Ignorance or Prevarication
Saw a rant from somebody in Columbus in the local newspaper today. He wrote a letter to the editor with the apparent purpose of ripping Carl Rove in the whole Plame/Wilson issue. I read the rantings out of curiosity, trying to understand how people like this guy think.
There are really only two possible explanations to his Rove Rant, which was full of inaccuracies and spin. He started from stating his absolute certainty that Rove committed a crime and is being protected from prosecution by his "neo-con" buddies, then predictably moved on to try to link the whole thing to what I suppose he believes is a pattern of lies and manipulation by his real object of hatred - the Bush administration.
If anyone wants the facts of the case as they have been discovered so far, I think the best source is factcheck.org
That is a site that seems completely non-partisan and is very balanced on calling attention to efforts from both parties to try to spin stories to their advantage. If the guy had read the extensive information on this site, he would realize that 90 percent of his rant is factually wrong. Thus the question, does he know the facts but is lying about it anyway, or is he just another ignorant guy on the political left that has bought the whole anti-Bush, anti-War rhetoric?
There isn't any need to review the facts of the case here, since they are already covered in great detail at "factcheck". But the main question I came up with after reading through the information was, why is NY Times reporter Judith Miller staying in jail and refusing to give up her sources for a story she never actually wrote? The other reporter called by the investigation, Matthew Cooper, gave all his information to the investigators with permission from Carl Rove. There doesn't seem to be any more to the story, at least from Rove's standpoint, based on the information already provided.
So the only conclusion I can reach about Judith Miller is that she's protecting somebody other than Rove. I'm very curious who that might turn out to be. It seems that there must be something nobody knows about yet being tracked down by investigators looking into this case, and I'm looking forward to when it's brought to light.
But the bottom line, an impartial reading of the facts would lead any reasonable person to conclude that Rove broke no law, and I don't even think he broke any ethical guidlines in telling Cooper that Wilson's wife was involved in sending him to Niger. And Wilson clearly had political motivation in telling his somewhat distorted story about Niger and Uranium while directly supporting Kerry's presidential run, so his claims related to that trip should be viewed in that light.
For me, I could care less if Rove is innocent or guilty. If he broke the law, he should be prosecuted. But the facts as I read them seem pretty clear that he not only broke no law, but Valerie Plame was no longer an undercover operative with the CIA at the time her name was published in the article by Novak that started this whole flap.
There are really only two possible explanations to his Rove Rant, which was full of inaccuracies and spin. He started from stating his absolute certainty that Rove committed a crime and is being protected from prosecution by his "neo-con" buddies, then predictably moved on to try to link the whole thing to what I suppose he believes is a pattern of lies and manipulation by his real object of hatred - the Bush administration.
If anyone wants the facts of the case as they have been discovered so far, I think the best source is factcheck.org
That is a site that seems completely non-partisan and is very balanced on calling attention to efforts from both parties to try to spin stories to their advantage. If the guy had read the extensive information on this site, he would realize that 90 percent of his rant is factually wrong. Thus the question, does he know the facts but is lying about it anyway, or is he just another ignorant guy on the political left that has bought the whole anti-Bush, anti-War rhetoric?
There isn't any need to review the facts of the case here, since they are already covered in great detail at "factcheck". But the main question I came up with after reading through the information was, why is NY Times reporter Judith Miller staying in jail and refusing to give up her sources for a story she never actually wrote? The other reporter called by the investigation, Matthew Cooper, gave all his information to the investigators with permission from Carl Rove. There doesn't seem to be any more to the story, at least from Rove's standpoint, based on the information already provided.
So the only conclusion I can reach about Judith Miller is that she's protecting somebody other than Rove. I'm very curious who that might turn out to be. It seems that there must be something nobody knows about yet being tracked down by investigators looking into this case, and I'm looking forward to when it's brought to light.
But the bottom line, an impartial reading of the facts would lead any reasonable person to conclude that Rove broke no law, and I don't even think he broke any ethical guidlines in telling Cooper that Wilson's wife was involved in sending him to Niger. And Wilson clearly had political motivation in telling his somewhat distorted story about Niger and Uranium while directly supporting Kerry's presidential run, so his claims related to that trip should be viewed in that light.
For me, I could care less if Rove is innocent or guilty. If he broke the law, he should be prosecuted. But the facts as I read them seem pretty clear that he not only broke no law, but Valerie Plame was no longer an undercover operative with the CIA at the time her name was published in the article by Novak that started this whole flap.
posted by Dan S. at 8:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home