Good damned question…

…why is Judy Miller in jail? She can’t be protecting Rove as a source if Rove has been outed by Time’s Matt Cooper and if he signed a waiver freeing her to talk, which he did. Therefore, whatever source she is protecting isn’t Karl Rove. So who is it?

She knows. Her bosses at the NYT know. And they know that fingering her real source would probably lift some of the burden off of Rove…

A damn good question… One we’re not likely to get the answer to, unfortunately…

Of course, you have to wonder if this really matters at all, seeing as Ms. Plame, who plastered her mug all over any camera that would come near her after the outing that supposedly endangered her life, gave up the goods on what she did for a living to, for all intents and purposes, a stranger during their fourth date in the midst of some teenage petting and fondling.

“Meeting in Paris, London and Brussels, [the relationship between Plame and Wilson] got very serious, very quickly. On the third or fourth date, he says, they were in the middle of a ‘heavy make-out’ session when she said she had something to tell him.”

At that point Wilson told VF that his undercover enamorata interrupted their tryst and came clean.

“She was, she explained, undercover in the CIA,” VF said. Wilson told the magazine that the revelation “did nothing to dampen my ardour. My only question was: Is your name really Valerie?”

Sorry, but something’s rotten in this story, and it ain’t some mythical Rove leak.

Like why is Wilson out there defending Judith Miller’s right to keep her source a secret? Bryan makes a great point in his piece (based on what John Podhoretz wrote) that if someone had endangered your super-secret top-clearance hiding-in-the-bushes CIA operative wife’s life, would you defend their right to not disclose who risked her life?

I’d personally show up at her door with a gun and pound it until she told me, at which point, I’d find the bastard who did it and kick his/her/its ass.

Then there’s the question of why Rove is under heavier fire for telling the truth to Matt Cooper (as recounted in the Newsweek story last week) than Joe Wilson is for being a filthy politically motivated liar

Democrats and most of the Beltway press corps are baying for Karl Rove’s head over his role in exposing a case of CIA nepotism involving Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame. On the contrary, we’d say the White House political guru deserves a prize–perhaps the next iteration of the “Truth-Telling” award that The Nation magazine bestowed upon Mr. Wilson before the Senate Intelligence Committee exposed him as a fraud.

For Mr. Rove is turning out to be the real “whistleblower” in this whole sorry pseudo-scandal. He’s the one who warned Time’s Matthew Cooper and other reporters to be wary of Mr. Wilson’s credibility. He’s the one who told the press the truth that Mr. Wilson had been recommended for the CIA consulting gig by his wife, not by Vice President Dick Cheney as Mr. Wilson was asserting on the airwaves. In short, Mr. Rove provided important background so Americans could understand that Mr. Wilson wasn’t a whistleblower but was a partisan trying to discredit the Iraq War in an election campaign. Thank you, Mr. Rove.

The WSJ really nails it home here:

The same can’t be said for Mr. Wilson, who first “outed” himself as a CIA consultant in a melodramatic New York Times op-ed in July 2003. At the time he claimed to have thoroughly debunked the Iraq-Niger yellowcake uranium connection that President Bush had mentioned in his now famous “16 words” on the subject in that year’s State of the Union address.

Mr. Wilson also vehemently denied it when columnist Robert Novak first reported that his wife had played a role in selecting him for the Niger mission. He promptly signed up as adviser to the Kerry campaign and was feted almost everywhere in the media, including repeat appearances on NBC’s “Meet the Press” and a photo spread (with Valerie) in Vanity Fair.

But his day in the political sun was short-lived. The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report last July cited the note that Ms. Plame had sent recommending her husband for the Niger mission. “Interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD [Counterproliferation Division] employee, suggested his name for the trip,” said the report.

The same bipartisan report also pointed out that the forged documents Mr. Wilson claimed to have discredited hadn’t even entered intelligence channels until eight months after his trip. And it said the CIA interpreted the information he provided in his debrief as mildly supportive of the suspicion that Iraq had been seeking uranium in Niger.

About the same time, another inquiry headed by Britain’s Lord Butler delivered its own verdict on the 16 words: “We conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that ‘The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa’ was well-founded.”

In short, Joe Wilson hadn’t told the truth about what he’d discovered in Africa, how he’d discovered it, what he’d told the CIA about it, or even why he was sent on the mission. The media and the Kerry campaign promptly abandoned him, though the former never did give as much prominence to his debunking as they did to his original accusations. But if anyone can remember another public figure so entirely and thoroughly discredited, let us know.

