Help Rescue Dumplingeater from Mind Lock and Get Him Back on Message
You may disagree with what the CIA does, but using classified information for political purposes is wrong. (Did Rove know it was classified? Come on.)
Law schmaw, don't get hung up on whether he broke the law or not. He told Novak about it. He leaked it. Bush said he would fire anyone responsible for the leak. Bush should be held to his word; the leaker should be fired.
Still not outraged? The administration was trying to smear Wilson, who disputed that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger, by going after his wife, who Rove called "fair game." Live by the smear, die by the smear. Rove is now fair game himself. Except it's not a smear, it's the truth.
Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall: "No presidential advisor should ever disclose the identity of a covert agent at the CIA. That doesn't require elaboration.
If it's done knowingly, it's a felony. Joe Wilson could be the biggest hack in the world. Plame could have cooked the whole trip idea up to damage the president -- as some GOP loopsters are now claiming -- and it wouldn't matter.
Rove (and, though we're not supposed to say it yet, several of his colleagues) did something obviously wrong and reckless. And they probably broke several laws by the time it was all done.
Pretty much every Republican in Washington today works for Karl Rove. So they can't deal with that fact. But fact it is.
And nothing was done amiss? If Rove et al. didn't do anything wrong, why have they spent two years lying about what they did? No law was broken? Then what is Fitzgerald looking at? Why is a grand jury investigating Rove? A prosecutor like Fitzgerald, a Republican appointee, wouldn't be throwing journalists in jail unless he thought he was investigating a serious crime.
What's their answer to that? They have none. Rove runs the Washington Republican party, owns it. So it's anything but hold him accountable."
posted by Victor Laszlo @ 7/15/2005
4 comments
4 Comments:
Let me put it in language you guys might be more likely to understand...
4th quarter, Eagles versus Giants. Giants ahead 73-3. Eagles are 0-11 on the year, Giants 11-0. Tiki Barber (who brok O.J.'s single-season rushing record in the ninth game of the season) is about to rumble into the end zone for the 6th time, and he fumbles (like usual), and Dawkins, who's been burned for four touchdown receptions on the day, picks up the ball and takes it all the way for a touchdown. 73-10. Then Dawkins procedes to do a five minute touchdown celebraton. The Eagles bench clears and all the other teammates join him in his dance. MoveOn starts canvassing the crowd and all five liberal-elites in attendance join the Eagles on the field. NY DNC members then demand that the Giants coach cancel Barber's contract and replace him with Ron Dane.
I, personally, am not concerned whether Rove has broken the law in this situation. For me, the technicalitity of whether he broke the law here is insiginficant -- Rove has broken far, far more significant laws of morality and ethics many times over previous to his phone calls and e-mails regarding Plume. I'm not hung up on the legality. Rove is a criminal regardless of what he did or didn't say to reporters here. I'm simply saying that the legality is relative in a political sense.
As a matter of politics, I suggest that everyone ease off the gas pedal a bit here. It isn't at all clear if Rove did anything "illegal," in a technical sense. And whether the sun is shinning and it's time to make hay will depend on whether Rove can be prosecuted. If you get everyone all hyped up and make this a huge issue, you'll all just look like another group of fanataical liberal-elite conspiracy theorists if the special prosecutor says, in the end, that Rove did nothing illegal. I can't agree with the opinion that "he leaked it" and so that's enough. As far a my opinion goes, if he deliberately put people at risk to gain political advantage, it's disgusting, but I wouldn't expect anything different from him, and anyway, he's done much worse crimes many times over.
Whether or not he leaked it intentionally is very relevant to how people, who don't already hate Rove, will judge him.
And... I just don't get where you become so convinced that this particular event was an example of Rove's depravity. There are even reports today that Rove learned Plume's name from Novak, and that Novak received the information from different administration sources. So, what does that mean? Does the technical legality of his actions determine whether Rove is a coniving, dirty-dealing, right wing Christian demo-facist? No, of course not. That's a given.
Did that Giants-Eagles game actually happen? Damn d.e. is starting to sound like the voice of reason here. This can't continue. Ok one more argument. The Eagles are 0-11. Santa Claus comes out at half time. There's snow in the stadium. Hit him!
Uh oh, if I start making sense then I might have to stop making comments -- you know, always quit while you're ahead.
At the risk of over-stretching the analogy -- I realized that it would be that the Eagles fans would be clamoring for the Giants' coach to replace Barber, thinking that would hurt their opponent.
it was never about legality. It is about political expediency. Whatever gets more of Bush's idealogy on the books before he leaves is the highest priority for Bush (not for the republican party). Bush knows this. The question is, when does Rove become the drag that forces him to abandon a significant goal? That is where the convergence starts. I can't quite get the eagles analogy (even though i did work the sports desk for a while in the '90s), but I think celebrations on any level are a long way off. But let's at least agree that the simple message that Bush will fire anyone who leaked information must remain front and center. Stay on message, bridge from any other question asked and hammer it home across as many media as we can.
Post a Comment
<< Home