Sunday, July 03, 2005

The Mob vs Karl Rove

Michael Isikoff reported in Newsweek today that Karl Rove was one of the White House officials who talked to Matthew Cooper of Time magazine at the time the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame was revealed. This will presumably be revealed in documents Time magazine has agreed to provide to the grand jury conducting the investigation of the leak.

Isikoff based his report on two anonymous sources and one identified source, Robert Luskin, Rove's lawyer. Luskin told Isikoff that Rove did not divulge classified information and did not identify Plame. Isikoff's conclusion is that "it is unclear, however, what passed between Cooper and Rove."

According to The Drudge Report, Lawrence O'Donnell of NBC stated on July 1 that Karl Rove was Cooper's source. O'Donnell confirmed this at The Huffington Post and claimed he's "known this for months." The title of O'Donnell's post is "Rove Blew CIA Agent's Cover."

Well. Aside from the title of O'Donnell's blog post on an anti-Administration website, which didn't suffer the scrutiny of a steely-eyed editor, none of this identifies Rove as one of the sources who outed Valerie Plame. In fact, all the sources quoted by name say Rove didn't do it.

Nevertheless, I'm sure the villagers will be outraged and will march toward King Karl's castle. Their pitchforks will reflect the light of their lanterns, and their certainty of the king's guilt will reflect the depth of their bias. No real proof will be needed--just lynch him.

Michael Isikoff, whose disastrously mistaken Newsweek report on the Qur'an desecration case was also based on an anonymous source, could be wrong again. Lawrence O'Donnell, who pipes up now and says he's known it for months, can't be taken seriously. If he knew it, why didn't he report it?

If Karl Rove committed the crimes of illegally revealing a CIA officer's identity and perjury, he should go to jail. Plain and simple. But before we join the mob that will march on King Karl's castle, let's be sure we know what we're doing.

6 Comments:

Blogger carla said...

I have yet to write anything on PK about this chapter of Rove...mostly because I'm still gathering information.

That said..I have little sympathy for him. In fact...I hope it turns out to be him. I'd like to see that smug asshole have to do a perp walk on national television.

Your characterization of Isikoff's Afghanistan piece is ridiculous...especially since it's turned out that with the exception of one detail, Isikoff's piece was dead on correct. Further, the Huffington Post is hardly an "anti-administration" website, given that there are pro-administration writers that do pieces on a weekly (if not daily) basis.

10:24 AM, July 03, 2005  
Blogger Tom Carter said...

Carla, the whole point of Isikoff's piece on Guantanamo, which contributed to the riots and deaths, was that a forthcoming report would say a certain thing. That was just plain wrong.

The Huffington Post is a liberal, anti-Administration website. They make no secret of it. All the news stories they link to reflect that orientation. The vast majority of the contributors do, too. Arianna herself makes it clear. Your characterization of it in any other light is ridiculous. Having said all that, I read it all the time for the news links, and I like a lot of the posts from thoughtful liberals (which isn't all of them).

I would also add, just as icing on the cake, I'm not on her blogroll. How much more proof do you want?

In any case, if Rove is guilty, he ought to be convicted and locked up. But why don't we reserve judgment until his guilt is proven?

10:39 AM, July 03, 2005  
Blogger MaxedOutMama said...

King Karl! Hahahahaaa.

There is a grand jury investigating that case and it is supposed to be getting any new information from the reporters. I think we can trust it to do its job.

Until they come out with an indictment, I'm going to regard this as a tempest in a teapot. That having been said, I do think the person that disclosed the information originally should be tossed in the slammer. It's a crime.

However, why should the papers be permitted to print this without being criminally liable as well? I'm confused.

12:37 PM, July 04, 2005  
Blogger Amal said...

If Rove did it, I hope he and his Pet/President hang for it. If he didn't, he should sue the dumbass who said he did.

9:25 PM, July 04, 2005  
Blogger Gindy said...

"In fact, all the sources quoted by name say Rove didn't do it."

It just seems like everyone is jumping the gun again. We should see if there is any evidence first. Tom, have you seen Ted Rall's piece yet. If not check it out.

12:00 PM, July 05, 2005  
Blogger Tom Carter said...

Gindy, I read Rall's column. His central point is that "Karl Rove is more morally repugnant and more anti-American than Osama bin Laden."

The column is typical of the kind of pure crap you get from the far left and the far right. He says things that are simply wrong, makes unjustified assumptions, follows up with wild leaps of logic, and wraps it up with completely unsupportable conclusions. I don't know a single thoughtful Democrat who subscribes to his kind of thinking.

5:16 PM, July 12, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home