July 13, 2005

7/13: Parse Included, Some Assembly Required

One frustrating aspect of the labyrinthine, serpentine, even Byzantine Novak/Rove/Plame/Wilson/Cooper/Miller/Fitzgerald/Luskin/McClellan case is that many questions that were asked 2 years ago remain unresolved, even in light of new information. One that gets plenty of attention today is: Was Plame actually undercover at the time Bob Novak filed his column? The left tends to say "yes," and most think Rove should be fired even if he didn't break the law; liberal bloggers are more or less united on this point.

Likewise the right tends to say "no," and many support him. But more interestingly, several conservative bloggers are coming to the conclusion that Rove is either a) a liability for the admin., or b) committed a fireable offense whether he committed a crime or not. This meme bears watching over the coming days -- it may be squashed, or it may fester. If it's the latter, conservative outcry online could turn into conservative outcry offline. And while Pres. Bush is likely to keep or dump Rove for his own reasons, discontent within the base could further weaken the WH on other matters.

The Rove case also turns on anonymously sourced information from close to the Fitzgerald investigation suggesting that investigators are suspicious of Novak's version of events. More on that below.

Also in this edition -- the MetaBank "scandal" takes an ironic turn, the RNC finally launches a blog of its own, and the New York Times' new public editor starts earning his paycheck.

TRACKBACKS: The Grand Old Duke Of York

Where the blog swarm is headed, who's taking part, and what they're saying:

• According to a report by National Review's Byron York, Rove atty Robert Luskin is now saying that Cooper "burned" Rove after a conversation concerning Plame and her role in arranging a Wilson's Niger mission. There seems to be a discrepancy between what Rove said to Cooper and how Cooper later characterized that info in a subsequent article. In an 'internal Time e-mail,' Cooper wrote: "Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation." The story itself asks if the Bush admin. has 'declared war' on Wilson.
  
  

  >> From the left -- Hullabaloo's "Digby" comments: "It may not be the smartest thing in the world for Karl Rove's lawyer to be disparaging Matt Cooper on the day before he testifies, do you think? They only know what one e-mail says and they have no idea what Cooper is going to say. Bizarre." · The Mahablog: "In the Rightie Alternate Universe (RAU), it was Wilson and Plame who burned Karl Rove. The RAU is in perpetual spin cycle, of course, but they're workin' overtime today." · This Modern World: "Rove's lawyer has the lamest defense ever ... Good thing for Karl that the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act has a 'double super secret background' clause. It's right between the sections concerning 'my fingers were crossed' and 'just kidding.'" · Demagogue: "You really have to feel for Rove -- he's the victim here. Curse that nasty, nasty Matthew Cooper! What kind of a world is it where the president's top aide can't even attempt to discredit somebody by divulging damaging classified information to a reporter on double secret background without that reporter, two years later, burning him? Not the sort of world I want to live in!" · CAP's Think Progress: "Oh, and by the way, Luskin added that Fitzgerald told him Rove is a 'subject' of the investigation. When will Rove stop attacking others and start taking responsibility for his own actions."
  
  

  >> From the right -- Betsy Newmark: "Of course, if the situation were reversed and this was a Clinton White House and the scandal was revolving around one of his political advisors, you know that the GOP and Democrats would be on the opposite side of where they are now. When you realize something like that, you know that this really is a 'partisan food fight.'" · After reading the piece, QandO's neo-libertarian Dale Franks looks carefully at Title 50 USC, Sec 421, under which Rove could potentially be charged. Noting that all 5 conditions must be met for successful conviction, Franks argues it is "extraordinarily difficult" to claim that Rove knew Plame was "covert": "Indeed, if Valerie Plame was driving to work at Langley every morning, it's problematic to argue that she was, at the time, a covert agent at all, though she may have been one in the past. Driving through the main gate at CIA headquarters every workday at 7:30 is kind of a giveaway that you work for the CIA." · Shot in the Dark: "Of course, it's Washington; you never know who's telling the truth, if any."
  
  

  >> War and Piece; Talking Points Memo; Andrew Sullivan; Whiskey Bar; The Stakeholder; TalkLeft; Pros and Cons; Tough Enough.

ROVE I: Novak Moves Back To The Fore?

American Prospect contributor/Whatever Already! blogger Murray Waas reports on Novak at his personal blog, using the MSM-style inverted-pyramid: "Columnist Robert Novak provided detailed accounts to federal prosecutors of his conversations with Bush administration officials who were sources for his controversial July 11, 2003 column identifying Valerie Plame as a clandestine CIA officer, according to attorneys familiar with the matter. ... Federal investigators have been skeptical of Novak's assertions that he referred to Plame as a CIA 'operative' due to his own error, instead of having been explicitly told that was the case by his sources, according to attorneys familiar with the criminal probe. That skepticism has been one of several reasons that the special prosecutor has pressed so hard for the testimony of Time magazine's Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller." Additionally, Waas reports, "a U.S. government official questioned by investigators said Novak specifically asked him whether Plame had some covert status with the CIA. The official told investigators that Novak appeared uncertain whether she was undercover or not."

The liberal blogs are all over it. Talking Points Memo: "They're right to be skeptical of Novak's mendacious claim. ... Novak has a history of being careful and precise when he uses the term 'operative' in a CIA or intelligence context. A review of Novak's earlier columns shows he only uses it to refer to clandestine or covert agents. To suggest that in this one case he simply lapsed into a colloquialism ... as he has repeatedly claimed, just doesn't pass the laugh test."

Political Animal's Kevin Drum highlights a passage from the Washington Post quoting a senior admin. official saying 2 top WH officials called 6 reporters about the "identity and occupation of Wilson's wife." Drum: "This wasn't just a single offhand comment at the end of a phone call with Matt Cooper about welfare reform. It was Karl Rove and someone else systematically making sure they mentioned Plame to every reporter they talked to." Reading the York piece, he adds in another post: "Karl Rove and at least two other Bush administration officials? In other words, at least three White House officials were involved in the campaign to out Plame? That's the first time I've heard that."

Lefty journalist Doug Ireland writes, "if Novak and Rove cooked up their cover story in a series of telephone conversations (the White House record-keeping system would require Rove's calls to be logged in, of course, so there's a paper trail), that would expose both of them to charges of perjury and conspiracy to obstruct justice."

ROVE II: Was She Or Wasn't She?

Daily Howler's Bob Somerby is one lefty who isn't quite sure of Plame's official status: "Under terms of the most relevant statute, it isn't clear that Plame really was such an agent. (Under terms of this statute, a "covert" agent is someone "who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States." It isn't clear that Plame qualifies.)" Daily Kos' "Armando" disagrees: "Seems a simple enough question. ... Served overseas? Check. In the last five years? Well, the CIA would know that one hopes. And the CIA referred the case to Justice. My application of common sense tells me that the answer is probably yes."

Daily Kos' Hunter quotes ex-RNC chair Ed Gillespie agreeing that revealing the name of an "undercover CIA operative" would be "worse than Watergate" on a 9/30/03 "Hardball." Gillespie: "Yeah, I suppose in terms of the real world implications of it. It's not just politics." Hunter: "I guess that statement is no longer operative."

Ex-CIA agent Larry Johnson writes of his time in the CIA with Plame at TPM Cafe: "We had official cover. That means we had a black passport -- i.e., a diplomatic passport. If we were caught overseas engaged in espionage activity the black passport was a get out of jail free card. A few of my classmates, and Valerie was one of these, became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed. The lies by people like Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, and P.J. O'Rourke insist that Valerie was nothing, just a desk jockey. Yet, until Robert Novak betrayed her she was still undercover and the company that was her front was still a secret to the world."

ROVE II: Rumblings On The Right

Conservative Eyes is dismayed to see a couple of conservative bloggers turn on Rove. One is from The Jawa Report: "[I]t's time for Rove to go. Last time I checked we were in a f*cking shooting war and the last thing the Commander-in-Chief needs is a low-life political opportunist in his inner circle." The other is from Decision '08's "teetering" Mark Coffey: "I'm not quite ready to call for his resignation; it's still a little early... but I'm starting to lean that way. Could anything make me lean back? I think it's time for Rove to issue a statement to the press..." Conservative Eyes replies: "I don't think the fallout from leaking a name is a matter that will threaten national security by way of Democrats appeasing the enemies of the United States. ... Firing Rove or him resigning would be an admission of guilt that would bring even more grief and scandal to the White House that is not needed and is not justified."

Vodkapundit's Stephen Green: "Even if Rove didn't give out Valerie Plame's name (which appears, for now, to be the case), it also looks like he pointed a pretty bold arrow her way. That kind of leak is breaking the rules, and that's a bad thing. Now, as I understand the law regarding intelligence officers, Karl Rove didn't do anything illegal. But was he right to leak? ... My gut tells me no..."

ROVE: Who's Stonewalling? "Operative" Is "No Longer Operative"?

Liberal David Corn: "It's going to be tough for White House reporters to sustain the level of intense distrust they have displayed at yesterday and today's White House press briefings." On 7/12, McClellan stuck with his "ongoing investigation" "mantra," while reporters asked the "same questions" with the "same disgust." However, "This stonewalling may work. There were fewer questions about the Rove scandal at Tuesday's session than Monday's ... Eventually either the reporters will tire of hitting their head against McClellan's brick wall or some other story will emerge ... that will demand their attention. At the White House, aides are probably saying to each other -- and to McClellan -- just make it through one day at a time. One day at a time. The sun will come out tomorrow."

Conservative RedState's Nick Danger: "Why would the New York Times stonewall the special prosecutor they themselves asked for, to the point that Judith Miller would go to jail before revealing who told her about Wilson, Plame, and the CIA? Judith Miller never even wrote an article; what the New York Times ran was an op-ed written by Wilson himself. Can it be that the person she talked to wasn't an 'Administration Official' at all, but a Democratic political operative setting up a 'media hit' on Bush?"

Left-leaning RockThrower notes, Rove etc. are probably "wishing they had paid more attention to Nixon's advice" WH spokesperson Ron Zeigler. "According to Ziegler's obituary in Editor and Publisher, Nixon once admonished Ziegler 'that anyone in the White House who talked to Time (magazine) reporters 'should have their resignations requested within one minute.''"

SENATE '06: In-Tenn-Sity!

Team GOP, on the TN SEN GOP primary: "I am already sick and tired of the Ed [Bryant] people trying to 'out conservative' the Van [Hilleary] people or the Van people trying to 'out conservative' the Ed people. Fighting is good if it pushes the rock up the hill, but fighting because there is nothing else to do is not only a waste of time, but it demonstrates political stupidity. ... The fact remains that Ed and Van are not the enemies of conservative and moderate Republicans in this state, the enemy is [GOP ex-Chattanooga Mayor] Bob Corker. 'Sponge Bob' and his band of blue-blooded supporters are laughing all the way to the bank -- the financial disclosures released this week will prove that assertion."

THUNE: So Basically, SD Is To Bloggers As NJ Is To Consultants

Over the weekend, the Rapid City Journal's Kevin Wooster wrote a story on the "permanent campaign" in SD being waged by ex-staffers of ex-Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) against Sen. John Thune (R-SD). In particular, ex-Daschle staffer Chad Schuldt runs Clean Cut Kid -- CCK 1st started reporting on the MetaBank case, which the Blogometer picked up starting 7/1. (Had we clicked over to the FAQ and found this info at the time, it would have been duly noted. Consider it noted.) Another is Jeremy Funk, who runs Don't Worry About The Government, where he has promoted "F--- Thune" T-shirts.

Ex-Daschle manager Steve Hildebrand, to the RCJ: "What he does on his own time is just that. He's not being paid by anybody to write that Web site." But according to Thune's office, Funk works for Hildebrand's firm -- and Hildebrand gets "money each month from both" Daschle's '04 SEN fund and DASHPAC -- so the "effect" is "the same." Daschle "said by e-mail" on 7/8 "that he hadn't visited Funk's Web site and hadn't seen the controversial T-shirts." Daschle added: "But I would say anything that uses profane language is inappropriate."

Meanwhile, the conservative bloggers at SD Politics point out that initial reports on the MetaBank loan were erroneous. Nelson had $23M in assets, not $6M, and while the pro-Daschle bloggers "insinuated" that Thune "made possible" the loans, in fact "MetaBank was loaning money to Nelson for at least 8 years, long before Thune was on the board." Plus, the $28M loss to MetaBank was "wrong" -- Nelson owes $6.8M to MetaBank and the rest to other creditors. Adds SDP: "So the insinuations of the former Daschle staffers about a sweetheart deal don't make much sense." Note: SDP's Jon Lauck (who did not write the above post) was himself paid to blog on Thune's behalf, news that didn't come out until after Thune had defeated Daschle.

IRAQ: Do You Want The Bad News First, Or The Bad News?

Liberal Think Progress' Nico Pitney notes that DoD had until 7/11 to come up with benchmarks to measure Iraq's "stability and security" -- but didn't: "The deadline came and went yesterday without a peep from DoD. Today, a Pentagon spokesperson told me that those Iraq indicators have indeed been 'delayed' and that there is currently no specific date set for their release. Apparently the administration is willing to do just about anything -- including violate the law -- to avoid giving Americans a detailed assessment of our progress (or lack thereof) in Iraq."

This week a number of conservative bloggers chastised the BBC for removing the word "terrorist" from their news stories on the London bombings. Today conservative Hugh Hewitt criticizes the Washington Post for suggesting that British Muslims were "inflamed by Britain's participation in the Iraq war," even though, Hewitt writes, there is "no evidence offered for this astonishing assertion that the Iraq war has anything to do with the massacre. Zero! And none is needed for the true-believers in the MSM."

INTRODUCING: Turk-ish Delight

At the nat'l level, the DNC currently leads the RNC in terms of blog quality/participation. The DCCC's Stakeholder is lively and updated several-times daily, whereas the NRCC's blog leaves much to be desired. Closing the gap a bit today, the RNC launched an official blog at GOP.com/Blog last p.m. with an introductory post by eCampaign dir. Michael Turk; this a.m. a few new entries have been added, including one by RNC co-chair Jo Ann Davidson. Post categories (as yet unused) include "Route '06/Grassroots Report," "Dems Gone Wild," and "GOP Stuff." The blog also allows for comments by registered users. So far it appears to be on equal footing with the Dems' official blog.

MISCELLANY: Even When It's Not About Rove ... It's Still About Rove. Unless It's About Iraq

• According to conservative CNS News, Sen. Dick Durbin's (D-IL) "office is trying to silence" conservative org. Move America Forward, "the group says, by hinting" to the Crystal Lake Northwest Herald that the IRS "should audit Move America Forward." Power Line writes, the Dems are "no stranger to strong-arm tactics, obviously, but if this report is correct, Durbin's effort to insulate himself against criticism is over the top."
• The Moderate Voice calls the likelihood of a recess appointment for U.N. Amb.-designate John Bolton "yet another sign, though, of this White House's no-compromise style. There is no yielding once a firm position is taken (in other words, Democrats: Don't hold your breath that Karl Rove will resign, no matter what emerges or doesn't emerge)."
• At TAPPED, Matthew Yglesias finds incredulous the suggestion by Weekly Standard's Stephen Schwartz that the "answer to the crime of London will come in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other countries where Islamist extremism perverts the Muslim mind, and it will come through force no less than reason." Yglesias responds: "Now, to Schwartz's credit, unlike Iran and Syria, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are actually related to the Al-Qaeda problem in a comprehensible way. On the other hand, you've really got to wonder if people mean this stuff. Saudi Arabia has about the same population as Iraq. Pakistan's population is about 6.2 times Iraq's. Who, exactly, is going to invade and occupy these countries?"
• RedState's Josh Trevino: "[I]t's fairly clear by now that the bombers were all British Muslims. If, as is hypothesized, al Qaeda is transforming itself into a sort of global insurgency based in local Muslim communities (obviating the need, as with 9/11, to import terrorists from abroad), then the question of what to do with those communities moves to the fore. At the moment, the West is reacting as the West typically does: with forebearance and tolerance and denial."

BACKLOG: Hyper Mediacrity, Uh Huh, That's Right

Earlier this month, right-leaning media watchdog Mediacrity noticed that the New York Times had used information the Mediacrity blog first brought to light about the $152K salary paid to the Poynter Institute's Jim Romenesko, moderator of the aptly-named Romenesko. As of last week, the Timesagreed to run a correction if the anonymous author, "Mediacrity," would reveal his (we presume) name, which Mediacrity refused to do. Then in a post on 7/8, Mediacrity posts an e-mail from Times public editor Barney Calame, who explains that the reporter found the info himself. Mediacrity replies: "Are you simply relaying the position of Times editors, or stating your own position?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Like The IMDb, But For Constituent Letters

Douglas Ott from A Dusty Life posts a letter he received from Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), and comments: "It's rather fun getting an automated response from your elected official. An idea I've had ever since I've gotten to DC is for there to be a repository of letters from all Senators on all issues. I will have to look into this, because it'd be very easy and informative: all Senators have to respond to correspondence."

LEST WE FORGET: Forget Harry Crumb, Who's Harry Hutton?

For awhile now the Blogometer has been meaning to draw your attention to the blog of one UK-based Harry Hutton, called Chase me ladies, I'm in the cavalry. It's hard to do justice to the blog without just showing it to you, but recent post headers include "Non-kinky sex is a waste of time"; "My iPod is a glorified herd of cows"; "American women are a pain in the arse"; and "Which Spice Girl would you eat first?" And the top of the righthand sidebar implores the reader: "URGENT! Please send 300 kilos of white mice. No time to explain."

BLOGOMETER SPECIAL: In The Air

What the blogosphere is saying about the SCOTUS vacancy:

REHNQUIST: No Evidence? Run With It!

NRO's Ed Whelan writes: "One theory is that [William] Rehnquist has already communicated to the White House that he will resign soon and that he has agreed to defer his formal resignation until the president is ready to nominate his and [Sandra Day] O'Connor's successors. There is no real evidence to support this theory, but it would ... explain the third-hand rumors" floating around. "A competing theory is that Rehnquist has decided to continue for at least another year. Under this theory, his health would be stronger than some have reported, and he would have figured that two vacancies at the same time disserves the interests of the Court."

McCAIN: Fair-Weather Fans

NRO's Bench Memos and Dummocrats both approvingly quote John McCain saying Bush would "appoint judges who will strictly interpret the constitution" and that "elections have consequences..."

DEMOGRAPHICS: Any African-Scandanavian Women Judges On The List?

PrawfsBlawg responds to an "interesting" Baltimore Sun op-ed by Univ. MD law prof Sherrilyn Ifill, writing that the view she adopts is the "non-starter view that President Bush should appoint a liberal ... to fill O'Connor's seat ... here buttressed by a facially plausible but ultimately unpersuasive attempt to base that view on a racial footing. Since this just won't happen (although Bush might nominate a pragmatist or moderate), and since it's pretty clear that Ifill thinks that the right diverse nominee will never be a diverse right nominee, so to speak, I am left wondering what the point of the op-ed really was."

Conservative Kay Daly finds the notion that O'Connor should be replaced by a woman "a bit silly," adding: "I suppose those of Swedish descent should be eagerly looking to Rehnquist's retirement with great anticipation. According to historical record, Rehnquist is one of only two folks of Scandanavian descent to serve on the Court. So. Scandanavian Americans, this is your chance!"

HINOJOSA: Reverse Psychology?

Conservative Confirm Them: "Who knows much about [Ricardo] Hinojosa? The Dem senators actually mentioned him this morning as being 'acceptable' to them. Reagan appointed him to the district court in 1983. He went to Harvard Law. [Pres.] Bush named him head of the US Sentencing Commission. In short, he sounds (very much on the surface) like a decent prospect -- but why would the Dems push him?" The Dem endorsement makes one commenter "wary." Another adds: "Maybe that's why the dems said he'd be okay: to make the base, and the White House, wary of appointing him."

THE ODDS: Does This Really Work As Well As Election-Related Markets?

Supreme Court Nomination Blog highlights the U.S. Supreme Court Futures Market, a project of UNC Chapel Hill prof Kevin McGuire. When the post went up early in the p.m. on 7/12, the highest-rated judges were: AG Alberto Gonzales, Emilio Garza, Michael Luttig, and Miguel Estrada. As of this a.m. the field has changed slightly -- Gonzales and Garza still in front, but Harvie Wilkinson and Janice Rogers Brown fill out slots 3 and 4. However, "None of these" is still the highest-rated choice.

Meanwhile, Dublin-based trading site Tradesports lists Garza, Edith Jones, Priscilla Owen and Edith Clement in the lead. As SCNB notes, the favorites of each respective site don't do very well on the others -- excepting Garza.

Posted by at July 13, 2005 12:14 PM