As I said, this case stinks. Leftists the world over can hang their hat on Wilson’s honesty and integrity if they want to. I think it does a great job of illustrating their “get Bush at all costs no matter what” attitude. First it was Trent Lott, whose comments about the late Strom Thurmond pale in comparison to some of the whoppers from Patti Murray, Hillary Clinton, and Dick Durbin. Then it was the Tom DeLay “ethics violations,” the investigation of which was halted after congress sheeple realized that every single one of them had a closet full of skeletons (particularly Democrat leader Harry “Bush is a Loser” Reid).

Joe Wilson is an utterly discredited liar. Valerie Plame, for all her distress over her name being outed has done absolutely nothing to lay low since then (witness the Vanity Fair layout with her mug all over it). Odd behavior for someone who realized their life was in danger. Even odder reactions from Wilson. He wanted Rove “frogmarched out of the oval office in handcuffs” because he was so mad. He just “knew” it was Rove who outted his precious “I’ll tell you while I grope you” wife’s identity.

But here’s Miller with the actual information he needs to find out once and for sure who, as he put it, endangered his wife’s life, and yet he defends her right to keep the leaker a secret.

Maybe he’s the one who leaked her name in the first place?

This entry was posted in In The News, Interesting. Bookmark the permalink.
  • pam

    You are right. This case does stink. I have a feeling we will all be let down when the investigation ends. I think there is another source and I have a gut feeling that somehow Wilson is heavily involved.

  • http://www.robertkbrown.com/ RKB

    Pop quiz: are all lies created equally? Is it possible for more than one person to not tell the entire truth? Let’s supposed for the sake of argument that Wilson is a politically motivated hack, spewing all manner of lies, a guy trying to get as much free publicity (and all-expense paid trips to that top-tier vacation spot of Niger) as he can.

    Fine.

    Who the fuck is Wilson, anyway? Does he work in the White House? Does he have an office two doors away from the President? Does he help shape the policy of our country?

    No?

    But Karl Rove does. He spoke to Matt Cooper about “Wilson’s wife” and yet, for two fucking years, he denied ANY involvement in the matter. When he had the chance two years ago to come clean and say “hey, I talked to the guy, but didn’t say her name, or didn’t know she was covert, or whatever” he didn’t. Why not? Why did it take a grand jury investigation for him to admit that, yes, indeed, the whole time, he was the super double triple latte with no foam source for at least one reporter?

    Why does the credibility of a nobody Wilson bother you so much more than the clear lack of honesty from probably the third most influential person in the White House?

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com Vinny

    Who the fuck is Wilson, anyway? Does he work in the White House? Does he have an office two doors away from the President? Does he help shape the policy of our country?

    Do you not think his exposition of a lie about “16 words” has affected policy in this country?

    Or that his quest to get the deputy chief of staff arrested has affected policy in this country?

    Or that his assertion that his wife’s life was in danger because of the Bush White House has affected policy in this country?

    Or that he used his past as a UN ambassador to add credibility to the proven lies he was spewing?

    Meanwhile, Karl Rove, who’s thus far guilty of nothing (and most likely will never be proven to be guilty of anything as noted in the piece above) is now enduring a lynching and the pitchfork carrying media is dying to see him removed for something he didn’t do.

    His claim was he had nothing to do with the outing of Plame, a claim he repeated on CNN last year when he told them he didn’t even know her name.

    Why does the credibility of a nobody Wilson bother you so much more than the clear lack of honesty from probably the third most influential person in the White House?

    Because Wilson’s non-credibility is being ignored while Rove is being charged and convicted in the court of public opinion based on absolutely nothing. I don’t see a “clear lack of honesty” on the part of Rove. He said he didn’t leak her name. He didn’t leak her name according to everything we know. If he was Judith Miller’s source, she would’ve opened up because the confidentiality was broken when he gave Matt Cooper permission to talk.

    If he was guilty of anything, upon revealing that, he would be charged. So far he has not been.

    This whole blow up over Plame’s identity being leaked was started by the very person whose credibility you think is unimportant. But then again, this is the typical MO in dealing with the Bush administration. It doesn’t matter if the charges are true or credible, just that they’re serious.

  • Dave

    Valerie had not worked undercover for about 8 or 9 years before her name became famous in this whole thing. She was pulled off undercover work because her name had been leaked to the Russians by someone that was arrested for espoinage. Ever since, she has been working her way up the administration ladder. Revealing her name is as much a security risk as revealing the name of the head of the CIA.

