Start Making The Popcorn, Watch Winger Heads Explode (Novak sez: Rove = Plame Source)

[jameson]

I'm having a hard time believing why anyone would seriously cite the Drudge Report as a reliable source regarding a legal matter ( or any other matter, for that matter, excuse the stylistically awful English here).

Also, even if Novak used Rove only to confirm his suspicions re Plame, the only comment available to Rove here was : NO COMMENT. Rove shouldn't be able to know who is or isn't a NOC in the first place, and if he does know, he certainly shouldn't have been confirming their identities to a reporter.

The notion that Wilson engineered his being sent to Niger is laughable; why would any sane person want to go there ? It's hot, it's dry, it's poor, there's little in the way of Western comforts and he'd even have had to file a report on his visit too. Even more ludicrously, Wilson being sent to Niger was not his decision to make. If you were to indict anyone (itself a seriously stupid notion), it would be the people who sent him there, or even his wife. But I'm indulging someone's fantasy here.

I must admit I'm glad though that rmsharpe essentially agrees that there's nothing wrong with reprinting information available to the general public; at least it exonerates the NY Times for reprinting information about the SWIFT monitoring which was first published in a UN report in 2002.

 

[amadeus]

Also, even if Novak used Rove only to confirm his suspicions re Plame, the only comment available to Rove here was : NO COMMENT. Rove shouldn't be able to know who is or isn't a NOC in the first place, and if he does know, he certainly shouldn't have been confirming their identities to a reporter.

Rove isn't Sergeant Schultz. What was he supposed to say, "I can neither confirm nor deny that information, even though it was availible to anyone in the public who asked for it?"

The notion that Wilson engineered his being sent to Niger is laughable; why would any sane person want to go there ? It's hot, it's dry, it's poor, there's little in the way of Western comforts and he'd even have had to file a report on his visit too. Even more ludicrously, Wilson being sent to Niger was not his decision to make. If you were to indict anyone (itself a seriously stupid notion), it would be the people who sent him there, or even his wife. But I'm indulging someone's fantasy here.

Why did Jimmy Carter go to Cuba? Prestige and politics. Wilson could come back looking like a hero to his constituents in the Democratic Party and could use that opportunity to blast the Bush administration at the same time.

He obviously wasn't looking to go there for a vacation.

 

[jameson]

Rove isn't Sergeant Schultz. What was he supposed to say, "I can neither confirm nor deny that information, even though it was availible to anyone in the public who asked for it?"

a) How about 'No comment' ?
b) Though it has been stated in this thread that Plame's status was 'publicly available', I've yet to encounter any link to a respected source saying so

Why did Jimmy Carter go to Cuba? Prestige and politics. Wilson could come back looking like a hero to his constituents in the Democratic Party and could use that opportunity to blast the Bush administration at the same time.

He obviously wasn't looking to go there for a vacation.

Wilson visited Niger at the request of the CIA in February, 2002. The first public reference to Wilson't trip popped up in May, 2003; Wilson's own op-ed about the results of his visit didn't appear until July, 2003 - after Bush's SotU speech including the later-retracted '16 words', and after the invasion of Iraq. Why the delay ? Also, what constituents in the Democratic party ? Wilson never ran for elected office - he doesn't have 'constituents'. He even contributed to the Bush campaign in 2000 (but also to Gore).

If he went to Niger to accomplish something for the Democratic party, he did a remarkably poor job for it.

I think we need a more rational explanation for his going there - such as his being the most suitable person willing and able to go there on short notice at that point in time. If senior government officials later on didn't like the results, that's not his fault.

 

[ChrTh]

Is this still an issue?

If I'm a Democrat, I do not want the Bush administration to fire Rove. Rove is the most intelligent campaign-runner in the Republican party. If he's fired, what do you think he's going to do? I'll tell you what: he's going to take charge of making sure the Republicans win in 2008. And since the Democratic party hasn't had anyone close to Rove's level of expertise since Carville, that more or less guarantees a Republican will win in 2008.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15988

From Novak's own mouth/pen. No need to call a plumber.

Anyway, regardless of any afterthoughts, the matter is closed. No scalps save Libby, and no frogmarching from the White House. Popcorn anyone?

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

However, on Jan. 12, two days before my meeting with Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor informed Hamilton that he would be bringing to the Swidler Berlin offices only two waivers. One was by my principal source in the Valerie Wilson column, a source whose name has not yet been revealed. The other was by presidential adviser Karl Rove, whom I interpret as confirming my primary source's information. In other words, the special prosecutor knew the names of my sources.

When Fitzgerald arrived, he had a third waiver in hand -- from Bill Harlow, the CIA public information officer who was my CIA source for the column confirming Mrs. Wilson's identity. I answered questions using the names of Rove, Harlow and my primary source.

