Isn’t This A Bombshell Revelation Vindicating Rove? You Sure Wouldn’t Know It From The NYT Headline
POlipundit
This report from the NYT, if true, strikes me as a bombshell, Rove is innocent, Dems are full of it, and reporters have gotten this story completely wrong revelation. (At the very least, I am getting a very strong feeling that Democrats are about to lose another game of rope-a-dope.) Judging from the headline put on the story, though, the NYT isn’t seeing things quite the way I do. Consider the content of the report.
[EDIT: I POSTED THIS EARLIER AT Message 21507240]
If the source in this story is correct, Karl Rove has been done a great injustice. He has been smeared beyond belief. The “journalists” that have been pummelling Scott McClellan might have been better off directing their questions to some of their colleagues. I want to know who all these journalists were that cared so little for national security that they were throwing around the name of Valerie Plame.
Maybe Chuck Schumer should not be worried about Karl Rove’s security clearance, but instead should be working to revoke the press passes of these journalists who were endangering national security. While he is at it, they should also be denounced for trying to ruin Plame’s life and career, as they obviously had the express motive of getting retribution against Joe Wilson. What other motive could there be? Democrats and those in the media (Chris Matthews for one) have told us that was the obvious motive for speaking Plame’s name. (While I am on the subject of security clearances, did it not seem the least bit brazen and hypocritical to anyone else that Schumer and others were calling for Rove’s, rather than Senator Patrick “Leaky” Leahy’s?)
Evidently, the NYT does not share my opinion of the significance of the revelations in their report since the headline they ran was, “Rove Reportedly Held Phone Talk On C.I.A. Officer.”
UPDATE: Ed Morrisey makes a great point about the NYT article. It seems clear that their source has grand jury information and access. Isn’t it illegal to disclose grand jury testimony?
UPDATE II: Did I mention that I am getting the feeling that Democrats may be on the verge of losing the mother of all Rope-a-Dopes?
UPDATE III: A Power Line reader agrees that the NYT does not seem to grasp the significance of their own report. They are still spinning this as a big problem for Rove/Bush, rather than information that tends to clear him of wrongdoing.
UPDATE IV: I just saw this reported on Fox News. The Anchoress agrees about the rope-a-dope and she actually called it a while back.
UPDATE V: Michelle Malkin also noted the NYT headline and pointed me to the one on the AP story for contrast.
UPDATE VI: From my reading of this story, if true, Karl Rove is completely cleared and vindicated. But as the NYT article shows, that won’t take the Democrats off their talking points. They will continue to claim that Rove acted unethically and outed Valerie Plame, even if the evidence conclusively shows otherwise.
Democrats have claimed for two years that the White House endangered national security and ruined the reputation and career of Valerie Plame to “get back” at Joe Wilson for showing Bush to be lying about the “16 words.” Even a full out Molly Ivins style apology and admission of being wrong would not be enough to override all that political programming that has occurred over the past years. Stories on this subject will probably not be represented fairly – I am guessing that in some papers this story will not even make the front page. I just wanted to warn you all.
-- Lorie Byrd
polipundit.com |
