PDA

View Full Version : What Tune for a Frog March?


Lindsey
July 10th, 2005, 05:09 PM
Newsweek reveals today (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8525978/site/newsweek/) that a key source for Matt Cooper's story in Time about the Valerie Plame case was indeed Karl Rove, and that Rove gave him the information before Novak's own column came out. Now, Cooper's story did not identify Plame as a CIA operative, as Novak's story did. And the e-mail from Cooper to one of his editors about his conversation with Rove that Newsweek somehow obtained also does not say either "operative" or "covert". So in this particular exchange, Rove would still have some plausible deniability. But when the croaking starts, can the frog be far behind?

BTW, see also David Corn's thoughts (http://www.davidcorn.com/2005/07/new_explosive_r.php) on the revelations in the Newsweek piece (which had not yet been posted when he wrote this). Corn was the first to point out in print (or rather, pixels) that someone in the Administration may have committed a crime by revealing Plame's identity.

--Lindsey

Dick K
July 10th, 2005, 08:09 PM
If Rove was indeed Novak's source on Valerie Plame, he should at the very least resign.

Read the first response to Korn's "Frog March" story in the blog--the one signed "Kirk"--and you will see what I mean about the decline of political dialogue in this fair land. "Kirk"'s hysterical rant is filled with nothing but hate-filled invective, careless (or ignorant) misspellings, and sheer raving. He makes Corn (and Josh Marshall, for that matter) look like studies in calmness and decorum. (I presume that "Bunnypants" is Kirkese for the President, but what led him to that particular nickname?)

Lindsey
July 10th, 2005, 10:13 PM
If Rove was indeed Novak's source on Valerie Plame, he should at the very least resign.
Oh, I agree--but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Read the first response to Korn's "Frog March" story in the blog--the one signed "Kirk"--and you will see what I mean about the decline of political dialogue
There's a lot of that sort of thing in responses to blog entries--the most sensible thing to do is to skip over it. I don't know that it's as much a "decline" in the quality of the dialog as just that more people have access to it. It's like any other message board, you pay attention to the sensible posts and ignore the rest.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
July 17th, 2005, 05:06 PM
Even assuming that the reports of Rove's Grand Jury testimony are correct (Cooper called him and told him the story about Plame and Rove replied "I've heard that too"), he should resign. Anyone in high government office who says anything at all other than "no comment" to any question about anyone at the CIA is too stupid to have a security clearance.

Lindsey
July 17th, 2005, 11:07 PM
I absolutely agree with that, too.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
July 18th, 2005, 11:46 PM
Be sure to see the July 18 broadcast of Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show" (which should repeat Tuesday evening between 11:30 and midnight).

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
July 19th, 2005, 12:30 AM
Me? Watch... (gasp)... television?

Lindsey
July 19th, 2005, 06:14 PM
Me? Watch... (gasp)... television?
The Daily Show is well worth it. It's like a 30-minute long SNL Newsbreak, except that most of it is not made up. There was a truly hysterical segment last night in which they re-cast the phone calls between reporters and White House insiders over the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame thing as a Valley Girl gossip network, ending it up with a film clip of the telephone segment from "Bye-Bye Birdie" using voiced-over new words. I almost split my sides.

That particular part of it might be availble as a clip on their web site (http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/index.jhtml). Let me check...

Yeah; I can't get the videos to play on this PC (the download never finishes), but check "Rove, Actually" under Videos|Headlines and "The Plame Game" under Videos|Samantha Bee.

--Lindsey

RayB (France)
July 20th, 2005, 07:22 AM
Even assuming that the reports of Rove's Grand Jury testimony are correct (Cooper called him and told him the story about Plame and Rove replied "I've heard that too"), he should resign. Anyone in high government office who says anything at all other than "no comment" to any question about anyone at the CIA is too stupid to have a security clearance.

I have been away for three days. Has it been determined if a crime has been commited as yet?

Judy G. Russell
July 20th, 2005, 11:00 AM
Who's talking about criminality? I'm talking about stupidity, which (last time I checked) wasn't a crime.

Judy G. Russell
July 20th, 2005, 11:03 AM
Hmmm... I can't get it to play on my PC either.

Lindsey
July 20th, 2005, 07:02 PM
Hmmm... I can't get it to play on my PC either.
Well, rats. I thought it was because something was getting hung up in the firewall. I often have trouble with video clips.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
July 21st, 2005, 12:26 AM
Ditto, at work, but it won't play here on my home computer either.

RayB (France)
July 21st, 2005, 03:10 AM
**Who's talking about criminality?**

I was. Is that a 'yes', 'no', 'I have no idea' or an 'I don't care'?

**I'm talking about stupidity, which (last time I checked) wasn't a crime.**

Since when did that ever stop 'trials and convictions'. I would be amazed if anyone has true immunity . . . . except for me, of course. You??

Judy G. Russell
July 21st, 2005, 10:36 AM
**Who's talking about criminality?**

I was. Is that a 'yes', 'no', 'I have no idea' or an 'I don't care'?
That was a "who interjected criminality into a discussion on whether someone should resign for having done something stupid". I do care whether Rove committed a crime and, if he did, I expect him to be indicted, convicted and appropriately punished. But I also care, deeply, if those at the highest levels of this government are willing to serve up the intelligence community to the press for political gain. And, I repeat, anyone in government who is asked about a CIA operative who says anything other than "no comment" should not have a security clearance.

RayB (France)
July 21st, 2005, 10:56 AM
**I do care whether Rove committed a crime and, if he did, I expect him to be indicted, convicted and appropriately punished.**

Absolutely! How about Sandy Berger and his caper? Same thing or just more stupidity?

Lindsey
July 21st, 2005, 07:30 PM
Sandy Berger must have recently been added to the GOP talking points list; suddenly all you guys are talking about him.

I do believe he lost his security clearance.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
July 21st, 2005, 09:46 PM
Sandy Berger has pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and lost his security clearance.

Lindsey
July 21st, 2005, 11:25 PM
Sandy Berger has pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and lost his security clearance.
And was fined $10,000.

--Lindsey

woodswell
July 22nd, 2005, 01:58 PM
Judy, But even if what Rove did was not technically criminal, the coverup since could be criminal:
A Further Look At The Criminal ChargesThat May Arise From the Plame Scandal, In Which a CIA Agent's Cover Was Blown (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20031010.html)
And note that this article was written in 2003, not as a result of the recent developments.
Anne

RayB (France)
July 22nd, 2005, 02:07 PM
**suddenly all you guys are talking about him.**

Ummmm? Which guys are 'those'?

Judy G. Russell
July 22nd, 2005, 03:48 PM
Judy, But even if what Rove did was not technically criminal, the coverup since could be criminal:
A Further Look At The Criminal ChargesThat May Arise From the Plame Scandal, In Which a CIA Agent's Cover Was Blown (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20031010.html)
And note that this article was written in 2003, not as a result of the recent developments.
I still have a little trouble with the idea of John Dean writing about cover-ups.

Lindsey
July 22nd, 2005, 06:05 PM
Ummmm? Which guys are 'those'?
The defenders of Karl Rove.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
July 22nd, 2005, 06:08 PM
I still have a little trouble with the idea of John Dean writing about cover-ups.
Hey, when this thingl first broke, Dean was hoping that the Wilsons would file a civil suit, saying that that the process of discovery could lead to all sorts of interesting things coming out. It was the discovery process in the litigation over the Ellsberg break-in, he said, that was the beginning of the unravelling of the Watergate scandal.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
July 22nd, 2005, 06:44 PM
It's not his thinking I have trouble with; it's just who he is... or was.

Lindsey
July 22nd, 2005, 06:57 PM
Anne,

Some interesting recent reading on this topic:


Testimony of Larry Johnson (http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/22/23342/2018), a former undercover CIA agent who trained with Valerie Plame;
Testimony of James Marcinkowski (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=7948), former CIA case officer;
an article in today's NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/22/politics/22leak.html?ei=5094&en=da4770e9392bb1c6&hp=&ex=1122004800&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all) saying that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby were working together on Tenet's mea culpa statement on the subject of the "16 words" at the time that they were also conversing with reporters regarding Plame's status;
a Bloomberg article (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/21/breaking-bloomberg-reporting-that-rove-libby-may-be-subject-to-perjury-charges/) saying that the grand jury testimonies of Rove and Libby are in conflict with that of Matt Cooper and Tim Russert.


Can you hear those frogs croaking?

--Lindsey

Lindsey
July 22nd, 2005, 07:03 PM
It's not his thinking I have trouble with; it's just who he is... or was.
Well, you see, as a Christian, I believe in the possibility of redemption, and I think John Dean has been redeemed. (I have my doubts about Chuck Colson.) I'm not sure Dean was really "with them" but so far, anyway, and he was, as I recall, the first one to cooperate with the investigation. Oh, sure, I don't doubt he was trying to save himself to the extent that he could, but I also think he has "truly and earnestly repented of his sins," to borrow a phrase from the Anglican service.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
July 22nd, 2005, 10:11 PM
Oh I agree, and he was the one who did testify and testify apparently fully. But it just seems so... so... so weird.

RayB (France)
July 23rd, 2005, 03:25 AM
**The defenders of Karl Rove.**

If any person is being wrongly accused because certain people don't like them, they deserve to be defended. If they are guilty of a crime they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

It is that simple.

Judy G. Russell
July 23rd, 2005, 09:40 AM
Where is the "wrongly accused" aspect of the criticisms here of Karl Rove? The evidence is that he spoke to reporters, or at least to one reporter, about information classified as secret, that the reporter knew nothing about Valerie Plame before the conversation and knew about her and her CIA connection afterwards. Whether that is a crime or not under the specific statute, it is STUPID and stupid people shouldn't work at the highest levels of government and have security clearances.

Lindsey
July 24th, 2005, 12:10 AM
Judy,

Also, whether or not it is a crime, it is very wrong.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
July 24th, 2005, 09:53 AM
Outing any intelligence operative for purely political reasons is always wrong.

Lindsey
July 24th, 2005, 06:07 PM
Outing any intelligence operative for purely political reasons is always wrong.
There is, by the way, an interesting analysis of the legal issues here (http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/steinberg/not_so_fast_071905.htm).

Changing the subject slightly: Last night, I started reading Michael Scheuer's Imperial Hubris. In the acknowledgements, he refers to "a small group of officers," mostly women, "who have worked against the bin Laden target since 1996" and, according to Scheuer, provided the government with "repeated opportunities to end the problem of bin Laden," I presume through assassination. He says, "In the spring of 2004, they were ridiculed by a senior intelligence-community officer in an officially sanctioned leak to a Washington journalist. The leak was printed by the journalist and caused unmerited pain to these women."

Do you have any idea what leak he is referring to? I can't recall any such leak in early 2004, but that was such a busy year that I suppose I might not have heard that bit of news, or maybe just don't recall it.

--Lindsey

Later: Ooooh, the plot thickens (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/24/gonzales-raises-questions-for-andy-card-to-answer/)! [I]What did Rove know and when did he know it?

Judy G. Russell
July 24th, 2005, 06:26 PM
Do you have any idea what leak he is referring to? I can't recall any such leak in early 2004, but that was such a busy year that I suppose I might not have heard that bit of news, or maybe just don't recall it.
Nope -- that's a new one to me.

Lindsey
July 24th, 2005, 10:01 PM
Nope -- that's a new one to me.
And not really enough information for Google... <sigh>

--Lindsey

Lindsey
July 24th, 2005, 10:22 PM
Hmmmm... this may be a clue. Abstract from an article in the March 25 NY Times:

Commission probing Sept 11, 2001, terrorist attacks reports that Central Intelligence Agency secretly created special operational unit to track Osama bin Laden in 1996 and that unit concluded by early 1997 that he was terrorist organizer with military committee planning operations against American interests worldwide; says unit's data was disseminated in many reports but its sense of alarm about him was not widely shared or understood in intelligence and policy communities, instead drawing ridicule from peers;

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
July 24th, 2005, 10:23 PM
That much is familiar. The rest of it isn't.

Lindsey
July 24th, 2005, 10:56 PM
That much is familiar. The rest of it isn't.
Well at least I know it's not just that I have missed something everyone else knew about!

--Lindsey

chm
July 25th, 2005, 06:20 PM
Ditto, Lindsey. "The Daily Show" is great. Lots of talent going into it. No longer being able to watch it is one of the things I miss most about no longer having "extended" cable.

I do keep a link to "The Daily Show" on my website.

chm

chm
July 25th, 2005, 06:28 PM
Outing any intelligence operative for purely political reasons is always wrong.
Yes. It's as plain and simple as that, whoever has done it. And there doesn't have to be a crime proven.

I suspect that the John Roberts nomination came up right now as a diversion from Rove and/or how things are going in the "War on Terrorism."

chm

Judy G. Russell
July 25th, 2005, 08:29 PM
I suspect that the John Roberts nomination came up right now as a diversion from Rove and/or how things are going in the "War on Terrorism."
I'm not quite that cynical. After all, there really honestly is a vacancy on the Supreme Court to fill.

Lindsey
July 25th, 2005, 10:39 PM
I'm not quite that cynical. After all, there really honestly is a vacancy on the Supreme Court to fill.
Yes, there's a vacancy, but the word initially had been that Bush wouldn't announce his choice to fill it until after the August recess, mindful that when the Bork nomination was made before the August recess, it gave opposition groups 6 weeks or so to build a case against him. Then after Scott McClellan took two straight days of pounding from a newly-emboldened press corps, the word was that the nominee would be named in a couple of weeks, and then almost the next day, it was announced that Bush would be making a formal announcement that night. I think they were very anxious to change the subject from Karl Rove--but it doesn't seem to have worked. The sharks were distracted for a couple of days, but Roberts isn't sufficiently controversial to change the subject for very long. Then again, as one analyst observed, Bush would have had to have nominated Bill Clinton to have a prayer of distracting the press's attention away from Karl Rove.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
July 26th, 2005, 10:57 AM
Roberts isn't sufficiently controversial to change the subject for very long. Then again, as one analyst observed, Bush would have had to have nominated Bill Clinton to have a prayer of distracting the press's attention away from Karl Rove.
That's my point, basically. If Bush had picked someone the equivalent of Scalia or Thomas, it might have been a distraction. Having (apparently) not done so, well, it doesn't look like all that much of a conspiracy to distract the world from Rove to me.

Dick K
July 26th, 2005, 11:15 AM
That's my point, basically. If Bush had picked someone the equivalent of Scalia or Thomas, it might have been a distraction. Having (apparently) not done so, well, it doesn't look like all that much of a conspiracy to distract the world from Rove to me.There you go, being objective and open-minded again. Remember: when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Lindsey
July 26th, 2005, 05:00 PM
That's my point, basically. If Bush had picked someone the equivalent of Scalia or Thomas, it might have been a distraction. Having (apparently) not done so, well, it doesn't look like all that much of a conspiracy to distract the world from Rove to me.
Hey, just because he didn't succeed doesn't mean he didn't try...

Bush is sort of between a rock and a hard place, because I don't think he has the political capital to try to force an obviously hard-right selection at this point--he's beginning to get some push-back from some of the more independent Republicans in the Senate. So he goes for a candidate that is less obviously controversial, hoping the first Supreme Court nominee will in and of itself be enough to distract the ADHD press corps for a while. But it doesn't work. (And maybe not just because of the nominee's surface blandness; the press has an obvious reason to be interested in the Karl Rove story: one of their own is sitting in jail because of it.)

And in any case, I'm not so sure Roberts is really as non-ideological as he has been made to appear. It's hard to judge, because there's really not a lot to go on (which I'm sure is one of the things that factored into his selection), but some of the comments I've heard regarding some of his opinions over the last two years are a little disturbing. Roberts is not, I suspect, a libertarian conservative, but an "imperial conservative" -- one who, like Thomas and Scalia, is very sympathetic to the Executive and inclined to go along with the expansion of executive power.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
July 26th, 2005, 05:38 PM
And in any case, I'm not so sure Roberts is really as non-ideological as he has been made to appear.
I don't think his supporters (the folks who really know him) are suggesting that he's so namby-pamby as not to have an ideology of his own. I think they're suggesting that his views and his decisions tend to be pragmatic -- to look for what works, sometimes because of and sometimes in spite of what he believes. I sincerely hope they're right.

Lindsey
July 26th, 2005, 09:28 PM
I think they're suggesting that his views and his decisions tend to be pragmatic -- to look for what works, sometimes because of and sometimes in spite of what he believes. I sincerely hope they're right.
I'd like to think that they are right; I greatly fear that they are wrong, that this is a guy who would have no problem executing an innocent man because somebody forgot to dot an "i". And in any case--if he decides that what works is to give the executive the power to imprison anyone, indefinitely, without charge and without access to counsel, if the executive branch claims that the detainee is connected to terrorism--whatever "terrorism" actually means--then where are we?

I'm sorry; Bush said he wanted another Scalia or Thomas. I take him at his word. Until I have reason to believe otherwise, that's what I'm have to believe this guy is.

--Lindsey

woodswell
July 26th, 2005, 11:33 PM
Judy, I know what you mean about Dean - but I think Lindsey is right. Dean may be one of the few Noxin people who really came to understand why what they did was wrong.
Anne

Judy G. Russell
July 27th, 2005, 07:19 AM
Judy, I know what you mean about Dean - but I think Lindsey is right. Dean may be one of the few Noxin people who really came to understand why what they did was wrong.
Oh I agree... intellectually. And he was the one who first testified as to the Nixon Administration's role in the Watergate scandal. But... but... my gut still says this was a guy who didn't do what was right until he had no options left.

Lindsey
July 27th, 2005, 07:43 PM
But... but... my gut still says this was a guy who didn't do what was right until he had no options left.
No disagreement there. But at least he did the right thing then. Unlike, say, Gordon Liddy.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
July 28th, 2005, 09:44 AM
But at least he did the right thing then. Unlike, say, Gordon Liddy.
And a whole host of others... let's see -- Ehrlichman, Colson, Hunt, Mitchell, Nixon...

Lindsey
July 28th, 2005, 06:28 PM
I couldn't remember precisely about the others, but I did remember that Liddy has not to this day apologized for the dirty tricks he was involved in for the Nixon White House, and in fact, never admitted involvement on his part or anyone else's until recently. Now, apparently, he's put out some bizarre story that John Dean was responsible for the Watergate break-in, the purpose of which was to cover up a prostitution ring being run out of the DNC headquarters and involving Dean's then-future wife. That's retaliation, I'm sure, for Dean's role in helping the investigators unravel the whole conspiracy, and come to think of it, it has echoes in what people in the current Administration were trying to do to Wilson: get back at him by going after his wife. Nice fellas. I think it is not insignificant that Rove and many others in the current White House got early political experience in the Nixon campaigns...

--Lindsey