Rove fired from Bush Sr’s ’92 campaign over leak to Novak. Karl Rove was fired from the 1992 re-election campaign of Bush Sr. for allegedly leaking a negative story about Bush loyalist/fundraiser Robert Mosbacher to Novak. Novak’s piece described a meeting organized by then-Senator Phil Gramm at which Mosbacher was relieved of his duties as state campaign manager because “the president’s re-election effort in Texas has been a bust.” Rove was fired after Mosbacher fingered him as Novak’s source.
{ 9 comments }
jtthomps 07.12.05 at 12:38 pm
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Wilson’s marriage to Plame was a matter of public record. Thus, Rove’s revelation of Wilson’s wife as a covert operative and the root of his assignment to Niger amounts to an “outing”? N’est-ce pas?
Uncle Kvetch 07.12.05 at 1:00 pm
I wish I could get caught up in all the Schadenfreude on the left over Rove’s current unpleasantness, I really do. But when all is said and done, I think I have to agree with Marshall Wittmann (something that doesn’t happen every day, to say the least): Bush firing Rove “would be like Charlie McCarthy firing Edgar Bergen.”
Short of a criminal indictment, Rove’s not going anywhere. And whatever scandal erupts in the next couple of months, it will be all but forgotten by this time next year.
I’d love to be wrong about this, of course.
Nash 07.12.05 at 1:10 pm
You asked to be corrected if you were wrong.
You are wrong.
1. Wilson marriage to Plame public knowledge.
2. Plame works for CIA at Langley known by some, apparently Ms. Toensing and Mr. and Mrs. Andrea Mitchell at the least
3. Plame maintained as NOC by CIA.
There is no logical causative link between the first and second of those statements being true and the third being made public knowledge. #3 required an affirmative action by one or more people to enter the public record.
Put simply, 1 and 2 don’t make 3 in this case.
You should report back, though, to rightwing talking point central and collect your fee.
Ted 07.12.05 at 1:36 pm
If I pointed to a blond woman in 2001 and said, “That’s Joe Wilson’s wife,” I haven’t revealed anything. That’s what Wilson’s bio did.
If I pointed to a blond woman and said, “That’s Joe Wilson’s wife. She doesn’t really work for an energy consulting company; she works on WMDs for the CIA,” I’ve revealed something rather crucial. That’s what Rove did.
Is that any clearer?
Brian 07.12.05 at 1:59 pm
It’s hard to imagine the first comment could be further from being correct. If it *wasn’t* a matter of public record who Joe Wilson was married to, then saying Joe Wilson’s wife is a CIA agent possibly wouldn’t amount to outing anyone. (Compare: saying the shortest spy is a spy doesn’t out anyone, even the shortest spy, because we can’t find out who that is.) It is because it is public record that Wilson’s wife is Plame that saying something about “Wilson’s wife” is a way of saying something about Plame.
jtthomps 07.12.05 at 2:21 pm
Everyone’s marriage partner is a matter of public record as such…
jtthomps 07.12.05 at 2:23 pm
that’s my point… you mistook me for a troll…
Matt Weiner 07.12.05 at 2:54 pm
Right, jjthomps’ first comment amounts to “If Rove said ‘Joe Wilson’s wife is a covert CIA agent’, he outed her.” We all I think agree. If Rove had said, “The person who assigned Wilson to go to Niger was a covert CIA agent” it wouldn’t have been an outing, because it wasn’t a matter of public record who assigned Wilson to go to Niger.
Brian 07.12.05 at 11:08 pm
Ah, my bad. I apologise for the misreading.
Comments on this entry are closed.