Is Karl Rove Still Leaking?
Is Karl Rove Still Leaking?
Chuck Todd suggests Rove is disclosing details of his grand jury testimony with the AP:
[E]nquiring minds want to know whether or not the person “directly familiar” with what Karl Rove saw during his grand jury testimony shares a brain with some guy in the WH sporting the title of dep. WH CoS?
Todd is referring to this story. Remember, there are only two people “directly familiar” with Rove’s testimony. Rove and Patrick Fitzgerald. (Rove’s attorney cannot be present during his grand jury testimony.)
It’s a pretty good bet that Fitzgerald wasn’t talking to the AP’s John Solomon. And the tone of Solomon’s article suggests his source was someone very sympathetic to Rove. The thrust of the piece was that Libby was mostly to blame.
Note: The White House policy is “not to comment on an investigation while it’s ongoing.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
the WH policy is to hold out as long as they can and pray nothing bad happens to them… they don’t ever want to talk about this stuff…
October 20th, 2005 at 10:53 amGood Morning America, how are ya…..Yep the wh will be still untill the s*** hit’s the fan and then they will start flinging mud in all directions and creating fear in all areas to divert our attention. That’s what this gang of liers and thieves do….Blessings
October 20th, 2005 at 10:58 am#2- Maxiumus AKA Buckfush, and Buckfush7
Go away. Everyone’s seen your SPAM. “Down with BUSH” and oh by the way, buy my stuff!
October 20th, 2005 at 11:05 ami thought for a second this was kidney stone related :)
October 20th, 2005 at 11:10 amOff topic, but Tom DeLay took Harriet’s cue and is blogging: linked at my site.
October 20th, 2005 at 11:18 amit’s interesting how rove, ever-ready to trash someone’s character, moves into full self-preservation mode when the chips are down… only in keeping with maslow’s hierarchy of needs, i suppose…
http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/2005/10/rove-weenie.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/19/AR2005101902431.html?referrer=email&referrer=email
October 20th, 2005 at 11:23 amThe back-stabbing & squealing begins!
October 20th, 2005 at 11:24 am“Is Karl Rove Still Leaking?”
That’s a disgusting headline Judd, especially first thing in the morning.
October 20th, 2005 at 11:29 amHypocrisy is the ONLY consistent “value”
October 20th, 2005 at 11:29 amfor the crooked crony conservatives.
Sorry I was off point earlier, in answer to the question..Yes Rove is still leaking like a cheap diaper…..Blessings
October 20th, 2005 at 11:35 am“Depends” Hee Hee!
October 20th, 2005 at 11:47 amRove trying one last save for him and his boos. Who’s going overboard is the question?
October 20th, 2005 at 11:55 amRove is continuously leaking bodily wastes, which is why we’ve seen him looking thinner of late… you see, the prospect of life out of the White House and in the Big House is scaring the p*ss and sh*t out of him…
October 20th, 2005 at 11:59 amFYI–there is a very interesting headline story on buzzflash.com. BF admits it is a rumor, albeit a widespread one that connects a few dots.
October 20th, 2005 at 1:20 pmIs Libbly more or less likely than Rove to bite it (or is it about the same)? If Rove can shift all the blame onto Libby, and Libby is pretty much a goner anyway, then he ‘takes one for the team’. If Libby has a good story, though, then if they can pin everything his way, and his story holds water, then they all could walk. Well, that’s just me spewing out a possible thought on the latest “leak strategy”. If they are both about the same, then it could be the canary is getting ready to sing. Boy, now, wouldn’t THAT be nice: Rove spills the beans on everything he knows that this band of miscreants has done to our country. Actually, if he did THAT, I would (at least until he slipped up again) praise him as a national hero (even if the motivation were to save his own butt); any idea on how much this guy knows about all the illegal and immoral crap these people are into?
October 20th, 2005 at 1:22 pmNew PlameGate revelations this week confirm what most long ago concluded about President Bush. First, the President did not tell the American people the truth about his knowledge of the affair. And second, Bush, the preeminent practitioner of the Politics of Payback, was concerned not about treason and threats to American national security in his own White House, but only about political embarrassment.
For the full story, see:
“What the President Knew and When He Knew It.”
October 20th, 2005 at 1:32 pmOh, that all this would be true! But my desperate wishes do not always make it so. Sadly, there is much supposition and not thorough logic in this idea. The logic of this is refutable.
It comes down to what we accept as the definition of “directly familiar.” The posting here assumes this familiarity be “directly” from those involved. But, Fitzgeralds or Roves confidantes could be the source. In fact, Solomon’s well-chosen words here can imply much more than they mean. “Directly” is a superlative in this regard, fully intended to qualify the source as accurately informed, without providing any hint of their place in the line of communication. It would not be uncommon for a reporter, such as Solomon, to intentionally choose the word “directly” to insinuate that his source(s) be the immediate parties involved, or to allow the readers to assign more creedance to his report, then the actual source merits. But the key here is not the modifier “directly” but the term “familiar.” “Familiar” only implies that they have knowledge. A source who knows something to be true first hand is more than “familiar” with the events — that source is referred to as “witness.” But author Solomon doesn’t use this term. He either fails to use it because he is enjoined from giving away the source or he cannot use it, because his source is not a witness. As surely as Judy Miller has had no problem informing the public of her grand jury testimony (to Fitzgerald), I am unaware that any other respondent is barred from doing the same. So author Solomon does not have any reason to hide his source, were it Rove – a witness to said testimony.
Being “familiar” also means that the source has knowledge direct from the parties involved. So it is that the source falls in succession from the two witnessing parties (Rove and Fitzgerald). And “direct “succession would imply that they are close to the two parties involved. This is an argument of semantics, but it is the intended non-specificity which serves the reporter best — it assures that he implies his sources are assumed unimpeachable.
I am skeptical, too, when it comes to the mechanations of the media to: maniuplate ideas, inflate their importance, develop conflict and create artificial news to feed hungry consumers like you and me. For this reason, I cannot blindly accept the summary judgement posted here.
The sad reality is that we do not yet know if Rove is the source – we may never know. It is the merest speculation and easily refuted.
And, yes, logic would suggest, at first consideration, that Rove would have more to gain by this leak than Fitzgerald would. Then again, we have no idea how Fitzgerald works to entrap the suspected parties involved in this affair. It could also be that planting a story that Rove outed Libby (as his Plame source) was intended to bring out other informants or new information, or to pit Libby and Rove against one another in order to get one to turn evidence on the other. Lawyers use these devices all the time. Leaks such as these are often used to float trial balloons and to manipulate events for other purposes.
Yes, wish that it were true. But, in the meantime, be careful not to blindly believe everything you read, just because you wish it to be true. That is a lesson I am learning.
October 20th, 2005 at 2:27 pmKurt, I won’t deny that this post is speculative. That’swhy it was called: Is Rove Stil Leaking? But I wouldn’t dismiss it as easily as you do. Reporters are quite particular with how they cite anonymous sources.
October 20th, 2005 at 3:22 pmAnd, Chuck Todd is pretty familar with how reporters do it.
“Directly familiar” does not necessarily mean “present during testimony.” If I rob a bank, and then come home and tell my wife about it, she is “directly familiar” with what I did, though she wasn’t there at the time. I say it’s Luskin getting creative with how he wants to be identified.
October 20th, 2005 at 6:48 pmSeems Two of Cheneys aides are also leaking, Hannah and Wurmser…
(Wurmser was in attendance at several meetings of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG)
Damn Whiggers.
Rabid Whiggers will do anything to save their own Hides, even attack one another.
Freepers are much the same.
Hide and Watch.
Watch Cheney Run:
while Dick Cheney was the Secretary of Defense, he authored a report on “Defense Strategies for the 1990’s.” The declassified version discusses the strategy for the Middle East:
“In the Middle East and Persian Gulf, we should seek to foster regional stability, deter aggression against our friends and interests in the region, protect U.S. nationals and property, and safeguard our access to international air and seaways and to the region’s important sources of oil. We should strike to encourage a peace process that brings about a reconciliation between Israel and the Arab states as well as between Palestinians and Israel in a manner consistent with our enduring commitment to Israel’s security. Some near term dangers are alleviated with the defeat of Iraqi forces [in the Gulf War], but we must recognize that regional dynamics can change and a rejuvenated Iraq or a rearmed Iran could move in this decade to dominate the Gulf and its resources. ”
That was in 1993. Well Before PNAC in 1998. Hope you read the section “safeguard our access to international air and seaways and to the region’s important sources of oil.”
There you Have it, Straight from the Elephants Ass, Economic security is National Security.
The Bush/Cheney WHIG, PNAC, NEO-CON Mindset will Go and Has Gone to War for Oil.
No Wonder the Rumors of Cheneys Resignation are Flying.
October 22nd, 2005 at 9:53 amAnd ?
October 23rd, 2005 at 6:55 amWTF is the scandal here ? That the 5000000 blogs posting daily on the Plame investigation are just getting far too much accurate information about what is going on which is screwing up their speculation ?
Posted 10/18/05
Washington Post story that suggests Vice President Cheney’s office is involved in the Plame-CIA spy link investigation, government officials and advisers passed around rumors that the vice president might step aside and that President Bush would elevate Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Two of Cheneys aides turned Prosecution Witnesses. Hannah and Wurmser.
Cause of the POST rumors.
Speculation?
Scandal?
Business as usual.
The Blogosphere is full of References to the PNAC as the Originators of the Iraq war idea in 1998.
Speculation?
Scandal?
Business as Usual.
Cheneys declassified Paper clearly describes a strike on Iraq from 1993. (Insight into Political thinking of Cheney)
Speculation?
Scandal?
Business as Usual.
Cheney is a Main Player in the Run-up to the Iraq War.
Scandal?
October 23rd, 2005 at 3:21 pmSpeculation?
Business as Usual.
Weight In Silence!
Silence in Weight
Remove Your Bias!!
I weight You!
You I weight!
Time to Study,
While they Fight.
Amongst Them SElves
As they Split us
WE Split THEM.
what I can!
SON of MAN
Look And LEarn
Be NICE!
NICE BE!
Follow
LooK and Learn –AETZI
Yetzirah. On that basis, a relationship can be established between these four forms of calculation, the four spiritual realms, and the four letters of God’s name:
November 7th, 2005 at 8:09 amLetter Calculation Form World
yud Absolute value Atzilut
hei Ordinal value Beriah
vav Reduced value Yetzirah
hei Integral reduced value Asiyah