First off, I'll be gone all weekend so visit my blogroll on the LHS of the screen.

Karl Rove, the White House senior adviser, spoke with the columnist Robert D. Novak as he was preparing an article in July 2003 that identified a C.I.A. officer who was undercover, someone who has been officially briefed on the matter said.

So this is nothing new, I think Judith Miller reported this a week ago, only not so accurately. But what is interesting is this

After hearing Mr. Novak's account, the person who has been briefed on the matter said, Mr. Rove told the columnist: "I heard that, too."

So he already knew that and I must speculate he told Miller, who told Cooper...

And also, Rove told Matt Cooper

Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"--CIA Director George Tenet--or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip."

Visit here for further discussion.

But the question is when, and did, Bush know this; and still who leaked?

Fox reporting, but linked through Editor & Publisher

"Cooper spoke after a two-and-a-half hour appearance before the grand jury investigating the leak of CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity. Last week, Cooper escaped a citation for contempt of court when he told the judge his source had waived confidentiality, freeing him to testify before the grand jury.

"'Today I testified and agreed to testify solely because of a waiver I received from my source,' Cooper said outside the courthouse. 'Once a journalist makes a commitment of confidentiality to a source, only the source can end that commitment.'

"Cooper said he hoped his testimony would speed up the grand jury's investigation, which would allow The New York Times' Judith Miller to be released from jail.

"He confirmed that his source on the leak was Deputy Chief of Staff Rove, one of President Bush's most trusted advisers and the man credited with Bush's four consecutive campaign victories.

"The waiver that freed Cooper to cooperate with the grand jury was signed by Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin. Cooper's attorney, Richard Sauber, was on hand Wednesday to pass out photocopies of the waiver to reporters."

The latest bushCo. hype is the 'falling budget' which appeared in most major news circles. Some have reported responsibly, others have not. Remember when you read or hear this

Surging revenues and a steady economy have led the White House to project that this year's federal budget deficit will drop to $333 billion, nearly $100 billion below earlier estimates. ''We're ahead of projections now,'' President Bush said Wednesday. Bush said the improving deficit picture vindicated his stewardship of the economy and budget.

''These numbers indicate that we're going to cut the deficit in half faster than the year 2009 -- so long as Congress holds the line on spending,'' Bush said following a Cabinet meeting.

Know that these numbers DO NOT include Iraq or Afghanistan!

Right now the projected numbers for the occupation of Iraq and the continued "war on terror" in Afghanistan are over $200 billion through the end of this year. It doesn't take a math genius to see that suddenly a $100 billion "plummet" now equals a $100 billion "rise." In logic class we would call that 'lying by omission'.

Just another indication of a civil war. Sunni bomb Shiite; Shiite bomb Sunni?

A bomb exploded at a Sunni mosque in eastern Iraq, killing two people and wounding 16, police said on Wednesday.

Police, quoting witnesses, said the blast occurred late on Tuesday night in Jalowla near the Iranian border. Six of the wounded were in serious condition.

Police said a suicide bomber may have been inside the mosque preparing for an attack when the explosives detonated prematurely.

The blast came at a time of growing sectarian tensions between Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims.

Juan Cole has a nice summary of the Joe Wilson/Iraq-Niger ordeal and how it should make the public feel about Rove and the rest of this administration. Along with how this sort of thing is very damaging to the security of our country, not just our crediblity.

But Rove's revenge on Wilson was the ultimate. Plame was undercover as an employee of a phony energy company. She was actually investigating illegal proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. When Rove blew her cover to the US press, everyone who had ever been seen with her in Africa or Asia was put in extreme danger. It is said that some of her contacts may have been killed. Imagine the setback to the US struggle against weapons of mass destruction proliferation that this represents. Rove marched us off to Iraq, where there weren't any. But he disrupted a major effort by the CIA to fight WMD that really did exist.

Moreover, the whole thing only makes sense if Rove is a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist to begin with. Why would it matter that Valerie Plame suggested to the CIA that they send her husband Joe Wilson to Niger? Wilson had excellent credentials for the mission, which the CIA immediately recognized.

Rove can only have thought it would discredit Wilson to associate his missiion with the CIA if he viewed the CIA as the enemy. This is the Richard Perle line. If Wilson was sent to Niger on the recommendation of a CIA operative, then he was not an objective ex-ambassador but a CIA plant of some sort, attempting to undermine the Bush administration and the military occupation of Iraq.

This theory is that of a crackpot. The actions are those of a traitor. What is the difference between Robert Hansen revealing key secret information for money to the Soviets and Karl Rove revealing it to the proliferators for political gain for the Republican Party and the Bush White House? Both are traitors who traded secrets for gain.

A man who would do what Rove did should not be in the White House in any capacity. And no person who tolerates a man like Rove in the White House should be commander in chief of American security.

Well put, as usual, Dr. Cole.

The AP comes out swinging, no writing needs, all quotes on the record.

Some of the denials, other comments, at media briefings by White House spokesman Scott McClellan when asked by reporters whether
President Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, was involved in the leak of a CIA officer's identity:

Sept. 29, 2003

Q: You said this morning, quote, "The president knows that Karl Rove wasn't involved." How does he know that?

A: Well, I've made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place. ... I've said that it's not true. ... And I have spoken with Karl Rove.

Q: It doesn't take much for the president to ask a senior official working for him, to just lay the question out for a few people and end this controversy today.

A: Do you have specific information to bring to our attention? ... Are we supposed to chase down every anonymous report in the newspaper? We'd spend all our time doing that."

Q: When you talked to Mr. Rove, did you discuss, "Did you ever have this information?"

A: I've made it very clear, he was not involved, that there's no truth to the suggestion that he was.

___

Oct. 7, 2003

Q: You have said that you personally went to Scooter Libby (Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff), Karl Rove and Elliott Abrams (National Security Council official) to ask them if they were the leakers. Is that what happened? Why did you do that? And can you describe the conversations you had with them? What was the question you asked?

A: Unfortunately, in Washington, D.C., at a time like this there are a lot of rumors and innuendo. There are unsubstantiated accusations that are made. And that's exactly what happened in the case of these three individuals. They are good individuals. They are important members of our White House team. And that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt with that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you, and that's exactly what I did.

___

Oct. 10, 2003

Q: Earlier this week you told us that neither Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams nor Lewis Libby disclosed any classified information with regard to the leak. I wondered if you could tell us more specifically whether any of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?

A: I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that's where it stands.

Q: So none of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?

A: They assured me that they were not involved in this.

Q: They were not involved in what?

A: The leaking of classified information.

___

July 11, 2005:

Q: Do you want to retract your statement that Rove, Karl Rove, was not involved in the Valerie Plame expose?

A: I appreciate the question. This is an ongoing investigation at this point. The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, that means we're not going to be commenting on it while it is ongoing.

Q: But Rove has apparently commented, through his lawyer, that he was definitely involved.

A: You're asking me to comment on an ongoing investigation.

Q: I'm saying, why did you stand there and say he was not involved?

A: Again, while there is an ongoing investigation, I'm not going to be commenting on it nor is ... .

Q: Any remorse?

A: Nor is the White House, because the president wanted us to cooperate fully with the investigation, and that's what we're doing.

The Plame leak time line.

But the White House won't give it to them. Watch the video here, it is amazing.

For two years the White House has maintained that Karl Rove is clear of any wrong doing in the leaking of a CIA operatives name. In Sept. 2003 Bush said, "... if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of." But now the White House refuses to repeat these pledges. Now I know that there is a legal battle going on right now, but the least Bush spokesman, Scott McClellan, can acknowledge that if a crime took place then the President will keep his word. From the AP story

But Bush's spokesman wouldn't repeat any of those assertions Monday in the face of Rove's own lawyer saying his client spoke with at least one reporter about Valerie Plame's role at the CIA before she was identified in a newspaper column.

Rove described the woman to a reporter as someone who "apparently works" at the CIA, according to an e-mail obtained by Newsweek magazine.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan refused to discuss the matter at two news briefings Monday. He said he would not comment because the leak is the focus of a federal criminal investigation.

I f'n hate this government, I feel like I'm in Russia or something. What has the right done to my country?

[UPDATE 445 pm]FYI, The Plame Leak time line.

No suprise here, but 9 Iraqi citizens were held without reason in a metal container and, suprise, they died.

Nine building workers have died in Iraq after being arrested on suspicion of insurgent activity and then left in a closed metal container.

Three men survived the ordeal, police sources said, despite being left for 14 hours in the burning Iraqi summer heat.

They had apparently been caught up in a firefight between US troops and Iraqi gunmen, and were detained after taking an injured colleague to hospital.
...
Police sources told the BBC that at least 12 men had been arrested on Sunday after they had taken a colleague to hospital in Ameriya with gunshot wounds.

A local resident, thinking they were insurgents, called the police, who sent commandos to arrest the men.

At about midday, they were put into a metal container and by nightfall eight prisoners were dead and three were in a critical condition.

The survivors were taken to a central Baghdad hospital where staff said a ninth man died.

The Iraqi capital suffers scorching heat during the summer months, with temperatures often reaching 50 degrees.(thats 50 ° C )

A doctor told the BBC that one of the survivors had said he had been given repeated electric shocks by the commandos.

The survivors were kept under police guard as they were treated and were taken away without being allowed to speak to journalists.

Recent UK press reports have alleged police commandos systematically torture and abuse detainees. The security forces themselves are the target of much of Iraq's insurgency violence.

This is the story that bushCo. is glad you missed (from Wednesday)

Relations between the neighbours - who fought a bitter war from 1980 to 1988 - have improved greatly since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003.

This is the first visit to Iran by an Iraqi military delegation since the war, in which a million people died, started.

The promise of co-operation comes despite repeated accusations by the US - which has about 140,000 troops in Iraq - that Iran has been undermining security there.

"No one can prevent us from reaching an agreement," Mr Shamkhani said when asked about possible US opposition.

Iran will train the Iraqi military! That will end well.

that the pause in attacks in Iraq has been to let London get out of the news and then resume; without wasting any resources. This is speculation but would mean that if the London attacks were al Qaeda then there is still some organization between groups or cells nations apart. Enough that the London events were known by the fighters in Iraq who could 'take a break' until the media frenzy died.

Lets hope not.

nice looking storm, not real big or strong. One that I'd like to witness someday, in a controled setting (not on vacation).

I don't know if this is true, I can't imagine it be relevant to what the situation is now, but in a leaked memo out from the UK says we are leaving Iraq, quickly. By early 2006 we, the United states, will have 50% less troops in Iraq. The British are pulling back as well.

A leaked document from Britain's Defence Ministry says the British and U.S. governments are planning to reduce their troop levels in Iraq by more than half by mid-2006, the Mail on Sunday newspaper reported.

The memo, reportedly written by Defence Minister John Reid, said Britain would reduce its troop numbers to 3,000 from 8,500 by the middle of next year.

"We have a commitment to hand over to Iraqi control in Al Muthanna and Maysan provinces (two of the four provinces under British control in southern Iraq) in October 2005 and in the other two, Dhi Qar and Basra, in April 2006," the memo was reported to have said.

The memo said Washington planned to cut its forces to 66,000 from about 140,000 by early 2006.

"Emerging U.S. plans assume 14 out of 18 provinces could be handed over to Iraqi control by early 2006," the memo said.

So we expect to hand over the country in a year? I find that hard to believe with the current progress in drafting a constitution and two large portions of Iraq moving toward independence. What will happen now is a Kurdish controlled north, a Shiite south, and a Sunni middle; all left to, at the rate things are going, fight it out.

meet Dennis, 145 mph.