Of Leaks--And Spies--Of Kingmakers And Why?s

'It seems a shame,' the Walrus said,'To play them such a trick...'

Published on July 14, 2005 By kingbee In Politics

consider this part 3 of an ongoing lewis carroll-inspired peek at events and policies through the looking glass (parts 1 Link and 2 Link.)

if karl rove did nothing illegal or innapropriate as regards novak's announcement that valerie plame worked for the cia and was married to ambassador joe wilson, wouldn't it have been easier on everyone if he'd stepped up to a microphone 2 years ago and let us know that was the case?

as one of gwbush's closest associates (if not THE closest), couldn't he have simply told the president that he'd done nothing wrong?

as the chief of staff for policy, rove certainly should be well aware of the country's precarious financial situation. why is it costing us a million and change to find out he did nothing wrong?

why is judy miller still in jail?

'I weep for you,'the Walrus said:
'I deeply sympathize.'
With sobs and tears he denied
Alleging wives were spies,
Holding his pocket-handkerchief
Before his streaming eyes.

Comments (Page 1)

Island Dog

on Jul 14, 2005

why is judy miller still in jail?

Maybe because Rove isn't the "leak". I know that's hard to comprehend with all the biased media coverage, but just think about it.

kingbee

on Jul 14, 2005

I know that's hard to comprehend with all the biased media coverage, but just think about it.

i've considered the possibility.

let's say it's fact. what are the chances rove doesn't know the identity of the leak? my guess is slim or none.

in which case, doesn't ethics or good citizenship require him to reveal whatever information he may have to the independent prosecutor. i cant see how not doing so works to his benefit.

bakerstreet

on Jul 14, 2005

I'm beginning to wonder, too. In the end, Novak and the Time guy werew the ones who put it in the public view. For all the 'leak', the real damage occured when her name was in print. If members of the press knowingly outed a CIA agent, they would be at least as culpable, woudn't they? I don't think freedom of the press would be protection for such a thing.

I could easily brush it off as a Rove lynch mob, but somehow it just feels like there is something else...

kingbee

on Jul 14, 2005

the real damage occured when her name was in print. If members of the press knowingly outed a CIA agent, they would be at least as culpable, woudn't they? I don't think freedom of the press would be protection for such a thing

at least, if not more so in terms of effect.

somehow it just feels like there is something else...

it's seemed that way even before cooper revealed the 'double secret probation' component (either cooper or rove musta watched 'animal house' one too many times). this isn't the kinda trouble someone like rove would wanna buy for himself again.

drmiler

on Jul 15, 2005

I know that's hard to comprehend with all the biased media coverage, but just think about it.

i've considered the possibility.

let's say it's fact. what are the chances rove doesn't know the identity of the leak? my guess is slim or none.

in which case, doesn't ethics or good citizenship require him to reveal whatever information he may have to the independent prosecutor. i cant see how not doing so works to his benefit.

wouldn't it have been easier on everyone if he'd stepped up to a microphone 2 years ago and let us know that was the case?

I guess you don't read the papers much. He did and he has.

Texas Wahine

on Jul 15, 2005

I don't know anything about this, but IM me, dude. (This message will self-destruct after you've received it, hehe)

Dr Guy

on Jul 15, 2005

as one of gwbush's closest associates (if not THE closest), couldn't he have simply told the president that he'd done nothing wrong?

He probably did. But the press is not buying it. I dont see Bush calling him on the carpet, but the press doing another hatchet job. Truth is, neither you nor I know what Rove has told the President. And for Rove to announce to the press "I did not do it" will not make this go away. So he just does the standard "ongoing investigation" routine cause nothing he says will mollify the left leadership or the press.

bakerstreet

on Jul 16, 2005

Actually, now it is being said that when Novak called Rove, NOVAK was the one to ask ROVE about Wilson's wife, meaning he already knew.

That could very well be why the one reporter is still in hot water. They may not have found the original leak yet. The rest of these are just a little gossip circle, maybe. There'd be no reason to continue this if it were Rove, you'd have your leak and you'd have your reporters. You could startin handing out punishment.

I'm thinking Wilson himself mentioned it to reporters when he was doing his "anonymous" muckraking that started the whole endeavor.

Island Dog

on Jul 18, 2005

Let's remember nobody cares who really "leaked" this persons name. This all about trying to blame Bush and get back at Rove.

bakerstreet

on Jul 18, 2005

An interesting perspective in the National Review.

According to that the reason Plame had been working "as a covert agent" at a desk job for years is that her cover had ALREADY been blown long before, and they had concluded that her effectivness as a covert agent was nil.

P.S. I'd really like to poke some of you in the eye for continueing to bump the Col's insipid crap for him over and over and over. For heaven's sake, give up. I felt idiotic for arguing as much as I did. By now you guys should see that he is ignoring you and relishing in the fact that you are keeping his blog at the top of the heap...

kingbee

on Jul 19, 2005

According to that the reason Plame had been working "as a covert agent" at a desk job for years is that her cover had ALREADY been blown long before, and they had concluded that her effectivness as a covert agent was nil.

has mccarthy had all his shots? he was foaming at the mouth so profusely i'm a lil concerned bout whether some of it mighta splashed on me.

what does the cia accidentally (unintentionally or negligently) compromising agent identities have to do with publicly acknowledging or revealing their names? it's my understanding there are memorial stars on the wall at langley commemorating the service of cia operatives who died in the line of duty...and that some bear no name even tho the fact of the death is no longer secret. presuming the cubans or russians did know who plame was, why would the cia have done anything but offer a no comment?

in any event, mccarthy faulted an otherwise excellent demonstration of rantorical gymnastics before it began by noting: "A highly capable special prosecutor is probing the underlying facts, and it is appropriate to withhold legal judgments until he completes the investigation over which speculation runs so rampant."

if there was really nothing there, the prosecutor couldn't be nearly as capable as everyone seems to agree he is.

I'm thinking Wilson himself mentioned it to reporters when he was doing his "anonymous" muckraking that started the whole endeavor

once again, if that were the case, why would a special prosecutor have spent so much time investigating the matter?

kingbee

on Jul 19, 2005

Let's remember nobody cares who really "leaked" this persons name. This all about trying to blame Bush and get back at Rove.

if an administration feels it needs to punish an individual for public criticism, sees to me that is--or should be--of a great deal of interest to everyone.

kingbee

on Jul 19, 2005

for Rove to announce to the press "I did not do it" will not make this go away.

what i meant was why didn't rove reveal his discussion with cooper 2 years ago. obviously it's too late for that now, but think of all the energy and money that coulda been better used elsewhere if only rove had been a bit more candid then.

drmiler

on Jul 19, 2005

Because once their cover is blown by "anyone" they can no longer be a covert agent.

for Rove to announce to the press "I did not do it" will not make this go away.

what i meant was why didn't rove reveal his discussion with cooper 2 years ago. obviously it's too late for that now, but think of all the energy and money that coulda been better used elsewhere if only rove had been a bit more candid then.

How do we know he didn't?

in any event, mccarthy faulted an otherwise excellent demonstration of rantorical gymnastics before it began by noting: "A highly capable special prosecutor is probing the underlying facts, and it is appropriate to withhold legal judgments until he completes the investigation over which speculation runs so rampant."

if there was really nothing there, the prosecutor couldn't be nearly as capable as everyone seems to agree he is

And btw....read the papers a little more. The Prosecutor has already said that Rove was NOT the target of the investigation and that it was "highly" doubtful that "any" charges would be filed against him.

Island Dog

on Jul 19, 2005

if an administration feels it needs to punish an individual for public criticism, sees to me that is--or should be--of a great deal of interest to everyone.

But that's not the cause. Rove was warning a reporter not to trust Wilson, for good reason but Wilson has been proved to be a liar, and a democratic operative.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!