Classic Rove

Washington Post ^ | July 13, 2005 | Harold Meyerson

[ricks_place]

Now Karl Rove has become "fair game."

That was the term that the president's consigliere applied to Valerie Plame, according to Newsweek, in a conversation with MSNBC's Chris Matthews immediately after the publication of Robert D. Novak's column that identified Plame as a CIA operative. And, of course, Plame was fair game: Her identity was a tool to discredit, however obliquely, the report from her husband, Joe Wilson, that the administration's claim that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had sought to purchase uranium from Niger was a bunch of hooey....

And becoming Karl Rove's fair game means you're in for a bumpy ride. .... He's also the kind of ethically unconstrained guy Bush has wanted around when the going gets tough -- when the case Bush is making is unconvincing on its own merits, when he needs to divert attention from himself with a stunning attack on somebody else....

You can go pretty far with this kind of modus operandi, particularly if the press is complaisant. Sometimes, you can go too far, as Joe McCarthy discovered when he leveled his woozy allegations against the Army. ....

And it's not just Rove who's been caught up in the coverup. Looking like no one so much as Ron Ziegler, Nixon's press guy, in the middle of Watergate, Bush press secretary Scott McClellan was one beleaguered boychik on Monday ....

Or did he? There's no basis to conclude that if Rove was the guy who outed Plame, he told his boss about it. .... Though we can't be certain it was Rove who disclosed Plame's identity, we can be damned sure that if he did, it was all in a day's work on behalf of George W. Bush....

[ricks_place]

Harold Meyerson is "fair game" for Accuracy In Media

How to Label Harold Meyerson
By Julian Tepper  |  October 14, 2004

"John Kerry may be the most die-hard of liberals or a charter member of the Flip-Flop Hall of Fame—but he can't be both."

The Washington Post publishes weekly Op-Ed page pieces by Harold Meyerson. Is it wrong to wonder "why"? The newspaper strives for a national, if not a world presence, so may I ask just what is it that Meyerson brings to the table to merit such an opportunity? After reading and thinking about several of his columns, and noting a consistent lack of logic and profundity, I am still in a quandary. Could it be simply his politics?

His column of yesterday (October 13; Labels That Don't Stick) is a good example of what he is without. He starts off with a meandering muse about the President's switch from commenting on Kerry as a "flip-flopper" to pointing out that he is the most liberal senator of them all, a switch that he attributes to the two most despised-by-the-Democrats bete noires, Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove.

Meyerson asserts that "John Kerry may be the most die-hard of liberals or a charter member of the Flip-Flop Hall of Fame—but he can't be both"? Why not? Because, opines, Meyerson, "[d]ie-Hard Liberals don't flip-flop." From this proclamation he segues into the remaining four-fifths of his article by applying it, in a manner most undecipherable, to yet another, that Kerry's idea of a health plan does not lead to a government bureaucracy that is massive.

At the domestic-issues debate last evening, the President and Kerry of course spoke about health care, and made their differences somewhat clear. Meyerson's predictions on how that portion of the debate would go were (except for the obvious point of federal government involvement) off the mark. But, no matter; predicting behavior is always a chancy enterprise. I'd like, instead, to deal with Meyerson's opening, the foundation of the rest of his piece.

First, I'd like to know the basis for his assertion that a die-hard liberal cannot engage in flip-floppery. Let's look first to the essence of each of those shorthand labels? We can argue about details and nuances, but I put it to you that one who is a die-hard liberal looks overwhelmingly to the government for problem-solving, and thinks it right, regardless of the effect on private business, to impose taxes to pay for the costs attendant to that political approach.

And, what is flip-floppery? Well, I think we can all agree that a person who has a penchant for saying different things on the same issue at different times or to different sets of people, and who does this to get enough votes to win an election, is a flip-flopper. (Note that I do not associate the term with constantly changing one's mind. I don't think that mind-changing is involved, at all. Rather, the flip-floppery that I define is characteristic of a person whose core is not comprised of values, whatever they may be, but consists of only wanting to get elected.)

So, then, why is it not possible for John Kerry to be both a die-hard liberal and a flip-flopper? Meyerson's "proof" comprises only the naming of four supposed die-hard liberals (Wellstone, T. Kennedy, Gruening and Sumner) who did not flip-flop on the issues associated with them. Meyerson may have thus demonstrated that a die-hard liberal need not be a flip-flopper; but, he came nowhere near establishing that a die-hard liberal cannot be one.

There are a host of labels by which one could characterize Meyerson's so-called thought pieces. Those that come immediately to mind include, among others, space-consuming, inane, fatuous, mindless, vacuous and characterless. Useful labels? Does the word, "glue," suggest itself?

[stinkerpot65]

The press thinks they are re-living Watergate. Let them fantasize for a while. Keeps them busy.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Were Rove and Bush not "public figures" this could easily be libelous.

It employs a liberal favorite, a variation of "It may not be true but it could be." and "There is no evidence. That is exactly why we need to investigate this." Throw it out there, flog it to death, do a poll to see what "the people" think, and then use that as validation of why we need to get rid of the target.

[gaspar]

Here is the quintessence of the ad hominem attack, i.e., appealing to one's emotions and prejudices rather than one's intellect. Forty years ago this is the sort of thing that would have been laughed out of the newsroom of any newspaper of quality. Today it is probably considered de rigueur at the Columbia, Missouri and Berkeley schools of journalism.

[kittymyrib]

I agree...while they are frothing over this non-issue, something big is going on behind the curtain, and they will totally miss it. It happens repeatedly and Rove always wins, thus validating the definition of insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

[NathanBookman]

I read on the thread here the other day that even Bob Woodward (on Larry King) thought the press was getting carried away on this whole Rove thing.

[carlr]

One of the strangest things I have ever read.This would get a failing grade for an elementary term paper.
In a nutshell he says Rove may not have done anything wrong but as with any conservative he is evil.
Every word that this moron writes smacks of the great buzzword "McCarthyism" that he is obligated to throw in.

[Lazamataz]

I read on the thread here the other day that even Bob Woodward (on Larry King) thought the press was getting carried away on this whole Rove thing.

That's why we should encourage them.

Have you noticed how America is not going to the movies now that Hollywood has gotten increasingly left-strident?

Same thing for elections.

Let them become utterly strident, and we shall win -- not that it seems to matter, for our side tends to vote in more spending and more rights-restrictions as quickly as their side does -- but nonetheless, and for what it is worth, we shall win.

[D-fendr]

Now Karl Rove has become "fair game."

Now? When was he not fair game for them?

[Puppage]

That was the term that the president's consigliere...

Geesh, they can't even get through the first sentence without name-calling.

[jveritas]

Great post, I agree 100%.

[balch3]

I saw a lefty blog yesterday that compared GHWB to Vito Corleone, Dubya to Sonny, Jeb to Michael, and Neal to Fredo. Disgusting.

[mj1234]

I might disagree...
The MSM could be 1000000% wrong but still print they are
right.

Look at the reporting of how "smart" Skerry was
Turns out he was a "c" student- after a year of
my 2 local papers constantly harping-on the front
page and in editorials (From the editor and write-in's)
as to the superior intellect of Skerry any retraction?
nope- they still call Bush stupid.-
Rove could be exonerated (I personally think the leak
source was Wilson) but you will never get a retraction.

Rove will be constantly persecuted as "Evil"
just as bush was "stupid" only forums like this have
a give and take of ideas-simple reporting-who,what,when
where, and why. the MSM has an agenda- to defeat repubs-
really, to defeat freedom because of the editors and
"reporters" they currently have on staff were brought
up in their journalistic careers as socialist's maybe even
as Marxist's.

So, I would like to see the MSM changed- by us/ because
of us, at Freerepublic and other blogs - get rid of the
Rather's, the Helen Thomas's etc. -show them for what they
really are: ANTI American defeatist's wishing for an all
encompassing Socialistic society.

[Wuli]

It seems very clear now that Rove was not Judith Miller's source; and from that the possibilities are that either her actual source, or she herself, was Novak's source.

Rove gave Fitzgerald a general waiver for "anyone he talked to" concerning the Wilson stuff, releasing them from any confidentiality requirement on his part; MORE THAN A YEAR AGO.

You get two things from that. Cooper's recent statement's that only now was he free to reveal his source are just bunk. He was free to reveal Rove's name more than a year ago. Why didn't he. Read his email to his bosses concerning his conversation with Rove. First, he lied about why he wanted to talk to Rove - said it was about medicare, and before the call ended he finally got to the real subject of his call - Wilson. And Rove's comments? He clearly was not trying to "out" Wilson's wife as a way to get back at Wilson. He was warning Cooper that the story from Wilson was much weaker that it looked; that neither the VP or DCIA had even known about Wilson's trip, much less sanctioned it; that it was Wilson's own wife who had recommended him and that Wilson's report did not change the intelligence community's view of Iraq's attempts to purchase yellow cake in Niger. Trying to "out" Wilson's wife? No; trying to tell Cooper the story was weak.

One last point about Wilson and yellow cake. The media plays this out as if Wilson was sent to Niger to "get confirmation that Iraq had tried to purchase yellow cake in Niger". He was not. He was not briefed on all the intelligence concerning Iraq's attempts to purchase yellow cake in Niger. He was asked to do one thing; to find out if certain documents which purported to indicate a Iraqi attempt to purchase yellow cake were authentic. That was all he was asked to do. And how did he do that? He spent about 90% of his time at his Hotel and he had a couple conversations with a couple former Niger government officials - end of research. As was reported by the congressional investigations - the intelligence communities assessement of Iraqi attempts to purchase yellow cake were not changed by Wilson's "report".

Now back to Judith Miller. So, if Rove was her source then she got the same waiver from Rove as Cooper. Since she still will not reveal her source, it's very unlikely that her source was Rove.

What seems increasingly likely is that her and/or her bosses are protecting another source. Why? Well if she was Novak's source, then her source was Novak's source. And what if her source was some State Department friend of Wilson, or even Wilson himself. Then Miller and the New York Times would have their own Rathergate. They would have conspired to "leak" Wilson's wife's name to Novak, let him do the story (Judith Miller did not herself print a story on the issue then) and then gin up the mainstream media into accepting the false notion that the White House had let out the name to embarass Wilson.

Now I believe that Novak did say the source was a very high official. What if Judith Miller's source was Colin Powell?

Well then Bush has already fulfilled his promise to sack the leaker.

[EricT.]

Plame was fair game: Her identity was a tool to discredit, however obliquely, the report from her husband, Joe Wilson, that the administration's claim that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had sought to purchase uranium from Niger was a bunch of hooey....

This moron can't even make it through the first full paragraph without passing on a long discredited lie without mentioning the truth of the matter. I can handle liberal slant, but this is Pravda-style propaganda.

[Matchett-PI]

"Here is the quintessence of the ad hominem attack, i.e., appealing to one's emotions and prejudices rather than one's intellect."

But, of course, that sort of tactic only works with emotionally immature mentalities (regardless of their "IQ"). Even if such emotionally unstable ones took a course in Critical Thinking, it wouldn't do them any good because they don't have the courage to face reality and truth - they just won't "go there".

[AFPhys]

Rove gave Fitzgerald a general waiver for "anyone he talked to" concerning the Wilson stuff, releasing them from any confidentiality requirement on his part; MORE THAN A YEAR AGO.

You get two things from that. Cooper's recent statement's that only now was he free to reveal his source are just bunk. He was free to reveal Rove's name more than a year ago. Why didn't he. Read his email to his bosses concerning his conversation with Rove. First, he lied about why he wanted to talk to Rove - said it was about medicare, and before the call ended he finally got to the real subject of his call - Wilson. And Rove's comments? He clearly was not trying to "out" Wilson's wife as a way to get back at Wilson. He was warning Cooper that the story from Wilson was much weaker that it looked; that neither the VP or DCIA had even known about Wilson's trip, much less sanctioned it; that it was Wilson's own wife who had recommended him and that Wilson's report did not change the intelligence community's view of Iraq's attempts to purchase yellow cake in Niger. Trying to "out" Wilson's wife? No; trying to tell Cooper the story was weak.

One last point about Wilson and yellow cake. The media plays this out as if Wilson was sent to Niger to "get confirmation that Iraq had tried to purchase yellow cake in Niger". He was not. He was not briefed on all the intelligence concerning Iraq's attempts to purchase yellow cake in Niger. He was asked to do one thing; to find out if certain documents which purported to indicate a Iraqi attempt to purchase yellow cake were authentic. That was all he was asked to do. And how did he do that? He spent about 90% of his time at his Hotel and he had a couple conversations with a couple former Niger government officials - end of research. As was reported by the congressional investigations - the intelligence communities assessement of Iraqi attempts to purchase yellow cake were not changed by Wilson's "report".
---->

Three paragraphs worth repeating from your very excellent post.
`

[mouser]

I had a liberal tell me that this will not only lead to Rove going to jail, but lead to the impeachment of both the President and vice president.

[stinkerpot65]

They're living a fantasy. Remember all the Clinton scandals? How much did they really hurt Clinton? A lot of Republicans pinned their hopes on scandals because they couldn't beat Clinton politically.


Same with the Plame deal. The Dems are weak and desperate and have nowhere else to go.

[ravingnutter]

Who is a moron? It's not his fault you can't keep up.

The Butler report said British intelligence had "credible" information -- from several sources -- that a 1999 visit by Iraqi officials to Niger was for the purpose of buying uranium:

Butler Report: It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.

The Butler Report affirmed what the British government had said about the Niger uranium story back in 2003, and specifically endorsed what Bush said as well.

Butler Report: By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” was well-founded.

The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reported July 7, 2004 that the CIA had received reports from a foreign government (not named, but probably Britain) that Iraq had actually concluded a deal with Niger to supply 500 tons a year of partially processed uranium ore, or "yellowcake." That is potentially enough to produce 50 nuclear warheads.

The Senate report said the CIA then asked a "former ambassador" to go to Niger and report. That is a reference to Joseph Wilson -- who later became a vocal critic of the President's 16 words. The Senate report said Wilson brought back denials of any Niger-Iraq uranium sale, and argued that such a sale wasn't likely to happen. But the Intelligence Committee report also reveals that Wilson brought back something else as well -- evidence that Iraq may well have wanted to buy uranium.

Wilson reported that he had met with Niger's former Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki, who said that in June 1999 he was asked to meet with a delegation from Iraq to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between the two countries.

Based on what Wilson told them, CIA analysts wrote an intelligence report saying former Prime Minister Mayki "interpreted 'expanding commercial relations' to mean that the (Iraqi) delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales." In fact, the Intelligence Committee report said that "for most analysts" Wilson's trip to Niger "lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal."

Committee Report: He (the intelligence officer) said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerian officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.

Both the Butler report and the Senate Intelligence Committee report make clear that Bush's 16 words weren't based on the fake documents.

FactCheck.org