Who needs an editor, anyway?
I was going to complain about the Washington Post's schitzophrenic editorial, Mr. Rove's Leak, but everything I was going to say is said better - and far funnier - by Jeremy Gilby. That Jeremy's post has nothing to do with the Washington Post editorial shouldn't come as a surprise, since we're all just pontificating about what Karl Rove didn't say to a super-secret grand jury with more leaks than a Valerie Plame story.
Oops - did I say, "Valerie Plame"? Better alert Tom Raum that I'm up to my old tricks again.
Meanwhile, the AP spins more unsourced blather in an article that will probably get blamed on a copyboy. In this article, written by AP reporter John Solomon, we learn that Rove sent an email to then-deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley to let him know that reporters were asking leading questions about Wilson's Times Op-Ed. But Solomon's version of events uses a curious adjective.
The White House turned the e-mail over to prosecutors, and Rove told a grand jury about it last year during testimony in which he also acknowledged discussing Plame's covert work for the CIA with Cooper and syndicated columnist Robert Novak. (my emphasis)If Rove ever discussed Plame's covert status with anyone, it would at least suggest that he might have been trying to manipulate the situation for some nefarious purpose. Problem is, even Solomon's piece goes on to insinuate that's not true.
"Matt Cooper called to give me a heads-up that he's got a welfare reform story coming," Rove wrote Hadley, who has since risen to the top job of national security adviser.According to the quote from earlier in the piece, that's exactly what Rove did - so why are "Republicans cheered (by) the latest revelations Friday", and why are Democrats saying "Rove wasn't the leaker"? And what sense is it for Rove to tell Hadley he "didn't take the bait"? And referring back to the Washington Post editorial, why would they admit, "For now, however, it remains to be established that such misconduct occurred."?"When he finished his brief heads-up he immediately launched into Niger. Isn't this damaging? Hasn't the president been hurt? I didn't take the bait, but I said if I were him I wouldn't get Time far out in front on this."
...Federal law prohibits government officials from divulging the identity of an undercover intelligence officer. But in order to bring charges, prosecutors must prove the official knew the officer was covert and nonetheless knowingly divulged his or her identity.
Answer: Solomon WANTS Rove's conversation to have been about Plame being covert, so he can pretend to be the next Bob Woodward. Too bad his editor has the same inclination and let the Freudian slip get printed.
