News Why is the Rove/Plame issue important?

[pattylou]

There have been several reports "connecting the dots" between foreign policy and Rove's alleged leak of Valerie Plame.

These few reports, (Daniel Schorr had one, one other in the NYT in the last few days) demonstrate how this may be "the issue" to cause the whole foreign policy (re: Iraq etc) to crash around the Republican party.

In my cynical moments, I think that a large segment of the population is unable to connect these dots for themselves, and that they aren't reading these particular columns. So I thought I'd raise the issue here. What is the single most distressing thing about the leak of Plame's CIA role? Alternatively, how does this leak fit into the larger picture?

 

[SOS2008]

Though there have been other threads already on the topic...

It is distressing that the interest of our country has been compromised for personal power, then covered up, and now there are attempts to cover up the cover up. The investigation into the leak began two years ago. Supposedly Bush gave the directive for full cooperation. And now, Bush is shifting his position in an effort to protect Rove, etc., no doubt because as you say, there has been one cover up after another and it may well unravel. Let's hope so, because I'm not sure whether there is a hell where these *&$#%@! can burn for all eternity.

 

[pattylou]

I think a thread that brings in a lot of extra baggage, as true as that baggage may be, will be ignored by the people who have trouble recognizing the distilled truth about what that leak represents.

What is the fundamental reason that the leak was so damning?

 

[Pengwuino]

So that people don't go off topic, factcheck.org has put out an article keeping certain facts straight and showing what's only opinion along with a long timeline of events

http://www.factcheck.org/article337.html

 

[edward]

What is the fundamental reason that the leak was so damning?

Ex-agents: CIA leak a serious betrayal
Friday, October 24, 2003 Posted: 12:19 PM EDT (1619 GMT
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/24/cnna.leak/ + several hundred more links like this.

This was a deed that is unmatched in history. it is 1000 times more dastardly than Nixon's lies. If a normal citizen had committed this act, they would now be in prison.

It was done solely in retribution, it was done to illegally punish someone for telling the truth, and it was done by a politician with the highest level of security clearance. There is no precedent for this kind of deed.
Yet the President continues to cover for this person.

 

[Astronuc]

There have been several reports "connecting the dots" between foreign policy and Rove's alleged leak of Valerie Plame.

These few reports, (Daniel Schorr had one, one other in the NYT in the last few days) demonstrate how this may be "the issue" to cause the whole foreign policy (re: Iraq etc) to crash around the Republican party.

In my cynical moments, I think that a large segment of the population is unable to connect these dots for themselves, and that they aren't reading these particular columns. So I thought I'd raise the issue here. What is the single most distressing thing about the leak of Plame's CIA role? Alternatively, how does this leak fit into the larger picture?

Could the Bush administration simply be removing those who are fair and impartial in their assessment of foreign intelligence? Could the Bush administration remove anyone who would oppose an agenda of developing false and misleading information? Hmmmm.

Kind of like Rove's idea - let's have a one party state. Oh, wait - that's not democracy is it?

This was a deed that is unmatched in history. it is 1000 times more dastardly than Nixon's lies. If a normal citizen had committed this act, they would now be in prison.

A normal citizen did commit an act of revealing Plame's identity - Robert Novak. Now the Whitehouse claims that Rove learned of Plame's identity from Novak.

Now, wait - where did Novak get his information and why hasn't he been arraigned? As far as I know, he is the one and only person to publicly identify Plame as working for the CIA. And that is supposed to be a crime. Or am I missing something here?

I wonder how many pardons GW will have to issue as his term expires?

I wonder if GW is considering a third term as president. All he has to do is declare martial law and suspend the Consitution.

 

[Smurf]

Ex-agents: CIA leak a serious betrayal.

Why?The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen it to at least 10 characters.

 

[pattylou]

I'm not trying to be annoying, but I think we can simplify it even further than has been done on this thread so far -

Everything that has been said on this thread (including Pengwuino) is right.

Notwithstanding, and all Bush's politicking aside, how was the average American seriously and irrevocably *wronged* by the events surrounding Rove's decision to say "Wilson's wife?"

(And I post in terms of questions because I used to teach. I think it tends to inspire more participation. Or at least a little more active thinking. )

 

[Astronuc]

Why?

Betrayal gets people killed or at least puts someone at risk, and it would undermine the confidence of the intellgience community if they thought that people in their own government would sell them out.

 

[pattylou]

Here is my opinion on why the matter of Rove's alleged illegal behavior, is so disturbing. The single piece of context you need, is that Plame's husband said that there was no good intelligence that "yellow cake" plutonium had been in Iraq's possession.

The issue isn't about Bush hiring crooks.

It isn't about CIA agents being in more danger.

