Very interesting speculation developed last night over Rove and the Plame game.
First see the Byron York NRO article, Lawyer: Cooper "Burned" Karl Rove. Luskin claims that Cooper called Rove on an unrelated matter, then brought up WMD in the last few minutes of the conversation.
If true, this time-line throws a wet blanket on the whole "Rove shopping the story to out Plame" idea.
Which leads us to this interesting speculation by Podhoretz in the Corner yesterday about the decision of Judith Miller to go to jail:
What if the original source for the "Wilson got the job from his CIA wife" was, in fact, a reporter? After all, we know that the vice president's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, has testified he learned of Plame's identity from a journalist.
Wilson had gotten very cozy with a couple of them -- Walter Pincus of the Washington Post and Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times among them. What if he spilled the beans to enhance his own standing in the story somehow, to bolster his supposed findings?
What if -- and here's where it gets really interesting -- what if the real object of interest where Fitzgerald's investigation is concerned is now none other than the jailed Judith Miller of the New York Times? What if she let it all slip and in the giant game of telephone around the nation's capital, Miller was the original source of the "Plame's in the CIA" info? What if Fitzgerald needs her notes to discern whether Miller knew or didn't know of Plame's supposedly covert status?
Fitzgerald already has a major bone to pick with Miller. He believes she materially and dangerously impeded his investigation into a terrorist-financing scheme run by the Holy Land Foundation.
Remember, Miller didn't write a story about the Plame affair. Via the NRO Media Blog, there's also this Accuracy in Media story, Why Judith Miller Should Stay in Jail:
The truth could very well be that Judith Miller is protecting a "source" all right─ Miller herself. She may have known the truth about Plame all along but didn't write a story because of that fact. So, instead, she passed that information on to the administration.
Under ordinary circumstances there is nothing sinister in this. Conversations take place between journalists and officials all the time. This is how the business of journalism is conducted. But when the conversations involve alleged violations of the law, as defined by the Times itself, journalists have a legal obligation to provide evidence. The paper's defense of Miller is untenable. The paper isn't protecting a source; it is protecting its own reporter's curious conduct in a special-counsel investigation that the Times brought on itself.
If this is what this case is ultimately all about, then the Times and its fellow Bush-bashers will have egg all over their faces, and they will owe the administration and the public a big apology.
Remember this tidbit?
Mr. Fitzgerald, who had been restrained in his public filings, was harshly critical of the position taken by Ms. Miller and of statements supporting her by The Times. His response to Mr. Cooper was barely 4 pages; to Ms. Miller, 21 pages.
Now the White House goes silent and the media whips itself into a frenzy. How ironic will it be if we find out they've been chasing their own tails the whole time?
Morning Corner musings here.
Comments