So garric... Is Novak lying about Rove's involvement?

No need to call a plumber.

Now there's an allusion that will fly over most winger heads...

no frogmarching from the White House.

Very good, Sherlock, that's the definition of obstruction of justice, the charge Libby received. He lied his ass off (as did everybody else involved with the case, including the White House which REPEATEDLY lied about Rove's involvement) so Fitz couldn't see his way clear to an indictment for those principally involved, including Rove and the still shadowy "Senior Administration Official #1".

No Fitzmas, no indictments coming down the chimney while visions of prison terms dance in our heads, but at least it's impossible to deny that the government deliberately leaked Plames name, and remain intellectually honest.

Not that that will bother some here.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

We all know that ye can softshoe shuffle as much as ye like - there is a still a sour taste that all ye got for Fitzmas was a little scooter. Such is the way of cognitive dissonance.

Thou may interpret it as ye wish, but the unindicted parties have been careful not to lie, but to deal in shadows of truth.

To quote the man in question, "That Fitzgerald did not indict any of these sources may indicate his conclusion that none of them violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act."

If this is the case, then characterizing something as a deliberate leak is playing semantics to the extreme in an effort for some satisfaction.
I'll wait until Mr. Fitzgerald is forthcoming with his interpretation before further comment there; horse's mouth and all that.

As for 'Senior Administration Officials', the chap indicates that it isn't a a 'political gunslinger' (sic), and that he says it was inadvertent; the details were always in the public arena besides.

Finally, one cannot leak something that is approved for release, but there is more wordplay.

Meh, a dead issue, and not an important one on this side of the world in the end...we have our own interesting little political mini scandal ongoing. Anyway, you know I love you, and good luck for all your campaigning later on in the year; I hope you aren't as disappointed as in 2004.

Regards,

SD

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

We all know that ye can softshoe shuffle as much as ye like - there is a still a sour taste that all ye got for Fitzmas was a little scooter. Such is the way of cognitive dissonance.

On the contrary, cognitive dissonance is "They haven't been charged, therefore they did nothing wrong!"

The White House comes out of this looking guilty as sin, with all participants basically admitting that the Vice President plotted with the President's top political adviser to secretly and selectively leak classified information to smear a political opponent.

Only Scooter Libby's obstruction of justice saved their asses from becoming grass. Now, am I disappointed that justice was obstructed? Yes. Am I disappointed that right-wingers get the loophole to say "Oh, it all turned out all right"? Not really. That kind of people can delude themselves out of any dilemma. Rove could be swinging at the end of a rope and (various posters here) would tune in to Fox News to hear Bill O'Reilly explain how it was a massive blow for the Democrats and they would surely lose in 2006.

To quote the man in question, "That Fitzgerald did not indict any of these sources may indicate his conclusion that none of them violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act."

Do you take Novak's statement at face value?

Let me put it this way... if Eichmann, in hiding, published opinion columns during the Nuremburg Trials, I would not be taking his statements at face value.

 

[malclave]

I'm having a hard time believing why anyone would seriously cite the Drudge Report as a reliable source regarding a legal matter ( or any other matter, for that matter, excuse the stylistically awful English here).

Why? People seem perfectly willing to accept uncorroborated stories from partisan blogs as Absolute Truth.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15988

Thanks for the link. I was hoping Novak would reveal something about what Rove actually SAID, but he's probably saving that for a book.

Now there's an allusion that will fly over most winger heads...

Actually, I'm surprised... you mean there are actually moonbats with enough brain cells left to remember details of Watergate?

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Cognitive dissonance is viewing everything to fit one's weltanschauung, and twitching nervously when reality beams in the light of day.

Not being charged means there is no evidence to support statements of perjury (the lies referred to) or other offences. Without charge, there is no proven guilt. This was not the big knockout blow that many had hoped. Neither have been any of the other blows. Some people keep betting on the losing horse.

I hardly think that is an apt comparison, and your selective quoting leaves off my discussion of that point, which contains the substance of my reply regarding that issue. Furthermore, it was an opinion rather than a statement, and I take that opinion as what it is; his reckoning of something, rather than truth written on tablets coming down from the mountain.

Opinion is a wonderful thing, but reality and history turn out to be the great levellers.

 

[malclave]

The White House comes out of this looking guilty as sin, with all participants basically admitting that the Vice President plotted with the President's top political adviser to secretly and selectively leak classified information to smear a political opponent.

From http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/07/12/wednesday/index.html

Robert Novak, the journalist whose syndicated column triggered the CIA leak investigation, said Wednesday that he doesn't believe that a senior Bush administration official who originally told him Valerie Plame worked at the CIA was leaking that information to discredit her husband, Joe Wilson, because of his criticism of the Iraq war.

Who, exactly, do you mean by "all participants"?