check the larger plame thread. i posted an article by one of the drafters of the statute, speaking to this particular point/
The news that Rove might be the source of the Plame leak stunned me as much as when I found out in Episode III that Anakin Skywalker was Darth Vader.
Is Karl Rove Screwed, or Not? http://www.alternet.org/story/23451/ By Jan Frel, AlterNet. Posted July 11, 2005. A week ago, what Karl Rove may have done to expose the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame was just another gone-nowhere, 2-year-old, dusty Bush scandal on the shelf, relegated to languish among the lies that got us into the war in Iraq and the doctored FDA reports that suppressed the risks of Big Pharma's moneymakers. Today, What Karl Rove Said is the story. And there's every indication that for the first time, he is in deep sh*t. That's really what everyone wants to confirm: Is Karl Rove screwed, or not? And luckily for us, for the first time he's going to have to answer some questions on terms other than his. Kenneth Lerer, a former top exec for AOL-TimeWarner, nailed in the Huffington Post how times have suddenly changed for Bush's Svengali advisor. Here's the world Karl Rove until now has lived in: [When] Rove says he can't be quoted, he's not quoted. Period. He knows what he says will never ever come back to haunt him. Talk to the reporter. Say what he wants to. Move on to the next call. It's like talking to your psychiatrist or rabbi/priest: It's a private conversation never to be repeated. And now in the present: But now imagine if some of the things you said to your psychiatrist, rabbi/priest all of a sudden were to become public. Sh*t. Now you understand Rove's problem. But, considering the fact that not one of the seven hairs on Rove's balding head has been so much as singed since Bush took office, it's worth looking at what it is that will take the man down. Is it the court case, or will it be political damage? David Corn points out that Rove doesn't need to go jail for this incident to do grievous harm to the White House -- and that's what we all care about anyway, right? That for once, Bush or Rove or somebody in the administration gets an uppercut that keeps them down on the mat, or at least out for an eight-count. It's about seeing that you can hurt these folks, who have been miraculous untouchables in their first four-and-a-half years. Corn writes, "This is proof that the Bush White House was using any information it could gather on Joseph Wilson -- even classified information related to national security -- to pursue a vendetta against Wilson, a White House critic. Even if it turns out Rove did not break the law regarding the naming of intelligence officials, this new disclosure could prove Rove guilty of leaking a national security secret to a reporter for political ends. What would George W. Bush do about that?" Corn reminds us that in George Bush's statements on the leak scandals of 2003, Bush threatened to "take care of" anyone behind the leak. And that he ordered anyone with knowledge about the Plame affair to come forward. Corn writes, "Has Rove done so? No. So it seems he violated a presidential command. Would Bush be obliged to fire him for insubordination?" Rove is certainly nailed for that. His firing would certainly approach the political damage so many have waited years for. But it will take media bullying and a concerted effort by all the progressive bully pulpits to turn the Rove's role in the Plame affair into the Question That Bush Must Answer. Oddly enough if it comes down to a political and media battle, Karl Rove is screwed only if a convincing public case is made that what Rove Did Was Wrong, and that Karl Rove Is Screwed. Reading all the articles and analyses out there, it's pretty clear that no one has a clue if the court case will bring down Rove; with the possible exception of Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor in charge of the case, and even then, he probably doesn't have a clue, either. Not very satisfying, is it? Imagine that despite all this frenzy, no one has even got a solid lead so far on whether on not Karl Rove will be indicted, and if you consider that the stretch between being indicted and going to jail for something is longer than Tom DeLay's list of ethical scandals, there's no point in waiting to find out if Rove will plea-bargain for parole before he turns 60. Consider Sunday's Big Revelation, which comes from Michael Isikoff in Newsweek. Isikoff published a copy of an email by Time's Matt Cooper in his report that names Rove as the source who leaked Valerie Plame's identity. Here's the money-shot sentence pulled whole-cloth from the email: "It was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd issues who authorized the trip." Not only this, Rove is now known to have leaked this information before Bob Novak wrote about it in his infamous column of 2003, a loophole of Rove's potential defense now sealed. Potential defense, because of course, if Rove hadn't talked about Plame until Novak published his column, then Rove would be able to say that he learned about Plame reading the column. So he's screwed, right? Well, there's no proof that Rove lied about this yet, because in what has become his central public testimony is that he didn't know or leak her name. By saying "she" or "Wilson's wife," or whatever, he's not necessarily lying. Whether Rove lied under oath is still a private matter between Fitzgerald and the grand jury. And then the only other way Rove goes to jail is if he "knowingly" blew Plame's cover, and of course, whether or not someone knowingly did something is one of the hardest things to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. There is one thing causing a distraction from the wave of reports on the Rove scandal, and that is much of the reporting itself. All the big breaking stories on the Rove scandals carry a tone that makes it clear that each word tapped out by every journalist from Michael Isikoff of Newsweek to Dan Balz at the Washington Post was produced in an atmosphere where the authors were judging their work against the giant stories of journalism: the Pentagon Papers, the discovery of My Lai massacre, Watergate. Same with the TV analysts and their pronouncements. The vanity of these these power-hungry hacks swarming around Karl Rove's fate is, I think, revealed perfectly in the very same email from Time's Matt Cooper that confirmed Karl Rove as his source. Cooper writes with boyish glee that Rove told him these things about Valerie Plame on the condition that they use the Tree-House Gang's highest security clearance: "double super secret background." Cooper of course agreed, but only on the condition that Rove would supply the chocolate bars. But that's another distraction from the real story here, which is that for the first time, there is real blood in Bush's political waters -- and that Karl Rove Is Screwed.
I guess we'll be looking for the "I didn't inhale" defense. But Josh Marshall makes a great point. ---------- Now that we know that Karl Rove was involved in leaking Valerie Plame's identity and her role at CIA before the information had appeared in Robert Novak's column, attention will now inevitably turn to whether Rove (and whoever else was leaking) knew Plame was covert. If they can plausibly claim that they thought she was simply a paper-pusher, then the statute would not apply to them. But I think any enterprising reporter will be able to see why this is almost certainly not true. A close look at the wording Novak used in his column and a careful review of previous Novak columns over the years shows he only ever uses the word 'operative' to refer to covert agents. And that's the word he used to refer to Plame. So Novak knew she was covert. And that pretty clearly means his sources knew too. How else would he have found out? -- Josh Marshall
I feel like this might win the "Can you imagine the republican reaction if this had happened under during the Clinton Years" prize in that useless game played in my brain every so often, for the most extreme example of how the right is really able to dodge comically serious lapses in judgement/ethics/competence - the presidents top advisor committing what is clearly treason for political purposes, as an example - while we got sunk because Bubba likes to prong skanks. Actually it does not win that contest. 1. 9/11 happenning in the first place 2. WMD 3. Economy 4. Not capturing Osama Bin Laden etc.
actually, it doesn't "pretty clearly" mean anything. novak has said all along there were two sources, and novak's column doesn't ID plame as being covert, only that she was an operative, josh's speculation notwithstanding. moreover, one could just as easily speculate that it was novak, or miller, etc. who told rove of plame's status. we simply don't know, and won't until fitzgerald finishes his investigation.
most of the planning re 9/11 happened during the clinton years, so i'm quite happy to place the blame where it truly lies, if such a thing needs to be done.
Cha - nice one, exactly my point - you guys are such black-belts, you can not only dodge responsibilty when you are demonstrably wrong, but shift it to us- the ultimate converters of lemons to lemonade. Well done, seriously, score yet another one for your side. I would never have though to do that. Are the seminars on how to do this? Every time we try to be 'transparent' or 'accountable,' one of you geniuses comes along and exposes us as the major league p****** we are. i will now indugle myself in the navel-gazing, paralyzing self-reflection/pity that my party is famous for. After than I will nominate Al Gore and John Kerry to challenge for the presidency. Dem Pride!
Blood in the water folks and the sharks are circling! Couldn't happen to a nicer guy! ----------------------------- QUESTION: Scott, can I ask you this: Did Karl Rove commit a crime? MCCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to a ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don't think you should read anything into it other than: We're going to continue not to comment on it while it's ongoing. QUESTION: Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003, when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliot Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this"? QUESTION: Do you stand by that statement? MCCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that, as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation, we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time as well. QUESTION: Scott, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us, after having commented with that level of detail, and tell people watching this that somehow you've decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium or not? MCCLELLAN: I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said. And I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation... QUESTION: (inaudible) when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate? MCCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish. QUESTION: No, you're not finishing. You're not saying anything. You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation. Was he involved or was he not? Because contrary to what you told the American people, he did indeed talk about his wife, didn't he? MCCLELLAN: There will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it. QUESTION: Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today? MCCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question. QUESTION: You're in a bad spot here, Scott... (LAUGHTER) ... because after the investigation began -- after the criminal investigation was under way -- you said, October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby. As I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this," from that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began. Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation. MCCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization. And I think you are well aware of that. We know each other very well. And it was after that period that the investigators had requested that we not get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation. And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this. Because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States. I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I'm just not going to do that. QUESTION: So you're now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore and since then you haven't. MCCLELLAN: Again, you're continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation and I'm just not going to respond to them. QUESTION: When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you pin down a date? MCCLELLAN: Back in that time period. QUESTION: Well, then the president commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan? MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response. QUESTION: Well, we are going to keep asking them. When did the president learn that Karl Rove had had a conversation with a news reporter about the involvement of Joseph Wilson's wife in the decision to send him to Africa? MCCLELLAN: I've responded to the questions. QUESTION: When did the president learn that Karl Rove had been... MCCLELLAN: I've responded to your questions. QUESTION: After the investigation is completed, will you then be consistent with your word and the president's word that anybody who was involved will be let go? MCCLELLAN: Again, after the investigation is complete, I will be glad to talk about it at that point. QUESTION: Can you walk us through why, given the fact that Rove's lawyer has spoken publicly about this, it is inconsistent with the investigation, that it compromises the investigation to talk about the involvement of Karl Rove, the deputy chief of staff, here? MCCLELLAN: Well, those overseeing the investigation expressed a preference to us that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it's ongoing. And that was what they requested of the White House. And so I think in order to be helpful to that investigation, we are following their direction. QUESTION: Scott, there's a difference between commenting on an investigation and taking an action... MCCLELLAN: (inaudible) QUESTION: Can I finish, please? MCCLELLAN: I'll come back to you in a minute. QUESTION: Does the president continue to have confidence in Mr. Rove? MCCLELLAN: Again, these are all questions coming up in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation. And you've heard my response on this. QUESTION: So you're not going to respond as to whether or not the president has confidence in his deputy chief of staff? MCCLELLAN: You're asking this question in the context of an ongoing investigation, and I would not read anything into it other then I'm simply going to comment on an ongoing investigation. QUESTION: Has there been any change, or is there a plan for Mr. Rove's portfolio to be altered in any way? MCCLELLAN: Again, you have my response to these questions. [video] http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Scotty_Rove.wmv
It's telling that this is the only thing the liberals can rejoice over these days. This re-tread of a non-story. I guess when your party is in disarray, you've gotten routed in the last several elections, the Supreme Court is about to tilt away from you, you have "Bone Saw" Dean as the frontman of your party, and your leading candidate for 2008 is the most divisive politician (read: b!tch) in recent memory, then hey, you'll latch on to anything you can.
You are right about this. There was a TON of planning, research, and even ongoing projects that could have made it more difficult for 9/11 to happen in the first place. Unfortunately, the incoming Bush administration scrapped the plans, shelved the projects, and discarded the research. Place the blame where it truly lies indeed.
You can ignore the actions that Clinton took if you like, but nothing will change the fact that Clinton supported anti-terrorism efforts more than any other President before him. In addition, nothing will change the fact that when Bush took office, everything regarding terrorism was ignored in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy. If any president deserves blame for 9/11, it would be Bush.
What a joke. Remind me which president was offered Osama bin Laden on a silver platter by the Sudanese and politely turned them down. Oh yeah, it was Bill Clinton. 95% of 9-11 was developed on Clinton's watch. Terror camps operated freely in the middle east. Homeland security was lax, and the military's morale was crippled by a draft dodging CinC. Bush fixed all that and then some. I guarantee you OBL wishes Clinton were still in office.
How many times has this been debunked? Link please And now 911 was clinton's fault? My you have gone off the deep end haven't you?
Come on, Trader_J. I was going to do a rerun of this image directed at basso, for being so obtuse when it comes to the many failures and stupidities of George W. Bush and his Gollum, Karl Rove, but I'll let it speak to this post of yours instead... Keep D&D Civil!! And Maintain Humor while the World is Going To Hell!
