It strikes me that the calls for the prosecution and/or firing of Karl Rove are a bit premature. At most, we have reason to believe that Rove may have committed a technical violation of a law regarding covert agents, not a substantial one, by mentioning that Joe Wilson’s wife was a CIA employee.
It’s certainly not clear that Rove knew that Plame had at one time been in covert ops, or that he made the connection between her and her husband in order to damage her career in any way. And it’s not even clear that Rove technically violated the law, as Plame was a desk-jockey at the time of Rove’s converstations with Matt Cooper and Rove apparently didn’t know of her former role as a covert agent.
So once again, our conspiratorial friends have failed to deliver the goods after attributing nefarious motives and dire consequences* to Rove. Rather than seeking retaliation against Plame, Rove was simply trying to cut Wilson down to size in the face of claims that Cheney selected him for the mission that confirmed Saddam’s attempts to buy uranium in Niger.
(*On Air Anti-America, RFK Jr. claimed that at least one agent was killed as a result of Plame’s blown cover.)
What’s your personal opinion of Rove?
He’s a clever fellow, but not infallible. If he left the Administration now, it would be no big deal as his job is mainly about winning elections.
What’s with this “technical infraction” nonsense? I was under the impression that actually disclosing the identity of a CIA operative under cover was, you know, a federal felony. Technical? In the sense that white collar crime or high treason are “technical,” I guess.
Oh, wait, your post assumes she was on a desk job. My mistake. You weren’t lying, you were just misinformed. To reiterate: if she was no longer under cover, there was no possible crime, not even an attempted one. If she was under cover, and she was, and there were other operations compromised by the disclosure (like, any fronts used by the agency which she was known to have used which were still in use by operatives under cover), then it’s, you know the drill, not a technical violation.
Rove’s job is mainly about winning elections? Then why wasn’t he fired after the second election? Maybe… maybe he’s got other roles behind the scenes as well, that we’re not as familiar with? That couldn’t be, right? Don’t we outsiders know everything?
Also: Richard, I don’t know what your real views are, but your comments on pharyngula are downright odd. Sarcasm? Double sarcasm? Triple sarcasm? Anyway, I’m sure you bring a great deal of joy, happiness, and enlightenment over to the “scientists” over there who are “skeptical” about “nonsense” spread by, you know, ignorant people. Much as I would here, if I did, which I don’t. Um. Where was I?
Oh, right.
Interesting blog, I may read it sometime if I want to read something I disagree with (compare your views on Leiter) and have a nice day.
To reiterate: my information is that Plame was no longer under cover when Rove made his remarks about “Wilson’s wife” to Cooper, and that Rove was not aware that she ever had been. If this is incorrect, please help me verify.
Logically, there is no contradiction between “mainly” and “the additional duties were such and such.”
And yes, Leiter is an arrogant fool, and I’m sure I’ll enjoy his book (on EP and the Law) if he’s ever able to complete it. Silly lawyers tackling great technical subjects give me great enjoyment; Lessig for one.