Posted on 07/13/2005 5:58:20 PM PDT by Howlin
I am not sure what happened in the Karl Rove/Joseph Wilson/Valerie Plame Affair or subsequent events, but let's look into the hypothetical crystal ball. In the last six years that I have known Karl Rove, I have observed that he never gets caught with his pants down. I will say it again: Karl never gets caught with his pants down.
Here is what has happened. The media has jumped all over Rove, he denies wrong doing and competing camps are becoming established---the resign or don't resign crowd start their vigorous campaigns. The camps are broken down neatly among political lines. There are those either for or against Karl--and unlike local politicians such as Ward Crutchfield or Chris Newton---Rove knows what to do, and when to do it and he will step down on his own accord. Unless there is a criminal indictment, Rove does not have to go anywhere. It makes it hard for people to call for the resignation of an un-indicted official when there are so many indicted officials and party leaders in Tennessee who have remained silent. It must be a hard time to really bite that tongue or there are a lot of hypocrites out there.
Make no mistake if Karl Rove leaked Plame's name and the US Attorney indicts him he should go, and the President needs to keep to his word and remove him. However, there has probably never before been a prosecution under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Questions of how Rove got the information initially probably do need to be asked. However, if or when it is proven that Rove really did not do anything wrong. People will scratch their heads and ask themselves why Ol' Joe Wilson went on a trip to Africa to investigate whether Iraq had tried to obtain enriched "yellowcake" uranium from Niger, probably with pre-determined outcomes in mind. The trip may even have been arranged by his wife a CIA weapons of mass destruction specialist or was she at least involved having knowledge in orchestrating it? Wilson and Plame may be true patriots for all we know or political opportunists waiting to cash in.
We do know Wilson had retired in 1998, but was brought back for this 2002 trip. That is a question worth asking by people: who wanted Joseph Wilson to go to Niger? And why? Then after he returns, Wilson for some reason writes a book The Politics of Truth, 528 pages critical of the Bush Administration and American Foreign Policy just in time for the 2004 election and then profits nicely. Who becomes the villain? That in of itself is the story. Glancing at the January 2004 Vanity Fair photo which features both Wilson and Plame, called "the most famous female spy in America," posing in their Jaguar did not endear the couple as victims merely yearning for anonymity on the heel of the book.
Here are a few points the pundits need to remind themselves of: Nobody has ever proven Rove has said Valerie Plame was a covert agent in deep cover. Rove simply warned reporter Matthew Cooper to stay away from the idea that Wilson's trip had been authorized by CIA Director George Tenet or Vice President Dick Cheney. Was Rove right? Again find out who sent Mr. Wilson to Niger.
If Rove was not to blame and is in fact correct, neither Tenet nor Cheney were involved think of the damage he prevented by telling Cooper his story was wrong. The media has never tried to go out of their way to make sure the Bush administration was portrayed in the most flattering light. Unfortunately, the media the purveyors of doom and gloom certainly can live with innuendo or outright accusations. By preventing the damage Rove could swing public opinion over to his side. It will mean Wilson and Plume are not heroes.
If Rove lied to the grand jury investigating this case, I expect Rove himself would have already resigned-because I firmly expect President Bush to terminate him, rightly so. But I expect Karl Rove was truthful before the Grand Jury. After all Rove gave the media, Matt Cooper and assumedly Judith Miller, permission to give his name to the grand jury as a source. Yet he really did not reveal anything damaging so he comes out of this incident cleanly. And remind yourself Rove had no problems with Cooper testifying. And why not you may ask? Because Cooper's own emails suggest that Rove didn't reveal the name of Joe Wilson's wife.
There is a world of difference in saying look you are going to screw this article up, you are going to blame the wrong people unjustly and unfairly and oh by the way Wilson's wife apparently works at the agency, What Rove did not say was "Hey Matt, did you know Valerie Plame is a covert CIA agent?" The real shocker of this story may turn out to be that Matt Cooper's source for "Valerie Plame" may have been fellow journalist Robert Novak. Yet in the end, the media may just play right into Rove's hand.
Meanwhile Supreme Court hearings will dominate until October 2005. The question is will we have one or two? If the Democrats are seen as obstructionist it will hurt them in the 2006 campaign. No offense: the Republicans have Fred Thompson to help them. The Democrats have George Mitchell. Hands down Fred Thompson sells in Tennessee and Fred Thompson sells in America. George Mitchell? He sells in France. Fred Thompson would be a great choice for the job himself. Right after the news coverage of the Supreme Court nomination, especially if controversial, we will witness the Saddam Hussein trial. The trial could combine the best or worst elements of the OJ, Scott Peterson, Robert Blake and Michael Jackson proceedings. It will be more intense than anything since the Nuremberg Trials. But if Kato Kaelin or McCauley Caulkin show up I suspect viewers will tune out.
Meanwhile the Republicans scrambling for a candidate in 2008, may select the somewhat monotonous, but benevolent Bill Frist and if a freshly exonerated Karl Rove joins his team to manage this campaign, and they recruit and bring in as the VP nominee someone like George Allen, Jeb Bush or Condi Rice for the charisma or any combination of the above the GOP will return in 2008 for an encore. There will be two major issues in 2008: Hillary and Health Care. Provided of course we have a feasible exit strategy in Iraq and a promising democracy there. Who will the Dems pick for VP to go along with Hillary---who really wants to serve as Hillary's running mate and can provide geographic balance? Harry Reid aka "Dr. No" or Howard Dean or the dark horse possibility Phil Bredesen?
Dr. Frist, the noted heart surgeon, a man untouched by scandal, becomes the front runner in 2008 and Rove ends up more powerful than ever. Hillary Clinton can never win on health care issues, look at TennCare for example, which Tennessee Governor Bredesen has not fixed and clearly Frist owns the issue--he is even bucking the President on Stem Cell Research. Hillary is either loved or hated. She has to run against herself. The more Democrats or the media bash Karl Rove the better it is for the Republicans and it keeps the focus off of Iraq, social security, world-wide war on terror, and anything else people deem as important. The media seems overtly eager, perhaps politically motivated, to go after Rove on this issue, yet there is no evidence that he broke the law. This may spark discussion at the corner bar but it will not address real issues confronting our country.
In 2008, we are likely to see Rove versus James Carville. The Ragin' Cajun is exciting, nevertheless Rove wins every time. Carville, he will make you think he is winning. Rove does one thing extremely well and that is: he wins! Think about it, some of the crystal ball is certainly plausible. The old saying, what does not kill you makes you stronger certainly could ring true for Karl Rove. The Democrats would be better served finding a messenger and getting their message out. What ails Karl Rove will not kill him. In the end, it seems to me like a media generated uproar. The backlash could be felt in 2006 and 2008. Karl Rove should have perhaps exercised better discretion, but Democrats seemed poised to make the same mistake.
The stupid press just hasn't picked up on Allen yet.
Fine by me.
Karl is clean.
The issue is far too complicated even for most insiders, so even if they want to demonize by innuendo it won't wash. All it does is paint the Dems & MSM as co-conspirators that are increasingly impotent. If not for the Courts and the RINO's they wouldn't have a prayer.
Thompson IS the better pick. Our side has the edge in this respect. There was a reason he was chosen to provide the narration of the video that introduced the President at the RNC convention.
At this point I don't see Frist as the nominee, but the situation remains fluid. No one has cemented themselves as the heir apparent to the nomination at this time so anything can happen in the next few years.
IF I had to wager a guess, I'd say the sentiment in his piece may be true. That a nice consensus conservative will arise, not a Maverick, and that the punch of the ticket will be running on the continuation of Bush policy with perhaps slight amendments to immigration, spending, etc..tagged on with possibly star power to surround the candidate.
And, really, that is all we need. We needed someone with a name and charisma in 2000 to survive the Clinton machine. A lot will have changed in eight years. The political structure of the country having greatly re-aligned. In that situation it is less star power needed to compete, but rather a strong party with successes that are appealing to the electorate. This is why I'm hard on Congress. They are the greatest impediment to this political sea change.
