…Mr. Rove and other administration officials had a legitimate interest in rebutting Mr. Wilson’s inflated claims — including the notion that he had been dispatched to Niger at Mr. Cheney’s behest. It’s in that context, judging from Mr. Cooper’s e-mail, that Mr. Rove appears to have brought up Ms. Plame’s role. Whether Mr. Rove or others behaved in a way that amounted to criminal, malicious or even merely sleazy behavior will turn on what they knew about Ms. Plame’s employment. Were they aware she was a covert agent? Did they recklessly fail to consider that before revealing her involvement? How they learned about Ms. Plame also will matter: Did the information come from government sources or outside parties?
None of that matters. Her cover was blown and Rove participated in it. I don’t care if he thought he was saving the world from an invasion from aliens, his act, not his motive should be the primary concern of a white house that is in the middle of what they tell us every day is a global war on terror. He could have had the best reasons in the world, but he either fucked up or he committed a crime, neither of which should be tolerated at his level. We know right now, at this minute, that at a minimum he fucked up.
Do you think that in the private sector if a person in Rove’s position of trust and power had “accidentally” told the press about a secret patent or a new formula that he’d be allowed to keep his job? Would he be trusted going forward with information about patents and secret formulas? Why is this so hard to understand? What Rove did may or may not have been a criminal offense. But it definitely was a firing offense.
And what’s this bullshit about “Mr. Rove appears to have brought up Ms. Plame’s role.” “Appears” nothing. He clearly did bring up Ms Plame’s role, and for reasons that are very hard to make sense out of. And just today, the WaPo itself reports that Rove admits that he confirmed that fact to Bob Novak. There’s no appearance about it. Rove admits it.
Update: MediaMatters has a thorough debuning of all these RNC spin points masquerading as an editorial here. .
I woke up this morning thinking about Michael Isikoff, which isn’t my favorite thing to think about first thing in the morning. Last night he told Jon Stewart that Pat Fitzgerald had better have something really, really strong to justify this investigation taking the turns its taken. It had better be about something really important — it had better be about national security. He was quite fierce about it.
I didn’t hear the rest because I threw the remote at the TV and it mercifully turned off.
The idea that Michael Isikoff, of all people, is laying down the gauntlet — warning Fitzgerald that if he’s thinking of prosecuting someone for perjury, say, or obstuction of justice, he will lead the chorus denouncing him as an overzealous prosecutor — is stunning. I don’t know what is in the Chardonnay in DC but it’s causing a lot of people to have severe problems remembering things — and seeing themselves in the mirror.
Michael Isikoff was practically Ken Starr’s right hand man in the media. He performed at only a slightly less partisan level than Drudge or Steno Sue Schmidt. He admits in his book that he became convinced that the president treated women badly and therefore needed to be exposed. He didn’t seem to think that throwing a duly elected president from office for lying about a private matter was overzealous in the least. He was on that bandwagon from the very beginning and one of the guys who drove it.
Michael Isikoff did not go on television and say that the punishment didn’t fit the crime or that Starr should have had something really, really important to justify his 70 million dollar investigation. Indeed, he did exactly the opposite.
Isikoff has done good work on this story. He continues to do good work. But apparently he doesn’t see outing CIA agents as serious as presidential fellatio. I suspect that holds true for the entire press corpse. They haven’t really had the fire in the belly for this one, have they?
Isikoff was a fine help to the Bush administration last night and I hope it makes up for that unfortunate Koran in the toilet business. He set the frame for indictments to be seen as unreasonable if don’t show national security was compromised. If Fitzgerald indicts members of the administration for lying or covering their tracks, it will not be taken well by the king of the kewl kidz. I have no doubt that the lemmings of the independent press corpse will fall into line as well, in the unfortunate event that Karl Rove is indicted for perjury or obstruction. After all it’s not as if he’s anything like that mean bitch Martha Stewart or that cruel lothario Bill Clinton. Those people really deserved it.
Update:
I realize that Isikoff was talking about the heinous, heinous crime of sending poor Judy Miller to jail. But I don’t really think that should be the standard by which a prosecutor should decide that only proveable crimes of national security should be investigated.
The point here is that this case is intrinsically about the press. Fitzgerald wasn’t conducting a fishing expedition to find out what Judy and Matt might know about a potential crime — he wanted them to testify because they may have been an element of the crime itself. This is a very important distinction.
It’s nice that Mikey and others are such zealous defenders of the freedom of the press. But freedom of the press is a right. Serving our democracy by giving the public the information it needs to govern itself is their responsibility. It is very hard to see how Judy’s martyrdom can be seen as a pure unalloyed matter of principle when(as Stewart pointed out) the press’ privilege seems to have been used pretty exclusively these last few years to protect their access to powerful government officials who want to use them to spread official lies.
I compare the coverage and attitude of the press covering this investigation to the shrill and breathless reporting of the Clinton years because it’s instructive. Never once did Isikoff express reservations about the non-stop partisan character assasination, the invasion of privacy, the perjury trap or the clear overstepping by the prosecutor as he “investigated” whether Bill Clinton lied about sex in a case that had already been dismissed — all of which were betrayals of principle just as important as the reporter’s privilege in my mind. But because this case involves a member of the press caught in a prosecutors net, suddenly he isn’t so sanguine about charging people with the crimes of lying or covering-up. That’s just not a good enough reason to put one of them on the hot seat. He and all of his brethren salivated at the idea that our democracy would be weakened by the partisan removal of a duly elected president, but let Judy go to jail and the hinges are coming off the nation.
I am reserving judgment on Judy’s status in the investigation because I have no facts one way or the other. I suspect it is more complicated than just protecting Karl Rove or someone else, but I don’t really know. I do know that she is the type of person who relishes drama, so I have a feeling that this little sojourn in lock-up isn’t exactly traumatizing for her. She’s already compared herself to soldiers in Iraq (where she wore a military uniform for god’s sake!) I’m figuring she’ll soon be saying she’s like MLK in the Birmingham jail. I think ole Judy can handle doing the time. In fact I think she relishes it.
Mickey and his friends can stop worrying about that part of the case and worry about why this government has lied to the nation repeatedly and blown over 200 billion dollars on an illegal and unnecessary war when terrorists are blowing shit up all over the world. Judy is more than happy to do her time for the principle of the reporter’s privilege.
The NY Times is reporting than an anonymous Rove defender who has been briefed on the case (by Rove?) says that Novak was the one who told Karl Plame’s name and informed him of “the circumstances” in which her husband traveled to Africa — at which point we are supposed to believe Karl suddenly remembered that he’d heard some of this from other journalists and confirmed the story to Novak by saying either “I heard that too” or “oh, you know about it.”
I can certainly understand why Fitzgerald might have been suspicious of this tale — especially when he read that Novak’s first comment on the matter was:
“I didn’t dig it out, it was given to me. They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it.”
According to this article “they” refers to an unknown source and … Karl Rove.
Karl Rove, the White House senior adviser, spoke with the columnist Robert D. Novak as he was preparing an article in July 2003 that identified a C.I.A. officer who was undercover, someone who has been officially briefed on the matter said.
Mr. Rove has told investigators that he learned from the columnist the name of the C.I.A. officer, who was referred to by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and the circumstances in which her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, traveled to Africa to investigate possible uranium sales to Iraq, the person said.
After hearing Mr. Novak’s account, the person who has been briefed on the matter said, Mr. Rove told the columnist: ‘I heard that, too.’
The previously undisclosed telephone conversation, which took place on July 8, 2003, was initiated by Mr. Novak, the person who has been briefed on the matter said.
Six days later, Mr. Novak’s syndicated column reported that two senior administration officials had told him that Mr. Wilson’s ‘wife had suggested sending him’ to Africa. That column was the first instance in which Ms. Wilson was publicly identified as a C.I.A. operative.
It’s late and I’m tired so I’m not going to look it up, but didn’t I also hear a bunch of people saying over the last few days that Rove didn’t know Plame’s name when he spoke with Cooper? This conversation took place three days earlier. Not that it matters because he “identified” her as Wilson’s wife, but it’s interesting anyway.
The lawyer, who has knowledge of the conversations between Rove and prosecutors, said President Bush’s deputy chief of staff has told investigators that he first learned about the operative from a journalist and that he later learned her name from Novak.
Rove has said he does not recall who the journalist was who first told him that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, or when the conversation occurred, the lawyer said.
Dan Froomkin nicely linked to my post from yesterday asking why Rove hadn’t saved the country some time and money and made sure that Cooper knew he didn’t have to keep his confidence. He says:
But here’s what that makes me think: if reporters want to help get New York Times reporter Judith Miller out of jail, let’s contact every conceivable person who might have been her source, and ask them (or their lawyers): if for some reason Judy Miller were in jail thinking that she’s protecting you, would that be a mistake? Would you tell that to her lawyer?
Let’s start with Rove, Cheney Chief of Staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, deputy national security adviser Elliot Abrams, Cheney national security adviser John Hannah, counselor Dan Bartlett, press secretary Scott McClellan, former press secretary Ari Fleischer — and every other person’s name who has ever even remotely been attached to this story in the past.
What have we got to lose? Is anyone with me, or shall I get going myself.
I think that’s a terrific idea. Certainly you’d think Judy’s pals in the press corps would want to do her this service. Help her out kidz.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) had these kind words to share last night on Hannity & Colmes:
If you can prove a case against Karl Rove, let the legal system do it, otherwise just shut up, because you’re ruining a guy’s reputation before anything has happened.
… I would like to speak a few minutes to what I believe is the unshakable, undeniable truth. And much of it is about sex.
[…]
The most chilling thing was, for a period of time, the president was setting stories in motion that were lies. Those stories found themselves in the press to attack a young lady who could potentially be a witness against him.
To me, that is very much like Watergate. That shows character inconsistent with being president, and every member of Congress should look at that episode and decide, is this truly about sex? Is Bill Clinton doing the right thing by continuing to make us have to pursue this, have to prove to a legal certainty he lied? The president’s fate is in his own hands. Mr. President, you have one more chance. Don’t bite your lip; reconcile yourself with the law.
It’s just a good thing Rovegate isn’t about the vitally important issue of consensual sex between two adults because Goober and his Mayberry Machiavelli crew would be forced to talk about it in numbing detail for months on end before the facts are in.
Luckily, instead of it being a case about a woman blowing the president, this is only about the white house blowing a CIA agent’s cover for political purposes in a time of war. We really should have more respect for the reputation of the person who the facts clearly show right now to be either an ignoramus or a thug. How rude.
Update: From Evan in the comments:
Bumper sticker par excellence
WHO DO YOU HAVE TO BLOW TO GET A PRESIDENT IMPEACHED AROUND HERE?!
Ken Mehlman: A leak is when you ask a reporter to write a story. He was discouraging a reporter from writing a false story.
So why did Bob Novak write the same story, virtually verbatim, that Rove told Cooper? Was he rebelling against the Republican establishment? Refusing to be cowed by political operatives? Unable to take a hint? What?
Newshounds reports on Ann Coulter’s soon to be legendary performance on Hannity and Colmes last night:
Alan Colmes started off the interview by asking an excellent question:
“If Karl Rove wasn’t revealing something secret, why did he have to speak on double super secret background?”
For a moment, it looked like Coulter might have been genuinely reluctant to talk to a liberal (as the title of her last book claims she is) but I think it was more likely that she had a moment of panic at not having a good answer. After a pause, she began to speak slowly, as if she were trying to think of the right words as she went along.
Because you don’t generally read in the press – you know – I think it was all – you didn’t see Karl Rove, I think, being quoted on a lot of these things – but I think the point was, um, Clown Wilson was going around implying that he had been sent by the CIA and reported to Dick Cheney’s office… I mean, it’s amazing if you go back and read these articles now, he uses these – you know – sort of Clintonian legally accurate phrases…
She must not have had her coffee. She’s usually a little bit swifter than this.
Kevin Drum’s got some interesting stuff up today. He is one of the blogosphere’s resident experts on the Plame story — he was the go-to guy when it broke and he seems to to remember a lot of details I’ve forgotton (or never knew.)
He reminds us today (via Mickey Kaus) of this Howard Fineman analysis from 2003 in which Fineman speculates that the leak was really an attempt to smear Wilson and his wife as being part of a “pro-Saddam” CIA cabal. Here’s the relevant excerpt:
I am told by what I regard as a very reliable source inside the White House that aides there did, in fact, try to peddle the identity of Joe Wilson’s wife to several reporters. But the motive wasn’t revenge or intimidation so much as a desire to explain why, in their view, Wilson wasn’t a neutral investigator, but, a member of the CIA’s leave-Saddam-in-place team.
I think this may very well have played into at least some of the participants’ thinking at the time although since they’ve never made this explicit in the smear, I think it may have been meant more for beltway kids and the wingnut choir than for broad public consumption. This is inside baseball stuff.
The big players in this turf war are the neocons and Dick Cheney, who is only sort of an honorary neocon. He and Rummy are more simple craven power mongers. (He doesn’t give a shit about democracy which the neocons sorta, kinda do, even though they think we should create it by force, which is incoherent.) Anyway, it’s imnportant to remember that within this administration are a whole bunch of people who think that the CIA is made up of a bunch of hippies who don’t understand How The World Works.
What’s interesting about them is that they have always been wrong about everything. If there was no other reason not to back the war in Iraq, it was that it was being pushed by people who have either hugely overestimated every single threat this country has faced for the last 30 years or gotten the nature of the threat completely upside down.
Lawrence Korb wrote a piece about this subject in August of 2004, called “Time To Bench Team B”:
The reports of the 9/11 Commission and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence miss the real problem facing the intelligence community. The real problem is not organization or culture, but the Team B concept which began in 1976, and the real villains are those hardliners who refuse to accept the unbiased and balanced judgments of intelligence professionals about the threats facing the country.
[…]
To be sure, the intelligence community has made misjudgments. That is to be expected. But given the fact that the intelligence community has been second-guessed and publicly embarrassed when it tried to present unbiased objective assessments of threats from the Soviets, China, and rogue nations, it is not surprising that it caved in on whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. While there was no formal Team B pressure, the hardliners were now back in power.
And from the Soviet threat to China to rogue states to Iraq, the neocons and hardliners were wrong each and every time. And they weren’t just wrong on some details, they massively, abundently wrong about everything. Korb discusses one particular fact in his piece that I think illuminates their rather insane view about terrorism:
In 1981, after the publication of Clare Sterling’s book, “The Terror Network,” which argued that global terrorists were actually pawns of the Soviets, leading hard-liners asked the CIA to look into the relationship between Soviets and terrorist organizations. The agency concluded that although there was evidence that the Soviets had assisted groups such as the Palestine Liberation Organization with weapons and training, there was no evidence that the Soviets encouraged or approved these groups’ terrorist acts. However, hard-liners like Secretary of State Alexander Haig, CIA Chief William Casey and Policy Planning Director Wolfowitz rejected the draft as a naive, exculpatory brief and had the draft retooled to assert that the Soviets were heavily involved in supporting “revolutionary violence worldwide.”
Since they never adjust to changing circumstances or admit any new evidence that doesn’t fit their preconcieved notions, this was still the framework they were working from when bin Laden came on the scene. It’s why the neocon nutcase Laurie Mylroie was able to convince people in the highest reaches of the Republican intelligensia that Saddam had something to do with bin Laden, even though there was never a scintilla of evidence to back it up. They simply could not,and cannot to this day, come to grips with the fact that their view of how terrorism works — through “rogue states” and totalitarian sponsorship — is simply wrong.
When Clare Sterling’s book came out CIA director William Casey was said to have told his people, “read Claire Sterling’s book and forget this mush. I paid $13.95 for this and it told me more than you bastards who I pay $50,000 a year.” Wolfowitz and Feith are said to have told their staff in the Pentagon to read Laurie Mylroie’s book about Saddam and al Qaeda. Richard Clarke, in “Against All Enemies” quotes Wolfowitz as saying: “You give Bin Laden too much credit. He could not do all these things like the 1993 attack on New York, not without a state sponsor. Just because FBI and CIA have failed to find the linkages does not mean they don’t exist.”
This, then, is simply how they think. It’s as Rob Cordry says, “the facts are biased.” (That’s the state of mind that led neocon Judith Miller to make her bizarre incomprehensible comment “I was proved fucking right!”) They truly believe that even though they have been completely wrong about everything for the past thirty years that it just can’t be so.
And no matter what, in their minds the the CIA is always trying to screw them.
So the political environment in which Valeria Plame was outed was virtually hallucinogenic. There may have really been some part of certain members of the Bush administration’s dysfunctional lizard brains that really thought in July of 2003 that the CIA had been trying to set them up and used Joe Wilson to do it.
But it’s not July of 2003 now, is it? It’s two years later and we know for a fact that the analysts, including Wilson, who said the Niger deal was bullshit were right and we know that the analysts who doubted the evidence about Saddam’s WMD were right too.
Not that this will stop the Team B neocons from insisting that “they were proved fucking right.” They really are delusional and they always have been.
Karl Rove, however, is a lot of things, but delusional isn’t one of them. He just put out the hit on Plame and Wilson to shut down the questions Wilson was raising. He was taking care of business. But others in the administration may have made a good case, at least in their own beautiful minds, that they were the victims. God knows these people love to be victims.
I don’t know if you saw Wilson on the Today show, but I thought he acquitted himself very well — mainly because he kept on the topic of the larger Iraq lies. I really think this is a key to making people understand this story.
There is a confluence of events right now with the bad news on the ground in Iraq, the Downing Street memos, the London bombings and Rovegate flaring up that are beginning to filter into the body politic. A new conventional wisdom is being written. I think that people are putting these things together which is why you are seeing the preciputous dip in the president’s approval ratings. It’s not that people know, or even want to know, the details. Only junkies like me (and you) get this into it. But the ground has shifted and people are understanding that something went terribly wrong.
The president’s right hand man exposing a covert CIA agent for political puposes perfectly symbolizes the entire fetid mess.
Update: Looks like Rush got the memo. According to Bradblog:
Rush’s final words at the end of the show (referring to the Press Conference scheduled by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) to happen shortly): “Chuck Shumer is Joe Wilson’s ‘handler’ in this agency plot to bring down the President.”
Finally, it’s not just honesty where Bush is taking a hit. Only 50 percent of those polled gave him high ratings for being easygoing and likeable, down from 57 in January; 43 percent gave him high ratings for being smart, down from 50; 40 percent gave him high ratings for being compassionate enough to understand average people, down from 47; and only 29 percent gave him high ratings for being willing to work with people whose viewpoints are different from his own, down from 33.
I’m not the greatest judge in the world because I’ve always thought he was a dominating, unlikeable, dumb, arrogant intolerant asshole. A bunch oif people thought he’d be fun to hang around with, though, and it’s a big reason why he got re-elected. Without his personal popularity, what has he really got?
The good news is that this should finally kill off the “enormously popular” president meme that refused to die. I’m sure Andrea Mitchell and Tim Russert are in mourning today.