Karl Rove's Saving Grace: Joe Wilson

[Bonnie]

Joel Mowbray

July 18, 2005

The virtual vigilantes circling Karl Rove have everything lined up for the brand of justice they see fit for “the Architect”: public humiliation, all-out character assassination, firing, near-fatal damage to the White House, and if they get the cherry on top, “frog-marching” the President’s closest advisor from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to a federal prison.

There’s just one hitch: their entire political case rests on the quicksand known as Joe Wilson.

As part of the cynical campaign to destroy the man who guided Bush to four straight electoral victories, the Left has hailed Wilson as a hero. At first blush, the idiocy of exalting the man with a well-documented credibility problem would seem to rival the decision to roll the cameras as Dukakis gave the thumbs-up while riding in a tank.

But the Left’s entire rationale for the “Fire Rove” tidal wave is that revealing Valerie Plame’s status as a CIA employee was nothing more than a “shameful,” “despicable,” and “disturbing” act of “retaliation,” “retribution,” or “revenge.” If they admitted that Wilson layered lies upon lies, then logic dictates that Rove did no more than encourage a reporter not to be hoodwinked.

Which helps explain why New Republic editor Peter Beinart, who is neither a peacenik nor blinded by Bush hatred, appeared incredulous when I pointed out in our CNN debate last Wednesday that Joe Wilson was not exactly credible. “Joe Wilson is not the one with a credibility problem here,” he snapped.

Though—as left-wing blogger Josh Marshall has noted ad nauseum—Wilson didn’t directly say that he was sent by the Vice-President’s office, the implication couldn’t have been clearer. “The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer,” Wilson wrote in his now-infamous New York Times op-ed.

Thus, the defense of Wilson’s credibility boils down to skilled parsing: he didn’t say that Cheney’s office sent him, he only implied it. Sounds an awful lot like the semantic acrobatics of which Wilson’s defenders accuse Rove’s supporters being guilty.

Even if you give Wilson the benefit of the doubt on that count, though, the career diplomat still has not been on speaking terms with the truth.

Just over one year ago, the man married to the retired CIA operative formerly known as Valerie Plame was exposed as an opportunist who lied at almost every turn in an audacious bid to grab his 15 minutes—and a seven-figure book deal.

He was outed not by Rove, the White House, or some right-wing outfit, but by the bipartisan Senate Select Intelligence Committee.

According to the report, Plame “offered up” the services of her husband. She believed that intelligence surrounding Niger and yellowcake was bogus—she called it a “crazy report”—making it highly likely that her husband went there looking to confirm that conclusion. He did.

Or did he? The bipartisan conclusion of the committee was that Wilson's findings, if anything, served to support the belief that Saddam was actively seeking uranium for a nuclear program.

But Wilson revealed himself as the headline whore he is by grabbing the spotlight when the story first emerged about Niger and forged documents purporting to show illicit sales to Saddam. From the July 10, 2004 Washington Post:

He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because “the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.”

“Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the ‘dates were wrong and the names were wrong’ when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports,” the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have “misspoken” to reporters. The documents—purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq—were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

Obviously, Wilson’s apologists don’t much like the bipartisan report.

Retired CIA officer Larry Johnson, who entered the agency in the same class as Plame, attacked the bipartisan report as “biased.” Marshall, despite being one the Left’s best bloggers, went one step further in writing that it was filled with “disinformtation.”

Wilson, for his part, pandered to the stupid and/or willingly blind—his base—by denying that his wife’s letter had anything to do with his trip to Niger. “I don’t see it as a recommendation to send me,” he said about his wife’s memo. Never mind that the day after she sent it came the cable to an officer overseas that set the whole thing in motion.

While Wilson’s penchant for prevarication does not put Rove in the clear legally if, as it does not yet appear, he actually knew that Plame was undercover before he talked to Bob Novak and Time’s Matt Cooper.

Each piece of evidence that trickles out, however, suggests just the opposite. Today’s New York Times reports that Novak testified that he called Rove—just as Cooper had—and that Rove did not give any indication that Plame was undercover. The Times further reports that Novak testified Bush’s right-hand man was merely his second source. If true, this explodes the Left’s theory that Rove was shopping the story for any willing taker. It also adds credence to the likelihood that he had no clue Plame’s status at the CIA.

Rove’s warning to Cooper, as Newsweek reported, not to “get too far out” on Wilson’s Niger claims was, with hindsight, absolutely correct. And it helped expose the shaky credibility of the man who was attempting to snooker the American public.

Which brings us back to the fundamental problem faced by the “get Rove” crowd: they need Wilson to be credible. He’s not. That’s all Rove was pointing out to Cooper—and only after the Time reporter asked him about it.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/joelmowbray/printjm20050718.shtml

 

[dilloduck]

Joel Mowbray

July 18, 2005





http://www.townhall.com/columnists/joelmowbray/printjm20050718.shtml

Novak and half of DC knew about Valerie Plames' connection with the CIA before Rove even opened his mouth. Why isn't anyone trying to find the ORIGINAL source of the leak. This isn't merely a rush to judgement--it's a rush to conviction.

 

[Bonnie]

Novak and half of DC knew about Valerie Plames' connection with the CIA before Rove even opened his mouth. Why isn't anyone trying to find the ORIGINAL source of the leak. This isn't merely a rush to judgement--it's a rush to conviction.

Valerie Plame herself talked about her job at coctail parties.

My guess is jealousy and pick Bush's people off one at a time. You know, shoot at anything that moves and you will hit something eventually, doens't hurt that the MSM is frothing at the mouth to "help out"

 

[Adam's Apple]

Great article! Great points made. I loved it. Sorry the board won't let me rep you for bringing it to our attention, or I certainly would.

As a follow-up to what Dillo said, Washington is a small gossipy town in many ways, and everyone know everyone and what they do. The Dems are back at that game they play best--trying to fool the masses.

 

[Bonnie]

Great article! Great points made. I loved it. Sorry the board won't let me rep you for bringing it to our attention, or I certainly would.

As a follow-up to what Dillo said, Washington is a small gossipy town in many ways, and everyone know everyone and what they do. The Dems are back at that game they play best--trying to fool the masses.

Tonight on Fox Britt Hume will be doing an in depth report regarding this, and the question about Novak will be raised as well.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Thanks for the tip. I'll be sure to watch.

 

[nakedemperor]

It doesn't seem too likely to me that Novack would cite a "white house source" if all that source did was say "I also heard that Plame was a CIA operative, not from an administration official, but from another journalist". Novack isn't dumb enough to cite someone who essentially says "this is a rumor I've also heard". Moreover, Rove emailed then-deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley about the conversation he'd had with Matt Cooper, saying he 'didn't take the bait' (that is to say, didn't comment on the validity of Joe Wilson's report that the White House had used false evidence to support the Niger Yellowcake line in the State of the Union Address. At any rate, the fact that Rove was in contact with other high-level administration officials about Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame makes it a more than safe bet that he knew damn well, at some point, about Plame's undercover status (making ANY subsequent discussion of her CIA involvement a federal offense).

To think Rove is completely innoncent, you have to believe that Rove had all these conversations with journalists about Wilson's wife being a CIA employee, and then, over a course of several days during which he was heavily active in the White House's mad scramble to brief Condi, Rummy et al with a Top-Secret binder about Wilson, never asked anyone in the government whether what the journalists were telling him was true. I mean, maybe he didn't, but the safer bet is obviously that he did.

Also, anyone see the irony in that during this whole thing about Rove potentially having divulged top-secret information to the press, Condi Rice was being coached on how to address the Wilson project on the Sunday talk shows with a *top secret* classified assortment of documents (that Rove could NEVER have seen if he is actually innocent)?

 

[manu1959]

Novak and half of DC knew about Valerie Plames' connection with the CIA before Rove even opened his mouth. Why isn't anyone trying to find the ORIGINAL source of the leak. This isn't merely a rush to judgement--it's a rush to conviction.

bump

 

[Gabriella84]

Rove has no "saving grace." He is fried. Right now, he is twisting in the wind. The Bush Administration just needs someone to take the fall for him.

And the next time there is a two-sided "debate" on the Fox Network will be the first time.

 

[manu1959]

And the next time there is a two-sided "debate" on the Fox Network will be the first time.

they actually happen all the time.....it is just you all keep losing so you don't like to watch.....peronally i like CNN where they all sit there and agree with each other and talk about how smart they all are

 

[Bonnie]

they actually happen all the time.....it is just you all keep losing so you don't like to watch.....peronally i like CNN where they all sit there and agree with each other and talk about how smart they all are

Yes or those really fair debates with one Republican and 4 Democrats...

 

[manu1959]

Yes or those really fair debates with one Republican and 4 Democrats...

they still lose

 

[dilloduck]

Nearly EVERYONE now concedes that no crime was committed. The Dems are now simply trying to say that Bush is not a man of his word and if he wants to "regain" credibility ( like they would ever give him credit for that) he must fire Rove.

I'm afraid we are in for a detailed analysis of the word "LEAK". Talk about pissing up a rope !!

 

[Adam's Apple]

Not to change the topic here, but wonder where all those "rabid-about- national-security" Democrats were when Clinton and the DNC were wheeling and dealing (i.e., information and access for $$$$) with agents of the Chinese government during the last administration? I would say that was definitely more of a threat to our national security than the "outing" of a CIA staff member whose identity everyone living and working in Washington was well aware of. Does anyone remember seeing Chuck Schermer, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, etc. behind the microphones calling for the resignation of those responsible? Thought not.

This is all such a farce. You know darn well when Valerie Plame was informed that her cover had been blown and she could no longer work as a covert agent in the field, her husband knew she was no longer a covert agent at that same time. Yet, he insists on saying that she was a covert agent exposed by Robert Novak. If the Dems think the American public is really that dumb, they should get behind President Bush and try to do something about the status of education.

 

[Bonnie]

Not to change the topic here, but wonder where all those "rabid-about- national-security" Democrats were when Clinton and the DNC were wheeling and dealing (i.e., information and access for $$$$) with agents of the Chinese government during the last administration? I would say that was definitely more of a threat to our national security than the "outing" of a CIA staff member whose identity everyone living and working in Washington was well aware of. Does anyone remember seeing Chuck Schermer, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, etc. behind the microphones calling for the resignation of those responsible? Thought not.

This is all such a farce. You know darn well when Valerie Plame was informed that her cover had been blown and she could no longer work as a covert agent in the field, her husband knew she was no longer a covert agent at that same time. Yet, he insists on saying that she was a covert agent exposed by Robert Novak. If the Dems think the American public is really that dumb, they should get behind President Bush and try to do something about the status of education.

To take from kathianne's source

The Washington Times goes after the partisans still flogging the Rove-Plame connection in the face of all available evidence in its editorial today. The paper points out that the media has chased its own whistleblower while ignoring the corruption he pointed out:

Let's make it clear at the start: Were special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation to bring evidence to light that Karl Rove or anyone else in the Bush White House had anything to do with revealing the identity of any covert CIA agent, President Bush should fire them and they should be forced to face the full consequences of the law. But nothing in the public record thus far suggests that Mr. Rove or anyone else in the administration has committed such a violation in the case of Valerie Plame. Mrs. Plame is the former CIA agent who suggested that her husband, former diplomat Joseph Wilson, an opponent of Mr. Bush's Iraq policy, be dispatched to Africa in February 2002 to investigate whether Saddam Hussein had attempted to purchase "yellowcake" uranium from Niger.
What is known thus far suggests that:1) Mr. Wilson has misrepresented his wife's role in getting him the assignment and his own findings of his investigation in Niger; 2) In July 2003, when columnist Robert Novak first mentioned in passing that Mrs. Plame worked for the CIA, she was not functioning as a covert agent and her work for the CIA was common knowledge; and 3) That if there were-- against the public record -- a covert status to be exposed, it was possibly Mr. Wilson, with a speculative assist from David Corn, who writes for the Nation magazine.

Given what is known about Mr. Wilson and his veracity, it was almost surreal watching him interviewed on the "Today" show answering one softball question after another as he urged the president to fire Mr. Rove, and watching Mr. Wilson lionized as a purveyor of truth by Democrats like Sen. Charles Schumer in their effort to destroy the senior White House adviser. Last July, the Senate Intelligence Committee issued a report that calls into serious question virtually every substantive assertion Mr. Wilson made about his Niger trip.


The Times points out that although the media may ignore the Intelligence Committee now, it can't claim ignorance of its existence. They point to a 2004 Washington Post report by Susan Schmidt which clearly recognizes why the leaker may have spoken with Robert Novak:

The Post added that the committee's report "may bolster the rationale that administration provided the information not to intentionally expose an undercover CIA employee [purportedly Mrs.Plame], but to call into question Wilson's bona fides as an investigator into trafficking of weapons of mass destruction." And the report "also said that Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong.'"
Apparently the Washington Times, alone in the national media, bothers to check on the facts of this case. My column in tomorrow's Daily Standard will discuss this in further detail. In the meantime, as the Tims does, people should allow the special prosecutor to do his job and quit trying to make the thoroughly discredited Joe Wilson into a victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy. As the record makes clear to anyone who bothers to read it, Joe Wilson victimized the truth and the American public, not the other way around. One would think that media sources who set such store by truth and openness would reflect that in their reporting as well.

link

 

[Bonnie]

I]f there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of. . . . If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action.

http://powerlineblog.com/

 

[freeandfun1]

link

[URL=link]http://www.powerlineblog.com/[/URL]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=308026&postcount=6

Did you notice last night how CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, etc. all conveniently ignored that comment made by Bush months before the comment they were all citing. Amazing. Thank God for the Internet. At least this way IF (I know, that is a mighty big if...) people really want to know the truth, they can find it.

 

[freeandfun1]

link

[URL=link]http://www.powerlineblog.com/[/URL]

I think somebody hacked their blog... HERE is where the link it taking anybody that clicks on it...

 

[Bonnie]

I think somebody hacked their blog... HERE is where the link it taking anybody that clicks on it...

Fixed it..Try it now

 

[freeandfun1]

Fixed it..Try it now

ahaa... thanks! :cof: