It is almost as if two different hands were typing the article (for argument's sake, let's call them "the good hand" and "the bad hand") - the good hand is sticking to assertions of fact that can be proven or disproven, but the facts on the table seem to be in agreement with the essence of Mr. Rove's known explanation as well as with Mr. Novak's explanation. Yet, right out of a Jekyll/Hyde tale, the bad hand intrudes with its non-sequitur anti-Rove, anti-Bush commentary. So, is Mr. Johnston a schizo, or was he compelled by evil editor-drones to adhere to the Times' anti-Bush political bias litmus test despite the pesky facts getting in the way of the desired rhetorical direction?
BTW--Novak's having a great month, huh? Turns out this whole thing is probably perpetuated by him in order to keep himself in the headlines, and then on top of it he says Rhenquist will resign last Friday at 5PM.
"seemed almost certain to intensify the question"
um, no...it doesn't.
"raises a question the White House has never addressed: whether Mr. Rove ever described that conversation, or his conversation with Mr. Cooper, with the president."
Are they going to blame the President for the leak now?
"but many aspects of it remain shrouded in secrecy. It is unknown who Mr. Novak's other source might be or how that source learned of Ms. Wilson's identity as a C.I.A. official. "
Except for that one little bit of info which as I so far know, no one is claiming was Rove's clone, we know an awful lot about Karl Rove's role in this which is a guy who answered some reporters' questions when asked. Sheesh, you can't not talk to the vultures, you can't talk to the vultures.
All the rest of the partisan editorializing masquerading as reporting is non-sensical if you look at the facts of what they present in the first part of the story.
Bunch of morons for sure.
I can't believe how many article has been written on Rove. Truly amazing at how rabid the left is.
So what we have our reporters, and I use the term loosely, gossiping throughout Washington. THEY told Rove, not vice versa.
I thank the NYT's for unknowingly continuing to vindicate Karl. LOL
The story vindicates Rove! Novak told ROVE the name!
The NYSlimes, ran Abu Grahb everyday for a month. They will do the same thing with Rove. I see no reason to get upset. Rove did nothing wrong. It's just the NYSlimes up to their old tricks.
I am beginning to believe the hypothesis that Fitzgerald is now looking into whether Rove told him the truth about who he spoke to and when.
The fact that Novak told Rove first isn't as important to obstruction charges as the fact that Rove spoke to him, if Rove testified that he did not speak to Novak, or something along those lines.
Next we could hear about Martha Stewart being jailed and how this is the same thing, or something to that effect.
That's what I get from this snippet, having already wholly discredited in my mind the notion that Rove did anything wrong while communicating with journalists.
This LIE underpins the entire DemonicRat argument,,,, she was brought back from overseas in 1997 six years before the incident with Rove and Novak, the Statute has a 5 year limit on any liability. And only for CIA operatives overseas is it applicable!
Can somebody help me refute a RAT at work who says if this had happened in a DemoRAT White House there would already be Congressional hearings on this and Talk Radio would be talking about it 24/7? Basically accusing us of hypocracy in other words. I just told them that knowing the kind of people in this administration, I give them the benefit of the doubt, where I wouldn't if it was a RAT president. Of course that doesn't go very far with the libs.
LOL, what a title. Leave it to the NYT.
The writer of this article carefully chose their words to make Rove look as bad as possible. Nice going, Times.
A front-page subheading on Friday with an article about the disputed involvement of Karl Rove, the White House senior adviser, in leaking the name of a C.I.A. officer omitted attribution for an account of Mr. Rove's words to the columnist Robert D. Novak. The conversation was described by someone who had been officially briefed on the matter. According to the account, Mr. Rove said "I heard that, too" after hearing about the officer from the columnist. The subheading should not have attributed the account of that comment directly to Mr. Rove.