigating), and compromised operations.

I just find the whole thing amusing (though that sounds awful). I saw several Republicans on TV the other day who were saying that perjury wasn't a "real crime" and they'd hope people wouldn't be indicted just for perjury. Yet, didn't they want Bill Clinton impeached for that very thing? Because he committed perjury. Oh how the tides turn.
 
I think we all realize that. Doesn't make the indictments any less significant. If Libby is convicted he could face a fine of over a million dollars and 30 years in jail...that's serious stuff. While his indictments don't have anything to do with the leak directly, obviously he was trying to hide something. And obviously a leak did occur...we (as in the public) just don't know who that leak came from though. Hopefully we'll get answers, though I'm not convinced we will.

I think people fail to see how very serious this was. They try to blow it off as not a big deal, but it is. Having your own governement out a CIA operative for political reasons is awful...especially when it could've caused potential death and injury to other agents (which the CIA is still investigating), and compromised operations.

I just find the whole thing amusing (though that sounds awful). I saw several Republicans on TV the other day who were saying that perjury wasn't a "real crime" and they'd hope people wouldn't be indicted just for perjury. Yet, didn't they want Bill Clinton impeached for that very thing? Because he committed perjury. Oh how the tides turn.
Yes the tables turn, perjury wasn't a crime when Clinton did it, but it is now?

Scooter wont go to jail, and he will take a big happy mugshot just like DeLay just to piss you off even more.
 
Wow, now you're just scaring me. You watch me when I check my news blogs? Oh I jest! :D :smiley: I hope you're having a great Halloween though! :love: :pumpkin:

Kidding aside, the only time I ever reacted to viewing a mug shot was when Michael Jackson took his because well...it was horrifying! He should have opted for the mona lisa look.

Few things piss me off, being an aunt of two kids under the age of nine I've become more patient and relaxed.
 
Yes the tables turn, perjury wasn't a crime when Clinton did it, but it is now?

Scooter wont go to jail, and he will take a big happy mugshot just like DeLay just to piss you off even more.


:confused:

I never said perjury wasn't a crime when Clinton lied under oath. Please don't put words into my mouth. I definitely think Clinton committed a crime, there is no denying that. I just don't think he should've been impeached for it.

Scooter definitely won't go to jail. I'll be very surprised if he does (a happy surprised though). And don't assume that DeLay's mugshot "piss[ed] [me] off", because it certainly didn't. He'll get his, and in the meantime there are much more important things to be "pissed" off about.


Anyways, I found a good Time Line that tells when the events of this case happened. It covers everything until the indictment of Scooter Libby.

Timeline: the Valerie Plame affair
Key events in the investigation into the leak of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame's name to the media

Associated Press
Friday October 28, 2005

Guardian Unlimited

2002

February
Joseph Wilson, a former US ambassador, is asked by the Bush administration to travel to Niger to check out an intelligence report that the African country sold yellowcake uranium to Iraq in the late 1990s for use in nuclear weapons.

2003

January 28
In his state of the union address, the US president, George Bush states that "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" but does not mention that US agencies had questioned the validity of the British intelligence.

July 6
In a New York Times opinion piece, Mr Wilson writes that he could not verify that Niger sold uranium yellowcake to Iraq.

July 14
Robert Novak, a columnist whose articles are syndicated in some US newspapers, identifies Mr Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as "a [CIA] operative on weapons of mass destruction [WMD]". Novak cites "two senior administration officials" as his sources.

July 17
Matthew Cooper writes on Time.com that government officials have told him Mr Wilson's wife is a CIA official monitoring WMD. Another article appears in Time magazine's July 21 print issue.

September 29 to 30
The US justice department informs then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales that it has opened an investigation into possible unauthorised disclosures concerning the identity of an undercover CIA employee. Mr Gonzales informs the president the next day. Mr Bush tells reporters: "I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action."

December 30
US attorney Patrick Fitzgerald is named as special counsel to investigate whether a crime was committed in the naming of Ms Plame.

2004

May 21
A grand jury summons Cooper and Time Inc to give evidence and documents. Time says it will fight the subpoena.

August 9
US district judge Thomas Hogan rejects claims that the US constitution's provision for freedom of the press protects Cooper from testifying and finds Cooper and Time in contempt of court. Time magazine appeals the ruling.

August 12 to 14
The grand jury summons New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who gathered material for a story but did not write one. The New York Times says it will fight subpoena.

August 24
Cooper agrees to give a deposition after Lewis Libby, vice president Dick Cheney's chief of staff, personally releases Cooper from a promise of confidentiality.

September 13
According to court documents, the grand jury issues a further subpoena to Cooper seeking additional information relating to the case. Cooper and Time move to quash the subpoena.

October 7
Judge Hogan holds Miller in contempt.

October 13
Cooper and Time are held in contempt.

2005

February 15
The appeals court rules against Miller and Cooper. Both Time magazine and The New York Times appeal to the supreme court.

June 27
The supreme court refuses to intervene.

July 1
Time magazine agrees to comply with a court order to turn over Cooper's notes, email and other documents. Cooper and Miller continue to refuse to divulge sources.

July 6
Judge Hogan jails Miller for refusing to divulge her source.

July 7
Mr Bush tells reporters that if anyone in his administration committed a crime in connection with the leak, that person "will no longer work in my administration".

July 15
Presidential aide Karl Rove testifies to the grand jury that he learned the identity of the CIA operative originally from journalists, then informally discussed the information, without using Ms Plame's name, with Cooper.

September 29
After 85 days behind bars, Miller is released from the city jail in Alexandria, Virginia, after agreeing to testify before a grand jury. She says her source has "voluntarily and personally released me from my promise of confidentiality".

Sept. 30
Miller testifies at the federal courthouse in downtown Washington, ending her silence in the investigation.

October 6
Mr Rove agrees to testify again before the grand jury. Prosecutors say they cannot guarantee he will not be indicted.

October 11
Miller testifies again and turns over notes of a previously undisclosed phone conversation with Mr Libby.

October 12
Miller completes her grand jury testimony.

October 13
Judge Hogan lifts contempt order against Miller.

October 14
Mr Rove testifies again.

October 16
Miller writes about her testimony in a New York Times article, saying she can't recall who told her Ms Plame's name. She says Mr Libby told her that Mr Wilson's wife worked for the CIA's Weapons Intelligence, Non-Proliferation, and Arms Control (WINPAC) unit.

October 17
In a press conference, Mr Bush declines to say whether he would remove an aide who had been charged.

October 19
The Associated Press reports that Mr Rove told grand jurors it was possible he first learned from Mr Libby that Ms Plame worked for the CIA.

October 21
Reports surface that Miller belatedly gave prosecutors her notes of a meeting with Mr Libby only after being shown White House records showing that the two had met as early as June 23 2003.

October 25
The New York Times reports on notes that suggest Mr Cheney passed on Ms Plame's identity to Libby in a previously undisclosed June 12 2003 conversation.

October 26
Mr Fitzgerald meets the grand jury and the two-year investigation is wound up.

October 28
Karl Rove learns from Mr Fitzgerald that he will not be charged for now but will remain under investigation, according to reports. Further announcements from Mr Fitzgerald are expected later today.
 
Back
Top