Saturday, July 16, 2005
The Deputy DIDN'T Do It
Is this Karl Rove/Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson thing really the best the left can muster at this point?
Let's look at the facts, shall we? (Not a popular policy for the left, but nonetheless.)
1. Rove provided no names.
2. Rove didn't "out" anyone. He merely told a reporter, who told Rove he'd heard Plame had arranged Wilson's trip to Africa, "I heard that too."
3. Plame was not a "covert operative." She had been working as an analyst at Langley for 6 years. This puts her outside the limits set by the legal statute being used to accuse Rove.
4. According to neighbors of Wilson & Plame it was no secret that she was a CIA "agent" and he was a diplomat.
5. This "outing" was not part of an active campaign to punish or intimidate Wilson. Rove did not call reporters they contacted him, then used his rather ambiguous "I heard that too," as a "source".
6. The statute that the left alleges was violated is very narrow. Rove violated no part of it. For one thing the person revealing an "agent's" identity must know the government is trying to conceal the identity.
7. Sources familiar with the grand jury testimony in this case say that it appears reporters were revealing Plame's identity and relationship to Wilson to government officials, not vice versa.
8. Wilson himself said, "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity." OK, first, if she wasn't undercover then nobody "blew her identity." And in that case, NO CRIME was committed. Period.
By the way, Reuters describes "Wilson as 'the husband of a CIA agent whose identity was revealed illegally.' Apparently the guys at Reuters, who still haven't been able to determine if 9/11 was an act of terrorism, already know how the investigation is going to turn out." - JAMES TARANTO, Best of the Web ¶ Saturday, July 16, 2005
Let's look at the facts, shall we? (Not a popular policy for the left, but nonetheless.)
1. Rove provided no names.
2. Rove didn't "out" anyone. He merely told a reporter, who told Rove he'd heard Plame had arranged Wilson's trip to Africa, "I heard that too."
3. Plame was not a "covert operative." She had been working as an analyst at Langley for 6 years. This puts her outside the limits set by the legal statute being used to accuse Rove.
4. According to neighbors of Wilson & Plame it was no secret that she was a CIA "agent" and he was a diplomat.
5. This "outing" was not part of an active campaign to punish or intimidate Wilson. Rove did not call reporters they contacted him, then used his rather ambiguous "I heard that too," as a "source".
6. The statute that the left alleges was violated is very narrow. Rove violated no part of it. For one thing the person revealing an "agent's" identity must know the government is trying to conceal the identity.
7. Sources familiar with the grand jury testimony in this case say that it appears reporters were revealing Plame's identity and relationship to Wilson to government officials, not vice versa.
8. Wilson himself said, "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity." OK, first, if she wasn't undercover then nobody "blew her identity." And in that case, NO CRIME was committed. Period.
By the way, Reuters describes "Wilson as 'the husband of a CIA agent whose identity was revealed illegally.' Apparently the guys at Reuters, who still haven't been able to determine if 9/11 was an act of terrorism, already know how the investigation is going to turn out." - JAMES TARANTO, Best of the Web ¶ Saturday, July 16, 2005
