Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Did Rove get the State Department Memo? Is Rove even a member of the State Department?

I can’t get into the Washington Post’s website from work, but from you wrote, it appears that the info on this memo came from more anonymous sources. Does it give the names of the “former senior agency officials?” If not, why trust them any more that you trust Rove? Because their story backs up yours?
The funny thing is that if the memo is classified (the part of the story you quoted said that the memo was classified) and it is where Rove got his information, these “senior officials” are guilty of the same thing he is! Why are you using leaked classified information to prove another leak?

Like I said, I can’t see the story until later, so I’m just going by what Stephen wrote.

Posted by: TheTraveler at July 22, 2005 09:41 AM

First there is no indications that Rove even got the memo. The memo wasn’t to him. It wasn’t even to Powell. It was to an undersecretary. Second, even if he saw it (and that is a big if) I doubt that a political guy like Rove pays much attention to State Department memos. You know that they crank out thousands of those every day. Third, even if he started to read it, like most people he probably went not much below the summary and not to the incidental information about Plame. So this is a long line of conditional probability that in the end results in nothing.

I would be amusing the way you guys keep on grasping at nothing, except that it is getting to be a little pathetic. This latest revelation doesn’t even rise to a high enough level to support innuendo.

Posted by: Jack at July 22, 2005 10:12 AM

Traveller-
I think the Memo can safely be said to be declassified, but thanks for conceding that it’s wrong to disclose classified information.

At the same time you engage in this equivalency, you also start trying to say that perhaps it’s all lie. I’m confused- is your argument that the document hasn’t been truthfully portrayed? The press has it, actually, so they’re working from primary documentary sources, not anonymous informants.

I don’t think the Post would get caught in the open without assurances that these things said in the article are not the case. I would ask you, what do you take issue with, and on what basis? Are you simply not wanting to admit things could get this bad?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 22, 2005 10:15 AM

Exactly Traveler. The whole WaPo story is based upon the leaking by anonymous sources of what is in a classified memo! Those leakers obviously broke their ethics pledge and should be fired immediately.

Maybe that’s why the press was on the hill yesterday lobbying for a federal shield law to protect the likes of Rove. Unles it is a crime (and Fitzgerald will determine that for all involved) do you really want to roll heads? I know the press doesn’t.

Posted by: George in SC at July 22, 2005 10:37 AM

Stephen Daugherty,

Well said. I cannot agree more.
Excellent post.

To Bush supporters:
If George Bush,Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove were video taped by Barbera, beating an old lady, molesting a cat and smoking crack cocain in the oval office, while watching porn, holding a sign with their names on it you folks would say, “Lets wait for the investigation to end so that all of the facts,because quite frankly, we don’t know the facts and wait for other facts to come to light during the investigation that would shed light on the facts that we don’t yet know.”
To all you “Superpatriots”, this Bud’s for you.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at July 22, 2005 10:53 AM

This discussion is further testament that focusing on these details is picking at nits in the midst of a culture of intimidation and slander. I actually agree with Jack that the memo is hardly the smoking gun that clinches Rove’s culpability. Memos fly in bureaucracies, and even if he received it, Rove can argue that it was buried in a pile of information on a busy day. No Karl Rove had a job to do when Wilson got press for his charges that this administration was playing fast and loose with the truth. Job one was to discredit Wilson, and that is exactly what he did, consistent with his long track record of slander and innuendo in service to political expediency.

Posted by: Walker at July 22, 2005 11:03 AM

Andre,

Yeah, I think you’ve got it about right. And we would be hearing a lot of dirt about the old lady and the cat. And it would somehow be the Clintons’ fault.

Jack and other Rove defenders,

Even if he didn’t see the memo, it does provide more evidence that Plame’s identity was supposed to be a secret. You accuse Rove’s critics of grasping at straws, but to mix a metaphor the straws are piling up on the camel’s back. On your side all you’ve got is a bunch of slanders against Joe Wilson, no one which which justify exposing a secret agent anyway.

As I said before, I am more moved by the silence from the White House than the bluster on the right-wing blogosphere.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 22, 2005 11:16 AM

Here are the facts of the case:
(1) Knowingly disclosing classified information is a security breach and possible crime
(2) Rove disclosed/confirmed this classified info to Novak (and possibly others)
(3) Anyone with Rove’s security level clearance understands that the “S” markings on the memo signify secret or classified information
(4) Rove told the grand jury he did not see the memo
———————————————————————-
(5) If Rove saw the memo, then he did indeed “knowingly” disclose this information and is guilty of two things (a) lying to a grand jury, and (b) violating national security protocol

Rove’s best defense thus far has been playing dumb. He told the grand jury he did not see the memo, and he’s been relying on the claim that he did not know/realize that Plame’s identity was classified. However, If he did see the memo based on the “S” marking, he can no longer claim he didn’t realize the sensitivity of the information.

NOW we have new information that Ari Fleischer was carrying the memo aboard Air Force One. If Ari Fleischer had the memo, it is reasonable to assume that the contents of it found their way to Rove and Bush.

Can we all agree on this?

Ok, now I pose a few questions to those defending Rove. Please go on the record with your official position on the matter by answering the following questions.

(1) Do you believe, given Rove’s role in the administration and his access to information, that he didn’t see the memo? (I just want to know if you think it is likely or unlikely that he did not see the memo, I’m not asking you to convict him just yet)

(2) If we know that Fleischer was circulating the memo, what leads you to believe that it somehow bypassed Rove?

(3) If Rove did indeed see the memo, what should be done about it? Revoked security clearance? Fired? Prosecuted?

Basically, it seems this case is coming down to whether or not Rove saw the memo. I find it hard to believe that he didn’t see it given the nature of his position and the fact that it was being circulated by top administration officials.

Right now it seems that everyone defending Rove is saying that those who want to see Rove go down are jumping to conclusions. I would say we are jumping to pretty reasonable conclusions given the overwhelming evidence against Rove. I think there’s more than enough compelling evidence right now to at least revoke his security clearance. Beyond that, I’ll wait for the investigation to finish and put my faith in the fact that Fitzgerald will be able to connect the dots and show that Rove did indeed have access to this information. It’s not going to take much, that’s for sure.

Posted by: Andrew L. at July 22, 2005 11:19 AM

Andre

Your post reminds me of the guy who said that he was Republican because his father and grandfather had been Republicans. The other guy asked, “By that logic if your fathers and grandfather had been horse thieves, what would that make you.” “A Democrat”, was the fast answer.

Posted by: jack at July 22, 2005 11:22 AM

Some of you are a little confused.

The memo contained classified information, not leaked information. It was compiled by someone with the intelligence clearance to know it and distributed to others in the White House who also had the clearance to know it.

Furthermore, Rove violated his clearance by confirming Plame’s position for Novak, and by providing the information to Cooper.

I would be amusing the way you guys keep on grasping at nothing, except that it is getting to be a little pathetic. This latest revelation doesn’t even rise to a high enough level to support innuendo.

…and yet, this memo has apparently been important to the prosecutor.

Posted by: mattLaw at July 22, 2005 11:33 AM

Andrew

I think that is likely that Rove either did not pay attention to the memo or even get it at all. It wasn’t to him. It wasn’t to the President. It wasn’t even to the SecState. Any high government official gets – literally – thousands of such memos every day. Many of them marked secret, which (BTW) is relatively low on the classification totem pole.

Think of it this way. You are taking a hard course in college that has a long list of required and suggested readings. Do you read everything and can you pay attention to it all? If someone accused you on the basis of something in the suggested reading list, would you feel it made sense?

Posted by: Jack at July 22, 2005 11:34 AM

Stephen,

Thanks for the clarification on the memo being declassified.

To tell you the truth, I’m not sure if anything about this being truthfully portrayed. That’s why up until now I haven’t posted on the subject. I just don’t like the fact that so much of the information we do have has been leaked from anonymous government sources, when that was the problem in the first place. As I have posted before, I’m sick of the media reporting so much anonymous info, because it weakens their credibility and that of their stories, in my mind at least.

If you do want my opinion on this issue, both sides have blundered politically. President Bush should have sped up the investigation and after it was over, he should have had Rove give his side of the story to the Public. Instead, we’re going to have a few more months of this and, quite frankly, it’s getting boring reading the same old accusations over and over here at WB.
The Democrats, while not losing sight of this by any means, should be focused on other issues, especially with midterms coming up. Most of the “proof” they’ve come up with is speculative (like your post for example, since we don’t know if Rove ever heard of the memo). This has allowed people on the Republican side to say that in their rush to war the democrats have not told us the whole truth.
I’ve heard it speculated that Bush nominated Judge Roberts to take the focus off this. I’m beginning to wonder it’s really the other way around: prolong this, keep the Democrats focused on Rove so the nomination goes through with less hassle.

