Rove, Plame, and the scandal we won’t let go away

July 8, 2005

The thin ice upon which Karl Rove walks cracked a little more today with a key Washington Post article about his role in the Valerie Plame scandal. As the Post’s Dan Balz explained, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald may have put Judith Miller in jail this week, but he’s clearly still interested in Rove.

A fast-moving series of decisions over the past week involving Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper have brought a renewed public focus on what role White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove may have played in disclosing the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

A White House spokesman long ago asserted that Rove was “not involved” in disclosing Plame’s identity. Rove, who has testified before a grand jury investigating the case, likewise has maintained that he did not break the law, saying in a television interview, “I didn’t know her name, and I didn’t leak her name.”

But Fitzgerald still appears to want more answers about Rove’s role. The prosecutor is apparently focused on Rove’s conversations with Cooper.

The Post article notes that contradictions are starting to pile up a bit. Rove has denied playing any role in the matter, but MSNBC’s Chris Matthews once famously noted that Rove told him that Joseph Wilson’s wife is “fair game.” Likewise, revelations that Rove had spoken to Cooper about the controversy also flatly contradict White House claims to the contrary.

It’s exactly these kinds of missteps that should spark more intense interest in the scandal by the national media. And yet, for reasons that I’ve never been able to understand, the press has simply not been engaged in this controversy. I’d love it if someone could explain to my why that is.

Think Progress noted today:

For the fourth straight time since his lawyer admitted that Rove was one of Matt Cooper’s sources, no member of the White House press corps asked a question about Rove’s role. (And there are plenty of questions to ask.)

A major figure in the White House is deeply entangled in a major scandal. Why is the White House press corps ignoring the story?

I thought today’s Post story might prompt at least one reporter to ask one question about this. Instead, nothing. It doesn’t make any sense.

This has been an ongoing problem for which there is no apparent explanation. Last October, for example, Rove, who was the architect of the president’s campaign, testified before a federal grand jury dealing with the controversy. Three days later, Tim Russert had a Bush campaign spokesperson on — and never even brought up the subject. A month later, Russert had Rove himself on — and again never even mentioned the fact that Rove has been at the center of an ongoing criminal investigation of the Bush White House.

This week, Newsweek, reporting on Miller having been sent to jail, said recent developments “could increase the pressure on the White House in the nearly two-year long furor over the leak of a covert CIA operative’s identity.” Which prompted me to wonder, “furor“? There’s been a furor over this since 2003 and I missed it?

I’ve never been able to figure out why reporters haven’t dug in on this. It seems to have all the elements of a blockbuster political scandal. We have a vindictive White House illegally leaking word about a political enemy’s wife, contradictory White House efforts at spin, WMD, international intrigue, and a federal criminal investigation. What’s not to like?

Alas, this isn’t a rhetorical question. Even Newsweek, which helped move the ball forward on this story in this week’s issue, gave it one-page treatment — on page 54.

This week, NBC’s Norah O’Donnell was on MSNBC when this subject came up. She said:

“Let’s step back for a moment because this story is huge, and I say it has huge political ramifications because of the subject and what originally launched this whole case. This is about the justification that the president used to go to war in Iraq….

“I think what’s most stunning about the case is the involvement of Karl Rove, the president’s deputy chief of staff, a senior political advisor … his strongest defender in the White House….

“‘This case has been on the verge of blowing up for months now and we are closer than ever to finding out just what Fitzgerald wants to do. Many people may be looking at … [the] legal issues about jailing reporters — [but] this is about a potential scandal in the second term of the Bush administration, and just what the prosecutor, Fitzgerald, is up to, no one knows. But it could be huge.”

Yes, it could be huge, if only the rest of the media would bother to treat this as the major scandal it is.

The reason the media has not picked up any part of this serious issue is because there is no sex involved. Now if Rove was caught under the desk with Condi you bet the media would be all over it.

  • -Peter
    “The reason the media has not picked up any part of this serious issue is because there is no sex involved. Now if Rove was caught under the desk with Condi you bet the media would be all over it.”
    ———————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
    Ahhh, I think that Rove would have been bent over his desk and on the receiving end of Jamees Gannon/Guckert’s love stick.. but that’s my opinion.

  • Peter,

    you are absolutely correct. Clearly it wouldn’t even have to be with Condi, a simple, not particularly good-looking intern would be enough.

  • condi is a bush lover. she would never diddle with rove.

    and don’t forget treason. this story has treasonous overtones. but the media is derelict once again.

  • Isn’t O’Donnell a reporter? How does she think “huge” happens?

    My guess is that they’re afraid of making an enemy of Rove (and thus losing access at the WH) if it turns out that he’s not indicted and/or convicted (still a possibility). If he is indicted, I suspect we’ll see a big uptick in coverage. However, I’ve been wrong before anf there’s always the corporate bosses to consider

  • That’s why linking Gannon with Rove is useful. Provides the sex angle and then the media will cover it.

  • The WaPo article had a nice ending (although most of the people I’d like to read it won’t get that far):

    White House officials make no secret that they think Democrats went beyond the boundaries to discredit the reputations of some of their nominees to the appellate courts. Now into that maelstrom could come discomforting revelations about what top White House officials may have done to discredit Wilson by questioning his motives, his wife’s role in the trip to Niger and his veracity.

    Linking this to efforts to keep Dem Senators away from questioning SCOTUS nominees is a great idea. Why didn’t I think of that?

    I like this Dan Balz, Washington Post Staff Writer guy. Maybe he needs an email or two encouraging him to pursue this connection. . .

  • Why this press seems is not going with this….?

    FEAR. They fear being denied access TO THE WHITE HOUSE (i.e. Holy Grail of political reporting). Not only couldn’t they do their job (ha ha), but they couldn’t brag … I mean say….they were a White House Correspondent if their credentials were revoked.

    AMBIVLANCE. They want their confidentality but likely don’t want to be tarred with same brush as Miller. Putting themselves out there would mean taking some sort of stand and Miller is not a good case on which to make a stand. I think they are aware of what was going on and don’t want to look like they were supporting a stooge if supporting the stooge hurts their ability in the long run.

    ENNUI/SCANDAL FATIGUE. Many of these people have seen so many scandals by so many in the White House over many adminstrations, that they no longer react. The Bush White House alone must account for a healthy amount of ennui/fatigue.

  • maybe the reason no one in the press corps is asking any questions is because they already know the answer. i keep getting the feeling all the cool kidz know what’s going on, but us on the outside don’t deserve to know.

  • It might just be that they all know if they ask a question, McLellan will point to the investigation and say “Ongoing invvestigation, can’t comment.”

  • The issue of a reporter ‘losing his or her access to the White House’ if they aggressively pursue stories that might reflect badly on the administration has always puzzled me. I mean, what exactly would they be losing? The opportunity to act as stage props in one meaningless press conference after another? To listen to speaker after speaker at the podium deny, confuse, ignore and blow off anything remotely relevant to the public interest?

    Word to the press: You’ll be a lot more successful and admired in your chosen field if you lose your fear of life after the White House press room and go after the real stories like what they pay you for. Your investigative skills will flourish and your prose will gleam. And the shriveled remains of your personal integrity will re-hydrate and emerge again into the light of day as a shining beacon to a grateful readership.

    And if you’re *really* good you might even get a guest shot on a real news show like, say, ‘The Daily Show With Jon Stewart’. Now there’s a goal worth shooting for!

  • Donald, What was that line that they used to use on the old Saturday Night Live, but dahling it’s better to look good than to feel good.

    Unfortunately the press seems to have joined the enemy, otherwise how do you explain that along with the ongoing Rove/Plame investigation we have the Downing Street Memos, Halliburton stealing billions of dollars in Iraq, a bevy of corrupt congressmen in trouble for everything from influence peddling to dubious real estate deals, and all this get little if any play in the press.

    In my own state the Republican governor has just hired a convicted embezzler to head the economic development department, and yet this appears nowhere in our local paper.

    I don’t blame the reporters in this as much as I do the editors, they’re the ones that should be making the push for real news stories.

    Alas fond memories of WaPo invstigative reporter Jack Anderson one of the great muckrakers of my youth.

  • I didn’t leak her name.

    Interesting. That’s a mighty thin reed you’re clutching there, Karl.

  • I don’t know why liberals fail to grasp this. Maybe it’s because conservatives have yelled “liberal media” so long that we’ve come to believe it, or maybe it’s because the theoretical duty of the media to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable” is something they identify with. But what it comes down to is this: THE MEDIA IS NOT OUR FRIEND. IT IS OUR ENEMY.

    Say it to yourself over and over until it sticks. The media isn’t there for you. It’s there for Rove. Once you figure that out, everything the media does makes sense.

  • The media isn’t there for you. It’s there for Rove.

    Perhaps its the same thing, but I say the media is there for money/profit, not Rove.

  • Where would they lose profit with a scandal involving the most powerful people in our government? What money would they lose asking a question about Rove.

    Face it, the media has a conservative agenda. Plain and simple. Time to stop making excuses.

  • 99.9% of the reporters are not paid to report the truth. They are paid to ignore it.

  • I have a theory that the Bush tax cuts have corrupted
    everyone of power, influence and wealth absolutely,
    be they Republican, Democrat or independent. No
    beneficiary of this obscene largesse wants to see
    them dismantled. And doesn’t that mean that no one,
    but no one, will ever seriously challenge this
    administration?

    Am I serious? I’m getting there. Because I don’t
    have any alternative explanation as to why
    this gang of thugs and warmongers and murderers
    is getting away with all its nefarious crimes
    and activities. Nothing else seems to explain it.

  • I can’t remember who said what I put down below (I think it was Scott Adams of Dilbert fame), but here is a rough paraphrase of the quote:

    “There are two types of reporters. Those who painstakingly research a story on a topic of importance to readers, and those who just report what they’re told; both types pay about the same.”

    There’s no incentive for courageous reporting and much disincentive. Gawd, their posturing as one of the pillars of our freedom is sickening. They, as a group, are simply government stenographers.

