The real Rove scandal: If you can't shoot the messenger, take aim at his wife.

That clearly was the intent of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove in leaking to a reporter that former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV's wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA agent. To try to conceal the fact that the president had lied to the American public about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, Rove attempted to destroy the credibility of two national security veterans and send an intimidating message to any other government officials preparing to publicly tell the truth.

Rove's lawyer now says that Rove didn't break the law against naming covert agents because he didn't know Plame's name and therefore couldn't have revealed it. Perhaps he can use such a technicality in court, but in the meantime he should resign immediately — or be fired by the president — for leaking classified information, trying to smear Wilson and possibly endangering Plame's life.

"The White House promised if anyone was involved in the Valerie Plame affair, they would no longer be in this administration," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). "I trust they will follow through on this pledge."

The background on this story is crucial. Ambassador Wilson had been honored as a patriot by President George H.W. Bush for standing up to Saddam Hussein in a face-to-face confrontation in Baghdad on the eve of the Persian Gulf War. But in 2003, Wilson committed an unpardonable crime in the eyes of the second Bush White House. He exposed its lies about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.

My apologies, I pulled the wrong transcript. That was Bobby Seale.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/916074/posts?page=38#38

HERE is Robert Scheer:
To: DPB101; Bonaparte; HISSKGB; Grampa Dave; Fracas

Here you go. Bob Scheer in all his glory!

The Managing Editor of Ramparts magazine, Bob Scheer.

Applause

Um…I don’t really understand the mood of this rally too much. I understand it less now. There seems to be something obscene or bizarre about seven kids being in jail for trying to stop the war and there’s music going on and the noise and this carnival atmosphere.

And my fear about the next few years in America is that people are going to be picked off and put in jail for long periods of time. Attempts will be made to crush the movement, and there are going to be very serious attempts. And most people in this society, even most people who think that they’re in opposition, will be able to go about their normal lives, maybe sign a few petitions.

I think this style of repression is a very modern one. It’s very selective. It’s very efficient. It’s aimed at intimidating people and shutting them up and allowing an illusion of freedom.

So, you have your great hippie revolt. That’s a fantastic thing. You see we’re all liberated. And we could go down there and enjoy ourselves on the other plaza. We could even have a little bit of free speech. As long as it doesn’t intrude on the society at all. And when it begins to intrude, then it’s going to be crushed. And it’s going to be crushed brutally. And it’s going to be crushed in the same style as the revolution of Vietnam or Cuba. It’s going to be crushed.

Because what we’re talking about in Vietnam, or here, is really a war of example. And what our society is saying to us is there are some things they will not tolerate abroad, or at home. And what our society is saying to us in Vietnam, and in the United States, is that we are going to make an example of those people who attempt to challenge our power.

And we now know, particularly because of the events of the last few weeks, that the war in Vietnam is clearly a war of example, aimed at crushing revolutions. Once the Hanoi Government said that it would negotiate if there was a halt in the bombing, once it gave it’s unconditional commitment to talks, and everyone knows that commitment was made, and the Administration continued it’s bombing, we knew that this was a war to the finish. This is a war for total victory. To establish the military supremacy of the United States Government, and to teach a lesson to people in the world that they cannot make the revolutions of their choice. That the only kind of peace that will be tolerated is the Roman peace.

And in this society, the only kind of freedom that we will have is the freedom of the Roman circus, of the carnival. And those people in this society who attempt to intrude, that attempt to prevent that war machine from functioning are going to be crushed, and crushed quite brutally. So the war of example in Vietnam has been brought home. And I think we should understand that and understand that very clearly.

And I think there’s something interesting about the fact that we used to think of Coakley as a right-winger. But what’s the difference between Coakley’s indictments and Johnson’s indictments? What’s the difference between the indictment of Mark Raskin and the indictment of Frank Barnakey (sp?)?

And now we’ve come to understand very clearly that the forces of hysteria and the forces of reaction in America do not exist just among the kooks of the right. They exist right at the center of our politics. And when Lyndon Johnson and Mark Raskin, very reasonable and respectable individuals…you know Mark Raskin who used to work on security affairs in the Kennedy Administration, he served notice to the Coakley’s in this Country that the time was at hand to crack down.

And we see in state after state now, there’s a very serious and very selective and very vicious repression. And the frightening thing is that most of our citizens don’t even know it’s going on. Most of our citizens are just quietly intimidated by it.

I thought that Professor Hirsch said something really honest yesterday when he said, “You know how intimidation works when you feel intimidated”. And he had to admit that he felt intimidated. And many people will be making that move from this part to that part. Because it’s a lot easier to revolt and be free over there than it is over here now days. And I think we ought to mark that. And what the government has done, (dog barking LOL), is put us all on the spot, and we have got to decide are we going to allow them to construct their Roman society? And are we going to allow them to let that stick in Vietnam, and are we going to allow them to make that example stick at home?

And I think the time is over when we can just talk about mild debate. You know, I’m carrying a magazine which I just happened to read, called, McLeans. It’s published in Canada. I guess it’s the white magazine of Canada. Only this week they had an issue on Vietnam, and I guess because they’re not as intimately involved, they can be more honest. And on page 14 they had a photograph of an American Marine…with his foot on the body of a Vietnamese peasant who was in a coma. And that Vietnamese peasant was just lying there and he had his foot on it and he had his hand held up with his gun in a trophy shot. The picture is in this magazine; it sells about a million copies. That man’s not going to go to jail. The people who send him there are not going to go to jail. But someone who attempts to intrude on what they’re doing there will go to jail. And I think the time is at hand where we have to challenge that notion of legality.

I don’t think we should deny the facts of what happened in Oakland. We should affirm their legitimacy. From a moral and political point of view of their having happened. I think we should argue that it is essential that dessent be taken off the campus and to the induction center. That dessent is not the luxury of intellectuals. That dessent is a charade unless it interferes with the society. Unless it stops people from going to Vietnam. Unless it stops the power in the society. And I think that the kind of struggle that we have to engage in is precisely the kind of struggle that intrudes.

And instead of being intimidated, we have to say that you were forced to arrest these people because they were effective. And we have learned a lesson from it. And we are going to shift our tactics more and more to those kind of tactics because they are effective. And were they not effective, you would not throw those people in jail. And I think that’s the lesson that has to be learned.

And we have to say that dissent cannot be a joke. Dissent cannot be a private matter. And dissent is unimportant in a society unless it forces a society to confront the enormity of its crimes. To consider in a deep sense what it is doing. And if it is true that our society is committed to preventing revolutions in the world, then we have to indicate our solidarity with those people that have resisted. And we have to act in the spirit of Jay Kavara (sp?), not because we were raised in the spirit of Jay Kavara, but because the times call for the spirit of Jay Kavara.

Applause

I say that not because it’s easy to sound revolutionary or romantic. Most of us were not born to be revolutionary or romantics. But I think again of a person like Mark Rask, or Koppell or Spock. These men. Mark Rask went to work in the White House with George Bundy because he thought he would bring peace to the world. He signed a complicity statement and he urged people not to go into the Army because he knew it was the only step a moral man could take at this time. People do not become Jay Kavara’s out of choice; they become Jay Kavara’s when the situation demands that they become Jay Kavara’s, if they have the personal integrity to meet that demand.

And what our society is saying to us at this time is that if your dissent is going to matter at all you are going to have to break with your lifestyle. And what I would urge is that we begin now to plan the next stop the draft week. And that all of us plan to be the leaders of that demonstration, not the followers. That we, all of us who have been speaking so long, and the teachings and writings that we step forward at this time and say we will lead the next stop the draft week. Be it professors, or be it journalists or what have you. (This dog doesn’t like him either. More barking).

And I think we have to take seriously the injunction of filling the jails. Not because it’s good to be in jail, not because we want to be martyrs. Not because we believe Washington is just, and when they see us in jail they’ll change. But because stop the draft weeks must continue. Because the Oakland injunction system just be closed down. And if the price of closing it down means you have to go to jail, then you have to go to jail.

And the lesson to be drawn from this experience is that Washington has upped the ante. They have said that the situation will be serious. That the game of dissent is over. And we are now in the spots. And we are now in the position of having to demonstrate to them that we will not accept their war of example anymore than the Vietnamese people accept it in their own country. And if we act in that spirit I know that we will win out. And if we don’t act in that spirit and we worry about our own personal happiness and our joy and our own personal liberation, then we have failed not only the people of Vietnam or Cuba, but we failed the people of the United States.

Applause

(Sheesh, can anybody say sanctimonious?)

38 posted on 05/23/2003 12:36:36 AM CDT by terilyn

If you can stand it, read this -- and picture Blitzer YELLING over Mehlman:

BLITZER: Welcome back.

More now on the controversy involving President Bush's top political advisor, Karl Rove, and the leak of a CIA operative's name.

Rove and the president go back a long way. And it's not the first time his political dealings have gotten him into a little hot water.

CNN's Kyra Phillips takes a look back at the man and his relationship with his boss.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KARL ROVE, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF: I didn't know her name and didn't leak her name.

KYRA PHILLIPS, HOST, "LIVE FROM" (voice-over): Last August, Karl Rove, one of the president's closest advisors, denying any involvement in exposing an undercover CIA agent. But there's no denying Rove is a powerful influence at the White House.

KEN DUBERSTEIN, FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: Somebody who is a keen student of history and somebody who clearly has the president's total confidence.

PHILLIPS: Republicans praise Rove; even Democrats give him high marks.

DONNA BRAZILE, FORMER GORE CAMPAIGN MANAGER: Karl Rove is the master of the game.

PHILLIPS: Rove usually stays in the background, but last month he let loose at a meeting of New York state conservatives.

ROVE: Liberals saw the savagery -- savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding to our attackers.

PHILLIPS: Critics called for an apology, but his boss said there was no need.

BUSH: The "architect," Karl Rove.

PHILLIPS: Rove's relationship with the Bush family goes back to the early 1970s, when Rove worked for the president's father, Bush 41, then chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Rove later planned George W. Bush's winning races for governor in Texas and his two presidential campaigns.

BILL MILLER, GOP CONSULTANT: If you look at the circle of people who sit down and make big decisions in that administration, the seats at that table are few and far between, and Karl has the first seat.

PHILLIPS: Kyra Phillips, CNN, Atlanta.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: Despite being President Bush's closest advisor, few Republican lawmakers are rushing to defend Karl Rove, at least publicly, right now. At the same time, Democrats, at least some of them, are calling on the president to actually fire Karl Rove.

Joining us now with his take on all of this, the Republican National Committee chairman, Ken Mehlman.

Ken, thanks very much for joining us.

KEN MEHLMAN, CHAIRMAN, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE: Wolf, I appreciate the opportunity.

BLITZER: Now you were the political director at the White House. You worked very closely with Karl Rove at the time of this leak. What did you know about Karl Rove's conversations with Matt Cooper of "TIME" magazine?

MEHLMAN: This wasn't something that Karl and I discussed. What I've always known about Karl -- I've known Karl for a number of years is, first of all, he's a friend. He's a good public servant. He's somebody that has the highest ethical standards, and he's somebody that very clearly, as you pointed out, has stated that he was not the leaker. And I believe that he is -- I know he is fully cooperating with this investigation.

What's so unfortunate, Wolf, and what we're seeing is unprecedented, is the fact that people like John Kerry, someone who ran for president, Hillary Clinton, former first lady, Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democrat Party, would follow the angry left and MoveOn.org.

BLITZER: When you say...

MEHLMAN: ... try to smear someone.

BLITZER: When you say you know he's not the leaker, in the "TIME" magazine -- Matt Cooper in the e-mail he had with his editors before the Bob Novak story appeared in the "Chicago Sun-Times" and other newspapers. He wrote in one of his e-mails, "It was K.R.," referring to Karl Rove. "It was, K.R. [Karl Rove] said, Wilson's wife who apparently works at the agency on WMD [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip" -- referring to Joe Wilson's trip -- "to Niger." He's telling Matthew Cooper that Joe Wilson's wife, an operative at the CIA, was involved in getting this trip going.

MEHLMAN: Looking at those e-mails, what I saw is Karl Rove discouraging Matthew Cooper from writing a story that was, in fact, false. Karl was right; Joe Wilson was wrong. The story wag false. It was based on a false premise, and, of course, the conclusion was false. So...

BLITZER: When you say the story was false, is there any evidence Niger was sending uranium, enriched uranium to Iraq?

MEHLMAN: What Joe Wilson alleged was that the vice president, then he said the CIA director sent him to Niger. He then alleged that he wrote a report which positively proved that, in fact, that wasn't occurring and that the vice president sat on the report.

BLITZER: But the upshot of his bottom line report to the CIA was there was no evidence uranium, enriched uranium, yellow cake, as it's called, was being sent to Iraq. So he was right on that.

MEHLMAN: Well, both the Senate Intelligence Committee and others who have studied it have found that, in fact, his report was largely irrelevant to that finding.

BLITZER: It was not conclusive, they concluded, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

MEHLMAN: But...

BLITZER: But let's get back to issue of Karl Rove and his conversations with Matt Cooper, because you were there inside the White House. Were there meetings, when you were the political director, on what to do involving Joe Wilson, how to deal with this problem that erupted after he wrote that op-ed piece in "the New York Times"?

MEHLMAN: I recall -- I don't recall those meetings occurring. What I recall was, at the time, discussing the important issues that we were facing, which is exactly what Karl Rove is doing now.

You heard in your earlier report from Suzanne Malveaux, what Karl Rove was doing '03 is what he's doing in 2005, and that is he's working for an energy policy, working to make sure that we have judges confirmed with unprecedented consultation. He was today, I know -- he and I talked about working to make sure we passed CAFTA in the House next week.

The fact is, this is someone who serves our president, serves our country incredibly well. It's incredibly unfortunate that there are other people out there, while he fully cooperates with the investigation, that try to smear him and thereby smear the investigation.

BLITZER: Karl Rove, we know, has been called before a grand jury. A lot of other White House officials have been called before a grand jury. Were you called before a grand jury?

MEHLMAN: I'm not going to comment on the specifics of this investigation. What I'm here to talk about is, unfortunately, a political smear that's occurred, and the political smear is people, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean and others...

BLITZER: Well, why can't you tell us if you've been asked to testify?

MEHLMAN: I don't think it's appropriate for anyone to talk about.

BLITZER: You were working at the White House at that time.

MEHLMAN: I think it is not appropriate for me or any else to talk about where we may or may not have been testifying.

What we know is that there has been full cooperation. We know that Karl Rove more than a year ago came out and said anybody that he's talked to in the press should cooperate with the -- with the prosecutor, cooperate and fully provide their information. And not withstanding that, not withstanding the White House's total cooperation, which is appropriate, you're seeing a partisan smear by the other side.

BLITZER: Do you -- do you believe Judy Miller should be sitting in jail right now, the "New York Times" correspondent?

MEHLMAN: I don't know the specific facts or what she did or what she did not say. I generally believe that -- that a reporter, obviously, has a privilege. At the same time a report who's a witness to something that may be a crime has an obligation to cooperate. And I think each person has to make a decision specifically about what they're going to do.

BLITZER: But you -- have you given a waiver to reporters who may have talked to you about whether or not you authorized them to reveal...

MEHLMAN: I don't recall giving a waiver. I don't recall...

BLITZER: The White House officials had to sign that statement.

MEHLMAN: I don't remember the specifics with respect to that. And as I said, I'm not commenting on who I may or may not have talked to as part of this investigation.

The issue here, Wolf, is that there is full compliance. There is full cooperation by Karl Rove and by the White House. And on the other side, you're seeing an unprecedented part of the smear campaign.

BLITZER: Listen to what the president said at the time, shortly after this leak, a few months later. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BUSH: If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: The president went on to say, in response to other questions, that he would fire any such official. Do you think at that time the president knew that Karl Rove was talking about Valerie Plame with Matt Cooper of "TIME" magazine?

MEHLMAN: I don't know the answer to that question. But I think what the president's statement the other -- you just showed and what we learned this past weekend doesn't change anything at all. The fact is, Karl Rove did not leak classified information. He did not, according to what we learned this past weekend, reveal the name of anybody. He didn't even know the name, so he couldn't have revealed it.

BLITZER: But he did say that Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

MEHLMAN: Well, what he did is he tried...

BLITZER: He didn't reveal her name specifically. But it wouldn't be difficult to find out her name, because Joe Wilson's biography is published all over the place.

MEHLMAN: He tried to discourage a reporter from writing a story that was false. He said it would be false. He said, "You shouldn't write it." And the reporter wrote it anyway, even though it turned out to be false. I think what Karl Rove was saying was right; what Joe Wilson was saying was wrong.

BLITZER: Here's what Joe Biden, the ranking Democrat on the foreign relations committee, said on "INSIDE POLITICS" here on CNN just a little while ago. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOE BIDEN (D), DELAWARE: The fact that he didn't give her name, but identified the ambassador's wife, it's not -- doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who that is. If that occurred, at a minimum, that was incredibly bad judgment, warranting him being asked to leave.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Was it bad judgment on the part of Karl Rove to tell Matt Cooper that Joe Wilson, the former ambassador's wife, came up with this idea and worked at the CIA?

MEHLMAN: Let me say, Wolf, I think what -- according to what we've learned from this past weekend, I think what Karl Rove said turned out to be right. In fact, Joe Wilson's story was not accurate. It was based on a false premise, and he tried to discourage the writing of an inaccurate story based on that false premise.

Unlike Senator Biden, unlike Mrs. Clinton, unlike Chairman Dean, unlike Harry Reid, I'm not going to go out, and I'm not going to prejudge what is an investigation, which is being fully cooperated with by Karl Rove when I was at the White House, at the same time they work on the people's business.

I frankly think that it's unfortunate that all of these Democrat leaders aren't talking about saving Social Security, aren't talking about how we're going to have an energy plan. Instead, they're engaged in a partisan smear campaign.

BLITZER: All right. We're going to continue this conversation. I'd like you to stand by. We'll take a quick break, and I'll ask you if it was the other side, if it was a Democrat involved in allegations of leaking the name of a CIA clandestine officer, how would the Republicans be acting then?

We'll take a quick break. More with Ken Mehlman right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back. We're continuing our conversation with Ken Mehlman, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, former White House political director, worked closely with Karl Rove.

I want you to listen to what Scott McClellan, the press secretary at the White House, said on September 29, when asked about if anyone in the administration leaked the name of Valerie Plame to Bob Novak of the "Chicago Sun-Times," our CNN contributor.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MCCLELLAN: If any in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Does that statement still hold?

MEHLMAN: I'm not going to speak for the White House. I'm the RNC chairman, not the White House spokesman.

BLITZER: But you worked closely with the White House. I assume you've been in contact with them over the past few days since this Karl Rove story erupted?

MEHLMAN: As I said, we've been in contact, Wolf. What we've been talking about is how do we move CAFTA, how do we move the energy deal?

BLITZER: You don't talk about the Karl Rove story with officials of the White House?

MEHLMAN: We're focused on these other questions. I -- working as RNC chairman, I work with them to try to develop strategy to accomplish these things on the Hill. That's what I've been focused on talking with them about today.

BLITZER: Have you had any conversations with the White House about Karl Rove?

MEHLMAN: My conversations today have been focused on CAFTA, on judges. What you saw this morning, this unprecedented effort by the White House to meet with the more than -- and discuss with more than 50 percent of the Democrats and more than half the Republicans who they should name to replace O'Connor with.

That's what they're focused on. They're not for one minute diverted in their attention and their energy of solving the American people's problems.

BLITZER: As far as you know, are other White House officials being investigated right now as a potential source for this leak?

MEHLMAN: I don't know the answer to that question. And the fact is, I think, unlike folks that are trying to smear Karl Rove, I'm not going to comment on a pending investigation. I don't think it's appropriate that I do.

BLITZER: You're a lawyer. You're a graduate of Harvard Law School, a very smart guy.

MEHLMAN: Don't hold it against me.

BLITZER: Was it a mistake -- was it a mistake for the administration to seek a special prosecutor in this case? The law -- as you know, the 1982 law, the original law is very murky as to intent and actual release of names. Was it a mistake to go this far and begin this criminal prosecution, this criminal investigation?

MEHLMAN: I'm not going to second-guess the White House on an important question like this. I was political director. I wasn't legal counsel. I didn't have the facts before me. I certainly didn't work in the Department of Justice. And I don't think it's appropriate for me -- and that's what's so outrageous, Wolf, about what you're hearing from them. What you heard about Senator Biden and Mrs. Clinton, Senator Clinton and you heard from John Kerry was folks who are totally prejudging the situation and politically smearing someone.

BLITZER: Well, what if the shoe were on the other foot. What if the president in this particular case were Bill Clinton and the Republicans were in the opposite. Wouldn't you be doing exactly what the Democrats are now doing?

MEHLMAN: I don't think we would. I don't think you'd have people prejudging an investigation. I don't think you'd have people sending e-mails out to the angry left to try to raise money alleging that somebody is a criminal or that someone ought to lose their job. It's entirely inappropriate. It's entirely unprecedented. It's a political smear campaign, and it's wrong. And it ought to stop. BLITZER: You had the guts to come out and speak on these sensitive issues, but at the White House, they seem to be putting up this stonewall. They're not answering any questions. Scott McClellan, you see how he's been battered over these past couple days. From a political perspective, as the former political director at the White House, the chairman of the Republican Party, to a lot of Americans, they're going to look like you're stonewalling.

MEHLMAN: Well, look, at the White House, politics isn't the only important thing to them. There's something more important. It's called justice being done. And what you're seeing from Scott McClellan and then from others at the White House, and what you're seen from Karl Rove for more than a year is total cooperation with this investigation. And obviously, Scott believes, given the investigation, given the sensitivity, given the fact that the Department of the Justice reports to the White House, for him to comment on the record, for him to respond to these questions is wrong.

I give him tremendous credit. It's a tremendous statement of what's really important to this president and to this administration, which is justice being done. And it's a tremendous statement, and it was really important to these Democrat leaders, the kind of political smears you're seeing. It's very unfortunate. And it's a real contrast between the two sides.

BLITZER: Ken Mehlman, thanks for joining us.

MEHLMAN: Thanks, Wolf. I appreciate it.

BLITZER: Appreciate it. We'll have you back.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.