« Josh Marshall Admits Defeat | Main | Dog Daze »

Rovegate Continues to Crumble

I said below (only half jokingly) that I thought Rove and the Whitehouse let the Democrats go nuts accusing him, knowing that the administration could yank the rug out from under them at any given moment.

I think I was on to something:

Rove E-Mailed Security Official About Talk

WASHINGTON (AP) - After mentioning a CIA operative to a reporter, Bush confidant Karl Rove alerted the president's No. 2 security adviser about the interview and said he tried to steer the journalist away from allegations the operative's husband was making about faulty Iraq intelligence.

The July 11, 2003, e-mail between Rove and then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley is the first showing an intelligence official knew Rove had talked to Matthew Cooper just days before the Time magazine reporter wrote an article identifying Valerie Plame as a CIA officer.

"I didn't take the bait," Rove wrote in an e-mail obtained by The Associated Press, recounting how Cooper tried to question him about whether President Bush had been hurt by the new allegations.

The White House turned the e-mail over to prosecutors, and Rove testified to a grand jury about it last year.

Earlier in the week before the e-mail, Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had written a newspaper opinion piece accusing the Bush administration of twisting prewar intelligence, including a "highly doubtful" report that Iraq bought nuclear materials from Niger.

"Matt Cooper called to give me a heads-up that he's got a welfare reform story coming," Rove wrote in the e-mail to Hadley.

"When he finished his brief heads-up he immediately launched into Niger. Isn't this damaging? Hasn't the president been hurt? I didn't take the bait, but I said if I were him I wouldn't get Time far out in front on this."

What the Democrats fail to understand, much less accept, is that the reason Rove has that big 'ol potato head is that he is smarter than all of them combined. (Let's review how do his campaigns keep turning out?) He knew all along he was not the leaker.... Rove didn't take the bait but the Dems sure did.

You need further proof?

Rove, Bush's closest adviser, turned over the e-mail as soon as prosecutors opened a criminal investigation into who leaked Plame's covert work for the CIA.

He played his cards a year ago. Remember this -- we only learned this stuff in the last 24 hours. Rove (by definition) has known it all along. Rove was on the receiving end of the leak and he got it 2nd hand at that! In their zeal to kill Rove, the Democrats are left chasing their tail. They have no idea how Novak got the information they only landed on Rove out of hatred. Next, like OJ, they'll be vowing to catch the "real leaker."

One of the questions the liberals keep asking is; "Why if Rove was so innocent why didn't the Whitehouse clear his name earlier?"

I can tell you why... Because out of control liberals are just so fun to watch.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Rovegate Continues to Crumble:

» Macmind - Conservative Commentary and Common Sense linked with What is at the heart of the Plame affair

» Uncle Sam's Cabin linked with That Rove/Plame business

» Conservative Outpost linked with The Incredibly disappearing story

» ThoughtsOnline linked with Being right, but losing the P/R battle...

» bennellibrothers.com linked with NeoCon's Circle the Wagons on Rove

Comments (55)

I must admit it's very nice... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

I must admit it's very nice being on the side that's right. Sure gotta suck to be a lefty right about now. All that speculation, all those plans for a big celebration, thinking you've finally been able to bring down someone big, only to have the rug yanked out from under you at the last minute. This is so much like Rathergate it's downright spooky. The left could take this as a sign that it's time put it's own house in order and come up with a platform and a candidate, get a direction and a set of values and concentrate on de-assing the heads of the party leadership. I doubt they will, but they should. Instead they'll probably start sprouting conspiracy theories by the truckload to explain away this fiasco and start a new Bush-bashing crusade. It's just so much easier that way.

I really don't understand h... (Below threshold)
Cao:

I really don't understand how they can continue these ridiculous slogans and mantras after they were proven false. I don't think leftys are smart enough to realize they should just shut up. Hell, they're still talking about Bush going AWOL, Halliburton, and no blood for oil! Facts never bother leftists. Rather kept saying the story was true after the documents were proven forgeries. Now he's a virtual pariah in reporting circles. Serves him right.

I'd be embarrassed to be wrong all the time...but that's because I can put two coherent thoughts together.

Rove is no idiot, in spite of the elitists braying that Republicans/conservatives are dumb hicks. He has the nerve to come out and speak the truth (liberals wanted to prepare indictments and give therapy and understanding to our attackers after 9/11), it's so spot-on that I'm laughing my A#$ off. Thanks for the wonderful post. Enjoyed it immensely!

It has been amusing to watc... (Below threshold)
Eneils Bailey:

It has been amusing to watch the press at the questioning the President's press secretary. A political statement with a hidden vague question. They were so excited,"we finally have them" they were thinking to themselves, driven into ecstasy at the thought. So excited, the male reporters had erections and the female reporters had dampened thier panties. Now, they can all go home this weekend, think about how they made big fools of themselves as they wash thier undergarments. I suggest a nice long shower also, while they ponder the fact that hardly anyone, except the hard left has respect for them anymore. Check the tv ratings and subsrcription numbers.

What bullwinkle really mean... (Below threshold)
JmaR:

What bullwinkle really meant:

I must admit it's very nice being in an alternative universe. Sure gotta suck living in the real world right about now. All those facts, all those plans to get to the bottom of a crime, thinking you've finally been able to expose the truth, only to have a complicit mainstream media and the spin machine kick into high gear smear mode at the last minute. This is so much like Watergate it's downright spooky. The left could take this as a sign that democracy has finally been killed by the Republicans, give up and let the chips fall where they may, but I know they have far too much courage to do that and in fact they are this country's only true hope. I doubt they will, but they should. Instead they'll probably stick to the facts as they always do and try to break through a corrupt media and a badly dumbed down citizenry, but it won't work, the sheeple are too far gone. They should just admit that democracy has been destroyed, it's just so much easier that way.

I had hoped that with recen... (Below threshold)
Jim Kouri:

I had hoped that with recent revelations this trumped-up scandal would disappear from the mainstream news media, who would finally realized their own credibility is at stake.

The big story is not Karl Rove. No. The big story is the Central Intelligence Agency. Here's an agency that couldn't catch a cold in the dead of winter let alone catch a terrorist. Over the years, the CIA has evolved -- or devolved -- into a quasi-Liberal think-tank, with a bureaucracy overly concerned with politics. Their ineptness is widely known by law enforcement executives.

During the Carter Administration, trained, streetsmart and capable CIA covert operatives were fired and replaced with college-campus eggheads. During the Reagan Administration, the DCIA Bill Casey attempted to create an intelligence asset outside of the CIA with people such as Col. Oliver North. Whether one agrees with Casey's actions or not, the bottomline was that the CIA was useless in fulfilling its primary mission: intelligence gathering and analysis. No longer did the CIA have operatives infiltrating terrorist and radical left groups. No longer were CIA bureau chiefs allowed to call the shots in situations with which they were familiar. In 1995, another egghead, Bill Clinton, issued an executive order (at the behest of then Congressman Bob Torricelli) that prohibited CIA operatives from utilizing "unsavory characters" as informants. This was commonly known in intelligence circles as "The Torricelli Principle." Knowing the Republicans would never allow such legislation to pass in congress, the Democrats got Clinton to write an executive order.

This meant that CIA covert ops people could not use drug traffickers, gun runners or even terrorists as "assets" the global underworld. A comparsion would be FBI agents being prohibited from using Sammy "The Bull" Gravano to get John Gotti.

The CIA of today needs a total top to bottom cleanup. This includes getting rid of fake, phony, frauds like Valerie Plame who sent a moron Washington elitist to conduct an investigation which should have been conducted by an experienced CIA investigator.

This is kind of peripheral ... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

This is kind of peripheral but I have noticed a marked reluctance for folks to remove their Kerry/Edwards campaign stickers from their cars' bumpers/windows. I think these folks in general are not very willing to undergo some sort "closure". So, their anger and lack of sanity should continue to reap embarrassment for them.

Sorry JmaR, but your the on... (Below threshold)
Faith+1:

Sorry JmaR, but your the one in the alternative universe. It's why the facts keep coming up against you. But keep being in denial. Keep listening to your echo chamber.

JmaR,I am very curio... (Below threshold)
Eneils Bailey:

JmaR,
I am very curious about your statement.
What facts are you aware of, that the general public is not?
How did the mainstream press in conjunction with a spin machine help the Republicans kill democracy?
Your only hope for saving us is the left, how will they do it?
Respecfully,
EB

A recent AP story wa... (Below threshold)
B Moe:


A recent AP story was bitching about profiteering by Haliburton in a story which gave the figures of $163 million pre-tax profits on contracts of $10.7 billion. This is considered obscene profits.

These people just aren't very bright.

Maybe the liberals are half... (Below threshold)

Maybe the liberals are half-right. Maybe Rove really is a [good] genius and has once again played the MSM and liberals like a fiddle in order to discredit them and win more elections for the Republicans.

Yes indeed. Rove is the sma... (Below threshold)
frameone:

Yes indeed. Rove is the smartest bastard in the world. Obstructing justice is just so clever.

I'm willing to wait until the facts are all out and the investigation is over but someone please tell me how Rove did not know about this memo before he spoke with Novak? Becuz he says? I think that's what Fitgerald is so interested in.

New York Times July 16, 2005

"WASHINGTON, July 15 - Prosecutors in the C.I.A. leak case have shown intense interest in a 2003 State Department memorandum that explained how a former diplomat came to be dispatched on an intelligence-gathering mission and the role of his wife, a C.I.A. officer, in the trip, people who have been officially briefed on the case said.

Investigators in the case have been trying to learn whether officials at the White House and elsewhere in the administration learned of the C.I.A. officer's identity from the memorandum. They are seeking to determine if any officials then passed the name along to journalists and if officials were truthful in testifying about whether they had read the memo, the people who have been briefed said, asking not to be named because the special prosecutor heading the investigation had requested that no one discuss the case.

The memorandum was sent to Colin L. Powell, then the secretary of state, just before or as he traveled with President Bush and other senior officials to Africa starting on July 7, 2003, when the White House was scrambling to defend itself from a blast of criticism a few days earlier from the former diplomat, Joseph C. Wilson IV, current and former government officials said.

Mr. Powell was seen walking around Air Force One during the trip with the memorandum in hand, said a person involved in the case who also requested anonymity because of the prosecutor's admonitions about talking about the investigation."

Hmmm.Frankly this ... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

Frankly this whole PlameGate thing is a gift from the liberals and Democrats. Under no other circumstance could the Bush White House unleash a special prosecutor who would then rip through the ranks of journalists all over Washington and rifle through their files.

If Bush had tried something like this on his own, the Press would be screaming bloody murder and the Democrats would be holding hearings on "The NEW McCarthy, President Bush!". Hehe.

But instead the Press wound up screaming for a special prosecutor and wouldn't stop. The Democrats kept on talking about investigations and prosecutions and going to jail and all that other rot. If, as I think will happen, a few journalists and some CIA people get fingered as the culprits, the MSM and the Democrats would be responsible for it.

Lovely. Man Rove really is the Master of the Sith. I think whomever he ends up working for in the 2008 Presidential election is going to be a really tough contender. It's not every day you see a whole group of people bitch-slap themselves, Three Stooges style, over a period of years.

frameone: I'm willing to... (Below threshold)
Krusty Krab:

frameone: I'm willing to wait until the facts are all out and the investigation is over but someone please tell me how Rove did not know about this memo before he spoke with Novak? Becuz he says? I think that's what Fitgerald is so interested in.

How's the fishing going over there? Because that's pretty much what you are doing now.... in the dark and with no idea how deep the waters are.

Actually, it isn't obvious the direction that this is taking now, but it is looking pretty remote that Rove is involved as a target. I'll point out that under the rules the prosecutor must identify targets of the investigation, also generally the targets are not called in front of the grand jury. None of this makes Rove a likely candidate for an indictment. May happen, but I think it's pretty remote.

There seem to be two more likely topics of investitagion: the origin of the initial leak of the document (sounds like a career person with the State Department) and the legality of the trip itself (nepotism rules may be in force here).

[email protected] frameone</... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmmm.

@ frameone

The memorandum was sent to Colin L. Powell, then the secretary of state, just before or as he traveled with President Bush and other senior officials to Africa starting on July 7, 2003, when the White House was scrambling to defend itself from a blast of criticism a few days earlier from the former diplomat, Joseph C. Wilson IV, current and former government officials said.

Mr. Powell was seen walking around Air Force One during the trip with the memorandum in hand, said a person involved in the case who also requested anonymity because of the prosecutor's admonitions about talking about the investigation."

Your only problem of course is that there's nothing tying the memo/Colin Powell with Rove. Powel was aboard AirForce1 heading to Africa. Rove was in the White House getting finishing up before a vacation.

Can you put the two together? Can you show how Rove could have gotten a State Dept. memo?

If not, then you've got problems.

I said it.Inste... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

I said it.

Instead they'll probably start sprouting conspiracy theories by the truckload to explain away this fiasco.

JmaR and frameone proved me right! The minds of the left, publicly displayed. Kinda like going to the zoo, if you stand in front of the monkey cage long enough you're going to see some shit being slung. Just think, this is their idea of being reality based. Pathetic, just plain pathetic.

(Sigh) It feels so good<... (Below threshold)
BorgQueen:

(Sigh) It feels so good to be a conservative!

I hope both Clintons and Kerry and Schumer read this. And I also want to remind Hillary and Chuckie that I'm a New Yorker and I vote, too.

BTW, when was the last time you actually did something for western NY besides make speeches?

<a href="http://money.cnn.c... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?pg=qu&sid=127357&osymb=AA&time=1mo&uf=0&x=31&y=11

Couldn't possibly be illustrated more clearly than this. You can see them riding high, the demand for tinfoil dropping in late June, then as the truth started coming out after the first week in July they could barely make the stuff fast enough. Someone cue Willie Nelson, Turn out the lights, the party's (democrat) over!

With regard to whethter Rov... (Below threshold)
Ray Midge:

With regard to whethter Rove had knowledge of the INR memo, see today's WaPo regarding what he told the GJ.

Rove "had never seen it, had never heard about it and had never heard anybody else talk about it," according to a lawyer familiar with his testimony.
(Luskin?)

So, it would appear that th... (Below threshold)
Toby928:

So, it would appear that the White House has decided that the Democrats now have enough rope to hang themselves and the time is ripe to leak the evidence that was given to the special prosecutor many months ago and had, rather than stonewalling the investigation, cooperated completely, knowing that they had committed no crime.

Am I the only one bothered by this? Its well and good if Rove does turn out to be Wiley Coyote, Super Genius. Its also good when the opposition party gets its comspiracy, black helocopter minded faction's noses rubbed in the dirt, But...

It bothers me for the WH to do this with anything that touches national security. The peoples confidence in its intelligece services should not be diminished IMHO. Couldn't they have just revealed all this at the time? I know it was an election year but arguing from a national point of view, I think it was bad to let this go on if revealing the truth would have saved us this grief.

I hope that I haven't created a new talking point for the LL and I personally withhold judgement on this entire matter until the SP report is made public, but still...I'm peeved.

Tob

Toby928,I thought ... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

Toby928,

I thought the WH had been cooperating and it was the press that had been holding out to protect their sources? Rove gave permission to reveal sources a year ago and it was Cooper and Miller that have been dragging their feet. I don't know who all else played delaying game but the "target" seems to have been just hunky-dory about the whole thing. The special prosecutor was appointed to accommodate Democratic hyperventilists intent on political gamesmanship during election season.

I haven't followed the entire drama that closely (the old stuff anyway) so my POV may be a bit nearsighted; still, the payback is sweet not because I like Rove but because the original smear will not succeed. Karma can be quite fulfilling.

Now, who is doing all of the unaccounted leaking? That needs to stop.

1-of-12 ;-), I'm still peev... (Below threshold)
Toby928:

1-of-12 ;-), I'm still peeved. I have always thought that this administration was just a bunch of good people, charged with doing something, trying to do their best. That lead me to suspect that every alleged nefarious action of the WH had a reasonable explanation, maybe they weren't right but that they were reasonable. Bush is so good at explaining, in his down home way, what they are/were trying to do that I just think that going out and explaining is the best thing they could do. Maybe its a pipe-dream but thats what I think.

Tob

By the way, I think that, i... (Below threshold)
Toby928:

By the way, I think that, in general, the more air-time Bush gets the better he does. I think that he is his own best advocate.

Tob

Toby928,...I ha... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

Toby928,

...I have always thought that this administration was just a bunch of good people...

Now I know you're not that naive. Don't you remember our pledge to the VRWC?

That's what makes us 'Good'... (Below threshold)
Toby928:

That's what makes us 'Good'. I remember my mother's joy when I became a 'made man' in the VRWC, rejecting the seduction of my anarchist youth. The new found respect from people in the neighborhood. The free fruit from the corner store. Ah! To be young and in oposition, what heady days those were. Now all we have is the thankless task of kneebreaking for the Capo's since the family runs everything.

Tob

Its a dirty job, but it must be done.

RE: Toby928's post (July 16... (Below threshold)
Anonymous"Frack"Drivel:

RE: Toby928's post (July 16, 2005 04:10 PM)

We may soon acquire new nics around the clubhouse, Mr. Frick.

Yours in trust,
Mr. Frack

The WH did what iit was sup... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

The WH did what iit was supposed to do, the investigation was secret, or at least it was for a while. Fitzpatrick may have allowed some to speak now, but up until recently there was a gag order on all this. My guess is that if any of the testimony had leaked early on the real targets of the investigation would have known they would be caught perjuring themselves.

"The WH did what iit was su... (Below threshold)
Toby928:

"The WH did what iit was supposed to do, the investigation was secret, or at least it was for a while."

Maybe so. How long was the period between the start of the 'outrage' and the request from the CIA to the DOJ. Couldn't they have commented during that period? Did they not see this as troubling.

Apparently, I AM the only one bothered by this. Okay.

Tob

You need to remember Rove h... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

You need to remember Rove had already sent the "didn't take the bait" e-mail so I'm sure there was an investigation of sorts under way then. Not only that, this administration and most others in history just haven't commented on things under investigation or things that they believe may investigated. The opposition always claims it's silence is a cover-up but if you do speak out you're spinning it early. Damned if you do and damned if you don't kind of thing, especially when dealing the left. That's one thing the democrat leadership (it's a stretch calling it that) needs to learn, how to say "no comment".

Toby:" ..I think it ... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

Toby:
" ..I think it was bad to let this go on if revealing the truth would have saved us this grief."

So now it's the WH's fault?

'This' was 'going on' strictly due to partisan attacks from the Dems and the MSM. If the WH had said not to do it, the opposition would have said 'You have no right to tell us what to do!' and 'Aha, you're trying to cover it up!'

One party can't control what the other party does. (Nor should they.)

Actually, the WH has maintained all along that they did no wrongdoing. They warned the press that this was bogus. If the opposition and the MSM didn't believe them and made asses of themselves, that's on the Dems, not the Repubs.

Actually, this gets funnier... (Below threshold)

Actually, this gets funnier (or not) every day. This whole thing is over an outing, or leaking, of the name of a "supposed" undercover agent. So now there's gag orders everywhere and everyone is speaking anonymously, and "information" is leaking like a sieve. And some people are gobbling it up like dessert hoping to add the final puzzle piece to the big conspiracy.

I'm glad I'm just a bookkeeper. I could never hack it in politics. They'd throw me out the first time I laughed in someone's face.

The evolution of the democr... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

The evolution of the democrat talking point on the Rove/Plame game.

1. Rove committed crime, we must have a special prosecutor so we can haul him off to jail, and he should be fired.
2. Rove may not have committed a crime, but his revelation of Plame was unethical, so he should be fired.
3. Well Rove may not have called the reporters, but he shouldn't have talked to them so he should be fired.
4. Rove should be fired, well because he is Rove and we hate him.

That is the problem-the dems seem to think that if they can just get rid of Rove, then everything will be alright in democrat land, and they will start winning elections again. They ignore the fact that it is their message that is the problem, not Rove.

Go check out the comments o... (Below threshold)
chad:

Go check out the comments on HuffingtonPost.com about the theorhetical state dept. memo. (theorhetical in the we don't really know yet sense, not the i am being sarcastic sense). They are ready to eat their own children over there. If it came out tomorrow that Valerie Plame had called Bob Novak and said I arranged for my husband to go on this trip, then somehow Rove would be behind it and it would have been unethical. I have to love it.

Maybe all you guys can chip... (Below threshold)
frameone:

Maybe all you guys can chip in to get Rove a better lawyer. He's gonna need one.

From Cooper's article:

"Just the day before my grand jury testimony Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, had told journalists that when I telephoned Rove that July, it was about welfare reform and that I suddenly switched topics to the Wilson matter ... To me this suggested that Rove may have testified that we had talked about welfare reform, and indeed earlier in the week, I may have left a message with his office asking if I could talk to him about welfare reform. But I can't find any record of talking about it with him on July 11, and I don't recall doing so."

Oh and what about "Scooter"? That's two lies from McClellan and the administration about who was involved in the leak. Want to go for three? Condi? Ari? Anyone?

Sheesh, FrameOne, grasping ... (Below threshold)
BR:

Sheesh, FrameOne, grasping at straws.

Wasn't it you who posted a link earlier to a WP 12/26/03 article that already discussed the INR memo was a fake?

Could Mr. disgruntled-against-Bolton, Thielmann, be involved?

Hersh article 10/27/03:

" A few months after George Bush took office, Greg Thielmann, an expert on disarmament with the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, or INR, was assigned to be the daily intelligence liaison to John Bolton, the Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control…."

Extra, extra, read more about it!

<a href="http://wizbangblog... (Below threshold)
BR:

Here.... :)

Hi, this is my first post ... (Below threshold)
Bobbie:

Hi, this is my first post here at wizbang. I come here everyday and enjoy reading the blogs and learning even more through the comments. Well trying to keep up with the Rove stories and researching as much information that I can, I came across an article from 11/26/2004. I was hoping that some of the more knowledgeable persons here could tell me if this could or would have had any bearing on this Rove witchhunt?

New Twist in Plame Game: When Did Novak Column Move on the Wires?

By E&P Staff

Published: November 26, 2004 11:00 AM ET

Since it has long been known that her name first appeared in a July 14, 2003, column by Robert Novak, it would seem to be relatively easy to determine a before and after.

But there's a catch. According to Schmidt, “While Novak's column did not run until Monday, July 14, it could have been seen by people in the White House or the media as early as Friday, July 11, when Creators Syndicate distributed it over the Associated Press wire.”

Schmidt continues: “The timing could be a critical element in assessing whether classified information was illegally disclosed. If White House aides directed reporters to information that had already been published by Novak, they may not have disclosed classified information. ...

“As part of his efforts, Fitzgerald has been battling reporters in court, demanding that they disclose conversations with confidential sources.”

You can read the rest of the article here...

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000727193

Just interested in someone elses take on this.

"Why if Rove was so innocen... (Below threshold)

"Why if Rove was so innocent why didn't the Whitehouse clear his name earlier?"

This kind of question keeps coming up around the Bush administration, and the answer is this: better things to do. We all saw how well bickering about the finer points of a real or imagined scandal worked for Clinton's people .

"Can you put the two togeth... (Below threshold)
frameone:

"Can you put the two together? Can you show how Rove could have gotten a State Dept. memo?"

And that's one of the big questions now isn't it? By and large Rove's whole legal defense rests entirely on his being so completely out of the loop on Wilson that he learned everything from reporters. Reporters whose names he no longer remembers. Rove of out of the loop on anything in this White House? You can bet Fitzgerald didn't take that on face value.

You can also bet that unlik... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

You can also bet that unlike the claim frameone made that he wasn't claiming Rove was guilty of anything that he's determined to find something even if it goes back to a shoplifting charge against Rove when he was 6. He's not claiming Rove broke any laws but he's going to find one broken, somehow, some way,some day, somewhere, anywhere, any way he can. In his mind Rove just has to be guilty of something, even though frameone is unwilling to say that he is, yet...........

Bullwinkle: Rove i... (Below threshold)
frameone:

Bullwinkle:

Rove is guilty of lying. I note with interest your lack of any refutation to the facts I've laid out which prove why this is so.

But here's why Rove's days in the White House are numbered whether he's guilty of an actual crime or not:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/07/17.html#a3996

Guilty of lying? If that wa... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

Guilty of lying? If that was ture you might have apoint, but then again, if you threw liars out of the White House Bill (I did not have sex with that woman!) Clinton would have had to leave the country. Were you as determined to get Clinton thrown out or is your hate and spite reserved for republicans only? No need to answer. We know already.

Bullwinkle, you're nothing ... (Below threshold)
chris:

Bullwinkle, you're nothing if not predictable. I probably haven't read all of your posts here, but I've read a lot of them. What substance free blather. None of your posts add any new information. Instead, they're always a response to another post, and always seem to boil down to an ad hominen attack on the poster. This Bill Clinton response is a perfect example. Without going into the many ways this differs from anything Clinton did, the fact remains that he ain't the story. There's some thoughtful posters on this board, even the ones I don't agree with. You, however, really have nothing to add. The facts have gotten too complicated for you to keep up with, haven't they?

Chris, that would be your o... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

Chris, that would be your opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it. I am entitled to mine as well and as far as I'm concerned all you lefties add to any conversation is your extremely biased hate speech that that you guys like to justify with half-truth, innuendo and outright lies. Just like this one, Rove lied (in your opinion) so he must be fired at the very least, executed at dawn would be better but Clinotn's lies are someohow ok. I take that to mean your side is so used to lies and lying that we're all supposed to accept them and lies from republicans are so rare that they are downright shocking. Does the Cambodian river boat trip ring any bells? I find it hilarious that you guys have the guts to claim you are reality based when your choice of candidates seem allergic to the truth.

RE: frameone's NYT excerpt ... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: frameone's NYT excerpt (July 16, 2005 11:16 AM)

Investigators in the case have been trying to learn whether officials at the White House and elsewhere in the administration learned of the C.I.A. officer's identity from the memorandum. They are seeking to determine if any officials then passed the name along to journalists and if officials were truthful in testifying about whether they had read the memo, the people who have been briefed said, asking not to be named because the special prosecutor heading the investigation had requested that no one discuss the case.
...
Mr. Powell was seen walking around Air Force One during the trip with the memorandum in hand, said a person involved in the case who also requested anonymity because of the prosecutor's admonitions about talking about the investigation."


I started rereading this thread from the top and something obvious that I glossed over the first time I read it started flashing neon.

The excerpt is from the NYTimes, a party with a vested interest in this case both from a legal point of view and a philosophical one, and perhaps the single most partisan, and widely known, paper in the country. On a sidenote, that would make me discount anything that they report (and honestly, I did that already), but I'll just ignore that, um, elephant in the living room for some other day.

Note, however, that there is STILL leaking, nevermind the veracity of such leaks, from more anonymous sources! What the heck cosmic bunnyhole are we in? This is a case about leaks and how "treasonous" or "evil" such action has been reported to be by those admonishing the administration for, egads, leaks. To reuse one of the most overused words when discussing the liberati-media - what hypocrisy. They, or a representative of the company, is hip-dip in this saga about leaks and their unjustified use by the administration, yet they still seek them for their own manipulation. Further, who are these leakers who are knowingly revealing the prosecutor's actions? Is that not a federal offense? Should they not be getting "frog-marched"? And a question to legal scholars: Can the NYTimes reporters recording this extended coverage be subpeonaed to reveal this next round of "anonymous" sources? Are they ("leakers") not legally more exposed for knowingly disregarding the special prosecutor's instructions?

Or, more insidiously, is this whole piece a setup to introduce another round of leak investigations to perpetuate a contrived "leaky atmosphere" and create word associations of "leak" and "Rove/Bush" into the social conscience? Subtle propaganda like this would likely have more staying power and is pretty effective... and don't think the media is not aware of such technique.

RE: frameone's post (July 1... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: frameone's post (July 17, 2005 09:16 PM)

But here's why Rove's days in the White House are numbered whether he's guilty of an actual crime or not:


Just to be clear, is it because of Bob Schieffer taking sides? If so, I think you are counting on a social/media paradigm that doesn't exist anymore.

I used to think I respected Schieffer, but that was based on a default position of him being a legacy reporter without considering too heavily his opinion. Remember, he is a newsreader much of the time. Having read his most recent series of opinion pieces from CBS, I must say that he fits the same, tired, left-leaning mold (somewhat moderated) that has been trotted out into the mainstream for ages. Remember that he is also on staff of perhaps the most compromised media institution of our day. Don't think the country doesn't remember Rathergate and the Mapes fiasco. Schieffer, deservedly or not, continues to be an extension of the old guard that is being supplanted by new troops and leadership - of an opposing army.

This is not to say that some will not be swayed by his words. However, there are other sources offering contradictory and "anti-liberal" perceptions that have severely degraded his message and import. A welcome change, I might add, given the bias that has been tangibly exposed in recent years.

Rove is going nowhere unless law was broken.

Bullwinkle will the only on... (Below threshold)
frameone:

Bullwinkle will the only one talking about Clinton is you because you have no other option, failing to come up with a single fact to refute anything I've said about Rove.

Rove clearly lied about his involvement in the Wilson/Plame affair on CNN and to Scott McClellan. Clearly, without a doubt. He knew Plames name and he was involved in spreading it at least a week before Novak's column came out.

Anonymous --

Shieffer's commentary leads me to think that Rove goes for political reasons. His presence at the White House will increasingly lead the press to ask one question again and again: When did Bush know that Rove was involved in leaking Plame's when and when did he know it? The closer this thing gets to Bush, loyalty or no, the more Rove's job security is in doubt.

And please don't drag us through the tired complaints about the NY Times. Judith Miller was instrumental in pushing the administration line on WMDs in Iraq. She reported exactly what the White House wanted to report because they were spoon feeding her everything. The White House used the NYT to shill thier WMD bullshit and the paper of record went along willingly.

"There are other sources of... (Below threshold)
frameone:

"There are other sources offering contradictory and "anti-liberal" perceptions that have severely degraded his message and import."

Not so. Because for all the "Rove was doing Cooper a favor" spin the fact is it doesn't matter WHY Rove gave Cooper information about Wilson's wife. The only thing that matters is that he did it. McLellan said Rove wasn't involved. Indeed, he said the mere suggestion of it was ridiculous.

Remember when Bush said this:

"There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. If there's leaks out of my Administration, I want to know who it is, and if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of."

Well, we don't know yet if Rove broke the law. Interesting phrasing by Bush though. But when Bush said that he wanted to know who was leaking information in his administration did Rove come to him and tell him? When and how did he explain his involvement? We have to assume that Rove told Bush about his involvement right? Otherwise, Rove didn't obey his boss, the President. So when did the President find out about Roves involvement and why, as Schieffer asks, did Bush not ask Rove to settle the record way back when?

Or did Rove not tell Bush about his involvement because Rove didn't think it rose to the level of "leak"? Is that really straight shooting?

Anyway, no matter why Rove told Cooper about Wilson's wife, all of these questions remain and keep the controversy close to Bush.

RE: frameone's post (July 1... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: frameone's post (July 18, 2005 02:26 AM)

...When did Bush know that Rove was involved in leaking Plame's when and when did he know it? The closer this thing gets to Bush, loyalty or no, the more Rove's job security is in doubt.

Again, his job security is in doubt only by those on the Left who hope it to be. In case you haven't noticed, Bush is not up for re-election, doesn't succumb to ranting partisans, and treasures loyalty. Law will dictate his response... as it should and despite the cries of "ethics violations" from the Democrats. Just saying that brings an ever-so-slight curl to the corners of my mouth. Oh, who am I kidding. It's a full-on laugh.


And please don't drag us through the tired complaints about the NY Times. Judith Miller was instrumental in pushing the administration line on WMDs in Iraq. She reported exactly what the White House wanted to report because they were spoon feeding her everything. The White House used the NYT to shill thier WMD bullshit and the paper of record went along willingly.

I'll stop with the tired complaints when the Old, er, Grey Lady stops with the tired bias. No doubt the poor, abused, helpless NY Times was bamboozled and oh-so-exploited... those little Republican dickens. Judith Miller's reporting convinced very few people. I'd never heard of her until I found out she was going to jail. I'm sure there are many, and you are one, who would like to pin her as the Republican-WMD shill, but I'm not buying it. Those who supported action in Iraq are likely unswerved by her reportage. The inverse with antagonists is also true. Ted Kennedy, for example, didn't wake up and read in the NY Times about WMD and say "Hey, that's a good point. Let's go invade." I find such arguments disingenuous and retrospective covering-of-one's a**.

RE: frameone's post (July 1... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: frameone's post (July 18, 2005 02:26 AM)

I'm going to skip the extended hypotheticals because they are, well, hypotheticals. If only the NY Times could avail themselves to a leak or two, we might be able to advance the conversation. But such behavior is beneath them. Alas, we'll suffer in ignorance.


But I would like to respond to this:

...the fact is it doesn't matter WHY Rove gave Cooper information about Wilson's wife. The only thing that matters is that he did it.

I disagree. If Rove leaked and it compromised real covert operations (which would be part of violating current statutes), then I would advocate his arrest barring other information. If I knew the entirety of events, I might reconsider since context in most things is a consideration. Such exemplifies this case as I have responded previously in other threads - the events were sequential based upon a pre-existing cascade. One partisan tried to undermine an adminstration. Another partisan tried to defend it. Considering the competing aims of the actors, I defer to what I believe to be the most appropriate or acceptable response to defend the country first and foremost.

To me exposing Wilson for his erroneous "whistleblowing" was a greater transgression than was the subsequent "retribution". A simple basketball metaphor illustrates this well. Let's say there is a cheap shot under the rim resulting in a retaliatory swipe by the recipient. Yes, both players get T'd up, but sometimes the initiator gets the double and tossed. Were it my court, I'd not penalize the recipient at all... but we live in a PC world and such clear decisions remain unpopular. Nevertheless, I think many will realize the totality of events and measure their response without the degree of reflex commonly attributable to the "uninformed masses". If Scheiffer was counting on that to tarnish the entire record, then he better start adding some toes to his fingers because it's a time of new math.

frameone, I brought up Clin... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

frameone, I brought up Clinton to show how you and the rest of the left apply their double standards. You were and still are determined to get Rove out of the White House by claiming he lied on CNN but you think Clinton lying under oath is fine. Lying is dishonest, perjury is a felony. I know you haven't noticed and don't care in the least but nobody has proven who outed Plame yet. If Fitzpatrick announces it was a democrat you'll probably decide it wasn't really a crime after all. Anyone that doesn't understand why the administration has kept quiet on this hasn't really thought it out yet, if it does turn out to be a democrat then all you lefties screaming that Rove has to go will look like the partisan shills you are. You cry out for the truth till you get it then it rapidly loses it importance. That will reach all the way to the senate and we'll see backpedaling like we haven't seen in a long time. It's going to be great if it comes out the way I suspect it will and the left will have painted itself into a corner. They'll either have to give up one of their own or show the voters how they truly are. The voters that democrat that is, the rest of us figured that out long ago.

Oops! Major error from post... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

Oops! Major error from post (July 18, 2005 03:18 AM)

To me exposing Wilson for his erroneous "whistleblowing" was a lesser transgression than was the subsequent "retribution".

To rephrase, Wilson's "crime" was worse than Rove's, and we've not yet established that any crime has been committed by anyone. Such as that is, we get to play moral relativity instead.

If these people after Rove ... (Below threshold)

If these people after Rove are genuine and really just want to see justice done, I want to see them going after the leakers who are under a gag order right now. But, I repeat myself.

Rove can wriggle away with ... (Below threshold)

Rove can wriggle away with legalistic evasions if he wants. We (on the Left) are probably better off having him in the White House posing with George at every opportunity, because linking the Rove to Bush in the public mind is like linking the word "privatization" to "Social Security". You can save his pasty skin, but from this point on, he's a detriment to your guy in the big white house. He's a reminder about all the tall tales about WMDs that have given us the current quagmire in Iraq.
This is not the story of what Rove told Cooper when, it's the story of the White House plan to smear a man, Joe Wilson, who wouldn't go along with their fixing of the intelligence (i.e., it's just another chapter in the story of the Downing Street Memo).

RE: True Blue Liberal's pos... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: True Blue Liberal's post (July 18, 2005 04:24 PM)

You can save his pasty skin...

Ahh, the truth comes out. You don't like his tan.

But looking beyond the superficial, this is a story of a man smearing an administration for some as yet uncertain reason. Wilson's attempt at undermining his government has been disclosed and that certainly has caused some consternation on his part. Wilson has done the book tour and the TV rounds to misdirect his own complicity in dubious action. It's only a matter of time until the movie comes out. Anyone sensing Fahrenhype 9/12?

Hi, AD - yessss, it's time ... (Below threshold)
BR:

Hi, AD - yessss, it's time for the fun to begin!

I've made a few new posts in our cybertag conversation, and ended off there with ditty - "A Ship of Fools" :) (Years ago, I read the most hilarious book by a writer called Simmel, and right in the middle of cliff-hanger events, he'd break out into recipes, of all things! Describing mouthwatering gourmet meals.. and then back to the story again. With me, it happens at the end - seem to break out into spontaneous rhyming.

Oeee, your suggestion of movie titles - what fun!

"Titanic II"
"The Unstoppable Monster Called Disaster"
"Triple Cross III"
"Fatal Distraction"
"The Spy Who Used to Love Me"
"Kicked Out of Africa"
"Les Liaisons Dangereuses Duh"

:)




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy