|
 |
September 30, 2003 THE LEAKEES ARE NOW THE LEAKERS....Via Atrios, the Guardian's Julian Borger gives us the word on the street about who leaked Valerie Plame's name to reporters (via an audio report):
The same story quotes a political pro "close to the White House" saying he doesn't think anyone senior in the White House was behind this leak: "It's not how anybody leaks," the strategist said. "You know us. We're pros. If you want to leak, you call one reporter." We'll see. Political sophisticates have done stupider things than this before. In any case, if it's true that reporters are privately telling each other who it was that called them back in July, this isn't going to stay a secret for much longer. That's especially true if the White House really did call six or more reporters with this leak, since that means that if the names come out there's no way of knowing which reporter ratted. Stay tuned. Posted by Kevin Drum at September 30, 2003 02:37 PM | TrackBackComments
I think the audi report can be summarized as a Fordian slip. Posted by: squiddy at September 30, 2003 02:42 PM | PERMALINKIf the exposure of Plame and her network somehow aided Communist governments, we could call the scandal "Red Rover." Posted by: arthur (inventor of "urain'tium") at September 30, 2003 02:45 PM | PERMALINKSquiddy: RSS feeds are great, I guess, but it means you always read my posts before I've even proofread them! (Not to mention the more substantive changes that I often make in the first five or ten minutes after posting something.) Posted by: Kevin Drum at September 30, 2003 02:47 PM | PERMALINKFrom all we've heard I would guess Rove did not call Novak, but did call other journalists after Novak's column appeared and pushed the story. This would explain the WH denial of Rove as the leak and Mitchell's claim she was only called after Novak's column appeared. It would also explain why Wilson backed off Rove as the source of the leak but maintained he heard it was involved after the fact. It would also explain why (at least) 6 journalsists were called. Yes, that is not how one would leak something, but it is how someone would push a story that was already out there (thanks to Novak and Time). Posted by: Galois at September 30, 2003 02:47 PM | PERMALINKThe WH has gone on record as saying that Bush "knows" it wasn't Rove. If it turns out otherwise, best case scenario, Bush looks like a liar or a chump. Posted by: space at September 30, 2003 02:48 PM | PERMALINK"You know us. We're pros. If you want to leak, you call one reporter." I think this is a bit of mis-direction. Outing Plame was not intended as a leak--it was intended as a tidbit of background information explaining why (the leakers believed) Wilson lacked credibility. I'm sure this is why the leakers persisted, and didn't think through the ramifications--they really didn't think they were leaking, so much as "explaining the way the world was." Of course, none of this excuses them. Posted by: snoopy at September 30, 2003 02:50 PM | PERMALINKIt's pissing me off that we've got R-people saying that it was "no big deal" that Plame was outed, and that she's "only an analyst". Yeah, well how long has her career been? What has she done in the past? What did she do before she married Wilson? The bottom line is, we don't know. It's just plain stupid to assume that whatever her current role is, is the role she has played in the past. Posted by: Ross Judson at September 30, 2003 02:53 PM | PERMALINKWe've just done the war in Iraq, do they really want to try out the "It doesn't make sense" defense with this bunch? Posted by: Nick at September 30, 2003 02:54 PM | PERMALINKSurely the 6 or so reporters in question have a pretty good idea who the others are. Certainly they know the editors involved. Why do they not go, individually or together, to the FBI or the CIA and name names? They don't want to lose the story? But no one's writing the story. And this is more important than the Pulitzer. It is not good enough that they just enjoy watching the administration shoot itself in the foot over and over. This is the President of the United States. THIS IS OUR COUNTRY. We are being hurt in so many ways. I'm too old for this. Again. Posted by: Granmere at September 30, 2003 02:57 PM | PERMALINKIf it turns out otherwise, best case scenario, Bush looks like a liar or a chump. Space: nice choice of words, "chump". How about simply, "someone who's been lied to" (like Hillary Rodham Clinton, say, or all Americans). But that wouldn't be as punchy as "chump" would it? Posted by: P. B. Almeida at September 30, 2003 02:58 PM | PERMALINKMy sarky comment above aside, I think the folks who are looking for sequences of events which make the Bushies' statements technically true are on the right track, that is their MO after all. I also noticed in the press gaggle transcript that Josh Marshall put up that McClellan really really didn't want to say that Rove had told him that he (Rove) wasn't the leaker. It seemed like far too much of a concious effort to be coincidental. Posted by: Nick at September 30, 2003 03:00 PM | PERMALINKIt seems to me that with the growing list of "leakees," as Kevin puts it, that safety can be assured by numbers: Say one of the 6-10 (including Novak, Priest, Allen, etc) reporters who's in on this was to leak to a separate, removed reporter the names of the alpha leakers. That reporter then announces the names, keeping her leak source confidential. Since there are so many candidates for the leak, aren't they all protected? Much like how the members of a firing squad only have one loaded gun: It's impossible to tell who actually fired the kill-shot. Of course, it's equally plausible I suppose that all of the journalists involved would be marked, but I'm just running a hypothetical. I doubt it very much matters, because I imagine that resolution is going to come pretty quickly for this matter, the temperature being what it is... Posted by: Kriston Capps at September 30, 2003 03:03 PM | PERMALINKI said this elsewhere, but here's how I think the story should be broken--and quickly. Someone should leave the proof of Rove/Libby/whoever it was leaking the information in a place where Helen Thomas would be sure to stumble on it. Like her chair at the White House press briefing. That proof might be a tape with the name removed. Or the transcript with the name removed. So Helen Thomas gets to break the story. She 1) has the testicles (however feminine) to break this story, 2) has been ill-treated by this White House, and 3) probably has more resiliance with her sources than all the young pipsqueaks running around Washington (she can put Novak's 43 years, or whatever, to shame). And what a beautiful picture it would make!!! Posted by: emptywheel at September 30, 2003 03:12 PM | PERMALINKOf course, now that the Guardian is reporting the some reporters are "informally" fingering Rove, other reporters can report that the Guardian is reporting that reporters are "informally" fingering Rove. And the snowball picks up a little more momentum. Posted by: wolfstar at September 30, 2003 03:17 PM | PERMALINKP.B. Almeida — Space: nice choice of words, "chump". How about simply, "someone who's been lied to" (like Hillary Rodham Clinton, say, or all Americans). But that wouldn't be as punchy as "chump" would it? Okay, how about this: "President of the United States of America"? You know — the guy in charge, the buck stops here, "I'm the one who hugs." Or are you really trying to argue that Bush has no more control over what goes on in the White House than does Hillary Clinton, or any random American citizen?
Just noting; Wilson is going to be on Nightline tonight (11:35 @ ABC). Posted by: Arash at September 30, 2003 03:34 PM | PERMALINKPB: Space: nice choice of words, "chump". How about simply, "someone who's been lied to" (like Hillary Rodham Clinton, say, or all Americans). I guess Rove just flashed his thong and Bush was rendered helpless. Posted by: Jon H at September 30, 2003 03:40 PM | PERMALINKYou call one reporter if you get the guy to bite. If he won't, you keep calling. This is not rocket science. Nina You're not at this time expanding my vocabulary, but rather exposing me to phrases I have not heard. Help me out here :) Posted by: Ron at September 30, 2003 03:44 PM | PERMALINKOh: we could maybe stop naming Wilson's wife. I know the name is out there, but every mention just increases her worldwide internet publicity. Posted by: John Isbell at September 30, 2003 03:46 PM | PERMALINKNina, I think the subtext there is that Hillary had a plain duty as an American citizen to denounce Bill in public and reject him forever for... for being unfaithful in their marriage. He lied to her -- and she was so black-hearted that she didn't kick him out even though adultery in high office is as bad as treason, or worse. Okay, so it doesn't actually injure anyone but the parties involved, but it... it sets a bad example! It forces everyone else in the country to do bad things, by the magical principle of contagion! So clearly she wasn't living up to her God-given responsibility, and the cases are exactly parallel. Posted by: Canadian Reader at September 30, 2003 03:48 PM | PERMALINKRon: GWB said something about "I'm the one that hugs the widows and children." Which he doesn't. Posted by: John Isbell at September 30, 2003 03:51 PM | PERMALINKOh: we could maybe stop naming Wilson's wife. I know the name is out there, but every mention just increases her worldwide internet publicity. I second this. Note that a lot of news sources are doing it. Probably too late now, but it can't hurt. Posted by: Katherine at September 30, 2003 03:52 PM | PERMALINKThis is one of the most bizarre aspects of the whole story: the fact that at least 6 journalists have had the story (insofar as the leaking is the story) for months and done nothing with it, when there could've been ways to push it even without explicitly naming the leaker. The current storm around the story could've been started at any time since the July column - if this goes as high as Kevin & friends are hoping, the sky's the limit as far as consequences go. The fact that the story hadn't advanced for so long, notwithstanding its wide dissemination in DC reporter circles, was an indicator that there may be less to it than Bush opponents currently hope for - you can joke all you want about the "economist and the $20 bill on the sidewalk" or wax passionate about the VRWC, but how realistic is it that reporters of any political persuasion would pass up a chance to potentially bring down an administration? (Hint: not very.) Posted by: Dr. Manhattan at September 30, 2003 03:53 PM | PERMALINKIt makes sense that reporters with the information would wait until the CIA acted. Just because someone at the White House gave them information, doesn't mean that it was true and they had no way of verifying it. Rove is notable for planting false information in the past (ask John McCain). If I was one of the reporters I would want to verify some information about before I spilled the beans on someone who leaked information to me. Now that the CIA has acted, the reporters might be more confident in the information they have. Posted by: Craig at September 30, 2003 03:59 PM | PERMALINKI suspect that lots of reporters have been working hard to move the ball on this one. Maybe they didn't get anywhere and Tenet(?) broke it open with his leak. Or maybe the leak of a few days ago was the result of some reporter's hustle. Either way, I'd be shocked if nobody was on it. They all want to be played by Brad Pitt in the next "All the President's Men." Posted by: Laertes at September 30, 2003 04:14 PM | PERMALINKJoshua Marshall at TPM has another scoop ... a follow-up White House staff memo about the investigation "outs" two more of the reporters -- Knut Royce and Timothy Phelps of Newsday. Posted by: Swopa at September 30, 2003 04:48 PM | PERMALINKJosh Marshall has a new post up about Gonzales's second memo to white house staff, and it names 2 reporters in addition to Novak. Posted by: halle at September 30, 2003 04:48 PM | PERMALINKRove should be LOCKED UP IMMEDIATELY! We have EVIDENCE... Julian Borger said that other anonymous reporters told him so! That's all DOJ really needs for a conviction, right! So if Asskkkroft doesn't arrest Karl Rove TONIGHT, we'll have proof that there is a COVERUP! (Hehe... I think I have this imitation of the Bush-Haters down perfectly, don't you?) Posted by: Al at September 30, 2003 04:51 PM | PERMALINKI just watched the Jim Leherer News Hour, and the first segment was a retired Marine Lt. General who described the Pentagon's failure to properly plan Iraqs aftermath in polite terms that should take the paint off of any naval vessle they were aimed at. Then there was an interveiw about Novak's article and his defenses since then with a CIA officer who was in Valerie Plame's training class and a journalist who briefly and thoroughly described the ethics of what Novak did [Novak needs remedial ethical training.] If you get a chance to watch the show, do so. Anyone besides me who finds the phrase 'the Valerie Plame Affair' to be something out of spy novels? And it seems to have so many uses - 'Rove may go down in plames', for example, or when do we get the plame truth? Posted by: Rick B at September 30, 2003 05:01 PM | PERMALINK"Oh: we could maybe stop naming Wilson's wife. I know the name is out there, but every mention just increases her worldwide internet publicity." Dude, foreign intelligence services aren't stupid. It's not like its hard to find out who "Wilson's wife" is. Posted by: Jason McCullough at September 30, 2003 05:02 PM | PERMALINK"Space" says, "The WH has gone on record as saying that Bush 'knows' it wasn't Rove. If it turns out otherwise, best case scenario, Bush looks like a liar or a chump." Exactly when has looking like a chump stopped Bush? He regards that as one of his political strengths ("too dumb to be dishonest", a technique used before by the likes of Reagan). If Rove does turn out to be responsible, Bush will be sadly shocked -- shocked! -- that a close friend and trusted advisor whom he trusted so completely could be so irresponsibly partisan. Some people will even believe him. It will certainly be more effective with him than it would be with the likes of Nixon or Clinton. Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at September 30, 2003 05:47 PM | PERMALINKNo, Al. You have an imitation of a Freeper down perfectly (for reasons that should be obvious). Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at September 30, 2003 05:49 PM | PERMALINKI think I have this imitation of the Bush-Haters down perfectly, don't you? no. but you've got the Bush Sycophant down pretty well. Posted by: ChrisL at September 30, 2003 05:49 PM | PERMALINKYeah, Rove's not being one of Novak's particular leakers would explain the swift and adamant denials of McClellan, Rove and Novak. But if the mounting rumors surrounding the contact with subsequent, non-biting leakees are to be believed, Rove either quickly co-opted the outing or was the ringleader all along. You can almost see the fat bastard conning one of his flunkies, or more likely brow-beating him, to make the felonious call to (or take the call from) Novak, a known tool (so to speak) who he had used before for this kind of thing, and then laughing his ass off in the next room, at Wilson, Flame, Novak and flunky. Yes, it's funny, until someone loses an eye, or rather spy. Posted by: Bloggerhead at September 30, 2003 06:03 PM | PERMALINKOops...Wilson, Plame, Novak & flunky. And he who laughs last, laughs best. Posted by: Bloggerhead at September 30, 2003 06:08 PM | PERMALINKThe second letter from Alberto Gonzales mentioned the two Newsday
reporters who did a story on the issue on, I beleive, July 21. In the
article they said that "intelligence officials" had conmfirmed to them
that VP was an undercover operative, or was undercover until named by
Novak. Newshour was powerful tonight. Apparently Plame had worked for the Agency for thirty years. Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst and counterterrorism official at the State Department (and a Bush republican)absolutely unloaded on the leak and Novak. How refreshing. Posted by: Doug at September 30, 2003 07:41 PM | PERMALINKJason: foreign intelligence services are one element here. So are shady businessmen, criminals and terrorists, around the globe. They don't all have the same information networks, but the internet is right there. personally, I won't be using her name again. Posted by: John Isbell at September 30, 2003 09:26 PM | PERMALINK"It's not how anybody leaks." But it isn't normally about something highly classified. So this isn't a standard leaking situation. Not something that can be blamed on an underling. Posted by: MattB at October 1, 2003 05:45 AM | PERMALINKActually, Galois' suggestion makes the most sense of what we have - Rove wasn't Novak's source (Novak's description of his source as not a partisan gunslinger wouldn't exclude anybody if it doesn't exclude Rove), but he may well have tried to push the story to other outlets after reading Novak's piece in the paper. If we assume that Plame's identity w/CIA was not common knowledge in DC, it would seem likely that Rove wouldn't have known either until he read it in the paper. Personally, I'm sticking with Tom Maguire's theory that Lewis Libby was Novak's Deep Throat. If, as it now appears, Plame really was in some sense undercover, then the only issues left would be (1) how Libby knew who she was, (2) whether he knew she was undercover, and (3) whether anybody else put Libby up to this. For now, it's all speculation, but the picture's coming into focus. We'll likely know a lot more in a week. Posted by: Crank at October 1, 2003 08:40 AM | PERMALINKDoug: Plame at the CIA for 30 years?. Probably not. She's only 40 years old. Just ask her 3-year old twins. Posted by: Benedict@Large at October 1, 2003 09:21 AM | PERMALINKMan is the missing link between apes and human beings. Posted by: Abe Kaho at March 17, 2004 08:51 PM | PERMALINKSome things cannot be taught, only discovered. Posted by: Wilson Robert at May 2, 2004 02:09 PM | PERMALINKonline casinos | casino bonus | casino directory | high roller casinos | casinos Posted by: doi at May 23, 2004 10:22 AM | PERMALINKGenius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped. Posted by: Heyden Jenny Steinman at June 30, 2004 06:23 AM | PERMALINKmilfhunter pictures milf hunter pictures milfhunter pussy milf hunter pussy milfhunter trailers milf hunter trailers milfs hunter milf hunter video clips milfhunter videos milf hunter videos streetblowjob street blowjob streetblowjobs street blowjobs street blowjobs gallery Posted by: inthevip at June 30, 2004 10:28 AM | PERMALINK
Best XXX Sites - 125 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: blackjack at August 24, 2004 03:09 AM | PERMALINK3024 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 24, 2004 09:28 PM | PERMALINK7232 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: online texas hold em at August 26, 2004 04:34 PM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
