Why is Karl Rove more appalling than Richard Nixon? There are actually any number of answers, but Kevin Drum has a good one.
by Ted on July 14, 2005
Why is Karl Rove more appalling than Richard Nixon? There are actually any number of answers, but Kevin Drum has a good one.
{ 17 comments }
Anthony 07.14.05 at 2:42 pm
I must admit I haven’t been following this very closely, and I am fairly unfamiliar with your system of law, but as I understand it, it is a legal offense to blow the cover a CIA agent.
In that case why isn’t he arrested? Is the evidence just not strong enough?
smiley 07.14.05 at 3:12 pm
Wilson or Rove, Nixon or Clinton: weasels all. It would be fitting to see all their heads on pikes. You lefties enjoy your moment of glee, then get down to the business of being a true opposition party instead of name-callers and obstructionists.
Jay Conner 07.14.05 at 3:24 pm
It would be a shame to lose Rove ! He could be such a wonderful symbol. Nobody reads “The Rime of the ANcient Mariner” anymore, and we so need a new meme for “Albatross”
Peter 07.14.05 at 4:10 pm
Anthony, it is quite illegal.
Link to the relevant statute:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/15/subchapters/iv/toc.html
Barry 07.14.05 at 4:58 pm
Anthony, the US at this point is not a one-party state, but it is getting closer. We are just far enough from being a one-party state that this crime, which of necessity involved the press having knowledge of it, is investigatable. Prosecution is still not certain. And as it is now, the GOP prosecutor investigating this case has probably destroyed any chance of a GOP political career. The GOP was probably hoping that he’d investigate, quietly and fruitlessly, until things cooled down.
One other thing to consider – it’s clear by now that 6 journalists knew that Rove committeda felony involving national security, but kept it quiet until after the election. Which is sorta strange, if the media actually *was* liberal.
Barry 07.14.05 at 5:00 pm
“Wilson or Rove, Nixon or Clinton: weasels all. It would be fitting to see all their heads on pikes. You lefties enjoy your moment of glee, then get down to the business of being a true opposition party instead of name-callers and obstructionists.”
Posted by smiley ·
Smiley, we’re just trying to learn from the GOP during the Clinton administration.
Sebastian Holsclaw 07.14.05 at 7:01 pm
Wow, I never knew that Kennedy was aware there was no missile gap and campaigned on it anyway. What’s up with that?
Robin 07.14.05 at 7:08 pm
This is a weird comparison. Nixon secretly bombed a neutral country. In trying to subvert the McGovern campaign he tried to undermine the the foundations of democratic contest.
Rove may be worse than Nixon, but it’ll take more than the Plame affair to demonstrate that.
shpa.ohfu 07.14.05 at 8:19 pm
You lefties enjoy your moment of glee, then get down to the business of being a true opposition party instead of name-callers and obstructionists.
Exhibit A of what’s gone terribly, terribly awry in American political life. People like this [and there are lots and lots of them] view the betrayal of an American agent during wartime as political gamesmanship rather than disgraceful misconduct that impacts legitimate security interests, as well as the personal interests of the people connected to the agent. For guys like this, it’s all about the party. National security means nothing. Lives and careers destroyed mean nothing. A phony war based on false pretenses means nothing.
Ugh.
Scott PM 07.14.05 at 8:39 pm
My understanding is that Rove didn’t (technically) commit a crime by leaking Plame if he didn’t have security clearance to know her covert status in the first place. If in fact he didn’t have this clearance, then the crime was committed by whoever told Rove, not Rove himself.
Am I mistaken?
Ginger Yellow 07.14.05 at 10:29 pm
“In trying to subvert the McGovern campaign he tried to undermine the the foundations of democratic contest.”
Rove’s never, done, that, no. Apart from in pretty much every single campaign he’s ever run, of course.
Brian 07.14.05 at 10:42 pm
Scott, it presumably depends on what statute you are looking at, since there are several laws you might break in divulging the identity of a secret agent, and they will have different exemptions and the like. As Mark Kleiman has noted, the most obvious law that seems to be broken is the Espionage Act, and for the purposes of that act it might well be that (a) whoever gave Rove the name committed a crime and (b) Rove also committed a crime by passing that name along.
bad Jim 07.15.05 at 2:19 am
Drum’s dubious point is that Nixon may have let Kennedy score a dubious point against the administration in which he served for the sake of preserving the secrecy of its intelligence-gathering efforts.
Too many seemed to learn the lesson that the only punishable sin is underestimating the capabilities of any remotely plausible enemy, and the legacies of this credulity include the Star Wars boondoggle (Strategic Missile Defense) and our latest little imbroglio in Iraq.
Set next to the daily news from the middle east, the latest stuff from the front lines of exotic defence technologies, only reported in the technical press, is positively anodyne.
I only wish we were spending as much on space exploration or perhaps more parochial concerns, like humans.
RETARDO 07.15.05 at 3:34 am
Well, didn’t Rove start out as one of Donald Segretti’s goons?
I dunno about Drum’s point, though. It looks too much like those comparisons offered by Michael Bechsloss and others in Nov 2000: that *even Richard Nixon* didn’t raise a fuss when he lost a close, fishy-smelling election.
Yeah, and what the TV historians didn’t say was that Nixon was afraid to raise hell about Kennedy buying votes (in Chicago, say, or West Virginia) because Nixon’s crew also bought votes — just not, apparently, enough of them.
IOW, bad jim’s point is right-on; it’s the same as with vote-buying. Nixon wasn’t about to blow the whistle on a dirty aspect of the system (and being that, it was something he valued). I wouldn’t quite call this selfless of him.
Russkie 07.15.05 at 6:17 am
the US at this point is not a one-party state, but it is getting closer. We are just far enough from being a one-party state that this crime, which of necessity involved the press having knowledge of it, is investigatable.
It sounds like you are actually starting to believe your own hyperbole.
Maybe you should visit a real one-party state for a reality check.
paul lawson 07.15.05 at 7:20 am
Rove admits, confident that he is above/beyond the law. Nixon thought that there was law. He wished to avoid the consequences, but went, albeit reluctantly, and belatedly, in accordance.
This, now, is Brecht–“Arturo Ui”. Brecht, like Karl, didn’t write a lot of the material for which he claimed the royalties.
Finally, via Texas, the East German meme lives on.
goesh 07.15.05 at 8:03 am
Rope-a-dope, that’s what wilyl Karl is doing here, clever Karl, clean Karl parroting what nasty journalists told him about covert Val, outed so long ago in Lebanon, stuck at an Admin desk, her bloody covert knife sheathed, no longer able to parachute behind enemy lines to slit the throats of our enemies, dreaming of yellow cake in exotic lands, itching to wear the cloak and bear the dagger again in service to our glorious nation but left with vicarious thrills via the enigmatic Mr. Wilson.
Comments on this entry are closed.