Rove may have learned of Plame's identity from-- are you ready for this-- a reporter!
07.15.05 (11:21 am) [edit]How delicious...
[b]Rove Learned CIA Agent's Name From Novak[/b]
Jul 15, 8:09 AM (ET)
By JOHN SOLOMON
WASHINGTON (AP) - Chief presidential adviser Karl Rove testified to a grand jury that he talked with two journalists before they divulged the identity of an undercover CIA officer but that he originally learned about the operative from the news media and not government sources, according to a person briefed on the testimony.
The person, who works in the legal profession and spoke only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy, told The Associated Press that Rove testified last year that he remembers specifically being told by columnist Robert Novak that Valerie Plame, the wife of a harsh Iraq war critic, worked for the CIA.
Rove testified that Novak originally called him the Tuesday before Plame's identity was revealed in July 2003 to discuss another story.
The conversation eventually turned to Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador who was strongly criticizing the Bush administration's use of faulty intelligence to justify the war in Iraq, the person said.
Rove testified that Novak told him he planned to report in a weekend column that Plame had worked for the CIA, and the circumstances on how her husband traveled to Africa to check bogus claims that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials in Niger, according to the source.
Novak's column, citing two Bush administration officials, appeared six days later, touching off a political firestorm and leading to a federal criminal investigation into who leaked Plame's undercover identity. That probe has ensnared presidential aides and reporters in a two-year legal battle.
Rove told the grand jury that by the time Novak had called him, he believes he had similar information about Wilson's wife from another member of the news media but he could not recall which reporter had told him about it first, the person said.
When Novak inquired about Wilson's wife working for the CIA, Rove indicated he had heard something like that, according to the source's recounting of the grand jury testimony.
Rove told the grand jury that three days later, he had a phone conversation with Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper and - in an effort to discredit some of Wilson's allegations - informally told Cooper that he believed Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, though he never used her name, the source said.
An e-mail Cooper recently provided the grand jury shows Cooper reported to his magazine bosses that Rove had described Wilson's wife in a confidential conversation as someone who "apparently works" at the CIA.
Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, said Thursday his client truthfully testified to the grand jury and expected to be exonerated.
"Karl provided all pertinent information to prosecutors a long time ago," Luskin said. "And prosecutors confirmed when he testified most recently in October 2004 that he is not a target of the investigation."
In an interview on CNN earlier Thursday before the latest revelation, Wilson kept up his criticism of the White House, saying Rove's conduct was an "outrageous abuse of power ... certainly worthy of frog-marching out of the White House."
But at the same time, Wilson acknowledged his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak's column first identified her. "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity," he said.
Federal law prohibits government officials from divulging the identity of an undercover intelligence officer. But in order to bring charges, prosecutors must prove the official knew the officer was covert and nonetheless knowingly outed his or her identity.
Rove's conversations with Novak and Cooper took place just days after Wilson suggested in a New York Times opinion piece that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.
Democrats continued this week to sharpen their attacks, accusing Rove of compromising a CIA operative's identity just to discredit the political criticism of her husband.
On Thursday, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada pressed for legislation to strip Rove of his clearance for classified information, which he said President Bush should have done already. Instead, Reid said, the Bush administration has attacked its critics: "This is what is known as a cover-up. This is an abuse of power."
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said Democrats were resorting to "partisan war chants."
Across the Capitol, Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., introduced legislation for an investigation that would compel senior administration officials to turn over records relating to the Plame disclosure.
Pressed to explain its statements of two years ago that Rove wasn't involved in the leak, the White House refused to do so this week.
"If I were to get into discussing this, I would be getting into discussing an investigation that continues and could be prejudging the outcome of the investigation," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.
China's bid for Unocal may violate WTO
07.12.05 (11:47 am) [edit]**Do ya think? Even if it does, so what? The Chinese don't really have a penchant for keeping WTO rules.**
Associated Press
Update 2: China Unocal Support May Violate WTO Rules-- http://www.forbes.com/work/fe...
07.12.2005, 11:35 AM
Two senators have asked senior American trade officials to look into whether Beijing's financial support for Chinese oil company CNOOC Ltd.'s bid to buy Unocal Corp. violates World Trade Organization rules.
Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) said financing provided by Chinese state-owned banks for the bid is a direct and improper state subsidy, according to a letter they sent to U.S. Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez and Trade Representative Robert Portman.
Hong Kong-based CNOOC is offering $18.5 billion for El Segundo, Calif.-based Unocal, bidding against Chevron Corp., which is offering $16.6 billion. China's communist government owns 70 percent of CNOOC, the country's third-biggest oil company.
CNOOC says the offer is a purely commercial transaction and it has rejected accusations that allowing a Chinese state-controlled company to take control of the ninth-largest U.S. oil company might threaten American national security.
But Conrad and Bunning said in their letter that some $13 billion of the $16 billion in outside financing that is needed will come in the form of no-interest or below-market-rate loans.
"The proposed CNOOC transaction, which represents the continued government involvement and control of the commercial activities of state-owned enterprises in China, is a powerful example of why China is not ready to be deemed a market economy," the letter said.
"Without this subsidy it is clear that CNOOC's bid would be uncompetitive and not worthy of consideration by Unocal shareholders," it said.
The rules of the free-trading WTO restrict government subsidies and other state involvement in commercial activities.
Conrad and Bunning said they were "deeply concerned" about economic and security implications of CNOOC's bid, the letter said. It appealed to the administration of President Bush to review China's compliance with its WTO commitments in light of the CNOOC bid.
China's bid for Unocal most certainly not in the spirit of 'free trade'
07.08.05 (3:23 pm) [edit]Most neoconservatives and other free traders are all in a snit about the government's cautious approach to CNOOC's all cash offer to buy Unocal (18.5 billion). Critics are saying that this is a litmus test for US free trade, that the US will be engaging in double-standards if it intervenes to stop this deal. Of course, that is a lie.
CNOOC is partially owned by the People's Republic of China, so it is not a private company. Because it has the backing of the Communist government there, it can throw more money at Unocal than almost any private company bidding against CNOOC (like Chevron, which is trying to buy Unocal at 16 billion, most of it in stock). This amounts to something quite less than free trade, now, doesn't it?
We should not be surprised. China's economy is red-hot because it pegs its currency against the US dollar at an artificial rate. It fixes it so it is always cheaper to do business and make things in its country. It violates numerous WTO regulations and, when convenient and in the same vein as the old Soviet Union, ignores the calls of other nations to play fair. Finally, with the full support of the communist apparatus, companies routinely violate international trademarks, copyrights, and patents.
There is also a national security concern here, one the panda-huggers out there simply refuse to acknowledge. China is hoarding natural gas, oil, and steel. Want to know why gas is so high? China's government is buying as much as it can and putting it in reserves. These reserves are created mainly for its ever-growing and dangerous armed forces which, while still behind the US, are rapidly becoming first-rate.
Imagine the US in a state of war with China over, say, Taiwan or North Korea, and all of its resources being tied up in that country. State-controlled companies do the will of the state, and China could easily pressure us and bend our will. We would have to compromise our national security to save our economy. Does anyone want that?
Everybody fears China. Nixon feared China and thought being friends with them would help. Reagan ignored China and Bill Clinton compromised national security through them (while raking in illegal campaign contributions). China needs to be feared, perhaps. But allowing the Chinese government to buy our economy is the farthest thing from tackling that fear that we could do. And it certainly isn't an example of free trade.
A decade ago we let China buy nuclear triggers and tracking systems. Are we going to let them control the energy market?