Over the past two days, we've been treated to a stream of stories discussing who knew Plame was covert. Pro-Rove leaks led to major stories in NYT, WaPo, and the AP suggesting Rove
did not know. Two more stories in WaPo and NYT today discuss the question in detail. And yet
not once did any of the journalists ask Rove or Luskin flat out whether Rove knew. If they had, the stories might have unfolded
very differently.
There's an old axiom that Bush can never quite remember. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. For journalists it should be more along the lines of "fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, slap me upside the head."
Armando
dissects the latest in NYT so I don't have to. It's about a State Department memo noting Plame's name and relationship to Wilson which was floating around the White House at quite an opportune time. It also sounds like the memo may have made it on to Air Force One, a vessel which we'll recall had some phone records subpoenaed.
As Armando notes, WaPo has a parallel article. I want to note this:
Rove said of the memo that he "had never seen it, had never heard about it and had never heard anybody else talk about it," according to a lawyer familiar with his testimony. Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, said he can say "categorically" that Rove did not obtain any information about Plame from any confidential source, such as a classified document.
And I want to once again compare it with this from Tuesday's LA Times:
Luskin declined to say whether Rove knew that Plame was a covert agent, even if he did not know her name, which analysts said was a crucial factor in determining whether the law was broken.
Once again, both WaPo and NYT write stories which hinge on the question of who knew Plame was covert, and once again neither paper asks flat out whether Rove knew she was covert. Meanwhile, we are supposed to believe that while Rove can't remember who told him about Plame or when he was told, he is sure it was some journalist and can say "categorically" that it wasn't from a confidential source. What a joke.
Listen, here's the real shame for the journalists who are botching this story into the ground. YOU ALREADY BOTCHED THIS STORY INTO THE GROUND ONCE. When the original story broke, Rove came out with his "never knowingly disclosed" line and everybody said "ah well, no need to keep asking about this." Since then, Rove has orchestrated the filthiest presidential campaign in American history, using every means at his disposal to cast Kerry as weak on national security and borderline traitorous.
The fact that one obviously carefully parsed statement was enough to throw the entire press corps off the scent for months while Bush got re-elected is terrible. The fact is that even after the original defenses have been proven to be lies, even after Rove's lawyer has effectively admitted that the original "never knowingly" line is no longer operative, another series of anonymous self-serving leaks combined with more carefully parsed statements seems to be throwing the press corps off the scent AGAIN. And between now and the time they catch on again, Rove can orchestrate what may well be the filthiest Supreme Court offensive in American history. This simply boggles the mind.
If you're going to run an entire series of articles on who knew, for crikey's sake, JUST ASK ROVE'S LAWYER STRAIGHT UP WHETHER ROVE KNEW. If Rove or Luskin suddenly says Rove didn't know, then the next question is why Luskin declined to answer that question days ago, and what has changed since then except that somebody has orchestrated a carefully constructed PR offensive through anonymous leaks to WaPo, NYT, and the AP. If Rove or Luskin continues to decline to comment, it's fairly obvious that it is not out of respect for the prosecutors because they're commenting on everything else under the sun. And you can write this headline next time an anonymous source is willing to comment:
"Lying source tries to use Washington Post to peddle garbage he won't say publicly."
One might add, by the way, that this is at the root of the case in question.
Crikey.
