This is Libby Sosume's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Libby Sosume's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Libby Sosume
Recent Activity
Well, we will disagree. Not trying to have the last word, but just to better explain where I'm coming from, I would say this: What sticks out at me more than anything else is the simple fact the email is inconsistent with Cooper's testimony. Cooper would have little or no reason to lie, but Rove would have all the motivation in the world. Therefore, the email is probably untruthful (certainly not the complete truth). On those points we seem to agree. Why is it untruthful? But more importantly, who is the intended target of the untruth? Well, I don't have a problem with the idea that it was untruthful to Hadley in the first place, and secondarily to anyone who might have access to the email later. It is plausible to me that Rove was on the periphery of a plot that was really driven by Cheney's people, the WHIGs, and maybe Hadley. It is plausible that Rove knew about it and was gleefully "assisting" while at the same time keeping his distance from the plotters. It is even plausible to me that Rove hatched the Plame plot in his own evil mind, then planted enough seeds around to get others to do the actual deed (and take the rap) - all the while keeping his distance, for the record. Neither of those lets Rove off the hook as a bad guy. What's more, Rove was not a National Security principal. He may have had enough clearance to come by the Plame identity information "lawfully," but he didn't have the cred or official standing to be the frontman on disseminating that kind of info. If I were in his shoes, I would not want to be the one pushing this Plame info out to reporters. The reporters might ask questions like, "How did you come to know this and why are you telling me?" I would rather have the reporters get it from someone who by their very job descriptions would reasonably be in-the-know - someone in CIA, someone on NSC, possibly State, etc. If I (as a reporter) hear it from one of the latter, then I am inclined not only to believe the info per se, but also to swallow the attendent spin job (nepotism, etc). I would rather hear it from someone who is "no partisan gunslinger," as Bob Novak put it. Karl Rove is smart enough to know that. So I think he let (or manipulated) others to do it, while trying to keep his skirts clean. You seem to have a problem with the idea of Rove being untruthful to Hadley and so you construct a very difficult scenario where the original email was TRUTHful and was later altered to become a lie. I just don't see where that kind of hypothesis is necessary, much less technically plausible. (I say this as someone who knows a bit about email systems. I installed some of the first computerized office automation systems at the Senate offices in the mid-1980s, and I personally taught the late Senator Moynihan how to use his email.)