  • Mark,

    Oddly enough, I just posted a comment elsewhere today — Mark Schmidt’s blog, I think — mentioning this. But here I go again:

    In the mid-1970s, I was an intern with Jack Anderson. He was not a WaPo asset; he was completely independent, although the Post was probably his single most important subscriber. He was a syndicated columnist, working from his own offices, and at his height published in something like 1,000 newspapers. The column was already in decline when I arrived for my few months in 1976, although I didn’t realize it at the time. I think maybe they were down to around 600 papers at that time.

    I’m told, by the way, that Jack’s health today is not very good. He’s been retired for a number of years, and must be getting into his 80s now. It would be a great good thing if more folks would make the effort to remember all the terrific work he did, if nothing else so he’d know he’s not being forgotten in his twilight years.

    I grew up reading Jack Anderson, and his mentor Drew Pearson before him, as first the one and then the other ran daily exposes of Nixon Administration outrages. Nixon was fertile ground for those guys, and while they hated what he was doing to the country, they couldn’t ignore the fact that he was a veritable goldmine for any serious investigative reporter looking for big, meaty stories that really mattered. That’s what’s so strange now. I would think the media would be counting its blessings having someone so thoroughly wretched as GwB and the Cavalcade of Clowns he’s surrounded himself with. Imagine: day after day, year after year, being able to publish searing investigative pieces about the most outrageous and horrific words and deeds by the People in Power. Literally, there could never be a better time than right now for aggressive and ambitious journalists to make a HUGE difference in the health and welfare of our nation … not to mention, the chance to rack up Pulitzers and other shiny awards.

    Yet … nothing! All we see is the same-old same-old, leavened by the occasional piece of good, solid reporting (e.g., the article about Rove and Fitzpatrick in the WaPo) but never the kind of continual drum-beat of stories that would have in the past hounded any Administration half as corrupt as this one. Of couse, a lot of these nitwits in the media today probably think that’s what they did with Clinton. But, hell, that was all kid’s stuff: an army of children being led around by a handful of openly-corrupt rightwing shills and bagmen pretending to be “Anonymous Sources” while handing out concocted lies they called “leads” and “stories.”

    Of course, there are a few solid guys around still. Seymour Hersh comes to mind, for example. But they’re few and far between. A pity.

  • Why won’t the press cover the Rove connection? For the same reason that Senators apologize abjectly or change their votes in conformance with administration policy at the last minute. 8 words:

    “Toe the line or we kill your family.”

    I’m out of alternative explanations.

  • My theory, from more than a year and a half ago:

    … the journalists who directly received the leak of Ms. Wilson’s name and CIA employment won’t admit it, because they don’t want to lose future sources by blowing the whistle on a current one. This same fear exists in the Washington, D.C. press corps in general — anything that exposes or puts pressure on specific anonymous leakers is a threat to the supply of future leakers (who may fear the same tactics being used against them), and modern political/governmental journalism depends on that supply.

    To the D.C. media establishment, therefore, the Plame leak investigation is a worrisome omen, and its success would be a bad precedent. As a result, they show no great enthusiasm for pushing it along — and are, perhaps, quietly cheering for the Bushites to escape unscathed.

    But the point about them digging/not digging only when Republicans tell them to carries some weight, too.

  • “hark” is right (comment #19). Half of the people (press) with income over 100K is corrupt. It’s a no brainer.

  • Roger, Thanks for sharing your experience about Jack Anderson, I can imagine that interning with him was one of those experiences that would last a lifetime.

    I remember that his column was one of the first things that I would read in our local paper when I was in high school during the early 70’s. It left a lasting impression on me as to what role the press should play in society and I still carry that impression to this day.

    Sadly it appears to me that much of today’s media is more about style than substance. I’m not all gloom and doom on this, there are many journalists that take their role very seriously and are slogging (or blogging) it out daily on sites such as the Carpetbagger. Perhaps we should all give a tip of the hat to the ones that are working to make sure that the citizens of this country are not kept totally in the dark.

  • roger, was’nt brit hume also associated with jack anderson? i vaguely remember jack’s columns and seeing brit hume’s name and picture. what happened to brit, from jack anderson to fox news?? mental disorder? identity confusion? a bigger dollar whore?

  • I have long used “bork” as a verb to mean “to fail as the result of inherent flaws”. Example: “Well, yeah, it’s a crappy program. If you configure it that way, it’ll bork almost every time.”

    Bork (verb)

  • I don’t see how Wilson’s ‘veracity’ can be challenged. The forged (government of)Niger documents were reported to have the wrong letterhead. I remember reading that any state department ‘flunky’ could have spotted the fraud. I guess everyone just “went along with it” for the sake of their employment.

  • Ever since the public rallied behind Bush & Co. after 9/11, he and his PR people have been ruthless in using their power to stifle any negativity about the administration. It started with answering any criticism with “you’re unpatriotic” or “you don’t support the troops,” even if the criticism had nothing to do with terrorism or the war in Afghanistan.

    They’ve refined their tactics since then but they still make sure to bring up 9/11 as often as possible. They’ve scared off most critics, including, infortunately, the press.

    • Comments are closed.