As to whether Rove is guilty and what should happen to him, I can say honestly that I have no clue. Most of the information from both sides is speculation and/or based on hearsay. My point is simply that I don’t like the media reporting information from “anonymous government officials” as fact, especially when this information might be classified. Which is why this problem arose in the first place, don’t you know?

Posted by: TheTraveler at July 22, 2005 11:35 AM

Andre,

The sign would have to include “we are looking for weapons of mass destruction” and, Jerry Falwell would have to be guarding the door.

Posted by: steve smith at July 22, 2005 11:38 AM

Andrew-

Assume makes an ass out of u and me…..

What’s bad is if you, Stephen and Andre just wait, there maybe even more explosive new information to come to light from Fitzgerald’s report. He might even give you the ammo to go after the big fish!

Without the Fitzgerald report you are likely to do more harm than good; turning off leaks from future administrations and driving the Washington press corp to speculating verses having real inside sources.

I know you want Rove real bad and think you have him hooked, but it doesn’t count unless you get them in the boat.

Posted by: George in SC at July 22, 2005 11:44 AM

Jack,

If my study partner Ari had that suggested reading in his backpack, and I told someone else a fairly obscure fact that was in the reading, then, no, I don’t think it would be a big leap for someone to suggest that I had actually looked at it. But then, I’m not a Republican…

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 22, 2005 11:50 AM

Jack-
This INR Memo was passed around on Air Force One during a meeting, and reportedly even Ari Fleischer, the guy whose job was to be spokesman for the president got his hands on it.

This was no ordinary State Department memo. This was one that dealt with what we knew about the Niger Uranium dealings at the time, and it comes down against what the president said at his SOTU address. Additionally, it was a high enough cleared memo to have Plame’s identity contained within it, and given the fact that White House officials would normally have no means of finding out who NOC agents are, this would be one of the few sources they could find that out from.

Given how much Wilson was involved in this controversy, I truly doubt mention of his wife would go unnoticed.

I’m not grasping at straws here. I’m not trying to say that during the heated discussion of the subject of the Niger documents that was occuring on this flight that nobody would have paid attention to a crucial piece of information concerning the Whistleblower who started this brouhaha.

Walker-
If he read it, that means he knew the information was considered secret, that the CIA was trying to keep it secret. If he is known to have read the memo, he cannot claim ignorance of his contents, no more than person in possession of a murder weapon at the time of the crime can argue he had nothing to do with the crime. It was one of the few sources for that information in existence, and therefore the document’s perusal by Rove would be a staggering coincidence. It would also be evidence that he lied to officials investigating this case because he claimed he never saw it.

As for nitpicking? I simply don’t believe it’s effective to be vague on the wrongs of the corrupt, the abusers of power. Specific details paint the picture much better, and are harder to shake than generalized charges. There’s a difference between being told that Halliburton’s cheating the army, and being told that meals are costing 20$ a plate. One is an opinion which can be dismissed. The other is a fact that demands explanation.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 22, 2005 11:56 AM

Andrew

I think that is likely that Rove either did not pay attention to the memo or even get it at all. It wasn’t to him. It wasn’t to the President. It wasn’t even to the SecState. Any high government official gets – literally – thousands of such memos every day. Many of them marked secret, which (BTW) is relatively low on the classification totem pole.

Think of it this way. You are taking a hard course in college that has a long list of required and suggested readings. Do you read everything and can you pay attention to it all? If someone accused you on the basis of something in the suggested reading list, would you feel it made sense?

Jack,

Think of it this way. You are taking a hard course in college that has a long list of required readings. You find out that one of the essay questions on the next test comes directly from one of the required readings. Do you read that reading?

You can claim that it was “just another memo lost in the shuffle” but that argument just doesn’t hold water. We KNOW Rove was very interested in the contents of the memo and was actively involved in determining strategy to discredit Wilson.

Considering his attention to detail, don’t you think that if the memo was available, he probably gave it a good long look? Just because it wasn’t directed to the White House, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t pass through their hands if it’s important or relevant to a major issue (which clearly this was).

And do you really believe Rove’s the kind of guy who would just bat around hearsay without thoroughly investigating it first? And even if many are marked secret (I don’t where you get off making this claim anyway), does that somehow mitigate Rove’s responsibility for its contents if he decides to read it? Please. He can’t claim ignorance on this one. You know he knows better.

Posted by: Andrew L. at July 22, 2005 11:58 AM

Jack,

Two comments on things you’ve posted. First, you said, “even if he (Rove) saw it
(and thats a big if) i doubt a guy like Rove pays much attention to State Department memos.”

That is a sad excuse for his actions. Ignorance is not an excuse for breaking the law. It is a sad day when this type of security lapse happens after 911.

Second you say: : “Think of it this way. Your taking a class in college that has a long list of required and suggested readings. Do you read everything and can you pay attention to it all?”

As the student in your above question, he would be responsible for all the reading. He would be expected to answer any questions on a test from any of the readings. So if he didn’t read something he should have, then he is responsible for the fallout of anything he wrote or answered on the test.

In this case, either way, wheather Rove saw the memo or not. Rove is responsible. If he did see the memo but didn’t read everything, he should have. If he didn’t see the memo, but confirmed the relationship of Plame and Wilson, in my opinion, Rove is still guilty. In this case there is no question as to who leaked the info to the reporters. Bush said back in O4 who ever is found to be the leaker of the info on Plame would be fired. We know who that person is now, don’t we?

Posted by: Russell at July 22, 2005 12:41 PM

On this one, the Democrats are just going to keep trying to fit square pegs into round holes and there’s no stopping them.

I hope that everyone has noticed how the Democrats are reacting to the new angles presented by this memo.

There’s finally a piece of decent hard evidence that puts secret information in the hands of an administration figure. It fits fairly nicely in the timeline of the purported leak and Novak’s article. So far, so good. Not a bad piece of evidence, considering the overall vagueness of thhe rest of what’s known, and so perhaps its the missing piece we’ve been looking for.

But look at how the Democrats react. We know that Ari Fleischer had this memo in his personal possession. There is supposedly an eyewitness account of someone who testified to the grand jury that they saw Ari Fleischer reading this memo! Further, we know that White House phone logs show a conversation between Ari Fleischer and Robert Novak on the very day that the memo was prepared! Also, and this may just be coincidental, but Fleischer left the White House just after the Plame controversy broke.

So do the Democrats say, “Wow, things are starting to look bad for Ari Fleischer! Could he be our man?” Of course not, because nailing poor Ari Fleischer holds little satisfaction for them.

So they impatiently skip right over Fleischer, the person who is actually connected to this memo, and engage in all sorts of baseless speculation that Rove MIGHT have seen it. Well, anybody might have. The White House janitor might have—but it looks like Fleischer really did.

The Democrats could hardly be more transparent. They know who they WANT to be guilty, and come hell or high water, they’re going to ignore and overlook everything that doesn’t fit into that wish. Like I’ve said before, thank god we don’t have trial by liberal blogsophere in this country.

Posted by: sanger at July 22, 2005 12:56 PM

Russell

If Rove didn’t read the memo he couldn’t break the law. It is not an excuse; it is a absolute exoneration. Ignorance is a defense. If Rove did not know about the classification from classified sources, he could not have done anything more than gossip. I am sure that you and I at some time have repeated a fact or opinion that is also included in a classified document. Most stories on the front page of any newspaper do. The question is not the fact, but where it comes from.

This whole memo thing may have the unintended result of clearing Rove, because if he didn’t see it, he is innocent. We finally have a standard by which to judge. If Rove did read the memo before talking to Nowak, I am willing to call for his ouster. If not, you must be willing to call him innocent. Let’s see.

BTW

I have written before that lefties should be careful about what they wish for. If you tighten up secrets to the extent you are doing to try to snare Rove, you will undoubtedly snare a lot more lefties in the future. Don’t let your hatred at this one place in time get n the way of your (and our) interests and freedoms in the future.

Posted by: jack at July 22, 2005 01:04 PM

So do the Democrats say, “Wow, things are starting to look bad for Ari Fleischer! Could he be our man?” Of course not, because nailing poor Ari Fleischer holds little satisfaction for them.

So they impatiently skip right over Fleischer, the person who is actually connected to this memo, and engage in all sorts of baseless speculation that Rove MIGHT have seen it. Well, anybody might have. The White House janitor might have—but it looks like Fleischer really did.

The memo is being closely scrutinized by the prosecutor and may be important (judging by what is known about Rove’s interest in Wilson it’s a little far-fetched to think he was clueless but anyway), but the fact remains that Rove and/or Libby are connected to both stories originating from the press.

Do you know much about Rove’s history? Only after the investigation has concluded will we know for sure (and we don’t have half of the information that is out there). Maybe it was Libby, or Powell, or Cheney. Maybe the whole thing was a misunderstanding and no one was attempting to smear Wilson (highly unlikely, but nevertheless possible).

In my personal opinion this fits Rove’s MO, based on his past behavior.

Posted by: mattLaw at July 22, 2005 01:08 PM

If Rove didn’t read the memo he couldn’t break the law. It is not an excuse; it is a absolute exoneration. Ignorance is a defense. If Rove did not know about the classification from classified sources, he could not have done anything more than gossip. I am sure that you and I at some time have repeated a fact or opinion that is also included in a classified document. Most stories on the front page of any newspaper do. The question is not the fact, but where it comes from.

That isn’t true, at all.

Rove had the proper security clearance to obtain this information on his own.

Furthermore, Rove had to sign an oath when obtaining his clearance:

‘Before…confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of [the] SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not…confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure.’

Posted by: mattLaw at July 22, 2005 01:12 PM

Matt, my, your, or anyone’s opinions about Rove’s past behavior is not really important in this matter. I suspect that many have a much higher opinion of him than you do, but that high opinion is not the prosectuter’s concern. The facts are.

What’s important is that there actually may be some evidence implicating a White House official here, but it’s not the White House official Democrats were hoping for.

Now watch them continue to dodge and supress the actual trail of evidence while they treat us to all kinds of speculation about what “might” have happened and what “could” have happened.

Posted by: sanger at July 22, 2005 01:18 PM

Now watch them continue to dodge and supress the actual trail of evidence while they treat us to all kinds of speculation about what “might” have happened and what “could” have happened.

The vast majority of the “evidence” (that has been made public) still implicates Rove and Scooter Libby. Obviously, anyone theorizing that “Fleischer gave the info to Rove!” or anything similar is engaging in speculation and nothing more.

Surely you admit that it is a tad unseemly that McClellan made statements asserting that Libby and Rove were “not involved” with any of this when they quite obviously WERE involved. Whether that involvement reached the level of a crime (or whether they lied about it later to the grand jury) will be decided in court, not in the media.

Posted by: mattLaw at July 22, 2005 01:25 PM

Sanger-
So who was it? Fleischer or Plame?

Seriously, though, we have Rove red-handed in a confirmed leak, using language that indicates he knew what he was leaking was classified. Fleischer has not to our knowledge leaked any such information, much less acknowledged that it was classified. We don’t need to believe that Rove is a leaker, we know he’s one from the facts at hand. If Rove was on that flight, he could have had familiarity with that document, which was being passed around even to the Press Secretary. If Rove was on that flight, it is very likely that he was in the company of somebody who had the memo, or read it himself. If he read it, he cannot legitimately claim ignorance of the sensitivity of the information, an it’s up to ten years in prison.

As for Ari- Well, we’ll find out if he was involved. It’s kind of sad though that you’re trying to scapegoat that poor old guy, if he’s not responsible. Have the Republicans sunk so far as to defend the guilty at the expense of their own innocent?

Jack-
There’s no exoneration in not having read the memo. He still learned the information from somewhere, evidence still indicates he knew it was classified. What the memo does is take things from ambiguous to clear cut very fast, because the memo provides both a source of information and clear indications to Rove that it be kept in the strictest of confidence, indications which explicitly make his disclosure a criminal act. The paragraphs regarding Plame were marked as secret, so there is no room for the argument that the information there wasn’t sensitive. As for catching lefties, if that’s the price, so be it. We’ll just have to be more careful. In this day and age, is that a bad thing?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 22, 2005 01:46 PM

Jack,

If Rove didn’t see the memo, he would not be “innocent”, as you say. There would merely not be enough evidence to convict of a crime (unless there’s another smoking gun out there) — in other words he would just be “not guilty.”

That being said, it still amazes me that you rush to his defense. Given the evidence before us, do you really believe he’s completely innocent? At the very least, does he not deserve his security clearance revoked because of his irresponsible (if not criminal) involvement in disseminating this classified info? Do you believe that the lies and inconsistencies coming from the Rove camp point to the actions of an innocent man?

The best thing that can happen to him is that he will not be charged based on a technicality in the law, but that will in no way “exonerate” him. He will still be responsible for the irresponsibility of his actions, and at a bare minimum will lose his job. I don’t see any other way at this point.

Posted by: Andrew L. at July 22, 2005 02:21 PM

You raise a good point, Stephen. If Plame had already failed to maintain her own cover, then Ari, if he was leaking, might be off the hook.

I don’t know if Ari is innocent or not, or Plame for that matter, but unlike you I’d need more evidence before trying to pin something on a specific person without having the whole story.

But the rest of your case is starting to look pretty desperate. IF Rove was on the plane he COULD HAVE been in the proximity of somebody reading a memo and MIGHT have seen it and then COULD HAVE passed on what he saw? Yes, that is indeed the rock-solid case agains Rove.

Now that I think of it, if pigs had wings, maybe one of them flew down and whispered the name Valerie Plame in Robert Novak’s ear!

Incidentally, I’ve read up pretty exensively on this memo and the events surrounding it, and I’ve heard nobody say that Karl Rove was on that airplane, which was high proflie trip to Africa. It’s something very easy for reporters to check and something we would surely know about if it had any basis in realty. I wish I could say I’m surprised that you’d drop an element of pure make-believe like that into the mix.

The more I think about it, the more Fleischer makes sense. There’s that phone conversation between Novak and him on the same day this memo came out. There’s the fact that Novak, who seems to have struck some sort of deal with Fitzgerald which would preclude him making false public statements, has written that his source “was no partisan gunslinger.” That’s a description which would apply to Fleischer but certainly not to Rove.

So if Fleischer’s the source, there’s still the matter of his intent, his awareness of Plame’s status because of the potentially exonerating fact that the memo doesn’t actually mention Plame’s status or even her relationship to Joe Wilson.

Posted by: sanger at July 22, 2005 02:32 PM

It is not necessary for Rove to have seen the memo!

Rove HAD the information. That much is indisputable. Did he know that she worked for the CIA but not that the information was classified? It’s possible…though the most recent report I’ve seen (today) states that Rove’s grand jury testimony does not jive with Cooper’s, as Novak’s does not match up with Scooter’s.

Hell, Cooper stated in an interview last week that Rove ended the phone conversation with the statement “I’ve already said too much.”

Furthermore, Rove’s incompetent attorney has stated that Cooper always had immunity to testify (after the fact) but them claiming that Cooper “burned” Rove in testifying. That doesn’t sound to me like anyone was actually serious about wanting Cooper to testify, and it took him well over a year to do so…with no one contacting him within that time telling him that he was free to assist in the investigation.

Posted by: mattLaw at July 22, 2005 02:44 PM

If Wilson’s article was seen a challenge to Bush’s State of Union Address…who’s job was it to deal the POLICTICAL fallout? The legal definition of ?MOTIVE? is the inducement, cause or reason why a thing is done. Evidence of a motive is admissible at trial, but it is not necessary to have proof of a motive in order to prove a crime. If Rove did not get his information from the memo, what source did use to confirm the story? If Rove got his information from another source, does that indicate some other collaborated efforts to smear/discredit Wilson? Or can that be seen as motive?

Posted by: ED at July 22, 2005 02:58 PM

If Rove didn’t see the memo, he would not be “innocent”, as you say. There would merely not be enough evidence to convict of a crime (unless there’s another smoking gun out there) — in other words he would just be “not guilty.”

This goes to show the real motivation. As far as you all are concerned, nothing Rove could do would prove his innocence. Based on no evidence, you are sure he did it. There was a memo – therefore Rove read it. Someone leaked to the media – therefore it was Rove.

Read this thread and you can see how complicated the investigation process can be. We are all talking about things that are probably classified. We have not learned them from classified sources (I assume) and we don’t really know which details are classified. What if we just identify one of you as a leak? Could you defend yourself? Not on the basis we require here. Even, if you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you never saw a classified source, it would not be enough.

Enlighten me on this one. Is there any possible piece of evidence or lack of evidence that could prove Rove innocent? Just speaking theoretically here.

Posted by: Jack at July 22, 2005 03:11 PM

Sanger-
I don’t think you get it. Additionally, you may have fallen through a dimensional rift into a parallel universe. Her identity was classified information at the time of the meeting where the memo was circulated, and there is no documentary evidence to suggest that anybody knew her secret at that time. Rove has already been implicated as part of the leak, if not a lead figure. Being in the plane at the same time as a senstive document which is one of the few sources for that information therefore merits interest and investigation. The question is, how did Rove come by the information necessary to reveal a classified secret to the world.

My only question at this point is what other unlikely suspect you’re going to finger before you admit that Rove is dirty on this one. Maybe you’ll get up to the Bush twins by the time the findings are published.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 22, 2005 03:21 PM

I’m so proud to be American these days.

Especially since President Bush has made good on his promise to “Restore Honor and Integrity to the White House”

Three cheers!
B
INDICT
U
IMPEACH
S
INTER (as in jail)
H

Posted by: Dave at July 22, 2005 03:37 PM

Stephen,
Good article and good job dragging the repubs back to the evidence that is glaring at them.
Unfortunately you can lead a horse to water……

Posted by: Vex at July 22, 2005 03:50 PM

Joe Wilson goes on record with the truth about yellowcake — BushCo is embarrased — shortly thereafter, Wilson’s wife is exposed as an undercover CIA agent.

And the neocons would have everyone believe this is a coincidence? That Rove was so focused on other matters that he didn’t see the ‘S’ on the memo? (What could have possibly been more in the forefront of Rove’s mind at that time? His job then was to get Bush elected, after all).

Those who still buy this tripe probably still believe that the abrupt ending of the raised “terror alerts” had nothing to do with Bush taking the election. Not one since then! I heard that the recent London bombings made the Homeland Security dept. consider raising the alert level. And this after 50+ people were killed. Shouldn’t it at least have gone to Orange (or whatever the #2 color is).

Tune in, neocons. Rove outed her. He’s a crook and should be in jail.

Posted by: Sleemoth at July 22, 2005 03:51 PM

Amazing, Stephen. You think we should investigate whether or not Karl Rove was on Air Force One during Bush’s Africa trip of July 7-12, 2003?

Truly incredible. I’d be curious to see how you square this wild surmise with the fact that Cooper’s convesation with Rove took place on July 11, 2003.

Was Karl Rove hiding in Air Force One’s cargo hold while Cooper was talking to a doppleganger back in Washington?

Please don’t accuse others of falling through demensional rifts into parallell universes while you seem to think that Karl Rove and his body-doubles are capable of teleporting themselves back and forth across the planet and assuming cloaks of invisibility on airplanes.

Posted by: sanger at July 22, 2005 03:54 PM

A personal story that may shed some light on how these people can still believe that rove was innocent in this.

Denial is a powerful thing:

I recently decided to get an apartment with my GF. Her family is Irish catholic so this would not have gone over well. She proceeds to tell her parents that it is more cost effective and we will be “roommates” with me sleeping on the couch. Her parents accept this and now are excited (I found an awesome apartment right on the Hudson).

Do you believe that:
A. Her parents honestly believe our relations will be strictly platonic.
B. Her parents, incapable of believing the truth because of the implications it would have, repress what they know to be true, preferring to accept a story that would not bring reality crashing down on them.

Denial is a powerful thing!

Posted by: Vex at July 22, 2005 04:05 PM

Based on no evidence, you are sure he did it.

No evidence? That is a breathtakingly obtuse statement, Jack. You may have heard of Matthew Cooper…

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 22, 2005 04:43 PM

“If George Bush,Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove were video taped by Barbera, beating an old lady, molesting a cat and smoking crack cocain in the oval office, while watching porn, holding a sign with their names on it “

I think it might make page 20d… it’d be pretty small scale in comparison to reality…

I’m loving watching the REPs arguments going from - Rove absolutely was not involved to Rove didn’t do any thing illegal to… I wonder what they will say if Rove is convicted? Will they find more excuses for Rove or will they demand he be fired? It’d be fun to watch at any rate…

Posted by: tony at July 22, 2005 07:34 PM

Sanger-
I was wrong on Rove’s location. He was back home. So, that’s once chance Rove didn’t have to see the document.

Does that exonerate him? No. If that were the only time he ever had a chance to see the documents on Plame, it would exonerate him. It would take Rove’s one chance to be there when the memo was circulating. I was wrong about where he was.

Trouble is, though, Rove and Scooter Libby had more of an opportunity to peruse the documents than was previously known.

People who have been briefed on the case said the White House officials, Karl Rove and I. Lewis Libby, were helping prepare what became the administration’s primary response to criticism that a flawed phrase about the nuclear materials in Africa had been in Mr. Bush’s State of the Union address six months earlier.

They had exchanged e-mail correspondence and drafts of a proposed statement by George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, to explain how the disputed wording had gotten into the address. Mr. Rove, the president’s political strategist, and Mr. Libby, the chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, coordinated their efforts with Stephen J. Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser, who was in turn consulting with Mr. Tenet.

At the same time, they were grappling with the fallout from an Op-Ed article on July 6, 2003, in The New York Times by Mr. Wilson, a former diplomat, in which he criticized the way the administration had used intelligence to support the claim in Mr. Bush’s speech.

The work done by Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby on the Tenet statement during this intense period has not been previously disclosed. People who have been briefed on the case discussed this critical time period and the events surrounding it to demonstrate that Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby were not involved in an orchestrated scheme to discredit Mr. Wilson or disclose the undercover status of his wife, Valerie Wilson, but were intent on clarifying the use of intelligence in the president’s address. Those people who have been briefed requested anonymity because prosecutors have asked them not to discuss matters under investigation.

The question still stands: Did Rove get the memo? Now it’s very likely he did, because he and the other known leaker were busy preparing the CIA chief’s response. They weren’t just casually acquainted with these materials. To prepare that response, the would be neck deep in those materials, and in particular, ones concerning Wilson’s mission, because that would be the crux of any response long term.

As for my parallel universe comments, when somebody tells me I said this:

You raise a good point, Stephen. If Plame had already failed to maintain her own cover, then Ari, if he was leaking, might be off the hook.

When neither point was made or even accepted by me, then it’s apparent we’re not dwelling in the same dimension.

Rove was tasked to respond to Wilson’s claims not more than a week later, information about who Wilson’s wife works for is leaked by him to a reporter, using words that can be taken at face value to mean that he knew the classified nature of the information, and that the information had not been cleared for public distribution. Not long after that, somebody does leak it publically.

I know I got the detail on Rove’s location wrong, but I’ve been right about other things, and lucky in ways that one isn’t when one’s just speculating.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 22, 2005 08:06 PM

It is NOT necessary for Rove to have read the memo.

He had the clearance to obtain this information on his own. He gave the information to Cooper, and ended the conversation saying “I’ve already said too much.”

Whether the likelihood that a crime was committed is probable enough to warrant charges being filed depends on the decision of the grand jury.

Posted by: mattLaw at July 22, 2005 08:11 PM

mattLaw-
No, it’s not necessary, but it makes proving it a hell of a lot easier, because Rove would have to be missing a cerebral cortex to misunderstand the CIA’s wish to keep this stuff secret. It’s evidence that makes for a meaningful demonstration of Rove’s intention to out a covert agent. So, if Rove examined that document, he could not argue that somebody had forgot to tell him he was supposed to keep his mouth shut. The question becomes, what was Rove’s reading list?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 22, 2005 08:27 PM

Rep. Waxman testified today that his staff has uncovered as many as 11 leaks of this information from the Whitehouse. That suggests a conspiracy to breach national security for political goals. Whether the crime is ever proven or not, in no way negates the evidence that ethics violations of the most dire nature have occurred. And it is up to the American people to demand those guilty be punished by the Republican Congress, or the GOP be punished in the polls in 2006 and 2008.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 22, 2005 08:39 PM

There is a definite pattern. I saw it before the elections in November. After the election with the vote in Ohio. Before the Iraqi elections and in many minor matters. We hear lots of charges and predictions. They sound ominous. But when they are really investigated, nothing comes of them. But by that time, it has become leftie dogma and the lack of proof becomes itself prove of the profundity of the charges.

There is an ongoing investigation. People are being questioned under oath. This will produce better information.

As for Waxman, suffice to say that I feel about him the way you evidently feel about Rove, although I have much less respect for his craftiness and intellect. He testified that his crack staff of investigators had uncovered 11 leaks. Eleven is a good number. Not too high, but high enough and everybody knows that an odd number like eleven sounds a lot more credible than something that seems rounded off. I don’t suppose Waxman’s Pinkertons have actually come up with any proof beyond the string of conditional probabilities we see in the memo leaks. But Old Henry feels it appropriate to quote his magic number in any case. Repeat it and maybe it becomes true, at least to friendly media.

Posted by: jack at July 22, 2005 09:09 PM

Stephen, what you don’t seem to grasp is that I don’t really care that much about Karl Rove. I think he provided a vaulable service in helping Bush get elected, but at this point I’d be perfectly happy to see him leave the White House, get involved in other campaigns, move to the private sector, whatever. And if he did any of the things that Democratic partisans are accusing him of, I’d be glad to help tar, feather and run him out of town.

What I object to is the transparent ant-Rovian attempt to trim and shape the facts while totally ignoring other evidence that doesn’t conform to a single foregone conclusion. Even when something comes up that casts suspicion on others, you and others strain and squirm in order to somehow read it as yet more evidence against Rove.

I see it as a nakedly partisan and willful desire to attribute guilt to someone that we all know the left is obsessed with for reasons that have nothing to do with this case. Anyone who denies this is only lying to themselves.

Posted by: sanger at July 22, 2005 09:27 PM

Can anyone explain to me why conservatives are so intent on defending Rove? He told three reporters Plames identity, only Novak spilled the beans and only Novak wasn’t assaulted. Rove defines dirty tricks and slimy politics, why keep this albatross? Is he really “Bush’s brain” or has the GOP really sunk this low?

Posted by: Dave at July 22, 2005 09:50 PM

Dave

Sanger said it for me too.

If Rove leaves the Whitehouse, it causes us no particular pain. He can still work on campaigns and still hand the Dems surprises in 2006. In fact, he probably will do better on the outside because he can concentrate his intellect on the races where he is most needed.

But the way the Dems are chasing this is close to a bill of attainder. They are trying hard to tailor the crime to fit Karl Rove when the evidence is not leading there.

Anyway, I expect Karl is one step ahead of them where ever they chase him. If he goes, he will find a way to stick it to them again on the way out. If I were a big Dem, I would prefer Karl Rove right where he is, where I could watch him.

Posted by: jack at July 22, 2005 10:10 PM

David, some partisan Republican really may be inclined to defend Rove no matter what, and would keep doing so even in the face of plausible evidence against him. I’m sure some would even do so if he was convicted of being on Osama bin Laden’s payroll! Let’s not underestimate the willful blindness of partisans. But don’t just assume that all defenders of Rove are in the same boat—some of us are actually interested in the case and in examining the evidence.

By the same token, there are Democrats who are intent on attacking Rove no matter what. Again, let’s not underestimate the willful blindness of partisans. They would (and I suspect will) keep doing so in the face of an exoneration, after which they would shift effortlessly to all kinds of conspiracy theories about how the special prosecutor has Republican ties, or how the whole scandal was something Rove hatched to create a distraction from Iraq, Bush’s Supreme Court nominee or (with a nod to Aldous), McCain’s black baby.

Posted by: sanger at July 22, 2005 10:20 PM

Jack-
Is politics all you can see in this? Is all you can think in these terms is they’re jealous, so they made things up? It just seems to me that the Republicans are intent on treating this like an image problem, and not a national security issue, where it’s better to be safe than sorry.

If Karl Rove does get fired or convicted, what Republican in his right mind is going to want anything to do with him, especially if they are going to run on National Security. Berger tried to walk out of the National Archives with notes and copies, and he got canned as a Kerry consultant. Kerry didn’t wait for the end of the investigation. He knew what to do.

But you guys? You’ve got audiences listening to the mastermind of the world’s most famous third-rate burglary and a guy who played patsy for an administration that was making deals with terrorists and selling arms to Iran. Is is it just me, or has the Republican party gotten used to glorifying crooks, when they tell everybody they did it for their country? These are the examples you’re setting: take one for the party, and you’re alright in our book.

As for Bills of attainder? First, Bills of attainder are laws passed with the intention of inflicting a conviction for a crime and a sentence on a particular individual. The laws that Rove stands a chance of being prosecuted under were written by legislators, and passed as laws that affect all men. If the special prosecutor sees fit to indict him, he will have his day in court, not be tried by an act of congress

Besides, to pass a bill of attainder anyway, you would have to have congress’s cooperation.

Last I checked, they wouldn’t pass such a law, even if they had the power.

Sanger-
Look, this is about accountability. If Rove didn’t do it, fine, I’ll accept that. But everytime I do some research, stuff like the revelations about Rove’s role in shaping the CIA Chief’s response pops up. These are not neutral facts. Not with what has been corroborated up to this point.

Let me be candid- I defended Clinton because I believed that his enemies were out to get them, and that they’d say anything to smear him. But I was wrong about Clinton. He really had done what they said he had done with Monica.

Do you want to defend Rove right up to the point where you’re just pathetically apologizing for him, the way I ended up doing for Clinton?

I believe you can’t keep any leader in line if your standards for misbehavior require things to get bad enough for indictments first. Maybe I’m tough against Bush and his people, but it’s not because I rolled out of bed and just thought, boy would I like to take down a president!

No, the reason I do this is because I don’t even trust my own people to govern right unsupervised. And right now, things have gotten screwed up pretty bad, and I just can’t sit here and let a bunch of people apologize for behavior I would take from no president in my party or out of it. I just want accountability.

I think the timing of the announcement was meant to break the focus on Rove, but it’s not been that successful if I can still get fifty response on a supposedly dead subject.

I want to know the truth, and I don’t think I’m going to get it by buying into the spin of the people whose interest in this issue is to see it die and disappear. Let’s push this thing as far as it goes, and see what bears out.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 22, 2005 11:12 PM

Stephen, I appreciate your comments about Clinton.

That’s because I followed an opposite trajectory in my thinking from yours in regards to Clinton, and it wasn’t until years later that I came to reflect on how partisanship had so radically influenced my response to the Lewinsky scandal, which I’m now willing to admit was more than a little overblown.

When you feel like you may have cornered a political opponent, it’s just too easy to abandon concepts of fairness and try to just keep piling on. So we live and learn.

The thing now is that I think the same thing is happening in regards to Rove, and more unfairly than happened to Clinton, actually, because Rove hasn’t actually been accused of anything within the context of an ongoing investigation.

Even you must admit that there’s far more that we don’t know about all of this than what we actually do.

Posted by: sanger at July 23, 2005 12:10 AM

Let’s talk politics.

First, let’s acknowledge and set aside issues which have already been addressed; the testimony is secret and much is unknown, leaks are unreliable, the uncertainty of exactly who committed a crime, or even if a crime was committed, etc.

Let’s talk politics.

The Dems are making a calculated gamble. They think Rove did it, and that other administration officials are involved as well.

Yes, it’s a risk. It’s a gamble. But in an adversarial political fight, it’s a good bet, and worth taking. Possible outcomes range from a trial for, essentially, treason, to obstruction of justice, to perjury, with dismissal an outside possibility.

Dems cannot push any investigation of wrongdoing through Congress. Repubs won’t permit it.

Smears have occurred again and again, but this time retaliation went too far. A smear campaign crossed the line, not just morally, but legally. Someone committed a serious crime. This is the Dems chance.

Now for the death of a thousand cuts. Time for a relentless campaign, one revelation following another, day after day after day. Some will pan out. Others will go nowhere. But the cuts will continue.

Time for a trial by media in the public court. Dems know the results of Fitzpatrick’s investigation will be released in the next few months. Time to hammer the administration, and keep hammering.

It’s a risk, it’s a gamble, but chances are good that the administration is absolutely screwed once Fitzpatrick announces his findings.

What should be the Republican political response?

Stonewalling isn’t working. The leaks keep coming, new Repub names are linked to the scandal almost daily. Refusing to comment because of an ongoing investigation might be legally correct, but it looks awful.

Are Rove and others innocent? That’s nice. But what to do in the meantime? And worse, what if he is not innocent?

The almost reflexive response to continue attacking Joe Wilson isn’t working. That tactic is a BIG mistake. Doesn’t matter if Joe Wilson is right or wrong. Joe Wilson is very telegenic. He’s everything the media could ask for as a central figure in a scandal; calm, articulate, polished. The guy looks like freaking Robert Palmer. Forget Joe Wilson. Giving that guy an excuse to capture additional media attention is a very, very bad move.

Moving up the announcement of the Roberts nomination was a good idea. Unfortunately, the Dems are rolling over. Any heat generated is almost obligatory, ‘technically proficient but lacking passion.’ Unless Roberts messes up his confirmation hearing by demanding a serving of fresh human pineal gland, he’s in.

Terrorist mayhem takes some of the attention away from the scandal, but its timing is unpredictable.

Any suggestions?

Posted by: phx8 at July 23, 2005 12:26 AM

Phx8, as I tour liberal blogs, I marvel at the number of Democratic partisans who are currently suggesting just as you just have that terrorist attacks and a Supreme Court nomination are all just distractions from the truly vital Democratic issue of the day—a murky and uncertain scandal potentially involving a White House political advisor!!!

I’m stunned, but more than a little pleased since I’m a conservative who is only too happy to see Democrats diverting their energies and resources towards matters they have no actual influence over.

So I ask: do any of you seriously think that Fitgerald gives a tinker’s damn about anything that appears on liberal blogs or editorial pages?

Recently, I’ve read and heard many Democrats say that they really. really don’t like Roberts, but think that strenuously opposing him would be too much of a distraction from the vitally important fight against Rove, so they should just ” keep their eyes on the prize.”

Are you people serious? Do you really think that your collective concentration on Rove makes any difference to the outcome of the investigation? That reality is nothing more than the latest posting on the Daily Kos?

Judge Roberts is going to be around for DECADES in a position of MASSIVE authority and influence. Thankfully, your obsession with Rove all but ensures this. Karl Rove is going to be around for three more years at most as the hired advisor to a second term president who will never run for political office again.

Political history is littered with the remains of those who chose the wrong battles at the wrong times, who fought fights that they couldn’t win or which were meaningless.

Democrats, your good friend Sanger begs you: keep going down the path you’re on and don’t ask yourselves where you went wrong until January of 2009 when you look at Karl Rove’s smiling face behind the figure of yet another Republican with one hand on the Bible and the other hand in the air.

Posted by: sanger at July 23, 2005 01:38 AM

The Dems are making a calculated gamble. They think Rove did it, and that other administration officials are involved as well.

It’s probably not a bad gamble, either. This investigation has been going on for years, now.

Fitzgerald is involved in a landmark case in which two journalists were compelled to testify by the court and one is still sitting in jail for refusing to.

At this point, he is going to try his hardest to get SOMEBODY on SOMETHING. He’s taken this way too far to have any hopes for a future career if he doesn’t come up with an indictment.

Posted by: mattLaw at July 23, 2005 01:39 AM

Sanger, there’s difference in the severity of the offense. What Clinton did in the Oval Office wasn’t a felony. What Rove did, if he knew what he was doing, is one.

This administration has been a nightmare, and I’m not just saying that for the sake of argument. By the time this president’s out of office, even you may be agreeing with me.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 23, 2005 02:10 AM

Sanger,
You’re right about Roberts, but the Dems are powerless. Short of a filibuster, they’re powerless to do much more than earn a moral victory by asking hard questions, and doing what’s necessary to please constituencies. Roberts will be confirmed. So, from a purely political perspective, which ground should chosen for the battle?

In terms of an adversarial politcal atmosphere, terrorist attacks are difficult to wield as a tool, at least for the Dems. Yes, there are a few ways, but the payoffs are limited. Although Ridge blowing the cover of a British mole in a terror group will probably discredit the whole traffic-light-of-death crowd, & deservedly so.

“… do any of you seriously think that Fitgerald gives a tinker’s damn about anything that appears on liberal blogs or editorial pages?”

Of course not. Fitzgerald is known for avoiding, if not disliking, the media, never mind blogs. That’s not the point.

It’s a gamble, like I said, but most likely Fitzgerald will indict ‘senior administration officials.’ Those indicted will probably include Rove & Libby. And most likely, those indictments will be very, very ugly. The political payoff for Dems could be very, very good.

“Do you really think that your collective concentration on Rove makes any difference to the outcome of the investigation?”

Once again, of course not. To repeat, that’s not the point. It’s a gamble on the outcome of the investigation, it’s a huge political opportunity. The downside is limited. Regardless of the outcome, conservative Robert Novak revealed the name of a CIA operative as an act of retaliation, based upon information from ‘senior administration officials.’ The upside for Dems is huge. Indictments for obstruction of justice and perjury seem very realistic. The implications of potential indictments are extremely negative for the Bush administration.

Posted by: phx8 at July 23, 2005 02:19 AM

phx8,

“Any suggestions?”

I think that claiming “vast left wing media conspiracy” might actually be useful. It’s not just WH officials, it’s also those darned MSM liberal reporters involved. Do you think that Judith Miller, that scribe for the liberal rag NYT is sitting in jail to protect Rove? Of course not! Those reporters and their rabid colleagues think they smell blood in the water and are conspiring with the spineless ‘Rats to smear the WH and Bush because of their blind hatred for all things Bush.

If I were the republicans, I would make out that the democrats were reactionary and blowing things way out of proportion - look how they keep calling for Rove’s firing!!! That might work since they’ve painted a fairly decent picture of the dems as a reactionary/obstructionist party with a deep abiding hatred for Rove and no ideas of their own.

I agree with the Rude one’s analysis that dems are (for once) on the correct side of the simple vs complex political issue. On the dems’ side, because spies/undercover agents are so romanticized in pop culture, any outing of one (maliciously intentional or not) is seen as an automatic no-no. This puts the reps in the trickier position of trying to explain how she wasn’t really a spy, Rove didn’t really out her and best of all, Bush didn’t really just lower the bar of ethical standards for those that work in the White House.

Do I think that the Dems are gonna do well here? Nah, this particular brand of political hardball is sooo the rep’s forte. Even if a senior WH official is indicted, they’re gonna find a way to spin it so that it has no effect on the outcome in 2006. Same thing with DeLay and the Schiavo fiasco.

Posted by: Nikita at July 23, 2005 02:32 AM

Do you think that Judith Miller, that scribe for the liberal rag NYT is sitting in jail to protect Rove? Of course not! Those reporters and their rabid colleagues think they smell blood in the water and are conspiring with the spineless ‘Rats to smear the WH and Bush because of their blind hatred for all things Bush.

I don’t think that particular line will work, at least not in reference to Cooper and Miller.

Cooper did not testify until his lawyers believed they had a waiver from Rove (one Rove’s lawyer claimed was always there while also making the curious accusation that Cooper “burned” Rove). He could have done this right before the election.

Miller, for her part, was exceedingly friendly to the administration’s WMD claims in the run-up to the war. Such an attack against her won’t hold water with anyone familiar with her work.

Posted by: mattLaw at July 23, 2005 02:47 AM

Phx8, how are any of the scenarios you mention “huge” political opportunities for Democrats? Politcs and governance is more than just scandals, spin, and one group insulting another.

Americans are not that interested in crap like this. They have real lives, and to the extent that they’re concerned about politics at all, they’re concerned about issues like terrorism, taxes, housing and health care for their families, and I’d be surprised if even 10% of them know who Karl Rove is or would care if they did.

If Karl Rove went down, most of them would say “Rove who? Now pass the potatoes.”

Instead of gaining “huge” political advantage, what embittered Democratic partisans are really after is “huge” personal but poltically meaningless revenge. They’re mad at Rove because they’re out of power and they blame him, though they should really be blaming themselves. If Rove went down, there would be several weeks of crowing on the Daily Kos while America yawned and Bush pressed ahead with his conservative agenda as though he were Lance Armstrong on the side of a mountain.

I think the reason Democrats are out of power is exactly this kind of thing. They have nothing to run on, no ideas, nothing but obstructionism, negativty and empty posturing to offer America.

George Bush was an extremely vulnerable president
in 2004, and Democrats blew it big time because they thought that attacking Bush was more important than offering any substance of their own. Well, America is growing less and less interested in the baying pack of attack dogs, devoid of ideas or substance, that the current Democratic leadership represents.

Posted by: sanger at July 23, 2005 03:02 AM

mattLaw,

I know that Miller was friendly to administration’s WMD claims and about Cooper and about Rove’s lawyer. The point is that Joe Public doesn’t. What Joe Public does know (or at least has some vague idea of), is that the media has liberal bias. So, it would be easier to sell the public the idea that a reporter from a liberal paper is NOT sitting in jail to protect WH official/s. Remember, only a small percentage of the public read blogs.

Hell, I’m no political hotshot, I have no clue about what’ll work. I sometimes listen to talk radio (purely for entertainment purposes) and when they begin to make a little sense, I hit the blogs. That Miller/prison thing was just a theory put forth by a talk radio announcer that I heard being echoed by a friend.

Posted by: Nikita at July 23, 2005 03:10 AM

Sanger:

Americans are not that interested in crap like this. They have real lives, and to the extent that they’re concerned about politics at all, they’re concerned about issues like terrorism, taxes, housing and health care for their families, and I’d be surprised if even 10% of them know who Karl Rove is or would care if they did.

You must have missed the recent polling done on this issue.

In ABC News’ most recent poll, 75% of those polled believe the matter is “very serious” or “somewhat serious,” while 53% are following the story “very closely” or “somewhat closely.” The margin of error is plus or minus 3%.

Link.

Posted by: mattLaw at July 23, 2005 04:37 AM

Sanger-
It won’t do much good to tell you you’re pumping out spin by the barrel load. I’ll do it anyways.

You’re telling us nobody’s interested. You’re telling us that it just makes Democrats look bitter. You’re telling us that Democrats are out of power because we don’t have the optimistic geniality of the Republicans You’re telling us Democrats lost the election bigtime because they attacked Bush. Well, everybody’s entitled to their opinion.

In the meantime, there are important things to discuss, whether it makes us look bitter, mean, or esoteric. It matters whether the officials who run our country are doing more harm than good for America. It matters whether they are breaking laws and ethical rules put there to protect the resources that keep Americans safe, especially when they motivate their crime cynically in terms of politics.

It matters whether one of the president’s closest confidants, one of the men with greatest access to the secrets that the president knows, has violated his promises to keep those secrets.

It matters what other people around this figure knew, and when they knew it.

I think this matter is important enough for people to know about it. Call me what you want to call me, I’ve been called worse. I think though that this crime, this abuse of power deserves to be exposed to the light of day. I don’t know the exact shape of what occurred, and there is a possibility I could be wrong. But I am not convinced of that yet, and there is a mountain of convincing evidence to suggest something ugly has been at work in the Bush administration. At the very least, the facts explicitly confirm that Rove talked to Cooper and gave him identifying information about Plame, that he said the information was going to be declassified, indicating he knew it was it was secret. Cooper has testified that he did not know this “open secret”, and that Plame’s identity was confirmed by Scooter Libby. That same official happens to have worked with Rove on Former CIA Chief George Tenet’s mea culpa for the Niger intelligence in Bush’s SOTU address. Less than a week after taking this assignment, Rove ends up leaking to a reporter working for a national publication information he should know was meant to be secret, if he saw one of most important State Department documents relating to the subject.

At the very least, what can be confirmed justifies firing Rove, in light of what his NDA says. The question is, how long can you stand to look the other way on this, given the danger our country faces right now? What good will you do to your party to give America the impression that the future employment of a political strategist is more important than maintaining the confidentiality of information that could compromise our eyes and ears abroad?

What really matters here is whether we can depend on our government to do the right thing, the right way, regardless of politics. That is the test Bush has failed by not firing Karl Rove.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 23, 2005 08:55 AM

I think it is all about politics. Joe Wilson’s op-ed was politics (and BTW to the extent that article was based on classified information, it is a breach of security). If Rove leaked, it was politics. It had no significant effect on national security, great or small. The response was politics. The Vanity Fair article that came out soon after indicated that the Wilson’s felt no particular danger and don’t feel so now. Plame was evidently an ordinary desk officer, not Riley Ace of Spies. The ambiguity of the situation is well demonstrated by the very fact that nobody seriously expects anyone to be prosecuted for this, except maybe for covering up.

As much as I enjoy this debate, it is a dry hole. It is too early in any election cycle to make any difference. You could literally crucify Rove and all the public will remember in 2006 is the picture. Beyond that, any Senator or Congressman can easily distance himself from it. Public recognition of Rove will be along the lines of Kathleen Wiley. And consider the Republicans candidate of 2008. The only one of the real contenders you could tar with that brush if Frist, and that is a reach. McCain, Giuliani, Allen et al would fly though the mess like a big bird flies through a spider web.

So have fun with your enterprise. It will make you all feel morally superior, the same way Republicans (not me btw) felt in 1999. That and $1.50 will get you an ordinary coffee at Starbucks.

Posted by: jack at July 23, 2005 09:17 AM

Jack-

I think it is all about politics. Joe Wilson?s op-ed was politics (and BTW to the extent that article was based on classified information, it is a breach of security). If Rove leaked, it was politics.

Joe Wilson’s article was about WMDs and War. The article was based on a trip to Niger that was not classified, and if Rove knowingly leaked Plame’s identity it would be a firing offense if not a jail sentence according to the agreements he has made.

It had no significant effect on national security, great or small. The response was politics. The Vanity Fair article that came out soon after indicated that the Wilson?s felt no particular danger and don?t feel so now. Plame was evidently an ordinary desk officer, not Riley Ace of Spies. The ambiguity of the situation is well demonstrated by the very fact that nobody seriously expects anyone to be prosecuted for this, except maybe for covering up.

A NOC agent has been outed. There aren’t many and they don’t come cheap, so losing one is not a minor matter. The fact that Fitzgerald has been willing to push things this far indicates that indictments are expected. Also, though Plame is probably safe, her contacts in place are not, and neither are the agents who were undercover working with Brewster Jennings when it was outed as well.

You use an argument of minimalization because that’s the argument you use when you get caught. So which is it, do you feel Rove has been caught and needs light punishment for a light crime, or that Rove is not guilty?

I don’t care about the timing. Hell, the way this thing works out, the 2006 election could see this whole thing on trial by that point.

As for the political repercussions? You can act as if Rove has not been a major player, but if Rove is indicted he can no longer do his job, and Bush can no longer be seen around him. Any help he gives will be radioactive.

Rove’s bag of dirty tricks will be turned out for the world to see, and we will know much better what kind of help and coordination he gave to Republican efforts from his perch in the White House. He may end up getting in trouble for that as well.

Will we have fun? You know, to be perfectly honest, this isn’t fun. What this is, Jack, is justice. The Satisfaction of knowing that powerful opponent can’t get away with murder. That there are checks and balances in this country, and the rule of law over even men like Rove.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 23, 2005 01:35 PM

Plame was evidently an ordinary desk officer, not Riley Ace of Spies. The ambiguity of the situation is well demonstrated by the very fact that nobody seriously expects anyone to be prosecuted for this, except maybe for covering up.

That’s a rather odd statement to make. Many DO feel someone should be prosecuted for this, and several at the CIA are angry (did you not see those who went down to Capitol Hill? They weren’t all democrats).

The ‘cover’ for Plame’s ‘employer’ was blown, of which she was not the only ‘employee.’ All of this was done because this administration was hell-bent on going into Iraq and damn anyone who was going to get in their way.

Write it off as simply politics, if you want.

Posted by: mattLaw at July 23, 2005 03:34 PM

Matt and Stephen

Both of you already assume that a crime has been committed and that Rove is guilty. This is politics.

We have an investigation underway. It will produce a result. If someone is indicted and convicted that will be justice. It may go the way you predict, but it doesn’t look that way to me at this time. So far nobody has come up with any information that will hold up in court against Rove and there is no indication that Rove is the object of the investigation. There are indications, however, that Rove has been cooperating with the investigation.

So we are talking about “Ifs”, and a lot of them. If all the things you believe are true …

We heard a lot about Clinton being involved in murder and rape. When REAL investigators looked real hard, they found nothing. We heard about all the voting fraud in Ohio. When REAL investigators looked real hard, they found nothing. We will see what the read investigators find here.

Posted by: jack at July 23, 2005 05:39 PM

Jack-
Classified information has been divulged to the public. A crime has been committed. Rove is guilty of knowingly leaked classified information about a CIA agent to the press, even if he skirts legal responsibility. That’s not politics, at basis, that’s reality.

So far nobody has come up with any information that will hold up in court against Rove and there is no indication that Rove is the object of the investigation.

What gave you that silly idea? Why was Cooper threatened with contempt if they didn’t think that Rove was of interest? Given the fact that he leaked classified information, regardless of the source, I really doubt he’s going to get left alone.

There are indications, however, that Rove has been cooperating with the investigation.

Reportedly there are things Rove neglected to tell investigators when they first interviewed him. He’s not suppose to do that! And if anything he’s said in court is proveably false, then he’s perjured himself.

It will surprise me if Rove is cleared entirely. It really will. Maybe he’ll avoid the more serious charges because of all the chicanery, but there’s too much about that leak factually established to say there’s nothing there. Expect an indictment.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 23, 2005 09:50 PM

We can speculate, but we will see soon enough.

There is really nothing factually established about Rove. So far we only hear that he didn’t name Plame. Luckily, we will soon be able to separate fact from fantasy.

Re national security, refer to the brief by the media when they were defending their own.

Posted by: jack at July 23, 2005 10:03 PM

One thing that might be helpful would be if people
read this document and tried to keep its provisions in mind while they discuss this topic. This is a legal matter, after all, so familiarizing oneself with the pertinent law couldn’t hurt.

Posted by: sanger at July 23, 2005 10:57 PM

Jack-
He identified a woman who couldn’t be anybody else but Plame: Joe Wilson’s wife.

As for whether the media defends their own I don’t care. They may be arguing for better protection for sources, but they aren’t ceasing to use them by any means to uncover evidence about this case! Rove told a reporter something he knew to be classified information. He told him indentifying information unique to Valerie Plame, information that the CIA took steps to keep classified. His non-disclosure agreement states he can’t even confirm this stuff, much less outright say it. Yet he did leak it, and another White House official broke his agreement by confirming it

These are the facts. You can ignore them only at your own expense.

Sanger-
What makes you think that’s the only law that applies. Dig up those on perjury, obstruction of justice, espionage, anti-leaking statutes, etc, etc. Then tell me Rove is clear.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 23, 2005 11:24 PM

Stephen wrote: “What makes you think that’s the only law that applies. Dig up those on perjury, obstruction of justice, espionage, anti-leaking statutes, etc, etc. Then tell me Rove is clear.”

To quote the first Bush via Dana Carvey: “Not gonna do it, Stephen. Wouldn’t be prudent.”

It sounds like we may agree (do we?) that indicting Rove on the law I linked to would be a huge uphill battle and well-nigh impossible.

I don’t believe I’ve ever defended Rove on the potential charge of perjury. Contrary to what you may believe, I’m not just defending Rove against any and all possible charges here. If the facts lead to perjury, then that’s where they lead and I’m not going to deny them once they’re in front of my face.

Frankly, I think that’s the only plausible charge that really could be leveled against him, provided Fitgerald is single-mindedly after Rove and isn’t on the scent of somebody else.

Having said that, I don’t see why we’d assume Rove’s committed perjury anymore than we’d assume anyone else has based on the facts we have. Why do you think so?