  • pam

    RKB- I don’t think he denied talking to the reporters, he denied outing Plame.

  • http://www.robertkbrown.com/ RKB

    No, Vinny, I honestly don’t think one word that Wilson has written or spoken has had a bit of impact on policy in this country. We still went to war, even without WMD in Iraq, without a nuclear connection, without ties to 9/11, without mobile weapons labs, without an entire litany of things that Bush spelled out for us in his State of the Union in, what, 2003?

    He doesn’t work in the White House. He’s not a senior advisor there. It’s just silly to think that he’s anywhere near as influential as Rove.

    And, Pam, he actually denied having ANY involvement in the matter. None. That’s my beef with it. I could care less how much he wants to parse his language, whether he knew she was covert, or whether he used her name. It’s all BS. From a press briefing in 2003, Scott McClellan had this to say:

    “And I made it very clear back there in July, too, that there was no information beyond the media reports with anonymous sources to suggest any White House involvement.”

    And, later

    “Let me make it very clear. As I said previously, [Rove] was not involved, and that allegation is not true in terms of leaking classified information, nor would he condone it.”

    There are plenty of other examples, where Rove denies ANY involvement. Bottom line is that he was involved. Whether it was classified or not, he did leak information about Wilson’s wife to AT LEAST Matthew Cooper, if not others. That’s what e-mails from Cooper and, presumably, his Grand Jury testimony speak to.

    Those are facts: Rove spoke to at least one reporter about Wilson’s wife in the days after his scathing NYT editorial. And then he spent two years denying any involvement. That’s a big lie.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com Vinny

    Well, your blockquote certainly doesn’t do a whole hell of a lot to condemn anyone because the info he gave to Matt Cooper wasn’t classified, now, was it?

    He denied involvement in leaking her name, which is the “crime” we’re talking about here. So far no one has turned up any proof to the contrary.

  • pam

    RKB- you keep giving me what McClellen said. Where are Roves words.

  • http://www.robertkbrown.com/ RKB

    The official position all along has been that “The White House” has had no involvement in the case. Scott McCellan is the spokesperson for this administration. When he says “there was no information … to suggest any White House involvement” in the case. It’s hard to find Rove quotes because he doesn’t give almost-daily press briefings. But McClellan made it abundantly clear over the course of several months of press conferences that nobody in the White House was involved in any leaks.

    This really has been an amazing display of Clintonian parsing, sticking to the strictest definitions of words as possible, instead of being completely honest.

    I just can’t believe that anybody can defend the ethics of a man who discredits an administration critic not by rebutting his arguments, but by bringing his wife into the mix. How underhanded is that? You don’t let your case rest on it’s merits. You don’t provide counter-arguments for the points raised by your critic. Nope. What you do is tell people that you shouldn’t put much faith in the critic because, get this, his WIFE got him his job. Heh. Like you can believe ANYTHING he says now.

    Whether it was classified information or not, it’s still a pathetically petty way to respond to criticism.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com Vinny

    Amazing.

    Joe Wilson’s ethics are simply unassailable in people’s mind. Karl Rove, who unless I missed the indictment has done nothing wrong so far (and even if he did leak the name, the leak isn’t covered by the law), seems to be a favorite target.

    Joe Wilson has been proven a liar again and again and again, and yet his word is gospel.

    Someone really needs to explain to me the discrepancy.

  • http://www.robertkbrown.com/ RKB

    Where did I say anything about Wilson’s word? I’ve never attributed anything to him. My source is Rove told Cooper that Wilson’s trip had not been authorized by “DCIA”—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, “it was, KR said, wilson’s wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip.” Wilson’s wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA’s Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division. (Cooper later included the essence of what Rove told him in an online story.) The e-mail characterizing the conversation continues: “not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly there’s still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger … ”

    Again I ask, where is it okay to attack a critic by bringing his wife into the mix? When is that EVER an appropriate tactic? Would you do that to a co-worker, even if he lies all the time? Instead of confronting a co-worker about how he’s delaying the project, would you go to management and say that the reason the project is being delayed is because you have it on good word that Joe’s wife — who doesn’t like your boss — wants the project to fail.

    If you have a beef with me, bring it up with me. Directly. If I get an op/ed piece published in a paper that criticizes you, then respond to my criticism. Use your bully pulpit to knock down my arguments. Get a counter-argument published in the same paper. Use blockquotes and everything to Fisk the hell out my lame-ass thesis. Whatever.

    But don’t go around whispering to others that I’m wrong because of something to do with my wife. That you shouldn’t trust what I say.

    What bothers me about this — and you’re perpetuating it, Vinny — is that instead of knocking down the argument, this administration chose to knock down the man. By way of his wife. In hindsight, it appears that they did this because his arguments were valid: there was no Iraq/Niger connection.

    While it’s not against the law to respond to criticism like this, that doesn’t make it RIGHT. It’s unethical.

  • pam

    Why don’t you take a look at the New York Times from today. It appears they may be trying to tell the public that it was their reporter that told Rove about Plame.

  • Dave

    Rove didn’t bring Plame into this. She brought herself into it. A memo with her name on it recommends Wilson to be sent to Niger. She got herself involved.

  • http://www.robertkbrown.com/ RKB

    Are you serious, Dave? As if he had no other qualifications aside from the fact that his wife maybe suggested he’d be a good fit for the work?

    He served as ambassador to Gabon and S√£o Tomé and Príncipe under President George H. W. Bush, and helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council under President Bill Clinton. He was hailed as “truly inspiring” and “courageous” by George H. W. Bush after sheltering more than a hundred Americans at the US embassy in Baghdad, and mocking Saddam Hussein’s threats to execute anyone who refused to hand over foreigners. As a result, in 1990, he also became the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein (Wilson, 2003).

    And a recommendation doesn’t mean anything — I could (and have) recommend any number of potential hires to former bosses. Doesn’t mean they’re required to take action. If Wilson wasn’t qualified to do the job, he wouldn’t have gone, regardless of what his wife had to say about it.

    No, Dave, that lame excuse doesn’t hold any water.

  • Dave

    You misunderstand, I wasn’t saying anything about Wilson’s qualifications. I was making the point that if Plame truly wanted to be “covert”, then she shouldn’t have put her name on a memo recommending her husband for an assignment.

  • Bill

    There should not be any issue regarding Karl Rove because there was no crime committed. Don’t beleieve me; the NYT, Time and all of the “main strea m media” very strongly made that point to a judge when they tried to prevent Judith Miller, Matt Cooper and others from having to give up their sources. We know why the Democrats are keeping up the attack, they want payback to Rove for making them totally powerless. The real story here is why is the main stream media keeping up the pressure. I think its their payback because one of their own is in jail. They hate losing, they hate Rove because they are all liberals and they would love to nail the President. They are totally shameless in this attack. There is plenty of news out there without the media manufacturing any.

  • http://www.robertkbrown.com/ RKB

    So, Bill, I’m confused. Are the NYT and Time magazine good or bad? It sounds like, at the beginning, as part of “the mainstream media” they were helping out Rove by trying to prevent their reporters from giving up their sources. But now they’re on a relentless attack? I don’t get it.

    And Dave, how does any communication take place within the CIA? Do you think that agents — even covert ones — don’t write memos, too? That’s why they have that whole “security clearance” thing going on, so that people can communicate to their superiors without worrying about OTHER people, people without the appropriate security clearances, knowing their status.

    For all those who defend Rove’s ethics in this matter, I wonder how you’d react if it was the Clinton administration and, say, Al Gore made some phone calls from his office, not breaking any laws or anything, with reporters from that hell-bent liberal newspaper and that equally loony-left magazine going to jail because they wouldn’t sing about some potential wrongdoings in the White House.

    No issue because no crime was committed? Please. That’s the entire damn platform that Bush ran on in 2000 — that he’d bring a higher standard to the White House. Always honest, never parsing.

    Criminal or not, Rove leaked information to the press in order to disparage a critic of the administration. Wilson’s wife could have worked at freaking DQ for all I care. It still wouldn’t change the fact that what he did initially was petty and vindictive — and what both he and the White House did for years afterwards, denying any involvement, were flat-out lies.

  • Bill

    So, RKB, if I could I would write this in crayon. The Times et. al. hate the President. My point is that they have considerable nerve and a tremendous lack of consistancy when they swear up and down before a judge that no crime has been committed and then knock themsleves out trying to nail Rove for the crime that was not committed. Also, no crime, no leak. There is no crime because she was not covert so there is no leak. When Novak said he heard the wife was CIA, Rove said he heard the same thing. I’ve heard that Clinton is a rapist. Does that mean I know he is a rapist? But, I do agree that in the shame that politics has become in this country, if this was a democrat mess I would be piling on. I would prefer real political discussion but there just aint anyone out there doing that.

  • Bill

    Please excuse the harshness of my tone. I’m looking for serious debate because I find the whole prccess interesting and there I am getting nasty. I guess the open warfare that is going on at the highest, visible levels is starting to permeate down. I’m doing exactly what I was complaining the mainstream media is doing. I’m better than that.

  • http://www.robertkbrown.com/ RKB

    Not a problem, Bill. I’ve been on the receiving end of worse. I think this thing is only beginning to unfold, with lots of information yet to learn.

  • Bill

    Have you ever noticed how the liberals and democrats seem to march in lockstep. It’s as if the talking points are faxed out every morning from the DNC to all interested parties, and none of them are smart enough to veer even a little to either side. I always look at the liberal sites (NYT, Nation, Molly Ivens, etc) to see what they are thinking. And it always seems that you only need to check one because the others all say the exact same thing. Today I noticed that Valerie Plame has become Valerie Wilson. They are so desperate that they are (once again) sacrificing hard earned women’s rights to form a common front against the president. Amazing.

  • pam

    You are right. This case does stink. I have a feeling we will all be let down when the investigation ends. I think there is another source and I have a gut feeling that somehow Wilson is heavily involved.

  • pam

    You are right. This case does stink. I have a feeling we will all be let down when the investigation ends. I think there is another source and I have a gut feeling that somehow Wilson is heavily involved.

  • http://www.robertkbrown.com/ RKB

    Pop quiz: are all lies created equally? Is it possible for more than one person to not tell the entire truth? Let’s supposed for the sake of argument that Wilson is a politically motivated hack, spewing all manner of lies, a guy trying to get as much free publicity (and all-expense paid trips to that top-tier vacation spot of Niger) as he can.

    Fine.

    Who the fuck is Wilson, anyway? Does he work in the White House? Does he have an office two doors away from the President? Does he help shape the policy of our country?

    No?

    But Karl Rove does. He spoke to Matt Cooper about “Wilson’s wife” and yet, for two fucking years, he denied ANY involvement in the matter. When he had the chance two years ago to come clean and say “hey, I talked to the guy, but didn’t say her name, or didn’t know she was covert, or whatever” he didn’t. Why not? Why did it take a grand jury investigation for him to admit that, yes, indeed, the whole time, he was the super double triple latte with no foam source for at least one reporter?

    Why does the credibility of a nobody Wilson bother you so much more than the clear lack of honesty from probably the third most influential person in the White House?

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    Who the fuck is Wilson, anyway? Does he work in the White House? Does he have an office two doors away from the President? Does he help shape the policy of our country?

    Do you not think his exposition of a lie about “16 words” has affected policy in this country?

    Or that his quest to get the deputy chief of staff arrested has affected policy in this country?

    Or that his assertion that his wife’s life was in danger because of the Bush White House has affected policy in this country?

    Or that he used his past as a UN ambassador to add credibility to the proven lies he was spewing?

    Meanwhile, Karl Rove, who’s thus far guilty of nothing (and most likely will never be proven to be guilty of anything as noted in the piece above) is now enduring a lynching and the pitchfork carrying media is dying to see him removed for something he didn’t do.

    His claim was he had nothing to do with the outing of Plame, a claim he repeated on CNN last year when he told them he didn’t even know her name.

    Why does the credibility of a nobody Wilson bother you so much more than the clear lack of honesty from probably the third most influential person in the White House?

    Because Wilson’s non-credibility is being ignored while Rove is being charged and convicted in the court of public opinion based on absolutely nothing. I don’t see a “clear lack of honesty” on the part of Rove. He said he didn’t leak her name. He didn’t leak her name according to everything we know. If he was Judith Miller’s source, she would’ve opened up because the confidentiality was broken when he gave Matt Cooper permission to talk.

    If he was guilty of anything, upon revealing that, he would be charged. So far he has not been.

    This whole blow up over Plame’s identity being leaked was started by the very person whose credibility you think is unimportant. But then again, this is the typical MO in dealing with the Bush administration. It doesn’t matter if the charges are true or credible, just that they’re serious.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    Who the fuck is Wilson, anyway? Does he work in the White House? Does he have an office two doors away from the President? Does he help shape the policy of our country?

    Do you not think his exposition of a lie about “16 words” has affected policy in this country?

    Or that his quest to get the deputy chief of staff arrested has affected policy in this country?

    Or that his assertion that his wife’s life was in danger because of the Bush White House has affected policy in this country?

    Or that he used his past as a UN ambassador to add credibility to the proven lies he was spewing?