Those are important, but do not really directly insult the average American - You and me.

It's about this: Someone so close to the president as to be his primary political advisor, took measures to punish someone that suggested we should not invade Iraq. In other words, we were lied to, deliberately and knowingly, by the president. The policy was clear: Only acknowledge intelligence that supports invasion of Iraq.

We were screwed the minute Bush got into Office. 25,000 lives later, a world of global resentment later, escalating terrorism later, ... Rove's leak tells us that there was no hope of us *ever* avoiding this war.

Rumsfeld says we'll be there for 12 more years. That's my kids' childhood. It may be your life, or your son's life. 12 more years.

It was all a lie. Rove leaked Plame's name, to make sure that *no one* opposed the President's mission to invade Iraq. Period.

Townsend and Pengwuino and others make good arguments, on occasion, for why it may ultimately result in greater stability, that we invaded the middle east. But, that wasn't the case that was made by the administration. We were lied to. Every single American. By our "leader."

He refuses to acknowledge it.

We saw it before, we knew it before, and it keeps coming out.

 

[Smurf]

I don't get it. This isn't a big story. The Bushies don't care and the Anti-Bushies already know. Why is this still a big deal? It's barely a story at all.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I don't get it. This isn't a big story. The Bushies don't care and the Anti-Bushies already know. Why is this still a big deal? It's barely a story at all.

A lame attempt at getting sombody to blow the dust of Ken Starr and actually prosecute someone? (Even Astronuc is getting cynical and I consider him to be quite fair and balanced from what I have read.)

 

[SOS2008]

It is distressing that the interest of our country has been compromised...

Meaning not only operations connected to Plame, not only for future operatives, but most importantly:

It's about this: Someone so close to the president as to be his primary political advisor, took measures to punish someone that suggested we should not invade Iraq. In other words, we were lied to, deliberately and knowingly, by the president.

Well said.

I don't get it. This isn't a big story. The Bushies don't care and the Anti-Bushies already know. Why is this still a big deal? It's barely a story at all.

Consider this--It may not have been just retribution, but more a matter of suppression of information, and it may have been with Bush's full knowledge, maybe even per his directive/mutual agreement between the two (which I personally believe). Thus:

There is no precedent for this kind of deed.

And as stated above would be far more serious than Watergate. We're talking clear grounds for impeachment (though Bush supporters would no doubt try to justify it all in some way).

 

[Smurf]

Consider this--It may not have been just retribution, but more a matter of suppression of information, and it may have been with Bush's full knowledge, maybe even per his directive/mutual agreement between the two (which I personally believe). Thus:

And as stated above would be far more serious than Watergate. We're talking clear grounds for impeachment (though Bush supporters would no doubt try to justify it all in some way).

I kind of thought lying to invade a country was worse than watergate... and worthy of impeachment.

Again; The Anti-Bushies already know it, the Bushies will still deny it, the courts are still not going to do anything about it.

A lame attempt at getting sombody to blow the dust of Ken Starr and actually prosecute someone? (Even Astronuc is getting cynical and I consider him to be quite fair and balanced from what I have read.)

What's unfair about cynicism?

 

[The Smoking Man]

What's unfair about cynicism?

Touche mon ami.

 

[pattylou]

Again; The Anti-Bushies already know it, the Bushies will still deny it, the courts are still not going to do anything about it.

The 10 - 30% in the middle are an important group. The Bushies will concede under enough pressure. The global community is waiting for the US to do something *right* for a change. That's two reasons why.

A significant number of Americans don't even know who Rove *is.*

Even your quote acknowledges the truth of the situation.

 

[SOS2008]

A lame attempt at getting sombody to blow the dust of Ken Starr and actually prosecute someone?

Oh heavens no! The investigation into the Plame leak has already gone on for two years. We don't need it to become any more lengthy and tax wasting like Whitewater. In this case there is definitely guilt, and it's time to take action.

 

[solutions in a box]

The plot thickens

According to an associated press article in the morning paper:

On September 9 2003 at 8:00 PM then White House council Alberto Gonzales was notified by the Department of justice that the "Plame leak" was going to be investigated.

Gonzales only notified WhiteHouse Chief of staff Andy Card. No other White House Staff members were notified (by Gonzales) until the next day.

That must have been a night of fervent paper shredding and file deleting.

 

[edward]

The old twenty minutes of missing tape ploy replays once again.

We might add to the above posts:
The total defrauding of the American people at the highest level of government. Or is that now legal??

 

[The Smoking Man]

Oh heavens no! The investigation into the Plame leak has already gone on for two years. We don't need it to become any more lengthy and tax wasting like Whitewater. In this case there is definitely guilt, and it's time to take action.

Give him a duffle coat and a tube pass and ship him to London then.

 

[SOS2008]

"Prosecutor in CIA leak case casting wide net"

By Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei
Updated: 1:09 a.m. ET July 27, 2005

The special prosecutor in the CIA leak probe has interviewed a wider range of administration officials than was previously known, part of an effort to determine whether anyone broke laws during a White House effort two years ago to discredit allegations that President Bush used faulty intelligence to justify the Iraq war, according to several officials familiar with the case.

...In doing so, special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has asked not only about how CIA operative Valerie Plame's name was leaked but also how the administration went about shifting responsibility from the White House to the CIA for having included 16 words in the 2003 State of the Union address about Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium from Africa, an assertion that was later disputed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8719617/

So not only is this invetigation leading to lies about Iraq, the update on various news reports this evening (MSNBC/CNN) is that officials (Cheney, etc.) have retained attorneys (echoes of Watergate), and now there is a call for a congressional investigation as well.

 

[Mattius_]

Wow, as elevated as some of you make this "CIA leak" it is no wonder that this non-story has come so far. Plame hasnt been "covert" for over 6 years, she is not big news, at all. Wilson had her name on his personal blog before any of this ever happend. He wrote a book titled "plan of attack," in which he lied on several occasions about the details of his trip to niger. This is a man who funded the kerry campaign. The only crook in this entire equation is wilson himself. Wow I just had to laugh and cry and then vomit when I saw that LIVE media ordeal of wilson asking rove to step down.

This whole thing has taught me a big lesson, this is the first time I have seen complete disregard for the truth by the media. THIS IS NOT A STORY, IT IS NOT AN ISSUE, and yet, it is. The worse thing about it all is that even though Rove is innocent, the media has wound this thing up so much that it seems like he is guilty.

 

[Anttech]

I wonder how many pardons GW will have to issue as his term expires?

Who is GW ? Hmmm

 

[pattylou]

The 10 - 30% in the middle are an important group.

A Gallup poll out today, shows considerably increasing belief (from ~30% two years ago to ~50% today) among the population that Bush lied deliberately in the run up to war.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000894970

THis is relevant to the idea of whether "bushies" and "antibushies" ever change their minds. Also, it is reassuring to see.

 

[Informal Logic]

Wow, as elevated as some of you make this "CIA leak" it is no wonder that this non-story has come so far. Plame hasnt been "covert" for over 6 years, she is not big news, at all. Wilson had her name on his personal blog before any of this ever happend. He wrote a book titled "plan of attack," in which he lied on several occasions about the details of his trip to niger. This is a man who funded the kerry campaign. The only crook in this entire equation is wilson himself. Wow I just had to laugh and cry and then vomit when I saw that LIVE media ordeal of wilson asking rove to step down.

This whole thing has taught me a big lesson, this is the first time I have seen complete disregard for the truth by the media. THIS IS NOT A STORY, IT IS NOT AN ISSUE, and yet, it is. The worse thing about it all is that even though Rove is innocent, the media has wound this thing up so much that it seems like he is guilty.

If you want to laugh and cry and vomit even more, try reading the thread on Bush and honesty. In the meantime, thanks for just a laugh - "Rove is innocent"

 

[Rev Prez]

Betrayal gets people killed or at least puts someone at risk, and it would undermine the confidence of the intellgience community if they thought that people in their own government would sell them out.

Perhaps you should've thought of that before FISA. It's kind of amusing that the IC has all these johnny-come-lately fans swing out from the left.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

The 10 - 30% in the middle are an important group.

To who? President Bush isn't up for reelection. The Congress? In two straight elections the Administration has been hampered by domestic and foreign scandal. In two straight elections Republicans increased their majority in both House and Senate.

The Bushies will concede under enough pressure.

What pressure? What consequence is it to the President? He has this term left, a majority in both houses and his pick for the Supreme Court.

Rev Prez

 

[SOS2008]

pattylou - Let's leave these folks in a state of denial about the growing disgust people feel toward incumbents, particularly the GOP. And just be grateful that Dubya was not able to suspend the 2004 election due to the war, invoking a police state, and then staying in power indefinitely. We will just keep our eye on the more subtle attempts to move our country into a one-party system, and try to prevent them from destroying democracy and freedom for all in this country.

Back to the OP and Rove -- Even if a criminal is innocent of the crime in question, he/she has committed other crimes, so who cares which one they go to jail for. Just get them off the street for the protection of society.

 

[pattylou]

To who? President Bush isn't up for reelection. The Congress? In two straight elections the Administration has been hampered by domestic and foreign scandal. In two straight elections Republicans increased their majority in both House and Senate.

And in both those cases the American population felt that the war was the right thing to do ... and that's no longer the case. Anyone Bush stumps for, anyone that ran on aggressive foreign policy will have an increasingly uphill battle when they try to run again for anyoffice. The christians are starting to see the truth (or rather, the lies) here, Reverend.

Didja see Frist supports stem cell research? Now, I have no doubt that the christian rightpastors will be able to tell their flocks who to vote for by the time 2006 comes around, but I got to say - at the moment your demographic is cracking apart. Sorry!

What pressure? What consequence is it to the President?

I guess you haven't been following his beleaguered second term.

 

[loseyourname]

We will just keep our eye on the more subtle attempts to move our country into a one-party system, and try to prevent them from destroying democracy and freedom for all in this country.

Don't all political parties seek to turn things into a one-party system? Isn't that part of the point of political parties?

Back to the OP and Rove -- Even if a criminal is innocent of the crime in question, he/she has committed other crimes, so who cares which one they go to jail for. Just get them off the street for the protection of society.

Wow. That is exactly the justification that the Rampart Division in LA used for planting fake evidence on gang suspects, one of the most widely known examples of 'police-state' behavior. Now you support this kind of thing?

 

[solutions in a box]

Rove a repeat offender or?

Rove was fired from the reelection campaign of GHW Bush because he leaked information to none other than; Robert Novak.
"Well isn't that special"

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/07/07/rove_plame/index_np.html?x

My new opinion on the leak comes from the last few paragraphs of this link.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3129941/site/newsweek/

Someone in Cheney's office is the true leaker.
Why let Rove take the heat? The leak sounds like something Rove would do.

What if the investigation can't link Rove to the incedent? That was the plan all long. If all eyes fall on Rove, no one is looking for the real perpetrator.

Who Hyped Rove's name in the media? Rove did, that is his specialty.

 

[SOS2008]

Rove was fired from the reelection campaign of GHW Bush because he leaked information to none other than; Robert Novak.
"Well isn't that special"

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/07/07/rove_plame/index_np.html?x

My new opinion on the leak comes from the last few paragraphs of this link.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3129941/site/newsweek/

Someone in Cheney's office is the true leaker.
Why let Rove take the heat? The leak sounds like something Rove would do.

What if the investigation can't link Rove to the incedent? That was the plan all long. If all eyes fall on Rove, no one is looking for the real perpetrator.

Who Hyped Rove's name in the media? Rove did, that is his specialty.

As has been said, Rove is a legend in his own mind? We know the Bush regime is famous for slight of hand trickery, but it just may be they all are crooks, and they all need to go down for it.

 

[The Smoking Man]

As a related issue, this was just released by the Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/01/politics/01weapons.html?th&emc=th

August 1, 2005
Spy's Notes on Iraqi Aims Were Shelved, Suit Says
By JAMES RISEN

WASHINGTON, July 31 - The Central Intelligence Agency was told by an informant in the spring of 2001 that Iraq had abandoned a major element of its nuclear weapons program, but the agency did not share the information with other agencies or with senior policy makers, a former C.I.A. officer has charged.

In a lawsuit filed in federal court here in December, the former C.I.A. officer, whose name remains secret, said that the informant told him that Iraq's uranium enrichment program had ended years earlier and that centrifuge components from the scuttled program were available for examination and even purchase.

...

His information on the Iraqi nuclear program, described as coming from a significant source, would have arrived at a time when the C.I.A. was starting to reconsider whether Iraq had revived its efforts to develop nuclear weapons. The agency's conclusion that this was happening, eventually made public by the Bush administration in 2002 as part of its rationale for war, has since been found to be incorrect.

While the existence of the lawsuit has previously been reported, details of the case have not been made public because the documents in his suit have been heavily censored by the government and the substance of the claims are classified. The officer's name remains secret, in part because disclosing it might jeopardize the agency's sources or operations.

Several people with detailed knowledge of the case provided information to The New York Times about his allegations, but insisted on anonymity because the matter is classified.

The former officer's lawyer, Roy W. Krieger, said he could not discuss his client's claims. He likened his client's situation to that of Valerie Wilson, also known as Valerie Plame, the clandestine C.I.A. officer whose role was leaked to the press after her husband publicly challenged some administration conclusions about Iraq's nuclear ambitions. (The former officer and Ms. Wilson worked in the same unit of the agency.)

"In both cases, officials brought unwelcome information on W.M.D. in the period prior to the Iraq invasion, and retribution followed," said Mr. Krieger, referring to weapons of mass destruction.

 

[SOS2008]

I meant to post excerpts from this article earlier...(It is difficult to know what thread to post this in):

"Why the Leak Probe Matters
For all the complexities of the Valerie Plame case, this story is about how easy it was to get into Iraq, and how hard it will be to get out."

