 |
 |
 |
||
|
 |
|||
 |
 |
 |
Posted on 07/20/2005 5:27:01 PM PDT by CHARLITE
“Top Cheney Aide Among Sources in C.I.A. Story” is the headline the Associated Press chose for its article on now-famous journalist Matthew Cooper’s first-hand account of his testimony before the grand jury investing the leak of Valerie Plame’s identity.
But the real story is that Karl Rove has been further vindicated.
Though the ultimate arbiter of any legal issues will be special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and the aforementioned grand jury, the political case against Bush’s right-hand man is quickly crumbling. Cooper’s story—on Time’s new cover—confirms that Rove was not “shopping” for an outlet to “out” Plame, but that he was merely warning Cooper not to “get too far out on Wilson.”
Much of what was in the account was covered in Mike Isikoff’s Newsweek scoop on the contents of the e-mail Cooper wrote to his editor almost immediately after his 2-minute phone conversation with Rove. From the Newsweek article, it was established that Cooper called Rove—not the other way around—and that it was the Time reporter, not the supposed evil genius, who brought up the topic of Joe Wilson.
Perhaps the most significant “news” item in Cooper’s piece is that he also counted Vice-President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, as a “source” on Plame—which explains the AP’s headline selection.
But rather than implicating Libby, Cooper’s article is yet more evidence that there was no “story shopping” by the White House. Here’s what Cooper wrote:
In August 2004, I gave limited testimony about my conversations with Scooter Libby. Libby had also given me a specific waiver, and I gave a deposition in the office of my attorney. I have never discussed that conversation until now. In that testimony, I recounted an on-the-record conversation with Libby that moved to background. On the record, he denied that Cheney knew about or played any role in the Wilson trip to Niger. On background, I asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson's wife sending her husband to Niger. Libby replied, "Yeah, I've heard that too," or words to that effect. Like Rove, Libby never used Valerie Plame's name or indicated that her status was covert, and he never told me that he had heard about Plame from other reporters, as some press accounts have indicated.
No matter what the AP headline—or others—may suggest, Libby appears to have been a “source” only in the loosest possible sense. Not only was it Cooper who initiated the call, but Libby merely told the reporter that he had “heard that too.” It would seem nothing more than an off-handed response to Cooper’s question, and the Cheney aide too, did not appear to know Plame’s name or covert status.
The other significant “news” item in the Time cover story was what Cooper wrote regarding what Rove told him at the end of the very brief conversation:
Although it’s not reflected in my notes or subsequent e-mails, I have a distinct memory of Rove ending the call by saying, “I’ve already said too much.” This could have meant he was worried about being indiscreet, or it could have meant he was late for a meeting or something else. I don't know, but that sign-off has been in my memory for two years.
Could it mean something? Possibly. Cooper seems to have spent two years pondering just that. Leftist bloggers have already started doing so—albeit in a much more conspiratorial fashion. But in and of itself, Rove’s comment is cryptic, and, as Cooper noted, it could have meant any one of a number of things. In other words, there is no smoke, let alone a gun.
Though the Left has largely been dismissive of the distinction that Rove was not telling Cooper to write a story but rather to be careful so as not to publish an incorrect one, at least one key Clintonite disagrees. Former Clinton spokesman Mike McCurry recently wrote in the Huffington Post, “A two-minute call such as the one now reported is basically to get the signals straight -- green, yellow, red. Rove seems to have been telling Cooper that the yellowcake story was a flashing yellow and he needed to be cautious.”
As it turns out, Cooper did have reason to be cautious. Wilson’s credibity was later eviscerated by the bipartisan Senate Select Intelligence Committee. Not only did Wilson lie when claiming that his wife had nothing to do with him going to Niger, but his report back to the CIA was interpreted by analysts as being somewhat supportive of the Saddam-yellowcake intelligence.
None of this changes the legal questions. No one outside of Fitzgerald’s team and the grand jury know exactly what evidence the prosecutor has gathered. Not that that will stop the Left and their calls for “frog-marching” Rove to the penitentary. Yet as things stand, what is out in the public domain—which is to say quite a bit—indicates that no law was broken.
The latest “news” from Cooper only strengthens that likelihood.
Trash News!! That's MSM TRASH NEWS!! Socialist Propaganda News Service = TRASH!
Yo DUmmies, ya'all worked yourselves into an apoplectic frenzy over nuthin!
I'm tired of punditry.
Garbage in......Garbage out.....
Do you think for a minute that if Libby was in anyway connected to any of this msm trumped up write your own story garbage that he would still be working for Chenny?????
I DON"T THINK SO...
To the garbage libs: "Lucy you gots lots of splanin to do!"
Thanks for posting this analysis.
I can't wait for his self-congratualtory book to come out so I can laugh when it hits the remainder bins.
| |
|
|
||
|
|
|||
|
|
|
" Rove was not telling Cooper to write a story but rather to be careful so as not to publish an incorrect one"
That is a good point. I figured the don't publish an incorrect story, but I did not take the step to the not telling him to write a story the other way. Maybe obvious, but I never looked at it that way.
| |
|
|
||
|
|
|||
|
|
|
Correct. But the most interesting thing of this whole case is watching the New York Times basically say "Judith Miller should be freed because there was no crime committed and Karl Rove should be indicted for it."
What is obvious is that neither Plame nor Wilson liked the story that Saddam was trying to buy uranium in Africa. And neither was an admirer of the President.
I've said on other threads, that Patrick Fitzgerald isn't pursuing two or three words from either Libby or Rove. ("I heard that, too".......and "Wilson's wife works at the CIA on WMD issues...").
It is absurd to even "go there."
This story is going to lead to how it was that Plame and her doltish husband, Joey Yellowcake, tried to negate and deny the Niger-Saddam uranium connection, to help out operatives they knew who were involved in smuggling uranium out of Niger and into Iraq. These would have been French and U.N. people known to the Wilson couple.
That was their main effort. A byproduct would have been to have so seriously damaged President Bush's credibility, that the Wilson gambit could have thrown the election to Kerry. Both schemes, IMO, are treasonous........but if not, then certainly illegal, especially for an ex-State Dept. employee and a currently employed CIA employee! They had no business engaging in such a partisan conspiracy of their own design!
I'm not such a hot shot on our federal laws governing such things, but it would seem to me that the plot that the two of them hatched might be actionable as a federal offense. That's where the prosecutor is going. He's not spending time and federal funding in order to parse one sentence from Libby and one from Karl Rove!
Thanks for your comments, popdonnelly!
Char :)
Hmmmmm, What is Fitgerald pursuing????
Enquiring minds want to know.
I admit to ignoring this whole story. Should I be embarassed?
"I've said on other threads, that Patrick Fitzgerald isn't pursuing two or three words from either Libby or Rove."
I believe Fitzgerald is looking into how the Democrats used the CIA (Plame) to undermine the election, which would explain why the democrats would be so vicious on a "non-story".
Holtz
JeffersonRepublic.com
John, it depends on what you want to be informed about. ;)
I keep thinking this will blow over, Parley. Not knowing that much about it, I could be wrong. It does seem like the Dems are fit to be tied because they want to try to obtain some kind of impeachment out of this administration and they're running out of time!
| |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
You hit the nail square on the head.