It seems to me that saying Rove was a source of Matt Cooper's story is not the same as saying that Rove told Cooper that Valerie Plame was a CIA operative. I mean, it may mean that but that is not the only interpretation. First of all, Rove was only one source. Furthermore, Isikoff reported that, although Rove did give an interview to Cooper at the right time, it was unclear what passed between Rove and Cooper. Now it seems unlikely that Newsweek would say that if, indeed, the emails and notes explicitly name Rove as THE leak of Plame's CIA status. In short, we don't have the goods on Rove yet and, given what we DO know now, it seems unlikely to me that we will.
First, I am sceptical that Rove actually named Plame in his interview with Cooper. He's not stupid enough (in fact he's been painstakingly painted as an evil Genius by many) to personally commit a crime before a reporter taking notes and/or recording the interview.
Second, I can't bring myself to quite believe that two reporters, one from the New York Times and one from Time Magazine, would be willing to go to prison to protect Rove from criminal charges. I mean, the information was withheld throughout much of the 2004 presidential campaign. What would this information have done to the Bush/Cheney campaign, nevermind what it would have done to eliminate evil Rove from the campaign. None of this makes sense to me if indeed Rove was the source who named Plame as CIA.
This is a strange story indeed. There's a lot of speculation as to who did what and what their intentions are. I think we're going to have to watch it play out and see where Fitzgerald is going to go.
P.S. - Bush senior fired Rove for leaking info to Novack back during his reign, and Miller is somewhat friendly toward the GOP, just read the stuff she's written. I don't have the links right now, but you can google it for the info.
Commenting by HaloScan
