They don't make Watergates like they used to. The facts presented thus far in the Karl Rove-Valerie Plame leak controversy make the case seem, as Senator Orrin Hatch puts it, "a tempest in a teapot." Seem because outside of the grand jury, we possess more questions than answers. But a few things are clear.
First: Karl Rove is a little too slick for his own good. Last year he told CNN, "I didn't know [Valerie Plame's] name. I didn't leak her name." This is technically true. It's also Clintonian. Rove may not have broken the law, but he failed the weasel test.
Second: Joe Wilson's motivations are secondary to the veracity of his findings. Joe Wilson warned the White House against relying on a document purporting that Saddam Hussein was actively seeking uranium from Niger's government. Nevertheless, Bush announced in his 2003 State of the Union address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The White House retracted this, admitting that the statement was based on forged documents. Iraq had no nuclear bombs, was not even close to having a nuclear bomb, and the mushroom-cloud fantasies of Bush camp-followers aside, had no means of delivering such a device upon Manhattan or the Capital.
Third: If Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA agent, she was very undercover about being undercover. Her name appeared on her husband's bio (perhaps the grand jury should go after him too), and she toiled not in the deserts of some far off Muhammadanistan, but at a desk in Virginia. Might she have refrained from injecting her husband into a politically-charged intelligence controversy if she truly valued her anonymity?
Another weak story from the 'Vast Right Wing conspiracy' that will backfire, sputter and die on the Dems.
Dan,
Doesn't your point 3 conflict with your claim 1? Specifically, you mention that Rove was being Clintonian b/c while he didn't actually use Plame's name he did refer to Wilson's wife as the reason he went on his fact-finding mission. But the issue is whether or not Rove revealed the identity of a covert agent, that is what is illegal (and rightly so). Therefore, Rove could have even said to the reporter "His wife, Valerie Plame, was the . . ." and would still not have violated any law if she wasn't actually a covert agent. And also, she even could have been a covert agent and Rove still wouldn't have violated the law unless he outed her AS one, right?
Maybe I am not getting the law right but from things I have read this seems to be the critical issue. So, if your point 3 is correct than that seems to change the interpretation we should give to Rove's comment that you criticize in point 1.
Chuck Schumer and Joe Wilson to call for Roves resignation/firing? Yeah, right!.
Chuck Schumer has some great plugs. I think he'd make a great president--of the Hair Club for Men. Here's my list of the best plugs on a political figure:
3. Joe Biden
2. Chuck Schumer
1. Ralph Neas
Honorable Mention: The late Strom Thurmond--I would say that he would've made a great president (of the Hair Club) too, but we all know what happened the last time someone dared utter those words.
Ok, so now we have the usual suspects calling for Rove's removal:
John Kerry
Chuck Schumer
MOVEON.org (what a misnomer that one)
Just these should point to Rove staying in spades.
At what point is Joe Wilson a reliable witness or source for anything?
Thanks to America and quite possibly the world's greatest political periodical, we now know it was not Karl Rove, not Robert Novak, but Charlie Wilson who outed Plame.
http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200507150827.asp
