petermarcus (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
petermarcus) wrote2005-07-15 10:02 am
petermarcus) wrote2005-07-15 10:02 am
(no subject)
So, there's still no solid info on the whole Plame-Rove thing, but the latest leaks seem to be making Rove look like he's actually a victim in this. Novak called Rove after hearing from another source about Plame. A few days later, Cooper called Rove, chatted him up about welfare reform, then hit Rove with false information that Cheney and Tenet sent Wilson to Niger. Rove told Cooper the truth -- that Cooper was wrong, Wilson's wife set up the trip, and Wilson was lying about who sent him. I can understand Wilson wanting to protect his wife's identity, but why lie about Cheney and Tenet, and not toss it off to some nameless department in the CIA?
Now, the democrats (and some republicans, and a whole lot of independents) can't stand Karl Rove. The calling for his resignation and security clearance is getting a little shrill lately, because his downfall was almost certain for a while there. I think it's going to backfire on the dems in a big way, especially when the full report gets out. If there is a well established chain of evidence that Rove was just a second source, that he was told about Plame's identity from two separate reporters and didn't know it himself, that he was actually trying to help Cooper not publish a lie from Wilson (and, thus, help Cheney rather than burn Plame), then the dems are going to be perceived as falsely convicting Rove purely out of bitter political reasons -- which is exactly what they're accusing Rove of doing to Wilson and Plame.
One thing about this still bugs me. It's pretty well established in the rumor-mill that Rove was the one who waived confidentiality for Cooper (which, apparently, was not a dramatic last minute thing, but a silly procedural thing -- on the day before Cooper was to be sent to jail, Cooper's lawyer asked Rove's lawyer to waive the confidentiality, and Rove's lawyer assumed that Cooper already had it, signed another piece of paper, and voila). So....who is the other source? The one that started the whole thing? Miller is in jail for not revealing her source. We can assume it wasn't Rove, as Rove has publicly waived his confidentiality, twice. Novak called Rove to confirm, and so Rove is one of the two sources Novak used. Who else did Miller and Novak talk to? Who started this whole thing rolling?
Now, the democrats (and some republicans, and a whole lot of independents) can't stand Karl Rove. The calling for his resignation and security clearance is getting a little shrill lately, because his downfall was almost certain for a while there. I think it's going to backfire on the dems in a big way, especially when the full report gets out. If there is a well established chain of evidence that Rove was just a second source, that he was told about Plame's identity from two separate reporters and didn't know it himself, that he was actually trying to help Cooper not publish a lie from Wilson (and, thus, help Cheney rather than burn Plame), then the dems are going to be perceived as falsely convicting Rove purely out of bitter political reasons -- which is exactly what they're accusing Rove of doing to Wilson and Plame.
One thing about this still bugs me. It's pretty well established in the rumor-mill that Rove was the one who waived confidentiality for Cooper (which, apparently, was not a dramatic last minute thing, but a silly procedural thing -- on the day before Cooper was to be sent to jail, Cooper's lawyer asked Rove's lawyer to waive the confidentiality, and Rove's lawyer assumed that Cooper already had it, signed another piece of paper, and voila). So....who is the other source? The one that started the whole thing? Miller is in jail for not revealing her source. We can assume it wasn't Rove, as Rove has publicly waived his confidentiality, twice. Novak called Rove to confirm, and so Rove is one of the two sources Novak used. Who else did Miller and Novak talk to? Who started this whole thing rolling?
Wilson's no liar.
The Vice-President's office was interested in the claims about Saddam buying uranium from Niger, and asked a CIA task force to look into it. That task force (which included Valerie Plame) asked Wilson to go to Niger and investigate. Wilson has extensive experience in Africa, particularly Niger, so it was perfectly reasonable to send him and for Plame to recommend him (but she wasn't the sole person making that decision).
Wilson has never said "the Vice-President sent me to Niger" but rather "the Vice-President's office sent me to Niger." Given the paragraph above, do you think it's anything other than a smear to characterize that statement as a "lie?"
And even if Valerie Plame did make the sole decision to send Wilson to Niger, how did either of them stand to benefit from it? Were they planning to get rich off the frequent-flyer points, or the government per diem?
And if Rove was simply heroically trying to defend the integrity of the press, why didn't he say so, two years ago? Why did he assure Scott McClellan he wasn't involved in the leak?
Why didn't the President say, "There was no leak" instead of "I want to find the leaker so I can fire him?"
Re: Wilson's no liar.
As far as what they had to gain, I think the trip was legit. I think Plame and Wilson really did want to get to the bottom of rumors of Iraqi uranium procurement. But, I think the results were inconclusive at the time of Wilson's report, then later proven to be wishful thinking. Because of that, I think his wife really did spearhead this whole trip. I think it was her job and her specialty, not Cheney's nor anyone else's. I don't think anyone above Tenet actually saw the report, not Cheney, not Rice, not Bush. If they did, there's definitely a coverup, and I'm not ruling it out.
Since then, Wilson's been attacking the administration, and I think he's lying about some of it. Rove's no saint, and he's a player enough to be using this controversy for his own gains, but I'm thinking the dems are overreaching on this solely out of the political moment, and they're gonna get burned on it.
no subject
Sole leaker or not, his behavior from two years ago through now in this matter is inconsistent with someone who doesn't have something behind. And if we accept that Novak told Rove about Valerie Plame, then it makes Rove's statement of a year ago that he "didn't know her name" a pure, undiluted lie.
But, I think the results were inconclusive at the time of Wilson's report, then later proven to be wishful thinking.
So you're saying, then that Saddam really DID buy yellowcake uranium from Niger? Where is it?
I'm thinking the dems are overreaching on this solely out of the political moment, and they're gonna get burned on it.
If they get burned, it will say much about Rove's ability to spin things and very little about the truth.
no subject
So you're saying, then that Saddam really DID buy yellowcake uranium from Niger?
No, no, just the opposite! At the time of the report, it was inconclusive. Wilson met with guys who talked about buying it. Without tracing the contacts back, one could argue at the time that there was at least an exploratory feeling-out about buying it, though there was absolutely no evidence that there was any money or uranium or anything. Now, with documents seized from Iraq after Baghdad fell, we know for sure that the exploratory guys were all talking out of their asses, and there was nothing to it at all.
It was a good move by Wilson and Plame. The CIA needed to know if the rumors were true. I think their trip was just uneventful, which is probably the most common result of CIA trips like this, Tom Clancy not withstanding. They didn't prove yes, they didn't prove no, they just had an educated opinion at the end.
no subject
News: The Dems and most of the independents hated Rove long before this came out, he's a master spinster and I've no doubt whatever comes out of the investigation will be heavily weighted with his artwork in that regard. If he's looking like The Victim right now - he's already had his paintbrush out.
no subject
I got no love of Rove -- the guy was fired from the elder Bush's '92 presidential campaign for leaking to Novak, ironically. I rank him up there (or, perhaps, down there) with James Carville and I have no doubt he's spinning as much personal gain as he can out of this. However, it may be true that he was not the original source of this leak. I'd rather not nail the guy on something he didn't do, whether he's a sleazeball or not. I really want to know who Novak and Miller's primary source was. Maybe it's an underling of Rove's, or someone higher in the administration. I think there is a huge, untold, spookiness here in that one original source.
no subject
The terms "protecting Dick Cheney" and "altruism" still don't fit on the same page for me, however, yes.. it may be true in this case (nobody really knows) and I agree that there's another source out there and we need to know who it is and get the attention allocated to the proper people.
But I'm not convinced that Rove didn't use his knowledge, knowingly and covertly, to do damage. And I have no doubt that there are a group of high level officials sitting around a room with big eyes and sweaty palms - like a bunch of teenages caught with drugs in the trunk - saying "what should we say... what should we say?!?"
no subject
I'm thinking Rove is doing, as some pundit pointed out, a "rope-a-dope". He's sitting back, laughing at everyone calling for his head, because he's one of the few people who know what happened. If he gets proved innocent (so to speak) by this grand jury, then a lot of important Democrats are going to look like bloodthirsty town villagers with torches instead of caring statesmen.
no subject
They already do. Though I suppose so might I, if I felt wounded (and as a party, they do) helpless (one word: Kerry) and frustrated (understandably) by my world being hijacked out from underneath me and I was desperate to grasp at evidence for it, and garner support for the change.