By Jonathan Alter
Newsweek
July 25 issue - Like a lot of President Bush's critics, I supported the Iraq war at first. Because of the evidence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction laid out by Colin Powell, I agreed that we needed to disarm Saddam Hussein. I even think it's possible that 25 years from now, historians will conclude that the Iraq war helped accelerate the modernizing of the Middle East, even if it doesn't fully democratize it.

But if that happens, Bush might not get as much credit as he hopes, and not just because most historians, as Richard Nixon liked to say, are liberals. Bush may look bad because his leadership on Iraq has been a fiasco. He didn't plan for it: the early decisions that allowed the insurgency to get going were breathtakingly incompetent. He didn't pay for it: Bush is the first president in history to cut taxes during a war, this one now costing nearly $1 billion a week. And most important of all, he didn't tell the American people the truth about it: taking a nation to war is the most solemn duty of a president, and he'd better make certain there's no alternative and no doubt about the evidence.

Why do I mention this now? Because for all of the complexities of the Valerie Plame case, for all the questions raised about the future of investigative journalism and the fate of the most influential aide to an American president since Louis Howe served Franklin D. Roosevelt 70 years ago, this story is fundamentally about how easy it was to get into Iraq and how hard it will be to get out.

We got in because we "cooked" the intelligence, then hyped it. That's why the "Downing Street Memo" is not a smoking gun but a big "duh." For two years we've known that senior White House officials were determined to, in the words of the British intelligence memo, "fix" the intelligence to suit their policy decisions. When someone crossed them, they would "fix" him, too, as career ambassador Joseph Wilson found when he came back from Africa with a report that threw cold water on the story that Saddam Hussein sought yellowcake uranium from Niger.

For more... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8598301/site/newsweek/

 

[BobG]

You have to read the entire article to get the main point - one I agree with. If it turns out Rove intentionally leaked Plame's name to the press, he should stew in prison for a couple decades. Deciding your own personal political battle is more important than national security is grossly out of place for someone working in the White House as the President's Chief of Staff.

 

[Skyhunter]

My apologies if this is duplication but I don't have time right now to read the other posts.

To me the most distressing element in this whole affair is the question that is not being asked.

Why did Karl Rove want to destroy the CIA's ability to monitor Saudi oil money?

Everyone just assumes Rove exposed Mrs. Wilson to punish her and her husband. I understand why people might assume this because, that is how he practices politics. I am worried about the close relationship this president has with the Saudi royal family.

Why did the Bush administration reveal the identity of Brewster-Jennings & Associates?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_Jennings_&_Associates?

Hmm...

Saudis hijack planes and fly them into the Pentagon and World Trade Center and the Bush administration attacks Iraq?

When the basis for the propoganda blitz that this administration used to sell the war proves to be greatly exaggerated, if not completely false, the administration blames the CIA.

Then Bush bestows the medal of freedom on it's director?

Now the administration exposes a CIA front company, that may have been the best intelligence asset the CIA had to monitor Saudi oil money and it's flow to terrorist organizations?

Am I missing something?

This doesn't make sense to me.

 

[SOS2008]

...Everyone just assumes Rove exposed Mrs. Wilson to punish her and her husband. I understand why people might assume this because, that is how he practices politics. I am worried about the close relationship this president has with the Saudi royal family.

...When the basis for the propoganda blitz that this administration used to sell the war proves to be greatly exaggerated, if not completely false, the administration blames the CIA.

Then Bush bestows the medal of freedom on it's director?

Now the administration exposes a CIA front company, that may have been the best intelligence asset the CIA had to monitor Saudi oil money and it's flow to terrorist organizations?

Am I missing something?

This doesn't make sense to me.

I agree it is about far more than just revenge against Wilson. This administration is truly diabolical, as can be seen in several threads regarding election fraud or what have you.

Based on the fact that there has been more than two years investigation, we can conclude that Bush has no sincere desire to find out who leaked, and in fact has been hoping for the matter to go quietly away...(NO! ) Here's an update:

"77% OF AMERICANS BELIEVE THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS NOT TELLING THE TRUTH ON PLAME LEAK."

CBS News poll released today...

Regarding the Plame leak, the Bush Administration is:
~Hiding something: 55% of all surveyed
~Mostly lying: 22% " "
~Telling entire truth: 12% " "

Even 57% of Republicans think Bush, et al, are either hiding something or flat-out lying. I'm guessing the 12% "Truth" responders are, well we know who they are (if you subscribe to the SwiftBoaters monthly newsletter, watch Faux News, etc., I'm referring to you).

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/03/opinion/polls/main713832.shtml

 

[BobG]

I'm guessing the 12% "Truth" responders are, well we know who they are (......, watch Faux News, etc., I'm referring to you).

