Whatever Rove Did, Truth Will Take a Backseat
Karl Rove might be the White House staffer who illegally revealed the identity of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame. While there is currently only the slimmest of evidence that this might be true, just the suggestion that Rove was involved ensures that truth will be bludgeoned as this plays out in the public sphere.
The left already thinks Rove is a despicable human being and will believe this rumor to be full truth—any evidence that Rove wasn’t involved will be treated as intentional obfuscation and further proof that the Bush administration is dangerously deceptive. The right, on the other hand, has every reason to want to keep Rove out of jail and will thus portray this story as evidence of deep set media bias and just one more unhinged and unpatriotic attempt by the left to bring down the Bush White House.
As for me, I wouldn’t be surprised if Rove was involved—I’ve never found political consultants of any stripe to be particularly ethical. But I also wouldn’t be surprised if he wasn’t involved or if there is not enough evidence to indict. The fact of the matter is, while it was illegal to reveal that Valerie Plame was an undercover agent, that revelation didn’t cause her to be obviously harmed. And while, from a legal standpoint, it shouldn’t matter if she was harmed or not, it will matter in how this plays out among most Americans.
Unfortunately, prevailing opinion might be "no harm, no foul" and this could lead the story to gain little traction, particularly since it will be overshadowed by the Supreme Court battle. Outing an undercover agent does in fact create harm, most often harm the public never hears about because such operations are highly secretive. There is no excuse for what was done to Ms. Plame and the culprit who revealed her identity should be punished. But there hasn't been an uprising in public interest in this case, and even with Rove's name being thrown around, there still might be too little attention paid to it.
I could be wrong. But if it does get plenty of attention, don’t expect plenty of truth from the pundits and partisans. Neither side will have much interest in that.
posted by Alan Stewart Carl @ 10:31 AM
14 comments
14 Comments:
I'm puzzled by the light way in which you seem to be taking of the exposure of an undercover agent: "The fact of the matter is, while it was illegal to reveal that Valerie Plame was an undercover agent, that revelation didn’t cause her to be harmed."
Didn't it end her ability to operate undercover, to continue the tasks that she had developed expert skills for? Isn't that a "harm" to her ? And isn't it also a harm to the work she was doing for our country?
Didn't exposing her also expose the business cover she was operating under? Didn't it place the other "employees" of that business & the persons she was receiving information from in danger, in fear for their lives? Would we ever know if someone(s) were killed as a result of her exposure?
Help me out, here.
Actually, I'm rather aghast that someone would expose a CIA agent for any reason but particularly for the alleged reason in this case (as political retribution against the agent's husband). My point wasn't that I take it a lightly but that I think many others have taken it lightly and will continue to do so.
Unfortunately, the press is treating this story as a "freedom of the press" case first and foremost and the parties are going to, I think, treat it as an unconditionally condemn or unconditionally support Rove case. That's too bad.
Not only could it have lead to the death of her and many other operatives. More importantly it highlights that the rightwing is not really patriotic, as they claim to be.. but instead a bunch of power hungry lying thugs.
Let's assume for a moment Rove didn't out an undercover intelligence agent.
We do know--at least Rove claims it to be true--that he did circulate Ms. Plame's identity in an effort to discredit her husband after Plame had been exposed in the famous Novak column.
Doesn't that appear a bit more than unseemly to you?
WRT "no harm, no foul," you couldn't be more wrong. The fact s we don't what sources and operations were compromised as a result of outting Ms. Plame. But consider this: let's suppose some foreign asset is deciding whether to approach the US with info of a highly sensitive nature; info that's so sensitive it may result in great personal danger to that asset. Would not the fact the highest levels of the US Govt. are apparently disclosing undercover sources for political gain/advantage weigh heavily in such a decision?
who had motive douche bag
No harm. No foul. Untrue, of course, but likely to be the prevailing opinion.
That phrasing seems to be causing some to think my opinion is that there was "no harm, no foul" when what I meant is that other people might think that. I say such reaosning is "untrue."
Nevertheless, I am going to edit the phrase so as to prevent confussion among future readers.
A note to readers: I have edited this story to make it clear that I in fact think the outing of a CIA opperative is a serious matter. My intent of this piece is to highlight how the story might play out, not to say the story is unimportant.
Thank you.
I think at this moment, no one knows what part in this Rove has had, one way or the other. As far as the media goes-- For once they aren’t running a story on speculation as so many will do these days in the Blogs. We all need to wait for the facts to come out, (in the next day or two) and then run with it. Anything else said right now is just guess work and serves no purpose for either side......
I've actually been having a little fun with this story since it first flittered in a couple of days ago. I make sure to start each of my posts with a disclaimer that no proof currently exists that point directly to Rove. However, my question is, if it does indeed turn out to be Rove and he is charged, what will Bush do? This is of course for pure speculation. If Bush pardons Rove, what light would that shine on the President? If he doesn't pardon Rove, what might Rove say to prosecutors in an attempt to broker a deal? Also, what will party loyalists say? Will they condone a treasonous act?
The Espionage Act: This law denies the airing of "classified material" that could damage national security.
The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of
1982: This law was enacted because of double agent Philip Agee's publication of some CIA agents' real names.
I'm sorry if my speculation game infringes on anyone's sensibilities, but Rove has been such a tempestuous individual, that a little frivolity at his expense seems appropriate.
I think at this moment, no one knows what part in this Rove has had, one way or the other.
Not quite true. We do know Rove did circulate the fact Ms. Plame was a CIA agent in order to smear her husband.
That is from Karl Rove--unless, of course, he's lying.
We also know the leak came from "senior administration officials."
Nope... We don't-- He didn't.....
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Aubrey,
I have to ask . . . how can you state with such authority that Rove didn't have anything to do with this? Do you know the man personally? Or are you simply so loyal to the administration that you can't bring yourself to see that any of them could do anything wrong? Whether it was Rove or not, it was, without a doubt, someone in the Bush White House . . . unless of course, you choose to believe that these reporters just guessed at Mrs. Plame's occupation.
Robert...
I said no one knows… That means me too!!!!
Post a Comment
<< Home