Dumb enough for you?

by Ted on July 15, 2005

Would you believe that Karl Rove has been keeping quiet this long to protect journalists? That’s so him, isn’t it? Greater love hath no man, and all that. But it doesn’t stand up.

Back in 2003, Novak said that his sources had come to him with the information. “I didn’t dig it out, it was given to me,” he said. “They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it.” That’s inconsistent with the new story.

The lawyer said Novak had telephoned Rove to discuss another column, about Frances Fragos Townsend, who had been named deputy national security adviser for terrorism in May 2003. That column ran in Novak’s home paper, the Chicago Sun-Times, on July 10, 2003, under the headline “Bush sets himself up for another embarrassment.”

At the end of that 15- or 20-minute call, according to the lawyer, Novak said he had learned that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA.

“I heard that, too,” Rove replied, according to the lawyer, confirming the Times account.

If Novak is lying, it turns out that he’s smeared Karl Rove to protect himself. We’re supposed to believe that Rove has just been taking it until now. My heart bleeds for the poor man.

Here’s the Newsweek story about Cooper and Rove:

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.”

Is that consistent with the new story? I don’t see how. The piece is clear about Rove’s position as the source; I don’t see the wiggle room.

If this was true, why didn’t they mention this until now? Rove’s denials to date have been criticized as absurd exercises in word parsing. “I didn’t know her name. I didn’t leak her name.” Until yesterday’s leak, his lawyer has tried out any number of spins. He also tried the “he didn’t mention her name” defense. He tried the argument that Rove “was sharing what he knew but with the specific understanding it would not be disclosed.” He tried arguing that Cooper was the bad guy here for breaking the Dean Wormer code: “Look at the Cooper e-mail. Karl speaks to him on double super secret background.” He tried arguing that the disclosure was simply incidental; Rove was just trying to correct a reporter’s story.

If Rove didn’t tell any reporters, why all the humiliating mumbo-jumbo? Rove wouldn’t have promised confidentiality to a reporter. Was it to protect Miller? To protect Novak? Because Rove just plum forgot? (The leaker’s story [I’m not kidding] is that Rove has forgotten which journalist told him.) As a brilliant double-cross to embarass the press, at the expense of Bush’s likability and trustworthiness poll numbers? Come on.

In short, this theory is inconsistent with the facts that we know, and with the past statements of the involved parties. I will be sincerely shocked if these statements are operative a week from now.

How does the right react?

Shorter Glenn Reynolds

{ 1 trackback }

Crooked Timber » » This is his defense, remember
07.15.05 at 10:54 am



Steve 07.15.05 at 10:43 am

Give it up, dude.

Plame wasn’t a covert agent when Novak wrote about her (see Drudge, today, or JOE WILSON-interviewed on CNN, yesterday).

Rove didn’t ‘out’ her anyway-he learned about her from Novak (see Drudge, today).

It was common knowledge amongst her neighbors that she worked for the CIA.

It was common knowledge amongst the media (see Andrea Mitchell) that she worked for the CIA.

You ain’t no Buckhead, this ain’t no Dan Rather forgery scam. The story’s over. Keep trying.



Jack 07.15.05 at 10:48 am

The Newsweek bit does seem to explain one thing that has been a mystery to me from the beginning — what the phantom leaker was trying to achieve. From the Newsweek quote it doesn’t look like revenge but an attempt to make Wilson look like a lone crank using family connections to gain unofficial CIA status for his personal mission. Obviously that is quite a weak point and people didn’t get with the message fully until now. Still it seems more plausible than the revenge idea.

It remains a tawdry smear fabricated by playing fast and loose with important rules about relations with the intelligence service and stil probably demonstrably illegal. It is not the worst thing the Rove has done but probably one of the few where there might be a law against it.


wage slave 07.15.05 at 10:52 am

We can pronounce “story’s over” when the prosecutor (who presumably has, you know, facts and testimony rather than leaks and spin) closes his investigation. Maybe that’ll happen real soon now, but I wouldn’t be so sure.

Incidentally, is it time to attack Patrick Fitzgerald yet?


fifi 07.15.05 at 10:58 am

Your continued failure to understand why the mafia can’t turn on itself is breathtaking.


ChicagoTom 07.15.05 at 10:59 am


Nice talking points, but you miss the point.

1. She might not have been actively working as a covert agent on the day the report ran, but she may have been covered by the law. The law covers agents who have been covert agents within the last X number of years. So whether she was a actively working as a NOC that particular day is irrelevant. What needs to be known is when had she stopped and was she still covered by the law.

2. If it wasn’t potentially a crime, why would the CIA refer it to the DOJ and ask for an investigation.

3. You’re right this isnt like the Rather scam. This is actually important and pertaining to national security.


Ted 07.15.05 at 11:03 am

Steve, if you’re not making this shit up, you can provide some sources, right? Really and truly, on your side, I don’t think that there’s anything a bunch of right-wingers quoting what they think they heard someone say once. If you have a source, embarass me with it.

On the other side, Mel Goodman, a former CIA analyst, says “I’ve worked in Washington for the past 38 years, including 24 years at the CIA…and I know Ambassador Wilson….and I did not know that his wife was an agency employee.” Her friends and neighbors didn’t know. The CIA thought she was covert. Kevin Drum has collected quotes from four separate ex-CIA employees on the record saying Plame was undercover.

I honestly think that I have the better side of this argument.


DGF 07.15.05 at 11:05 am

2. If it wasn’t potentially a crime, why would the CIA refer it to the DOJ and ask for an investigation.

This point needs to be echoed. Obviously lots of important people at the DOJ don’t agree with the assertion that no harm was done. And if Plame’s identity really was such an “open secret,” why did the sources insist on “double-super-secret-background” or whatever? It just doesn’t add up.


Jack 07.15.05 at 11:05 am

Steve, are you defending Karl Rove’s conduct morally or prognosticating on the likelihood of a conviction?

None of your arguments seem to address the former. As to the latter it is not Ted doing the prosecuting, the current status of Ms. Plame at the time of the revelation may not be the relevant issue, (her contacts didn’t also get desk jobs in Langley and it isn’t for Karl Rove to decide whose cover gets blown) and if it was quite as simple as you appear to believe it would not have got this far. There is still the question of how Novak found out. It is not inconceivable that a lesser source came to Novak and he rang Rove to confirm. It would still beg the question.

You seem to see this as a kind of game. Dan Rather was duped by a document that may well have been essentially true but seems to have been a forgery and he paid a heavy price. Rove in this is in the opposite situation. He has clearly been spinning like a top and playing fast and loose with intelligence but may possibly get away with it. It may be different but you should be explaining how it is better.


jeez louise 07.15.05 at 11:06 am

In short, this theory is inconsistent with the facts that we know, and with the past statements of the involved parties.

Hahahaha! “Facts that we know”-that’s a good one.


KCinDC 07.15.05 at 11:07 am

Wasn’t this Republican talking point about how Plame wasn’t covert exhausted in 2003? Are we really supposed to believe that Fitzgerald, the judges, and the lawyers for Cooper, Miller, and Rove — not to mention the CIA itself, which referred the matter to the Justice Department — have all failed to notice that no crime could have been committed because Plame wasn’t covert and have instead wasted two years on something that has no chance of going anywhere? It’s too bad none of them have the powers of insight granted to pundits and bloggers.


Grand Moff Texan 07.15.05 at 11:55 am

Wasn’t this Republican talking point about how Plame wasn’t covert exhausted in 2003?

It was definitively answered by the CIA in 2003, craven talkingpoint-mouthing by the dishonest and the ignorant notwithstanding.


Grand Moff Texan 07.15.05 at 11:57 am

In short, this theory is inconsistent with the facts that we know, and with the past statements of the involved parties. I will be sincerely shocked if these statements are operative a week from now.

How does the right react?

They will say what they’re told to say. Then, they will be told to say something else. They will then say something else. They’re nothing if not obedient.


shpx.ohfu 07.15.05 at 12:07 pm

Citing drudge as reputable source = prima facie evidence of tinfoilhattery.


Steve Carr 07.15.05 at 12:27 pm

Steve, you’re saying Rove learned about Plame from Novak when, according to this most recent story, Rove testified that he told Novak “Yeah, I heard that, too.” Needless to say, you can’t “learn” something that you’ve already heard about from someone (or something) else.

I also love this idea — which is always sourced to Andrea Mitchell without a transcript — that everyone knew that Plame worked for the CIA. Matt Cooper obviously didn’t know. Robert Novak — who’s right in the middle of neocon circles — didn’t know. If these guys who spend all their time covering the White House didn’t know, how could it possibly count as common knowledge?


