Wednesday, July 13, 2005


If Rove is innocent of any wrongdoing, as several people are claiming, why is he splitting the English language into atoms? Rove says he did not reveal Valerie Plame's name. True - but he DID say " wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip," according to Mr. Cooper's notes. One can reveal an identity without revealing a name. So why the oh-so-careful parsing? One can add Mr. Luskin to the list, for his incredibly specific claim "Rove never contacted Mr. Cooper by phone" (regarding Cooper's decision to come forward). So, if there's nothing wrong, why so specific in denials?

Isn't it evident that Rove already has lied? At one point, McClellan stated that he had spoken with Rove and two other White House aides, and ""those individuals assured me they were not involved in this." Rove has now admitted he was involved. Ergo - he lied. (Or McClellan, I have to admit, but Rove has never denied McClellan's statement.) Perhaps not a big deal, however, I want to point it out because the claims of innocence are getting more and more outlandish; soon one "defense" will read he never lied at any time. Here we see he did. And secondly, I mention it because when you add this to his fine control of denial language, honest people have to wonder exactly WHY he's being so careful?

Does anyone really feel that had a Clinton aide done something exactly like this, Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, and the like would not only defend the person accused but would also claim that they were "whistleblowers" (WSJ) or "a hero"? (Fox News)

Again on the minute language study - why is a current meme that Bush has never said he would fire someone involved in a leak?

QUESTION: Given -- given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?
THE PRESIDENT: That's up to --
QUESTION: And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.

Parse as you will, there's a claim right up front. We now name that Rove did indeed leak Mrs. Plame's identity. The only way Bush can dodge this pledge is to retreat to the claim "I specifically meant the NAME." If he did that, I would like to think that people would have trouble believing him on anything again. However, given the wide pattern of misleading statements from Bush and co., I guess it won't surprise me if no one loses faith in him.

Why does Luskin claim Cooper "burned Rove"? He first states that Rove signed a confidentiality waiver, which gave Cooper the permission to testify. But now that Cooper has, the fact there was a follow-up call that Ludlum may have kicked out as "too much to swallow" is to be held against him? "You have permission to testify about me as long as you don't actually do so." Burning? Well, something's burning here, and it's coming from the trouserial regions of Luskin...

Did Rove commit a crime? Probably not, legally speaking. Does it matter? Legally speaking, yes. Ethically speaking, no. And in terms of reality, it certainly shouldn't matter. But I'll guess that the letter of the law will be very, nay, critically important to many Republicans now. What's one agent against a party?

No comments: