Anonymous Sources

Today's NYT Rove Piece:

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.

Mr. Rove has told investigators that he learned from the columnist the name of the C.I.A. officer, who was referred to by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and the circumstances in which her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, traveled to Africa to investigate possible uranium sales to Iraq, the person said.

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."

The previously undisclosed telephone conversation, which took place on July 8, 2003, was initiated by Mr. Novak, the person who has been briefed on the matter said.

Rove's take on where he heard it from [according to unnamed sources]:

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.

That's right folks, everything's a-ok, Karl Rove heard it from Novak.

Look, this isn't a particularly compelling argument. If this had feet, it wouldn't have come up on Friday- this is late-to-the-game argument. They needed this on Tuesday, and the delivered a weak version of it today.

It still comes from the same line of weak defense as all the other talking points, and it doesn't deal with the issue.

There is documentary evidence that Rove leaked enough information to Cooper, prior to the publication of the Novak piece. Now- let's consider a couple factors here:
Had Novak leaked Plame's existence and knowledge to Rove in the conversation on July 8th, by the time he sent the email to Cooper on July 11, he obviously had enough knowledge to know exactly what he was doing. So he's still corroborating evidence to Cooper, now with demonstrable full knowledge of what he's doing.

Part of the Right's defense of Rove in the Cooper email is that he's actually defending Cheney and telling Cooper not to write a story by getting too deep in implicating Cheney- If any of these issues with Novak's July 8th phone call to Rove are factual, then it doesn't explain, and in fact implicates, Rove further- If he was defending Cheney, why was he not, as well, defending [or simply not even mentioning] and active CIA agent working in the intelligence field dealing with very relevant material concering the upcoming state of War. In fact, Rove is now responsible for keeping Cooper and Novak from publishing that information knowing it puts intelligence information at great risk during a time of war.

So, if this is true [of which I am not convinced] - Rove is negligent at a time of war and refuses to defend American Intelligence agents with full knowledge of the repurcussions.

At worst, he in fact leaked the information to Novak and to Cooper, fully aware of the repurcussions.

Either way, his ethical choice was far from admirable for this Administration, and either way he must be removed from his position for that ethical lapse; and in the worse circumstance, he may be criminally liable.