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?
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.