Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
David Broder gives certain writers some good advice
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, September 07, 2006

It is mostly good advice for everyone (although I know there are some who can't resist), but at this particular moment certain members of the left are a little more inclined toward the subject of Broder's advice than is the right (and no that wasn't true during the Clinton era):
And all of journalism needs to relearn the lesson: Can the conspiracy theories and stick to the facts.
The subject of the lesson of which he speaks? The Plame affair. It was so much of a nothing it doesn't even rate the almost obligatory "gate" suffix. Seems the penchant for some journalists, in this particular case, was to pitch Occam's razor in favor of, well, wild speculation and conspiracy theories:
Then [Sidney] Blumenthal went off on a rant: "While the White House stonewalls, Rove has license to run his own damage control operation. His surrogates argue that if Rove did anything, it wasn't a crime. . . . Rove is fighting his war as though it will be settled in a court of Washington pundits. Brandishing his formidable political weapons, he seeks to demonstrate his prowess once again. His corps of agents raises a din in which their voices drown out individual dissidents. His frantic massing of forces dominates the capital by winning the communications battle. Indeed, Rove may succeed momentarily in quelling the storm. But the stillness may be illusory. Before the prosecutor, Rove's arsenal is useless."

In fact, the prosecutor concluded that there was no crime; hence, no indictment. And we now know that the original "leak," in casual conversations with reporters Novak and Bob Woodward, came not from the conspiracy theorists' target in the White House but from the deputy secretary of state at the time, Richard Armitage, an esteemed member of the Washington establishment and no pal of Rove or President Bush.

Blumenthal's example is far from unique. Newsweek, in a July 25, 2005, cover story on Rove, after dutifully noting that Rove's lawyer said the prosecutor had told him that Rove was not a target of the investigation, added: "But this isn't just about the Facts, it's about what Rove's foes regard as a higher Truth: That he is a one-man epicenter of a narrative of Evil."

And in the American Prospect's cover story for August 2005, Joe Conason wrote that Rove "is a powerful bully. Fear of retribution has stifled those who might have revealed his secrets. He has enjoyed the impunity of a malefactor who could always claim, however implausibly, deniability — until now."
Which brings us to the second part of Broder's advice:
These and other publications owe Karl Rove an apology.
Heh ... yeah, that'll happen.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
But Rove is still under super-secret indictment, right?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Remind me again why it was necessary for anyone in government to be discussing Plame with any reporter?

McQ, you and Broder have a lot in common - wilful ignorance of the facts.

Here’s Broder:
It was occasioned by the disclosure of a memo from Time magazine’s Matt Cooper, saying that Rove had confirmed to him the identity of Valerie Plame.
Rove didn’t confirm anything. He told Cooper who Plame was. Same thing with Novak; indeed Novak has said as much.

Again, why in the world was it necessary for Rove to even discuss Plame in any respect with any reporter? Why not simply say: "I can’t talk about that."
Seems the penchant for some journalists, in this particular case, was to pitch Occam’s razor in favor of, well, wild speculation and conspiracy theories:
Well gosh, why in the world would they ever get the idea that there was some kind of concerted effort, a conspiracy perhaps, to get the Wilson’s? Maybe it was when Rove told Chris Matthews that Plame was "fair game." Now, in your little right wing fantasy world, maybe an assertion from Rove that Plame was "game," i.e., something to be hunted, is not evidence that there was a concerted effort to go after Plame. But back on planet Earth, it’s more than clear what was going on.

So tell, us, McQ, what was Rove’s motivation in discussing Plame? What is the simple explanation to which you allude, but never (suprise) detail.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
But back on planet *tin foil* Earth
We’re all so glad YOU KNOW what was REALLY going on MK.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
We’re all so glad YOU KNOW what was REALLY going on MK.
So why don’t you step and tell me what Rove’s motivation was in talking about Plame?

Or would that be too taxing for you?
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
this again...

as reported in nowhere else but foxnews, "Karl Rove Won’t Be Frog-Marched Across White House Lawn"

what’s next? the PDB? DSMs? jeff gannon?
 
Written By: window licker
URL: http://
Or would that be too taxing for you?
Too taxing? Not really. But I’m smart enough to know I could write 1000 pages and your response would be ’Rove is GUILTY I TELL YOU!!!!’ I’ll just defer to Mr. Broder - "These and other publications owe Karl Rove an apology."
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Too taxing? Not really. But I’m smart enough to know I could write 1000 pages and your response would be ’Rove is GUILTY I TELL YOU!!!!’ I’ll just defer to Mr. Broder - "These and other publications owe Karl Rove an apology."
Of course, Broder does not confront the facts, so I am asking you to.

Why did Rove need to discuss Plame’s name?

Why did Rove mean when he said Plame was "fair game" and why isn’t that evidence of a conspiracy?

I know it’s hard for you to think, but why don’t you give it the old college try?
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
mkultra, sorry i didn’t catch this on the 1st pass, but i’m flummoxed as to your usage of the phrase "wilful ignorance of the facts" & as it attempts to square w/ this:
Rove didn’t confirm anything. He told Cooper who Plame was. Same thing with Novak; indeed Novak has said as much.
according to cnn, mr. armitage was novak’s source.

are we attempting to rewrite history so soon?
 
Written By: window licker
URL: http://
At least Rove is not in jail. Remind me to feel sorry for him when someone in this administration puts forth a proposal to lessen the power of all federal prosecutors, regular and special.
 
Written By: william
URL: http://
MK, You always draw me out with your comments.

You wrote: "...[W]hy [is] it necessary for anyone in government to be discussing Plame with any reporter?"

An inquiring person like yourself must find the prospect that intelligence employees may have connived with media enablers to derail the enforcement of UNSC Resolution 1441, to be worthy of media-reportage. I do.

If Valerie Plame-Wilson, a CIA employee, in any way affected her husband’s assignment to verify Saddam’s interest in purchasing West African uranium (and she did), and if her husband used the assignment as a platform from which to launch a concerted, public slander campaign against a sitting President at a time of war (and he did), then it is rational to assume that Valerie Plame-Wilson is an accomplice to the fraud.

Surely both have gained in stature and wealth since the stunt began. These benefits alone are cause for suspicion to the firm-of-mind.

And, MK, surely you don’t expect that the Plame’s media enablers who trumpeted the "Bush Lied, 16-words" illusion (the short list is: the NYT and LAT, CNN, MSNBC) can be expected to probe their own shenanigans? It would show their readers that their editors’ collective fly is wide open, and that their political bias has been danglin’ in the dirt for the last 4-years.
-Steve
 
Written By: Steve
URL: http://
Hey, don’t dispute mk. He knows the case so well that he assured us that Cheney was about to be indicted.

 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
If Valerie Plame-Wilson, a CIA employee, in any way affected her husband’s assignment to verify Saddam’s interest in purchasing West African uranium (and she did), and if her husband used the assignment as a platform from which to launch a concerted, public slander campaign against a sitting President at a time of war (and he did), then it is rational to assume that Valerie Plame-Wilson is an accomplice to the fraud.
She "affected" his assignment? What does that mean? That you have to resort to such vague language tells me you don’t know what you are talking about.

And what war are you talking about? Congress didn’t declare war.

And Wilson wrote his Op Ed in July. The sitting president to which you refer stood under a banner two months before that which said "Mission Accomplished." So how could we be at war two months after the mission was already accomplished? Wilson waited until the mission was accomplished. So why are you complaining?

Do you try to make no sense?

Let’s assume, for purposes of argument, you are correct. (Of course, you are not, but let’s assume you are.) You have still not explained why it was necessary to tell a reporter about Plame. Or, is it your position that Bush’s poll numbers are more important than national security?

What’s even more hilarious about your reply, is that you essentially agree with me: there was a conspiracy in the White House to get Plame, despite McQ’s complaints to the contrary.

So which is it?
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
MK spends way too much time in the liberal cocoon; he is terminally fact-challenged. What a laughingstock.
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
Hey MK:

ROVE! ROVE! ROVE! ROVE! ROVE! ROVE! ROOOOOOOOOOOOOVVVVVVVVVVVVEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!

Still unindicted LMFAO. Boy it’s driving you nuts.

Rove is the Harlem Globetrotters to your Washington Generals...keep it up though, tin foil may make a fashion comeback.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Hey, don’t dispute mk. He knows the case so well that he assured us that Cheney was about to be indicted.
You got me there, Billy. I guess I should never underestimate the ability of right wingers, in this case Libby, to observe Omerta. But there is still time.
MK spends way too much time in the liberal cocoon; he is terminally fact-challenged. What a laughingstock.
Wow, good comeback, Robert. Your mastery of cliche is first rate.

Still waiting for the proof there wasn’t a conspiracy to out Valerie Plame. Still waiting for an explanation of what "fair game" means.
Waiting ....

C’mon Shark - what does "fair game" mean here?
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
C’mon Shark - what does "fair game" mean here?
It means that you’re doing your best Don Quixote impersonation here.

Lump of coal in your Fitzmas stocking.....
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
MK, dude,
1. "Affect" is in the dictionary. It is a good English word. ( I try to use it when I can.)

2. Whenever our Marines face fire, whether it’s in Panama or Iraq, as far as I am concerned we are at War. There are other "Internationalist" justification. UNSC Res.#1441 authorized "consequences" for Iraqi WMD "non-disclosure." The US Legislature pre-authorized Iraq’s "Regime Change" under Clinton/Gore. And, finally, the endless Iraqi violations of the 1991 cease-fire clinches the deal.

It is funny how recent history ihas been so readily forgotten under an unrelenting barrage of media propagandizing. To hear some people talk - and I’m talking here about smart, nuanced, college-educated, "thinking" people, you’d think Recorded History’s archives only go back to the 2000 election.

Which seems wrong to me, I guess, because there is no way that Sandy Berger could have stuffed the entire Library of Congress archive of Clinton-era NSC meeting-minutes into his Fruit-of-the-Looms. That is, unless they were on zip-discs, but still...
-Steve
 
Written By: Steve
URL: http://
I guess I should never underestimate the ability of right wingers, in this case Libby, to observe Omerta
in the parlance of an mtv™ real-world castmember: "oh no you di’nt!"

are you going out of your way to forget richard armitage kept his mouth shut (for once!) for 3 years?
Armitage acknowledged that he had passed along to Novak information contained in a classified State Department memo: that Wilson’s wife worked on weapons-of-mass-destruction issues at the CIA. (The memo made no reference to her undercover status.) Armitage had met with Novak in his State Department office on July 8, 2003—just days before Novak published his first piece identifying Plame. Powell, Armitage and Taft, the only three officials at the State Department who knew the story, never breathed a word of it publicly and Armitage’s role remained secret.

n00zweek
how’s that for omerta?

then you write: "Still waiting for the proof there wasn’t a conspiracy to out Valerie Plame"

from the same link:
Armitage, a well-known gossip who loves to dish and receive juicy tidbits about Washington characters, apparently hadn’t thought through the possible implications of telling Novak about Plame’s identity. "I’m afraid I may be the guy that caused this whole thing," he later told Carl Ford Jr., State’s intelligence chief. Ford says Armitage admitted to him that he had "slipped up" and told Novak more than he should have. "He was basically beside himself that he was the guy that f—-ed up. My sense from Rich is that it was just chitchat,"
doesn’t read like a conspiracy to me, does it to you?
 
Written By: window licker
URL: http://
What am I missing? If Armitage only passed along information from a memo that didn’t mention Plame’s undercover status, then how could he be guilty of intentionally blowing her status as an "operative." Wasn’t that Novak’s report — suggesting someone had made the illegal disclosure to him of her covert status, allegedly ruining her career, endangering lives, etc.? Who was Novak’s second source that added the "operative" piece?

And whatever Armitage said, assuming he wasn’t coordinating with Rove, Libby et al, how does it show one way or the other whether the others had agreed to discredit Wilson and/or get Plame through their own conversations with reporters?
 
Written By: DDean
URL: http://
Still waiting for the proof there wasn’t a conspiracy to out Valerie Plame
Along with the people who are still waiting for proof there wasn’t a conspiracy to kill Kennedy

Along with the people who are still waiting for proof that 9/11 wasn’t an inside job

Along with the people who are still waiting for proof that the Bush administration didn’t dynamite the New Orleans levees

Along with the people who are still waiting for proof that Diebold didn’t rig their voting machines to help Bushco steal Ohio

(and to be fair)

Along with the people who are still waiting for proof that Clinton didn’t kill Vince Foster.

MK, I’ve always just assumed that you were just a malicious, vicious lefty. After your display here I may have to revise that assessment to include mental illness if you keep this lunacy up
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Related to windowlicker’s post, there’s a really good post over at Tigerhawk’s blog with a letter from a lawyer friend of Fitzgerald on why Armitage and Powell might have thought they were in legal trouble and why they might have kept their mouth(s) shut about their knowledge.

This whole thing has been a soap opera driven by the media, half of whom had people who knew the story but didn’t reveal their sources so they could pile on the administration.
 
Written By: Bill W.
URL: http://
Still waiting for the proof there wasn’t a conspiracy to out Valerie Plame.
You know, I think I got me a law book around here somewhere that says that the way it works is that you have to prove there was a conspiracy.

No one has the obligation to prove innocence. It is the prosecutor’s obligation to prove guilt.

Moreover, as a matter of proof in general, it is generally difficult, if not impossible to prove a negative. No doubt that’s why you demand it, since you know already that it can never be conclusively proven.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
dale just made santa’s naughty list
 
Written By: window licker
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider