Right Wing Nut House

In an ideal world, the decision to go to war would be taken only with the agreement of the entire national security community. The CIA, the Department of Defense, the FBI, the National Security Agency, and all the bureaucracies that make up the complex world of national defense in a country that spends nearly one half a trillion dollars to protect itself - all would recognize a threat and agree that military action was necessary.

We don’t live in a perfect world. The fact is, as the military and national security state have grown over the last 50 years, the probability that a consensus can be achieved for action except in the most extraordinary circumstances has disappeared. You can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times the United States miliary has gone into action since the end of the Cuban Missile Crisis with the entire national security apparatus on the same page.

I use the Cuban Missile Crisis as a benchmark because of the herculean effort it took for the so-called “Ex-Com” or executive committee of the National Security Council to reach agreement on the blockade that eventually resolved the crisis. We know from declassified documents as well as the memoirs of particpants that there were heated disagreements on both the nature of the threat and what our response should be. Eventually, there was a recognition that the chances of a nuclear exchange with Russia were so great that something short of air strikes and invasion should at least be tried before the military options were used. The resulting blockade along with a secret deal for the US to remove medium range Jupiter missiles from Turkey defused the crisis.

The debates that raged during in the Viet Nam war in the defense establishment hindered the war effort and placed agencies at odds with both each other and at times the White House. To bomb or not to bomb? How many troops? What will China do? There were disagreements on all of these items and many more. And the way to have your position prevail was to try and discredit competing positions by leaking damaging information that undercuts the rationale for taking a particular action. The leaking wars got so bad in 1971 that Nixon sowed the seeds of his own destruction by organizing an anti-leaking squad known as the Plumbers. Their notorious activities with respect to not only leakers of classified information but also the President’s enemies have been well documented.

In the years following Viet Nam, military actions were taken in response to provocations like the hostage crisis or the disco bombing in Germany. And even here, consensus was difficult to achieve. For example, there was opposition from the CIA to the bombing of Libya in April of 1986 fearing it would make a hero of Gadhafi in the arab world and increase his influence. The reason we know this is because the information was leaked within 48 hours of the bombing. In this case, the objective was not to affect policy but rather give ammunition to the political opposition.

This factionalism at the CIA may be at the bottom of the entire Rove-Wilson-Plame affair. Flashback to 2003 and this interesting article by Howard Fineman of Newsweek. Fineman explains the historical context of the debate over Iraq going back to Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait. On the one hand, you had the realpolitik group who believed that we could use Saddam as a counterweight against Islamic radicalism. On the other hand you had then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney and the “Neocons” agitating for regime change to start a democratic revolution in the middle east:

The “we-can-use Saddam” faction held the upper hand right up to the moment he invaded Kuwait a decade ago. Until then, the administration of Bush One (with its close CIA ties) had been hoping to talk sense with Saddam. Indeed, the last American to speak to Saddam before the war was none other than Joe Wilson, who was the State Department charge’ d’affaires in Baghdad. Fluent in French, with years of experience in Africa, he remained behind in Iraq after the United States withdrew its ambassador, and won high marks for bravery and steadfastness, supervising the protection of Americans there at the start of the first Gulf War. But, as a diplomat, he didn’t want the Americans to “march all the way to Baghdad.” Cheney, always a careful bureaucrat, publicly supported the decision. Wilson was for repelling a tyrant who grabbed land, but not for regime change by force.

That history is one reason why, in the eyes of the anti-Saddam crowd, Wilson was a bad choice to investigate the question of whether Iraq had been trying to buy uranium in Africa.

It appears then, that Cheney and Wilson had a “history” long before the Iraq war even started.

Flash forward to February, 2002 when Ambassador Joe Wilson arrives in Niger seeking answers to the questions about Saddam’s efforts to purchase yellow cake uranium. In his New York Times Op-Ed of July 6, 2003 Wilson claims that he made the trip at the behest of…who? Here are his words:

In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney’s office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990’s. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president’s office.

“Agency officials” asked him to make the trip so they could provide a response to Cheney’s office on the question of a “report” regarding yellow cake sales to Iraq. Wilson says that he never saw the “16″ word” document that some say is a forgery and some say otherwise, but that he believed it to be a forgery based on the names of government officials who were not even in the government at the time.

Fair enough. But here’s where things get very strange, indeed. In an interview with LA Weekly, Wilson admitted he had been talking to reporters for months about this story:

I was determined that the story was going to have to get out. I did not particularly want the story to have my name on it. I wanted the U.S. government to say what they said on July 7, that the 16 words should never have been in the State of the Union address. So I began responding to reporters’ inquiries, but always on background. I didn’t want the publicity, but more to the point, there is a nasty habit in Washington of attempting to destroy or discredit the message by discrediting the messenger, and it was important to me that the message have legs before those who would want to discredit the messenger found out who the messenger was. So I spoke to a number of reporters over the ensuing months. Each time they asked the White House or the State Department about it, they would feign ignorance. I became even more convinced that I was going to have to tell the story myself.

Did you anticipate retaliation?

Nobody that I knew thought this was going to be any more than a two-day story. The day after, when the White House said the 16 words do not rise to the level of inclusion in the State of the Union address, I personally stopped accepting invitations to talk about this issue. I did those interviews I had previously agreed to do before the White House spoke, and then I didn’t speak again until the week after Mr. Novak’s article came out in which he leaked the name of my wife as a CIA operative.

In other words, between the President’s State of the Union speech on January 20th, 2003 and July 6th when he wrote the Op-Ed piece in the Times, Wilson was talking to reporters all over town, telling them that the President was using false information as a justification for war.

Now why would he do that? Is it possible he was doing at the behest of his wife? Tom Maguire asks that question and links to the Walter Pincus Washington Post article that quotes a “senior CIA analyst” about WMD intelligence and how it was handled by the Administration:

So, a CIA analyst is criticizing the President anonymously in June for mishandling intelligence. In July, a former ambassador comes forward, also criticizing the Administration’s handling of intelligence. Is the Ambassador simply a professional, detached, objective careerist from the State Department offering his own point of view?

Or is it at all relevant in assessing his credibility to know that he is in bed with a CIA professional? Does knowing that give a hint as to what side he might be on in this discussion?

What Maguire and others are speculating about is that Plame was using her husband to augment the CIA’s own leaking on the Administration’s handling of intelligence. And that given Wilson’s chattiness with the press, is it possible that Plame’s relationship with Wislon was not only “common knowledge” as Andrea Mitchell of NBC said, but got to be known as a result of Wilson’s own efforts to discredit the President?

Did Wilson “out” his own wife?

The fact that Wilson suspected Rove as the leaker as far back as July of 2003 opens up another interesting line of questions. Since Wilson had been talking to the press for months, could Wilson have gotten that information from a journalist who actually talked to Rove?

I think it’s fair to say that the CIA is an executive-branch agency that reports to the president of the United States. The act of outing the name of a national-security asset was a political act. There is a political office attached to the office of the president of the United States, and that political office is headed by Karl Rove. It seems to me a good place to start.

I would have thought a good place to start would have been the Vice President’s office, given the history between the two. We’ll probably have to wait until all the principals - Rove, Judith Miller, Cooper, Scooter Libby, and Novak - lay it all out for us. At that point, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Wilson-Plame-press connection was the axis of a faction in the CIA that for both political and policy reasons, opposed the war in Iraq.

This is the dirty business of government being exposed to the light of day. On the one hand, you have the White House with a President duly elected that has made the tough decision to go to war. On the other side, you have a political faction at the CIA who can justify their opposition to the Administration by chalking it up as differences in policy. The amazing number of selective leaks prior to the election that constantly put the administration on the defensive with regards to what they knew about WMD before the war was another manifestation of the partisanship of this faction. Given the mountains of intelligence analyses prior to the Iraq war on WMD, to cherry pick opposing views and then leak them to the press was an outrageously partisan attempt to discredit the President.

In an article for the Daily Telegraph that describes this “old guard” faction being in opposition to the President’s re-election, a retired CIA veteran explains the rift:

Bill Harlow, the former CIA spokesman who left with the former director George Tenet in July, acknowledged that there had been leaks from within the agency. “The intelligence community has been made the scapegoat for all the failings over Iraq,” he said. “It deserves some of the blame, but not all of it. People are chafing at that, and that’s the background to these leaks.”

Fighting to defend their patch ahead of the future review, anti-Bush CIA operatives have ensured that Iraq remains high on the election campaign agenda long after Republican strategists such as Karl Rove, the President’s closest adviser, had hoped that it would fade from the front pages.

Other recent leaks have included the contents of classified reports drawn up by CIA analysts before the invasion of Iraq, warning the White House about the dangers of post-war instability. Specifically, the reports said that rogue Ba’athist elements might team up with terrorist groups to wage a guerrilla war.

And this quote from another retired veteran illustrates the spin this faction was directing toward the press:

These have been an extraordinary four years for the CIA and the political pressure to come up with the right results has been enormous, particularly from Vice-President Cheney.

“I’m afraid that the agency is guilty of bending over backwards to please the administration. George Tenet was desperate to give them what they wanted and that was a complete disaster.”

With the simmering rows breaking out in public, the Wall Street Journal declared in an editorial that the administration was now fighting two insurgencies: one in Iraq and one at the CIA.

Having lived there for many years, I know that Washington is an insanely political town. Politics colors everything, from where you eat to what parties you attend. It’s a twenty-four hour a day, seven day a week obsession. It should come as no surprise that even war takes a back seat to the jostling for power.

It’s doubtful that Rove will survive. If the President digs in his heels about letting him go, it will only make matters worse. The Special Prosecutor’s investigation will have it’s own leak factory going and every little tidbit that refects badly on Rove will be trumpeted to the skies by both lefty blogs and the MSM. The only thing that could possibly save Rove’s job is a revelation so shocking that it blows both the MSM and lefty blogs out of the water and proves them wrong. If Judith Miller is in jail because she’s protecting herself or some other source (Joe Wilson?) from prosecution, then Rove may be able to weather the storm.

If not, expect Rove’s resignation by the end of the month.

When is the killing of helpless infants justified and when should it be considered infanticide?

Jim Holt’s excellent article in the New York Times places that question in both an historical and religious context and asks “Are we humans getting more decent over time?”

Infanticide — the deliberate killing of newborns with the consent of the parents and the community — has been common throughout most of human history. In some societies, like the Eskimos, the Kung in Africa and 18th-century Japan, it served as a form of birth control when food supplies were limited. In others, like the Greek city-states and ancient Rome, it was a way of getting rid of deformed babies. (Plato was an ardent advocate of infanticide for eugenic purposes.) But the three great monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, all condemned infanticide as murder, holding that only God has the right to take innocent human life. Consequently, the practice has long been outlawed in every Western nation.

Holt then outlines the practice of the Groningen Protocols that provide legal guidelines to physicians for ending the life of a suffering infant. But when is it ever morally correct to kill a live baby? Mr. Holt gives a fair definition of the “sanctity of life’:

At first blush, a call for open infanticide would seem to be the opposite of moral progress. It offends against the ‘’sanctity of life,” a doctrine that has come to suffuse moral consciousness, especially in the United States. All human life is held to be of equal and inestimable value. A newborn baby, no matter how deformed or retarded, has a right to life — a right that trumps all other moral considerations. Violating that right is always and everywhere murder.

That would be the absolutists view - a view held by many social conservatives. But living as they do in the real world, doctors and parents must sometimes deal with tragic circumstances that make the absolutist view ring hollow:

Take the case of a baby who is born missing most or all of its brain. This condition, known as anencephaly, occurs in about 1 in every 2,000 births. An anencephalic baby, while biologically human, will never develop a rudimentary consciousness, let alone an ability to relate to others or a sense of the future. Yet according to the sanctity-of-life doctrine, those deficiencies do not affect its moral status and hence its right to life. Anencephalic babies could be kept alive for years, given the necessary life support. Yet treatment is typically withheld from them on the grounds that it amounts to ”extraordinary means” — even though a baby with a normal brain in need of similar treatment would not be so deprived. Thus they are allowed to die.

Clearly, there are exceptions to the sanctity of life precept. But is it morally right to cross the line between allowing a baby to die and doctors and parents actively participating in the killing of the infant? Holt frames the question fairly:

The distinction between killing a baby and letting it die may be convenient. But is there any moral difference? Failing to save someone’s life out of ignorance or laziness or cowardice is one thing. But when available lifesaving treatment is deliberately withheld from a baby, the intention is to cause that baby’s death. And the result is just as sure — if possibly more protracted and painful — as it would have been through lethal injection.

And that’s the dilemma that Groningen is supposed to “solve.”

My own view is that while the morality of the Groningen Protocols can be justified in extremely rare cases, the potential for abuse of its guidelines is so great that adoption of its rules will be fraught with danger.

The problem arises when there is a conflict between a Doctor’s obligation to his patient (the suffering infant) and his desire to serve the interests of the parents. It may be difficult and painful to contemplate, but the fact is that there are some parents who would view a malformed child as a burden they would not wish to bear or worse, an inconvenience they could do without.

At one time, there were federal guidelines regarding such cases that prevented Doctors from allowing these infants to die. Called “Baby Doe Guidelines,” they mandated giving life sustaining care to infants with Downs Syndrome, Spina Bifida, and other non-fatal conditions. The Supreme Court eventually struck down some of the guidelines, rejecting the Reagan Administration’s arguments that they were a civil rights matter. The medical community has since generally followed the guidelines but many pediatric professionals believe them to be too constraining and, in many cases, simply ignore them.

And this brings us to what Mr. Holt calls “passive euthanasia.” The case that precipitated the Baby Doe Guidelines is a good example:

A famous test case occurred in 1982 in Indiana, when an infant known as Baby Doe was born with Down syndrome. Children with Down syndrome typically suffer some retardation and other difficulties; while presenting a great challenge to their parents and families, they often live joyful and relatively independent lives. As it happened, Baby Doe also had an improperly formed esophagus, which meant that food put into his mouth could not reach his stomach. Surgery might have remedied this problem, but his parents and physician decided against it, opting for painkillers instead. Within a few days, Baby Doe starved to death.

Another grey area would be the condition known as spina bifida. The condition occurs approximately once in every 2,500 live births. There are 4 different types of spina bifida, ranging from the mildest form where there are few complications, to the most severe type that is painful for the infant and would entail a lifetime of intense and constant care by the parent. The fact is, that nearly 9 out of 10 spina bifida patients will survive if given the proper care and treatment. Surgery is mandated for the most severe cases. The point is, that it is treatable 90% of the time.

My concern with the adoption in the United States of any Groningen-type guidelines is that the decision to euthanize a child - either passively or otherwise - will have input from the Doctors and parents, which is well and good.

But who speaks for the child? Who stands up for the innocents to insure that both the parents and Doctor are truly acting in the interest of the infant? And while wide latitude must be granted the family and their primary physician in any decision like this, the sanctity of life doctrine demands the maximum protection for any life - be it a week old or a century old - be maintained. The question that I’m asking is before any decision to end life is made, who represents the weakest, the most vulnerable members of society - those who cannot speak for themselves?

I don’t know the answer or even if there is one. All I know is someone from a higher pay grade than I should be asking before we adopt the Groningen Protocols or something similar here.

UPDATE

My blogbud Raven who blogs at And Rightly So gives some valuable input in the comments section below (#2). Raven has extensive experience in this field and is a compassionate, caring person who asks some of the same questions I do:

Who answers for the one who stands to lose it all?

We place a higher value on the life of others by deciding that if they aren’t LIKE US, they wouldn’t want to be alive. Who are we to do this?

This is the issue that I believe our liberal and libertarian friends tend to dance around and not address. If you’re an atheist like me, the kind of moral authority to end life comes from the collective conscience of society. This collective conscience is expressed in a variety of ways, most notably by decisions of the courts or by legislation. But what if the majority believe one thing and the courts and legislative bodies express another?

In a case like that, shouldn’t we fall back on - dare I say it - tradition? I don’t want to hear about polls or surveys that show “X” percentage of Americans support this or that. Everyone reading this knows that those polls can be radically skewed by the way the question is framed. I would hazard a guess and say that if an infant’s condition is treatable, the overwhelming majority of Americans would be in favor of life rather than passive euthanisia or some kind of Groningen type solution regardless of the “burden” on the parents or society.

Last week’s vote for the Council’s best was extremely close. In the end, thanks to the tie breaking vote being cast by the Watcher himself, The Education Wonks came away with top honors for their excellent article on “Border Freebies: Using The Race Card To Get An Education.”

I finished in a four way tie for second with E-Claire (”Happy Independence Day”), Dr. Sanity (”A Brief History Lesson”), and Rymes with Right (”Just say no to Journalistic Privilege”).

Finishing first in the non Council category was Makaha Surf Report’s excellent post “Today I Leave for War.”

Finishing second was Varifrank’s “Nostalgia is a Mental Disease.”

Some excellent bloggy goodness from the Watcher!

In an interview published this afternoon with Byron York of NRO, Karl Rove’s lawyer Robert Luskin says that Cooper “burned” Rove on the Plame story.

As I pointed out yesterday, the Cooper memo actually clears Rove of the political aspect of the scandal by proving that the White House was not seeking revenge for Joe Wilson perfidy but rather Rove was trying to warn Cooper off on Wilson’s main thesis - that Saddam never attempted to buy yellow cake uranium from Nigeria.

Luskin expands on that theme to show that rather than the White House calling reporters all over town trying to sabotage his wife’s career, it was Cooper himself who initiated the dialog on Plame:

“By any definition, he burned Karl Rove,” Luskin said of Cooper. “If you read what Karl said to him and read how Cooper characterizes it in the article, he really spins it in a pretty ugly fashion to make it seem like people in the White House were affirmatively reaching out to reporters to try to get them to them to report negative information about Plame.”

Luskin told NRO that the circumstances of Rove’s conversation with Cooper undercut Time’s suggestion of a White House “war on Wilson.” According to Luskin, Cooper originally called Rove — not the other way around — and said he was working on a story on welfare reform. After some conversation about that issue, Luskin said, Cooper changed the subject to the weapons of mass destruction issue, and that was when the two had the brief talk that became the subject of so much legal wrangling. According to Luskin, the fact that Rove did not call Cooper; that the original purpose of the call, as Cooper told Rove, was welfare reform; that only after Cooper brought the WMD issue up did Rove discuss Wilson — all are “indications that this was not a calculated effort by the White House to get this story out.”

“Look at the Cooper e-mail,” Luskin continues. “Karl speaks to him on double super secret background…I don’t think that you can read that e-mail and conclude that what Karl was trying to do was to get Cooper to publish the name of Wilson’s wife.”

Nor, says Luskin, was Rove trying to “out” a covert CIA agent or “smear” her husband. “What Karl was trying to do, in a very short conversation initiated by Cooper on another subject, was to warn Time away from publishing things that were going to be established as false.” Luskin points out that on the evening of July 11, 2003, just hours after the Rove-Cooper conversation, then-CIA Director George Tenet released a statement that undermined some of Wilson’s public assertions about his report. “Karl knew that that [Tenet] statement was in gestation,” says Luskin. “I think a fair reading of the e-mail was that he was trying to warn Cooper off from going out on a limb on [Wilson's] allegations.”

Luskin also sheds some light on the waiver signed by Rove back in 2003 in which he gave permission for any journalist with which he had spoken to talk to the both Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald and the grand jury investigating the leak. For some reason, both Cooper and the jailed Times reporter Judith Miller didn’t think the waiver was broad enough - even though Fitzgerald had signed off on it:

Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller have expressed concerns that such waivers (top Cheney aide Lewis Libby also signed one) might have been coerced and thus might not have represented Rove’s true feelings. Yet from the end of 2003 or beginning of 2004, until last Wednesday, Luskin says, Rove had no idea that there might be any problem with the waiver.

It was not until that Wednesday, the day Cooper was to appear in court, that that changed. “Cooper’s lawyer called us and said, “Can you confirm that the waiver encompasses Cooper?” Luskin recalls. “I was amazed. He’s a lawyer. It’s not rocket science. [The waiver] says ‘any person.’ It’s that broad. So I said, ‘Look, I understand that you want reassurances. If Fitzgerald would like Karl to provide you with some other assurances, we will.’” Luskin says he got in touch with the prosecutor — “Rule number one is cooperate with Fitzgerald, and there is no rule number two,” Luskin says — and asked what to do. According to Luskin, Fitzgerald said to go ahead, and Luskin called Cooper’s lawyer back. “I said that I can reaffirm that the waiver that Karl signed applied to any conversations that Karl and Cooper had,” Luskin says. After that — which represented no change from the situation that had existed for 18 months — Cooper made a dramatic public announcement and agreed to testify.

Finally, Luskin says that Rove is not hiding behind the legalistic defense that he didn’t mention PLame by name. When asked if Rove was the target of Fitzgerald’s investigation, here’s what he said.

Luskin also addressed the question of whether Rove is a “subject” of the investigation. Luskin says Fitzgerald has told Rove he is not a “target” of the investigation, but, according to Luskin, Fitzgerald has also made it clear that virtually anyone whose conduct falls within the scope of the investigation, including Rove, is considered a “subject” of the probe. “‘Target’ is something we all understand, a very alarming term,” Luskin says. On the other hand, Fitzgerald “has indicated to us that he takes a very broad view of what a subject is.”

Finally, Luskin conceded that Rove is legally free to publicly discuss his actions, including his grand-jury testimony. Rove has not spoken publicly, Luskin says, because Fitzgerald specifically asked him not to.

What all this adds up to is something truly bizarre. It appears that someone is giving Judith Miller some of the worst legal advice in history. My guess would be that her attorney (or Miller herself) is a raving leftist who believes that Rove is going to do some kind of double back flip and land behind Miller pointing his finger at her as Plame’s outer. After all, everyone knows that Rove, the mastermind, is capable of anything.

If what Luskin says is true, Miller should be able to walk out of that jail free and clear. That is, unless she’s protecting someone else. And given the fact that Plame’s job at CIA was common knowledge in Washington, it could very well be that Miller’s main source is another reporter.

Or, if you prefer, this Rovian nightmare may soon be “Guckerted.”

What in the Sam Hill am I talking about?

Oh, c’mon now. You all remember Jeff Gannon. Mr. Gannon was a writer with the now defunct Talon News who by day, was a mild mannered reporter that got a daily White House pass to attend press briefings and ask softball questions of Scott McClellan.

It was Mr. Gannon’s nighthawk activities that were, um…a little, shall we say, unusual.

It turns out that Mr. Gannon was actually one Mr. Guckert, male model, escort, and possible homosexual prostitute. And the left, to put it mildly, went ballistic. It was all Gannon-Guckert all the time at Kos, DU, Atrios, and a host of other lefty blogs. There were questions that needed to be asked, screamed the lefties. What kind of questions?

So in the end, why does this matter? Why does it matter that Jeff Gannon may have been a gay hooker named James Guckert with a $20,000 defaulted court judgment against him? So he somehow got a job lobbing softball questions to the White House. Big deal. If he was already a prostitute, why not be one in the White House briefing room as well?

This is the Conservative Republican Bush White House we’re talking about. It’s looking increasingly like they made a decision to allow a hooker to ask the President of the United States questions. They made a decision to give a man with an alias and no journalistic experience access to the West Wing of the White House on a “daily basis.” They reportedly made a decision to give him - one of only six - access to documents, or information in those documents, that exposed a clandestine CIA operative. Say what you will about Monika Lewinsky - a tasteless episode, “inappropriate,” whatever. Monika wasn’t a gay prostitute running around the West Wing. What kind of leadership would let prostitutes roam the halls of the West Wing? What kind of war-time leadership can’t find the same information that took bloggers only days to find?

None of this is by accident.

Someone had to make a decision to let all this happen. Who? Someone committed a crime in exposing Valerie Plame and now it appears a gay hooker may be right in the middle of all of it? Who?

Since the White House knew…something, is it possible that someone in the White House was sleeping with Guckert?

This was the next phase of the blogswarm. Speculation on who was sleeping with Guckert ranged from Scott McClellan (”He’s cute!”) to Karl Rove (”He’s got the power!”), to Republican Chairman Ken Mehlman (”He’s single!”)

All the while the story was churning on the lefty side of the sphere, the rest of the world went on with its business, paying no attention to this three ring circus that got more and more bizarre as the weeks went on. The MSM paid no attention. Conservative bloggers paid no attention. Even the White House press corps let out a collective yawn. Then like spoiled children, the left began to throw a collective tantrum that this hugely important story wasn’t being covered by anyone. They whined that, as the idiot above from Americablog breathlessly pointed out, “Someone committed a crime in exposing Valerie Plame and now it appears a gay hooker may be right in the middle of all of it?”

Well, so much for the prescience of Americablog.

Finally, one by one, the lefty’s gave up and went back to what they’re good at - trashing America and spouting conspiracy theories. The Gannon-Guckert story passed into history, a victim of something the left could never grasp: Just because they said so didn’t make it true.

And now another lefty blogswarm is in full churning mode with the Rove-Wilson-Plame imbroglio and history has a chance of repeating itself. The Rove story may become “Guckerted.” That is, the lefties may once again be churning up a lot of froth that in a few days, may fizz out. After all, Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald has made it clear that Rove is not a target of his investigation. And as many bloggers have been pointing out all day, there’s a very good chance that Rove himself may have been informed of Plame’s status as an employee of the CIA by another reporter, which would explain Judith Miller’s hesitancy to name her source. She could be protecting a fellow journalist. The idea that she would be protecting Rove, who has released journalists from any pledge of confidentiality, is loony.

So Rove, legally at least, appears in the clear at this point. But, as I speculated yesterday, I doubt whether he’ll be able to hang on to his job. Judging by the very impolite and pointed questions asked by the White House press corps yesterday and today, Rove may be gone by the end of the month.

And this scandal, like the Gannon-Guckert brouhaha, will disappear from everywhere but the conspiracy minded lefty blogs who will cling to the idea that if they only try a little harder, they’ll be able to bring down the President himself.

UPDATE

Tom Maguire keeps plugging away at this story. One of the more fascinating aspects that hasn’t been talked about much in the MSM was this apparent war that was going on between the Administration and a faction at the CIA who were rabidly partisan Democrats. As the prospect for finding WMD in Iraq faded, this faction saw an opportunity to not only hurt the Presisdent’s re-election chances, but also shift blame for their titanic failure off the shoulders of the CIA and place it in the lap of the Administration:

Here’s Maguire post from yesterday.yesterday. I’m lazy so go to his site for all the links in this update:

MORE UPDATES: On the subject of CIA factions, here is Walter Pincus, in his famous June 12 piece that relied on Wilson as a source (and was ridiculed by the SSCI report):

And does the “indicative of larger problems” ring of the “fake but accurate” defense - ignore Wilson’s misprepresentations and confusions; if he brought “a little literary flair” to his storytelling, it was because Bush lied!

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

I serve with the memory and pride of those who have gone before me for they loved to fight, fought to win and would rather die than quit.
(From the Creed of the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment-Airborne: “The Night Stalkers”)

It’s been called the worst day in the history of the Navy SEALs. It was also a tragic day for “The Night Stalkers,” an elite force of Special Operations soldiers whose grit and courage is legendary even among men where grit and courage are commonplace - our nation’s special forces community. A total of 19 of America’s bravest and best were killed during an operation in Afghanistan that, although shrouded in secrecy, could have been connected to the hunt for Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar.

The story is one of tragedy for the families of the 19 dead but is also a tale highlighting the remarkable skills and otherwordly courage of America’s secret warriors.

The fact that we hear so little about these men suits them just fine. Carrying out the most secretive and vital missions in the War on Terror, the SEALs and Nightstalkers are just two of the many Special Operations units operating in Afghanistan and Iraq. Others include the Green Berets, Army Rangers, 1st Special Forces Operational Detatchment (Delta Force), and units from the Air Force Special Operations Command and anti-terrorism units from the Marines. The men in all of these units are the most highly trained and lethally effective warriors in the military.

The story begins with the insertion of 4 Navy SEALs from Delivery Vehicle (SDV) Team One into some of the most rugged and hostile terrain imaginable. Part of “Operation Red Wing,” a deployment aimed at an apparent concentration of Taliban and al Qaeda fighters in the northern Kunar province of Afghanistan along the border with Pakistan, the SEALs, for reasons not revealed, got into trouble on June 28 and radioed Bagram Air Base for help. Whatever trouble they were in it must have been very bad given that Special Operations warriors take intense pride in not radioing for help except in the most dire of circumstances.

Whatever their mission, whatever the crisis they were in, three SEALs were killed in the ensuing action. One member of the 4 man team escaped and for five days, eluded capture in the mountains until, totally exhausted, he was found by a friendly Afghan villager who got word to Bagram.

In the meantime, after the distress call several MH47E helicopters belonging to the Night Stalkers embarked on an extraordinarily dangerous daylight mission to resuce the SEALs. The MH47E is an all-weather, high flying vehicle capable of both insertion and extraction missions and is armed to the teeth. It’s believed that when close to landing near the SEAL team, the helicopter was the recipient of an unlucky hit from either an RPG or some other weapon, lost control and crashed into a mountain. All sixteen aboard - including 5 SEALs from SEAL Team Ten and 1 from SEAL Delivery Vehicle Team Two as well as 8 flight crew members of the Night Stalkers were killed.

What drives men to volunteer for these elite units? What manner of man survives the hell of a training regimen with such brutal physical challenges and agonizing psychological pressures that it would make the detainees at Gitmo and their ACLU lawyers scream bloody murder? And who in their right mind would eagerly seek out the most dangerous assignments imaginable with no chance of recieving the public honors and rewards so richly deserved unless you make the ultlimate sacrifice for your comrades and country?

We may have known these kind of men when they were children and young boys. They always seemed to have a group of admirers trailing them around, trying to keep up with their adventurous and audacious spirit. They would have had an easy way with grownups who also liked and admired them. They were good at sports but rarely bragged about their accomplishments. They were fiercely loyal to their friends and were always there if they needed defending.

Later in life, you would probably see a quiet confidence in the young man that was striking in that it made him seem older than his years. He would have a small circle of friends who were fiercely loyal to him. A natural leader, you would have found it easy to take orders from him and delighted when he gave out praise and cresfallen when he would criticize.

At bottom, the young man would have a calling, a desire to serve. It would manifest itself most noticeably by the serious way in which he would approach planning his life. Goal oriented to a fault, you would be hard pressed to remember a goal that he set for himself that he didn’t achieve.

The special forces then takes this raw material and in the crucible of a torturous training program that tests both the physical stamina and mental toughness of the volunteer, they forge a warrior who lives to fight, fights to win, and never quits.

For 11 of the SEALs and 8 of the Night Stalkers, the fight is now over. In a loving tribute to the SEAL’s, Mark Divine of NavySEALs.com and a former SEAL himself, wishes them all Godspeed:

Soon…17 warrior souls are seeing each other for the first time – with questioning eyes…whoa. What now? They see their physical bodies in the wreckage – but they are still here. Is this what death is? They are motionless, unsure, seeking answers. A light shines above them, and an angel comes down to them – beckoning them to come. The angel is dressed in a WWI style infantryman’s uniform. He tells them, without words, not to worry. Warriors take care of their own in Heaven, he says. They have been expected, and there is a big reception planned. He asks if they would like to visit their loved one’s before going to Heaven. They all say yes. The angel takes them instantly to their homes – where word of the tragedy has not yet reached. They see their wives and children sleeping, playing. They see their parents, friends, and teammates. They tell them not to worry, for they are going to a safe place. They pray that their loved ones will understand that life is fleeting, and that death is part of the warrior’s path. Do not grieve us they say…we died an honorable death. Honor our memory. Tell our story. Teach our children how to live with dignity and honor. Teach our teammates how to live well, and die honorably. Mourn us for a time, but then celebrate our lives.

And oh what lives they had to celebrate. For instance, Petty Officer Second Class James Suh, 28, the son of Korean immigrants, who competed on swim and tennis teams in high school, studied statistics in college and dreamed of being in the special forces from the time he was a teenager. Although slight of build, Mr. Suh trained intensely for months prior to taking the qualification course for SEALs. His sister Claudia says that James was surprised when he passed the course while other, stronger candidates washed out.

“He was not ever prepared to be second best. Not just out of a competitive nature. It was all about bettering himself,” she said.

Then there’s the tragic story of Nightstalker SFC Marcus V. Muralles of Shelbyville, IN. Muralles, a medic, was packed and ready to come home to his wife, Diana, and their two children — Anna Elise, 10, and Marcus Dominic, 4 — when he was sent on what would be his last mission. He had hoped to celebrate his daughter’s 10th birthday with her on the Fourth of July. His family left a message on the Night Stalkers website:

“Marcus was a proud soldier, a first-class medic and most of all, a loving husband and devoted father,” the family’s message said. “His family was his life.”

And now that life, along with the lives of 18 other secret warriors, is ended. To a man, each knew the risks of their chosen profession. And each of them died doing exactly what they wanted to be doing.

That’s what they want us to remember. While we sympathize and grieve with the families of the fallen, we should also remember the zest they had for living, for leading a life in their chosen profession where the hazards and challenges of deadly combat were not shirked, but welcomed. It’s what they were trained for. It’s what they lived for.

And God, how they lived.

Here are the names of the fallen SEALs who lost their lives in Operation Red Wing:

Senior Chief Petty Officer Daniel R. Healy, 36, of Exeter, N.H.
Petty Officer 2nd Class James Suh, 28, of Deerfield Beach, Fla.
Petty Officer 2nd Class Eric S. Patton, 22, of Boulder City, Nev.
LT Michael P. Murphy, 29, of Medford, New York.
Lt. Cmdr. Erik S. Kristensen, 33, of San Diego, Calif.
Lt. Michael M. McGreevy, Jr., 30, of Portville, N.Y.
Chief Petty Officer Jacques J. Fontan, 36, of New Orleans, La.
Petty Officer 1st Class Jeffery A. Lucas, 33, of Corbett, Ore.
Petty Officer 1st Class Jeffrey S. Taylor, 30, of Midway, W.Va.
Petty Office 2nd Class Danny P. Dietz, 25, of Littleton, Colorado.

Here are the names of the Night Stalkers:

Maj. Stephen C. Reich, 34, of Washington Depot, Conn
Chief Warrant Officer Chris J. Scherkenbach, 40, of Jacksonville, Fla.
Chief Warrant Officer Corey J. Goodnature, 35, of Clarks Grove, Minn.
MSgt James W. Ponder III, 36, of Franklin, Tenn.
Sgt. 1st Class Marcus V. Muralles, 33, of Shelbyville, Ind.
Sgt. 1st Class Michael L. Russell, 31, of Stafford, Va.
SSgt. Shamus O. Goare, 29, of Danville, Ohio
Sgt. Kip A. Jacoby, 21, of Pompano Beach, Fla.

One member of Seal Delivery Vehicle Team One has not as yet been identified pending family notification.

Cluelessness is not a mortal sin. For those of you who are Catholic, both practicing and of the fallen variety, you may recall from your catechism lessons the difference between a mortal sin - a sin in which your soul was in danger of falling into the pit of hell, never to emerge - and a “venal” sin, the commission of which would only rate a rap across your knuckles by God’s ruler. So, like thinking impure thoughts about Rene Pignataro during 8th grade geography class, cluelessness does not put you in danger of descending into Dante’s 9th level of hell.

Displaying cluelessness however, does leave you wide open to ridicule and disgust, which given today’s media driven society, can cause you as much suffering as if you had been cast into the outer darkness. For instance, the cable networks this week displayed an inordinate amount of cluelessness during it’s hurricane coverage that saw reporters breathlessly reporting that it was raining outside and really, really windy! Then there was Chuck Schumer who demonstrated a special level of cluelessness by opposing a Supreme Court nominee. The only trouble was that Senator Chuck was opposing someone who hadn’t been named yet.

On the right, there’s Karl Rove. The “architect” may in fact be on his way out the door for letting this Plame business churn out of control when all he had to do was walk into the White House press room at midnight and whisper “it was me” and then run back inside his office. At present, it’s unclear whether Karl is a criminal or whether or not he’s just clueless. Time will tell.

Let’s see what our group of Cluebat Detectors have come up with this week.

“Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself…”
(Mark Twain)
“Suppose you were to say that to Hillary…DUCK!”
(Me)

Jack Cluth of the People’s Republic of Seabrook takes the Minutemen to task for “making the world safer for good, God-fearing, Christian white Republicans.” He may have a point, although if we could separate the yahoos from the serious minded immigration reformers who are just trying to make a point, I don’t think Mr. Cluth would be so quick to condemn people who want to see the law enforced.

Jay at Stop the ACLU has a great new site design and continues his quest to, well, stop the ACLU. In this post, he shows how the usually clueless ACLU is gumming up the immigration reform works in California.

Harvey at Bad Example is up in arms over what’s going on in the cluebat capitol of the world, Madison, Wisconsin. It’s bad enough we smokers have been banished outside to do our dirty deed. Apparently even that isn’t punishment enough for the anti-smoking crowd.

Mr. Right at The Right Place has a picture just begging for a caption. Go help him out. Check out the look on Howard Dean’s face.

On a much more serious note, the Headmistress, Zookeeper at the Common Room has some cluelessness by the British government that may have cost lives in the 7/7 attack. While I don’t generally approve of these “might have been” scenarios, in this case I think she has a point.

Cao of Caos Blog, my blogmama, takes on the owners of Preemptive Karma and their “Slaughterhouse 5″ award. My advice to Kevin and Carla is that they pick on someone their own size.

GM Roper of GM’s Corner dusts off a foreign troll who thinks America is too “tribal.” . This is typical Euro-bull for unanimity of thought. Well, she’s wrong of course but read GM’s takedown. It’s priceless.

The Maryhunter of TMH’s Bacon Bits shows some real cluelessness on the part of Time Magazine, especially their “Ideological Identification Department.” Un. Be. Lievable.

Submitted by Kender, this post by The Daisy Cutter on Ron Reagan getting bitchslapped by Christopher Hitchens is priceless. I really wish that guy would change his name.

Mark Coffey of Decision ‘08 has “The Worst Piece of Poetry - Ever!” While stomach churning in its own right, Mark has evidently never sat down for an hour with Sylvia Plath.

From the better late than never department, Josh Cohen of Multiple Mentality gives us…um, Better Late than Never.” I don’t think some of our leaders are taking this terrorism thing very seriously.

Holly of Soldier’s Angel has some thoughts on the cluelessness of Live8, G8, and the whole narcissistic culture of celebrity that says “Something must be done, even if it doesn’t work.” Spot on, Angel.

Pamela of Atlas Shrugs and Jackson’s Junction (Atlas Junction) has some rage-inducing news about a Department of Justice grant to a bunch of apologists for terrorists. Something like FDR giving The German American Bund a helping hand during its heydey in the 1930’s.

Ferdy the Cat at Conservative Cat trains his keen eye (and sharp claws) on Bill Scher whose piece in the Huffington Post raised the fur on his back. Calm down Ferdy and have yourself a cheese ball.

Neddy at Kerfuffles has a post on another true-blue cluebat Senator Harry Reid whose interview in the Reno Gazette shows Hapless Harry to be unaware of the term “irony.”

Is there a more clueless bunch on the planet than anarchists? Will Franklin of Willisms doubts it. BTW, check out Will’s own Carnival of Classiness

AJ of The Strata-Sphere has a great post on the cluelessness of Indymedia. An arsonist that can’t figure out why he’s in trouble for destroying someone’s property? You get the picture.

Check out Nickie Goomba. His take on the Mexican Stamp dance done by Vincente Fox and the Mexican government is priceless.

Van Helsing at Moonbattery wonders how Brian Williams of NBC still has a job after comparing our founding fathers to terrorists. It would be clueless to have done this anytime of the year but special points awarded for doing it around the 4th of July.

Anyone who says we Republicans are a stuffy lot should be reading Fiesty Republican Whore. FRW has a jawdropping post on one of our Cluebat Hall of Fame recipients Al (the pal) Sharpton whose call for a march in Howard Beach to protest the beating of some admitted car thieves defines cluelessness for this week. Note to Whore: What do I have to do to get on your “Want to do” list?

Dan of Searchlight Crusade has some suggestions for Kos and his minions about holding Bush and Rumsfeld “accountable” for the war. How about holding them accountable for 8 million purple stained fingers?

Finally, my entry is a fisking of E. J. Dionne and his ideas on democracy in The Politics of 50.7%.

Looks like the New York Times is a bit miffed at Karl Rove and the Bush Administration:

WASHINGTON, July 11 - Nearly two years after stating that any administration official found to have been involved in leaking the name of an undercover C.I.A. officer would be fired, and assuring that Karl Rove and other senior aides to President Bush had nothing to do with the disclosure, the White House refused on Monday to answer any questions about new evidence of Mr. Rove’s role in the matter.

And that’s just the lead.

The Times senior editorial staff are obviously upset that one of their reporters, Judith Miller, sits rotting in a jail cell because she refuses to name her source or sources to Special Prosecutor Richard Fitzgerald in the “outing” of Valerie Plame, the CIA employee who sent her husband Joe Wilson to Nigeria in order to hobnob with government representatives poolside and “investigate” whether Saddam’s Iraq was trying to buy yellow cake uranium. Wilson received assurances from the Nigerians that this was not the case and subsequently accused the Bush Administration of lying about the transaction.

Wilson himself turned out to be the liar as it was discovered that, despite his repeated denials, his wife did indeed strongly recommend that he be the official to make the Nigeria trip. Wilson also was never able to ascertain whether or not the Nigerians were in fact supplying Iraq with yellow cake, despite repeatedly saying so in the Op-Ed pages of the Times and elsewhere.

In March of last year, the US removed 500 tons of yellow cake uranium from facilities in Iraq, enough to make more than 20 Hiroshima sized bombs.

Does it surprise you that those little nuggets of information are not in this New York Times story?

Make no mistake. The New York Times has declared all out war on the White House with this “news” report.” And they’re putting the White House on notice that they consider this “scandal” every bit as important as Watergate, Iran-Contra, or Clinton’s impeachment:

“The lesson of history for George Bush and Karl Rove is that the best way to help themselves is to bring out all the facts, on their own, quickly,” Mr. Schumer said, citing the second-term scandals that have beset previous administrations.

In two contentious news briefings, the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, would not directly address any of a barrage of questions about Mr. Rove’s involvement, a day after new evidence suggested that Mr. Rove had discussed the C.I.A. officer with a Time magazine reporter in July 2003 without identifying her by name.

Under often hostile questioning, Mr. McClellan repeatedly declined to say whether he stood behind his previous statements that Mr. Rove had played no role in the matter, saying he could not comment while a criminal investigation was under way. He brushed aside questions about whether the president would follow through on his pledge, repeated just over a year ago, to fire anyone in his administration found to have played a role in disclosing the officer’s identity. And he declined to say when Mr. Bush learned that Mr. Rove had mentioned the C.I.A. officer in his conversation with the Time reporter.

Ironically, what might save Mr. Rove from prosecution (although his resignation may be in the cards) could be the liberal’s own hatred of the CIA and the how that hate translated into drawing up the legislation covering any crime Mr. Rove may have committed.

In the late 1970’s, CIA whistle blower Phillip Agee, in his book Inside the Company: CIA Diary, published the names of some covert operatives in Europe who ended up being assassinated. While it was impossible to tie Mr. Agee’s revelations to the killings, Congress, or at least the Republicans, was worried enough to pass a law against outing intelligence officials.

The debate on passage of the bill was rancorous with liberals screaming that such a law would discourage other whistle blowers from coming forward, thus depriving the left of any knowledge regarding sensitive intelligence operations. This debate was occurring a little more than 5 years after the infamous Church Committee hearings during which time morale at the CIA plummeted to an all time low and several of the more stupid and disastrous CIA operations were disclosed for the first time. It was during this time that Agee became a hero to the left, almost on par with the patron saint of whistle blowers Daniel Ellsberg, he of the Pentagon Papers fame.

The opposition to this law by the left back then has their protestations against Rove ringing hollow today.

The Times outlines the difficulties facing those who are salivating at the prospect of Rove doing the “perp walk”:

A prosecutor seeking to establish a violation of the law has to establish an intentional disclosure by someone with authorized access to classified information. That person must know that the disclosure identifies a covert agent “and that the United States was taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States.” A covert agent is defined as someone whose identity is classified and who has served outside the United States within the last five years.

“We made it exceedingly difficult to violate,” Victoria Toensing, who was chief counsel to the Senate intelligence committee when the law was enacted, said of the law.

The e-mail message from Mr. Cooper to his bureau chief describing a brief conversation with Mr. Rove, first reported in Newsweek, does not by itself establish that Mr. Rove knew Ms. Wilson’s covert status or that the government was taking measures to protect her.

Based on the e-mail message, Mr. Rove’s disclosures are not criminal, said Bruce S. Sanford, a Washington lawyer who helped write the law and submitted a brief on behalf of several news organizations concerning it to the appeals court hearing the case of Mr. Cooper and Judith Miller, a reporter for The New York Times. Ms. Miller has gone to jail rather than disclose her source.

“It is clear that Karl Rove’s conversation with Matt Cooper does not fall into that category” of criminal conduct, Mr. Sanford said. “That’s not ‘knowing.’ It doesn’t even come close.”

Since, as the Times story makes clear, Rove is not a target of Fitzgerald’s probe I would have one word of caution for the Times and all you lefties out there who are preparing to charge up the hill and take no prisoners in this affair.

Tread carefully. When it comes out how many reporters actually knew that Valerie Plame was both Wilson’s wife and a CIA operative, this scandal could disappear overnight:

There has been some dispute, moreover, about just how secret a secret agent Ms. Wilson was.

“She had a desk job in Langley,” said Ms. Toensing, who also signed the supporting brief in the appeals court, referring to the C.I.A.’s headquarters. “When you want someone in deep cover, they don’t go back and forth to Langley.”

Maybe a reporter mistook her super-secret authentic CIA decoder ring for evidence she was a spook.

UPDATE

I’ll have updates throughout the day as the blogswarm grows.

Captain Ed:

The New York Times plays the Rove card to the hilt today, putting their martyrdom of Judith Miller front and center while extending a mystery that the media created and the Times could immediately resolve. Instead, we get breathless accounts of non-comments from the White House that prompt 2,000-word front-page articles that wind up telling us nothing:

Why solve the mystery when there’s a feeding frenzy to feed?

Michelle Malkin points to the agressiveness of the White House Press Corps:

I actually have no problem with McClellan getting justifiably barked at during his daily briefings (if only we had more Les Kinsolvings to press the White House from the right, especially on illegal immigration). But isn’t it funny how Beltway reporters who get all prissy and whiny about one Fox News Channel reporter asking the DNC chairman one mildly aggressive question have no problem turning pack-rabid on McClellan?

Ah! But as you well know, Michelle, Fox doesn’t employ real journalists…only shills for the White House.

National Journal’s Beltway Blogroll has a great roundup of links mostly from the salivating left but also a few from the right.

Betsy Newmark makes a great point:

So the media can rant all they want, but days when we are at war in Iraq, terrorists are bombing Londoners on the way to work, North Korea and Iran are inches away from getting nuclear bombs, and it’s summer and vacation time, I don’t think most people outside the Beltway and the political blogosphere care one jot about Karl Rove.

One of the very things that’s giving life to this story - a news slowdown during the summer - could spell its doom for a long haul, wall to wall, feeding frenzy.

The Commissar believes (as I do) that Rove’s days are numbered - or at least they should be:

The problem is that Rove is more than just a key advisor, more than a member of the C-i-C’s inner circle. Rove and Bush go way back. Some might say that Rove “made” Bush. I don’t know if Bush can fire Rove. Not in a “skeletons in the closet” sense, but in a loyalty sense. Bush is famous for his loyalty; his loyalty to Rove has must be very, very strong. This will have to build to a typhoon-level storm that threatens to bring down Bush himself before Rove gets the axe.

Like Michelle, Lorie Byrd at Polipundit is focusing on the disgraceful exhibition yesterday by the White House Press Corps during their daily briefing with Scott McClellan. And she adds this:

I think that when the White House made their biggest mistake, though, was by not attacking Joe Wilson’s and Democrats’ lies earlier on. This was the beginning of the “Bush lied” mantra by the Democrats and it never should have been allowed. Democrats want to cry that Wilson was attacked by the White House, but by simply saying the guy misrepresented what was in his report and saying that he was not qualified in the first place and was only sent on the mission because his wife got him the job is not exactly hardball. If the Republicans ever grew a spine and decided to play hardball with the Democrats, even their buddies in the media could not save them from themselves.

I’m not sure the “Bush lied” meme started with the Joe Wilson imbroglio but Lorie is right that the White House too often ignored partisan attacks by the media which would later become urban legends. Like Bush saying that Saddam was involved directly in 9/11. Once its out there, a lie is a hard thing to knock down. And the vaunted Bush PR machine has done a piss poor job of handling issues like that.

In this relative calm before the storm of media frenzy hits the Rove-Wilson-Plame story, it’s well to remember two things:

1. It’s going to get worse before (if) it gets better for Rove
2. There’s no “there” there

If I were to hazard a guess, Rove will be forced to resign within a month. The reason won’t be due to any pending indictment or arrest, although I’ve seen several lefty blogs writing about one of their wet dreams that involves Rove doing the “perp walk.” It will happen because the coming feeding frenzy by the media will be enormously distracting to the Administration and Rove, like the good soldier he’s proven himself to be over the last 4 1/2 years, will realize it’s time to go.

The only thing that would stand in the way of a Rove resignation is the President himself. And on personnel matters, Bush at times has proven himself his own worst enemy. This is especially true in the national security sphere as he allowed George Tenet, the most spectacularly incompetent DCIA in history, to leave gracefully as well as allowing Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to remain a stone around his neck for far too long.

As for the scandal itself, I’m sorry to disappoint you liberals out there but there really isn’t much to hang your hat on. The legal issues involved are something of a muddle . Here’s a good analysis from the left from Jeralyn Merritt of Talkleft:

I don’t think Karl Rove is looking at a perjury charge or a charge of unlawful disclosure of an undercover agent. I suspect that was made clear to Rove’s lawyer during discussions that took place between Cooper’s lawyer, Rove’s lawyer and Fitzgerald in the 24 hours before Rove let Cooper off the confidentiality hook. Otherwise, Luskin would never have allowed Rove to release Cooper from his confidentiality pledge.

