We Owe Karl Rove No Apology

by emptywheel

It seems like I'm on an alternating two-day cycle. One day I point out the NYT's stupid comments about the Plame Leak. And the next day, I point out the WaPo's stupid comments about the Plame Leak. Today appears to be the WaPo's turn for stupid comments, in the form of David Broder arguing that Karl Rove deserves an apology for the way he was treated with regards to the Plame Affair. (It's a good thing I don't read the WSJ, or I'd never get the book written.)

Broder makes such a ridiculous argument, first of all, by setting up a strawman to whack down, claiming that Rove has been called the mastermind of the smear of the Wilsons.

For much of the past five years, dark suspicions have been voiced about the Bush White House undermining its critics, and Karl Rove has been fingered as the chief culprit in this supposed plot to suppress the opposition.

Now at least one count in that indictment has been substantially weakened -- the charge that Rove masterminded a conspiracy to discredit Iraq intelligence critic Joseph Wilson by "outing" his CIA-operative wife, Valerie Plame.

No David. The Vice President of the United States--and his trusty former sidekick Scooter Libby--were the masterminds. That's been clear at least since Libby's indictment revealed Libby's two months of research on Wilson. Even Wilson, before the investigation started, attributed the leak to Frog-March Rove and Libby and (still waiting on this one) Eliott Abrams.

After vanquishing his strawman, Broder goes on to criticize specific journalists (Sidney Blumenthal and Joe Conasan) for their treatment of Rove, without ever examining what we know Rove to have done in this case. Or, when he does mention Rove's known activities, he totally misrepresents them, as when he suggests Rove simply "confirmed" Plame's identity to Matt Cooper.

It was occasioned by the disclosure of a memo from Time magazine's Matt Cooper, saying that Rove had confirmed to him the identity of Valerie Plame.

Um, no, David. Rove told Matt Cooper Plame's identity (though like Armitage, he apparently did not reveal she was covert). Scooter Libby confirmed it. The difference is significant, since it suggests Rove took the initiative to share this information.

Broder goes on to assert that Fitzgerald found no evidence of a crime.

In fact, the prosecutor concluded that there was no crime; hence, no indictment.

Broder may be right. Perhaps he, the consummate Beltway insider, knows something no one else does. We mere mortals who read the press on this, however, know only that Fitzgerald "does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove." That says nothing about whether or not he concluded a crime had been committed. He may not have enough evidence to prove the crime, Rove may have cut a deal, or Fitzgerald may have concluded that Karl Rove really did forget his conversation with Matt Cooper and that no crime had been committed. We don't know, one way or another. But there's a lot of evidence to suggest the first possibility--that Fitzgerald didn't have the evidence (particularly after Armitage had ruined his value as a witness by burying the Woodward conversation) to indict. So perhaps Broder should either reveal what he knows--or he should take his own advice to "stick to the facts."

But besides distorting things like Rove's role in leaking to Cooper, Broder doesn't mention some other facts. He doesn't mention that--even assuming Novak's implausible explanation for the source of Plame's name and classified status is true--Rove did confirm Plame's identity to Novak.

Broder doesn't mention that Rove and Libby discussed the leak on July 10 or 11, with Rove explaining to Libby that Novak would publish an article mentioning Plame. Sure, perhaps that's just genial chat, two Administration officials gossiping about ruining a CIA spy. But it carries at least a whiff of conspiracy.

Broder also doesn't mention that Rove told Tweety the White House was going after the Wilsons. The Wilsons,

were trying to screw the White House so the White House was going to screw them back.

Yet Broder accuses the Wilsons didn't behave well? Rove is also reported, of course, to have told Tweety that Plame was "fair game." But I guess that's Broder's idea of good behavior.

And Broder doesn't consider whether Rove had a role in the mysterious leak campaigns, such as the one which started just a few days after it was revealed that Rove had leaked Plame's identity and one day after the Democrats called for Rove to lose his security clearance. This leak cast suspicion--sustained until just before the Libby indictment--away from Rove as the source of Plame's name and toward Ari Fleischer and Colin Powell.

Along with Bush political guru Karl Rove, the grand jury is investigating what role, if any, ex-White House mouthpiece Ari Fleischer may have played in the revelation that the former covert operative Plame was married to former Ambassador Joe Wilson.

"Ari's name keeps popping up," said one source familiar with special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's probe.

Another source close to the probe added there is renewed interest in Fleischer, "based on Fitzgerald's questions."

A State Department memo that included background on Wilson - and who in the White House had access to it - appears to be a key to revealing who gave conservative columnist Robert Novak Plame's name, both sources said.

I don't know that this leak was orchestrated by Karl Rove, but it sure served his purposes, dampening calls for him to lose his security clearance and deflecting scrutiny about his now-admitted role in the Novak leak.

But that's kind of the point, Mr. Broder. We don't know. We don't know why Fitzgerald didn't indict; we don't know what kind of evidence there is about Rove's role in the White House's attempt to "screw" the Wilsons. Yet Broder is ready not only to exonerate Rove for his known role and any unknown role. But he's screeching as us for pointing out that Rove had an active role in this attack on the Wilsons. That's something that Rove, in his comments to Tweety, all but admitted.

Perhaps Broder's the one who should be apologizing ... to us.

Comments

[Richard W. Crews]

It's as if OJ was vindicated.

[Jodi]

I was getting ready to drag off home and feed my cat and bird, but thought I would point out this article. But I see early risers have already digested it.

Anyway, at the end of my quote, I said I bet that this wouldn't put a dent in the beliefs here.

No surprises.

Well anyway, a lot of endurance and staying power exhibited. Anyone ever run a 10K? Or longer? Probably every day.

:)

jodi

[pol]

It's all about the Corn/Isikoff book coming out today. The royal rags have been given their talking points.

[semiot]

Personally, I think David Broder has actually been replaced by an old-coot-like robot that calls itself David Broder. I have no evidence for this - other than the periodic spew that passes for discourse issuing from said entity - but it seems perfectly plausible to a blogo-fascist like myself.

[DemFromCT]

Broder undoubtedly thinks we owe an apology to Lieberman, too, for not reelecting him. And DeLay for protesting about partisanship. And Ney for making a fuss about corruption. And Liddy and the ex-Dr Frist for making fun of their competence.

We're such troublemakers.

[Beel]

Huge congrats on the FLD book plan. You the best, EW.

[emptywheel]

LOL

Yeah, you're probably right, Dem. Though why doesn't he think Libby deserves an apology, then?

[emptywheel]

Jodi

Why would this put a dent in our beliefs here? Ours are based on facts. Broder doesn't have the most basic grasp of the facts here (or he willfully misrepresents them). So you think we ought to listen to Broder in spite of his ignorance on the subject?

[kim]

Why is the press so eager to end this story? I can understand Republicans (perhaps including Broder) saying it's over.

[Mike G]

Kim, the press is eager to end the story because guys like Rove tell them to end the story. It's time to prepare for a Libby pardon. Now run your "stories" and op-ed pieces like good little stenographers and line up for your cocktail weenies!

Broder, who claims to be so *serious* should really be ashamed of himself. Thank you, emptywheel, for setting him straight!

[semiot]

"I am David Broder! I will smear the Earth with my Super Inktonic Conventional Wisdom Slime Waldo!"

"Klatu Broder Nichto!"

[semiot]

Marcy;

Congrats on the book deal. Hope you will set up an advance-purchase arrangement like Jerome and Markos did with Crashing the Gates. I'll look for it and put my money down as soon as it's available.

[lemondloulou54]

Slightly OT. If Valerie Plame was the head of the JTFI, how likely is it that Scooter Libby didn't know her as the head of that group? Wouldn't her name have appeared on any documents that were prepared for Cheney (and by extension Libby) to read? I'm just trying to say that isn't it likely that Scooter knew of Plame long before May or June? Of course, he wouldn't have known that she was Wilson's wife until then. But wouldn't he have to have known of her? Then he finds out she is married to Wilson. How could he forget her at that point?
My apologies if you have already made this point.

[mk]

On the positive side of the ledger, the Chicago Trib runs a news column today by Steve Chapman, a member of the Trib's editorial board, which is pretty fair. You can read it here.
Some clips:

"The White House, in short, was not engaged in any campaign to `out' Ms. Plame," proclaimed an editorial in The Wall Street Journal. The more liberal Washington Post heartily concurred. The revelation, it said, shows that "one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House--that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson--is untrue."

But the logic here is the equivalent of saying that because I am chewing gum, I cannot possibly be walking. All the evidence indicates there were two separate courses of action that exposed Plame's identity--one attributable to Armitage and one to people in the White House. That Armitage was guilty of carelessness does not mean Libby is innocent of malice.

snip

Conservatives are not alone, though, in sniping at Fitzgerald. The New York Times, which once demanded a thorough investigation, now complains this one has taken too long. Of course it would have gone quicker if The New York Times had not refused to cooperate by claiming Judith Miller had no obligation to testify. The Times lost that battle and Miller did testify, but only after a year's delay.

It will take a trial to establish Libby's criminal guilt or innocence. But the bulk of the evidence indicates that people high up in the White House did seek to punish Wilson by unmasking his wife, and that the vice president's chief of staff did his best to conceal this effort from the special prosecutor.

For that evidence, we should thank the much-maligned Fitzgerald, whose sole sin is doing his job conscientiously. But the only people who are grateful are those who put truth and accountability above their own narrow interests. And in Washington, that may be a party of one.

Just thought you might like to see it.

[tnhblog]

I didn't think Rove was the mastermind. I thought he was just an eager and enthusiastic participant.

[Pete]

"Why would this put a dent in our beliefs here? Ours are based on facts. Broder doesn't have the most basic grasp of the facts here (or he willfully misrepresents them). So you think we ought to listen to Broder in spite of his ignorance on the subject?"

Yes Jodi, why would this put a dent?

The revelation in "Hubris" that Rove told Matthews that "the White House was going to screw the Wilsons" directly rebuts the main point that Broder tries to make.

I agree that the latest spates of articles are a response to the revelations in "Hubris".

I also wonder why Broder says that Fitzgerald did not behave well????? Surprising since Broder does not include Rove in that category.

[semiot]

Marcy:

Just saw the solicitation to publish your book on FDL. I'm in, and proud to be a founding patron of this venture.

[windje]

EW

We mere mortals who read the press on this, however, know only that Fitzgerald "does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."

Do we KNOW this? Or are we relying on Luskin's characterization of a communication allegedly received from Fitzgerald?

I simply do not trust anything that is associated with Rove, notwithstanding the fact that Luskin would be in hot water by mischaracterizing whatever deal is in place.

Thanks in advance.

windje

[JimPreston]

One thing to remember is that all the journalists are still mad at Fitz for putting Miller in jail, etc. Part of the Broder agenda to "get this all behind us" is so they can get the leaks rolling again so they can feel like they know lots of stuff we don't. There's so much more here that Broder ignores of glosses over that it is ridiculous. What about Cooper and others reporting on McClellan's statements that they knew to be completely false?

[emptywheel]

windje

Luskin lies a lot. But when he lies, he lies as "a lawyer familiar with the investigation." When he makes statements in his own name, he often parses wildly (such as with his long-standing claims that Rove wasn't a "target" of the investigation. But he remain technically truthful.

I don't doubt there was a lot of other verbiage in that letter that Luskin wouldn't admit. But I do strongly believe he quoted the part of the letter that helped him faithfully.

[QuickSilver]

If anyone wants to write to Broder, here's his e-mail address:

davidbroder@washpost.com

And congratulations, Marcy! I'm so pleased the project is out in the open, inviting public support and financial participation. If Broder shows us anything, it's that we will need a full-court blogosphere effort to subvert the Libby pardon campaign.

[Neo]

(still waiting on this one) Eliott Abrams

At least spell his name correctly.

[windje]

I guess if I can't see any document in its entirety, I look at quotes out of context with a heaping helping of professional skepticism.

If the quote is accurate and complete, it does kinda make me wonder why Rove didn't negotiate Fitzgerald's public release of that decision in whatever deal he made.

I guess I remain unconvinced that the quoted phrase accurately conveys the entirety of the prevailing stand-off between Rove and Fitzgerald.

Looking forward to the tome!

windje

[Frank Probst]

Poor David. Let's try a simple analogy. Let's say Richard Armitage robs a bank. Then, a few days later, Karl Rove and Scooter Libby--at the direction of the Vice President of the United States--rob the same bank. After a lengthy investigation, Armitage admits to robbing the bank. David therefore concludes that Rove and Libby never robbed the bank. Even though there are witnesses who saw both of them robbing the bank. Scooter Libby is under indictment for telling the FBI and the grand jury that he never even went near that bank. David seems to think that Scooter shouldn't be penalized for "forgetting" that he robbed the bank, and Armitage had already robbed the bank anyway, so what's the big deal? The big deal, David, is that it's not okay to rob the damn bank.

[Pete]

Two t's, yikes its the same Elliott Abrams who was convicted in the Iran Contra scandal and later pardoned by Bush, Sr.
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/969