Hey! I happen to like the O'Reilly Factor. And this interview of Michael Crook by Hannity and Colmes was an all-time classic! (Even if they were duped by a scam artist) okay, maybe the quality drops off pretty badly

I'm just not all that sure this is so cut and dried a case. Bob Novak has been reporting for decades and he's good enough at putting the pieces together that it doesn't take much to confirm whether or not he's put them together correctly. Harlow pretty much confirmed the story to Novak all by himself, although you'd think someone as good at putting the pieces together as Novak could have also figured out that he'd better not include Plame in his story (how is it that it's a crime to leak classified information to the press, but it's legal for the press to print the classified information, even knowing it's classified?)

Rove's comments, whether his version or reporters' versions, were pretty brain-dead in any event - something that's pretty hard to see as 'just a mistake' from someone as calculating as Rove is.

If he goes down, it's good all the way around. It's good when a Segretti, Atwater, or Rove causes embarassment to their client. It makes his type seem a little riskier for candidates to employ - that's good in today's anything goes campaign climate. I'd just be surprised to see it happen, though.

 

[SOS2008]

Hey! I happen to like the O'Reilly Factor. And this interview of Michael Crook by Hannity and Colmes was an all-time classic! okay, maybe the quality drops off pretty badly after that.

I used to watch FOX News to see what the right-wing radicals were up to, but find it preferable to learn this through round table programs like the McLachlan Group, or The Situation with Tucker Carlson (now there's a Libertarian), and speaking of which I'll have to get transcripts of last night's program.

I'm just not all that sure this is so cut and dried a case. Bob Novak has been reporting for decades and he's good enough at putting the pieces together that it doesn't take much to confirm whether or not he's put them together correctly. Harlow pretty much confirmed the story to Novak all by himself, although you'd think someone as good at putting the pieces together as Novak could have also figured out that he'd better not include Plame in his story (how is it that it's a crime to leak classified information to the press, but it's legal for the press to print the classified information, even knowing it's classified?)

Rove's comments, whether his version or reporters' versions, were pretty brain-dead in any event - something that's pretty hard to see as 'just a mistake' from someone as calculating as Rove is.

If he goes down, it's good all the way around. It's good when a Segretti, Atwater, or Rove causes embarassment to their client. It makes his type seem a little riskier for candidates to employ - that's good in today's anything goes campaign climate. I'd just be surprised to see it happen, though.

Novak seems to be a little stressed indeed, and is now on suspension from CNN for his lack of professionalism on air. Still, let's say he was putting things together, a reporter can't print suspicions. Watergate is a great example in which reporters basically cross-referenced several sources before going to print. And Rove had no business discussing what he did with Cooper, even if he was only providing confirmation of a suspicion--what is that?

BTW, Karl Rove's middle name is 'Christian' - Somehow that seems creepy.

 

[Antiphon]

BTW, Karl Rove's middle name is 'Christian' - Somehow that seems creepy.

Funny- I'm more creeped out by people named "Mohammed." I guess
we each have our biases in such matters.

Novak is probably stressed bacause he's feeling too old to go to jail for contempt
of court. He's obviously better connected than the other two journalists
who are either in or were headed for jail.

This thing's a tempest in a teapot. Don't get too worked up over it or
you'll start sounding like the poor unhinged souls on the Democrat[/color]ic Underground[/color].

(I'd post over there too but they won't let people with my views in.
You see, for the true believers on the left it's not really about freedom
of speech or diversity of opinion- unless it's their speech and their
opinion.)

 

[Astronuc]

Overview and Timeline on the Plame/Wilson matter.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20050825/ts_latimes/aciacoverblownawhitehouseexposed

By Tom Hamburger and Sonni Efron Times Staff Writers
Thu Aug 25, 7:55 AM ET

WASHINGTON — Toward the end of a steamy summer week in 2003, reporters were peppering the White House with phone calls and e-mails, looking for someone to defend the administration's claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

About to emerge as a key critic was Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former diplomat who asserted that the administration had manipulated intelligence to justify the Iraq invasion.

At the White House, there wasn't much interest in responding to critics like Wilson that Fourth of July weekend. The communications staff faced more pressing concerns — the president's imminent trip to Africa, growing questions about the war and declining ratings in public opinion polls.

Wilson's accusations were based on an investigation he undertook for the CIA. But he was seen inside the White House as a "showboater" whose stature didn't warrant a high-level administration response. "Let him spout off solo on a holiday weekend," one White House official recalled saying. "Few will listen."

In fact, millions were riveted that Sunday as Wilson — on NBC's "Meet the Press" and in the pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post — accused the administration of ignoring intelligence that didn't support its rationale for war.

Underestimating the impact of Wilson's allegations was one in a series of misjudgments by White House officials.

In the days that followed, they would cast doubt on Wilson's CIA mission to Africa by suggesting to reporters that his wife was responsible for his trip. In the process, her identity as a covert CIA agent was divulged — possibly illegally.

 

[Skyhunter]

Did Time hide the truth to help Bush win reelection?

Here is an interesting take on the whole Rove/Plame scandal.

The Los Angeles Times takes a long look at Plamegate today. There's little new here -- except for a claim by someone close to Karl Rove that Rove first heard Plame's name from Bob Novak -- but the Times does raise an interesting question along the way. We know now that Rove and Scooter Libby were involved in the outing of Plame. But how is it, the Times asks, that their roles remained secret until after George W. Bush was reelected?

The answer, at least in part: Their roles remained secret because some members of the mainstream press helped to keep them secret. According to the Times' report, Time magazine's Matthew Cooper chose not to ask for a waiver of confidentiality from Rove until this summer -- in part because his attorney advised against it, and in part because "Time editors were concerned about becoming part of such an explosive story in an election year." As a result, the Times says, "Cooper's testimony was delayed nearly a year, well after Bush's reelection."

Translated, as John Aravosis explains at AMERICAblog today, that means that Time's editors didn't want Cooper to reveal information that could be damaging to Bush's reelections hopes until after the election was over. "It's one thing for Time to do its job and ignore the effects of its reporting and overall work on US elections," Aravosis writes. "It's quite another for Time to make decisions based on whether they'll influence US elections."

In a way, it may be even worse than that. By not seeking a waiver from Rove -- by not reporting what its reporter knew to be true -- Time allowed Americans to go the polls believing that which the magazine knew to be false. Until Time turned over Matthew Cooper's e-mail messages to Patrick Fitzgerald this July, the White House was free to proclaim -- as it did, repeatedly and vociferously -- that Karl Rove had nothing whatsoever to do with the outing of Valerie Plame. That's the false story Americans had been told when they cast their votes for the presidency in November. Time knew better but didn't say.

Now once again I must ask the question;

Is the US government a government of the people, by the people, and for the people?

It seems to be run by corporatists, which is just another way of saying fascists.

 

[BobG]

Here is an interesting take on the whole Rove/Plame scandal.

But how is it, the Times asks, that their roles remained secret until after George W. Bush was reelected?

The answer, at least in part: Their roles remained secret because some members of the mainstream press helped to keep them secret.

Now once again I must ask the question;

Is the US government a government of the people, by the people, and for the people?

It seems to be run by corporatists, which is just another way of saying fascists.

I doubt this is a case of Time Magazine trying to help Bush get elected. It's more an attempt to avoid the image of influencing the election. In other words, if Cooper had testified before the election and made that testimony public, people could have said Time Magazine's reporter directly influenced the election - they would have become the news rather than just reporting it.

The logic is flawed. It's like the aversion of a soccer referee to call a foul in the penalty area, knowing the resulting penalty kick would be an almost certain goal - it ignores the fact that a 'non-decision' just rewarded the person that committed the foul. Once you're in the game, it's too late to start pretending you can exist outside it.

First, Time Magazine is in the business of influencing opinion by the very nature of their work - they provide information. The only neutral and objective way to do this is to report all the news, regardless of which side is helped or hurt.

Second, Time was already part of the story whether they liked it or not. Choosing not to disclose to the public that they were part of the story didn't change the fact that they were going to impact the election one way or the other regardless of their decision. Revealing Cooper's story would help Kerry - hiding Cooper's story would help Bush - there was no neutral ground.

What hiding the story did accomplish was to allow Time to project the image that they were just a neutral observer outside the game. Sometimes affecting the story they're reporting on is unavoidable, but, even when unavoidable, it's embarrassing to a newspaper or magazine to become the story instead of just reporting it.

Edit: In other words, Time Magazine is guilty of cowardliness, not of being in cahoots with the Bush team.

 

[SOS2008]

Funny - I'm more creeped out by people named "Mohammed." I guess we each have our biases in such matters..)

You've misunderstood me. I have nothing against Christians. Many people claim Rove is the anti-Christ, and thus my joke. As for your remark about people named "Mohammed," you have once again revealed yourself--this time as being racist.

This thing's a tempest in a teapot. Don't get too worked up over it or you'll start sounding like the poor unhinged souls on the Democrat[/color]ic Underground[/color].

Never heard of it. I guess it's along the line of the Free Republic, etc., etc. :zzz:

That's the problem with this country...people don't get worked about things. Anyone with an iota of understanding and insight can see the seriousness of this and other matters related to Dubya & Co. I find it sad the media can report night after night about missing people, yet can't seem to keep Americans informed of how the investigation is progressing. In the meantime Miller remains and jail, and Novak--now he is creepy.

