Carol Platt Liebau: Hello?!

Friday, July 15, 2005


Maybe if we say it slowly, liberals and scandalmongers everwhere will finally understand. Read this. Karl Rove didn't "disclose" anyone's identity. A reporter told him about Valerie Plame, and he alluded to that knowledge to warn Matt Cooper from going too far out on a limb on behalf of proven liar Joe Wilson. (NB: Matt Cooper is married to '92 Clinton campaign consultant Mandy Grunwald, which helps explain why Rove's two-minute conversation, containing a warning to Cooper, turned into a hit piece on whether the Bush people were trying to "smear" Joe Wilson).

Hate to break it to you, people. You're not going to see a Rove indictment (the NY Times even unwillingly concedes that he's not a target of the investigation), and he's going to continue to work his magic from The White House.

Even so, the Times report itself is a perfect example of biased, agenda journalis. Right after noting that, "[Rove's lawyer] has previously said prosecutors have advised Mr. Rove that he is not a target in the case, which means he is not likely to be charged with a crime."

Even so, the Times can't help itself and continues on:

The conversation between Mr. Novak and Mr. Rove seemed almost certain to intensify the question about whether one of Mr. Bush's closest political advisers played a role in what appeared to be an effort to undermine Mr. Wilson's credibility after he challenged the veracity of a key point in Mr. Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech, saying Saddam Hussein had sought nuclear fuel in Africa.

Well, perhaps the wish is father to the thought . . . but why should the inquiry be intensified? After all, it's clear to almost everyone that Rove hasn't committed any crime.

And then, more whiplash. The story goes on: "The law requires that the official knowingly identify an officer serving in a covert position. The person who has been briefed on the matter said Mr. Rove neither knew Ms. Wilson's name nor that she was a covert officer.

So he hasn't done anything wrong but the questions are intensifying . . .?

And then this beaut: "The case has also threatened to become a distraction as Mr. Bush struggles to keep his second-term agenda on track and as he prepares for one of the most pivotal battles of his presidency, over the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice."

Hate to break it to you . . . but no normal person is actually caring about this inside-the-beltway silliness. Nice try, though -- and good to know that you don't let the facts stand in the way of pursuing your agenda.

Perhaps the Times people should get back to a little real reporting, and a little less wishful "analysis." They could take the Washington Times as a model -- their reporters actually used a little shoe leather and spoke with one of Plame's former supervisors, who stated that everyone had known about her employment by the CIA.


Blogger David said...

You'll need a bigger cluebat to get their attention.


BTW, malformed link in the post:

Should be:

Blogger does that sometimes.

9:16 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home