Playing the Plame game - Rove did it
This will bear watching very closely:
MSNBC Analyst Says Cooper Documents Reveal Karl Rove as Source in Plame Case
Now that Time Inc. has turned over documents to federal court, presumably revealing who its reporter, Matt Cooper, identified as his source in the Valerie Plame/CIA case, speculation runs rampant on the name of that source, and what might happen to him or her. Friday night, on the syndicated McLaughlin Group political talk show, Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, claimed to know that name--and it is, according to him, top White House mastermind Karl Rove.
If this is true - will anyone honestly be surprised?
posted by Chris Dykstra @ 1:55 PM |
| 
7 Comments:
If it's Rove, will anyone be surprised?
Hell, yeah. If Lawrence O'Donnell says it, it's probably a carefully calculated lie. O'Donnell is the Dems' front man for dirty tricks, sent out to pre-empt problems by burying the messengers in BS (which the media gobbles up, natch).
O'Donnell is playing to the media and the bought-and-paid-for, and the people who are dumb enough to believe anything they read on Kos. Pardon the triple redundancy.
I would be surprised.
The longer things go with no one confirming Larry's story the less likely it seems.
I gotta tell you, rallying around Larry here, may not be your best move.
-Censored
Nobody is rallying around Larry. I just don't see a reason to shoot the messenger. Note the "If" at the beginning of the last sentence.
Given the utter cynical duplicity permeating Rove's career, the Plame leak and/or ensuing perjury seems pretty much in character.
But that's really beside the point isn't it? Somebody treasonsly exposed an under cover CIA operative. If it turns out to be Rove that did the dirty deed, are you prepared to place patriotism above party loyalty?
I would be surprised. I don't like Rove for obvious reasons, but I would have thought him smart enough to get others to do his dirty work.
True, Smartie.
I guess they aren't going after him for the actual leak, but for perjury, which I think is less surprising.
It depends what you mean Chris.
If it turns out one reporters notes that were delivered after long notice of the interest implicate Rove, then no - I'm not willing to accept the word of a reporter. Especially one that would share info with Meltdown O'Donnell.
On the other hand, if there is a real criminal investigation and Rove is tried and convicted, then yeah, abosolutely he should be sentenced in accordance with the law.
-Censored
See Michael Isikoff's story today. "What Karl Rove told Time magazine's reporter"
"Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip."
So per Rove, not only didn't he give her name up, she wasn't even working as an intel agent at the time. (And being married to a diplomat wouldn't be again.) The crime would be giving up a covert agent which she wasn't and wouldn't be again.
Well, there's definetly hair spliting going on unless he's got more than one wife, effectively she was outed by Rove.
The question then, was she covert? Apparently she thinks so, but also appears she might be doing some butt covering after she sent he hubby an a "fact-finding mission" without any other authorization.
Either way, it was Rove, but certainly the plot has thickened and its not a cut and dried situation.
-Censored
Post a Comment
<< Home