• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

As the Plame Leak Turns

varwoche

Penultimate Amazing
Staff member
varwoche
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
18,218
Location
Puget Sound
Events are unfolding rapidly. Here's my speculative take:

* NY Times reporter Judith Miller's "noble" stance in protecting her sources appears to have been no more than self-serving BS, antithetical to any notion of journalistic standards. This is based on the fact that the primary responsibility of a reporter is to report, and she failed to report that Rove was her source despite that Rove released her from confidentiality three times. The fourth time was the charm however, and it is rumored she left jail with a 7 figure book deal.

* Miller isn't off the hook. She was called back in front of the grand jury yesterday supposedly because she previously failed to divulge that Scooter Libby (Cheney's aid) also leaked Plame's name.

* Rove and Libby may be in hot water if not for the leak, but for covering it up.
A New York Times reporter, under pressure to explain a previously undisclosed conversation with a top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, made a second appearance on Wednesday before the federal grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA operative's identity.
...
Karl Rove has also been summoned to make a fourth appearance before the grand jury later this week, and prosecutors have told him they can make no guarantees he will not be indicted.
...
According to a National Journal report, in two appearances before the federal grand jury, Libby did not disclose the June 23 conversation with Miller. Nor did Libby disclose the conversation when he was twice interviewed by FBI agents.
Click to expand...
reuters
 
How early during the indictment process can a presidential pardon be issued? Could he just do it now and save everyone time and bother?
 
TragicMonkey said:
How early during the indictment process can a presidential pardon be issued? Could he just do it now and save everyone time and bother?
Click to expand...

Pardon? You watch, he'll give 'em a bloody medal and Republicans everywhere will cheer.
 
TragicMonkey said:
How early during the indictment process can a presidential pardon be issued? Could he just do it now and save everyone time and bother?
Click to expand...

Prediction: Rove will not be indicted.

If I'm wrong, I'll say something about it in this thread.

Edited to add: This prediction is independent of whether Rove did anything indictable.
 
Last edited:
Identify the new President

story.secretary.snow.jpg

By the time this one is through, I'll be President of the United States.
Click to expand...
 
varwoche said:
NY Times reporter Judith Miller's "noble" stance in protecting her sources appears to have been no more than self-serving BS, antithetical to any notion of journalistic standards. This is based on the fact that the primary responsibility of a reporter is to report, and she failed to report that Rove was her source despite that Rove released her from confidentiality three times.
Click to expand...
Correction: Libby, not Rove.

Here's a concise timeline from factcheck.org.
 
The only thing this whole episode proves to me is that Bushies really will excuse anything this administration does. Torture, mass death, bankrupting the country, outing CIA agents, anything.
 
Rove Discrepancies

On the heels of Rove's fourth grand jury appearance last week, here is the WA Post reporting of the discrepencies between Rove and Cooper, per "a source familiar with Rove's account"...
Rove answered a broad range of questions for 4 1/2 hours, including why he did not initially tell federal agents about a July 2003 conversation about Plame with the witness, Time magazine's Matthew Cooper
...
His [Rove's] story has changed from the earliest days, when he told reporters he had nothing to do with the leak of Plame's name. Since then, Rove has testified that he discussed Plame in passing with two reporters
...
Rove initially did not tell federal agents about his conversations with Cooper. In an earlier grand jury appearance, he testified that the purpose of their conversation was welfare reform
...
But Cooper testified that he did not recall discussing welfare reform at all. He said he had detailed notes on their discussion about Wilson and Rove's passing reference to Wilson's wife.
...
There is also a mystery about a once-missing e-mail. ... shows Rove discussing his conversation with Cooper and saying he waved the reporter off Wilson's allegations. It did not surface until earlier this year, well after the investigation was in full swing.
Click to expand...
 
Perhaps the only thing that will come of all this is a new political vocabulary word:

"Don't plame me, I didn't do it!"
 
In Jan 2004, Michael Massing with the New York Review of Books wrote a critique of Miller's "uncritical" reporting on Iraq, in particular the WMD story. Miller was interviewed in some depth for the story. The article costs $3 at the Review's site but can be found all over the internet, like here.
In recent months, US news organizations have rushed to expose the Bush administration's pre-war failings on Iraq. "Iraq's Arsenal Was Only on Paper," declared a recent headline in The Washington Post. "Pressure Rises for Probe of Prewar-Intelligence," said The Wall Street Journal. "So, What Went Wrong?" asked Time. In The New Yorker, Seymour Hersh described how the Pentagon set up its own intelligence unit, the Office of Special Plans, to sift for data to support the administration's claims about Iraq. And on "Truth, War and Consequences," a Frontline documentary that aired last October, a procession of intelligence analysts testified to the administration's use of what one of them called "faith-based intelligence."

Watching and reading all this, one is tempted to ask, where were you all before the war? Why didn't we learn more about these deceptions and concealments in the months when the administration was pressing its case for regime change—when, in short, it might have made a difference? Some maintain that the many analysts who've spoken out since the end of the war were mute before it. But that's not true. Beginning in the summer of 2002, the "intelligence community" was rent by bitter disputes over how Bush officials were using the data on Iraq. Many journalists knew about this, yet few chose to write about it.
Click to expand...
 
davefoc said:
Varwoche, you're doing a great job. Thanks

But with respect, you're no normdoering. What have you done to him?
Click to expand...
That could have been said...
[benson mode] normdoering was a friend of mine. I participated on an online forum with normdoering. And you sir... etc. [/benson mode]
 
My current cut at this:

Mostly it just blows over with little additional grief for Bush.

A lot of people that would have never voted for Bush or any Republican think that something pretty shady happened. Politically, these folks don't matter to Bush, so he will do nothing to appease them.

A lot of swing voters that might have voted for Bush or other Republicans think that something pretty shady might have happened. Many and probably most of the folks no longer support Bush, so while he might like to recover some of their support, their support is not what is keeping the Bush administration alive politically these days. Dumping Rove or anybody else to recover a little of their support won't gain as much as it will lose with his true believer base, so Rove and others won't be dumped unless something unexpectedly bad comes out of the grand jury. An indictment for lying or an indictment for a poorly substantiated charge will not be enough for Bush to take action against Rove.

If the Judith Miller testimony is the kind of evidence that Fitzgerald has, Rove and others will ride this thing out, not unscathed but not permanently damaged either.

I don't have strong evidence to back up the above but I thought I'd put my best guess down now, so that in a week or so when actual facts become available I can look back and see how wrong I was.
 
davefoc said:
My current cut at this:

. . . . . If the Judith Miller testimony is the kind of evidence that Fitzgerald has, Rove and others will ride this thing out, not unscathed but not permanently damaged either.

I don't have strong evidence to back up the above but I thought I'd put my best guess down now, so that in a week or so when actual facts become available I can look back and see how wrong I was.
Click to expand...

Best guess?
Actual facts?

You just blew your chances for a career in punditry.
 
As if another plot element were necessary, much less a biggie like this...
Evidence is building that the probe conducted by Patrick Fitzgerald, special prosecutor, has extended beyond the leaking of a covert CIA agent's name to include questioning about the administration's handling of pre-Iraq war intelligence.

According to the Democratic National Committee, a majority of the nine members of the White House Iraq Group have been questioned by Mr Fitzgerald. The team, which included senior national security officials, was created in August 2002 to “educate the public” about the risk posed by weapons of mass destruction on Iraq.
Click to expand...
article
 
davefoc said:
Dumping Rove or anybody else to recover a little of their support won't gain as much as it will lose with his true believer base, so Rove and others won't be dumped unless something unexpectedly bad comes out of the grand jury. An indictment for lying or an indictment for a poorly substantiated charge will not be enough for Bush to take action against Rove.
Click to expand...
Rove might resign from his White House position while maintaining his role in the Party. He could act martyred by the evil Liberal conspiracy that runs the country - that should play well with the fundies. I'll go with that - and see how wrong I was. :)

Cheney has kept himself squeaky-clean, it seems. There's a real operator for you.
 
varwoche said:
As if another plot element were necessary, much less a biggie like this...
article
Click to expand...
It's a bit thin. A "majority of the nine members" could be five, and that could be coincidence. Rove and Libby were members, so that's two already. Karen Hughes and Condi have probably been interviewed. Mary Matalin is described by Wiki as "a colleague of Karl Rove" and worked for Cheney, so she's probably in the frame.

If that's all the evidence that's building, those wacky dudes at the FT are easily impressed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom