We can't believe anything coming from Rove

[joemurphy]

The latest nugget of information dropped on the NYT, WP and the AP to the effect that Karl Rove supposedly got Plame's name from Robert Novak and not the other way around isn't the blockbuster that the RNC and other Roveheads defending him make it out to be.

Why do I say this?

1. It's coming indirectly from Rove. The "source" referenced in the NYT, WP, and AP articles appears to be a lawyer representing Rove. Thus, what were getting is Rovespin -- coming out just when things are getting hot. Who's the source of the spin? Not the lawyer. It's Rove.

2. Why is the lawyer speaking anonymously? Not because the lawyer
(who is probably Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, BTW) fears revealing grand jury testimony as claimed in the articles. There's no bar on any witness testifying to a grand jury from revealing what he said. So the reason for the anonymity is simply not true.

3. Why is the lawyer feeding the press and not Rove? It's standard Rove practice. If and when the statements don't pan out or are ultimately contradicted by other testimony or evidence, Rove can have "credible deniability". He can distance himself from the information and try another story, bit of spin, or outright lie.
Using the lawyer (who has a pledge of confidentiality to his client) and the newspaper reporter ( who likewise pledges confidentiality to the leaking lawyer) gives Rove a double layer of deniability insulation.

4. Rove and his attorney seem to be floundering around looking for a story that will work. Earlier, Luskin attacked Cooper -- claiming Cooper "spun" Rove somehow trapping him or enticing him into saying something and then writing a story contrary to Rove's real intended meaning. In today's little leak Luskin (or the other Rove attorney responsible for the leak) has Rove fingering Bob Novak as the source of the name "Valerie Plame". They say it was Novak who called Rove and asked for confirmation that Wilson's wife was the one authorizing Wilson's trip to Niger. Rove, they say, apparently heard something about this earlier from a "journalist" (whose name Rove can't remember now) and Rove innocently told Novak "that's what I heard too."

5. Rove has always had the ability to clear this thing up. If he was innocent -- as he now maintains -- and was never the source of the original leak that outed the identity of a covert CIA agent, then why hasn't he stepped forward before now and said so. Instead, as Cooper's lawyer has stated, Rove stonewalled, refused to release Cooper from his pledge of confidentiality, and prevented Cooper from speaking out for over 18 months.

6. Then there's Rove's prior inconsistent statements. Scott McClellan, the White House's official spokesperson previously told the whole world that he had spoken to Rove when the scandal first broke and McClellan said Rove told him he had nothing to do with the leak. Rove himself stated categorically on camera in October 2003 that "he didn't know her name and he never revealed her name." The latter statement, based upon Rove's new leak, was obviously untrue. Either Rove knew Plame's name from Novak (as he now says, through his attorney) or he never knew it (as he said in October 2003). Which is true? More likely he got it from others, Bolton, Cheney, Powell, Tenet, Libby, or a host of other potential administrative sources with close ties to the CIA and WMD intelligence.

Rove has impeached himself by his prior inconsistent statements. He has no credibility. He is totally incredible. We will just have to wait and see what Cooper's grand jury testimony was or hold on for Fitzgerald's final report or indictments to find out what really happened.

Whatever did, we won't get it accurately from Rove or one of his hired legal surrogates.

[aquart]

1. Have we ever?

[Jane Austin]

2. "We can't believe anything coming from Rove"

That bears repeating.

Heck, it probably bears tatooing on our foreheads. :)

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. But I can't roll my eyes back far enough to read it. can't read

upside down either *g*