| Tuesday, July 12, 2005 |
| The frogs of march |
Update 4: on the record with Scott McClellan, via AP.
Update 3 (3:59): Rove is such a fat, tempting target, it's easy to get caught up in the zeal to get him gone, and to forget that he is not the be all and end all of this story. Karl Rove is a lot of things, but he isn't a CIA insider. Someone had to give him the information he passed on to Matthew Cooper. The question for Rove's legal future is whether that person also gave him Valerie Plame's name and status as a covert agent, and of course, whether he lied to eitherthe FBI or the grand jury about his involvement (the way Scott McClellan has repeatedly lied to reporters).
That other source might actually be in bigger trouble than Rove, since it was they, and not he, who knowingly divulged classified information. Also, remember that Novak said he had a couple of high level sources, not just one, so the Scooter Libby, Hadley gambit is still open on this one. TalkLeft and David Corn are all over the nuances of this story, and worth a look.
BTW is Rove's attorney this Robert Luskin?
Update 2: More pain and anguish via BradBlog -- Time to revoke Rove's security clearance pending the outcome of the grand jury investigation? New Jersey Senator Launtenberg says "yes, do."
Update: Link -- Fire Him Now (includes petition)
Original post (1:32) What is it that the White House and its hapless flak Scott McClellan don't get about the fact that stonewalling the press on the Rove/Plame leak story only pisses them off, and makes them push the story even more? (Link to the transcript of today's McClellan carnage.) At minimum, this story proves that the White House and its spokesman have been lying to the public all along about Rove's complicity in outing CIA agent Valerie Plame. At worst, it's been shielding a criminal. Political communications 101 would suggest cutting bait, firing Rove immediately, and trying to move the story off the front pages (not that that will work if Rove winds up like Martha Stewart -- minus the shawl and the clever prison nickname...) Says Howard Kurtz:
There are two issues here, it seems to me. Legally, what Rove said to Matt Cooper on "double super secret background" (according to this Mike Isikoff piece) may or may not have violated the law against identifying intelligence agents. There are questions about whether Rove knew that Plame was undercover, whether he was "knowingly" outing her, and so forth.
But politically, this is a bombshell. Rove, who has insisted he did not leak Plame's name, had something to do with this effort, even if he didn't "name" her. ( The defense: It all depends on the meaning of the word "leak?") He was attempting to undercut Wilson when he told Cooper that wifey had helped set up Wilson's fact-finding trip to Niger (where Wilson didn't find the facts the administration wanted on Saddam seeking uranium) and that the uranium business could still be true (it wasn't). And didn't the White House promise to fire anyone involved in the leak?What does Rove do now? Give a couple of interviews and explain his role? Or remain in the background while his lawyer issues carefully parsed statements?
Or here's another choice: resign now, and spare the president having to fire your roly-poly behind. Note to White House: the press and the Democrats will never let this go until he's gone. Why should they? If the situation were reversed, your side would be drawing up impeachment articles...
Previous posts:
|
posted by JReid @ 4:29 PM   |
|
|
|
|