If it comes down to a contradiction between Rove’s testimony and someone elses, why would Rove and not the other invidual be charged with perjury? There would have to be some very hard evidence one way or the other.

Much has been made of minor incongruities between Rove’s and Cooper’s accounts of their conversation, but there’s no reason I know of to believe that one is lying. Rove says Cooper called him to discuss welfare reform. Cooper doesn’t recall discussing welfare reform. This is clearly a discrepancy, but is someone going to charge perjury over such a detail? Only if this whole case totally bottoms out.

Posted by: sanger at July 24, 2005 12:40 AM

Another thing: Rove has nothing to fear from a he-said she-said hearing on the subject of perjury between himself and Matt Cooper.

Do you think it would never come up that Matthew Cooper’s wife is Mandy Grunwald, a top Democratic party strategist? A former political advisor to Bill Clinton, a close personal friend of both Clintons and a current member of Hillary Clinton’s staff? At the very least this would introduce reasonable doubt to the advantage of the accused.

Posted by: sanger at July 24, 2005 01:00 AM

Sanger-
The problem with a perjury charge, is you have to have something to hide. What would Rove feel compelled to hide from the public?

Well, what has he been hiding so far?

The fact that he knowingly leaked classified information. You don’t say, “this is about to be declassified” in regards to unclassified information. That’s bad enough by itself, but it gets worse if he’s not alone in his leaking

It would be prudent, if you’re going to be arguing that Rove is getting off scot-free, that you have a clear idea of how scot free he really is. As for your little imitation of Rove, your whole trouble there is that Cooper waited until Rove had given him a waiver before coming out about the Rove leak. Additionally, One does not have to be a Republican to marry one, nor a Liberal partisan to marry another liberal partisan. Mary Matalin, our favorite GOP strategist is married to James Carville.

Besides, Rove was talking to him. You think Rove passes on super-secret info to Democrat spies? You guys are too hopped up on media bias. Stick to the facts for your reasonable doubt.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 24, 2005 03:34 AM

So far we only hear that he didn’t name Plame.

Hey Jack, did you know that Laura Bush’s husband beats her and strangle puppies? ;)

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 24, 2005 10:47 AM

Stephen, if somebody gives false testimony that isn’t necessarily perjury. If I asked you what time you ate lunch and you said noon, should I accuse you of lying if I have you on camera eating lunch at 12:15? (I’m not secretly filming you, incidentally, so relax).

The discrepancies between Cooper’s testimony and Rove’s are of that order of importance. Cooper acknowledges that he inititated the conversation but doesn’t recall talking about welfare reform. Rove says they did. So what? I can’t see sombody literally making a federal case out of it, though I see some reporters and liberal bloggers making a big deal out of it.

It’s obvious that somebody committing perjury would be “trying to hide something.” What’s not obvious is what that might be. Clinton, you’ll, was being investigated on Whitewater and ended up being charged with perjury about an affair!

My only point about Cooper’s wife was that we can realistically expect that to come up if we’re reduced to a situation of Cooper’s word against Rove’s. Cooper’s wife is a highly placed Democratic strategist. Her job is very similar to Rove’s, actually, though her profile is obviously not as high since her clients aren’t in the White House.

Now you and I both know what would happen if Karl Rove’s wife was the key witness against a top Democratic official and all we had was her recollections and personal notes to go on.

Posted by: sanger at July 24, 2005 01:49 PM

Sanger-
When people are being liars, they tend to tell different stories under different circumstances. They tend to oversimplify on the details. They tend to present accounts that are too convenient to their needs. Their stories tend to fall apart when certain secrets or facts out of their control come to be known.

That’s what convinces me Rove and Co. are lying, and that they stand the possibility of being prosecuted. First Rove told the press that he didn’t know Plame’s name, didn’t leak it. Now we know he told the grand jury a different story, one where he’s so conveniently doing the reporter a favor! Rove knew that at the start of the whole thing it would look bad if he told everybody he had leaked the news in question. But of course, he knew he couldn’t tell that story to the Grand Jury. He hoped that his account there would remain secret, and it did right to the point that Cooper’s competing account showed up.

Point is, it’s the manner in which Rove and his folks have responded to the evidence that has me suspecting convictable wrongdoing, together with the more consistently developed story that sources independent of the administration and the GOP talking points network have uncovered.

As for Cooper’s wife, she’s largely irrelevant until evidence suggests otherwise. Opposites can and do attract. I tossed out the example of Mary Matalin and James Carville.

Additionally, that argument for reasonable doubt falls apart when you realize that Rove essentially gave his okay for Cooper to talk about him. Vilifying or trying to cast doubt on Cooper looks disingenuous when the complaining party gave consent for the disclosure he’s complaining about, and spoke to him in the first place.

Essentially, it’s an ad hominem argument in search of a human factor to explain what a guy under oath said about what Karl Rove told him. The question is, why would this guy risk a perjury charge by lying to a grand jury? And if this was a plot on Cooper’s wife’s part, why did she have her husband sit on things for months, risking jail?

I think there is plenty of other evidence which could serve to paint a picture of what Rove told the truth about, and what he didn’t. You can spin about the whole question of who this guy was married to, but you don’t have a real counter story there- or rather, you have too many there. Your unifying theme seems to be Anybody But Karl. You’ll blame the victims, whom reliable sources state kept their secrets well. You’ll go after Fleischer, who might have been involved, but is not on record as having leaked such things, and you’ll even try to distract with a nice little aside as to who this Washington reporter is married to, implying untrustworthiness.

When will you have a coherent, logical story about what really happened?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 24, 2005 04:52 PM

Do you think it would never come up that Matthew Cooper’s wife is Mandy Grunwald, a top Democratic party strategist? A former political advisor to Bill Clinton, a close personal friend of both Clintons and a current member of Hillary Clinton’s staff? At the very least this would introduce reasonable doubt to the advantage of the accused.

Cooper could have let this information go at ANY point, including before the election!

He was willing to go to jail to protect his sources, and only testified because Rove’s lawyer stated to the media that ‘if anyone was keeping these journalists from testifying, it wasn’t Rove.’

Posted by: mattLaw at July 24, 2005 06:35 PM

Matt and Stephen

Both of you already assume that a crime has been committed and that Rove is guilty. This is politics.

How can you say that? I’ve stated multiple times that it is unknown yet if a crime was committed or if Rove is ‘guilty’ of anything, and that only the investigation will know for sure!

Posted by: mattLaw at July 24, 2005 06:38 PM

If you read what I wrote about Cooper, you should notice that I wasn’t suggesting anything demeaning about him or his wife or saying that this wife’s position makes him untrustworthy. Not at all. That’s not my position. But it WOULD be something the prosecutor would have to deal with if all he had was a he-said she-said betweeen two indviduals. To convict someone of perjury, you can’t autmoatically treat one person’s testimony as truth and the other a a lie. Cooper’s poltitical connections wouldn’t mean that he’s lying—but it would raise the burden of proof against Rove considerably. There’d be no way of establishing who was really telling the truth. Now we already who you would believe, Stephen, but is that going to be relevant?

Posted by: sanger at July 24, 2005 10:39 PM

Sanger-
There are marked inconsistencies between the testimonies of Rove, Libby, and the reporters they spoke to. The welfare item with Cooper may be nothing big, but the fact is Scooter Libby said he heard it from Russert, Russert says Bull, and Rove says he heard it from Novak, who says that Rove essentially confirmed it for him.

Maybe we’ve got time machines and neuralyzers involved here, but this smells like a cover story. The Grand Jury probably is thinking the same thing, and looking further into it.

Right now we are in the midst of secret investigation, but that uncertainty swings both ways. You may get all legalistic about it, but the legalism only matter if you’re working on the case. If you’re John and Jane Q. Public, then what matters, or should matter, are the facts. Whether convictions can be made is secondary to whether our President’s highest ranking political advisor is capable of understanding the phrase “Classified information.”

That’s the problem with the GOP’s approach. It’s so concentrated on arguing the minute legal points, that it’s missing what makes the act itself so outrageous. This is more than a political problem. This is a security problem. If Rove is not handled right,we put out the greenlight to compromise agents who happen to be in the wrong political position at the wrong time. Of all the things to play political football with, the identities of our covert operatives ranks among the most vile choices. Why is that not obvious here?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 24, 2005 11:50 PM

One more point I think has been completely overlooked so far - there was a Bush Admin. memo (on Air Force One) that sets out to discredit Wilson in response to his issues with the Administration’s claim about uranium from Niger.

Basically - this is more proof that Bush was only collecting information (intelligence?) that supported the case for war - and if contrary information went public, the goal was to immediately attack the messenger.

With that mentality - how could anyone look at the White House as being objective towards the use of military force? They knew what they wanted; they were simply building the PR case for attacking Iraq.

Posted by: tony at July 25, 2005 02:17 PM