The Democrats, on the other hand, MUST rely on star power to stand a chance in 2008 UNLESS they are willing to cleanse their party of the movon.org burden. Running on a platform of "Change" will not work if the change they advocate is anti-war, Judicial obligarchy, and raising taxes.
I DO think it is past time the Republicans came up with a platform to counter national Hillarycare. her platform isn't popular, but it's evident she'll run on it, and absent a strong platform of our own she has the default upper hand.
OK, good point.
When the dust settles - Rove will Still be standing...and a Lot of Yellow Dog democRATS will be Flaked out on the corral floor...
Go Carl!!
Well, understand that this guy's from Tennessee, so he's gonna be partial to Frist. Among everyone I know, even the non-Condista's, Frist is a Dead Man Walking. He's in Single Digits.
It will be Allen or Rice.
Natch, I'm partial to Condi, but Allen never stole a freight train, and has a good mean streak about him. I just think Condi matches up better against Ol' Double Wide. Two good Republicans, though....
Be Seeing You,
Chris
Sam Donaldson did, actually.
mark.
Don't you have to know that someone is an AGENT in order to obey with the writ of the Intelligence Protection Act? And why would Karl Rove necessarily KNOW Plame had been/was an agent? Was her work included in Intel reports -- used to assess terrorism against the US?
Is there an official list of alllllll types of agents? Are folks supposed to memorize the names on these lists so they don't break the IPA?
But to do so, also means these folks can't work covertly. If they cannot even be indirectly included in mainstream venues. The deal with covert is hiding an agent in plain sight.
This has already probably been discussed in other threads, my apols if asking for a rehashing...
This then would mean that any person even remotely connected (via the "biz" or the "knowledge stream") to the agent can not be addressed or queried.
Rove, advising Cooper, to maintain a more broad scope on the Niger story, is being implicated and just because Wilson (author of the "Niger story") is married to Plame?
Egads, workplace rules had good reasons to ban married couples working in like areas of an "industry" long ago.
This whole dirt devil has turned into a liberal quagmire of a "marriage protection act" spun by liberals. Wilson's "issues" cannot be addressed and simply because he's married to Plame?
This is pretty bad.
That's a terrible exageration. I happen to know that the Democratic platform for the coming election cycles has several planks.
1. Gimme
2. Gimme some more.
3. Kill your baby
4. We hate George W. Bush
5. Tax the rich.
6. Did we mention we hate George W. Bush?
> > the democrats have nothing except abortion and gay marriage. < <
That's a terrible exageration. I happen to know that the Democratic platform for the coming election cycles has several planks.
1. Gimme
2. Gimme some more.
3. Kill your baby
4. We hate George W. Bush
5. Tax the rich.
6. Did we mention we hate George W. Bush?
1. Gimme
2. Gimme some more.
3. Kill your baby
4. We hate George W. Bush
5. Tax the rich.
6. Did we mention we hate George W. Bush?
~~~~~~~~~
7. Perverts need victims; shut up.
8. Sheetheads are people, too.
9. OJ is innocent, Karl Rove is guilty
10. The Joooos are behind the London bombings
Hehe
In the end, it seems to me like a media generated uproar.
Yup.
FYI in case not seen
What?
"The stupid press just hasn't picked up on Allen yet. "
CSPAN covered a speech of his at a fundraiser a few days ago.
He made all the right noises but my perception was that he is lacking in the charisma dept, and he needs a decent haircut, too.
*I* don't personally care about either thing, but that stuff unfortunately influences many people.
Bill Clinton didn't resign during Monicagate. He pointed his finger at Americans and lied. He made the Senate, the House, and the country waste a lot of time on a philandering perjurer. Why should Rove resign?
Ping.
The biggest problem our President has had in this term is getting information out to the public. Scott McC is not an effective spokesperson.
We all know that the Libs can only concentrate on one issue at a time. Maybe this is a rope a dope moment. Keep the Dems busy frothing at the mouth over Rove while the President brings Bolten on board by recess appointment and get his SCOTUS nominees through the Senate. The Libs hate Rove more than they do anyone else, including President Bush and Rush L. When the Rove investigation is finally over and Rove is cleared of any wrongdoing, the Dems will look around and find out that the WH has won again and they have lost....again.
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.