Obligatory Karl Rove Item

How D-Day would be reported by today's media (which loves a good story!).

NORMANDY, FRANCE (June 6, 1944) Three hundred French civilians were killed and thousands more were wounded today in the first hours of America's invasion of continental Europe. Casualties were heaviest among women and children. Most of the French casualties were the result of artillery fire from American ships attempting to knock out German fortifications prior to the landing of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. Reports from a makeshift hospital in the French town of St. Mere Eglise said the carnage was far worse than the French had anticipated, and that reaction against the American invasion was running high. "We are dying for no reason, "said a Frenchman speaking on condition of anonymity. "Americans can't even shoot straight. I never thought I'd say this, but life was better under Adolph Hitler."

The invasion also caused severe environmental damage. American troops, tanks, trucks and machinery destroyed miles of pristine shoreline and thousands of acres of ecologically sensitive wetlands. It was believed that the habitat of the spineless French crab was completely wiped out, thus threatening the species with extinction. A representative of Greenpeace said his organization, which had tried to stall the invasion for over a year, was appalled at the destruction, but not surprised. "This is just another example of how the military destroys the environment without a second thought," said Christine Moanmore. "And it's all about corporate greed."

Contacted at his Manhattan condo, a member of the French government-in-exile who abandoned Paris when Hitler invaded, said the invasion was based solely on American financial interests. "Everyone knows that President Roosevelt has ties to 'big beer'," said Pierre LeWimp. "Once the German beer industry is conquered, Roosevelt's beer cronies will control the world market and make a fortune."

Administration supporters said America's aggressive actions were based in part on the assertions of controversial scientist Albert Einstein, who sent a letter to Roosevelt speculating that the Germans were developing a secret weapon -- a so-called "atomic bomb". Such a weapon could produce casualties on a scale never seen before, and cause environmental damage that could last for thousands of years. Hitler has denied having such a weapon and international inspectors were unable to locate such weapons even after spending two long weekends in Germany. Shortly after the invasion began, reports surfaced that German prisoners had been abused by American soldiers. Mistreatment of Jews by Germans at their so-called "concentration camps" has been rumored, but so far this remains unproven.

Several thousand Americans died during the first hours of the invasion, and French officials are concerned that the uncollected corpses will pose a public-health risk. "The Americans should have planned for this in advance," they said. "It's their mess, and we don't intend to help clean it up."

I need more coffee. I am sure "Joel" is saying something astute here but I can't quite follow it, unless it is that we focus too much in our coverage on the consequences of war. In which case I'm not sure I agree. Check out the photo on the front page of the Post today. Pretty powerful stuff. fyi, I wish could make "Joel" a proprietary name on this blog but I guess there are limits to my power.

As a retired Marine/National Guardsman, I loved your D-day post. Sometimes your OK even for a flaming liberal.

LB: I didn't write the D-day post, that was "Joel." And I'm not a flaming liberal. Smoldering, maybe.

I think "joel" was trying to say that our sympathy for innocent Iraqi women and children is misplaced, because they are dying in a noble cause, the spread of democracy in the middle east. The liberal press overemphasizes the so-called "tragedy" of war and forgets to report the glory, honor and triumph of our brave warriors who are risking their lives making the Middle East safe for democracy.

I could not disagree with him more. I believe that the loss of one child is a huge tragedy. If it happens to be YOUR child, it is like the end of the world. There is really no justification for it, and the United States of America has been DIRECTLY responsible for the deaths of countless Iraqi children. That is just one of the reasons that the war is unspeakably terrible.

I have to agree with kbertocci here. The deaths of children are never noble, necessary or right. I have all the sympathy in the world for those children and those mothers.

Sara: I couldn't let "joel's" post just sit there with no rebuttal, but neither do I want to spend my day thinking about this!! I'm out of here for good, going to the Turkey Sandwich post and on from there!!!

My favorite line in today's Rove article is the accusation that Wilson was sent to Niger because of nepotism. Excuse me?? Niger??? I mean, if Plame and the CIA had sent her husband to check for WMDs in St. Tropez or Bermuda, then okay -- that's nepotism. But Niger? That's not nepotism, that's punishment.

I think that Joel is saying that the bigger picture of the war is being obscured by the side effects. While I don't agree with the war and I do think that the loss of even one child is horrendous, under Hussein things like this happened constantly. The only difference is that now when it happens it is openly publicized. I think it is also important that we not lose sight of the sacrifices that our soldiers are making because of all of these other atrocities.

kbertocci, I'm already at the Turkey stage of my day, past the depressing part! Come on in!

