"The Story Caused A Stir"

John Dickerson of TIME, writing in Slate, tells us that Karl Rove's story about Matt Cooper and the missing email does not make sense - it is simply implausible that Rove could have forgotten this.  (By the way, folks with a better memory than Karl's will recall that Mr. Dickerson had a byline on the July 2003 TIME story that made Matt Cooper famous.)

As to what does or does not make sense, let's pick out a few details from Mr. Dickerson's effort.  Here is his theme:

But wouldn't a man [such as Rove] who has such a busy life filled with so many distractions have been extra careful to examine his memory and his files when the question of who revealed the identity of Joe Wilson's wife started to become an issue? Lots of important people in Washington were asking, and some of them had subpoena power.

You tell me.  Here is his first point:

The first time Rove must have considered the question of whether he'd talked about Joe Wilson and his wife was on July 14, 2003, just three days after he spoke to Cooper. That's when a story appeared by Bob Novak (no relation to Viveca) revealing that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. A source close to Rove confirmed to me the widely held speculation that Rove was one of Novak's sources. The story caused a stir because it was a tantalizing new detail in the ongoing White House effort to undermine Wilson's report.

Emphasis added.  First, although the story was published on July 14, it went out on the AP wires on Friday, July 11, the same day Rove spoke to Cooper.  Secondly, Rove spoke to Cooper just before leaving on vacation, so he may have missed the July 14 plot twists.

But in any case, the story caused such a stir that there were no questions about it at the White House press briefings for July 14, 15, and 16 (I quit looking there, but feel free to join in.)

And you will have to trust me on this (or see this contemporaneous UPDATE, or the Washington Monthly, or the Free Republic), but when TIME originally published their web-site only story by Cooper, Dickerson, et al, they said this:

Some government officials, noting that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

By July 22, TIME was so swept up in the "stir" caused by Novak that they amended their story slightly with a parenthetical insertion:

And some government officials have noted to TIME in interviews, (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

If Novak created a stir on July 14, it took a while to reach either the White House briefing room or TIME magazine.

Mr. Dickerson also manages to amuse with this:

Rove's conversation with Cooper hadn't been a negligible interaction in his own mind. It was important enough that he wrote an e-mail message about it. "Matt Cooper called to give me a heads-up that he's got a welfare reform story coming," Rove wrote Stephen J. Hadley, who has since risen to become Bush's national security adviser. "When he finished his brief heads-up he immediately launched into Niger. Isn't this damaging? Hasn't the president been hurt? I didn't take the bait, but I said if I were him I wouldn't get Time far out in front on this."

Mightn't Rove at least have checked to see if the country's top newsmagazine took his advice or not about treating Wilson seriously? (In fact, it didn't. Wilson's claims led to a cover story, but the piece did not say anything about Wilson's wife.)

So let's see - Rove talks to Cooper and mentions Wilson's wife.  That detail is not repeated in the Time cover story, but only runs at the TIME website.  And therefore, the conversation with Cooper should be burned into Rove's brain while he is away on vacation and missing all of this?

Well, the DoJ also forgot to ask about Cooper in their original document request in Sept 2003, so forgetting Matt Cooper seems to have been easy to do.  Left unmentioned [See Note!] in this story is that Matt Cooper had been on TIME's Washington desk only a few weeks, and this was one of his first chats with Karl Rove.  That might make it more memorable for Cooper, but it may have had the opposite effect on Rove.

NOTE:  Ahh, left unmentioned except where he mentions it:

Rove can't reasonably be expected to remember conversations that may have had no special relevance in his mind at the time they took place with a reporter he was talking to for the first time.

OK, a Lewis Libby moment for me.  Unstaged, too.

MORE:  Posting may be a bit cryptic today - I can get into my hosting service at Typepad, but I cannot get my site to load, so I am not at all sure what the rest of you are seeing.  However, I see from the comments and traffic that some folks are getting in to something - very odd.

Comments

[BurkettHead]

That's where I lost my motivation on the Espionage Act. It hasn't seemed worth the effort & doesn't seem relevant at this point. Not that IIPA is even relevant anymore.

[clarice]

Neither are. And Fitz' actions shows that--still he knew to sound sane he had to pretend some elements were there--harm to national security, tap dance about "classified". Still he can't pull that before a real judge and jury , and I wouldn't be surprised if they think he's a bit off his rocker. I sure do.

[Specter]

Burketthead,

The problem with Title 50 implications is this. The term "covert agent" doesn't fit Plame and hasn't since she was moved back to the States after Aldridge Ames supposedly "outed" her to the Soviet Union. Here is the section:

United States Code, Title 50, Chapter 15, Section 426 - Definitions

(4) The term ''covert agent'' means -
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency -
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or
(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and -
(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or
(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or
(C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational
assistance to, an intelligence agency.

[BurkettHead]

Some investigation when the easiest charges are lying, perjury & obstruction of justice, isn't it?

Fitz knew to avoid the term "covert."

Specter - It was my understanding that Syl said that IIPA would only apply to "officials," not civillians & clarice asked about the specific language in IIPA & the Espionage Act. I agree - there are a number of reasons IIPA doesn't apply to these facts.

"Outing" Pflame. Disclosing ship movements & the locations of submarines. Compare & contrast. An interesting exercise, which I'll leave for others.

[boris]

Syl,

With crypto there is no such thing as "secure by reason of official assertion". It would be flat out dangerous to play postmodern language games like that. Agree?

The fact that criteria for evaluating classification exists means it has to ultimately trump official assertion or else similar risk to national security would develop. Not to mention all the other bad government behaviors listed in cathy's 1:55PM post.

[Bill in AZ]

Fitz's "classified" is just noise. My status with a large computer company is "classified" depending on who's asking. Not sure what he ever intended to acomplish with this other than to obfuscate.

[noah]

Its gratifying that the so-called wingnuts are coalescing around my position...but I remain confused...oh dear.

Help me Lord and Merry Christmas and I pray for no Fitzmas!

[Syl]

Clarice

I did not say the IIPA applied. I didn't see fitz prosecuting per the Espionage Act either. That's not the point.

All I'm saying is that the information was classified and trying to assert it was not classified is wrong.

[Syl]

boris

No the postmodern games are being played by you in your decision to assert that Val's affiliation with the CIA is not classified.

Cathy is playing games too because she has decided the information meets the criteria not to be classified. It's not her call.

If the IIPA does not apply, and we're pretty much in agreement that it does not, then 'outing' Val is not an issue and all that's left is officials revealing classified info.

But fitz isn't doing that either. He figures he can't get someone for bank robbery but he can get him for jaywalking as he leaves the scene of the crime.

I don't like it. But arguing that the info was not classified will get nowhere with fitz because the info was classified and it's the responsibility of the leakers to know that. Leave those arguments for a jury to mull over that's where they belong.

[BurkettHead]

Syl said: "Leave those arguments for a jury to mull over that's where they belong."

Isn't that why we all spend so much time here? Wouldn't be much to these comments if we just threw up our hands everytime we came up with a quetion of fact (for the jury) or a question of law (for the judge).

Is it the Full Moon? Are we (including myself!) getting testy around here?

[BurkettHead]

Too many clouds. Couldn't get any good photos of the Moon tonight.

[Syl]

Burketthead

We can argue all we want about anything, but arguing that fitz shouldn't be investigating is useless especially if we make up stuff like the info wasn't classified.

[Cheez-Wiz]

Noah-nothing, you saw me posting at DailyKos?

I'll be damned-someone's spoofing me!?