Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
One Leak and a Flood of Silliness
By David S. Broder
Thursday, September 7, 2006; A27
Conspiracy theories flourish in politics, and most of them have no more basis than spring training hopes for the Chicago Cubs.
Whenever things turn dicey for Republicans, they complain about the "liberal media" sabotaging them. And when Democrats get in a jam, they take up Hillary Clinton's warnings about a "vast right-wing conspiracy."
For much of the past five years, dark suspicions have been voiced about the Bush White House undermining its critics, and Karl Rove has been fingered as the chief culprit in this supposed plot to suppress the opposition.
Now at least one count in that indictment has been substantially weakened -- the charge that Rove masterminded a conspiracy to discredit Iraq intelligence critic Joseph Wilson by "outing" his CIA-operative wife, Valerie Plame.
I have written almost nothing about the Wilson-Plame case, because it seemed overblown to me from the start. Wilson's claim in a New York Times op-ed about his memo on the supposed Iraqi purchase of uranium yellowcake from Niger; the Robert D. Novak column naming Plame as the person who had recommended Wilson to check up on the reported sale; the call for a special prosecutor and the lengthy interrogation that led to the jailing of Judith Miller of the New York Times and the deposition of several other reporters; and, finally, the indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff -- all of this struck me as being a tempest in a teapot.
No one behaved well in the whole mess -- not Wilson, not Libby, not special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and not the reporters involved.
The only time I commented on the case was to caution reporters who offered bold First Amendment defenses for keeping their sources' names secret that they had better examine the motivations of the people leaking the information to be sure they deserve protection.
But caution has been notably lacking in some of the press treatment of this subject -- especially when it comes to Karl Rove. And it behooves us in the media to examine that behavior, not just sweep it under the rug.
Sidney Blumenthal, a former aide to President Bill Clinton and now a columnist for several publications, has just published a book titled, "How Bush Rules: Chronicles of a Radical Regime." It is a collection of his columns for Salon, including one originally published on July 14, 2005, titled "Rove's War."
It was occasioned by the disclosure of a memo from Time magazine's Matt Cooper, saying that Rove had confirmed to him the identity of Valerie Plame. To Blumenthal, that was proof that this "was political payback against Wilson by a White House that wanted to shift the public focus from the Iraq War to Wilson's motives."
Then Blumenthal went off on a rant: "While the White House stonewalls, Rove has license to run his own damage control operation. His surrogates argue that if Rove did anything, it wasn't a crime. . . . Rove is fighting his war as though it will be settled in a court of Washington pundits. Brandishing his formidable political weapons, he seeks to demonstrate his prowess once again. His corps of agents raises a din in which their voices drown out individual dissidents. His frantic massing of forces dominates the capital by winning the communications battle. Indeed, Rove may succeed momentarily in quelling the storm. But the stillness may be illusory. Before the prosecutor, Rove's arsenal is useless."
In fact, the prosecutor concluded that there was no crime; hence, no indictment. And we now know that the original "leak," in casual conversations with reporters Novak and Bob Woodward, came not from the conspiracy theorists' target in the White House but from the deputy secretary of state at the time, Richard Armitage, an esteemed member of the Washington establishment and no pal of Rove or President Bush.
Blumenthal's example is far from unique. Newsweek, in a July 25, 2005, cover story on Rove, after dutifully noting that Rove's lawyer said the prosecutor had told him that Rove was not a target of the investigation, added: "But this isn't just about the Facts, it's about what Rove's foes regard as a higher Truth: That he is a one-man epicenter of a narrative of Evil."
And in the American Prospect's cover story for August 2005, Joe Conason wrote that Rove "is a powerful bully. Fear of retribution has stifled those who might have revealed his secrets. He has enjoyed the impunity of a malefactor who could always claim, however implausibly, deniability -- until now."
These and other publications owe Karl Rove an apology. And all of journalism needs to relearn the lesson: Can the conspiracy theories and stick to the facts.
From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/09/06/AR2006090601648_pf.html
I don't owe Rove anything. If anything, he owes us for all the evil things he does to win elections.
.....The problem with politics these days is that we are beginning to hate our political opponents. We forget that Barry Goldwater was good friends with John F. Kennedy and Walter Mondale. It's about debate, not hatred. I think both sides of the debate have seem to forget that recently, especially the Left in this country.
I don't owe Rove anything. If anything, he owes us for all the evil things he does to win elections.
The reason for this is that the Liberals have lost the war on ideas to the conservatives. Their movement was born in the 1960's by throwing out all traditions and conventions; a youthful rebellion against their parents. Well it turns out their parents were right after all, but this group has invested so much time and energy into their movement that it is too late to turn back for most of them. Since they threw out the tradition of "honor" they cannot lose gracefully. So their voice become louder and more shrill as their movement dies. The nail in the coffin will be when the students of this movement figure out that they have been lied to- and in return rebel against it. We already see this happening with a rise in conservatism in college campuses.
Frow WW2 we have The Greatest Generation. From the 60's we have The Loser Generation.
There's a new book out now named "Hubris" by Newsweek's Michael Isikoff and The Nation's David Corn, anything but a flattering view of the Bush administration. "Hubris" completely unravels the entire idea that there was a broad institutional conspiracy to "out" putative CIA agent Valarie Plame Wilson for political reasons.
Chris Matthews who did nothing else but smear the Bush administration over this "plot" to destroy a CIA "operative"; has ignored the story since the truth came out
Matthews to NewsBusters: Plame Story Too Complicated to Cover Now
Posted by Matthew Sheffield on September 8, 2006 - 12:00.
Since the revelation that Richard Armitage, a former high-ranking official in the State Department, was the source of the much-ballyhooed Valerie Plame "leak," many in the media have refused to touch the story with a ten-foot pole. This was quite a turnaround since before the Armitage involvement was known, many journalists believed the CIA leak story was one worth pursuing on a daily basis. Some even believed it could bring down the Bush White House, or at least end the careers of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.
One of the biggest media figures boycotting the Plame story has been MSNBC host Chris Matthews, who has yet to mention the scandal at all since the Armitage report broke, a dramatic contrast to the 27 times he mentioned the "scandal" in the five months leading up to it.
Like P.J. Gladnick, I couldn't help but notice Matthews's strange flip. So I decided to ask him about it. His answer revealed an animus toward Vice President Dick Cheney and a fear of being asked to answer tough questions himself.
Last night, I went to a press conference/party held by MSNBC and National Journal celebrating a new venture the two media outlets are launching together. Quite a few NBCers were there, including Chris Matthews. I struck up a conversation with the host about the topic of Plame and why he hadn't talked about the story at all. Here's a rough transcript of our discussion which I wrote down shortly thereafter:
Q: So I've noticed you haven't done anything on the whole Valerie Plame story since the Armitage story broke. Why not invite Joe Wilson on the show to defend himself?
A: Because he'd say basically the same thing he always says. 'My wife had no involvement in getting me the mission.' He'd just repeat it over and over.
Q: Maybe, but isn't it at least worth showing your viewers that this guy has no credibility considering how much you talked about the story before? Shouldn't he be held accountable for wasting all our time? Why not invite one of his representatives or defenders on the show?
A: Well, the story's just gotten so complicated. I mean, it's just such a mess. Because what if it's true that Armitage was the source, but those other guys [presumably Rove and Scooter Libby], also were leakers, what then?
Q: Isn't that a question worth exploring on your show?
A: It could be but the problem is that Dick Cheney has so many apologists it's ridiculous. So many journalists like Bob Woodward will say or do anything just to get access to him. And then all the people in the administration too.
Q: I don't see why this is stopping you from mentioning the story at all. The viewers at least need some sort of closure don't they?
A: Hey listen I need to get out of here. I have to get back home.
After that remark, Matthews left the conversation. He stuck around for about 15 minutes before leaving.
Update 16:29. Nathan Goulding: "Now that there isn't a story, Matthews drops it not because it's a non-story, but because it's too confusing. In reality, it couldn't be any simpler. Richard Armitage told Robert Novak. Rove confirmed this to Novak. There was no conspiracy to 'punish' a Bush critic only an effort to refute his lies. What's so 'complicated' about that?"
Update 23:12. On Friday's edition of "Hardball," Matthews, prompted by this post being picked up by the Drudge Report, ended his boycott of the Plame story with a strange conspiracy theory: Armitage was set up to be a patsy by Bush White House staff because they "knew he was a blabbermouth."
Matthews posed his bizarre idea to Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff and Nation writer David Corn. Isikoff flatly denied it.
MATTHEWS: You guys broke the story that the real leaker in the CIA leak case was Richard Armitage. Michael?
ISIKOFF: Correct, and it's, you know, it was one of the ironies of the Plame investigation that the guy who was the primary source for Novak, who was the primary source, and it was the sole source for Bob Woodward, was a member of the administration's moderate cell who actually had misgivings about march to war--
MATTHEWS: Do you think he might have been used by the people like Scooter, they put it in front of him knowing he was a blabbermouth?
ISIKOFF: No.
http://newsbusters.org/node/7482
My God - Chris Mathews has gone completely around the bend. How can this man continue to draw a paycheck? He's INSANE!!! He must see Bush conspiracies in his breakfast cereal!
Given the way Karl Rove has abused the power of the media with his use of push polls and whisper campaigns over the years, he deserves nothing.
As opposed to the democrats who have been nothing but ethical and above board in all the campaigns they have entered ? You're eye deep in liberal bullshit, bully. Save yourself.
