Does Rove skate if it's Judy?


The key bit is this question about how Novak knew to use the name "Plame"--essentially Ms Wilson's workname--in the original article, a question Kevin Drum and Swopa have been all over. The memo doesn't use that name, so where did Novak get it? The speculative answer is Judy Miller. Her big background connection with the case is her work on WMD issues, and it's not implausible that she knew Plame's CIA role, maybe even had her as a source, potential or actual at some point. 

So Judy knows "Plame," and fills in that detail for Novak, who can't resist pushing the dagger in a little deeper by using her workname in his article. As Swopa points out these "B Team" guys have always despised the actual professionals in the CIA. "It's a Sicilian message." Plus Novak is reputed to just love kicking the hornets' nests whenever he can, as hard as he can. So "Plame" is the key--the name, not the "identity"--but it comes from Judy, not Rove.

Is that why Rove and Luskin are leaking this story? It starts looking like a Judy Miller op, rather than a Rove op. Rove and the guys on Air Force 1 see the memo, but (they will claim) didn't act on the Wilson-wife information. It wasn't their initiative. "The media" (i.e., Judy) "knew about her CIA status," they will say. "Everyone" (ie, Judy) "knew about it," they will say. "But we didn't do anything with it--they came to us with it. All we did was, maybe kinda confirm it. You really gonna send one of us up the river for that???"

This seems to be how they're trying to shape the narrative. So that even if Fitz does indict, they can (will) spin it as a grotesque prosecutorial overreach, part of the Bush-hating conspiracy.

Am I missing anything? Anyone else care to have a shot at why Rove/Luskin are leaking THIS info now? Looks they may be throwing Ari's name in there as a target as well....

It's not the criminal charge that matters


See, I think that above all, THIS is the illusion they have worked hardest to maintain all along, throughout all the scandals that have arisen and fizzled. Even if 48% of Americans have seen through it, it is the thing they have struggled hardest to maintain for their own 49%. Even, deep down, for themselves. This is the secret koolaid ingredient, the thing itself. Whatever comes out, as long as the true believers believe this, cognitive dissonance will deal with the rest.

And that's the real horror for them, and the real source of their silence, their lack of a coherent response. "Well, he won't be convicted of anything" just doesn't cut it--doesn't even touch the real issue. Orange jumpsuit or no, this is the rip in the veil, the broken strap that has caused the mask to slip.

NYT: few Republicans were willing to discuss his situation on the record. Asked for comment, several Republican senators said on Monday that they did not know enough or did not want to venture an opinion.

Scott McClellan:
"That's not the way this White House operates"

Oh yes it is, though. And your silence blares it out more eloquently than the spin storm that's about to descend. In this gasping pause, left by your own shock at what you will soon be denying even to yourself, it's just sitting there in black and white. For however long it lasts, everyone who looks can see it. Your own words have left you standing there naked, like the classic anxiety dream. No-pants-in-church, that's you Scotty and it's not a dream. For this one moment everyone can see it and it's painfully obvious that you can feel those eyes all over you. That IS how you operate.

Downing St Memo and Niblett's "British Idiom" rebuttal


Attend: here's the passage in question: "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

There's no ambiguity here at all. Consider the countercase: Bush was going to go to war with a certain justification, AND "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." That syntax fits Niblett's interpretation of the idiom. They had a policy and were assembling the intelligence that supported their policy. Much more neutral, though you still have to squint pretty hard to make it come out as benign.

But as long as it's a contrasting conjunction in there--BUT--the meaning is still just as devastating, even if you accept Niblett's interpretation of the idiom.

"Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. BUT the intelligence and facts were being 'bolted on' the policy." How is that any better? Say "arranged around," "appended," "bolted on," whatever, the meaning is clear: the intelligence wasn't supporting the policy. It's not a question of idiom, it's a question of the logical function of "but": whatever comes after stands in contradistinction to what came before. The first condition  ("justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD") was fundamentally contradicted by the second ("facts and intelligence"). 

I just heard Al Franken get drawn into "Well, we better find a Brit to tell us what it means" about this, and it's complete red herring. You don't need a Brit. Even WITH the purported 'Brit' sense, it still says the same thing. Because of that "but."

 

DrBB

user-pic

Following:
Followers:

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address