I think if Fitzgerald has a target in sight it is Cheney’s Chief of Staff Lewis Libby and possibly other members of the White House Iraq Group. Of course, since Rove attended most of the Group’s weekly meetings, he may have some exposure there on a conspiracy charge - or on a false statement or perjury charge if he told investigators or the grand jury something different on an earlier occasion.

For a more strident lefty take, here’s a posting at Daily Kos that tortuously dissects a Walter Pincus article on what Rove knew and when he knew it:

Novak simply said that Plame allegedly “suggested” Wilson for the Niger investigation. That’s it. But it doesn’t say the White House knew that at the time; doesn’t say they found out later; doesn’t say they found out in the week prior to Novak’s column. Nothing. But Pincus’ source has a timeline. What Pincus’ source is saying is not merely relaying Plame’s status according to Novak’s column, but giving the additional information that “the White House had not paid attention to the 2002 trip” because of Plame’s known status at the time.

Why might that be important? Simply because, two days before Novak’s column was published, we have an administration official leaking subtle details of the Plame/Wilson/Niger/CIA connection that even Novak hadn’t written. That’s not consistent with the assertion by administration officials that they only “found out” Plame’s status from Novak’s column. This is someone citing knowledge of Plame’s CIA status inside the White House contemporaneous to the trip itself, and leaking that knowledge to Pincus on the 12th.

While Mr. Merritt’s take has a grasp of the significance of this Newsweek piece on Time reporter Matt Cooper’s source, the Kossak screed dances around the facts to arrive at a totally different conclusion.

What are the facts? Here’s the relevant passage from Michael Isikoff’s investigation:

In a brief conversation with Rove, Cooper asked what to make of the flap over Wilson’s criticisms. NEWSWEEK obtained a copy of the e-mail that Cooper sent his bureau chief after speaking to Rove. (The e-mail was authenticated by a source intimately familiar with Time’s editorial handling of the Wilson story, but who has asked not to be identified because of the magazine’s corporate decision not to disclose its contents.) Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a “big warning” not to “get too far out on Wilson.” Rove told Cooper that Wilson’s trip had not been authorized by “DCIA”—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, “it was, KR said, wilson’s wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip.” Wilson’s wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA’s Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division. (Cooper later included the essence of what Rove told him in an online story.) The e-mail characterizing the conversation continues: “not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly there’s still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger … “

The two things to note are that Rove never used Plame’s name (useful legal parsing of language that will drive the moonbats batty) and that Rove was not disclosing classified information. The email, which Cooper could never have imagined in his worst nightmare becoming public knowledge, also cuts the legs from underneath the political scandal that Rove was trying to get revenge on liar Wilson by outing his wife as a CIA agent. It’s clear that Rove was warning Cooper off a story that was wrong, something journalists are usually grateful for because it keeps them from looking as idiotic as Dan Rather did last September.

Given that Joe Wilson has been totally discredited and even the substance of his charges proved wrong, one would have to ask the obvious question: What are we all getting so excited about?

Arianna Huffington fantasizes about conspiracy:

According to the players, the key to whether this story has real legs — and whether it will spell the end of Rove — is determining intent. And a key to that is whether there was a meeting at the White House where Rove and Scooter Libby discussed what to do with the information they had gotten from the State Department about Valerie Plame being Joe Wilson’s wife, and her involvement in his being sent on the Niger/yellowcake mission. If it can be proven that such a meeting occurred, then Rove will be in deep trouble — especially if it is established that Rove made three phone calls leaking the info about Plame and her CIA gig… one to Matt Cooper, one to Walter Pincus, and one to Robert Novak.

Ms. Huffington’s fantasy “meeting” where Rove and Libby plotted to out Plame would make a good movie script but since there isn’t one scintilla of evidence that such a meeting occurred, such a conspiracy will have to remain as another liberal wet dream. Conspiracy to committ a crime would be something both the media and the public could get their minds around, unlike the kind of language parsing and mind reading that would be involved in trying to pin something on Rove as it stands now.

And that’s the nub of the problem for the left and, in the end, for the MSM who will be driving this story. Nixon’s crimes were simple to understand. “Obstruction of justice” fits very nicely as a banner headline on the front page of a newspaper. And the one word scandal that the Clinton impeachment became - sex - was an easy sell for obvious reasons. But where’s the “hook” for this scandal? What does the media have to hang its hat on with a story involving the President’s Chief of Staff warning off reporters from a story from a lying, self-important bureaucrat whose wife was trying to help his career by exaggerating his qualifications for a trip to discern Saddam Hussien’s nuclear intentions?

The churning of the story in the Shadow Media has already started on both the right and left. And one of the things that I’m anxious to discover (from a purely academic point of view) is the power of the new media to affect the coverage given the scandal in the MSM. Since liberal talk radio is non-existent, the only real connection the left has to the larger megaphone of the MSM are mega-blogs like Daily Kos and Talkleft. Smaller lefty blogs have never been able to receive much of a hearing because of the linking policies of the larger lefty blogs which bestow such favors grudgingly, it at all. If the left half of the Shadow Media wants to drive this story, I would suggest a change in that policy. One of the strengths of the righty blogs is our ability to saturate the sphere because of linking policies by blogs both large and small that guarantee the widest possible exposure of opinion and news in an extraordinarily short period of time. And in the 24 hour news cycle of cable news, this has proven to be useful in driving the debate.

Of course, it’s always easier to be on the attack in politics. And given the facts of this case versus the spin, it should be interesting to see where we are a week from now.

UPDATE

And now…from the right:

Powerline covers the legal issues with their usual clarity and thoroughness.

Dafydd ab Hugh guest blogging while the Captain enjoys his DC vacation has an excellent political-legal analysis that’s truly a must read.

Michelle Malkin has a great roundup with plenty of links covering all the angles.

Lorie Byrd skewers media coverage of the scandal to date.

Betsy Newmark offers some interesting opinions and prescient analysis.

And Hugh Hewitt gives the story a little perspective. The military has just recovered the body of the last Navy SEAL missing in Afghanistan:

This incredible sacrifice, coupled with the carnage in London and in Baghdad, provides the backdrop for my comments on the media frenzy surrounding what Karl Rove said or didn’t say to a reporter about the cheeseball’s wife.

Amen to that.

UPDATE II

Tom Maguire has been all over this story for weeks. Read his entire piece to gain some much needed political perspective on the motivations of both sides.

One thing Maguire highlights is the timeline being used by the left to try and prove Rove and Novak may have been in cahoots in outing Plame. Tom’s own timeline is a useful debunking tool as well as proof that Time’s Matt Cooper may in fact be shielding other journalists as his source for the leak.

Basil is having lunch. See what’s on the menu.

Calling all bloggers!

You have until Monday night at 10:00 PM to get your entries in for this week’s Carnival of the Clueless.

Last week’s Carnival was the best yet with 22 entries from both the right and left side of the political spectrum hammering those individuals and groups among us who are truly clueless.

Here’s what we’re looking for:

Each week, I’ll be calling for posts that highlight the total stupidity of a public figure or organization – either left or right – that demonstrates that special kind of cluelessness that only someone’s mother could defend…and maybe not even their mothers!

Everyone knows what I’m talking about. Whether it’s the latest from Bill Maher or the Reverend Dobson, it doesn’t matter. I will post ALL ENTRIES REGARDLESS OF WHETHER I AGREE WITH THE SENTIMENTS EXPRESSED OR NOT..

You can enter by emailing me, leaving a link in the comments section, or by using the handy, easy to use form at Conservative Cat.