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

[ed]

Hmmm.

"Whatever Wilson did or did not do, there is little doubt now that Rove was leaking from inside the White House"

YEAH! Cause when a campaign advisor is called on the phone by a journalist he should ever talk to him!

Impeach Rove now!
Hang him!
Send him to Gitmo!
Give him a coupon to Chuck-E-Cheese!

You know, in case this hasn't become rather obvious, endlessly repeating the same nonsense doesn't make it true.

But hey, keep trying. It's been working pretty well for you so far. I mean with that amazing succes in taking down that strongman of the GOP, Guckert.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'the pronoun did not bark'

Exactly. 'The analyst said' is awkward, it screams; 'she'.

[kim]

It only would have worked if he had initially used 'she' then followed with the disclaimer.

That is so, but probably distressing to some because of the one-way nature of the rhetorical trick. Now, was his use deliberate or not? Was he drawing attention to someone, or was he merely muddying waters? Well, given that he hasn't been all that forthcoming, probably, it's just obfuscation.
So, it can be ignored. Maybe.
==============================

[Rider]

Memo to President:

Get Karl "Can We Talk?" Rove away from classified information YESTERDAY.