While it is fair to characterize the over-the-top hysteria from some quarters on the left regarding Rove as, well, over-the-top hysteria, some perspective should be offered. If it turns out that someone in this administration really did ‘out’ an agent, I want their head on a platter. That it might have been done for petty political revenge just makes it even more odious. However, I am willing to wait on the results of the Fitzgerald investigation (even thought I have stated repeatedly that I wish he would wrap it up and give us the damned results).
But, it is worth examining- What if this had happened during the Clinton administration? What if it was Paul Begala or someone like him who was accused of outing a CIA agent? What would the right be doing?
If your answer is anything other than what the left is doing, only louder, you are fooling yourselves. Rush Limbaugh would have talked about nothing else for 3 years, and unlike 2004, this WOULD have been the chief issue of the election. G. Gordon Liddy would be having fund-raisers to erect a hangman’s scaffold on the White House lawn. The legal ‘analysts’ at NRO would be claiming that the statutes currently being applied to the case are inadequate, and that we should be looking at charges of treason and the application of the Federal death penalty.
Tom DeLay would go to the floor of the House and claim that Democrats can’t be trusted with national security issues, and then he would try to change the House Rules so Democrats could not sit on security related committees. Rick Santorum would be claiming that this is the inevitable result from a liberal anti-war culture. Newt Gingrich would be calling for a revocation of the security clearance of not only every Democrat in public service, but the children of Democrats.
And the bloggers on the hard right would be with them every step of the way, and would stop printing ‘I Love Gitmo’ stickers long enough to print some ‘Shoot Leakers On Sight’ paraphernalia. If anything, they would be demanding that the above actions are not enough, and this would be used as definitive proof that the Democratic party is at its roots evil and should be made outlawed, just like Nazis are in Germany.
And you know I am right. So while I think some (many) on the left are going off the rails, I understand it. And I don’t think our side would be any better.
Just saying. Flame away.
Mr Furious
1. Yes.
Sorry, just used to that format when I agrre with you, John.
Mr Furious
Off topic and somewhat personal, but I gotta ask… what do you do for a living, John, that allows you to be this prolific with the writing/bloggin during the day? I know I’ve been seriously neglecting my work this week to point of a firing offense just throwing in some comments…
Oh, and what car did you buy?
Lis Riba
No need to go quite so hypothetical. Look at the noise machine raised over Sandy Berger’s accident with classified documents last summer, which caused less harm to national security than this case.
John Cole
Summer vacation. I teach. Right now I am reading an awful manual on how to create online courses, and I take a break every ten minutes so I don;t shoot myself. Blogging will slow down dramatically in the Fall, as it always does.
Capriccio
Just wanna say that the efforts of Balloon Juice and Daily Howler to honestly maintain a sense of balance and perspective through all of this are about as heroic as blogging can get. You and Sommerby should go out and buy each other a drink…and while you’re at it, raise a toast to Fitzgerald, who, in the end, will be pilloried as a partisan hack no matter where his investigation leads.
Halffasthero
OT again
When does the new website format go up? Or is it just being moved and not changing?
As I told you, I need a “Letters to the Editor” area for my relevent off-topic questions that need answers. Naturally, I was hoping that was going to be added.
Jeff
“Look at the noise machine raised over Sandy Berger’s accident”.
UN-FUCKING-BELIEVABLE!
Mr Furious
Well, John, your summer vacation is to all of our benefit. This blog has been excellent, if not indipensible, over the last weeks.
I raise my glass to you. Great job.
John Cole
I think, by now, what with Sandy Berger’s admission of guilt and plea agreement, we can no longer characterize that as an ‘accident.’
pmm
Mr. Cole’s point that much of the furor is caused by partisanship versus principle is well-taken. Lis Riba’s example of Sandy Berger is also useful for measuring not just the right’s actions but the left’s response when the “shoe is on the other foot.”
I am interested in whether any of this is actually getting through to the public at-large. My personal observation of folks who don’t eat, sleep, and live politics is that this story looks too muddy to get excited about.
Unless an indictment comes down, I can’t see middle America getting involved.
I also concur with Mr. Furious: Mr. Cole’s prolific blogging these days is also eating into my productivity…
Defense Guy
I think you are partially right john, but I think the outrage shown on this one is far greater than what we saw during the Sandy Berger case, and a hell of a lot more than the non outrage over the NYTimes CIA story recently.
You were right before, the battle lines have been drawn along purely partisan lines and everything else be damned. It was bad during Reagan, and bad during Clinton, but this is amazing.
Clever
The parisanship is “beyond the pale” and “well outside the mainstream” and makes me think of “gulags” and is “all Boston’s fault.”
Politics has become reality TV, no more civilized discourse. Damn you, Real World! Although, it would be almost tolerable if it was like Fear Factor.
ROGAN: Allright, Mr. Rove…if you can eat this bucket of Cherrios and cows blood in under 3 minutes, you won’t be elminated.
ROVE: I brought my own spoon.
Compuglobalhypermeganet
I was waiting for Jeff’s predictable cardiac arrest when I read that Clinton-equivalence/”accident” post.
Someone, get the paddles! CLEAR! ZZZZZZAP!
Jon H
“but I think the outrage shown on this one is far greater than what we saw during the Sandy Berger case”
As it should be. Sandy Berger was a campaign advisor. Karl Rove (and his likely partners in crime) are top-level administration officials. There’s rather a huge difference there.
Jeff
Compu,
It was more the “accident” part of it than the Clinton-equivalence part.
But have I really gotten that predictable?
Defense Guy
Jon H
As long as we are parsing as close as we can to the truth, then it should be noted that at the time it was leaked Karl Rove had not yet been given the promotion, so he was a campaign or political advisor. Sandy Berger is a former National Security Advisor, so one would think he above many others should know better.
Paul L.
Lis Risa
No need to go quite so hypothetical. Look at the noise machine raised over Sandy Berger’s accident with classified documents last summer, which caused less harm to national security than this case.
Sandy Berg(l)er broke the law and has been found guilty. Explain to me how he “accidently” destroyed classified documents with scissors?
It appears that Karl Rove did not break the law.
Also explain to me how Karl Rove did more harm to national security then Sandy Berg(l)er?
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?entry=2247
“Joe Wilson, on CNN with Wolf Blitzer tonight, dropped this bombshell:
My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.”
Mike S
My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.”
She wasn’t anymore.
I lost track of the Berger case. Did he really destroy docs? If so then the outrage on the right was far more justified than I thought at the time.
People need to look at what their reaction would be if the shoe was on the other foot more often. Replace Bush with Clinton, and the other way, and think honestly about what your reaction would be. But you have to be honest with yourself.
Mike
Paul,
Joe Wilson could not legally directly state that his wife was a clandestine officer. His point is that after Novak’s column, that day, she could no longer be a clandestine officer.
shan
Dear Karl Rove: I just wanted to tell you that no matter how much indisputable evidence those fact-obsessed intellectual reporters release about you betraying America, I join the President in not caring diddly-squat about so-called national security when the only war that matters is the one we’re waging against Democrats. So that makes you TOPS in my book! Anyway, however it happened, that bimbo Valerie Plame got what she deserved for marrying a moron who spouted crazy talk about Saddam bin Laden not having all those Nukepox Laser Deathrays you made President Bush promise we’d find. Heck, she should be happy that you only assassinated his CHARACTER! Well, I would say don’t let this ‘Plame Game’ get you down, but I’m sure you’re already orchestrating your greatest-yet Machiavellian stratagem (replete with Clintonian legalistic parsings) to slither out of doing any prison time – especially since you were polite enough not to use Mrs. Wilson’s first name. So good luck with the indictments and likely cover-up conspiracy investigation, and next time you’re whispering him sweet nothings, please tell Bob Novak I think his waxy tufts of silver ear hair are massively SEXY – in a totally non-homosexual way, of course!
big dirigible
Yes indeed, Sandy B. removed documents, destroyed some, and did – what? – with the others. He’s admitted to the destruction. The question remains, what did he smuggle in? Did he alter documents and then return them? Did he plant total fabrications? Those of us who have had security clearances and know full well what’s involved in violating the relevant laws have followed B.’s crimes with considerable interest – not to mention disappointment at how easily he got off. Somehow I doubt that my professional colleagues or I would have escaped so easily had we committed similar transgressions.
So comparing the criminal Burger to the non-criminal (remember – innocent until at least plausibly accused) Rove illustrates what, exactly?
ppgaz
Small does not equal large. It is not wise to extrapolate the attributes of the large set from the small one.
Whaa? I mean, “off the rails” , both right and left, means that the blogosphere is in a tizzy.
But the real folks are not off the rails. I’m not off the rails. My position — as a card-carrying lefty — is that the story is still being played out, and it would be a waste of energy to get all worked up about it until something definitive happens. So far, it hasn’t.
It’s all churn and blah blah blah.
Not only is the story still being written, IMO, I don’t think it’s all that important a story. Nobody on my side needs the Rove-Plame story to think that Rove is a shithead. Bush’s own father thinks Rove is a shithead, and GHWB is not exactly a flaming liberal.
This is an exercise in acting out. That’s all.
The blogosphere loves it because it draws the eyeballs. Same reason cable tv loves the Aruba missing girl story.
Kristin
Damn, you hit multiple nails on the head there, Mr. Cole! Flame away? NEVAH! What you wrote is pretty much *exactly* what would’ve happened if Clinton’s name replaced Bush’s.
And as for the Sandy Berger affair, I believe the noise machine was extremely effective. But I also believe that Berger committed a crime that none of us would’ve gotten away with. He did something illegal. I don’t care what side of the political aisle you’re on, you have to be answerable. It was a stupid stunt and no one’s above the law.
Except, apparently, Bush and Rove…
Good work, Mr. Cole! I look forward to reading your blog often.
neil
This is so obvious that I’m amazed John Cole is the only blogger on the right saying it. (I hope he’s not the only one thinking it.)
Hell, a lot of the bloggers on the -left- are even admitting it.
Cliff
ppqaz, I agree that the story is still being played out.
But I think the reason for the left blogosphere’s interest in and emphasis on this story is not because of sensationalism — it’s pretty convoluted and dry in its details — but because it seems to capture some essential truths (in their opinion) about this admin: belief trumps empiricism, naysayers are ignored or punished, and politics is put ahead of policy.
If the Plame story turns out to have legs, in that it leads to indictments of major WH figures for blowing an NOC’s cover, it will stand as a microcosm of these Bush admin characteristics.
Mike S
I’ll have to look further into the Berger affair. Last I had heard he had only taken copies and then it dropped off my radar.
My father took top secret info to the grave regarding 1963 Vietnam, even though I asked him about it 31 years later on his death bed. I don’t have much respect for people that mess with it. There are wistle blower exceptions in my opinion but they have to be pretty serious.
David
Two quesitons:
1) John, what do you teach?
2) Because pundits on the left and right are paid either directly or through ad revenue, why would you expect folks on the either side would do something other than throwing sh!t on the side? What would happen to Savage/Hannity’s ratings and Instapundit’s CPMs if they both said that the President needs come clean on this Plame situation. Likewise if Franken or KOS were to say that the President is taking Iraq in the right direction.
jim
Rove and whoever else in the bush admin are traitors. We are at war in Iraq to prevent the proliferation of WMDs-remember??? So what we have is the bush admin blowing a front co for the CIA that was protecting the USA from the proliferation of WMDs because they didn’t like the truth getting out to the public. Along with that all those who worked at the front company’s cover is also blown. No doubt that every country that had dealing with Plane and the CIA front co went through every documant they had to see who were the contacts, what info was given. We don’t know how many people working for the USA have been killed and we’ll never hear about it. Valerie Plane was NOC- and I sure others in the front co were too. That means that they worked in foriegn countries without diplomatic cover. If caught they could be executed. These people put their lives on the line every day to protect this counrty- while the chickenhawks hide behind the flag. Can you imagine if a news report came out that some co the USA was dealing with was really a front comapny for N. Korea or Iran and they were working on WMDs. There would be a whole lot more people in Gitmo. Rove and his ilk are not only cowards they’re traitors.
jim
John Cole
Communication Studies- Nonverbal, Organizational, Public Speaking, Argumentation and Debate, Politics and Propaganda, and this year, it will be Mass Media.
charles austin
Ouch, I can’t seem to be able to get these damn blinders off… but it isn’t the usual partisan players on either side that I care about one way or the other — it’s the New York Times, the major broadcast networks, the Washington Post and all the other self-professed objective guarantors of our freedoms who continue to peddlie nonsense in a forlorn attempt to score points against George W. Bush. Unless, of course, you think that the New York Times, the major broadcast networks, the Washington Post and all the other self-professed objective guarantors of our freedoms are nthing more than partisan players themselves…
charles austin
Dear Jim,
Ha ha ha, good one. But you forgot to note that all the unelected people in the CIA working to undermine the elected administration’s policy are patriots too!
beachgirl
Sandy Berger destroyed COPIES of documents, not originals. And this compromises national security how? Wingnuts.
FarLeftBehind
We’ve heard that Karl committed no crime and that he was just trying to “help” the journalists. You know what would be helpful to journalists?–the names of all the other CIA agents that Karl unilaterally decides don’t need to be undercover. Fire away, Karl! Who else ya got?
p.lukasiak
The Sandy Berger dust-up is a poor comparison, because the initial controversy was based on the idea that Berger was somehow trying to “cover-up” something by smuggling documents, and that was pure nonsense.
Berger’s actions represented a breach of national security protocols, without any impact on national security.
*********
The actions of the administration officials that lead to the disclosure of Plame as a covert CIA agent, and the fallout from that, did represent a grave breach of National Security. Whether it was intentional or not, the old expression “loose lips sink ships” should always apply especially with regard to intelligence matters.
This has become a partisan issue because the White House wanted it that way. Rather than “come clean” about the involvement of upper level administration officials, they stonewalled, trying to make it appear that the chief suspect (Karl Rove) had nothing to do with it. Rather than take responsibility for what had happened, even if unintentionally, they chose to hide the truth.
The real question at this point is when did Bush know that Rove was involved, and why didn’t he do anything about it when he found out. And the problem for the White House is that there is no good answer to that question — when you closest political advisor turns out to have been volunteering information damaging to our National Security to the press, you should suffer political damage for it. The fact that Bush is unwilling to accept the consequences of having a Karl Rove in the White House is consistent with his character — that of someone who has never had to accept the consequences of any of his mistakes — and the fact that wingnuts are desperately trying to keep Bush from dealing with those consequences is pretty damned pathetic.
bbbeard
Hmmm. None of the scenario you paint is plausible, at least not literally. It is all hyperbole. We’ve simply got to find something better for left-wingers to do with their time….
BTW, the difference between Berger and Rove should be obvious. Berger copped a plea because he violated federal law, and yes, that’s more evidence that Democrats are not serious about national security. Rove has not committed a crime and he will not be stepping down, much less copping a federal plea.
BBB
bbbeard
Hmmm. None of the scenario you paint is plausible, at least not literally. It is all hyperbole. We’ve simply got to find something better for left-wingers to do with their time….
BTW, the difference between Berger and Rove should be obvious. Berger copped a plea because he violated federal law, and yes, that’s more evidence that Democrats are not serious about national security. Rove has not committed a crime and he will not be stepping down, much less copping a federal plea.
BBB
bbbeard
Hmmm. None of the scenario you paint is plausible, at least not literally. It is all hyperbole. We’ve simply got to find something better for left-wingers to do with their time….
BTW, the difference between Berger and Rove should be obvious. Berger copped a plea because he violated federal law, and yes, that’s more evidence that Democrats are not serious about national security. Rove has not committed a crime and he will not be stepping down, much less copping a federal plea.
BBB
Compuglobalhypermeganet
There’s your problem, pl. While you wonder why no one’s been shot yet, thinking people know that the real question at this point is what Fitzgerald will determine happened. His findings might well answer your question as to why Bush didn’t do anything when he found out Rove had emailed Cooper.
Mike S
Mice logic. Of course it could also be that Berger understood that what he did wa wrong and took his hits for it while Rove is just a slime ball and typical of the current GOP leadership, above the law. Or as Tom Delay said, “I am the Government.”
I love the GOP cultists.
Mike S
My comment was for bbb.
Trevor
John, I just wanted to say that I think this is a great attempt to harness the collective brain- and research-power in the blogosphere. Regardless of the outcome, this is an interesting approach.
To everyone else, while I can’t speak for all on the right, I will gladly call for Rove’s firing and prosecution if he broke the law. Will/did the left do the same for Berger? For Schumer? For Leahy?
Flint
While it is true that the partisan reactions from both sides of this affair are over the top, and the legal questions are being disputed, it should be remembered:
1. The Grand Jury was requested by the CIA. From their perspective a serious crime may have been committed.
They wouldn’t have taken this action lightly if they hadn’t sustained some damage to their operations.
2. While Rove may have only confirmed that Plame was an employee of the CIA rather than tell Novak and the illegality of that is now questionable, Rove knows better than to confirm someones employer as the CIA much less a journalist.
3. While Plame was outside of the five year window on applicability of the IIPA statutes, she was a NOC and in outting her it exposed the NOC operations of the company she was with and is potentially dangerous to current NOCs that are associated with that company.
4. In regards to the investigation, Fitzgerald has not reduced Rove to “witness” status, which means that he is still a “subject” in an active on-going investigation. We don’t know what all of the facts that the Prosecutor has found in regards to Rove’s conduct are at this point.
So it is foolish, as President Bush has suggested, to prejudge anyone or indulge in partisan rhetoric in either direction on this affair. You might have to eat your words later.
5. Someone still was responsible for the initial breech of National Security and released classified information to the press. That person needs to be caught and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
The CIA does not see this as a trivial matter. Agents lives have been put at risk and the intelligence operations of the United States have been compromised.
So if anyone wants to rant it should be to urge Fitzgerald to pursue this matter as aggressively as possible. Novak should be jailed until he reveals his sources, unless he already has and Miller should stay where she is until she decides to give up her sources.
We are at war and this kind of crap is inexcusable no matter who did it!
Flint
While it is true that the partisan reactions from both sides of this affair are over the top, and the legal questions are being disputed, it should be remembered:
1. The Grand Jury was requested by the CIA. From their perspective a serious crime may have been committed.
They wouldn’t have taken this action lightly if they hadn’t sustained some damage to their operations.
2. While Rove may have only confirmed that Plame was an employee of the CIA rather than tell Novak and the illegality of that is now questionable, Rove knows better than to confirm someones employer as the CIA much less a journalist.
3. While Plame was outside of the five year window on applicability of the IIPA statutes, she was a NOC and in outting her it exposed the NOC operations of the company she was with and is potentially dangerous to current NOCs that are associated with that company.
4. In regards to the investigation, Fitzgerald has not reduced Rove to “witness” status, which means that he is still a “subject” in an active on-going investigation. We don’t know what all of the facts that the Prosecutor has found in regards to Rove’s conduct are at this point.
So it is foolish, as President Bush has suggested, to prejudge anyone or indulge in partisan rhetoric in either direction on this affair. You might have to eat your words later.
5. Someone still was responsible for the initial breech of National Security and released classified information to the press. That person needs to be caught and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
The CIA does not see this as a trivial matter. Agents lives have been put at risk and the intelligence operations of the United States have been compromised.
So if anyone wants to rant it should be to urge Fitzgerald to pursue this matter as aggressively as possible. Novak should be jailed until he reveals his sources, unless he already has and Miller should stay where she is until she decides to give up her sources.
We are at war and this kind of crap is inexcusable no matter who did it!
Trevor
Well, put Flint. I would only say that we should be careful in assuming that the CIA feels that actual damage was done. They could just as easily have initiated this investigation to put off other potential leakers. I’m not saying that nothing harmful to our national security happened here, just that we don’t yet know if something did.
orogeny
Sandy Berger’s actions constituted a technical breach of security regs only. Mr. Berger may have removed copies of a document or two, but he removed no originals and withheld nothing. He did not try to hide anything from the commission. The purpose of his visit to the National Archives was to re-familiarize himself with Clinton-era documents on the subject of al-Qaeda so that he could better testify before the Commission on their subject matter. He did just that.
That bastion of liberalism, the WSJ stated, emphatically, that “no originals were missing and that all the material that Mr. Berger had access to had been turned over to the Commission.”
Darrell
The documents he took and destroyed were originals. Though each of the documents began as identical, the people to whom they were given (and we’re talking about POTUS, the Vice Pres, Berger, and folks at that level)made notes on them, suggested revisions, and wrote instructions. Those notes (which can be copious) are unique to each document and make each one an original. No other copies of the ones Berger destroyed exist – they’re gone forever.
That he destroyed three such documents on the eve of his testimony before the 9/11 Commission and that each of those documents bore directly on the Clinton Administration’s actions in the months prior to 9/11 make that destruction a fairly serious matter. He got a slap on the wrist.
More importantly, he got a slap on the wrist for an offense that would have gotten any one of us mere humans a far more severe penalty. How many people do you really think would have gotten a three-year suspension of his security clearance instead of it being jerked away outright, never to be gotten back again ever?
From here. Jimmy nails it better than I could
Darrell
Except for admitting that he shredded documents with small scissors. Other than that, no hiding anything from the commission
Mike S
Darrell reaches a new low. He is now using a comment on a blog post as is if it is empiracle evidence. If that can be considered evidence I guess the idiot theory that Bush actually caused 9/11 is true. The Jews did know about 98/11 in advance. Karl Rove IS gay.
The list is endless.
Jeff Altemus
John,
I absolutely love your blog. Read it every day and check in several times a day. The thought of you posting less in the fall, though understandable, is a bummer. I wish you as much success cutting back on blogging as Sully had with his attempt.
Later,
Jeff
Darrell
Kook, heal thyself. I didn’t use a blog comment as “empiracle” evidence.. the facts are well established. orogeny was simply using Media Matters talking points to mislead readers into thinking that no original documents were destroyed, without mentioning that each “copy” had a unique set of notes, written by Clinton and other high level administration officials. Those unique notes are gone forever thanks to Mr. Berger.
MikeS, it’s telling that you attack the source, without addressing any of the substantive points. The reason you do this of course, is because you are dishonest as hell. Otherwise you would have addressed at least some of the substance of my post
Jill
John, you’re going to get yourself kicked out of the cool kids club if you keep talking sense like this.
Rob
Thanks for bringing a little reason to the debate. There really are apolitical facts to the case, and there really is a good reason to react to them in a certain way. But there’s no good reason to rush to judgment. That said, Karl Rove has a long track record, so I can’t blame anybody (such as myself) for thinking the leak stinks of his doing–even though that’s not proof. Mr. Fitzgerald, please give us the skinny….
Burt
I think the Sandy Berger Comparison is rediculous. I am a democrat and think Berger was wrong and was wrightfully punished, is there anyone who disagrees with that? Maybe someone with more time on their hands can go back to the time and find opinion to the contrary, but does anyone really believe that there was nearly the blind support for Berger, or nearly the the attempts to paint the investigation as partisan retribution as there is now? Lets not lose sight of the central fact here: members of the Bush administration outed a covert CIA operative purely as revenge against her husband because he went on record to contradict pronouncements by the administration that he knew to be false, and it has since been proven that the Asminstration knew to be false when they made them. Did Berger show the documents he copied to any journalists? Did he out any undercover agents or compromise any CIA fronts? Lets not forget that Rove is not the only Whte House source to leak this information, or that McClellan lied to protect Rove. Did anyone lie to protect Berger, was there any proof that other democrats were in on his offense? There is no comparison between the Plame scandal and Berger.
Mr Furious
If “Jimmie” says so, it must be true.
WTF Darrell? this has to be the dumbest/worst/most ridiculous source I’ve ever seen. Do you have any other link better than some punk making comments in an obscure blog?
Mike S attacks the source (as do I) because it fucking ridiculous on its face! That’s not a source and none of the information should be given serious consideration. Unless you do better, we have to give the balance of creedence to the WSJ article that blogpost was based on that exactly contradicts you and “Jimmie”
orogeny
Darrell,
If Rove leaked Plame’s identity, in addition to destroying her future usefulness to the Agency as far as undercover work goes, he may very well have endangered other agents & sources that had contact with Plame during her time as a NOC. He apparently did this for no good reason except to take revenge on a political adversary. Can you somehow equate that with Berger’s actions?
By the way, my previous post did not come from Media Matters. The info came from the Albamy Democrat-herald and the WSJ.
Mr Furious
Yeah, yeah I’m just a dishonest leftist, etc for not treating your bullshit with the proper respect… whatever.
bbbeard
Hmmm. None of the scenario you paint is plausible, at least not literally. It is all hyperbole. We’ve simply got to find something better for left-wingers to do with their time….
BTW, the difference between Berger and Rove should be obvious. Berger copped a plea because he violated federal law, and yes, that’s more evidence that Democrats are not serious about national security. Rove has not committed a crime and he will not be stepping down, much less copping a federal plea.
BBB
bbbeard
Hmmm. None of the scenario you paint is plausible, at least not literally. It is all hyperbole. We’ve simply got to find something better for left-wingers to do with their time….
BTW, the difference between Berger and Rove should be obvious. Berger copped a plea because he violated federal law, and yes, that’s more evidence that Democrats are not serious about national security. Rove has not committed a crime and he will not be stepping down, much less copping a federal plea. In short, even though left and right may say similar things about each other, the right is right and the left is wrong.
BBB
jt007
The one problem with John’s analogy is that he’s assuming this situation concerns the outing of an actual “covert” CIA agent. That is, a case involving an actual illegal or immoral act. I haven’t heard anyone defending Rove/Bush say that if Plame really had been “covert” and if Rove really did leak her previously unknown identity that he wouldn’t have done anything wrong or that he shouldn’t be prosecuted according to the law. That is certainly my position. If you have seen any responsible, mainstream conservatives say otherwise then please point them out.
The reality of this situation is that Plame wasn’t a “covert agent”(check out USA Today from yesterday and Wash. Times today), national security wasn’t harmed (by anything other than Wilson’s mendacity), Plame has never been in any danger because of this (see Vanity Fair and the society pages). That’s the whole point of defending Rove. He merely responded to Joe “Barney Fife” Wilson lying about his Excellent Nigerian Adventure. People seem to be forgetting that Rove was accused of “retailing” the story about Plame in retaliation for Wilson’s op-ed. What we now know is that Novak and Cooper called him, not the other way around, and what’s more, Novak told Rove about Plame. That sure doesn’t sound like a proactive “smear campaign”. Rove made a truthful statement to Cooper who had called him to ask him about the situation.
On the other hand, if you think the Right would be demanding Begala’s head if he had merely leaked the name of a non-covert CIA agent and it was clear he hadn’t broken the law then you’re wrong. The Right wouldn’t be demanding jail time or prosecution or anything else. They might criticise Begala for being the worthless, sniveling, effeminate lying, Clinton sycophant that he is, but they wouldn’t be wasting everyone’s time with the nonsense the Left is engaging in.
I think people should be careful when they try to draw moral equivalency between the Left and the Right in regard to the “criminalization of politics.” See, Clinton really did break the law. He committed perjury on video tape and tampered with witnesses when he was sued for pulling his pants down and telling a clerical worker for the State of Arkansas to suck it. Rove, on the other hand, hasn’t broken the law. Clinton really did intervene on behalf of Loral Space Corp. in a quid pro quo for its $800,000 contribution to the DNC. Haliburton’s work in Iraq is actually being done pursuant to a competitvely bid LOGCAP contract not a bunch of no-bid contracts as a crony of the Bush Administration. Also, compare the way Trent Lott was forced to resign his leadership post for his Strom Thurmond comments with the Left’s response to Dick Durbin’s idiocy. Last time I checked, Durbin was still Reid’s second in command. The Right has a history of taking issue with actual lawbreaking and the Left makes things up. John’s claim is nonsense.
Jeff Z
Um–Did anybody read the paper this morning? Novak knew who V Plame was before he called Rove.
If the exposure of J Wilson’s wife was so risky, why did he write an NYT op-ed about work he did for her very own department? Exposure in this situation has to be assumed. Everyone in the world concerned with this issue reads our major media–even Osama in his cave has shown in his videos that he is clearly aware of what goes on in our press. Of course Wilson would immediately become the focus of intense international interest.
Why would Wilson risk the lives of his wife and colleagues in such a way? If exposure were really so risky, the NYT could have simply run an anonymously sourced article, the N Kristoff did on Wilson.
Be sensible. Wilson knew what would happen, and he compounded the matter by going on talk shows and granting interviews immediately afterwards. There is no way his wife’s identity would have remained secret. His protests to the contrary are equivalent to that of movie stars who complain that people like to take pictures of them.
Mike S
Um–Did anybody read the paper this morning? Novak knew who V Plame was before he called Rove.
Sure did. Replace “lawyer briefed on the case” with Luskin.
Mike S
Darrell is gay.
Darrell (none / 0)
is a one of the most dishonest people ever to grace blogdom. He will lie about anything with no evidence and then whine because people laugh in his face. He is also gay.
jt007
For those commenters who seem not to know, Sandy Berger pled guilty. Get it. He broke the law and he has admitted it. He removed classified documents from the national archives which directly related to the 9/11 commission’s investigation. Berger deprived the commission from reviewing information directly related to our national security. Liberals all thought that the commission was so indispensible at the time but now, oddly, Berger depriving it of valuable information is no big deal. Where was the outrage from the Left?
Berger took irreplaceable copies of code word classified documents that had been distributed to Clinton Administration officials for comment after the millenium bombing attempt. Berger defenders said that they were merely copies and that the commission got all the information they needed. However, since they were destroyed no one can legitimately make that claim and we will never know what notes were on them. Also, the characterization of Berger’s actions as an “accident” is laughable. He admitted in court in his guilty plea that he intentionally removed the documents and intentionally destroyed them. Ah, the Clinton Administration and its mindless sycophants, the gifts that keep on giving.
jahyarain
i am extremely impressed with this blog. the last time i tried to have a debate with a repub on a political forum it ended with threats and namecalling. i’ll be visiting here often.
jahyarain
i am extremely impressed with this blog. the last time i tried to have a debate with a repub on a political forum it ended with threats and namecalling. i’ll be visiting here often.
Darrell
Uh orogeny, what does that have to do with my post? I was refuting your ridiculous claim that “Sandy Berger’s actions constituted a technical breach of security regs only”. As for Rove, it is not at all “apparent” that he did anything wrong. So there is nothing to “equate” with Berger’s criminal actions now is there?
Hah! if they were sensible, they wouldn’t be perpetually outraged hysterical leftists now would they?
Mr Furious
Mike S, you lost me on the whole Darrell is gay link to the same thing.
jt007, are you Darrell’s Deep Throat “Jimmie”? Because you’re spouting the same bullshit.
proudlattedrinker
Gee, if a highly placed goverment official exposes and endangers a covert CIA operative at a “time of war” and we DON’T go “off the rails” just what is important enough?
Darrell
Welcome.. I hope you bring more to the table than the leftwing kooks who post here now:
Mike S
Mr. Furious
The excruciatingly honest Darrel linked to a comment on someone elses blog as if we should just take it as fact. I figured that if linking to comments was now a reputable source I’d link to one myself.
Darrell
If that person brings the slightest bit of honesty to the blog they will have left you in the dust. Does your mother know that she raised someone as dishonest as you?
Mike S
You can see Darrell’s comment at 2:22 PM.
orogeny
Darrell,
I’ll try to keep this simple. It is not disputed by ANYONE that Valerie Plame was a covert operative, a NOC, for many years, at least until 1999. During that time she worked with other agents, informants, etc. AT NO TIME, even if she quit the agency and went to work for 7/11, would it be appropriate for anyone to reveal to the rest of the world that she had functioned in that capacity, The folks that she worked with can still be endangered if that information is revealed. This may come as a surprise to you, but covert operatives don’t come in from the field and then say to the country in which they worked “NYA NYA NYA, I fooled you…I have been spying on you for years!” Their covert activities remain classified. She may have been working at CIA HQ, but that doesn’t matter…agents often shuttle between Langley and the field. Hell, even James Bond used to have an office in MI6 HQ between assignments.
Whoever revealed her identity (and you’ll note that I have never said that Rove definitely was the one who did so), damaged the United State’s intelligence efforts and may have put people’s lives at risk…simply for cheap political revenge. This is far more serious that what Berger did. If he had taken classified documents and given them to Saddam Hussein, you could establish some kind of equivalence between his actions and those of the leaker.
renato
This is far more serious that what Berger did. If he had taken classified documents and given them to Saddam Hussein, you could establish some kind of equivalence between his actions and those of the leaker.
yeah, but sometime somewhere, a Democrat did something BAD! So what are you complaining about, hypocrite? Give Rove a medal! Wilson is a liar liar fo-fiar! What about Clinton, huh? What about Ted Kennedy? What about Alger Hiss? What about Grover Cleveland?
</wingnut>
The Sanity Inspector
The Plame case doesn’t really have an exact counter-example, IMO. But I think that the Welch case from the Seventies is a bit more analagous than the Berger case. A lot of commentaters drew the parallel when the story first hit the news in 2003, but it bears repeating. Here’s a fair-use excerpt from an old article from The American Prospect, defending Idaho Senator Frank Church from charges of irresponsible oversight of the CIA:
The article doesn’t mention that a disgruntled ex-CIA officer turned political leftist also outed Welch, but that doesn’t count, since he was DU grade small-fry. I think he’s holed up in Cuba or something, nowadays.
jh
Orogeny says “Darrell, I’ll try to keep this simple. It is not disputed by ANYONE that Valerie Plame was a covert operative, a NOC, for many years, at least until 1999.”
Wrong again. There is a big dispute regarding Plame
orogeny
JH,
Do you really think that jumping up and down, waving your arms and screaming insults over and over again makes you seem more credible?
Items 1 and 2 are no longer available (I wonder, did you actually read them in their entirety or are they just part of the RNC talking points that you’re working from?) Item 3 is a legal filing and the language contained in it is nothing but a laundry list of possible reasons for not tossing Miller & Cooper in jail. Item 4…oooohhh, Bob Novak said so…that’s really convincing.
Citing some other right-winger’s opinion of the case, especially Bob Novak’s, no matter how loudly and profanely you do so does not constitute effective argument. You’ve apparently learned your debating technique from the likes of Hannity and O’Reilly.
You have my sympathy…
Bye
Krusty Krab
Balloon Juice Dude says But, it is worth examining- What if this had happened during the Clinton administration? What if it was Paul Begala or someone like him who was accused of outing a CIA agent? What would the right be doing?
Using what other people do to justify your actions is rather grade school of you, don’t you think? You should do what is right regardless of how other people behave.
My two cents.
Tom
Krusty, your ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’ attitude is charming, but this here is politics, amigo! When wrongdoing goes unpunished, it encourages wrongdoers do do wrong again (it worked last time!) and once again, you get *two wrongs*. Sometimes you just have to beat the bad guys down, even if you don’t feel very good about how you did it.
What I am telling you has been scientifically supported! See this link:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/tittat/story.htm
Quote: “Competition within species has generated many Evolutionary Stable Strategies with colourful titles like: Bourgeois, Scrounger, Sneaky, Satellite, Transvestite, and Sex-change. However, co-operation within and between species has generated only one Evolutionary Stable Strategy., TIT FOR TAT.
The importance of TIT FOR TAT to the evolution of co-operative behaviour was discovered in a very unusual way, through a worldwide computer competition to find the winning strategy for the well known paradox ‘The Prisoner’s Dilemma’. In 1981 TIT FOR TAT won that competition, and ever since then it has grown in stature to where it now dominates our thinking about the evolution of co-operative behaviour in animal and human societies.”
There’s a lot more to that article, but basically, cheaters wipe out the nice guys, then start to maul each other, and the ones who are nice to nice guys but retaliate against bad guys (i.e. the TIT FOR TAT strategy) ultimately restore the balance.
So you see, there’s nothing ‘grade school’ about hitting back; or, put another way, we never really get out of grade school!
JH
Orogeny,
Exceptional rebuttal. Really. You unwittingly proved a universal truth about liberals. You’re just not that smart. You didn’t rebut a single fact laid out in my comment and you aren’t even good with the cut downs. First of all your claim that I cited
david53
The Sandy Berger case became confused with all the talk about copies,ie was it an exact copy or did it have individual notations in the margins? What was lost in the confusion was that no visitor to the National Archives gets physical possesion of any papers stored there.When you ask for document x,y and z the clerk rounds up the documents, takes them over to a machine and copies document x,y and z.The clerk hands you the fresh copies of the documents you requested.The original papers, still in the clerk’s possesion, are put back on file.Now the rules are that Berger, and everybody else is to leave their copies and any notes they might make with the clerk when they leave the Archives.Some of this stuff is Top Secret and Berger had Top Secret clearance.Berger snuck his copies out, and for that he was busted.So,he had copies of the original, he had copies of the copies,and while we can’t be sure what he did with his papers the National Archives lost nothing.This story drove me nuts and I think the news media could’ve got this fact clarified,but then edification may not always be a priority.
JK
JH,
All us liberals will continue being bitter, little people? I guess that makes you a big person. Wow! What an honor!
You forgot the most important part of Bush’s defense. When he said any one involved in the leak would be punished, he had his fingers crossed. So there – it doesn’t count.
JK
JH,
All us liberals will continue being bitter, little people? I guess that makes you a big person. Wow! What an honor!
You forgot the most important part of Bush’s defense. When he said any one involved in the leak would be punished, he had his fingers crossed. So there – it doesn’t count.
Jett-Parmer
Would the right have hopped on the left if this had occurred during a Democratic administration? Probably. To this degree? Unlikely, the raw animosity of the current political climate does not even begin to approach anything we have seen in past years. I am more reminded of the Nixon post-Watergate feelings, justified or otherwise.
The better question is what would the major, non-conservative, media outlets say?
This “event” has now risen to the sublimely ridiculous with people hashing about a few words from years ago and a CIA which is likely end up with egg on its face again.