Tim Gratz and Donald Segretti

[Tim Gratz]

Stan wrote:

I knew long ago Mr. Gratz had no interest in what really happened to John Kennedy on November 22, 1963.

Without getting personal, I have sometimes observed that sloppy articulation can be a sign of a sloppy mind.

Stan, I respectfully suggest that we ALL know what happened to John Kennedy on November 22, 1963. The question we address is: Who did it to him?

Now let me ask you a question, Stan my man. How dare you impugn my motives (unless you claim pyschic abilities).

You further wrote:

To him it's all a game, played from the safety of his home, or library, or wherever he posts from.

So you consider this a game unless the assassination researcher's life is physically threatened? So do we assume that you feel physically in peril by participating in this Forum, or is it a game to you as well?

I can sincerely assure you I would not waste my time here if I did not sincerely want to see the killers of JFK brought to justice (whomever they might be), or, if that is not possible, at least their identities established so their names will forever be remembered in ignomy.

I suggest it is the height of intellectual arrogance on your part to question my sincerity.

Edited July 11, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Terry wrote:

"Tim says he reported Segretti but it appears he still hung on to the fifty bucks." Tim! How could you cheapen yourself by accepting a rate lower than a two-bit hooker's? I'm appalled! Hell, if you were going to work for the bastards, you should have at least charged them through the nose, like minimum fifty grand.

Terry, that's my current rate for the CIA but they will only pay if I can prove to them that at least three opinion makers who were before pinning it on the CIA or one of its agents are now blaming Fidel.

So far I haven't earned a dime, blast it!

[Pat Speer]

Tim, you've made several comments of late regarding Christians impying Christians wouldn't kill Kennedy or some such thing. Au contraire, it's not exactly a secret that a good deal of the American hatred for communism came from its Christian leaders. As a result, those who fought communism the hardest and at the greatest risk, including those who risked their lives to kill Kennedy, if one believes as much, almost certainly believed they were doing "God's work." Let's not forget that the innermost circles of the CIA called themselves the "Knights Templar." This wasn't an accident.

About a year ago, I found in a Goodwill junk heap a book from the early sixties put out by a Christian organization, filled with speeches made by former Secretary of State and cold war architect John Foster Dulles to various churches over the years. These speeches reveal quite clearly that the over-riding theme of post WW2 American foreign policy was the spread of Christianity, and that our anti-communism was in large part a reaction to communism's antagonism towards Christianity.

I believe a lot of those on this forum miss this important fact. While the love of money may be the root of all evil, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, the desperate desire for salvation kills more people than greed for power and greed for money. Let's call it God-lust. God-lust kills. And in the last milennium more have died from Christian God-lust than of any other variety. If Kennedy was killed by almost anyone other than the mob or LBJ, there is reason to supect that whoever did it believed God was on their side.

The Crusades continue. I'd be willing to bet that hidden away in the White House's plans for Iraq is a plan to introduce Christian ministries and organizations into Baghdad. It's God's will, you know.

[Tim Gratz]

Pat, in my opinion, a true Christian would NOT have approved of efforts to assassinate Fidel Castro, let alone JFK.

Remember McCone's concern that he could not run an organization that sanctioned assassination lest he be ex-communicated from the Catholic Church?

The Bible teaches that not everyone who calls himself or herself a Christian is in fact a Christian. A true Christian should earnestly desire to keep all of the Commandments of the Lord and in the Scriptures. And that goes back to the concept of a just war. Certainly it is sometimes moral, indeed may be a moral imperative, to fight in a war to, for instance, stop the evils of Hitlerism or Communism. The concept of a just war does not permit murders pursuant to undeclared wars. A Christian in the CIA would have been shocked at suggestions of politicl murders.

By the way, do you recall the name of the CIA official who apparently objected to the assassination plots?

[John Simkin]

The Bible teaches that not everyone who calls himself or herself a Christian is in fact a Christian.  A true Christian should earnestly desire to keep all of the Commandments of the Lord and in the Scriptures.  And that goes back to the concept of a just war.  Certainly it is sometimes moral, indeed may be a moral imperative, to fight in a war to, for instance, stop the evils of Hitlerism or Communism.  The concept of a just war does not permit murders pursuant to undeclared wars.  A Christian in the CIA would have been shocked at suggestions of politicl murders.

How does this explain your passionate defence of Bush’s policy in Iraq? This has involved the killing of around 100,000 innocent civilians by aerial bombing. It seems to me that your definition of a Just War is based on the political party of the man who orders the killing.

[Tim Gratz]

John certainly the death of innocent civilians is deeply regrettable and may in fat impact the evaluation of whether the war is "just" under the traditional doctrine of a just war. I shall consider your point. Can you cite a source for the statistic?

(If I was Robert I would ask you how you knew which of the civilian casualties were truly "innocent".)

Back to topic at hand:

Anyone recall the name of the CIA official who vigorously protested the assassinations? THere is only one name, mentioned in two sources if I recall.

[Tim Gratz]

Even if a Christian had somehow convinced himself an assassination was ethical and necessary (highly unlikely I think) never ever would a Christian have contemplated making a deal with the Mafia.

I think the CIA's engagement of the Mafia doubled the shock that the CIA had plotted assassinations. And regardless of one's view of the assassination, it is likely the CIA's alliance with the Mafia helped cause the assassination.

[Tim Gratz]

John certainly the death of innocent civilians is deeply regrettable and may in fat impact the evaluation of whether the war is "just" under the traditional doctrine of a just war. I shall consider your point. Can you cite a source for the statistic?

(If I was Robert I would ask you how you knew which of the civilian casualties were truly "innocent".)

Back to topic at hand:

Anyone recall the name of the CIA official who vigorously protested the assassinations? THere is only one name, mentioned in two sources if I recall.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Stan wrote:

I knew long ago Mr. Gratz had no interest in what really happened to John Kennedy on November 22, 1963.

Without getting personal, I have sometimes observed that sloppy articulation can be a sign of a sloppy mind.

You seem keenly aware of this in everyone's posts but your own.

Stan, I respectfully suggest that we ALL know what happened to John Kennedy on November 22, 1963.  The question we address is: Who did it to him?

Not quite true, Tim.  We can all agree he died [barring the chap who wrote the book insisting JFK survived the attack and lived as a recluse.]  But we clearly do not know "what happened" to Kennedy. 

Dr. Gary Aguilar has written a lucidly argued piece on the topic of how FIVE different medical reviews of the evidence have ALL come up empty, in terms of certainty regarding the wounds sustained by the President.  If we cannot even know with certainty where the President was struck, how many bullets did the damage, and the trajectories, how can one assert "that we ALL know what happened to John Kennedy on November 22, 1963?"  It seems that all we can assert is that we have repeatedly been lied to by those in government responsible for telling us the truth. 

What was that you said about sloppy articulation? 

Now let me ask you a question, Stan my man.  How dare you impugn my motives (unless you claim pyschic abilities).

One needn't be psychic counsellor.  One need only read your posts to note the continuing passive-aggressive pattern: make a bold assertion without substantive evidence, then back-pedal when called to account, and switch topics to Madame Nhu or some such. 

You further wrote:

To him it's all a game, played from the safety of his home, or library, or wherever he posts from.

So you consider this a game unless the assassination researcher's life is physically threatened?  So do we assume that you feel physically in peril by participating in this Forum, or is it a game to you as well?

I can sincerely assure you I would not waste my time here if I did not sincerely want to see the killers of JFK brought to justice (whomever they might be), or, if that is not possible, at least their identities established so their names will forever be remembered in ignomy.

"Whomever they might be?"  I've seen no evidence in your posts of such open-mindedness, or that you lack certainty on the topic of who killed Kennedy.  You assert it is Castro, until required to post substantive proof for the assertion.  Then, and only then, will you allow that it might have been KGB or GRU or Madame Nhu.  It just couldn't have been anyone with deep ties to the domestic power base, the people most threatened by JFK's policies and his unwillingness to be manipulated into doing their bidding.  Those people are exempt from consideration on your list of suspects.  Perhaps because they purported to be Christians?

I suggest it is the height of intellectual arrogance on your part to question my sincerity.

Then perhaps you should address that comment to me, Tim.  Stan has only reiterated what I've been saying for months.  I have questioned and do question your sincerity.  So, I assume that if anyone here is "intellectually arrogant," it should rightly be me, no?  Please don't give Stan all the glory! 

It is clear to any impartial reader who has followed your contributions here that you have consistently committed the cardinal sin in deductive logic: you have commenced with a conclusion and then sought to selectively cherry-pick only the minimal data available to bolster that conclusion. 

You have continually given great weight to unsubstantiated and unverified accustions as though they were proven true; you have ignored contrary evidence for which you have no handy rationalization; and you have refused to address same when other posters here force-feed it to you, preferring instead to dwell on some bit of whimsy or feigned collegiality whose intent is to take our eye off the ball.  Some of us find it as galling as it is intellectually bankrupt. 

In the process, you have performed the most outrageously gymnastic logical contortions.  To wit:  "Here's a news report that Castro planned to nuke New York.  Do you think a man who'd kill an entire city would balk at killing a President?"  Had your initial predicate proved true, you might have had a case to argue.  However, since your uncritical acceptance of that predicate renders you blind to its lack of veracity, you have no case.  Not that a lack of evidence has ever hindered your assertions, or caused you the self-consciousness to retract or withdraw such baseless contentions.

By the way, now that we know you are safe from Dennis, and we have dispensed with the backslapping and gladhanding over Dennis, perhaps you'd be kind enough to address the issues directly above in this thread, regarding the memo attributed to you.  When John Simkin raised the topic, you wanted the memo displayed here in full.  It has been.  I have asked certain questions regarding its contents, and what they might mean.  Will you be addressing these issues at some point in the near future?  Or will you, again, gloss over them as though they are questions that were never asked? 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Re: my parting shot in the post above, and in fairness to Tim, he has commented on the issues raised by the memo, but in the Watergate forum. I have taken the liberty of cross-posting his response here, so that it not be missed by those here who don't frequent that forum. My comments are in purple.

Robert, I did indeed write the memo, I am quite sure, but there are some problems, and most of your questions are easily answered.

First, I absolutely did NOT write the memo to Ulasewicz.  I did not even know his name until he came to Wisconsin in early January.  I am not sure if the error re who the memo was addressed to came from the book (or possibly even John's misinterpretaion).  And you are correct about the date.  It was December of 1971 not December of 1972 (obviously).  It is certainly possible I made the error in the original memo (or the book made the error when it typset the memo).

The memo was probably addressed to Karl Rove, or to someone in CREEP (but I was not familiar with their names).

Second, although the memo does not indicate this clearly enough, I WAS concerned about SOME of the things that he suggested, e.g. printing bogus tickets to dinners, which is presumably fraud.  Some of the things that he suggested, as noted in the memo (e.g. finding a black Republican college student to question Muskie about some remark he made that apparently was offensive to blacks) are just good political work that do not even raise ethical questions.  But I was concerned that some of the bad ideas he was suggesting would get the Republicans in trouble, perhaps serious trouble.

I had decided to report him before our meeting was over.  He insisted on giving me the $50 which I took so I could string him along.  I ultimately tried to return it to Ulasewicz but he did not want it so I put it into expenses of campaigning for Nixon.

You ask how I got the details about Segretti's address, the phone calls he made, etc.  Did I bribe the hotel?  No, the answer is much simpler than that, my friend.  Five years earlier when I was a junior in high school I obtained a job working at the Park Motor Inn in Madison.  I was a parking attendant.  It was a GREAT job for a number or reasons.  I loved cars and I got the chance to park many expensive and exotic cars.  It paid very well--most days I earned (in today's dollars) $250 in  tips.  It put me through college.  And the hotel was right accross from the Wisconsin State Capitol so I met a lot of politicos from both parties. At the time the Governor was Patrick J. Lucey, who in 1960 was the Democrat State Chairman in Wisconsin and did much to help JFK win the 1960 Wis Primary.  (I helped Governor Lucey into the governor's limousine (which I had previously parked) on numerous occasions).  (It was a top-of-the-line Rambler Ambassador.)  I also met Tommy Thompson who later became Wisconsin Governor and a Cabinet Secretary under Bush II.

But I digress.  The simple answer is that because I was employed at the Park Motor Inn I was able to rather easily get a copy of Simmons' bill.

You mentioned being hired five years prior to the Segretti incident.  Just to be clear: where you still employed by the Park Motor Inn when you had your meeting with "Simmons?"  And, whether or not you were still in its employ, do you think the Park Motor Inn management would have taken kindly to your poaching a guest's bill?

Re the timing of the memo. I do not recall if anyone suggested it to me, I think I give myself credit enough that I decided to do the memo myself so I could record the details while they were fresh in my mind; plus recording the details from Simmons' bill so I could report those to anyone who wanted to track Simmons down.

No offense, but the latter comment seems rather dubious.  You had a copy of the hotel bill, so it would seem reasonable you had no need to itemize its contents to keep your memory fresh.  On the contrary, it seems that the memo was written for consumption by someone else.

Back to the hotel.  Although my encounter with Segretti is not recorded in the movie "All the President's Men", it does flash, very briefly, a copy of Segretti's bill at the Park Motor Inn (the very one I used to get his address and phone records).

Now let's go into the ethics of Knox and me.  Segretti was indeed cold-calling.  He got Knox's name because Knox had been the chairman of the University of Wisconsin Young Republican Club a year or two earlier.  Randy Knox and I were from opposite ends of the Young Republican political factions (he was a liberal Republican) but a man I nevertheless respected.  (In fact, he married the best friend of a lady that I was dating.)  Knox was in law school at the time nad told Segretti he was too busy and suggested he contact me.  I do not believe Segretti proposed anything objectionable to Knox or Knox would have reported him.

You are certainly entitled to that opinion, since you knew Knox and clearly respected him.  However, do you not think it unwise for a man like Segretti to simply cold-call from a list of Young Republicans given what was on his agenda, and what kind of a person he was seeking?  You would have no way of knowing this, necessarily, but doesn't it make much more sense to you that Segretti had been pointed in the direction of those whom somebody within the Republican hierarchy thought both corrupt and efficient enough to be effective in the realization of the "dirty tricks" campaign?

You wrote:

It may prove to Tim's credit that he alerted Karl Rove.  I appreciate that, Robert, and that is the way the Senate Watergate Committee Report saw it.  (The Report has language to the effect that I was about the only one that Segretti attempted to recruit that had the sense to turn him in.)  As you remarked, I called Rove because Rove was my superior in the College Republicans.  What I wanted Rove to do was to get my report to someone in the highest echelon of CREEP.

About a week or two went by and I got a call from someone in CREEP (it might have been Bart Porter) that they did not know who Simmons was and I should decide for myself whether or not to work with him.  To me, that call did not make any sense at all.  I thought CREEP OUGHT to know who was organizing this campaign on its behalf but apparently without its sponsorship (or so I was told).

You are correct.  It doesn't make any sense.  Unless, of course, CREEP and the WH knew who "Simmons" was, and were content to let him continue.  The Bart Porter call was designed, I would suggest, to defuse your concern and give the Republicans plausible deniability in the event of subsequent blowback.  i.e. "We told Mr. Gratz that we didn't know who "Simmons" was, and that any decision to pursue the "Simmons" agenda would be Mr. Gratz's judgement call."  By so doing, they could gauge the level of your concern, and place the onus of responsibility on you, had you chosen to collaborate with "Simmons." 

It is POSSIBLE that at the time CREEP knew who Segretti was, and was trying to tell me, subtly, that it wanted me to help him.  But again, that reply made no sense to me and if recollection serves me I recontacted Rove and expressed those sentiments to him.

You are correct again.  However, what you think only possible I would consider highly likely.  Clearly, somebody within the upper management of the Republican party must have been not just witting of, but in control of, the Segretti agenda, in order to ensure the necessary compartmentalization, and that no wires be crossed.  This is, again, why I suspect that Segretti wasn't simply cold-calling, but had been provided a list of potentially useful names by someone higher up in the Republican food chain.  Otherwise, it is as though nobody was running the show, which is impossible to credit.

A short time later I got another call from CREEP.  This call was totally different in tune.  This caller said they had picked up on someone using the same approach in New Hampshire and now they desperately wanted to find out who it was.  They wanted me to set up a luncheon meeting with Simmons in DC so they could photograph him.  I told them this suggestion would make Simmons suspicious.  They asked if Segretti was going to call me.  I said yes.  The caller then said (in that call or a subsequent call) that they would send someone to Madison to try to tape-record the call.  That is when Ulasewicz and his associate showed up.  But Segretti never called.

Because by then, somebody within the Republican party had blown the whistle on you as non-secure.

You had posted:

Why didn't he call Tim back?  Because Ulasewicz [or someone within his White House group], alerted by Karl Rove, tipped off "Simmons" that Tim Gratz had loose lips.  Otherwise, "Simmons" would have continued to assume that Tim Gratz was his man - bought and paid for - and contacted him again to put the plans in motion.  Clearly, someone advised "Simmons" not to pursue contacts with Tim Gratz, or there would have been followup contacts

A bit out of order but from December 18(?) on Segretti (calling himself "Simmons") repeatedly called me to see if I had found a college student to spy on the Muskie campaign.  I kept stringing Segretti along (so he would not quit calling back) while I pursued the contacts in DC.  For instance, I told Segretti that all of my College Republicans had gone gome for the Christmas break).  Clearly, at some point, before Ulasewicz came to Wisconsin, Segretti had found out that I was reporting him.

Thank you.  My point, precisely.  It is only unfortunate that you didn't continue to take notes of developing events, so that we could know with certainty whether you got called by Bart Porter or somebody else, or the number of calls placed, who made them, and the order in which they were made.  All of this would have been most helpful, whether to the Republicans you were trying to warn, or to those later responsible for determining the depth and breadth of the corruption committed by your party.

It is my understanding that Segretti's operation was being run out of the WH by Dwight Chapin, an aide to Haldeman, and that at the time I first contacted CREEP through Rove most of the high officers at CREEP were unaware of the Segretti operation.  (I only qualify this because it is possible SOMEONE at CREEP was aware of Segretti).  Apparently it was because of my protests that CREEP first found out that the WH was running the Segretti operation.

I think it is possible Ulasewicz came to Wisconsin solely to convince me that Segretti was NOT a CREEP operative.  Ulasewicz gave me his business card (boy, do I wish I had saved it!) and told me I should call him if I ever heard from Simmons again.

Since Ulasewicz was running Segretti, it is clear that, whatever the motives for his trip to see you, tracking down his own operative wasn't among them.

Re Karl Rove ("boy genius") Rove NEVER encouraged me or the Wisconsin College Republicans to engage in any dirty tricks.  In fact, Rove organized a project he called Project Open Door which was designed to demonstrate the "open door" of the Republican Party to young people of all political persuasions (and he made me a vice-chairman of it).  I have no reason to suspect Rove had ever met Segretti when I reported Segretti to Rove.  I do not want to suggest that Rove has never in his career engaged in Machiavellian politics but I don't think he would have ever countenanced anything as stupid as Segretti.

Since Rove learned his chops at Segretti's knee, and has admitted committing at least one Segretti-style crime while being mentored by Segretti, I think it's safe to say that Rove could be as underhanded as he felt the occasion required.  If he learned anything about the Segretti situation, it was the importance of maintaining a plausible arms-length relationship with those who commit crimes or distort the truth on behalf of one's own candidate.  Swift Boat Veterans For Truth ring any bells, Tim? 

The whole Nixon White House operation with the Plumbers etc seems as stupid as some of the tricks the CIA (Landsdale and Fitzgerald in particular) plotted against Castro.

I am convinced if Rove had been running Nixon's White House there would have been no Watergate.  Rove is too smart for such operations, in my opinion.  Nixon's problem was he had surrounded himself with persons of presumed high intelligence but no common sense.

I may have previously posted this but in the College Republicans Rove was known as such a "good guy" "moderate" that the hard right faction that controlled the Young Republicans only acquiesed in the election of Rove as College Republican Chairman if Rove agreed to hire as Executive Director a person who was considered to be more of a hard-liner than Rove:  Lee Atwater.  It was through the Young Republicans that both Rove and Atwater met Bush I (and Rove met Bush II through Bush I).

NOW BACK TO JFK:

The reason I do not believe in a large conspiracy is that had the conspirators approached someone like me the whole operation would have beem doomed.  I can assure you that if Segretti had suggested physical violence against a Democratic candidate I would have gone immediately to the FBI. 

Which is why I suggest that Segretti was provided with a list of likely candidates, persons adjudged by somebody within the Republican party as being both sufficiently corrupt and could be depended upon to remain silent.  If Knox' name or your name were on such a list, you clearly didn't have the characteristics they were looking for, to your eternal credit.

How would the JFK conspirators been able to avoid approaching at least ONE PERSON with sufficient morality to object to a MURDER?

Given that persons who were approached in such a way were no doubt either intimidated into silence by threats against them or their family - or even summarily executed in the event that they balked after too much had been disclosed to them - we would have no way to testing your theory, would we?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

A quick question, Tim:

Have you kept a copy of Segretti's hotel bill all these years?

[Pat Speer]

Robert, I was under the impression Segretti was a recent hire by Chapin, an old pal from college. Several times you've mentioned that Segretti and Rove had an ongoing relationship that preceded Tim's involvement. I'm curious where you got this. I don't particularly doubt it, but am just trying to educate myself should I decide to repeat this information.

And Tim, I've also forgotten the CIA operative who opposed the assassination attempts. and lost his job as a result You can find his name, however, in Trento's Secret History. Look up Tracy Barnes and read about a meeting where Barnes proposes a cover company, and someone at the meeting mocks him. I think his name was Robert ----?

Anyhow, if I was near my books I'd let you know.

[John Simkin]

And Tim, I've also forgotten the CIA operative who opposed the assassination attempts.  and lost his job as a result  You can find his name, however, in Trento's Secret History.  Look up Tracy Barnes and read about a meeting where Barnes proposes a cover company, and someone at the meeting mocks him.  I think his name was Robert ----?

His name is Justin O'Donnell (pages 211/12). The story was told by Robert Crowley. When O'Donnell questioned the assassination he was accused of "committing regicide with a rubber knife". He was sacked three weeks later.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Robert, I was under the impression Segretti was a recent hire by Chapin, an old pal from college.  Several times you've mentioned that Segretti and Rove had an ongoing relationship that preceded Tim's involvement.  I'm curious where you got this.  I don't particularly doubt it, but am just trying to educate myself should I decide to repeat this information.

Happy to oblige, Pat.  Karl Rove's CV is all over the 'net, needless to say, and some sites take greater liberties with the details than others.  I always try to exercise great caution regarding such sources.

However, there are citations to Rove's apprenticeship with Segretti in various accounts published by mainstream media such as the NY Times, Pittsburg Gazette, etc.  For example, here's a quote from an article that ran in the UK's Guardian just over a month ago, and on Salon.com as well if memory serves, penned by our own forum member Sidney Blumenthal:

"The other architect, Karl Rove, Bush's senior political aide, began his career as an agent of Nixon's dirty trickster Donald Segretti - "ratxxxxers" as Segretti called his boys. At the height of the Watergate scandal, Rove operated through a phony front group to denounce the lynch-mob atmosphere created in this city by the Washington Post and other parts of the Nixon-hating media".

Here's a citation from Wikipedia, using information gathered in part from The Nation:

In 1970, at the age of nineteen and while a protege of Donald Segretti (later convicted as a Watergate conspirator), Rove sneaked into the campaign office of Illinois Democrat Alan Dixon and stole some letterhead, which he used to print fake campaign rally fliers promising "free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing," and distributed them at rock concerts and homeless shelters. Admitting to the incident much later, Rove said, "I was nineteen and I got involved in a political prank."

This, from American Prospect, by ex-Clinton CabSec Robert Reich:

The Rove Machine Rolls On

By Robert B. Reich

Issue Date: 2.1.03

It's no accident that Karl Rove was one of Richard Nixon's moles. Using techniques developed by his first mentor, dirty-tricks strategist Donald Segretti, Rove infiltrated Democratic organizations on behalf of Nixon's infamous 1972 campaign. Rove's formidable talents came to the attention of George Bush Senior, then incoming Republican National Committee chairman, and the rest is history. Seven presidential campaigns later, Rove masterminded a deluge of disinformation against John McCain, whose upset victory in New Hampshire had given him a shot at the Republican nomination. Word was spread among South Carolina voters that McCain had fathered a black daughter out of wedlock (McCain had, in fact, adopted a Bangladeshi girl), that McCain was a homosexual, that McCain's wife had a drug problem and so on.

Those are the most flattering and complimentary characterizations I could find, since this is a prime time show.  Others spew more purple prose.

Counterpunch's investigative reporter Wayne Madsen outlines the same background and calls Rove "our Joe Goebbels."  Elsewhere he's been called a scumbag, a xxxxx, etc.

I'm uncertain, but I think he's still under criminal investigation for a variety of past sins, and can now add the Valerie Plame notoriety to his list of accomplishments. 

Here's a quote from David Corn, which will strike one as ironic, once taken in conjunction with something that appeared on the Washington Post website less than an hour ago:

DAVID CORN:  June 23, 2005

Rove spoke at Washington College in Maryland in April and urged respect in political discourse. He said, "Commentators should answer arguments instead of impugning the motives of those with whom they disagree." But in an interview on Hardball on Tuesday, Rove said the Senate Democrats opposing the John Bolton nomination are "putting their commitment to politics above their commitment to doing what's right for the country."

WASHINGTON POST - TODAY: 

White House Won't Comment on Rove, Leak

By PETE YOST

The Associated Press

Monday, July 11, 2005; 5:22 PM

WASHINGTON -- For the better part of two years, the word coming out of the Bush White House was that presidential adviser Karl Rove had nothing to do with the leak of a female CIA officer's identity and that whoever did would be fired.

But Bush spokesman Scott McClellan wouldn't repeat those claims Monday in the face of Rove's own lawyer, Robert Luskin, acknowledging the political operative spoke to Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, one of the reporters who disclosed Valerie Plame's name.

McLellan repeatedly said he couldn't comment because the matter is under investigation. When it was pointed out he had commented previously even though the investigation was ongoing, he responded: "I've really said all I'm going to say on it."

Democrats jumped on the issue, calling for the administration to fire Rove, or at least to yank his security clearance. One Democrat pushed for Republicans to hold a congressional hearing in which Rove would testify.

"The White House promised if anyone was involved in the Valerie Plame affair, they would no longer be in this administration," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "I trust they will follow through on this pledge. If these allegations are true, this rises above politics and is about our national security."

The investigation into the 2003 leak had largely faded into the background until last week, when New York Times reporter Judith Miller went to jail rather than reveal who in the administration talked to her about Plame.

Cooper also had planned to go to jail rather than reveal his source but at the last minute agreed to cooperate with investigators when a source, Rove, gave him permission to do so. Cooper's employer, Time Inc., also turned over Cooper's e-mail and notes.

One of the e-mails was a note from Cooper to his boss in which he said he had spoken to Rove, who described the wife of former U.S. Ambassador and Bush administration critic Joe Wilson as someone who "apparently works" at the CIA, Newsweek magazine reported.

Within days of the July 11, 2003, e-mail, Cooper's byline was on a Time article identifying Wilson's wife by name _ Valerie Plame. Her identity was first disclosed by columnist Robert Novak.

The e-mail did not say Rove had disclosed the name. but it made clear that Rove had discussed the issue.

That ran counter to what McClellan has been saying. For example, in September and October 2003, McClellan's comments about Rove included the following: "The president knows that Karl Rove wasn't involved," "It was a ridiculous suggestion," and, "It's not true."

Reporters seized on the subject Monday, pressing McClellan to either repeat the denials or explain why he can't now.

"I have said for quite some time that this is an ongoing investigation and we're not going to get into discussing it," McClellan replied.

Asked whether Rove committed a crime, McClellan said, "This is a question relating to an ongoing investigation."

Rove declined to comment Monday and referred questions to his attorney. Last year, he said, "I didn't know her name and didn't leak her name."

The Rove disclosure was an embarrassment for a White House that prides itself on not leaking to reporters and has insisted that Rove was not involved in exposing Plame's identity.

The disclosure also left in doubt whether Bush would carry out his promise to fire anyone found to have leaked the CIA operative's identity. Rove is one of the president's closest confidants _ the man Bush has described as the architect of his re-election, and currently deputy White House chief of staff.

Rove's conversation with Cooper took place five days after Plame's husband suggested in a New York Times op-ed piece that the Bush administration had manipulated intelligence on weapons of mass destruction to justify the invasion of Iraq. Wilson has since suggested his wife's name was leaked as retaliation.

The e-mail that Cooper wrote to his bureau chief said Wilson's wife authorized a trip by Wilson to Africa. The purpose was to check out reports that Iraq had tried to obtain yellowcake uranium for use in nuclear weapons. Wilson's subsequent public criticism of the administration was based on his findings during the trip that cast serious doubt on the allegation that Iraq had tried to obtain the material.

Luskin, Rove's lawyer, said his client did not disclose Plame's name. Luskin declined to say how Rove found out that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and refused to say how Rove came across the information that it was Wilson's wife who authorized his trip to Africa.

Rove's lawyer says his client has done nothing wrong.

"In the conversation, Karl is warning Cooper not to get too far out in front of the story," Luskin said. "There were false allegations out there that Vice President Cheney sent Wilson to Niger and that Wilson had reported back to Cheney about his trip to Niger. Neither was true."

"A fair-minded reading of Cooper's e-mail is that Rove was trying to discourage Time magazine from circulating false allegations about Cheney, not trying to encourage them by saying anything about Wilson or his wife."

Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and a private group, Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington, called on Bush to suspend Roves security clearances, shutting him out of classified meetings.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., asked the Republican chairman of the House Government Reform Committee to hold a hearing where Rove would testify.

Rove should resign or the president should fire him, said Tom Matzzie, Washington director of the liberal advocacy group, MoveOn PAC.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., asked Rove to detail any conversations he had about Plame before her name surfaced publicly in Novak's column.

With Rove having lectured others not to put their political commitments ahead of what's best for the country, it will be interesting to see if he put his own political commitments so far above the country's best interests that it led to actual treason and the needless endangerment of many lives.  It is important to remember that by "outing" Valerie Plame, it was not only her own welfare that was jeopardized, but also the dozens of others of her colleagues and coworkers who will fall under suspicion of being CIA as well.  That's a whole lot of damage to cause, just to get even with one man who happened to have the backbone to tell the truth to the country while the so-called President and all the President's men lied through their teeth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Tim Gratz]

Pat, it is an interesting story. I knew YOU would have remembered it!

His name was Justin O'Donnell.

His protest is also mentioned in Evan Thomas' "The Very Best Men".

I'll try to post the information tomorrow.

When he protested Barnes at a meeting, I think he finished his career at the CIA (if I recall the story correctly).

Query what would have happened if a CIA operative had been so upset at the talk of assassinations that he would have protested to the police? Even if the President (be it Eisenhower or Kennedy) had approved assassinations in principle, the fact that there was a potential "whistle-blower" might have generated some caution.

OOPS!! JUST NOTICED THAT JOHN ALREADY POSTED THE ANSWER! SHOULD HAVE KNOWN JOHN WOULD KNOW ALSO. BUT IT IS WORTHWHILE POSTING THE O'DONNELL STORY IN A LITTLE MORE DETAIL.

Edited July 12, 2005 by Tim Gratz