    Meanwhile, Karl Rove, who’s thus far guilty of nothing (and most likely will never be proven to be guilty of anything as noted in the piece above) is now enduring a lynching and the pitchfork carrying media is dying to see him removed for something he didn’t do.

    His claim was he had nothing to do with the outing of Plame, a claim he repeated on CNN last year when he told them he didn’t even know her name.

    Why does the credibility of a nobody Wilson bother you so much more than the clear lack of honesty from probably the third most influential person in the White House?

    Because Wilson’s non-credibility is being ignored while Rove is being charged and convicted in the court of public opinion based on absolutely nothing. I don’t see a “clear lack of honesty” on the part of Rove. He said he didn’t leak her name. He didn’t leak her name according to everything we know. If he was Judith Miller’s source, she would’ve opened up because the confidentiality was broken when he gave Matt Cooper permission to talk.

    If he was guilty of anything, upon revealing that, he would be charged. So far he has not been.

    This whole blow up over Plame’s identity being leaked was started by the very person whose credibility you think is unimportant. But then again, this is the typical MO in dealing with the Bush administration. It doesn’t matter if the charges are true or credible, just that they’re serious.

  • Dave

    Valerie had not worked undercover for about 8 or 9 years before her name became famous in this whole thing. She was pulled off undercover work because her name had been leaked to the Russians by someone that was arrested for espoinage. Ever since, she has been working her way up the administration ladder. Revealing her name is as much a security risk as revealing the name of the head of the CIA.

  • pam

    RKB- I don’t think he denied talking to the reporters, he denied outing Plame.

  • http://www.robertkbrown.com/ RKB

    No, Vinny, I honestly don’t think one word that Wilson has written or spoken has had a bit of impact on policy in this country. We still went to war, even without WMD in Iraq, without a nuclear connection, without ties to 9/11, without mobile weapons labs, without an entire litany of things that Bush spelled out for us in his State of the Union in, what, 2003?

    He doesn’t work in the White House. He’s not a senior advisor there. It’s just silly to think that he’s anywhere near as influential as Rove.

    And, Pam, he actually denied having ANY involvement in the matter. None. That’s my beef with it. I could care less how much he wants to parse his language, whether he knew she was covert, or whether he used her name. It’s all BS. From a press briefing in 2003, Scott McClellan had this to say:

    “And I made it very clear back there in July, too, that there was no information beyond the media reports with anonymous sources to suggest any White House involvement.”

    And, later

    “Let me make it very clear. As I said previously, [Rove] was not involved, and that allegation is not true in terms of leaking classified information, nor would he condone it.”

    There are plenty of other examples, where Rove denies ANY involvement. Bottom line is that he was involved. Whether it was classified or not, he did leak information about Wilson’s wife to AT LEAST Matthew Cooper, if not others. That’s what e-mails from Cooper and, presumably, his Grand Jury testimony speak to.

    Those are facts: Rove spoke to at least one reporter about Wilson’s wife in the days after his scathing NYT editorial. And then he spent two years denying any involvement. That’s a big lie.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    Well, your blockquote certainly doesn’t do a whole hell of a lot to condemn anyone because the info he gave to Matt Cooper wasn’t classified, now, was it?

    He denied involvement in leaking her name, which is the “crime” we’re talking about here. So far no one has turned up any proof to the contrary.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    Well, your blockquote certainly doesn’t do a whole hell of a lot to condemn anyone because the info he gave to Matt Cooper wasn’t classified, now, was it?

    He denied involvement in leaking her name, which is the “crime” we’re talking about here. So far no one has turned up any proof to the contrary.

  • pam

    RKB- you keep giving me what McClellen said. Where are Roves words.

  • pam

    RKB- you keep giving me what McClellen said. Where are Roves words.

  • http://www.robertkbrown.com/ RKB

    The official position all along has been that “The White House” has had no involvement in the case. Scott McCellan is the spokesperson for this administration. When he says “there was no information … to suggest any White House involvement” in the case. It’s hard to find Rove quotes because he doesn’t give almost-daily press briefings. But McClellan made it abundantly clear over the course of several months of press conferences that nobody in the White House was involved in any leaks.

    This really has been an amazing display of Clintonian parsing, sticking to the strictest definitions of words as possible, instead of being completely honest.

    I just can’t believe that anybody can defend the ethics of a man who discredits an administration critic not by rebutting his arguments, but by bringing his wife into the mix. How underhanded is that? You don’t let your case rest on it’s merits. You don’t provide counter-arguments for the points raised by your critic. Nope. What you do is tell people that you shouldn’t put much faith in the critic because, get this, his WIFE got him his job. Heh. Like you can believe ANYTHING he says now.

    Whether it was classified information or not, it’s still a pathetically petty way to respond to criticism.

  • http://www.robertkbrown.com/ RKB

    The official position all along has been that “The White House” has had no involvement in the case. Scott McCellan is the spokesperson for this administration. When he says “there was no information … to suggest any White House involvement” in the case. It’s hard to find Rove quotes because he doesn’t give almost-daily press briefings. But McClellan made it abundantly clear over the course of several months of press conferences that nobody in the White House was involved in any leaks.

    This really has been an amazing display of Clintonian parsing, sticking to the strictest definitions of words as possible, instead of being completely honest.

    I just can’t believe that anybody can defend the ethics of a man who discredits an administration critic not by rebutting his arguments, but by bringing his wife into the mix. How underhanded is that? You don’t let your case rest on it’s merits. You don’t provide counter-arguments for the points raised by your critic. Nope. What you do is tell people that you shouldn’t put much faith in the critic because, get this, his WIFE got him his job. Heh. Like you can believe ANYTHING he says now.

    Whether it was classified information or not, it’s still a pathetically petty way to respond to criticism.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    Amazing.

    Joe Wilson’s ethics are simply unassailable in people’s mind. Karl Rove, who unless I missed the indictment has done nothing wrong so far (and even if he did leak the name, the leak isn’t covered by the law), seems to be a favorite target.

    Joe Wilson has been proven a liar again and again and again, and yet his word is gospel.

    Someone really needs to explain to me the discrepancy.

  • http://www.robertkbrown.com/ RKB

    Where did I say anything about Wilson’s word? I’ve never attributed anything to him. My source is Rove told Cooper that Wilson’s trip had not been authorized by “DCIA”—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, “it was, KR said, wilson’s wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip.” Wilson’s wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA’s Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division. (Cooper later included the essence of what Rove told him in an online story.) The e-mail characterizing the conversation continues: “not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly there’s still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger … ”

    Again I ask, where is it okay to attack a critic by bringing his wife into the mix? When is that EVER an appropriate tactic? Would you do that to a co-worker, even if he lies all the time? Instead of confronting a co-worker about how he’s delaying the project, would you go to management and say that the reason the project is being delayed is because you have it on good word that Joe’s wife — who doesn’t like your boss — wants the project to fail.

    If you have a beef with me, bring it up with me. Directly. If I get an op/ed piece published in a paper that criticizes you, then respond to my criticism. Use your bully pulpit to knock down my arguments. Get a counter-argument published in the same paper. Use blockquotes and everything to Fisk the hell out my lame-ass thesis. Whatever.

    But don’t go around whispering to others that I’m wrong because of something to do with my wife. That you shouldn’t trust what I say.

    What bothers me about this — and you’re perpetuating it, Vinny — is that instead of knocking down the argument, this administration chose to knock down the man. By way of his wife. In hindsight, it appears that they did this because his arguments were valid: there was no Iraq/Niger connection.

    While it’s not against the law to respond to criticism like this, that doesn’t make it RIGHT. It’s unethical.

  • pam

    Why don’t you take a look at the New York Times from today. It appears they may be trying to tell the public that it was their reporter that told Rove about Plame.

  • Dave

    Rove didn’t bring Plame into this. She brought herself into it. A memo with her name on it recommends Wilson to be sent to Niger. She got herself involved.

  • http://www.robertkbrown.com/ RKB

    Are you serious, Dave? As if he had no other qualifications aside from the fact that his wife maybe suggested he’d be a good fit for the work?

    He served as ambassador to Gabon and S√£o Tomé and Príncipe under President George H. W. Bush, and helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council under President Bill Clinton. He was hailed as “truly inspiring” and “courageous” by George H. W. Bush after sheltering more than a hundred Americans at the US embassy in Baghdad, and mocking Saddam Hussein’s threats to execute anyone who refused to hand over foreigners. As a result, in 1990, he also became the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein (Wilson, 2003).

    And a recommendation doesn’t mean anything — I could (and have) recommend any number of potential hires to former bosses. Doesn’t mean they’re required to take action. If Wilson wasn’t qualified to do the job, he wouldn’t have gone, regardless of what his wife had to say about it.

    No, Dave, that lame excuse doesn’t hold any water.

  • Dave

    You misunderstand, I wasn’t saying anything about Wilson’s qualifications. I was making the point that if Plame truly wanted to be “covert”, then she shouldn’t have put her name on a memo recommending her husband for an assignment.