Wait, so this Rove story is okay because it sells papers -- regardless of the whole ethical thingy about being "off the record"? Come on, guys, the irony of this happening on the heels of the Deep Throat victory lap have to give the honest journalists some pangs of conscience.

Or am I wrong and Joe Wilson is some kind of hero? My impression was that he had been pretty severely discredited. I don't think the claim of nepotism is the point, rather that the CIA operation was cover for a partisan effort. My lilly-white view of the world says that is wrong if it is done BY the White House or TO the White House. Or couldn't Plame find someone else to send on this mission besides her spouse???

Are the media really going to whistle happily along that the crime itself is non-existent, but boy, look at that juicy cover-up ... when the whole thing is about the erosion of a free press? And liberals are cheering? Strange times.

Now I am confused, I thought Joel was Joel. I forwarded "D-Day" it on to others who enjoyed it and gave JA credit for it.

Ok, I figured it out, never mind.

Achenblogger...this is only slightly off topic, but please, please, please don't go local! The 15 and indeed the rest of America (the world?) would be in shambles if you were to disappear from the national page. Ok...slight exaggeration, but I'd sorely miss discussions on 'porching'. Tell those in charge that it's just one little link...not even a sentence long; they can put it on both pages without too much trouble.

On a side note, the Daily Show's synopsis of the whole Wilson/Plame/Rove situation from two nights ago was hilarious...see it under the title "Best Leak Ever" here: http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/index.jhtml

The post by "Joel" is off topic. It hijacks the conversation from leaks and Rove and such to a screed satirically accusing the media of reporting only negative things at a time of war. And it's nonsense.

Iraq is no D-Day or WWII. And the comparisons in the satire are disingenuous, such as the one comparing oil in Iraq to beer in Germany. Yeah, that'll show those folks who thought Iraq had something to do with oil.

Memo to Mr. Achenbach: You probably ought to claim "Joel" as your own and block posters from using that name. As well as Joel A and other derivitives. As is, there is a goodly chance the item posted here will soon be all over the Internet and attributed to you.

Moving along, I watched a goodly amount of Scott McClellan's press briefing on C-Span last night. He reminded me of Ron Ziegler.

The line I love from the story posted by Joel (the real one) also takes me back to those old days of Nixon and Watergate and Vietnam ...

An official could face perjury charges for misleading the special counsel while testifying under oath. If so, this would become a familiar case of Washington officials getting in trouble for a coverup rather than the original misdeed.

Where is that wine shop? With that kind of clientele it must have some of the good stuff.

I used to work for the Agency and I don't remember anyone below a bureau chief who could authorize any travel, let alone foreign travel.

Kane makes some astute points.

I have to admit that I am completely confused about the whole Wilson thing. Not the leak. The trip. I've read about it enough, but at the end of the day I can't figure out if the smear campaign has me.

I'm going to try to wrap my tired mind around this...

Plame was an active covert agent who worked WMD issues in the middle east. The WH asks her shop to investigate the Niger yellowcake issue. Her husband is considered a reknowned expert on Niger. She recommends him to travel there on behalf of the WH and CIA to investigate the yellowcake story. The WH presumably gave the ok to this (or not?) trip by Wilson. Wilson goes, finds contradictory info to what the VP and Prez say on TV/StateOfUnion within the week. He writes NYT op-ed calling out WH on yellowcake falsehoods. WH conducts double super secret background smear campaign on Wilson, supposedly alleging that he cannot be trusted because his wife is a covert agent who set up the trip to begin with?

There has got to be more to this Wilson story that I'm missing...cause as it stands the WH is looking Nixonian.

Agree with "J" on the Daily Show piece. But I had to pause the Tivo after the Monkey bathing the Cat scene...couldn't stop my hysterical laughing.

Could this be a trifecta post?

Watching the Daily Show just reminded of the susbequent piece to the "Best Leak Ever" bit. Steven Colbert explains to John what "Double Super Secret Background" is...hilarious:

Colbert: "John, it's just like regular background but with no tagbacks, frontsies or backsies...circle-circle, dot-dot, now you've got a coodie shot." Ha!

irregardless posts:
"The WH presumably gave the ok to this (or not?) trip by Wilson. Wilson goes, finds contradictory info to what the VP and Prez say on TV/StateOfUnion within the week."

I can't get over what incredible overnight fact-checking the Washington Post did after the 2004 presidential debates. Maybe irregardless has a point--why doesn't the Washington Post create a timeline of events for all to better understand all the machinations behind the Rove leak story?

Wilson returns from his investigative trip to Niger in early March 2002.

Then I turn to the inestimable Bob Woodward in his 2004 book, "Plan of Attack":

As part of the effort to win congressional and public support, the president decided to give a prime-time speech laying out the case against Saddam. It was to be delivered in Cincinnati in the Grand Rotunda of the museum at Union Terminal on October 7 [2002]....Draft #6 [of the speech] contained the line: "And the regime has been caught attempting to purchase up to 500 metric tons of uranium oxide from sources in Africa, a central ingredient in the enrichment process."

The basis for this was an unsubstantiated report from British intelligence that Iraq had recently attempted to buy uranium oxide, known as "yellowcake," from Niger. The CIA was unsure of this for a number of reasons and had shared its concerns with the British. A former ambassador, Joseph Wilson IV, had been sent to Niger to check out the report and had found nothing to substantiate it. The CIA memo recommended that any reference be dropped from the Cincinnati speech and it was.

Woodward writes a key paragraph about 100 pages following the passage above:

Bush then spoke [January 27, 2003, State of the Union address] 16 words that would become notorious: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." It was one of his more innocuous [oh, Bob, please...] accusations, and he accurately attributed the allegation to the British. But less than four months earlier, Tenet and the CIA had exiced the sentence from the President's speech in Cincinnati because the assertion could not be confirmed. Tenet had not reviewed the State of the Union speech [why?], and Hadley had forgotten the earlier CIA warning [why?...this is a very serious issue].

[Who is talking to whom? Who's on first?]
I guess half my fun in life in putting various books together. (I made an amazing family discovery by doing just that--by putting two recent books side by side!) May I offer that you who are interested in Wilson/Plame/Rove and all of its ramifications stop by your local bookstore on your way to get the vino? I'd start with Woodward's "Plan of Attack, followed by Joe Wilson telling his own side of the story in his book, "The Politics of Truth."

But the book that had my eyes popping and jaw dropping was the very recent book by Joseph Trento, titled, "Prelude to Terror: The Rogue CIA and the Legacy of America's Private Intelligence Network."

For this book, I recommend a stop by your favorite liquor store. (Hey, Joel, maybe you can bond even further with Rove and Wilson over this title at your favorite wine store!)

Buy the Bordeaux, the Johannisberg Riesling, the Merlot, the Chenin Blancs, the Zins, the Cabs, the Pinot Noirs! Because after entering this book, you'll no longer want to sip and swirl the wine, you'll want to guzzle the wine wholesale.

Trento's book answered for me the question that has been nagging and troubling me for several years now: How did the nuclear technology that my distant cousin Alfred Lee Loomis worked on and supported financially end up in places such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, and Pakistan.

Thank you for consulting with Mr. Leiby on some of his areas of expertise (i.e., Karl Rove's brain and thorny matters of journalistic ethics). If only Karl Rove were a Scientologist, he would be the perfect subject for a lenghty, in-depth Leiby profile.

Rove and the Wilsons attend the same church? That's great, Joel! Coffee hour there must be a lot of fun.

For the record, not on background of any kind, I alerted Joel A. to the fact that Rove and Valerie Wilson attended the same church (at least they did back in 2003, when I wrote about Valerie).

So contrary to twinsmom's post, I contend that I AM an expert on this story. I agree that a Scientology angle on this scandal would be great. Sadly, the church Karl and Valerie (and sometimes Joe Wilson) attended is...Episcopalian.

Episcopalian, Scientology...close enough!

Kidding!

He (Rove) also used an assumed name to gain access to the campaign headquarters of Democrat Alan Dixon, who was running for state treasurer. Once inside, Rove grabbed campaign stationery and later used it to print fake invitations to the grand opening of the Democrat's Chicago office, which he distributed to homeless people on Lower Wacker Drive.

People showed up in droves, lured by the free liquor, food and women that Rove had promised on the invitations. Dixon won anyway, but Rove's chicanery came to symbolize what would become a win-at-all-costs ethic that eventually permeated the state's Republican culture

The scumbag that did this in the name of politics is our president's right hand man. Who is running our country again?

I say let Rove stay. It just cements the legacy and mediocre record of an administration blinded by hubris. Rove must have been believed his own press clippings. Brilliant, mastermind, Bush's Brain....

Karl Rove; an Episcopalian? I had him figured as hanging out with a more evangelically-minded lot that espoused creationism and ultra-literal Biblical interpretation. (Or some mountain-based sect that practiced snake handling during the Republican primary season.)