The new Rove/Plame article, mentioned in this post, is out. Here’s the nut:
In a brief conversation with Rove, Cooper asked what to make of the flap over Wilson’s criticisms. NEWSWEEK obtained a copy of the e-mail that Cooper sent his bureau chief after speaking to Rove. (The e-mail was authenticated by a source intimately familiar with Time’s editorial handling of the Wilson story, but who has asked not to be identified because of the magazine’s corporate decision not to disclose its contents.) Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a “big warning” not to “get too far out on Wilson.” 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 … ”
Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame’s name or knew she was a covert operative.
So, in essence, absolutely no indication that a crime has been committed by Rove. According to what we know so far Rove identified Wilson’s wife, who he indicated worked in some function at the CIA, as the person who authorized his trip to Nigeria. That doesn’t indicate that Rove knew anything about Plame’s status as an undercover agent. It merely indicates that he was trying to communicate to Cooper that Wilson’s trip to Nigeria was a fraud from start to finish. Something which we learned later.
The fact that Plame sent Wilson on the trip to Nigeria was an important part of debunking Wilson’s report. This was no political smear, it was the pointing out of nepotism which further supported the idea that Wilson’s trip was politically, not factually, motivated. If keeping Plame’s identity a secret was such a top priority then maybe she and her husband shouldn’t have gotten involved with the phony trip to Nigeria.
If anything, these revelations are far more damaging to Plame and her husband than they are to Rove.
Update:
Yeah, okay, maybe there’s no crime, but it strikes me that Rove’s going to be conclusively identified as the/a leaker within days. Once that happens, he’s toast. He probably won’t go to jail, and he probably won’t even be indicted (unless he perjured himself, which I have know way of knowing), but I think it’s likely that his days as a White House advisor are numbered — and that that number is less than 30.
That’s one way to look at it, but I think Spoons is missing the larger picture. At the time Rove was talking to Cooper it was coming out that Wilson’s trip to Nigeria was one big politically-motivated canard aimed at smearing the President of the “Saddam was looking for uranium” issue. Rove had no doubt learned at this time about the nepotism involved with the selection of Wilson to travel to Nigeria and the CIA approval of it, so why shouldn’t he give that information to a reporter especially if he wasn’t aware that Wilson’s was an undercover CIA agent and/or he didn’t provide the reporter with her name. Especially in light of the scorching op/ed Wilson had just written for the New York Times.
Did Rove leak Palme’s name? Maybe. But even if he did I think we have to look at the circumstances of the leak as well. If Rove named her not knowing that she was an undercover CIA agent and in reaction to Wilson’s rather blatant and factually-challenged smearing of President Bush I have a hard time holding it against him.
Rob Port is the owner and operator of Say Anything.
Sorry, I posted under a nickname then decided to use my real name. It wasn’t clear that it had already been posted or I wouldn’t have bothered. Feel free to delete either one.
you guys are too hard on liberals, plus you overgeneralize. not all liberals are candyass “oh we have to understand their feelings” approach to handing terrorists. I think we should kick their butts and ask questions later. The terrorists, that is.
Look at it this way. Here I am a liberal. My mother is a devout Republican and my sister — well, she’s a reactionary ultra-conservative Christian wacko. A nice wacko, but a wacko. My aunt — sheesh anytime I mention anything approaching democratic concepts, she just laughs. She really doesn’t know nor care. She would vote for Hitler if he was a Republican.
Given this, all of us think Tom DeLay is bad news. I think Rove is a brilliant tactician. My sister probably never heard of him. My mother — well, she probably doesn’t care what he’s done and thinks Wilson is cute.
So S- — don’t get so down on liberals. Believe it or not, they run the gamut of brilliant tacticians to stupid idiots — just like conservatives do. And some actually disagree with each other…
Toby, for instance. I think he’s ok. He actually listens and responds in a respectful way to something stupid I might say. he might say it slowly so even I can understand, but….
Oh. I got off the subject. Sorry.
Twice called reasonable by liberals !?! Perhaps I need to strop my hard edge a bit more. đ But thanks anyway Chris and roberto. Its sad to get more appreciation from ones opponents that from someone who should be an ally. (Yeah, talking about you minus ess minus; still waiting for your apology). While we’re all in such good kumbya spirits I’d like to ask a question of those leftwards who might still be reading this dying thread. Have you read, previous or as a result of following my above posted link, the select committee report on Iraq. What did you think of section II Niger? Does that not shoot down many of the talking points being circulated on leftism sites about Amb. Wilson and his trip to Niger?
Tob
Toby,
I see you’ve met with -S-‘s disapproval. She’s so quick to judge what anyone says harshly, even when she has no idea what they’re talking about. She’s so interested in getting her own posts in, she can’t be bothered to read and understand the postings of others. If you read several WizBang comment sections, you’ll be certain to see this played out over and over and over again with her. In calling you “stupid” and a “sub-troll” when you actually provided useful information, I think should be subjected to her own comments:
Quoting -S-, from an earlier thread, “I read your earlier determined aggression on a personal level, this thread, involving others and now you’re including me in your target practice…It only convinces others, your didactics and nasties to and about what others try to share here, that you’re not a nice person, not worth much time even trying to interact with. I think that also explains why you’re so reliant upon copying and pasting “court records” and such.”
So, I guess judging -S- by her own standards of personal agression, she’s “not a very nice person, not worth much time even trying to interact with.” Of course, she is consistent on hating people that link to actual, relevant information, which was my previous crime with her as well. She’s only fond of people spouting uninformed opinions that agree with her 100%.
Good luck getting that apology.
Joe
P.S. Can you make heads or tails of what -S- is saying about Judith Miller? “She’s going to jail to protect her own misbehavior”? What is that supposed to mean?
minus ess minus is a woman !?! I would not of thought a lady capable of such a vehement response. I’m baffled now as to how to preceed in my vendetta. I goes suggesting that she ‘load smooth and single’ is now out of the question as are the many cutting descriptions I’ve worked up. I guess I will just have to let it go, although a lady should be able to apologise as well as a man.
Tob
should read “I guess suggesting that she ‘load smooth and single’ is now out of the question”
Damn fat fingers.
Tob
Actually as I think of it, the phrase is “charge smooth and single”. You’ld thing an old southerner like me would get it right.
Tob
It’s a pity -S- misread Toby’s great posts and took the meme thing personally. Her observations of trolls repeating the same talking points all over the net are true. She’s usually one of the stalwarts here, helped design Wizbang’s competition logo last year.
AnonymousD above wrote “death by a thousand cuts” is the plan of attack on Bush. Agreed. If anyone thought CBSgate had a lot of deceptions to uncover, this Plame thing has ten times more, over a longer period. While those truly interested in uncovering truth are still quietly reading up on it (Thanks, Toby, for the links to the reports), the left jumps in with data meant to distract not only the public, but also the President.
Peacemaker, your handle is well chosen. Thank you. I will, of course, let the matter drop. No gentleman fights with a lady under any circumstance.
Tob
And if any of you guys think this means that I’m going soft, just try me! I WILL go sub-troll! I’ll hunt you down like dogs from one thread to another until you apologise or I’m banned, and then I’ll reincarnate to hunt somemore! I’ll defame you and all your people back to the beginning of time! I’ll use such cunning jibes and flamboyant curses that you’ll wear out your dictionaries just figuring out whether to be insulted. Be warned! The old hound still bites! grrrrr! đ
Tob
Adieu (see, I speak Surrender Monkey!)
RE: Tiger’s/Chris’s post (July 11, 2005 04:45 PM)
…what I find truly hilarious is the recurring characterization of liberals as “moonbats” on this thread…
I’ll just chime in for one small point here. The “moonbat” pejorative is to mock, well, moonbats. Although routinely applied to liberals, it can apply to members of any political persuasion. Most of the time (and practically every time in my use of it for the Left), it is used to ridicule the farthest fringes and not a general synonym for Democrat. I’ll provide some examples.
The red-meat serving and current DNC chairman (H. Dean) at a fundraising dinner – moonbat, well, moonbat tendencies. He’s not a full-on moonbat when typing email solicitations to RedStaters he wants to tap for money and understanding.
Lawrence O’Donnell “debating” a Swift Boat Vet – Moonbat. Note the use of a capital ‘M” which denotes special commendation – the equivalent of a moonbat merit badge for battiness above and beyond the call of duty.
George Soros – a well heeled M¢¢nbat. Note again the merit badge and the subtler, yet intrinsically more powerful, coin trinkets – it indicates a moonbat with more money than sense and a popular source of funding for even the less moonbatty.
Joe Lieberman and Harold Ford – NOT moonbats and worthy of consideration. I mean, really, what are they doing here tarnishing this fine list?
“sunglove” – a very pernicious species indeed. Hillary Clinton heads this variety. Note the clever use of inocuous word-association to conceal the title – a reflection of its inherent attempt to mask natural “moonbattish” behavior. Some systematicists have suggested altering the nomenclature to “moonzebra” to reflect the changing of stripes, but it has not yet gained acceptance into general industry vocabulary. I believe the naming convention will stand until the next policy-making gathering of the Young Republicans of Berkeley in the summer of ’06 where they will readdress the issue.
I hope I have provided useful guidance on the use of this word and its application to the political Left. It is by no means comprehensive, but it does touch on the existence of finer nuances in its application. And don’t think we “wingnuts” don’t appreciate nuance. Well, “appreciate” may not be the operative word, but I digress.
LOL!! I have not yet received my talking-points on the use of sunglove, 1-of-12, oops, I mean AnonymousD, but since my VRWC cell number is 378879 perhaps it is delayed or even not allowed at my level of initiation.
Toby 8-of-378879
“Every thing is going according to plan. Just play along Toby, only 378878 levels to rise until its all mine and then … seats at the 50 yard line”
RE: Toby928’s post (July 11, 2005 08:38 PM)
đ
I have not yet received my talking-points on the use of sunglove, ******* [redacted], oops, I mean AnonymousD, but since my VRWC cell number is ****** [redacted] perhaps it is delayed or even not allowed at my level of initiation.
**************** [redacted]
…
Let me scan the Minutes of the spring session. Ahh, yes, now I remember more clearly.
Yes, the “sunglove” directive (VRWC Petition 20040704/beta-alpha-tau heretofore defined as “Amendment to Reconsider Naming Conventions for Person’s Named Clinton and Previously Exposed as Lunar Mammals”) has both protagonists and antagonists. The last meeting was frought with consternation and many erasers were thrown. Fortunately, casualties were light but the issue was tabled for the rest of the conference. A non-binding referendum was drafted and passed to ensure that “The Amendment” be redrawn at the next BiCoastal Regional Conference on Political Semantics to reflect universal adoption, local sensibilities, and ease of enunciation. I happened to think that the Enunciation Articles were weakest but others wanted more flexibility in applying the Sensibilities Acts of ’72. Go figure.
Anyway, the meeting is on and I have it on good authority that HEY EVERYONE LOOK OVER THERE! ITS A MOONBAT! NO REALLY, LOOK! SEE ALL OF THE PROTRUDING VEINS AND POPPING EYES AND [whispers] EyHey Oby 8-of-378879Tay, hetay andshakehay ashay eenbay angedchay, Iay epeatray, hetay andshakehay ashay eenbay angedchay !ay [/whispers] I guess I was seeing things. It wasn’t really a moonbat at all.
Anyway, Toby928, you should be getting your talking-points regularly because nothing precludes you from the disseminated propaganda. I’ll voice your concerns at the autumn retreat and hope that number 4 is receptive to the grievance. I don’t doubt he/she/it/them will move mountains to streamline our usual conduits. And about that thing I mentioned… the Wing is very serious about that considering the location of the upcoming venue. The brownshirts will frogmarch you right out of there if you don’t, well… I better not say anymore. Just don’t try anything foolish or you can kiss those 50 yard line tickets goodbye.
Out.
NonymousayRivelDay
You two are toooo funny đ đ Love your spunk!
Strength and sense of humor are a great combination.
Meanwhile, I’ve continued my quiet reading in the back of the class, but the garden needs watering. Here’s what I found so far:
I’ve been reading data elsewhere and at JustOneMinute on this matter. Some of the Oct. 2003 threads: (PART I) and (PART II) (cursor down past green blank space) have much interesting data, even if not up to date. I remember hearing of the “French” forged docs thing long ago, before I got interested in the Plame Affair, and it’s on my “to do” list for further reading. The “French connection” revelation came later than 2003, after the discussion in those threads.
In my draft timeline excerpted below, see where the “Late Summer 02” entry fits in. Oh how I love jigsaw puzzles.
Late Summer 02 â Events described in Seymour Hersh’s article of 10/20/03 re forgery of Niger docs:
“âŚAnother explanation was provided by a former senior C.I.A. officer. He had begun talking to me about the Niger papers in March,[2003] when I first wrote about the forgery, and said, âSomebody deliberately let something false get in there.â He became more forthcoming in subsequent months, eventually saying that a small group of disgruntled retired C.I.A. clandestine operators had banded together in the late summer of last year and drafted the fraudulent documents themselves….”
“The thinking, he said, was that the documents would be endorsed by Iraq hawks at the top of the Bush Administration, who would be unable to resist flaunting them at a press conference or an interagency government meeting. They would then look foolish when intelligence officials pointed out that they were obvious fakes. But the tactic backfired, he said, when the papers won widespread acceptance within the Administration. ‘It got out of control.’ â>
My timeline didn’t go through, so I’ve posted it in parts in the latest thread of 7/11/05.
Here’s a list of wizbang threads since the Plame Affair began reheating up on 7/2/05:
Rove The Source Of The Plame Leak? 7/2/05
Rove Article Is Out 7/3/05
Rove=Bin Laden 7/5/05
O’Donnell Still Trying To Sell “Rove Leaked Plame 7/5/05
O’Donnell Has Three Questions For Rove 7/5/05
List cont’d:
Who Leaked What? 7/6/05
Huffington Post To Break Another Rove/Plame Story? 7/10/05
Another Sunday, Another Rove/Plame Story From Newsweek 7/10/05
Rove Already Convicted In The Press 7/11/05
(Posted my timeline in that one)
ed,
“If so then what we’re looking at is Plame setting up a contract for her husband, so they could make the payment on a house or something. Which is frankly far more likely than any other possible scenario.”
Did I miss something, or was this pulled directly from your ass? I believe that Rob was getting down on the media for convicting Rove without a trial. You apparently want to convict Plame and Wilson without anything at all, even a hint of suspicion from any other source of this wrongdoing. Perhaps you were simply being facetious, here. With your other overblown rhetoric, it’s hard to tell.
For example:
Rove talked to Cooper the SAME F-ING DAY OF Novak’s ARTICLE. There is every possibility that Rove did NOT talk to Cooper until AFTER the article had been published at 11 am.
Christ will you lefties stop mucking up the facts?
from -S-‘s earlier Washington Post article,
“Rove had a short conversation with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper on July 11, 2003, three days before Robert D. Novak publicly exposed Plame in a column about her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV.”
Perhaps it is you who is unaware of the facts, ed. Have you considered this possibility? Have you at least considered checking the facts before flying off the handle with your response? If so, next time, try harder.
Actually, although I don’t think Ed covers himself in glory with his wild-eyed posts, I have read that Novak’s column was sent to his syndicate on July 11, but not published until July 14. It is possible that someone as connected as Rove had access to the column before publication, including getting it directly from Novak, who’s a notorious Republican butt boy.
Just trying to be fair, as much as it kills me.
Don’t you love it when the moonbats on the Left start harping on National Security? Wow, they are so worried about Naaaaational Seeeeecurity. Give me a break.
Chris,
I find your attempted defense of Ed charming, if misguided.
Perhaps you read this quote from Ed, “There is every possibility that Rove did not talk to Cooper until AFTER the article had been published at 11 am” differently than I do or have a different concept of what the word, “published,” means.
Of course, you say that maybe Rove had the column before publication, so it does seem that we can agree on the meaning of the term.
If Ed is attempting such a nuanced argument as this, then he certainly shouldn’t be surprised when people say, “Finally, Rove had said that he did not discuss this issue to a reporter prior to Bob Novak’s report.” He should explain that he’s asserting, with no evidence to back him up except speculation, that Rove read Novak’s report before it was publicly available AND that Rove wasn’t Novak’s original source. I’m asserting, based on the wording of his post, and his previous wild-eyed proclivities, that he’s simply clueless about the facts.
Fair enough?
jYt
Actually, I wasn’t so much responding to Ed’s specific wording as to the fact that he was referencing a point that I’ve already seen raised by more than one person defending Rove, namely that we can’t dismiss out of hand the possibility that Rove will claim that he did, indeed learn about Plame’s status from Novak’s column, and that he did have access to it prior to his conversation with Cooper. Imprecise use of the word publish by me or Ed or anyone else doesn’t change that.
OK, I’ve spent way to much time defending one of Rove’s talking points. I’m starting to get the creeps.
Chris,
Ah, but I was responding to Ed’s specific wording, including “published” and “facts”. So, we both totally agree that Ed has no idea what he’s talking about. He probably heard the same theory you did, but internalized it incorrectly as when the article was published instead of written, morphing the theory into a fact as well, at the same time. Then he gets mad at people who don’t have the same bizarre, incorrect understanding that he does of what happened.
Thanks for helping me understand how he got to his misconceptions. It’s an ugly sight inside the mind of Ed.
Jim, I’VE BEEN involved with National Security. Some of us leaning to the left side of the do that, you know. Sheesh. Talk about typecasting! That’s like saying that all conservatives are pasty white pudgy overweight male honkies.
Overgeneralization hints of stupidity, Plato once said.
Or was it Irma Bombeck? Can’t remember.
What we do know: Rove did tell cooper enough to convey that Wilson’s wife worked for the cia (this has been stated by Roves own lawyer). A couple of years ago when the president was asked if he would fire anyone who may have leaked, he said yes (someone on fox had the nerve to say the president never said the word “Fire”. Thats right. The reporter who asked the question said the word “Fire” and the president said “yes”. Fox is the most lying network ever devised…). Scott McClelland at one point two years ago said Rove had no part in it and if anyone in the whitehouse was involved they would be fired. Which is why the reporters are annoying the crap out of him this week. So, Rove may find a way to get out of this on a technicallity but what we know now at least shows him being involved. And that liar Melman should stop with his talking point lies saying Rove had nothing to do with it.
Rove identified a covert CIA agent to a reporter. Matt Cooper’s email records show Rove identified Valerie Plame as âWilsonâs wife,â. How many wives does he have? Any fool could yahoo that and get her name. What he did is a violation of at least the spirit of the law from section 421 of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. It says “any information identifying [a] covert agent” is illegal. His insisting strict confidentiality in the discussion also shows that he knew exactly what he was doing and that his actions were wrong.
Also, Bush should hold up to his promise of firing anyone involved in the case or Rove should hurry up and resign. He never said the person had to be indicted or convicted. You know some thought Bush would have finally stated his support of Rove yesterday when he took some questions from the press. It did not happen.
One aside: I wonder how many millions of our tax money was spent on this Brewster-Jennings cia front company which Plame worked through to get info on WMD, only to have it blown out of the water over this petty vindictive act? Also, how much would it cost to have to start up a whole new operation under a different name with new people? The individuals involved in this leak should pay it back.
lame duck prez? how about mortally wounded?! yes quite right and his zionist trash as well. there will be hell to pay for our men and women in uniform who have died for israeli lies!!!!!!!!