“[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)
Wilson Says He Traveled To Niger At CIA Request To Help Provide Response To Vice
President’s Office. “In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency
that Vice President Dick Cheney’s office had questions about a particular intelligence report. … The agency officials
asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president’s office.”
(Joseph C. Wilson, Op-Ed, “What I Didn’t Find In Africa,” The New York Times, 7/6/03)
Tenet dispelling the belief that he had sent Wilson to Niger: CIA Director George Tenet: “In An Effort To Inquire About Certain Reports Involving
Niger, CIA’s Counter-Proliferation Experts, On Their Own Initiative, Asked An Individual With Ties To The Region To
Make A Visit To See What He Could Learn.” (Central Intelligence Agency, “Statement
By George J. Tenet, Director Of Central Intelligence,” Press Release, 7/11/03)
By John Gibson
Now my point is that the American people had a right to know who sent Joe Wilson.
Evidently, he thought so too because he maintained for the longest time that he was sent by Vice President Dick Cheney's
office — not admitting his wife had anything to do with it.
If the cover story for Wilson's trip is that Cheney sent him and Wilson's message of, "Don't go to war to overthrow Saddam,"
is ignored by Cheney and Bush and the American public is wondering why Cheney would send someone to check out Saddam's WMD
and then ignore the advice, don't you think it would be important to know Cheney didn't send Wilson — that Wilson's
wife sent him?
Wilson Denied His Wife Suggested He Travel To Niger, But Documentation Showed She
Proposed His Name:
Wilson Claims His Wife Did Not Suggest He Travel To Niger To Investigate Reports
Of Uranium Deal; Instead, Wilson Claims It Came Out Of Meeting With CIA To Discuss Report. CNN’S WOLF BLITZER:
“Among other things, you had always said, always maintained, still maintain your wife, Valerie Plame, a CIA officer,
had nothing to do with the decision to send to you Niger to inspect reports that uranium might be sold from Niger to Iraq.
… Did Valerie Plame, your wife, come up with the idea to send you to Niger?” JOE WILSON: “No. My wife served
as a conduit, as I put in my book. When her supervisors asked her to contact me for the purposes of coming into the CIA to
discuss all the issues surrounding this allegation of Niger selling uranium to Iraq.” (CNN’s
“Lade Edition,” 7/18/04)
But Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Received Not Only Testimony But Actual
Documentation Indicating Wilson’s Wife Proposed Him For Trip. “Some [CIA Counterproliferation Division,
or CPD,] officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents
provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer
told Committee staff that the former ambassador’s wife ‘offered up his name’ and a memorandum to the Deputy
Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador’s wife says, ‘my husband has good relations
with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom
could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.’” (Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report
On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)
Dispelling Media Elitist Bias Concerning Karl Rove
Lee P. Butler
The media frenzy created by the revelation that Karl Rove had talked to a Time magazine correspondent about
the issue of Joe Wilson’s claims that CIA Director George Tenet and Vice President Dick Cheney had authorized his trip
to Niger continues to build as media elitists are unrelenting in their biased news coverage.
These media elitists are
liberal Democrats and have by all accounts decided that it is to their advantage to echo politically charged rhetoric of the
Democrat party, instead of adhering to their regular assertions that they maintain a ‘neutral’ or ‘unbiased’
position when reporting news events in lieu of their own personal ideological beliefs.
In the case of Karl Rove, media
elitists and their Democrat brethren believe that Karl Rove is the sole architect in the diminished political presence of
the Democrat party across the American landscape. They now view him as the ‘puppet master’ instead of Vice President
Cheney who used to be the brunt of that charge.
As was written in a recent article in the Los Angeles Times, ‘Rove’s
most significant relationship in Washington is the one he has with Bush. The partnership not only helped Bush win the Texas
governor’s mansion twice and two White House terms but has also fueled a political transformation that has made the
GOP dominant in a growing number of states.
Rove has used the power he accumulated in his office to oversee presidential
policy decisions. He has also overseen electoral politics down to individual congressional races. Rove helped steer the Republicans
to victory in 2002 midterm elections and Bush to re-election in 2004, and had actively recruited candidates for key races.’
the liberal worldview, Rove has single-handedly decimated the Democrat party, but more importantly, they see him as being
the heart and soul of the political process that currently buoys the Republican dominance in this country, but specifically,
in Washington D.C..
They believe destroying Karl Rove will remove the wind from the Republican sails and that without
him the Bush administration would fold like a house of cards. Plus, for them, his destruction would be the salve to heal their
Understanding the liberal mentality, they will never accept that their political defeats have been
incurred because of their own philosophy and ideological principles as they relate to the political arena. It had to be because
of something someone else did to them, not what they did to themselves.
And that person, in their minds, is the ‘evil
genius’ Karl Rove.
So carrying the water for liberal Democrats seeking their revenge, media elitists started
the campaign of destruction against Rove utilizing a common liberal media tactic of promoting news stories based on factually
Let’s start with the repeated falsehood that Rove ‘outed’ Valerie Plame as
a CIA agent. Rove actually told Matt Cooper that Wilson’s wife apparently worked at the CIA on ‘WMD issues’.
The fact is, he never told Cooper who she was and what her position was at the CIA... she could have been a secretary as far
as anyone knew based on Rove’s statement.
The media has also made a point of engaging the idea that since an
investigation is underway and a Grand Jury has been convened, Rove must have broke the law though he has been convicted of
no crime. Wilson himself admitted that his wife wasn’t a ‘covert agent’ at the time, specifically because
her field agent status had to be removed when she married him and that she hadn‘t been on an overseas assignment in
five years, which automatically removed any covert status.
What the media is doing is labeling Rove as ‘guilty
until being proven innocent’, which liberals always claim they never do... unless they are attacking conservatives.
whole basis of their attack on Rove is focused on destroying his credibility through their own created conspiracy theory that
Rove ‘outed’ Wilson’s wife because he was trying to discredit Wilson and his ‘proof’ that Bush
had lied in his State of the Union speech.
To better understand this conspicuous ruse, you have to remember that the
media whole-heartedly accepted the ‘misinformation’ Wilson wrote in his New York Times op-ed piece where he reported
that he had found ‘no evidence of a uranium buy by Iraq in Niger’ and then labeled President Bush a liar generating
hundreds of headlines across the country screaming that ‘Bush Lied’.
In the first place, not only didn’t
Wilson find any evidence of a buy, neither did he find evidence that a buy hadn’t taken place... he found NO evidence
either way. In the second place, he wrote in his own book that he did find evidence that Iraq had ‘sought’ to
buy uranium in Niger because Wilson had met with a covert agent who told him Baghdad Bob had been in Niger doing that very
That story concretely confirmed that President Bush’s State of the Union address was in fact accurate,
which made Joe Wilson’s own op-ed attack piece on the President nothing but a misleading attack piece. Since the mainstream
media had invested itself in this falsehood, instead of admitting their mistake, they decided to circle the wagons around
Wilson and have continued repeating his ‘no evidence, Bush lied’ mantra.
Then the Valeria Plame issue erupted
and they just transformed that mantra into the conspiracy theory that she was ‘outed’ as a covert CIA agent by
the Bush administration to ‘get even’ with Wilson and his ‘proof’ that Bush lied.
So the premise
of these media attacks is itself based on factually inaccurate information.
Now that it looks as though Rove has committed
no crime, Democrats have changed their cries of outrage for Rove’s firing to still happen because he was ‘part
of a leak’. This, too, has turned into an episode of misinformation by the media.
AP reporter Pete Yost wrote
in a recent article, ‘Bush said in June 2004 that he would fire anyone in his administration shown to have leaked information
that exposed the identity of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. On Monday, however, he added the qualifier that it would have be
shown that a crime was committed.’
In the very next paragraph, he contradicted himself by writing, ‘Asked
at a June 10, 2004, news conference if he stood by his pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked Plame's name, Bush answered,
"Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts.’
There’s a big difference between ‘leaked
information that exposed the identity of Wilson’s wife’ and ‘anyone found to have leaked Plame’s name’.
according to liberal media pundits, it’s the President who has changed the standard by ‘raising the bar’,
not media elitists who are trying desperately to squirm through their own rhetoric.
In 2003, President Bush said, "If
there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is and if the person has violated the law, the person will
be taken care of,” yet media elitists assert that is somehow different from what he says today, “If someone committed
a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."
It seems based on the comparison of those two statements,
it’s not the President who is changing the story, it’s the media.