What's In A Name?

We are covering the ongoing Plame leak story, and have quite a bout scheduled.  Part of Karl Rove's curent story, based on the e-mail from Time reporter Matt Cooper, is that Rove mentioned Wilson's wife as being with the CIA, but did not name her.  Does that matter?

Slugging it out on the undercard will be David Corn 2005 versus David Corn 2003. (I know I was younger and fitter two years ago, but we can not report a Tale of the Tape for Mr. Corn).

The Big Bout will feature Corn 2005 versus Joe Wilson 2003.  Here we go. Corn 2005 will lead off:

But let's put aside the legal issues for a moment. This email demonstrates that Rove committed a firing offense. He leaked national security information as part of a fierce campaign to undermine Wilson, who had criticized the White House on the war on Iraq. Rove's overworked attorney, Robert Luskin, defends his client by arguing that Rove never revealed the name of Valerie Plame/Wilson to Cooper and that he only referred to her as Wilson's wife. This is not much of a defense. If Cooper or any other journalist had written that "Wilson's wife works for the CIA"--without mentioning her name--such a disclosure could have been expected to have the same effect as if her name had been used: Valerie Wilson would have been compromised, her anti-WMD work placed at risk, and national security potentially harmed.

Now let's hear from Corn 2003:

His wife's role--if she had one--has nothing but anecdotal value. And Novak's sources could have mentioned it without providing her name. Instead, they were quite generous.

And what did Joe Wilson say on national television?

COURIC: How damaging would this be to your wife's work?

Mr. WILSON: Well, you know, what was left out of my interview with Andrea Mitchell was--was my comment that I would not answer any specific questions about my wife. But hypothetically speaking, as others have reported, including TODAY, it would be--it would be damaging not just to her career, since she's been married to me, but since they mentioned her by her maiden name, to her entire career. So it would be her entire network that she may have established, any operations, any programs or projects she was working on. It's a--it's a breach of national security. My understanding is it may, in fact, be a violation of American law.

Emphasis added.  Let's also add that others found Valerie Plame's maiden name on Joe Wilson's now-gone [but not forgotten!] on-line bio; Novak mentioned that it was available as part of Joe Wilson's Who's Who entry (although Novak does *not*say that was how he got it).

Two years ago, Mr. Corn, Ambassador Wilson, and others, made a tactical decision to call attention to this case by emphasizing the possibly criminal nature of the leak.  Joe Wilson also chose to highlight the "maiden name" theme to support the notion that the leak was a calculated, well-informed act of revenge.

I suppose it is never to late for a do-over.

That said, my position was clear back in 2003:

Is [the absence of awareness of her covert status] exoneration? Legally, it might be - the law seems to require intent on the part of the leaker, which would be absent here. It also requires that the government be attempting to conceal the agent's identity. The CIA spokesman may have compounded an error [in his conversation with Novak], but his ineffectiveness provides a hurdle for the prosecution.

And how about "common-sense" exoneration? Well, these guys shouldn't have been taking a chance with national security for so little purpose. (Would any purpose be OK? Well, how about the Saudi leaks?) The "Ooops" theory leads to a "stupid, but not evil" conclusion, which may be better than the alternatives the Reps are contemplating.

My position was clear, but subject to future modification - Howard Fineman and even TIME magazine noted the possibility that Wilson was a catspaw in an ongoing tussle between the CIA and the neocons.  And following the release of the Senate Subcommittee on Intelligence report on Iraq, it became clear that Wilson had been embarked on quite the disinformation campaign of his own.  If Wilson was a CIA sock-puppet, and in bed with an anti-Administration CIA faction, that should have been of interest to journalists.

Well.  The Administration is getting its brains beaten in today (NY Times, WaPo) - evidently, Karl Rove has lost the backing of top Democrats.  But tomorrow is another day!  And that means it is another day that might bring us "I am troubled" throat-clearing from St. John (who could score a double play by back-stabbing Karl from South Carolina).

Or will some other Rep be the first crack in the wall?  Boy, you can't believe how much I can't wait.

MORE:  Dan Froomkin of the WaPo has a good round-up.  BillMon gathers Administration quotes about Rove.  Some are silly - McClellan's answer to the July 22 question about whether someone "deliberately" blew her cover is, even today, operative.  Others are problematic.

UPDATE:  It's a team sport - plaudits to Fishkite, who had the foresight to save Wilson's on-lin bio.

MORE UPDATES:  On the subject of CIA factions, here is Walter Pincus, in his famous June 12 piece that relied on Wilson as a source (and was ridiculed by the SSCI report):

However, a senior CIA analyst said the case "is indicative of larger problems" involving the handling of intelligence about Iraq's alleged chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs and its links to al Qaeda, which the administration cited as justification for war. "Information not consistent with the administration agenda was discarded and information that was [consistent] was not seriously scrutinized," the analyst said.

If senior CIA analysts were so critical of the Administration, isn't it a teeny bit newsworthy that Wilson was married to one?  And how great would it be if Ms. Plame was the senior analyst in question?  Heaven can wait!  (But surely Mr. Pincus would have noted that by now, so I am smiling when I write this).

And does the "indicative of larger problems" ring of the "fake but accurate" defense - ignore Wilson's misprepresentations and confusions; if he brought "a little literary flair" to his storytelling, it was because Bush lied!

Comments

[Seixon]

It doesn't matter, because her name was never a secret, as I so aptly reiterate on my blog.

In my post, I point out that the media, and the Wilsons, are playing a game with the whole idea of the name.

They are pretending that her name was a secret, so that it sounds more sinister, yet now we find out that Rove didn't even say her name!

As you can see from the media's coverage: that doesn't really matter, they continue acting as if Rove's information led to her name being revealed.

The Seattle Times goes into the twilight zone with a byline for the Washington Post story, as you can see on my blog. I cannot even begin to imagine how these editors and journalists can look themselves in the mirror each morning.

What I want to know is: who was the one who actually first stated that Plame was a covert agent?

From my cursory views of the JustOneMinute timeline, it seems to be David Corn. Miller's whole situation might be the missing key as to who actually revealed that Plame was a covert agent... because it wasn't ROVE!

[Ripclawe]

NYTIMES with tomorrow's big article drudge flashed about, surprisingly the only new info comes at the end of the article.

"It is clear that Karl Rove's conversation with Matt Cooper does not fall into that category" of criminal conduct, Mr. Sanford said. "That's not 'knowing.' It doesn't even come close."

[richard mcenroe]

OH MY GOD! Karl Rove lost the confidence of Democratic Leaders! How could this happen?!

What the hell, it will give McCain something to bloviate about next Sunday...

[peapies]

this really has nothing to so with anything...but this post made me think of the other Joe Wilson website that was sponsored and hosted by the Kerry campaign site (what was it? something like "patriots for kerry", or some such)

...and then when it became clear that Wilson lied about his wife suggesting he be the mission man...the Kerry campaign did a black out on the site...

like I said nothing to do with nothing, only made me think of it...any one have a screen capture or cahe of that site?

[peapies]

it was called

RestoreHonesty.com

[Mick Wright]

The old Wilson bio is saved here.

[Mick Wright]

And here's a Google cache of restorehonesty.com, which now redirects to johnkerry.com, after the Wilson page was airbrushed from the site, along with some a few other things, a year ago this month.

[peapies]

hey thanks...memory lane!

I just found this Joe Wilson "guest" on Kerry's blog on the free republic site

the whole thing can be found here
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1174083/posts?page=9#9

but these nuggets are interesting (I guess if only because it is the hot topic)
(forgive if these are posted everywhere)

1)
Knight_of_the_Star (Oct 29, 2003 11:18:57 AM)
Ambassador Wilson, what was your initial reaction when you found out that your wife's identity as a CIA operative was leaked to the press?

*** Joe Wilson (Oct 29, 2003 11:19:07 AM)
My initial reaction was unprintable

*** Joe Wilson (Oct 29, 2003 11:19:11 AM)
but it starts with an F

*** Joe Wilson (Oct 29, 2003 11:19:18 AM)
But then I asked myself 2 questions:

*** Joe Wilson (Oct 29, 2003 11:19:26 AM)
-what did my wife's name add to the article

*** Joe Wilson (Oct 29, 2003 11:19:29 AM)
nothing

*** Joe Wilson (Oct 29, 2003 11:19:48 AM)
-and what part of no didn't Bob Novak understand when the CIA told him not to use it

2)
Guest (Oct 29, 2003 11:23:51 AM)
one from email: Given the fact that you've been labeled a "liberal", were you surprised when you were asked to vet the Niger uranium story supposedly at the request of Dick Cheney's office?

*** Joe Wilson (Oct 29, 2003 11:24:01 AM)
First and foremost

*** Joe Wilson (Oct 29, 2003 11:24:13 AM)
I'm an American, and the national security of my country is not a partisan issue.

*** Joe Wilson (Oct 29, 2003 11:24:31 AM)
I have a set of unique experiences related to Iraq, Niger, and uranium.

*** Joe Wilson (Oct 29, 2003 11:24:53 AM)
I would remind you that had Mr. Cheney taken into consideration my report as well as 2 others submitted on this subject, rather than the forgeries

3)
riverrat (Oct 29, 2003 11:17:37 AM)
The leak about your wife was a clear violation of a specific law about exposing the identity of CIA agents. But most leaks don't violate this particular law, although they often involve the release of other kinds of classified information that is illegal under other statutes. Can we really expect to have a government that doesn't leak? Don't people in the executive branch often use classification to hide policies from the public they think would be unpopular?

*** Joe Wilson (Oct 29, 2003 11:17:50 AM)
That does indeed occur.

*** Joe Wilson (Oct 29, 2003 11:17:57 AM)
But there are legitimate reasons to classify information.

*** Joe Wilson (Oct 29, 2003 11:18:16 AM)
The problem in my case was that what was leaked was the name of a national security asset, my wife, which is unprecedented

4)
Guest (Oct 29, 2003 11:07:37 AM)
At what point did you lose faith in the Bush Administration and why exactly do you fell that John Kerry is the best candidate?

*** Joe Wilson (Oct 29, 2003 11:09:25 AM)
When Bush the candidate went to South Carolina and ran a subrosa campaign against McCain accusing his wife of being a drug addict and his kids of not being white (as if that mattered). That is not the change of tone I was looking for. When the neoconservatives got control of our national security policy, I knew we needed to mobilize to fight

[eglider]

Why exactly should I care that he listed his wife's name on a website? Why is that relevant? So he's married to Valerie Plame. Where does he ever associate her with the CIA. Rove did that, not Joe Wilson. If her name appears on his site does it not make it easier to point the finger at Rove given that the name is already out there, all he had to do was supply the occupation. Luskin's excuse, that Rove never mentioned her name would therefore be moot, as the name was already in circulation, the job however was not. At least until Rove made it so.

[jerry]

Rove(to Cooper): I don't "know" Wilson's wife's name, but you could contact.......

?

[cahmd]

To eglider:
Andrea Mitchell said on MSNBC the other night that it was common knowledge before the Novak column that Valerie Plame worked at the CIA. It is unlikely that Matt Cooper was unaware of this fact. It is, however, likely that he was unaware, until allegedly told by Karl Rove, of what he wrote in his much quoted e-mail: Joe Wilson's wife, aka Valerie PLame, recommended that her husband Joe Wilson be sent to Africa. Maybe the Ney York Times should poll its Washington Press corps about Andrea Mitchell's coment-they are the Newspaper of Record-not.

[The Kid]

The New York Post’s John Podhoretz offers a good top-level review, setting the context for the Rove-Cooper interaction and listing Ambassador Wilson’s misleading statements, noting:

As many of Joe Wilson's own hottest defenders would no doubt argue in relation to President Bush, exposing a liar is not only not a crime, it's a public service. And Wilson lied. Repeatedly.

He then proceeds to list some of the lies.

[kim]

Did Joe Wilson get his belief that he'd been sent by Cheney from someone else(like, uh V; shush) or did he make it up? If she told him, why did she?
===============================

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Joe Wilson's Op-ed was the THIRD version of Bush Lied...

The first was Nick Kristoff's column in May. The second was Walter Pincus June 12 WaPo article (in which he uses--as the Kid has shown us--Valerie Plame as a source). So, the fact that the Wilsons were engaged in a partisan assault on behalf of their preferred candidate (John Kerry) had been known to Rove for two months by the time Rove talked to Cooper.

That's the point of Rove in his conversation with Cooper. That, and that they were lying about what Wilson found in Africa. That Valerie Plame recommended her husband for the gig isn't being used to 'discredit' him (why would it?), it's merely factual background information. The kind of thing that Bob Novak logically asked about.

[BumperStickerist]

fwiw - can anybody clarify whether Rove had put any other reporter on 'double super secret background' or does this reflect on the reporter's mindset rather than Rove's?

Or does Rove use different phraseologies for putting reporters on background such that if a story leaks out about a 'super double secret background' briefing from a 'White House Source' Rove knows that it was a reporter from NBC, if the story says 'ne plus ultra secret background' it was AFP, if it was 'off the record' it was Fox, et cetera.

But have any reporters come out and talked about their involvement with Rove and his role in leaks?

Is the press restraining themselves from commenting on this because there's an Inside Baseball aspect to the discussion itself?

[TM]

As to "deep background" my understanding (from the halcyon days of Watergate and Henry Kissinger) was that it meant, I am telling you this as a guide to the truth, but you can't even print this *unless* you can find someone else to tell it to you.

In other words, you give the guy a hint as to where to look - in Cooper's case, Rove was telling him to check Wilson credibility and background.

Not a bad hint, as these things go.

Eqglider, who insists that the specific detail of her name is irrelevant - well, yes (practically, if not legally) - so why were Corn and Wilson screaming about it two years ago?

[TM]

Patrick - I am having brain-lock - can you remind me where The Kid linked Valerie to the Pincus article?

[TM]

OK, good job on the Podhoretz article (annoying registration required). I half want to strangle Podhoretz - he leads with the theme that Wilson was unqualified, and needed the work, and I think the stronger thehe is that he was (arguably) in bed with a CIA faction.

But he has a good finish:

What isn't controversial is this: Karl Rove didn't "out" Valerie Plame as a CIA agent to intimidate Joe Wilson. He was dismissing Joe Wilson as a low-level has-been hack to whom nobody should pay attention. He was right then, and if he said it today, he'd still be right.

[TM]

OK, I'm rolling (I should get my own blog...). This is from the Walter Pincus June 12 piece, and certainly indicates the presence of CIA anlaysts cheering Joe on. But was it his wife? Pincus later denied believing the wife was involved in picking him.

However, a senior CIA analyst said the case "is indicative of larger problems" involving the handling of intelligence about Iraq's alleged chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs and its links to al Qaeda, which the administration cited as justification for war. "Information not consistent with the administration agenda was discarded and information that was [consistent] was not seriously scrutinized," the analyst said.

Ahh, Wilson's report was "indicative of larger problems"! We approach the old "fake but accurate defense.

[eglider]

Re: Corn and Wilson

Who the hell knows! I can't speak for them. Probably had something to do with the specifics of the case not being as clear as they are now (not that they're clear or anything, but we do have a better idea of what was going on). But I'll say it again, the name's irrelevant. It's that job description that matters.

[eglider]

Re: Corn and Wilson

Who the hell knows! I can't speak for them. Probably had something to do with the specifics of the case not being as clear as they are now (not that they're clear or anything, but we do have a better idea of what was going on). But I'll say it again, the name's irrelevant. It's that job description that matters.

[eglider]

All those online bio's are good for is illustrating how Rove could have gone about outing her as an operative without stating her name.

[gt]

Tom,

I may be missing something but I don't think anyone ever claimed her name was a secret. What does that even mean?

What was secret was that she (it seems) worked for the CIA as a covert operative. That's the issue. If Rove simply said Wilson's wife and not Plame I don't see how that gets him off the hook. Just like I don't see the relevance of the bio you link to. Everyone that knew Wilson knew he had a wife and knew her name. What they didn't know, and what Rove made known, is that she worked for the CIA. Fitzgerald will have to see if he did it knowingly or not.

[gt]

Also Tom whther Wilson lied or not is totally irrelavnt to what is being investigated. Heck, hew could be a mass murderer and it wouldn't change anything.

The investigation is not dependent on anything Wilson said but rather on what Novak published and what Rove said and when.

You are quite the nitpicker but you tend to stay on topic. Attacking Wilson for what you preceive as his biases is of no relevance to the whether a crime was committed or not.

[Martin]

Look I'm a liberal and I don't want to see Rove indicted.

It's clear, however, that the poor guy needs therapy.

[Ralph Tacoma]

I don't have the actual act in front of me at this time, but I THINK that we're all ignoring an important fact about the act.

The act makes it a crime to reveal the identity of a covert agent IF the person doing so does it intentionally, AND has that information as a result of having obtained it through his authorized access to classified information.

IF that is correct, then Rove MAY be completely innocent if he obtained the information as a result of a casual comment made by some one else, either in a White House meeting, or at a cocktail party, or from a reporter. IF the White House meeting itself was not classified on a national security basis, Rove would be completely in the clear, and the real leaker would be whoever made the information available in the meeting.

The law appears to be written that way in part to protect the press, since they are not guilty of a crime for passing on information leaked to them by some one who did have access to classified information.

Related to this, as others have pointed out, is Andrea Mitchell's admission that Plame's CIA employment was "common knowledge." IF that is true, then Plame was NOT a "covert agent" as covered by the Act. You can't be guilty of "outing" an agent who is already "out." Some people will say, "but the CIA says she was covered, and the proof is that they asked for the investigation." That argument is totally unimpressive to me. The CIA almost had to ask for the investigation as a CYA matter given the political heat of the media frenzy. The mere fact that the CIA alleges that she was undercover does NOT mean it is true. (and the rather weak suggestion not to publish her name that the CIA's spokesman made to Novak --- assuming that Novak is telling the truth --- would tend to confirm the fact that she truly wasn't "undercover" in the definition of the Act.)

There's simply too much information that is not KNOWN by any of us outside the prosecutor's office at this time for us to KNOW what the facts really are. The media is enjoying this chance to get as much mileage out of the charges as they can.

[gt]

Ralph,

Yes, Rove may well get a pass on a technicality. It will help him legally but I wonder about the political consequences.

As for Andrea Mitchell's comment not having heard it I have no idea what she said exactly. But I doubt there is much truth to that. If Plame's job was so clearly known why did neither Novak or Cooper or Miller know about it, all very well connected DC journalists.

In the end I agree we need to wait to see what Fitzgerald tells us.

[TexasToast]

BillMon gathers Administration quotes about Rove. Some are silly - McClellan's answer to the July 22 question about whether someone "deliberately" blew her cover is, even today, operative. Others are problematic.

Problematic? I thought the opposite of “operative” was “inoperative”. Lets be parallel, eh Tom?

While we were in full denial mode, they weren’t “problematic”. They were forceful denials trying to forestall further inquiry. Now that we are in “he didn’t actually say her name” mode, McClellan can no longer discuss it. In the light of this entire list of denials that approach outright lies, the best you folks can do is throw mud at Joe Wilson?

It’s the old lawyer trick when your guy is wounded – do anything to make everybody else in range as dirty as your guy. Throw mud, cause ya never know what might stick!

Whatever Wilson did or did not do, there is little doubt now that Rove was leaking from inside the White House – the remaining questions are were his leaks a crime and was he actually the first guy inside the White House to leak on “double secret” background. Since such behavior is “not tolerated” in the White House. In fact, leakers “will no longer be in this administration.” Except for Karl. After all, to paraphrase Barry G, “leaking in the defense of liberty is no vice.”

[Nash]

The two most salient aspects of the SSCI "report" were challenged as false by Democrats on the committee and were challenged in writing by Wilson.

Whether or not you "agree" with the report, it is misleading to expect others to react as if the report is a final word on any of the discussion about Wilson. Many do not accept the report's claims.

[Jeff]

I remain puzzled about the whole name thing, although from Cecil's comments I see that the relevant classified documents probably did not refer to her as Valerie Plame. But here's one thing that I think has been missed. Clearly part of what set Wilson off about Novak's column was that he chose to refer to her as "Valerie Plame," which is certainly odd. Wilson's online bio, for instance, did not say, "He is married to Valerie Plame." It said, "He is married to the former Valerie Plame." That means that her name is not Valerie Plame, her name is Valerie Wilson or Wilson Plame or Plame Wilson -- but NOT Valerie Plame. Yet Novak referred to her as "his wife, Valerie Plame" in his column. The point is not that Novak did not get his info from Wilson's bio (though that is probably true), the point is that this is why his use of her maiden name -- her name during much of the time that she was abroad as an operative -- raised a red flag for Wilson. That said, it appears that Wilson and Corn may have fallen into a trap set by the Bush administration in this regard. At the very least they played perfectly into Rove's hands.

One other note: I reread Novak's column linked above from October 2003, and it is filled with falsehoods and instances of Novak doing exactly the kind of casuistic misleading-with-a-technical-truth (or unprovable lie) that is currently getting the Bush administration into so much trouble with the press (or at least did so for a day). Falsehood: the very first point Novak wants to stress to protect his own integrity and credibility is that "I did not receive a planned leak." I think by now we can all agree that that is false -- though I cannot prove in a court of law that Novak knew at the time it was false (though I suspect he did). Casuistry from Novak: "The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue." This makes it sound like Novak is saying it's untrue the White House passed relevant info to numerous reporters, but he's weaselling here in one way of another. For instance, it's probably impossible to prove he was a willing as opposed to an unwilling pawn. Maybe the number was seven. Maybe he's claiming they weren't trying to plant a story, again difficult to prove. Also, there's this: Novak's CIA contact asked him not to use her name because it might cause "difficulties" if she ever traveled abroad, yet Novak says the contact never suggested his using her name might put her in danger. What on earth did he think the contact was suggesting? Then there is just what looks like a downright lie -- though again hard, though as JMM has suggested perhaps not impossible, to prove -- about his use of the word "operative." Yuck.

[kim]

'Mispoke' is not a satisfactory explanation from Joe. He has yet to explain that one away.
============================

[BumperStickerist]

By the way, the most deeply distressing thing about this whole incident is the shoddy word done by the CIA at establishing a covert operative.

I yearn for the days when all the really good covert ops worked for 'Potomac Greeting Card Company' and used Cones of Silence.

[eglider]

What, DC socialite doesn't work for you? It's very 007, no?

[TexasToast]

Kim

Looks like nothing would be a satisfactory explaination from Joe. Why aren't you asking for an explaination for Karl saying he didnt "inhale"?

[Ralph Tacoma]

gt,

It MAY be much more than a "technicality." After all, the media made it into a "big deal" based on the "criminal activity" and referred to a specific act. In large part, of course, that was a way to insure that Wilson's comments got a lot more publicity than they otherwise would have garnered. It was only after the "outing of a covert operative" that Wilson becomae the darling of every TV news show, etc.

IF the fact that Valerie Plame was Joe Wilson's wife, and that she worked for the CIA, were well known, then there was, in truth, "no leaking" of classified information.

Rove was, apparently, tryint to discredit Wilson, and that's a completely legitimate portion of the debate. The issue is was he doing so by leaking classified information. IF the information was classifed, then what he did was wrong, if the information was not classified in reality (because it was already widely known, for example) then what he did was a crime, and should be dealt with.

In the "Old Days," as recently as 2000, I'd agree completely with your suggestion that whether or not what he did was actually illegal might not have made any difference. The MSM had the ability at that point to completely control the basis of the public discourse. In the current situation with "alternate media" being a real factor, the situation MAY be quite different.

Of course, all of this is, as we agree, subject to the fact that its based on a LOT of inference. The actual facts when they come out may greatly change the situation.

[Ralph Tacoma]

Another interesting point that we've skated over is that the original "feeding frenzy" was the result of NOVAK'S COLUMN. So far, I've seen no FACTS that establish that "Cooper's Source" was the same as Novak's Source.

What we're seeing is a "oh boy, we can get Rove" pheonomenon. Cooper got deep background information that was intended to provide understanding of why there might be reason to question Wilson's claims. The media gets leaks that clearly involve classified material quire frequently, and they offer no protest about how "those people have betrayed the trust of the American people."

Cooper's contacts with Rove, did NOT result in the public "outing" of a covert operative.

The media is all in feeding frenzy mode because of a chance ot "get Rove," but so far we have no DATA that shows that Rove was the source of the information in Novak's article.

We're forgetting that the alleged crime was based on Novak's article. PERHAPS Rove was a source for that, perhaps not, once again, we don't KNOW the FACTS. That's why the prosecutor is at work.

[Martin]

From th eAP wire: "President Bush, at an Oval Office photo opportunity Tuesday, was asked directly whether he would fire Rove — in keeping with a pledge in June, 2004, to dismiss any leakers in the case. The president did not respond."

So is that good or bad for Rove?

I agree that Rove is not going anywhere unless it's in handcuffs, but, really, when the Boss(or key employee, ymmv) won't even say one word in your defense, it makes you wonder.

[Nash]

I concur with this:

Of course, all of this is, as we agree, subject to the fact that its based on a LOT of inference. The actual facts when they come out may greatly change the situation.

But this talking point is irrational to everyone except, apparently, those who use it:

In the "Old Days," as recently as 2000, I'd agree completely with your suggestion that whether or not what he did was actually illegal might not have made any difference. The MSM had the ability at that point to completely control the basis of the public discourse..

How anyone "framed" it before is relevant to you, but not most others, I would suspect.

[kim]

Has Joe ever had a satisfactory explanation for anything?

One wonders now about the episode that made his name, defying Saddam a decade and a half ago. Has that also been Munchaused?
============================

[Manford]

Regarding the Wilson bio,
where exactly does it read "He is married to the former Valerie Plame, who is currently an undercover operative for the CIA, and has two daughters"? What does his old bio have to do with any of this?
Hello!?..

Manford

[gt]

IF the fact that Valerie Plame was Joe Wilson's wife, and that she worked for the CIA, were well known, then there was, in truth, "no leaking" of classified information.

Yes, of course. But there is currently no evidence showing that Plame's job status was well known.

[kim]

Well, her status apparently wasn't known to Rove. The journalists, on the other hand, apparently knew. We'll not likely pin down why the journalists knew, so some can always claim 'outing'. Truth and justice, however, lie elsewhere; let's see if Filtzgerald is as advertised.
==============================

[kim]

The prosecutor's overlying mandate is to see that justice is done. This whole sick farce is a creation of Joe Wilson's deluded mind, or of more insidious forces behind him.

Ask most any Iraqi. Or perhaps check with the Master of the Bazaar.
================================

[Martin]

Kim-you are so off the wall, delusional, and misguided, I have to ask:

Are you Hugh Hewitt?

[Joe Mealyus]

Jeff: "That said, it appears that Wilson and Corn may have fallen into a trap set by the Bush administration in this regard."

JOM: "But surely Mr. Pincus would have noted that by now...."

I don't have a comment, I just like the extremes of credulity.

[peapies]

fyi...just watched day two of the McClellan press grill. Let me just say that the whiney, persistent, self-important one-track questioning by the "press core" just a scant hour after the Scotland Yard announcement (i.e. REAL NEWS) did them no favors. Even the moderate or casual observer is left wondering why the press these days even draw a paycheck.

[kim]

Touche.

However, I'm vastly complimented. Sadly, 'tis true I could be wrong, but if wishes were horses, Joe Wilson would march frogs.
===============================

[Jeff]

Joe Mealyus - You don't know how to read. So I'll leave it alone.

I've got a question that TM probably knows the answer to as well as anyone: Is the basis for the idea that Clifford May told us that Valerie Plame's job was well-known in DC his comment in NRO Online of September 29, 2003 that

"On July 14, Robert Novak wrote a column in the Post and other newspapers naming Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative.

That wasn't news to me. I had been told that — but not by anyone working in the White House. Rather, I learned it from someone who formerly worked in the government and he mentioned it in an offhand manner, leading me to infer it was something that insiders were well aware of."
http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200309291022.asp
?
If this is the basis, then it seems to me there's a pretty good chance the conventional wisdom that Plame's status was well-known is not true, given what we now know about the way the White House performed the pushback against Wilson and Plame. Or more precisely, it becomes really important to know when May got this information, to say nothing of whom he got it from. It seems to me there's a good possibility it was part of the concerted effort to push back, rather than evidence of the essentially public nature of knowledge of Plame's work.

[kim]

There is circularity. Wilson's attack was predicated on knowledge of 'classified' information. He can be challenged about his source. What did V tell J? Inquiring minds want to know.
============================

[kim]

Joe Wilson's ability to gather the truth together into a coherent presentation is commensurate with his ability to herd cats, or march frogs.

Be kind to your web suited friends.
That new source might be somebody's uncle.
Don't tell what you know anywho.
Because, for else,
You'll be sorry.
We'll yap, what we say neen't be,
What is what, rather just what we wish for.
You watch, you will see, we'll get Rove.
And Val and Joe will jump, and call it macaroni.
===============================
============================