Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Karl Rove Part II

It is Karl Rove mania here in DC right now.

First, this Byron York story was published in National Review, which features an interview with Rove's lawyer, Donald Luskin. At the end, Luskin does not deny that Rove leaked the fact that Wilson's wife worked for the Agency. Thus, Rove should still be fired.

For a thoughtful look at the journalistic principles involved in the whole sordid affair, check out this piece by Jacob Weisberg, the editor of Slate who always thinks outside-the-box. Weisberg contends that journalists need not protect sources whose motivation is to "lie and manipulate the press." I agree. If Rove - or someone else - was trying to cow those opposed to the war in Iraq by leaking Plame's identity, and given that The Times has exhausted all of the legal avenues they possibly could, I think Judith Miller should feel comfortable revealing the identity of the leaker.
-- Eric

8 Comments:

Blogger poster said...

Establishing that someone's motives are to 'lie and manipulate' is nearly impossible as that is a largely subjective call. I would imagine that one could find ulterior motives for all 'press leaks' but that doesn't make them all immoral or illegal. The way things appear now, I would have to agree that Rove should be fired. BUT, that is mainly because Bush said he'd axe anyone who leaked anything. Furthermore, I can't imagine that Rove is stupid enough to get himself in this mess. He's not a fair player by any stretch, but I would imagine there is still a lot to this story that will come out in due course. The White House's silence is eerie--are they putting off the inevitable second term scandal or does Rove have another trick up his sleeve?

--Frank

12:42 PM  
Anonymous Stacey said...

I'll show you a trip up my sleeve...zip.

3:03 PM  
Anonymous Stacey said...

I meant trick...

3:03 PM  
Anonymous Stacey said...

...I'm retarded.

3:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's make sure we are using exact language here you rabble-rousers. Did Bush say he would fire leaks, or did Bush say he would fire anyone who leaked A NAME? A small difference in language, but a huge difference in policy flexibility.

Eric, you make the honorable point that Miller should give up her source. So what you are saying is that a reporter may choose to expose a source when he or she feels the source is manipulating the press. Man, I would HATE to be your source. And you would be the worst reporter EVER because nobody would talk to you again, becaus they would be afraid of being revealed. That is such a subjective issue (as the wise and sage Frank) has pointed out, that a source could never know when the tides would turn.

No, no. Again, you have taken your hatred and disillusionment of the administration too far, and you are looking to set a precedent that you cannot control. While some may escape punishment, it is right for Miller to keep her mouth shut, and honorable for her to do so. I am sure she is not doing it to protect anyone's job, but rather to protect her integrity as a journalist, and her honor as a person who probably gave her word.

9:49 AM  
Blogger poster said...

"Let's use exact language." You should follow your own advice and proofread before you post a comment.

I am going to take Andrew Sullivan's advice on this one and not comment any more on the case until all of the facts have been revealed.

2:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Taking shots at typos now, are we? Fair enough.

Any comments on the substance of my post, you pedant?

6:13 PM  
Anonymous stacey said...

Got'em!

9:44 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home