I fucking hate the Opinionjournal.com, and need help debunking this:

[dave123williams]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006955

I got so pissed off reading this today, I'm physically shaking.

If you have extra time, and an interest in the Plame incident, I'd sure love to hear why and on how many levels this is just a load of shit.

Thanks in advance,

Dave

[Bumblebee]

1. This is total -- and desperate -- bs

She was in no position to authorize or send. From what I have read on it, people actually came to her and asked if her husband would be interested. If nepotism were involved, it would have been pursued a long time ago by those who wanted to demolish the Wilsons as much as they did. Don't worry. This may piss even more people at CIA, and we may have even more damaging leaks as a result. Have faith.

[zoids]

2. Why even bother...

it's the WSJ - what else do you expect? It's a known RW paper. I don't let myself get worked up about that crap any more.

[Tempest]

3. Josh Marshall is spot on regarding the editorial

The comedy still doesn't end!

Wall Street Journal headline: "Karl Rove, Whistleblower."

On the other hand, can you blame them? Most of the kids there want White House jobs or other GOP-based promotions.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

[SteppingRazor]

4. It's the usual 180-degree spin...

Iraq War is going great. We are making scads of progress.

Likewise, Joe Wilson is a partisan hack who tried to slam Bush in the build-up to the Iraq War for purely partisan reasons. Karl Rove, then, is the brave whistleblower who defended the honor of the president.

Repeat a lie long enough, and it becomes the truth.

At the end of the article, it asks about Wilson, "If anyone can remember another public figure so entirely and thoroughly discredited, let us know."

Yeah, here's a few -- the editorialists at the Opinion Journal.

Their backwards half-truth summation of the intelligence committee's findings is particularly egregious. Yes, Plame compiled a resume of her husband's work -- but the Opinion Journal fails to mention that she did it at the behest of her bosses in the CIA, who selected her because she was obviously the best one for the job -- after all, who knows Wilson better than his own wife?
Once this deceitful slandering of Wilson and his wife is shown as the pack of lies that it is, the defense of Rove as some sort of heroic whistleblower becomes an obvious canard.
How's that for how this is a load of shit?

[warrens]

5. This one is easy

Whistleblower? He was trying to discredit an absolutely accurate report by Wilson, not warn a reporter about a false report. Were Saddam and Niger linked? No. Was Saddam buying yellowcake? No. So Rove was LYING to Cooper and the others. Now, as to whistleblowing, what is the definition of the word? It refers to someone who covertly or overtly reports the wrongdoings of people with power over him or her. Was Wilson Rove's boss? Was Wilson even part of the government? This is such laughable disinformation and rape of the langauge.

The WSJ editorial board should be boiled in oil.

[spooky3]

6. a whistle-blower is someone who lacks power to change

organizational wrongdoing. Wilson isn't an organization, and there's no evidence he engaged in wrongdoing. Rove certainly has far more power than Wilson, and he could have written an editorial pointing out all factual inaccuracies (if there were any) in Wilson's story. It was entirely unnecessary to bring up Plame; therefore the fact that her name WAS brought up suggests bad motives on Rove's part.

Rove is not a whistle-blower.

I agree with the other posters--this is simply not worth your aggravation. Send it to MediaMatters.org as a reader tip, and they may fully debunk it where a lot of people will see it.

Meanwhile I keep ignoring emails from WSJ, asking me to reinstate my subscription.

By the way, if you want to cite refereed academic work on whistle-blowing to support you, it's out there.

[lvx35]

7. What? is that a story?

I heard mumbling and drooling...and what? Karl Rove was a whistleblower because what? He had to discredit Karl Rove by outing somebody on the hunt for WMDs? Soon the conservatives are going to be so stupid that their minds will entirly shut down, and we can just roll over them by telling them that we, the democrats, ARE Bush.

[papau]

8. There is a reason the RNC talking points PR release links to the WSJ!

told the press the truth that Mr. Wilson had been recommended for the CIA consulting gig by his wife, VERY TRUE

not by Vice President Dick Cheney as Mr. Wilson was asserting on the airwaves. A CLASSIC WSJ ASSERTION WITH NO FACT BEHIND IT

Mr. Rove provided important background -Wilson wasn't a whistleblower but was a partisan trying to discredit the Iraq War in an election campaign - AGAIN AN ASSERTION WITH NO FACT BEHIND IT.

"it appears Mr. Rove didn't even know Ms. Plame's name and had only heard about her work at Langley from other journalists" - JESUS _ ANOTHER ASSERTION - AND AS ALWAYS NO FACTS BEHIND IT.

the "no underlying crime" point that was in "legal briefs" seems silly given that Grand Jury testimony is unkown to the brief writers for the 36 major news organizations that filed a legal brief in March aimed at keeping Mr. Cooper and the New York Times's Judith Miller out of jail.

Indeed the briefs said, as the WSJ reports that "it is far from clear--at least on the public record" - AS IN SO WHAT

GOD I WISH THE WSJ WOULD LEARN TO USE THE RULES OF LOGIC.

When the WSJ says the Senate Committee Report says "Interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip," - it should also note that the wife had no authority to send him - it was the head of the CIA - or Cheney's - call.

So 8 months after the trip we agree we knew the docs were forged by reason of someone other than Wilson - WE DID NOT TRUST WILSON'S REPORT - OR REJECTED IT BECAUSE IT WAS TRUTH THAT DID NOT ALLOW WAR?

"THE CIA INTERPRETED" MEANS TENET WHO WAS SELLING A WAR - it does not means the analyst folks at the CIA agreed.

AND WE CAN SAY THE BRIT'S GOT THEIR INFO FROM THE US WHEN "Britain's Lord Butler delivered its own verdict on the 16 words: "We conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that 'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded." - INDEED CONGO VERSUS NIGER WAS POLITELY OVERLOOKED BY THE BRITS!

SO THE STATEMENT THAT "In short, Joe Wilson hadn't told the truth about what he'd discovered in Africa, how he'd discovered it, what he'd told the CIA about it, or even why he was sent on the mission." ARE ALL LIES BY THE WALL STREET JOURNAL EDITORIAL STAFF - WHICH THE MEDIA WILL LET THEM GET AWAY WITH.

[papau]

14. Catwomen's DU post of the post at Cafe says it best

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4089533

[Norquist Nemesis]

9. Having watched John Fund on several shows

I don't read it. He is blatantly from the anti-Democratic wing and demonstrates his bias with almost every word he speaks.

Anyway...all the noise machine is trying to push is to re-frame and re-focus away from Rove. He's just a good ole' boy doing the Right thing for the country, by the way! :puke:

The article conflates and misdirects. Every paragraph. Rove was not 'warning reporters' about Wilson's credibility. He was either catching or picking up the ball and running with it to advance a smear campaign. That Joe Wilson's wife would have her cover blown was of no concern. Making sure that Bush's agenda did not jump the track was the highest priority. Nothing could get in the way.

Also, as I understand it, the British intelligence did not state Niger as the country in Africa...it was the Congo. So, they could have EASILY dismissed Wilson's charge. Instead, they decided to turn it into a smear campaign on Wilson. Character assassination is the hallmark of this administration, and let's not forget that Rove is "The Architect".

[Bumblebee]

12. I cannot even watch Fund without throwing up

and do you remember his mother-daughter sexual escapades, or something like that, from a couple of years ago? Everyone assumed he wouldn't be seen after that -- but surprise, surprise...

[Norquist Nemesis]

15. Wow! Had to look up that info

and my, my, my!!! He's been a VERY bad boy!

He's also rumored to be quite adept at running smear campaigns:
http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020116Editors.html

Now that push appears to have come to shove, it would not surprise us if Fund acts just as Ms. Pillsbury-Foster claims the notorious talking head did with respect to the TALK magazine article to which she refers, and attempt to circle the wagons by going to his best pals in the press -- especially the Washington gossip corps -- to attempt to bully, demean and defame Ms. Pillsbury.

And this is not the only case we know of in which Fund has been implicated in a "trash and burn" press campaign. For some years, it has been rumored that Fund and cybergossip Matt Drudge had orchestrated the "Sid Blumenthal beat his wife" story that first appeared in the Drudge Report during 1997 (a story Drudge was forced to retract) and triggered a protracted lawsuit. In a prior conversation between Morgan Pillsbury and our publisher, she not only claimed that Fund and Drudge were prime movers behind the story -- but also claimed that Fund told her they both lied to their lawyer and Drudge lied under oath during the course of the lawsuit.

Oh, well. No doubt Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell touched him to absolve him of all sins.

[dave123williams]

18. Fund sucks; plus - he's a wife beater. Link below:

http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020227Fund1.html

[rudlop]

10. Karl Rove's artistic likeness in the margin...

Looks like he belongs on the $3 bill. He isn't an attractive man, that will not help his case.

[sinkingfeeling]

11. Here's some great counters....

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340

Be sure to read the analysis by Oklahoma Hippy in the comments section.

[auburngrad82]

13. my response to the article

You're kidding, right? A government official, in response to an article that contradicted the administration's claims of WMD in Iraq, leaked the name of a CIA agent, and he's a hero? That's an act of political terrorism.

We now know the Bush administration's claims of WMD in Iraq were not only false but were based on lies. The credibility of this administration is nil. The only way that Bush will save face is to fire Rove.

For me, that's not enough. Rove should be charged and tried as a traitor.

[bloom]

16. Is that anymore credible than this:

Rove is at it again and the Neoconservatives must be applauding him on his recent endeavor to terrorize London, disrupt the G8 summit and denigrate Middle Easterners in one fell swoop. On the contrary we’d say that Rove is one of most vicious, conniving people on the planet. If there were a prize for being the most evil man on earth, we would give it to him or his friend, self-professed "universal fascist" Michael Ledeen.

Mr. Rove has regular conversations with Michael Ledeen, a full-time international affairs analyst who has become the driving philosophical force behind the neoconservative movement and the military actions it has spawned.1 Ledeen is also known for his role in peddling forged documents from Niger, purportedly showing that Saddam Hussein was illegally pursuing acquisition of enriched uranium to build a nuclear bomb.

Mr. Rove and Mr. Ledeen see the world as an evil place and have no problems with creating that evil.

"Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, for they do not wish to be undone. They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very existence -- our existence, not our politics -- threatens their legitimacy. They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission." -Michael Ledeen

Ledeen perfected his terroristic leadership abilities in the 1980s under Reagan. Ledeen was part of Gladio.

“The Bologna atrocity (the Aug. 2, 1980 bombing of the Bologna train station) is an example of what Gladio's masters called "the strategy of tension" — fomenting fear to keep populations in thrall to "strong leaders" who will protect the nation from the ever-present terrorist threat. And, as Rajiva notes, this strategy wasn't limited to Western Europe.

It was applied, with gruesome effectiveness, in Central America by the Reagan and Bush administrations. During the 1980s, right-wing death squads, guerrilla armies and state security forces — armed, trained and supplied by the United States — murdered tens of thousands of people throughout the region, often acting with particular savagery at those times when peaceful solutions to the conflicts seemed about to take hold.”2

Ledeen was the perfect player for Rove to have work out the details of the London Subway bombing - since he has all the right connections and has done this sort of thing before. Of course we don’t expect him to be held accountable. Rove and Ledeen are the masters of spin and are untouchable, anyway. And who would believe it? It’s too crazy.

Besides everyone is just thinking about the Plame outing these days. By the time anyone is considering thei Rove/Ledeen involvement in 7.7, Rove and Ledeen will have us in a war with Iran. With Ledeen being an Iran-Contra veteran - he will be the perfect man for the job.



1 In 1999, Ledeen published his book, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership: Why Machiavelli’s Iron Rules Are as Timely and Important Today as Five Centuries Ago. (Truman Talley Books, St. Martin’s Griffin, N.Y. 1999.)

2 http://www.envirosagainstwar.org/know/read.php?itemid=2421

See also for more info: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/112504A.shtml

[snippy]

17. Rove as a whistleblower is contradicted in the Court of Appeals opinion.

In reaching the conclusion that any possible journalist's privilege concerning the identity of Cooper's source would be overcome by the grand jury's need for the information, Judge Tatel wrote:

Cooper asks us to protect criminal leaks so that he can write about the crime.
The greater public interest lies in preventing the leak to begin with. Had Cooper
based his report on leaks about the leaks—say, from a whistleblower who
revealed the plot against Wilson—the situation would be different. Because
in that case the source would not have revealed the name of a covert agent,
but instead revealed the fact that others had done so, the balance of news
value and harm would shift in favor of protecting the whistleblower. Yet it appears
Cooper relied on the Plame leaks themselves, drawing the inference of sinister
motive on his own. Accordingly, his story itself makes the case for punishing the
leakers. While requiring Cooper to testify may discourage future leaks, discouraging
leaks of this kind is precisely what the public interest requires.

. . .

Were the leak at issue in this case less harmful to national security or more vital to
public debate, or had the special counsel failed to demonstrate the grand jury’s need
for the reporters’ evidence, I might have supported the motion to quash. Because
identifying appellants’ sources instead appears essential to remedying a serious
breach of public trust, I join in affirming the district court’s orders compelling their
testimony.

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200502/04-3138a.pdf (Tatel, J. concurring opinion at pp. 82-83) (emphasis added)

From this it does not appear that Rove would fit Judge Tatel's definition of what a whistleblower would be in this case. These commments by Judge Tatel follow the several pages of redacted material in his opinion. I found it interesting that he referred to "the plot against Wilson" as though such a plot was an established fact. Perhaps that conclusion was in the redacted material.

[Norquist Nemesis]

19. Wow! What an absolutely powerful statement!

"Were the leak at issue in this case less harmful to national security or more vital to public debate, or had the special counsel failed to demonstrate the grand jury’s need for the reporters’ evidence, I might have supported the motion to quash. Because
identifying appellants’ sources instead appears essential to remedying a serious breach of public trust, I join in affirming the district court’s orders compelling their testimony."

So, the "leak at issue" is MORE harmful to national security or LESS vital to public debate. And Fitzgerald showed them he has something...a SERIOUS breach of public trust.

Judges choose their words, especially the words of their written decisions, very carefully. WOW!