  • Dave

    You misunderstand, I wasn’t saying anything about Wilson’s qualifications. I was making the point that if Plame truly wanted to be “covert”, then she shouldn’t have put her name on a memo recommending her husband for an assignment.

  • Bill

    There should not be any issue regarding Karl Rove because there was no crime committed. Don’t beleieve me; the NYT, Time and all of the “main strea m media” very strongly made that point to a judge when they tried to prevent Judith Miller, Matt Cooper and others from having to give up their sources. We know why the Democrats are keeping up the attack, they want payback to Rove for making them totally powerless. The real story here is why is the main stream media keeping up the pressure. I think its their payback because one of their own is in jail. They hate losing, they hate Rove because they are all liberals and they would love to nail the President. They are totally shameless in this attack. There is plenty of news out there without the media manufacturing any.

  • Bill

    There should not be any issue regarding Karl Rove because there was no crime committed. Don’t beleieve me; the NYT, Time and all of the “main strea m media” very strongly made that point to a judge when they tried to prevent Judith Miller, Matt Cooper and others from having to give up their sources. We know why the Democrats are keeping up the attack, they want payback to Rove for making them totally powerless. The real story here is why is the main stream media keeping up the pressure. I think its their payback because one of their own is in jail. They hate losing, they hate Rove because they are all liberals and they would love to nail the President. They are totally shameless in this attack. There is plenty of news out there without the media manufacturing any.

  • http://www.robertkbrown.com/ RKB

    So, Bill, I’m confused. Are the NYT and Time magazine good or bad? It sounds like, at the beginning, as part of “the mainstream media” they were helping out Rove by trying to prevent their reporters from giving up their sources. But now they’re on a relentless attack? I don’t get it.

    And Dave, how does any communication take place within the CIA? Do you think that agents — even covert ones — don’t write memos, too? That’s why they have that whole “security clearance” thing going on, so that people can communicate to their superiors without worrying about OTHER people, people without the appropriate security clearances, knowing their status.

    For all those who defend Rove’s ethics in this matter, I wonder how you’d react if it was the Clinton administration and, say, Al Gore made some phone calls from his office, not breaking any laws or anything, with reporters from that hell-bent liberal newspaper and that equally loony-left magazine going to jail because they wouldn’t sing about some potential wrongdoings in the White House.

    No issue because no crime was committed? Please. That’s the entire damn platform that Bush ran on in 2000 — that he’d bring a higher standard to the White House. Always honest, never parsing.

    Criminal or not, Rove leaked information to the press in order to disparage a critic of the administration. Wilson’s wife could have worked at freaking DQ for all I care. It still wouldn’t change the fact that what he did initially was petty and vindictive — and what both he and the White House did for years afterwards, denying any involvement, were flat-out lies.

  • Bill

    So, RKB, if I could I would write this in crayon. The Times et. al. hate the President. My point is that they have considerable nerve and a tremendous lack of consistancy when they swear up and down before a judge that no crime has been committed and then knock themsleves out trying to nail Rove for the crime that was not committed. Also, no crime, no leak. There is no crime because she was not covert so there is no leak. When Novak said he heard the wife was CIA, Rove said he heard the same thing. I’ve heard that Clinton is a rapist. Does that mean I know he is a rapist? But, I do agree that in the shame that politics has become in this country, if this was a democrat mess I would be piling on. I would prefer real political discussion but there just aint anyone out there doing that.

  • Bill

    Please excuse the harshness of my tone. I’m looking for serious debate because I find the whole prccess interesting and there I am getting nasty. I guess the open warfare that is going on at the highest, visible levels is starting to permeate down. I’m doing exactly what I was complaining the mainstream media is doing. I’m better than that.

  • http://www.robertkbrown.com/ RKB

    Not a problem, Bill. I’ve been on the receiving end of worse. I think this thing is only beginning to unfold, with lots of information yet to learn.

  • Bill

    Have you ever noticed how the liberals and democrats seem to march in lockstep. It’s as if the talking points are faxed out every morning from the DNC to all interested parties, and none of them are smart enough to veer even a little to either side. I always look at the liberal sites (NYT, Nation, Molly Ivens, etc) to see what they are thinking. And it always seems that you only need to check one because the others all say the exact same thing. Today I noticed that Valerie Plame has become Valerie Wilson. They are so desperate that they are (once again) sacrificing hard earned women’s rights to form a common front against the president. Amazing.