An "Eleven Week Pattern of Malevolence". UPDATE: Daniel Drezner writes: "Kleiman's version of events [in the Plame Affair] otherwise seems pretty accurate, and the comments below suggest that McClellan was briefed when facing the press on July 22nd. So I'll concede there's a high probability that Bush's senior aides knew about [the Plame Affair] in July. As for Bush himself, Kleiman acknowledges that he's got no evidence either way. Given Tenet's behavior cited above, I'm inclined to think he didn't know."
I am still hoping for a way to interpret White House actions between late July and Late September other than as thinking that the blowing of the cover of CIA operatives is no big deal, and hoping that the press will never focus on it.
If there is no other interpretation--if we are indeed faced with what Daniel Drezner calls an "eleven week pattern of malevolence [on the part of the White House staff] that only became public in late September"--the question is then: what are we to do? You have to be scared by the fact that the White House's only response for eleven weeks was to send Karl Rove out to condone blowing the cover of a CIA operative--saying either "Joe Wilson's wife is fair game" (if you trust Chris Matthews) or that it was "reasonable to discuss who sent Wilson to Niger" (if you trust Karl Rove).
The fact that nobody on the White House staff--not Rice, not Rove, not McClellan, not Card--thought that Bush needed to find and fire the leakers rather than hunkering down and hoping the press would never notice is very disturbing. It suggests that we need, at the very least, a new White House staff.
When something similar happened in the 1980s--when it became clear that Ronald Reagan's NSC was a total disaster--the grownups in the Republican Party staged a quiet coup: respected Senator Howard Baker was brought in as White House chief of staff, and (according to those who worked there whom I have talked to) controlled access to Reagan and made the substantive policy decisions for the rest of Reagan's term.
Can the grownup Republicans do something similar now?
EARLIER: Daniel Drezner writes about the Plame Affair:
danieldrezner.com :: Daniel W. Drezner :: My Plame mood today ...the despicable nature intrinsic to the leak itself.... To quote Andrew Sullivan: "...an outrageous piece of political malice... extremely dumb and self-defeating... leakers need to be found, fired and prosecuted..." Better yet, to quote the source of Sullivan's outrage, former counter-terrorism official Larry Johnson: "...a betrayal, a political smear... entire intent was... to intimidate.... [I]t sickens me to be a Republican to see this." Heck, even the RNC chairman acknowledges that this is serious.
The second source of my outrage is a direct function of who leaked and that person's relationship to the President. On Sunday, I suspected that it was Karl Rove.... On Monday... my outrage level diminished somewhat.... The third factor is how the Bush administration handles this emerging scandal -- do they go into denial/cover-up mode or do they address it forthrightly and clean it up?.... I still think Brad DeLong is overreaching
Two questions for Daniel:
- Why does it matter so much whether Karl Rove is a principal leaker ("Get me Bob Novak on the line") or just a secondary defender after the fact ("Joe Wilson's wife is fair game")? Why doesn't outrage come equally from the fact that two White House officials appear to have been the principals and from the fact that nobody in the White House thought their actions were a big deal until it showed up in the Post?
- "Overreaching." How, exactly? Is there a way to interpret the White House's response between late July and Late September other than as thinking that the blowing of the cover of CIA assets is no big deal and hoping that the press will never focus on it? If there is, I would dearly like to know what this interpretation is.
[Semi-Daily Journal]
