Wilson, Plame, Rove
Posted by Joseph Knippenberg
For more on this "Washington blood sport", which has descended into farce, go here, here, and here.
Note the headline on the NYT story ("Rove Reportedly Held Phone Talk on C.I.A. Officer"), and compare it to those of the Washington Post ("Rove Confirmed Plame Indirectly, Lawyer Says") and Washington Times ("Rove Learned CIA Agents Name From Novak").
: include(/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in
: include(): Failed opening '/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/sp/php7.2/lib/php') in
Well, looky here. MSNBC is reporting that even Wilson admits that his wife wasnt a covert agent at the time of her "outing."
Wilson later told CNN that 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.
Since the law requires 1) that the outed agency be undercover, and 2) that the person doing the "outing" knows this status, Id save Rove is innocent of wrongdoing. It also appears that Rove himself learned of the Wilson-Plame CIA connection from a journalist. Folks, as weve known all along (accept for Leftist fanatics like some who post here), this is just another red herring brought to you courtesy of the Amerikan Demokrat party.
I am going to have to agree with Dain on this one but go one step further. This just further mounts more evidence of the sharp political bias of the MSM.
I agree with you, Mike. For instance, these credits at the bottom of the WT article:
" Lee A. Casey and David B. Rivkin Jr. served in the Justice Department under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. "
What a couple of liberals!
And if Karl Rove said that he heard of Plame (whose name he says he didnt know) from a journalist, then I surely believe him. He wouldnt lie, would he, to save his own skin?
And if, by some chance, the investigation into Rove is conducted with the same lack of bias as that exhibited by Casey and Rivkin, and Rove somehow walks, then he will have demonstrated, again, that the high moral ground of the Bush Administration is, in fact, a nits width away from illegal.
As I have said in other posts, if the only condition for acceptance into the Bush Administration is that someone was not found guilty, then we need to revise our definition of "moral."
Fung, I think youve misread Mr. Knippenbergs post. It goes like this - the headlines of the three papers should be judged by the degree to which they dismiss any possibility of Roves possible guilt, therefore the Times headline is mildly treasonous for telling the public something which MIGHT lead to their thinking Rove could possibly be something less than a saint. The Post headline indicates Communist (hit minor chord on organ) leanings, and no one with any moral fiber or loyalty to American values should consider reading that article any further, and the paper should be warned by press secretary McClellan to watch what it publishes. The Washington Time article, on the other hand, is clearly telling us "just the facts," which of course should do nothing other than push the spotlight from Rove onto the loathsome media (of which the Times and the Wall Street Journal are not a part, of course). Admittedly, among Commies, America-haters, terrorists and their sympathizers, Novak has a conservative reputation, but if someone must go down, it should be someone from the media (to further clarify, WSJ, WashTimes, FoxNews and National Review are NOT part of the media - they are simply facts-only news sources that tell us the cold, hard truth, however difficult it may be for us in the humble public to accept). Indeed, Caseys and Rivkins credentials from the Reagan and Bush administrations should put concerned readers at ease that we will only be given straight, unadulterated facts that any reasonable person who doesnt hate America will have no choice but to accept!! Your mistake, Fung, came in not drawing the proper conclusions from Mr. Knippenbergs incisive, non-partisan analysis.
The order in which I read the stories this morning was AP first (on the WT site), then WaPo, then NYT. All three articles lead one to conclude that it is very unlikely that Rove is anyones original source in the Plame game. The NYT buries any "exculpatory" information pretty far into the article and offers a headline which doesnt overstate the evidence but lets people who arent going to read very far continue in their belief that Rove is guilty, guilty, guilty. The WaPo story builds on and adds to the NYT story, and the headline clarifies matters in a way that the NYT headline studiously avoids doing.
Bottom line: theres a leaker out there whose name is not Karl Rove. Theres at least one reporter who mentioned Wilsons wife to Rove and who didnt write about this information (Judith Miller, perhaps?). Plames outing (whoever did it) is pretty likely not a crime, both because it was unknowing and because she hadnt been a "covert operative" overseas in more than five years. The biggest legal risk, it seems to me, is that someone didnt tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, to investigators, and well presumably know about that soon enough.
Leslie- I stand corrected and humbled.
Joe, dont waste your breath on these losers. Youll notice that all they have is sarcasm...they havent addressed any of your points (or mine, or anyones). For them, Rove is a criminal regardless of whether or not he actually broke any law, whereas Joe Wilson, who is ON RECORD as lying and who is also CLEARLY a partisan...why, hes OK. Forget that he had a special obligation to protect his wifes identity. Forget that he was placed in this position by the malfeasance of his wife. And forget that hes a lying SOB. Doesnt matter to Fung and Co. They are passed rationality, so as I say, save your breath...you might as well be arguing to a herd of swine.
The articles do not lead one to beleive that Rove is innocent. The NYT story cites "a person who was briefed" said and the WaPo cites a lawyer that knows of conversations between Rove and prosecutors as the source. Its a he said she said. There is no new evidence cited in the articles. For all we know it is Roves lawyer.
Also - Joe - How do you know Valerie Plame wasnt undercover in the last 5 years?
Dain, you dont really need to instruct your pals to "save their breath," since most people dont have to talk outloud as they type! Just thought you should know that you can quit doing that as well.
Ill go ahead and be sarcastic here, since, *sniff* thats all I have. Yes Dain, youre right, we liberals just make sarcastic remarks and never have any actual points. You, on the other hand, never stray from your firm-yet-polite debate style. No sarcasm from you, just the facts! No, Dains certainly not guilty of only responding to certain parts of a post and conveniently ignoring the rest. We should all take a lesson from Dain in civil discourse!
How do you know Valerie Plame wasn’t undercover in the last 5 years?
The law was written to specifically protect agents "overseas" (with a five year clause). Plame hasnt been overseas as an agent since 1997, nor, as Mr. Wilson confessed yesterday, was she even undercover at the time of the nonleak.
I say nonleak because a lot of people already knew Plame was a CIA agent. Gee, what a waste of time and paper and ink, eh? You would think liberals would be against this sort of needless environmental waste.
Gee, Phil, youre making my point. I dont see fact one in that post. On the other hand, I provide a quotation at the beginning of this thread from the horses mouth...
Wilson later told CNN that 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.
Im generally defensively sarcastic. You folks, well...youve elevated it to a high art...indeed, it replaces argumentation with you.
Dain, things havent improved much with you since the last time I checked in!
In your first comment here, you confused accept with except. We went over that before! You also misspelled American and Democrat; was that intentional? Im not sure why youd write them like that. And its the DemocratIC party, Dain, not "Democrat."
In your second comment you confused passed with past. You also used the incorrect collective noun to describe a group of swine. They dont form herds, they form drifts or sounders.
Finally, it seems as though youve reverted to a very impolite and snotty tone. I know youre a good boy at heart, but this bratty behavior is no more appealing now than it was when you were running with your plague of friends. Shape up, Dain!
Yea, except and past...sure, sure.
Republicans like to use "the Democrat Party" to disassociate the party from the fact of being "democratic," which that party isnt. Caught you, teach! Any good GOPer would know that!
As for the Demokrat Party of Amerika, that was meant of course. Havent you heard...Karl starts with K, just like "the Klan." Just a little bit of jujitsu for those "in the know."
Now, teach, buzz off. If I wanted some snotty liberal to 1) try to discredit me by pointing out errors, and 2) distracting readers from the substance of my posts, I could easily ask Fung or Phil to write snippy critiques of my grammar!
I shall call them the Democratics from now on. :)
Perhaps Republicans should be a little more reluctant to rush to Roves defense. This is the same Karl Rove who was fired from the Bush Senior campaign staff in 92, on suspicion that he had leaked information to...Bob Novak.
Ha ha ha. Another masterful job of rope a dope by the zen master Karl the Great. He managed to let the lefties blogs get all slathered up and had the lefty press all snarling and snapping at Scott and then he yanks the rug out form under them, again. Even Charlie Brown eventually learned not to try to kick the football, when might the lefties get the message?
NOw what have they got? Liar Joe and his not even covert wife. Plus a few million more Americans have had the curtain pulled back on the MSM and have seen their true nature.
I must admit he is a master.
This is the same Karl Rove who was fired from the Bush Senior campaign staff in ’92, on suspicion that he had leaked information to...Bob Novak.
Might we have a reliable source on this little tidbit of history?
still waiting on that confirmation that Karl Rove[,] who was fired from the Bush Senior campaign staff in ’92, on suspicion that he had leaked information to...Bob Novak.
Hmmm...
"What a Waste" and "Dain" - Wilson said she was not undercover the day that Novak blew her identity. That doesnt mean that she wasnt in the last 5 years it also doesnt mean that it could jeopardize intelligence gathered and relationships built when previously undercover by revealing her identity. Also - she wasnt overseas since 1997? How do you know? Is that what Rush Limbaugh is saying or is it actual fact?
The fact that George Bush said that if there was a leaker in his administration and he wanted to know and that person would be dealt with, that the investigation is even going on seems to say that she was undercover and a law may have been broken. If she werent undercover - why investigate? Why would the WH press secretary mention that the leaker may be fired in 03-04? The arguement that no law was broken b/c she wasnt undercover doesnt make sense.
Heather...Rove already testified to the grand jury. In fact, we dont know if HE is under investigation of if its someone else. Also, isnt it funny that a reporter went to jail protecting a source thats already been revealed? Dont think so...someone else is being protected. Rove almost certainly got his information from a reporter, suggesting that Plames occupation was already known to the journalistic community.
Dain - good point. It may not be Rove. But the fact that anyone is under investigation for the leak leads one to beleive that she was undercover in the 5 years before the time of the leak or there would have been no potiential crime to investigate.
Heather...most of what I read suggests that Plame was desk-bound after 1997. She may have taken short trips overseas a couple of times, but then youd be sending people to jail for bending the absolute letter of the law. I really dont think there will be prosecutions on this.
RE: Comment 18, from "Interesting":
If you go here, and scroll down to the section "1992...a Foreshadowing?," several news article links are provided to the 92 Rove leak issue.
for the link, Ms. Riley. The LA Times added some spice to the 1992 incident, saying:
At the time, Bushs campaign was in trouble, and there was concern that the president might not even win his home state of Texas. The Novak column described a Dallas meeting in which the campaigns state manager, Robert Mosbacher, was stripped of his authority because the Texas effort was viewed as a bust.
Mosbacher complained, expressing his suspicion that Rove was the leaker. Rove denied the charge, but was fired nevertheless.
A campaign manager gets fired and then blames somebody else for his woes? Im shocked. Furthermore, since when is leaking something to the press a bad thing? From what I understand thats the way its supposed to work.
Mark my words, that is the chilling effect that will result from this overblown Plamegate: folks in the White House will just shut up! Press leaks have been the staple of reporting since this country was founded. In fact, it wasnt that long ago that I recall how the press was bemoaning the fact that the Bush WH was so clammed up. Well, this sordid affair will make seal the place off for the foreseeable future no matter who occupies it.