This is an update to yesterday's article, Help! My Country has been Hijacked by Criminals and All I Got was this Lousy Refund Check!. It might be helpful to read that first, although the primary topic yesterday was the diversionary tactics of politicians and the stupidification of the American public.
The news today is that it's possible Rove did not leak Valerie Wilson (nee Plame) to Robert Novack, but that Novack leaked her name to Rove. This is unconfirmed, but it makes me very uncomfortable for a few reasons:
1) In my opinion, the Dems have been overly aggressive in targeting Rove. This will come back to bite them. However, even if this new news is true, it doesn't clear Rove. Scott McClellan clearly communicated in the past that anyone in the White House who was involved would be fired. He may still regret his poor choice of words.
2) It appears nobody on the Left ever learns their lesson. This looks like a classic Rove stunt. Think back to Rove's fake bugging incident in Texas, where he apparently bugged his own office and then held a press conference to blame it on the opposition. In this case, he carefully orchestrated the idea that he was the leak so the media would pounce on it. The White House, complicit in this scheme, clamped down on information at the press briefings, making them look guilty. This only fired up the media more, looking for whatever was hidden. Now comes his revelation that he was not the original source of the leak. Why didn't he say earlier? Now he can claim the Dems are out to get him and were just looking for an excuse.
3) The timing is extraordinarily bad, although I wouldn't bet money that this was a coincidence. Bush is about to name his candidate to replace Justice O'Connor. Rove's plan is probably to discredit the Democratic leadership right before the nomination by saying they're shrill naysayers crying wolf every time they see a sheep. The irony of this is that Rove is a wolf disguised as a sheep disguised as a wolf.
4) We still don't know who leaked Wilson's identity. It may have been Rove or it may not, but Novack clearly said it was from "2 high-level administration" sources. So the question is still there: Why was she outed? Back to conspiracy theories, it now appears that the one linking the outing to revenge against her husband is quaint and petty. The real conspiracy theory should now be that the administration orchestrated the leak to a) cause an uproar, b) blame Rove, c) show Rove to be (somewhat) innocent, and d) derail opposition to Bush's Supreme Court nominee. If this is the case, it goes beyond criminal to treasonous. Playing politics to gain power makes you a jerk, but it's legal and even arguably ethical. Breaking laws and weakening the country's intelligence network to gain power is akin to a coup d'état.
Thankfully, this administration is too honest and forthcoming to be a party to such paranoid fantasies.
28 comments:
The real latest news on the case is two interviews, one with her supervisor at the CIA in the Washington Times, and one with her husband done by Wolf Blitzer. In both we discover that not only was she not a covert agent at the time, but she'd been living in the U.S since 1997 (the statute on leaks says they have to have been covert in another country within the previous five years, and not just temporary, but long term), and that she may not even have been covert before 1997. So you can all drop it now.
I just wonder who Judith Miller is in jail protecting, and why.
I totally think that even if Rove didn't directly implicate Plame, he had something to do with it. He knew about it.
That said, it is so sad to me that our politics are in such a state that we are all programmed to second guess and doubt the opposition. Everything instantly becomes a witch hunt.
As for just who Judith Miller is protecting, I've already stated that if she's truly protecting Rove, well, she's a better woman than I. THAT is integrity!
He didn't implicate Plame in anything. She was not a covert agent and has not been in several years. Besides, Rove testified that the first time he heard anythign about Plame was from Novak and all it was was that she works for the CIA and recommended her husband for the trip. At that point Rove had no reason to know that she was ever covert, and as it turns out she wasn't att he time and hadn't been since before 1997. Twist it all you want, not only did Rove not break a law, but he didn't even do anything that anyone could consider wrong (except that he works for Bush, which seems to be enough to condemn him in many people's eyes).
The only real culprit here is Joseph Wilson. He's the man who said his wife had nothign to dow tih his trip (now known to be untrue, she recommended him for it), he's the one that said the White House outed her in retribution (now known not to be true as Wilson himself admitted she wasn't covert, thus nothing to out), and he's the one that said his trip proved the yellowcake stuff was wrong (the British still stand by it, and the congressional committee that examined his report found jsut the opposite). That's three lies Wilson said, and twice the entire left wing beleived him despite his previous history of lies. I guess lying is ok as long as it's done to hurt Bush.
Ben, it's like you don't even read the stuff you write.
First of all, she was a covert op. She worked for an energy company called Brewster Jennings & Associates. When Novack outed her, the company was also revealed to be a CIA front.
Second, all of her contacts and "employees" of BJ&A were exposed as CIA operatives. Even if Plame were not working there at the time, it doesn't make it OK to name her as a spook.
Third, she WAS overseas within 5 years - she was working in Niger with her husband. What is this bullshit about her being in the US for 5 yeasr straight? She's not *erally* a spy unless she files her taxes from somewhere else?
Fourth, when Valerie was still covert, of course her husband couldn't say she anything to do with the trip. It's called a state secret, something that apparently doesn't concern you in your zeal to defend every thing the Bush administration does by slandering anyone who disagrees with them.
Fifth, when you point the finger at Joseph Wilson, does that mean that even if he lied his report, that makes it OK for Rove or someone else in the adminstration to break the law??? "Sir, we can't say that. It's against the law." "Yeah, but he lied about us" "Oh, well then OK then. It's just a silly law."
Funny how the person who "is not a target" is "expected to be exonerated". And it's Rove's lawyer that says he's not a target, so as amused as you are, I'd take it with a grain of salt. Thanks for including the link, though.
Scott, Wilson says himself in his book that he and wife returned from overseas in 1997 and never left again. This was after her "cover" was blown, so he had no reason to hide the truth. So either you admit he's a liar and she went overseas as a covert agent, or you admit he's not a liar, and she wasn't a covert agent from 1997 on, at the least. This is all in USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-cia-wilson_x.htm
Furthermore, a former supervisor of hers at the CIA says not only was she not a covert agent, but she never bothered to hide the fact that she worked from the CIA. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050715-121257-9887r.htm
Facts are facts, Scott. I know you'll twist them around as long as there's a chance that you can trash Rove, but the truth is in black and white. If she was ever a covert agent, it was not in the last 5 years, Rove only repeated what a reporter told him, Rove was not aware that she was a covert agent (because she wasn't), and was not aware he was breaking a law (because he wasn't).
The special prosecutor doesn't consider Rove a suspect, either. Are all these people lying, and only you stand for truth and justice, or are you just so excited to fry Rove that you'll blind yourself to anything that contradicts your Bush-hatng desires?
One more thing regarding Scott's initial post. How the heck can you think this was orchestrated to distract attention from Supreme Court nominations? This all started in 2003! If you really think Bush and Rove planned this knowing what would happen two years in advance, then you ought to have happily supported the Iraq invasion, knowing that Bush and Rove can tell the future and that it's all rosy. They aren't that smart. If anything in this was manufactured, it's the witchhunt against Rove, a man who committed no crime (in this case, at least).
Wow Scott, you really are a conspiracy theorist. That post is beyond a stretch of the imagination.
By the way, when journalists protect sources it is lying by omission to a grand jury, which is why she's sitting in jail. I HARDLY call that integrity.
George Bush lies to an entire country on a regular basis. How much integrity does that show?
Reporters are the citizens' watchdog. They help to get the real info that may be hidden from us due to people with power wanting to keep us in the dark. A journalist has given their oath to protect their sources so that they may continue getting the info that is necessary to get to the truth. If journalists were to rat out their sources then we would be cut off from people who are trying to get out the truth. She is taking a hit for all us so that we may continue to get the truth that we deserve.
You know Judas did the lawful thing and ratted out Jesus, and no one thinks he has much integrity for that very reason.
That last comment was actually from me, not Mike. Comptuer user mixup.
Just wanted to say I was wrong about something. I said that Wilson said that his wife was not a covert agent the day that Rove talked to Cooper, but what he meant was that she was no longer a covert agent as soon as Rove spoke to Cooper. I think he's dissembling, but that quote was taken out of context, so I retract it as evidence in favor of Rove.
I'm still trying to figure out where anything was compromised. According to most reports, she openly drove to and from work at the CIA each day, where she walked in and out of the front door. She wasn't trying to hide that she worked for the CIA, so why are people so upset that Rove repeated to one repoerter something that he heard from another reporter? Oh, I know! It's because he works for Bush. It might seem less hypocritical if the people wanting to fry Rove had been upset at all about Sandy Berger stealing docs from the archives, but no one on the left seemed to have a problem with that breach of national security.
Next time, find a real story before you try to fry an administration official. These witchhunts make you look stupid when you only do it against one side.
Clinton confessed to having lied about his sexual consorts. I'm not saying that is negligible or excusable necessarily, but let's have a little perspective. Loads of people cheat on loads of other people every day and generally the fallout is minor in terms of body count. This is far different from lying to escape one's military duties or justfying sending one's country into an unwinnable, astoundingly expensive war. Among other things. I'm really quite tired of hearing people complain about how much they hate Bill Clinton because he got a blowjob. Because everyone gives/receives those too.
As for protecting sources, well, I suppose it could be argued that doing so is obstructionist and dishonest, but I believe that the First Amendment part about freedom of the press includes allowing journalists to keep their sources confidential if necessary so that sources are not afraid of retribution. Secrecy allows, perhaps ironically, for the truth to be known. What if Deep Throat had known that he'd be revealed? Out of concern for his own job, he most likely would have never divulged what he did to Wood/stein, and the American public might never have known about Nixon's transgressions. IMHO, it is important that the American press corps have the protection they need to to report on what is going on in the country.
I don't have a problem with reporters protecting their sources. But let's look at reality. Judith Miller is sitting in jail to protect her source. This means her source is not Rove, because he said that if anyone had used him as a source, to go ahead and say so. Whomever Miller is protecting is the "leaker" of information that cannot be leaked since it was not a secret. Because Miller won't name the real source, people are piling on to Rove because they can. As soon as she reveals the real culprit, people won't be able to trash Rove, so it's in the interest of Bush haters for her to stay in jail.
Of course if Deep Throat has revealed himself, then we would have known that it all happened because some whiny guy was upset about being passed over for promotion. Did Nixon do wrong? Yes, but then he ended up having dinner and being friends with the guy who f-ed him over, and he never knew all the way to the grave. You gotta give him some sympathy for that. Felt is no patriot, he's a whiny jerk who actions led to something good (debatable).
Mike, it's been officially documented that the yellow cake uranium deals were NOT GOING ON. The White House even later expunged those sixteen infamous words from the record, so I really don't see what Ambassador Wilson is lying about. That his wife was outed? Oh, no, wait, that happened too.
I stopped caring about this whole Rove thing a couple of days ago. Wah wah wah is all I hear from both sides, bunch of crying little babies too stubborn to admit the other might be wrong. This is why politics never interested me, bunch of scumbags all around. I care about real issues, not power struggles, and it really sucks that so much in the world is spiraling into shit and no one is doing anything to fix it.
Or these could just be the rantings of someone who really needs to get some sleep!
ORF, did you read Wilson's report, or are you basing this on what you've read elsewhere? The report I saw said that an Iraqi guy did approach someone in Niger about doing business, and though yellowcake was not explicitly said, that was the assumption. Wilson took a different conclusion, but the CIA disagreed with him.
Mike, it's simple. Rove works for Bush, so he's bad. Simple as that. Facts don't matter.
If all the facts were fully known, none of this would be happening. Since we're dealing with CIA operatives, I don't know, and shouldn't know every detail of their operations. There's a lot more, probably secret, information involved that no one in the media will be privy to. That said, I place my trust in the prosecutors investigation, not the poo slinging going on both sides of the political spectrum. Unlike Ken Starr, I believe this prosecutor is being impartial which is a very good thing. Remember Ben, when Clinton was President, Republicans slandered and attacked Clinton at every chance they had. Don't act like you're any different than any liberal attacks you complain about now. The difference is, Democrats have not even mentioned impeaching Bush, because you can't impeach someone just for not liking them. And a blowjob seems a little less serious that making assumptions that lead to war. I'll take lying over a blowjob anyday over lying about a threat, and resulting in the messy death and destruction we now have.
With respect to all this secret information, I also think it's ridiculous for anyone, especially bloggers, to make assumptions on what Valerie Plume did and whether or not she was covert. If we all knew so much about the daily lives of CIA operatives, they wouldnt be very effective, would they? Everything you see or read about Valerie Plume is what she wanted you to see, if she was good at her job.
Fine, Dave. We'll go with what the prosecuter says. And he said that Rove is not a suspect, and that all this information about emails that ahs come out was revealed to him by Rove when he first questioned him in 2004. Which goes back to that I said at the beginning of this thread. You can all drop the fry Rove junk since he's not under investigation, and wait for the prosecuter to reveal his findings.
I'll confess that to a certaine extent, Ben and Mike, you are right that I'm fairly unequivocal about how I feel about anyone having to do with the Bush Administration and that a person's sheer involvement is usually enough for an automatic indictment on my part. Hell, I know people who voted for him that I have trouble talking to. However, I'd just like to delight in it a little longer by pointing out that perhaps now you know how it feels to argue with someone who wants to quote an imperturbable source such as say, the Bible or God, thereby shutting down an otherwise civil discussion about something. It's impossible to overcome because anything you say or do to refute the reference just makes you end up looking like an unethical, immoral asshole who will rot in hell for all eternity. Amen.
How do you think we feel when we have to argue against things that destory economies like social security in it's current form. "You heartless bastard, why don't you just kill all the old people?" Or how about when I provide evidence that welfare programs for families tend to turn the children into a life of poverty and entitlement that is hard to get out of? "You heartless bastard, you want to steal the food off their tables." Or when I argue that affirmative action hurts the recipients in the long run, as recipients typically do far worse than their peers in whatever school they were given entrance to. "You f-ing racist!"
Just about every conservative economic ideal (I'm not religious right, please don't put me in that category with Mike, no offense, Mike) encounters the "heartless [or racist] bastard" reaction, instead of reasoned dissent. So I know exactly how you feel. I face this from both sides, because I frequently argue against Bible thumpers on social issues.
Ben, appropos of nothing, but I think you could singlehandedly write every comment and still not get this resolved. You're just arguing with yourself here. You were the one who brought up the "heartless bastard" meme, and then < surprise >, you successfully argued against it. I have to give you credit - you've very good at diverting conversations away from potentially damaging conclusions to topics less relevant but friendlier to your cause.
Scott, the conversation had veered away from Rove. The heartless bastard reference in my most recent comment was relating to ORF's comment about frustration in debate. I was mentioning that I share that frustration. If I previously called someone a heartless bastard, that merely reinforces my comment about it being hard to argue politics sometimes, due to such reactions. Now what exactly is your point? That I'm diverting attention away from Rove? Dave started that by saying we were arguing in circles, so yell at Dave fgor diverting attention. Oh wait, Dave is on your side, so you wouldn't criticize him, just me. So I'm still not sure I get your point, as it seem to be commenting on three or four different issues which are unrelated. Oh, and where did I previously bring up a heartless bastard point?
Boy, you're touchy. I meant that you both brought up and argued against the "heartless bastard" comment in the same post, even though nobody else was talking about. Calm down.
Mike, anything that doesn't agree with how you would like things to actually be you say comes from some mysterious "liberal propoganda machine". Or when others point out flaws in your reasoning you will fall back on divinity. Then you try to accuse me and others of not putting up a fair debate. I call that very hypocritical. There are plenty of sources out there about Rove's indiscretions. Try Wikipedia for starters. It will give you a good lowdown on this slimeball. Google to get even more. And I know you read OhReally's post, so don't act like you haven't been offered some proof of his history of wicked deeds.
Post a Comment