 

[Skyhunter]

What hiding the story did accomplish was to allow Time to project the image that they were just a neutral observer outside the game. Sometimes affecting the story they're reporting on is unavoidable, but, even when unavoidable, it's embarrassing to a newspaper or magazine to become the story instead of just reporting it.

Edit: In other words, Time Magazine is guilty of cowardliness, not of being in cahoots with the Bush team.

I understand your point, but I disagree.

They might have become the story, but only because the White House and their spin machine would have spun it that way.

Exposing the identity of a CIA operative is a felony. The fact that it was the President's political "architect" and chief of staff is news.

Of course it would have influenced the election. It was bound to come out sooner or later so your cowardice argument doesn't really hold up.

I believe the people making the decisions were Bush supporters and knew it would damage the presidents campaign.

If enough is made of this revelation maybe we will find out more that may alter my opinion, but at present I believe it is what it looks like. Corporate media supporting corporatist politicians. (not that John Kerry isn't a corporatist as well.)

 

[The Smoking Man]

I doubt this is a case of Time Magazine trying to help Bush get elected. It's more an attempt to avoid the image of influencing the election. In other words, if Cooper had testified before the election and made that testimony public, people could have said Time Magazine's reporter directly influenced the election - they would have become the news rather than just reporting it.

The logic is flawed. It's like the aversion of a soccer referee to call a foul in the penalty area, knowing the resulting penalty kick would be an almost certain goal - it ignores the fact that a 'non-decision' just rewarded the person that committed the foul. Once you're in the game, it's too late to start pretending you can exist outside it.

First, Time Magazine is in the business of influencing opinion by the very nature of their work - they provide information. The only neutral and objective way to do this is to report all the news, regardless of which side is helped or hurt.

Second, Time was already part of the story whether they liked it or not. Choosing not to disclose to the public that they were part of the story didn't change the fact that they were going to impact the election one way or the other regardless of their decision. Revealing Cooper's story would help Kerry - hiding Cooper's story would help Bush - there was no neutral ground.

What hiding the story did accomplish was to allow Time to project the image that they were just a neutral observer outside the game. Sometimes affecting the story they're reporting on is unavoidable, but, even when unavoidable, it's embarrassing to a newspaper or magazine to become the story instead of just reporting it.

Edit: In other words, Time Magazine is guilty of cowardliness, not of being in cahoots with the Bush team.

Then again ... What is the role of the 5th estate/Free Press?

What did Woodward and Bernstein do for the USA?

You all DO remember Watergate don't you?

 

[faust9]

Now how's this for a headline: "Scooter outed Plame!"

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/30/cia.leak/index.html

Lewis Libby, Dick Cheney's chief of staff, is Judith Miller's source. I wonder where Dick's personal chief of staff got the little'ol idea to leak Plame to the press?

[edit] I like how "scooter" let Ms. Miller sit in jail for 12 weeks before releasing her from her confidentiality agreement---here's the kicker race fans---even though the WH said she was freed of this obligation before she was imprisoned(only generically though). Why did it take WH VP chief of staff so long to come forward and do this? Did the WH want to spread out the links between 1600 Penn. Ave over a few months instead of releasing a handful of WH operative names at once? Hmmm first Rove, now Libby; the plot thickens.

 

[pattylou]

Isn't it possible that Lewis Libby knew who leaked Plame to the press (Maybe Rove?) and that he was Miller's source but what he told her was that it was Rove that actually leaked the name?

The sequence would be, briefly:

Rove: Wants to send message to Plame's husband to support the party line; leaks Plame's name.

Libby: Knows that Rove did this, tells Miller about it.

... In this case, Libby comes out looking pretty good. Is this possible?

 

[faust9]

Isn't it possible that Lewis Libby knew who leaked Plame to the press (Maybe Rove?) and that he was Miller's source but what he told her was that it was Rove that actually leaked the name?

The sequence would be, briefly:

Rove: Wants to send message to Plame's husband to support the party line; leaks Plame's name.

Libby: Knows that Rove did this, tells Miller about it.

... In this case, Libby comes out looking pretty good. Is this possible?

Sure, that is possible, but that doesn't explain a 12 week wait. If Libby was being such a boyscout then I would have expected him to step up a lot earlier say BEFORE Miller went to jail.

This stinks of spreading bad news out to minimize damage. Why did Libby wait until Thursday night to release Miller(knowing Millers story would hit on friday and hoping Miller's account would not be in the papers until Saturday)?

Libby might be a whistle blower but he's gone about it in an odd sort of fashion don't you think.

 

[pattylou]

Yeah.

But if we point the finger at Libby, what does that do to Rove's culpability?