Steve Carr 07.15.05 at 12:42 pm

Oh, and by the way, Joe Wilson did not say on CNN today that Valerie Plame was not a covert agent. That idea is the result of an absurd misreading by numerous conservative bloggers (most notably, John Podhoretz at the Corner) of what Wilson said.

Wilson said: “My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.” That is, once Bob Novak blew her identity, she was no longer covert.


Seth Gordon 07.15.05 at 1:22 pm

If I had access to the Top Secret CIA Employee Directory, and some reporter casually tells me “hey, I heard that so-and-so is a spy”, I would assume that the reporter is pretending to know more than he actually knows so that he can trick me into blabbing.

Surely a senior adviser to the President of the United States can be as discreet as I can…when he wants to be.


norman 07.15.05 at 1:26 pm

Steve, Wilson then refused to state that Plame was covert prior to being mentioned by Novak. I can’t think of any explanation for that other than that Plame wasn’t covert. This whole ‘scandal’ was manufactured by Wilson and Plame, and they are now the targets of Fitzgerald’s investigation.


Ted 07.15.05 at 1:31 pm


That’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard today (and you’ve got a lot of competition). In your world, what laws did Wilson and Plame break?


Urinated State of America 07.15.05 at 1:41 pm

“It was common knowledge amongst her neighbors that she worked for the CIA.”

It is really fucking hard for her neighbours not to know that she had a high-level clearance, given that the clearing agency would interview the neighbours doors every couple of years to ask about her lifestyle as part of the clearance process.

Better idiots, please.


norman 07.15.05 at 1:55 pm

Perjury. Since we don’t know the facts yet, so my speculations are no dumber than yours.


Walt Pohl 07.15.05 at 2:02 pm

Norman: Yes they are.


Grand Moff Texan 07.15.05 at 2:19 pm

Wilson then refused to state that Plame was covert prior to being mentioned by Novak. I can’t think of any explanation for that other than that Plame wasn’t covert.

Um, other than the law? His wife’s career? And just how many times does the CIA have to reconfirm her status?

In your world, what laws did Wilson and Plame break?

Wilson exposed the phony case for war. Veep’s office was freaking out. Rumsfeld was still trying to claim the Niger docs were genuine.

Plame was the available victim. At least with O’Neil, Clarke, Kwiatkowski, and Edmonds the administration didn’t attack family members.


W. Kiernan 07.15.05 at 2:22 pm

No norman, your speculations, being completely absurd right on the face of them, are vastly dumber than ours. Not to mention, desperate! Why are you and your allies so very nervous over this issue, norman, making up transparent nonsense and posting it frantically all over the place? Why are you all so upset?


MDP 07.15.05 at 3:01 pm

Ted: You’re a senior advisor to the President of the United States. You get a call from Reporter X, who tells you that the wife of a critic of your boss is a covert CIA agent …

Who told the senior advisor that Plame was covert? Are you inventing this detail because it’s politically convenient, or do you have a cite? “CIA employee” isn’t equivalent to “covert CIA agent”.

In any event, it turns out she wasn’t “covert”:

– Joe Wilson acknowledges, “my wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.”

– Plame was stationed in the U.S. for the six years preceding her “outing” by Novak.

Keep believing!


ChicagoTom 07.15.05 at 3:13 pm

mdp : You are reading the statement wrong…

when he said “my wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity”


In no way does that statement imply that she wasn’t clandestine BEFORE NOVAK outed her.

The Day Novak outed her, she was no longer clandestine. Pretty simple.

The worst that can be said is that he made a confusing statement, but in no way does that statement support the assertion that she wasn’t covert.


Deb: 07.15.05 at 3:15 pm

What would all the right-wingers say if the Clinton Administration did this? I think that they would say it was an impeachable offense!!


Ted 07.15.05 at 3:25 pm

On the day I ate my pie, I no longer had a pie. I guess that proves that I never had a pie at all.

This is too desperate to believe. Try again with the “I heard that somebody said that Andrea Mitchell said something once” defense.


Steve Carr 07.15.05 at 3:48 pm

Do people just post without reading what’s already been said in the thread? How many times can a mistake be repeated? In God’s name, is the self-correcting blogosphere letting us down?


norman 07.15.05 at 3:57 pm

I didn’t make anything up. Wilson, during his CNN interview yesterday, refused to state Plame had been covert prior to Novak’s mention of her in his column, I quote:

BLITZER: But she hadn’t been a clandestine officer for some time before that?

WILSON: That’s not anything that I can talk about.


The only logical conclusion is the reason that Wilson doesn’t wish to talk about it is that Plame wasn’t clandestine. The notion, as suggested by ‘Grand Moff Texan’ that the reason that Wilson refrained from adressing Plame’s clandestine status in an interview YESTERDAY for reasons of “…the law? His wife’s career?” are nonsensical. Wilson and Plame have allowed Plame’s photo to be published, therefore it can have nothing to do with her career, and there is no law restricting Wilson from saying anything.


Kirk Spencer 07.15.05 at 4:02 pm

Urinated State of America said, “Better idiots, please.”

and I agree, starting with USA. As in:

So, agents from the clearance agency come by every few years and interview you about your neighbors. It’s distantly possible they inform you it’s in regard to her security clearance, but extraordinarily unlikely they tell you it’s “so she can continue to work in the CIA.”

(begin snark) Oh. Security Clearances. In DC. That’s unique, isn’t it? I mean, the only possible agency could be the CIA – they’re not necessary for DOD or DEA or DOE or FBI or NSA or DOJ or… (end snark)

Even all that makes some untoward assumptions. Such as that the interviewers were clumsy enough to say it was in regard to security clearances (though that might be obvious). Such as assuming that the interviews are required every couple of years for her level instead of the every 5-10 that most regs require – which would mean she’d had AT MOST one such review in her new digs in Georgetown (moved in in 1998, this mess blew into town in 2003).

By the way, if you look upthread you’ll see some links from Ted. One is “her friends and neighbors didn’t know.” That’s interviews with neighbors against your opinion – weight of evidence says you’re wrong.


MDP 07.15.05 at 6:16 pm

Ted: This is too desperate to believe.

You apparently want to believe that:

– Regardless of the statute, Plame was a “covert” agent despite having been stationed in the U.S. for six years.

– Wilson’s statement that Plame “was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity” was his awkward way of saying she “was not a clandestine officer because Bob Novak blew her identity”.

As norman points out, Wolf Blitzer asked Wilson to clarify his ambiguous phrasing by plainly stating that Plame had been a clandestine agent immediately prior to Novak’s infamous column, but the ambassador refused to spell out what you regard as an obvious truth. (Why do you think Wilson retreats into cuteness when pressed on the point?)

Who’s desperate again?


modus potus 07.15.05 at 7:26 pm


Wilson is cagey because the law requires him to be so. Even now, unless the CIA has officially de-classified Plame’s status, it is against the law for someone cleared to know that status to confirm or deny it. (Of course, generally anyone else can talk about it all they want.) And even though it’s doubtful that the government would prosecute someone with a clearance for discussing long-revealed information, if I were Wilson I’d be similarly careful in this particular case.


norman 07.15.05 at 9:32 pm

Wilson is not under any legal restriction, among other things the law states that discosure is prohibited if “the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States”.

No effort is being made to conceal Plame’s identity, in fact she and Wilson have appeared in photos:



Redshift 07.16.05 at 12:19 am

No effort is being made to conceal Plame’s identity, in fact she and Wilson have appeared in photos:

Well, that might be relevant if the thing that was covert is that she was married to Wilson. Has the CIA publicly confirmed that she is an agent?

In the procedures for security clearances (for everyone except Rove, apparently) “everybody’s talking about it” is not recognized as an excuse to release classified information.


Redshift 07.16.05 at 12:23 am

Incidentally, the fact that “she and Wilson have appeared in photos” is exactly why Rove’s earlier defense “I didn’t disclose her name” was so ludicrous. The fact that Wilson had a wife was not secret. What she looked like was not secret. Anyone could start with “Wilson’s wife” and find out her name. What was secret was that she was a CIA agent, which is why has Rove admitted to disclosing her “identity” regardless of whether he ever mentioned her name.


nick 07.16.05 at 1:30 am

How many impossible things can our wingnut contributors admit to believing before breakfast? This particular crop seems to lower the bar.


CN Jones 07.16.05 at 2:41 am

Question? Has it ever been established who created and passed on to CBS the false documents on President Bush’s National Guard Phantom Attendance? AND was the information in the forged documents BASICALLY CORRECT? WHY was this never followed up?


MDP 07.16.05 at 5:12 am

Redshift: Has the CIA publicly confirmed that she is an agent?

Wilson is willing to tell Vanity Fair that Plame was a undercover operative in 1997. Wilson is unwilling to tell CNN whether she had the same status just before Novak’s column. modus potus’ argues that “Wilson is cagey [talking to CNN] because the law requires him to be so,” but I don’t see how we can square that with the VF interview.


David King 07.16.05 at 5:42 am

Karl Rove is the devil himself. He is so self-righteous along with Bush and the Good-ol-boy Network! I guess its about time Americans start to wake up and open their eyes. No Uranium, No WMD, No Justified Reason for Bombing Iraq. Other than the OIL. Just plain evil from the ones who claim to be religous and christian. Wolves in Sheeps clothing, as it says in the good book. Its time for Americans to take back our country from these Idiots. Go Hillary Clinton. We should have had a woman in the first place. Then we might not have been in this situation, not to mention the deficit that keep growing and growing. Not to mention the Aid for Africa that Bush lied about. So what now?? Invade Korea??


J Thomas 07.16.05 at 10:30 am

mdp, you finally have a good point. Why would Wilson admit it once and then not say it again?

Maybe he slipped the first time, and somebody (Valerie, or somebody official) called him on it and told him to never do it again?

I suppose we could make conspiracy theories. Bush has decided to destroy the CIA, and the CIA probably doesn’t like that. The last time we came anywhere close to this sort of thing was with Kennedy. It’s hard to be sure what strategies elements in the CIA might be thinking out, but it’s plausible that Wilson would be connected to them. Maybe he’s letting the administration and the wingnuts get all settled on the “defense” that Plame wasn’t really a spy that mattered, so it will be obvious how stupidly they’re lying when they pile on the next set of lies.


Kevin Donoghue 07.16.05 at 5:51 pm

Not that it matters much to me but the CIA said she was undercover:

Intelligence officials confirmed to Newsday yesterday that Valerie Plame, wife of retired Ambassador Joseph Wilson, works at the agency on weapons of mass destruction issues in an undercover capacity – at least she was undercover until last week when she was named by columnist Robert Novak.

Then again, the CIA may just be pretending she was undercover.


leigh lafon 07.16.05 at 11:43 pm

No person who can legally discuss this matter knows the true nature of Plame’s status in any detail. We do know, as interested foreign governments or enemy agents discovered, that she had been a highly respected expert on WMD, and the CIA invested millions of dollars in her training and cover. From time to time, even for personal or family reasons, a foreign agent may return to this country to do high level classified work that does not include “complete” cover, in terms of visible employment. That agent may still some day return to work as an undercover operative.
Novak has stated that after two high level White House sources told him about Plame, he called the CIA to verify the story, and spoke to an unnamed source there who asked Novak not to run the story. The source did verify that Plame had worked undercover but the source was not sure of her current level of “identity” or whether she might someday return to a foreign station.
Many partisan “talking points” have made the outing of her name itself to be an issue, as if an enemy of this country would not immediately be able to trace “Ambassador Wilson’s wife” from Novak’s column to Ms. Plame’s cover as both diplomatic spouse and “consultant” at the overseas Brewster-Jennings& Assoc. This Dunn and Bradstreet listed company was an elaborate front for the CIA, a way to cover other agents and to provide a trustworthy shield for contacts in foreign posts who risk death when discovered as CIA informants or moles. Yeah, there is a reason to take this seriously, and find out how this huge asset was destroyed during a time of war, and while the CIA was already scrambling to obtain human intel, sophisticated overseas cover and highly trained WMD experts.


CN Jones 07.17.05 at 1:38 am

If the prosecuter, a republican, turns on Rove…The prosecuter is through, FOREVER, in Washington, D.C. After Bush gets through with him , he’ll have no place to go.


CN Jones 07.17.05 at 1:38 am

If the prosecuter, a republican, turns on Rove…The prosecuter is through, FOREVER, in Washington, D.C. After Bush gets through with him , he’ll have no place to go.


J Thomas 07.17.05 at 6:15 am

On the other hand, that prosecutor could probably write a book and get an adequate retirement from it.

And if, say, John McCain and friends wind up running the GOP he might get forgiven entirely. He might be getting support already from an insurgent republican movement that hopes to take the party from BushCo.

These people got complete control of the US government, and if they manage it carefully they could hold it for generations, and they’re squandering it. If I was republican I’d be upset at them.

The line could go, “Bush was a good man who was misled by evil advisors. But now we’re returning to the True Republican way. In that context the guy who prosecuted Rove and Cheney wouldn’t be in any trouble at all.


Charlie Ferrin 07.18.05 at 1:58 pm

You hit the nail right on the head. This is all about spin. If Karl Rove did nothing wrong, why did he deny doing anything for 2 years. Mr. Rove has a very high clearance and should not be talking about anyone in the CIA even if they are not a covert agent.


Dr Amato 07.18.05 at 6:11 pm

It’s not that complicated. Rove gt sloppy in his campaign of deeption and dirty tactics. He shaid too much and did not calculate the losses. In the end he committed a crime, and his lies cannot cover it up! Off with his head. Bring back the death penalty for traitors.


mary davis 07.18.05 at 7:04 pm

I the CIA diidn’t think there was a crime they wouldn’t have asked for an investigation in the first place. There would have been no outcry. If there was no crime why would the special prosecuter have put Miller in jail? One would have to believe this is not a lighthearted decision. It would seem to me that Bush was not in the loop or this administation is so cocky that they believed that no one would find out what was going on.
Perhaps many of you don’t remember Watergate. The denials, the gaul of men that believed they had the right to do anything they saw fit. This is so much the same thing. The same attitude seems to prevail here. They believe they are untouchable.
And what of Rove. It would seem that an honorable man would resign rather than expose his boss, his president to this scrutiny. It would seem that the right thing to do would be Quit before one was forced out,but then perhaps there is little honor here. Perhaps this is a case of meglomania as was hinted at with Nixon. Perhaps it will take the threat of impeachment.


kathryn olsen 07.18.05 at 7:30 pm

Rove should be prosecuted!


Cyborgphoenix 07.18.05 at 8:18 pm

I think Rove screwed up, the question breaks down to how badly he screwed up, and was his screwup illegal. Well, I’m going to wait until the investigation is done, and look at the additional information passed down before I make my judgements.


Nan Mar 07.18.05 at 11:23 pm

I believe the questions need to asked and answers found. Karl Rove, in my opinion, did this to retaliate against Ambassador Wilson, because of Wilson’s op-ed article. He didn’t stick to the administrations propaganda. The bigger picture is that Wilson was telling the people that there was NO connection Irag and Niger and NO WMD’s. He was assigned by both Rep. & /Dem. Pres. to Africa countries to represent our country for over 20 years. He should and did have the pulse on this situation. But it contradicted Bush’s state of the union speech. Remember those 16 words that were in the speech and then the administration said “oops should not have said that”. It was the first indication that Bush Cheney Rove et al were pushing toward war with Iraq without just cause.
Now we have the Blair memos too.

Rove committed a crime, so did Cheney’s Scooter Libby They outed a CIA agent, ruined a NOC company and one person was killed. By the way, Valerie Plame, still works for the CIA but certainly not in the same capacity as before.


Charles 07.19.05 at 4:08 pm

If you’re really, really tired of listening to the Republican ::coughSteve:: sheep throw out false and misleading statements, you’ll enjoy Gene Lyons column in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, a preview of which I was fortunate enough to see.

Let’s just say Lyons accurately captures with photographic accuracy the meth-amped calm, Soviet-style truthfulness, and Janus-like consistency of the Republican right.

MDP, you’re still shopping the same point that I refuted days ago. As I pointed out, people who have to deal with the requirements of security clearances get very cautious in live interviews.

If you’re going to hammer Wilson for essentially irrelevant inconsistencies, how about being proportional in evaluating Rove’s consistency?

Unless you are being paid to distribute talking points, you should care about whether your side (and I don’t think I’m inferring too much by calling it that) has been truthful.


Charles 07.19.05 at 8:16 pm

From CIA officer Larry Johnson:

“We joined the CIA to fight against foreign tyrants who used the threat of incarceration, torture, and murder to achieve their ends. They followed the rule of force, not the rule of law. We now find ourselves with an administration in the United States where some of its members have chosen to act like foreign tyrants. As loyal Americans and registered Republicans we implore President Bush to move quickly and decisively against those who, if not apprehended, will leave his Administration with the legacy of being the first to allow political operatives to out clandestine officers.”


I wouldn’t be surprised if Novak’s second source was Bush himself. Everyone acts as if Rove is some sort of aberration. In reality, he was hand-chosen by George Bush and elevated by him to one of the most senior positions of government. In this case, the acorn is still attached to the tree.

Comments on this entry are closed.