Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Time For Questions (Today's crazy Press happenings on Rove)
fishbowlDC ^ | 7/11/2005 | Garrett Graff

Posted on 07/11/2005 12:26:45 PM PDT by NathanBookman

Contention reigns today at the White House press briefings. After many rounds of questions re: Rove, David Gregory said that Scott McClellan's stonewalling was "ridiculous."

For anyone who is following the Plame story closely, particularly this weekend's developments with Karl Rove, Dan Froomkin's White House Briefing is a must-read today. He pulls together a lot of varied information, and lays out some questions for his fellow journalists:

* For those covering the latest developments: How does it matter whether Rove literally used Plame's name or not?

* Why, as the Think Progress blog has been asking, did no one in the White House press corps ask McClellan even one question about Rove's involvement last week as the story was starting to unfold?

* Has Karl Rove routinely hidden behind confidentiality to spread damaging information about the White House's enemies?

* Should there maybe be a new category of "I'll-go-to-jail-for-you" on background reserved exclusively for whistle-blowers?

* Will any of you ever grant Karl Rove confidentiality again?

Howard Kurtz's chat today is almost entirely about Plame/Miller/Cooper/Rove too.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cialeak; cooper; miller; plame; rove
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 next last
To: arizonaconservative
You would think that journalist would wait for a little more to come out before convicting Rove in the media. Actually from what has come out, it seems to me that Rove is completely innocent of what the special prosecutor is after. I believe (without proof yet, of course) that a government official, probably a Clinton appointee or sympathizer, is responsible. All this speculation about Rove seems to be cover for the Dems when the true identity comes out. That way when one of their own is outed they can claim "well what's so bad about that, Rove did it too." Classic Clinton politics.
21 posted on 07/11/2005 1:02:37 PM PDT by saleman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: conserv13
He did so because, even though it probably wasn't within the scope of the statute, it is a bit scummy to go after one who is viewed as a political enemy by spreading around info about his wife.

That's really the end of story. Some folks didn't like what Wilson wrote, so their response was to go after the wife. "Fair game." I don't care whether it is a violation of the statute or not - it is low class.

22 posted on 07/11/2005 1:04:39 PM PDT by lugsoul ("She talks and she laughs." - Tom DeLay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: federal
Seems mr snorthwood1 has left the building

This account has been banned or suspended.

23 posted on 07/11/2005 1:06:42 PM PDT by tx_eggman (Does it hurt when they shear your wool off?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: saleman

It's obvious the media is now a de facto arm of the DNC.

This crazy story is all upside down. Perhaps the Wilson's broke the law with the "unofficial" trip to Niger. Perhaps Joe Wilson didn't have a security clearnance at the time nor was qualified for the trip. Maybe his only qualifications were being a DNC operative.

This story smells as much as the media revising our 15 year involvement with Iraq.


24 posted on 07/11/2005 1:11:52 PM PDT by Wristpin ( Varitek says to A-Rod: "We don't throw at .260 hitters.....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
Liberal Democrats were saddened the terrorist didn't bomb US commuter trains. It's always party politics over US interest for them.

Let's see:

Economy ------- A-ok
Unemployment -- A-ok
Afghanistan --- Liberated,Free Elections
Iraq ---------- Liberated,Free Elections
Terrorist ----- No US attacks outside Iraq & Afghanistan It must suck to be a democrat.

25 posted on 07/11/2005 1:12:15 PM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NathanBookman
* Has Karl Rove routinely hidden behind confidentiality to spread damaging information about the White House's enemies?

No.

That was someone else in another Administration.

26 posted on 07/11/2005 1:13:07 PM PDT by martin_fierro (< |:)~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conserv13

Again if you actually knew what you are speaking about you would know this.

Cooper had called Rove about Wilson's claim that the White House was lying about Saddam having tried to buy yellow cake from Africa. Rove told Cooper that Wilson's report did indeed confirm Saddam had tried to by yellow cake (which is true) but that also there were other sources that showed the same thing (which is also true).

When asked why Wilson was sent in the first place Karl Rove stated that his wife had lobbied for and won his appointment (which coincidently is against the law).

That is what transpired and Karl Rove neither lied or broke the law.


27 posted on 07/11/2005 1:13:45 PM PDT by federal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: federal
That is what transpired and Karl Rove neither lied or broke the law.

Well, they are investigating it now and we'll see what happens.

28 posted on 07/11/2005 1:24:00 PM PDT by conserv13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: conserv13

Rove did not lie. He always admitted that he talked to people, and said that he did not out her. The only thing that's changed is that Time Magazine now abandons its "sacred honor" and reports that Rove was its "source."

But its source for what? Rove never told them that Plame was covert. Apparently, the only thing Rove told them was that it was Plame's idea to send Wilson to Niger. So what?


29 posted on 07/11/2005 1:28:08 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

I don't know what the believe, both sides are spinning this so much. I'll wait for the investigation and see what happens.


30 posted on 07/11/2005 1:32:25 PM PDT by conserv13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: conserv13
If Rove was a Democrat, everyone here would be demanding his resignaton.

I disagree. If Rove was a Democrat there would be no story and no one would make a big deal about it. I really don't get why anyone cares.

31 posted on 07/11/2005 1:37:03 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

I feel the same way. It's worthless. ESPECIALLY the "news" shows. That goes for Fox too. It's all infotainment.


32 posted on 07/11/2005 1:40:26 PM PDT by Huck (Conservatism jumped the shark with GWB.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: conserv13
Why is there an investigation now?

There is a investigation right now because the democrats and the MSM demanded one. The investigation should have been shut down a long time ago. But what happens when you get a special prosecutor is that they get carried away. There seems to be nothing on Novac and Rove. So now Fitzgerald is going after the other reporters who are either not cooperating or telling the truth. I think everyone that is going around half cocked should wait for Fitzgerald to finish his witch hunt before mouthing off what to what Rove did or didn't do.

33 posted on 07/11/2005 1:55:41 PM PDT by pepperhead (Kennedy's float, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: conserv13
I agree that Rove didn't commit a crime. Then why lie about to the press afterwards?

I am not aware of Rove lying to the press about this matter. What are you referring to?

34 posted on 07/11/2005 1:59:37 PM PDT by gridlock (ELIMINATE PERVERSE INCENTIVES!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: conserv13
You are paraphrasing a lawyer. That is not really useful in terms of advancing your argument. If you want to say what a lawyer said, quote him. Because 9 time out of 10 a lawyer includes weasel words that make what he says true, even if it is possible to easily misconstrue it.

Suppose, for instance, Luskin said that "Rove never revealed the name of CIA covert operative Valerie Plame to Cooper." That could be technically true, even if he Rove did talk to Cooper about Joe Wilson's wife. If Plame is not a CIA covert operative, it is true. If Rove revealed she was Wilson's wife, that does not mean he revealed her name. If Cooper asked him about Plame, and he did not reveal that she was a covert CIA operative, the statement is still true.

Like it or not, lawyers talk this way, particularly in prepared statements. So paraphrasing them is useless at best, and probably deceptive as well.

35 posted on 07/11/2005 2:08:47 PM PDT by gridlock (ELIMINATE PERVERSE INCENTIVES!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Miller is protecting a source other than Karl Rove. And I'm willing to bet it's...drum roll please...Joe Wilson. Or possibly Tenet or even Miller herself.

The biggest joke here is Wilson characterization of the comment's as "retaliation" that put his Emma Peel super-spy wife in danger. Rove was answering an obvious question. Why would the Bush admin send an anti-Bush ass clown like Joe Wilson on a mission of this sort.

Joe lied about his wife's role himself because he knew it made his story less credible.

This entire affair is soooo lame. Since when do the media go after government leakers. It's their lifeblood. I wish they were as eager to prosecute Mark Felt.


36 posted on 07/11/2005 4:03:42 PM PDT by Callahan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: snorthwood1
It is likely Rove will resign before the week is out.

Speculate all you want, Kerry still lost. I wonder what your rant will be about next week? By the way Ohio turned out and DSM is going, I'm not too worried.

37 posted on 07/11/2005 4:06:41 PM PDT by jennyjenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Wristpin

You are absolutely right.

Rove state a fact about Joe Wilson's wife. Wilson was the one peddling nonsense.


38 posted on 07/11/2005 4:09:27 PM PDT by Callahan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: NathanBookman

The last I heard she was NOT a CIA agent but merely an analyse.


39 posted on 07/11/2005 4:10:39 PM PDT by MaineVoter2002 (http://jednet207.tripod.com/PoliticalLinks.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: federal

Remember when Kerry stated the name of a real CIA covert agent during the hearings over John Bolton?

I do and he was not the only one

http://jednet207.tripod.com/PoliticalLinks.html


40 posted on 07/11/2005 4:11:57 PM PDT by MaineVoter2002 (http://jednet207.tripod.com/PoliticalLinks.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson