October 01, 2003
THE CLINTON LEGACY:
Political Intelligence: The agenda behind the kerfuffle over Joe Wilson's wife. (Wall Street Journal, October 1, 2003)
We've been knocking our heads trying to figure out how a minor and well-known story about an alleged CIA "outing" has suddenly blossomed into a Beltway scandal-ette. The light bulb went off reading Monday's White House press briefing.
Right out of the box, Helen Thomas asked if "the President tried to find out who outed the CIA agent? And has he fired anyone in the White House yet?" OK, the point of this exercise is to get President Bush to fire someone. But whom? That answer became clear when the press corps quickly uttered, and kept uttering for nearly an hour, the name "Karl Rove."
Of course! The reason this is suddenly a story is because Mr. Rove, the President's political strategist and confidant from Texas, has become the main target. Joseph Wilson, the CIA consultant at the center of this mini-tempest, had recently fingered Mr. Rove as the official who leaked to columnist Robert Novak that Mr. Wilson's wife works for the CIA. Mr. Wilson has offered no evidence for this, and he's since retreated to say only that he now believes Mr. Rove had "condoned it." The White House has replied that the charge is "simply not true." But no matter, the scandal game is afoot.
In 1993, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was inexplicabl;y considered a moderate and a serious man at that point, warned that America was "defining deviancy down." A few years later he proved his case by not even examining the evidfence in the Clinton impeachment before voting to acquit. Now though, the same Democrats who excused the crimes of Bill Clinton ask that we all be exercised about the Palme affair.
Here's the bitter truth: Mrs. Palme was never in as much physical danger after her employment at CIA was revealed as Juanita Broadrick, Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones were in when they were in a room alone with the former president.
Does that excuse the leak in the current matter? No. Whoever did it will be fired. The question remains: why wasn't Bill Clinton fired? And, having lowered the standards of presidential conduct to gutter level, why should anyone take seriously the Democrats nattering now?
Posted by Orrin Judd at October 1, 2003 04:46 PMIf only Joe Wilson had been propositioned by some poolside barmaid to phone in his "invetigation", or if his wife had whispered sweet nothings in Robert Novak's ear - then it would all be about sex and it would go away.
Posted by: jim hamlen at October 1, 2003 04:59 PMI miss the connection between the Palme affair and the Plame affair. Damned keyboards.
Posted by: RDB at October 1, 2003 05:23 PMYou know, if Rove was to leave the White House for some reason and then Bush still won re-election in a landslide, our nation's mental health system would probably be innundated by a tsunami of Democratic office holders, operatives and media pundits. They apparently are 100 percent positive at this moment that ousting Karl would bring the entire Bush White House-of-cards tumbling down and wouldn't know what to think if proved otherwise.
Posted by: John at October 1, 2003 09:03 PMThe Dems and many journalists would love to expose Rove.
For those currently leaking from CIA (and maybe State), there's a different agenda at work, and their target is not Rove.
Time to strap the seat belts on -- this one should get even more interesting over the next few days. Figuring out who is leaking to what reporter and what end is being served should turn into great sport.
Posted by: kevin whited at October 1, 2003 09:10 PMHe's Bush's John Sasso.
Posted by: oj at October 1, 2003 09:19 PMNo doubt whoever leaked the news to the press will be fired? My question is: why isn't Robert Novak fired? And why isn't Wilson gunning for him as well? After all, Novak bears the lion's share of the responsibility for putting Wilson's wife in danger.
Posted by: Josh Silverman at October 1, 2003 09:22 PMIf Kristol is correct, it's State and CIA gunning for Cheney and the hawks. Why would they be gunning for the VP?
Who or what are they protecting besides their turf?
Or who's next on the radar that the hawks are going to attack?? Iran?? NK??? Both????
Posted by: Sandy P. at October 1, 2003 09:47 PMSandy P.,
NK becomes "protectorate" of PRC - 3/04. Iran - What do think our SF people are doing today? 7/04 - Headline "Islamic Republic Falls" new democratic Iran emerges. 1/05 "President Bush dances with Laura at Inauguration Gala" (Photo Caption)
Memoir Title "The Dumbest Man to Ever Earn a Harvard MBA"
Posted by: RDB at October 1, 2003 09:57 PMRDB:
Good timeline. I also suspect the State Dept. fears a Secy. Rice very much, just as the rest of the bureaucracy fears another 4 years of Bush. In many ways, the federal bureaucracy has become as much an 'opponent' of Bush as the press is. Too many job classifications being changed and too many outsourcings.
Posted by: jim hamlen at October 1, 2003 10:21 PMCan anybody explain to me why identifying Wilson's wife was meant to "discredit" him?
Posted by: Harry Eagar at October 1, 2003 10:33 PMHarry:
CIA and State tend to favor stability, so they opposed the war.
Posted by: oj at October 1, 2003 10:41 PMOh, it was "stability." Whew. Thank goodness it wasn't outdated, fudged, or outright bogus "intelligence," 'cause that'd look real bad for Bush and co.
I fear Rice because she's unbelievably incompetent. How'd that yellowcake make it into the SOTU? "I forgot."
If Rove leaves the White House, he'll still run the show from prison (or wherever he's at).
Posted by: Jimmy at October 2, 2003 12:06 AMJimmy:
It was outdated, fudged and bogus intelligence. That's what intelligence is. The CIA was probably still predicting the Soviet economy would soon overtake ours in 1993.
Posted by: oj at October 2, 2003 12:11 AMI still don't get it.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at October 2, 2003 03:04 AMHarry you asked a good question. I don't know and actually this entire thread is giving me a headache.
Posted by: h-man at October 2, 2003 09:07 AMHarry:
As always, you just have to ask who would have benefitted from keeping Saddam in power. Answer: the military, State, and Intelligence, whose budgets depend on enemies.Threat reduction is anathema to all three--that's why they overestimated the Soviet Union for so long.
Posted by: oj at October 2, 2003 09:13 AMI'm still with Harry -- I understand the alleged reason why they did this thing, I just don't understand what adverse consequence, exactly, would end up on Ms. Plame's shoulders.
Posted by: Chris at October 2, 2003 09:42 AMThe guy had been married three times and she was probably a trophy wife (sorry, haven't seen the pictures). Maybe they wanted to make him out to be an unreliable Casanova (or a James Bond wannabe). Or maybe the wife did it all herself - just to give her husband bona fides when he went braying to the press. Now that would be a move even Karl Rove would admire!
Posted by: jim hamlen at October 2, 2003 10:37 AMI see, via Romanesko's media links, that other reporters are writing columns based on the same question as mine. Even in the Post.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at October 2, 2003 04:30 PM