Sunday, July 17, 2005

Seared in His Memory

Time magazine reported that Matthew Cooper has written a story at Time.com detailing his grand jury testimony. However, you can't access the story itself without paying for a subscription to Time.

Cooper reportedly wrote in Time that Rove ended the short conversation in which he referred to Mrs. Joseph Wilson's CIA employment by saying, "I’ve already said too much." Cooper said that Rove's comment "has been in my memory for two years," even though he said he doesn't know what Rove meant.

One little problem. That Rove comment is nowhere in the e-mails or notes Cooper wrote about the conversation, according to the Time report. If he thought it was that important, why didn't he at least jot it down in his notes? That's what reporters do. I guess it's just "seared, seared" in his memory. Matt Cooper, call John Kerry.

It looks like Cooper is still milking the story, getting all the personal attention he can out of it. Rove signed a written waiver a year and a half ago that released all reporters, including Cooper, from any obligation to protect his identity as a source. Nevertheless, Cooper rode the wave of publicity, and basked in the adoration of his colleagues, by refusing to identify his source up until the exact moment he was about to be sent to jail.

Cooper's excuse for holding out during all these months of public attention was, according to him, his concern that a government employee could be forced to sign a waiver. Karl Rove, the king, the antichrist himself, forced to sign a waiver? Karl Rove, second in the hated regime only to Bush himself, and perhaps not even second? Give us a break, Matt.

As Alice would say, this whole thing just gets "curiouser and curiouser."

Note: Link from The Huffington Post

21 Comments:

Blogger carla said...

You can get access to the story without a subscription.

Go to bugmenot.com and get a login name and password. You'll get access.

I don't know why you're in such a hurry to defend Rove..but frankly you're spinning yourself into the ground. I've read your last three posts on this...and it's like you're typing from Fantasyland.

From the Time article:

I told the grand jurors that I was curious about Wilson when I called Karl Rove on Friday, July 11...... But then, I recall, she said something like, "Hang on," and I was transferred to him. I recall saying something like, "I'm writing about Wilson," before he interjected. "Don't get too far out on Wilson," he told me. I started taking notes on my computer, and while an e-mail I sent moments after the call has been leaked, my notes have not been [...]

As for Wilson's wife, I told the grand jury I was certain that Rove never used her name and that, indeed, I did not learn her name until the following week, when I either saw it in Robert Novak's column or Googled her, I can't recall which. Rove did, however, clearly indicate that she worked at the "agency"--by that, I told the grand jury, I inferred that he obviously meant the CIA and not, say, the Environmental Protection Agency. Rove added that she worked on "WMD" (the abbreviation for weapons of mass destruction) issues and that she was responsible for sending Wilson. This was the first time I had heard anything about Wilson's wife.


He leaked her identity and the fact that she worked for the CIA to Cooper. Period.

Why demonize Cooper? He's the just the messenger and certainly one of many (at least six) reporters that the White House leaked to about Plame. We certainly dont' know what all was in Cooper's emails and notes because they have yet to be published.

And what of Bush? Where is your standard for him? Bush said he would fire anyone involved with the leak:

Q: Given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President [Dick] Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name. . . and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?


BUSH: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts.


Why all the defense for Karl Rove..when it's obvious he did exactly what he was accused of doing? Where is your outrage for Bush..who is quite clearly not holding the standard he said he would?

Bah.

2:36 PM, July 17, 2005  
Blogger Amal said...

Carla, the only standard GWB has is the one that keeps him in office and in the black with his right-wing base.

GWB is easily the stupidest,most corrupt and most easily manipulated President the U.S. has ever had and asking him to have standards (and really uphold them) is like asking a terrorist to play nice.

3:33 PM, July 17, 2005  
Blogger Tom Carter said...

Carla, I have no particular affection for Karl Rove. In fact, in a lot of ways he's a typical political operative who will do anything necessary to win. They're in both parties, and I don't much like any of them. And if it's established as fact that he broke the law regarding Valerie Plame or was a significant leaker in this case, I certainly expect Bush to do exactly what he said he would do--fire him. What irritates me most about this case is the virulent Democratic response--the assumption that he's guilty before anyone knows that for a fact. It's been the same in other cases--Democrats convicting DeLay before he's ever found guilty in a court, such as Howard Dean blathering about how DeLay should already be in jail. How about all the other members of Congress who've done essentially the same things, including some leading Democrats? Don't you expect more of Democrats, with their vaunted sense of fair play? I certainly do.

Amal, your evaluation of President Bush is over the top. You may not like his policy positions, but you don't know him personally and you have no basis for those kinds of accusations. You're falling into the same trap Democrats in the U.S. have fallen into--demonize him to such extremes, and your legitimate concerns (some of which I probably share) are overshadowed by extremist rhetoric.

4:09 PM, July 17, 2005  
Blogger carla said...

What irritates me most about this case is the virulent Democratic response--the assumption that he's guilty before anyone knows that for a fact.

Do you know what the greatest indicator of future events is, Tom?

History.

Karl Rove has a very long, very storied history of miscreant behavior when it comes to politics. Not only is this type of leak characteristic of him...he was fired from the first Bush Administration for leaking (to Novak).

This Plame leak not only ruined her career..it put an entire covert CIA business operation into the scrap heap.

My evaluation of Bush on this matter is based on his own words. Like it or not...Rove is the leaker and it's been proven. Bush said he would fire anyone on his staff if they were involved. There are no nuances or subtleties in his statements.

5:03 PM, July 17, 2005  
Blogger sygamel said...

I wish both parties would get off the dog and pony show that's been politics over the last few months.

There's an incredible tragedy in unfolding in Darfur. The UN is not cohesive enough to help at this stage, let alone confirm that what's happening there is genocide. Our Republican and Democratic leaders, stop playing games (that means you Rove, and you too Schumer) and start discussing and addressing the crises of the world.

We owe it to Africa not to repeat Rwanda.

9:24 PM, July 17, 2005  
Blogger Amal said...

:) Tom, you are right. My hatred for GWB's policies and his administration has definitely overshadowed my intelligence at times. I look at him and the things he is getting away with and I am literally floored.

You have to admit, he really is getting away with things that no other president has.

They wanted to impeach Bill Clinton for sex in the Oval Office but lying about WMD, the link between 9/11 and Iraq (which we all know has no real link) and letting his advisor out a CIA agent is all ok? What kind of screwed up moral barometer is that?

11:06 PM, July 17, 2005  
Blogger Brad said...

That's some serious reaching to claim that Cooper's story is false because he didn't mention it in one e-mail. That's a real desperate attempt to deflect the controversy.

And as for your "convicting" before the facts are in, remember somebody named Gary Condit? Never even a subject of investigation, yet the conservative media portrayed him as a murderer. While Joe Scarborough faced no questions. (read my post tomorrow for this story) There has to be a lot of evidence for a scandal involving Republicans to make it through the propaganda machine, and the DeLay and Rove scandals have TONS of evidence. How about Bush 1's pardon of Weinberger over Iran-Contra? Or how about "Republican of the Year" candidate Mark Grethen and his 20 years in prison for sex crimes involving children? Or how about Cheney's refusal to release what legally should be public information of meetings concerning the Energy Policy despite court orders? The Republicans sure seem to get away with a lot.

And Bush, who can best be defined by the people he CHOSE to surround himself with, is certainly evil. If you would like, simply e-mail me, and I can provide you with a staggering list. His administration is the most radical and tyrannical in the history of this nation.

11:41 PM, July 17, 2005  
Blogger Kevin said...

I would have to say that maybe hysteria has overshadowed common sense in these comments.

I'm with Scott in this case. No state secrets were divulged and there are tons, tons of much more important things to talk about.

What makes this case most interesting is watching the extreme of both sides going at each other's throats, but the only ones suffering are us.

12:24 AM, July 18, 2005  
Blogger Storm Trooper said...

What!?!?!

2:53 AM, July 18, 2005  
Blogger Zipcard2 said...

I am waiting for the investigation to finish and I still don't see Rove as the guilty party here. All these dems/libs so outraged over this. I wrote in my post almost a month ago that John Kerry divulged an active undercover agent during the Bolton hearing. That was directly out of his mouth, no investigation needed and he got a free pass, I want to know why that is. This is not a biased story. I watched the hearing on C-Span and heard it with my own ears. Read further using this url: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/14/225202.shtml,even though the agent had been mentioned 2 years earlier he was not to be mentioned again. As for the Downing Street Memo: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/6/20/105038.shtml. So you see, it all comes down to politics. As usual. And who you choose to believe.

3:01 AM, July 18, 2005  
Blogger John Walter said...

Though Newsmax is not the most reliable of sources, Zipcard2 raises a very good point. The liberal attitude is that the numerous admitted abuses of power by various Democratic pols and operatives (including Valerie Plame, who is far more effective as a Democratic operative than a CIA operative-- which she hasn't been for seven years) count for nothing, while supposed Republican abuses, though rarely proven, always mean the impending collapse of the republic. After awhile, the liberal wackos loose all credibility. It becomes wearisome to listen to them. But then, it isn't like they are trying to make real gains. They are just treading water until (they hope) a real Democratic leader can come along and restore their poltical fortunes or (alternatively) they can come up with a good myth that will help them feel better after the Democratic Party and the modern liberal movement is eclipsed. Legends of the fall.

6:43 AM, July 18, 2005  
Blogger sygamel said...

Yet I know why this is such a big deal to Democrats -- the ridiculous '98 impeachment hearings. Dems want Bush impeached for "lying to the American public and crimes against humanity etc." but also because they all remember '98. And to those who say Clinton lied under oath....he never should've been brought under questioning in the first place for something so trivial, stupid, and that belonged between he and his wife.

So, in the end, this really isn't about the outing of a CIA agent causing a grave threat to national security. It's all about 1998. And that is a very bad thing indeed.

7:15 AM, July 18, 2005  
Blogger Kevin said...

I must say Bravo to John Walters. I am astounded. It is the best description of the self-exploding liberal democrat philosophy to date.

Each time another liberal spouts another angry sentence about lying and killing babies (ironic), it just turns away all those people who really don't care.

Valerie Plame was an Overt agent. She was declared. She wasn't outed, she worked a desk in Langley. Every CIA official isn't a spook, those that are a few and far between.

7:29 AM, July 18, 2005  
Blogger carla said...

The excuse making by the Republican/conservative apologists on this thread is astounding.

Karl Rove (and now it appears Lewis Libby) outed a CIA agent and wrecked a covert CIA cover business for political gain. Nothing...NOTHING you want to believe about Rove or Plame makes this appropriate.

Whether it turns out in the end to be a criminal act or not (and it very likely is under several statutes) it is completely unethical to breach a covert situation for political gain. Period.

It isn't about Clinton. It isn't about hating Bush. It's about abusing power in government in an attempt to make political headway.

11:24 AM, July 18, 2005  
Blogger sygamel said...

If you actually cared about punishing those who exposed a covert agent, you 'd WAIT UNTIL ALL THE FACTS CAME IN!!!!

11:48 AM, July 18, 2005  
Blogger John Walter said...

Um...Scott. Cursing and shouting in caps doesn't exactly win debates.

Carla, the only thing covert about Valerie Plame was her role in sending Joe Wilson to Africa. Besides, sending a fellow like Joe Wilson to help the administration investigate WMDs is like sending Jimmy Carter to crack down on the North Koreans.

Oh, wait... we did that.

Apparently, most of Plame's friends and neighbors knew very well that she workled for the CIA. She probably drove around with a bumper sticker saying "CIA Agents do it in secret."

Carla, you are exaggerating when you say "it is completely unethical to breach a covert situation for political gain. Period". Anybody who reads your stuff knows that the only thing you consider unethical, period, is voting Republican.

12:24 PM, July 18, 2005  
Blogger Tom Carter said...

Scott, this blog is my business. I can curse with the best, but I don't do it here, and I don't like to see others do it. In particular, I don't like to see verbal abuse directed at other readers. All you're doing is diminishing the quality of your arguments and the quality of my blog. I don't care about the former, but I won't tolerate the latter.

Be a gentleman from now on, or your remarks will be deleted.

2:59 PM, July 18, 2005  
Blogger sygamel said...

Feel free to delete my comments, Tom.

I was letting off steam at my adamant refusal to be painted as a conservative apologist, or apologist for either party, by the readers of your blog. It's absolutely sickening.

3:08 PM, July 18, 2005  
Blogger Tom Carter said...

Done, Scott.

You're welcome to continue commenting. I've enjoyed your arguments, with the exception of the three we talked about.

11:39 PM, July 18, 2005  
Blogger Zipcard2 said...

And Carla, you shouldn't go around calling people names. It isn't nice. It does't help your argument like Tom said to Scott. I am not an apologist. I am proud I voted for Bush however. I hope Rove isn't guilty. But I will not judge anyone either way until I have all the facts, or I should say until we all the facts and the investigation is over. After all, isn't that how this country is suppose to work? Innocent until proven guilty?

1:40 AM, July 19, 2005  
Blogger carla said...

Carla, the only thing covert about Valerie Plame was her role in sending Joe Wilson to Africa. Besides, sending a fellow like Joe Wilson to help the administration investigate WMDs is like sending Jimmy Carter to crack down on the North Koreans.

Take it up with the CIA, John. They say she was:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1083924,00.html

"I'm beyond disgusted," a CIA official said last week. I am especially angry about the b_______ explanations that she is not a covert agent. That is an official status, and there are lots of people in this building who are on that status. It's not up to the Republican Party to determine when that status will end for an agent."

... In the wake of the disclosure, foreign intelligence services were known to have retraced her steps and contacts to discover more about how the CIA operates in their countries.


Zipcard2
And Carla, you shouldn't go around calling people names. It isn't nice. It does't help your argument like Tom said to Scott. I am not an apologist. I am proud I voted for Bush however. I hope Rove isn't guilty. But I will not judge anyone either way until I have all the facts, or I should say until we all the facts and the investigation is over. After all, isn't that how this country is suppose to work? Innocent until proven guilty?

Rove leaked. That's a fact. The "innocent until proven guilty" part is whether or not he'll get an indictment. The White House has already awknowledged Rove did it. Cooper says he did it.

You can wait all day long for Godot if you like..but what's done is done.

12:15 PM, July 19, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home