More fuel for the fire

A top Cheney aide has been named as the second source in the Valerie Plame identity leak: Until last week, the White House had insisted for nearly two years that vice presidential chief of staff Lewis Libby and presidential adviser Karl Rove were not involved in the leaks of CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity. (NYTimes) This new information comes on the cusp of a rather cryptic AP story released on Friday, July 15 that involved some new information from a source identified only as "the person briefed on the matter." As I read this article on Friday, it became frighteningly clear that the story was carefully orchestrated by the Bush administration as a way to quell allegations against Karl Rove. Not only did the reporter have to rely on a source strategically named "the person briefed on the matter" (as opposed to the devious sounding "source who wishes to remain anonymous"), but the whole article laid the groundwork for Rove's innocence, explicitly stating that Rove had merely confirmed what the reporter already knew and that he was "the second source." That second source was Mr. Rove, the person briefed on the matter said. Mr. Rove's account to investigators about what he told Mr. Novak was similar in its message although the White House adviser's recollection of the exact words was slightly different. Asked by investigators how he knew enough to leave Mr. Novak with the impression that his information was accurate, Mr. Rove said he had heard parts of the story from other journalists but had not heard Ms. Wilson's name. (NYTimes) I was simultaneoulsy incensed and awed by the guts and strategy of the Bush administration to so quickly craft an argument in defense of Mr. Rove, but then I remembered that they've had two years to come up with such a furtive manuever. You may think I'm a little crazy, and that's okay; at least I'm in good company with institutions such as the Washington Post asking similar questions: · Even under the circumstances described in today's stories, was Rove's behavior ethically acceptable? And if so, why didn't he come forward sooner? · Did press secretary Scott McClellan know Rove was Novak's second source when he insisted that it was ridiculous to suggest that Rove was involved? What did Rove tell Bush about this, and when? There are at least two new questions: · Who it this mysterious reporter who allegedly told Rove about Plame in the first place? · And who is this new anonymous leaker? And of course, we still don't know about Novak's first source and his or her motives. (Dan Froomkin's column) I can only hope that although the Bush administration will not cease their unrelenting cover-up campaign, the media and individuals concerned with the truth will continue to investigate and find new and more complicated answers. This has gotten ridiculous.