Sunday, October 23, 2005

A Primer on Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and the Valarie Plame Mess

Let's talk about what we know in a quick sketch of underreported facts about the Rove/Libby/Plame fiasco. Several hard-hitting essentials stand out among all of the other dischordant voices singing in cacophonous rapture about the pending disaster at the White House.

While Chris Matthews devoted almost his entire Hardball program this week breathlessly exploiting his longing for the menacing atmosphere of the Watergate era in which he came of age, and The New York Times attempts on a daily basis to excoriate Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby, noteworthy, meticulous, and irrefutable evidence destroys the possibility that the leak case is a crime that can be made to stick. In an ironic twist of circumstances, assorted leaks to the New York Times from attorneys close to Patrick Fitzgerald contradict Matthews' portrayal of the narrative. Today, News Max provides us with a unique analysis of a New York Times report which places the entire circumstance in context. There is so much more to the story than what the mainstream press wants us to know. A cursory glance at the television news every day, or merely watching the latest hysteric shouting his warped and creepy suggestion about Karl Rove on CNN or MSNBC will not provide anyone with the necessary background for understanding the multi-layered saga of which we are all now witnesses.

Let us start with news of today and work our way backwards. According to the News Max breakdown of the New York Times story, the entire investigation now seems to come down to a matter of contradictory statements, and possible charges of perjury.

"The New York Times said, conflicting accounts given by Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby have been the focus of Mr. Fitzgerald's probe `almost from the start' - raising questions about whether the respected prosecutor continued his investigation after determining that no underlying crime had been committed. It's not clear whether Fitzgerald believes that Rove and/or Libby had indeed violated the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, but couldn't prove his case. Or whether he realized early on that the law didn't apply to Ms. Plame, who doesn't qualify as a covert agent because she hadn't served abroad within five years of her "outing."

Read the entire News Max article.

This latest account from News Max and the New York Times-as much as we might hate admitting it- appears to be grounded in reality. Nearly all of the hard news accounts (print versions of the case) lead to the conclusion that any indictment must be unrelated to an offense against the underlying law. The probability that anyone will be charged with "outing" Ms. Plame as a covert agent is not likely. Rush Limbaugh has continually kept this story on his front burner. Along with other conservative voices, he has articulated the strong case that implicates Valerie Plame in her own outing:

"So, here is what we have. Valerie Plame uses here married name, her cover name, working at the CIA front company called Brewster-Jennings & Associates, contributes $1,000 to the Gore campaign. The media spins this as a revelation resulting from the Novak article-and of course, Karl Rove. But, this is not what this shows. What this shows is that Valerie Plame blew her own cover right her because she contributed to the campaign of Gore under the same name that she used for her undercover, her married name, and the name of a CIA front company that she worker for. So, Valerie Plame violates who knows what other kinds of protocol using her undercover name, exposing the existence of a CIA front company and all of this is totally ignored because supposedly her name was leaked and that is how people noticed. Now, this is a clever, clever attempt to try to spin the as she didn't do anything wrong. Why is it perfectly normal for an American and CIA agent to contribute and want to contribute to the Gore campaign."

Check out Rush Limbaugh's timely analysis from this summer.

There is little doubt that the mainstream press has oversimplified the entire manner in an attempt to get the public to buy into another government scandal. This adolescent attempt to obfuscate and obscure the facts of this complicated chaos has produced resulting doubts with some of the people paying attention, and is furthered almost daily by The New York Times, Chris Matthews and the so-called news programs on PBS. One important factor remains to this day regarding Mr. Wilson and his trip to Niger. It is sighted by the wonderful Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard.

"ON JULY 22, 2005, the New York Times published a lengthy, front-page article detailing the work of two senior Bush administration officials, Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, on the Niger-uranium story. A seemingly exhaustive timeline ran alongside the piece. In 19 bullet points, the Times provided its readers in considerable detail with what it regarded as the highlights of the story. The timeline traces events from the initial request for more information on the alleged Iraqi inquiries in Africa to Joseph Wilson's trip to Niger; from the now-famous "16 words" in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union to the details of White House telephone logs; from Bush administration claims that Karl Rove was not involved in the leak to the naming of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, and on from there to the dates that White House officials testified before the grand jury.
As I say, seemingly exhaustive. But there is one curious omission: July 7, 2004. On that date, the bipartisan Senate Select Intelligence Committee released a 511-page report on the intelligence that served as the foundation for the Bush administration's case for war in Iraq. The Senate report includes a 48-page section on Wilson that demonstrates, in painstaking detail, that virtually everything Joseph Wilson said publicly about his trip, from its origins to his conclusions, was false."

You must read Mr. Hayes spectacular article in total.

For further indictments of Mr. Wilson you must read the following article at The American Thinker which details more of Mr. Wilson's failures that promulgated this current crisis.

Andrew McCarthy has a brilliant essay from July still posted at the NRO. This is a comprehensive examination of all the things left our by the mainstream press to date.

We can never leave out the brusque style or acerbic wit of Ann Coulter on display in her column of July 15, 2004. Her view of Wilson is right on the mark.

"On the basis of the answers he got, Wilson concluded that Saddam had not sought uranium ore from Niger. Since "Africa" means "Niger" and "British intelligence" means "Joseph Wilson," Wilson realized in horror that Bush's statement referred to Wilson's very own report! Out of love for his country and an insatiable desire to have someone notice his worthless existence, Wilson wrote an op-ed in The New York Times calling Bush a liar.
The whole story was already nutty enough to be believed by every columnist at The New York Times. But then journalist Robert Novak revealed that Clown Wilson had been sent as an unpaid intern to Niger by his wife, a chair-warmer at the CIA who apparently wanted to get him out of the house. This in turn provoked our own Walter Mitty to accuse Karl Rove of outing his wife as an undercover "spy" in retaliation for his attacks on the Bush administration. (And P. Diddy told me Britney Spears is out to get me! I'm a spy too!)"

As you listen to all the hot air emanating forth from the hysterical media, remember that you are more well read than they are, and you don't have a political agenda to accomplish with your thinly woven tapestry of misconstrued and deficient evidence.And a note to Karl Rove: anything that doesn't kill us will make us stronger.

Finally, if you haven't already seen it over at the political teen, you must see this montage of Chris Matthews demonstrating his obsession with Rove and Libby. I am glad that I watched some of his program this week-it made me angry enough to write this article and summarize my thoughts with the facts which have brought all of us to today.

No comments: