ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Thursday, July 14, 2005

St Louis Post-Dispatch - Why Finish the Investigation?

Well, it's good to know that the St Louis Post-Dispatch knows everything there is to kknow about the Plame/Wilson affair. Why do we have an investigation in process when the Editorial board of this rag has already uncovered all of the facts.

THE WHITE HOUSE: What's in a name?

KARL ROVE, the president's political wizard, shouldn't resign because he is good at beating up Democrats, although that's certainly why Democrats want his scalp.

Nor should Mr. Rove resign because he leaked information to reporters to make his boss look good and his boss' opponents look bad. That's part of his job.

But the American people have every reason to hold Mr. Rove and President George W. Bush to the statements they made after the disclosure two summers ago that Valerie Plame was a covert CIA officer. The disclosure was part of a transparent effort by the White House to discredit Ms. Plame's husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, who had the temerity to challenge the president's rationale for going to war in Iraq.

Ms. Plame was outed in a nationally syndicated column by Robert Novak, a disclosure repeated in several other publications. The White House criticized the leaks, denied that Mr. Rove was involved and promised to punish anyone who was.
For the moment, Mr. Bush is saying he won't comment until the Justice Department finishes its criminal investigation. But time may not be on his side. People already are beginning to wonder how long Mr. Bush has known that Mr. Rove leaked the information and why the president hasn't acted sooner.

And I love the allusion to "What did he know and when did he know it..." Heck, they're giving MoveOn.Org and DemocraticUnderground a run for their money in the contest for tinfoil partisanship whackery...

BTW, the next time a reporter calls the WH for information on Social Security or Tax Reform, administration officials should hang up, lest they be accused of actively smearing their opponents. How can it be an "active" smear campaign when Rove didn't initiate the contact and Rove was answering the question of a reporter?

Meanwhile, Greg Palast (noted tinfoil-hatted nutter) echoes the Post-Dispatch at I'm sure Mr. Pulitzer is proud.

Palast even knows who Judith Miller's source is and think the NYTimes is disgraceful for covering up for Karl Rove. He doesn't see the idiocy of the claim - given that the NYTimes hasn't exactly been a staunch supporter of the administraion.
New York Times reporter Miller and her paper would rather she go to prison for four months than identify their "source." Why?

Part of her oddball defense is that The Times never ran the story about Wilson's wife. They get no points for that. The Times SHOULD have run the story with the headline: BUSH OPERATIVE COMMITS FELONY TO PUNISH WHISTLEBLOWER. The lead paragraph should have been, "Today, Mr. K--- R--- [or other slime ball as appropriate] attempted to plant sensitive intelligence information on The New York Times, a felony offense, in an attempt to harm former Ambassador Joseph Wilson who challenged the President's claim regarding Iraq's nuclear program."

A Karl Rove or Rove-like creature peddling a back-door smear doesn't make him a source. Miller's real crime is not concealing a source, but burying the story. A reporter should never, ever give notes to a grand jury, but this information is something The Times owes the PUBLIC, not the prosecutors.

Why didn't The Times run this story? Why not now? Who are they covering for and why?
As Karl Rove chuckles and Judy does time, we are left to ask, What are Miller and The New York Times doing: protecting the name of a source or covering up their conduit to the Bush gang's machinery of deception?

One can only be sympathetic to Miller for choosing jail over bending to the power of the State. But as T.S. Eliot said,

"The last temptation is the greatest treason,
To do the right deed for the wrong reaso

The fact that the Times hasn't run the story that Palast implores them to run speaks volumes in my mind. Methinks that the "source" isn't tied to the administration at all and the Times is just letting Bush/Rove twist in the wind.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler