Mr. Rove's testimony on Friday was the first time that he appeared before the panel since a Time magazine reporter, Matthew Cooper, told the grand jury in July about his telephone conversation with Mr. Rove on July 11, 2003.
Initially, Mr. Rove told investigators about only one conversation with a reporter - when he spoke with Robert D. Novak on July 9, 2003, as Mr. Novak was preparing a column, published on July 14, 2003, which disclosed the C.I.A. officer's name. Only later did Mr. Rove recall the conversation with Mr. Cooper, an omission which has long been of interest to the prosecutor, and was a focus of the questioning on Friday, the lawyers said.
Mr. Rove's appearance before the grand jury came as the special prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, was weighing whether to charge anyone with a crime in the leak case before Oct. 28, when the term of the grand jury expires.
The above is from David Johnston and Richard W. Stevenson's "Bush Adviser Goes Before Grand Jury Again" in this morning's New York Times. The article states that Rove did not return to his White Office after testifying and (my summary and opinion) Scotty went on spin defense. The article states that "a mood of foreboding gripped many Republicans in Washington" but someone forgot to tell Little Big Man Timmy Russert who doesn't have Plamegate as a scheduled topic of discussion for Sunday's Meet the Press.
While one fluffer does okay today (Stevenson), David E. Sanger embarrasses himself. But he's stuck with James Risen and the Times is responsible. The article's entitled "G.I.'s and Syrians in Tense Clashes on Iraqi Border." Risen's stock has not risen, it's sunk. He collaborated with the CIA on a book which came out in 2004 (it didn't sell well). He was allowed to work on it for years, with the CIA having control over the editing, while the Times still allowed him to cover the CIA.
When people at the Times gripe about how it's not just Judy Miller, some often bring up his name. For the record, a real reporter doesn't cede editorial control to the topic they're covering. For the record, a paper doesn't allow someone dependent upon the CIA's largess to cover the CIA. But both things happened and Risen is laughed about and mocked in ways that pale in comparison to Miller. (That's not my defending Judith Miller. Mock, mock freely. But the point with regards to stenography is that Risen is i.d.ed by some at the paper as one of the worst.)
He gets to churn out a long article (with Sanger). Reading it you have to wonder why Michael R. Gordon didn't put his name to it. It's guilty of all the things Miller's writing was. (And Gordon often shared a byline with Miller on that WMD reporting though some who know better pretend not to remember.) And like a student of Hack U (see "Rudith Miller"), Risen knows to offer dissent well into the article (the long article) so that later on he can say, "Well I quoted dissenting voices" (yes, way, way down, in the long, long article).
But how did this article get into the Times to begin with considering their policies?
It's riddled with anonymice. Someone set the traps!
1) One of Mr. Bush's most senior aides, who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject . . .
2) But other officials . . .
3) Some current and former officials add . . .
4) Increasingly, officials say, . . .
5) . . . none of those who discussed the subject would allow themselves to be identified. They included military officers, civilian officials and people who are otherwise actively involved in military operations or have close ties to Special Operations forces.
6) A military official who spoke with . . .
7) American officials say Mr. Bush . . .
8) . . . said one senior official, using . . .
9) . . . added a senior official involved in the discussion.
10) Some other current and former officials suggest . . .
11) Several senior administration officials said . . .
12) According to people . . .
13) . . . said one former United States official . . .
14) Some hawks in the administration . . .
15) Other American official . . .
16) . . . said a senior administration official . . .
17) The official added . . .
18) Some current and former administration officials say . . .
19) . . . the American officials say . . .
20) . . . a senior official said . . .
21) Some current and former United States military and intelligence officials who said . . .
22) One former United States official with access to recent intelligence . . .
23) This former intelligence official said . . .
24) . . . the former intelligence official said . . .
Twenty-four anonymous quotes? If this were blackjack, they'd lose their chips. Instead, the Times gives them a pat on the back.
How desperate are they for an on the record quote? They dub "recent" a public remark made on September 12th. (Reminder today is October 15th, over a month later.) Thank God for television (such as CNN) or they wouldn't have any quotes to put a name to.
What is the article about? Forget what it tells you, what is it about?
The rumors I've heard (from friends at the paper) is that Cheney's team is at war with Bully Boy's over how to handle Syria. (Bully Boy has no opinion, or he's keeping it close to the vest.)
This article is attempting to cover both camps. Who lost out? The rumor is Bully Boy's. They're the "dissenting voices" heard rarely in the article.
Now that may or may not be true. And normally when the phone calls come in from friends at the paper, I laugh with them and don't include it here. But this article, with 24 anonymice, begs for speculation.
So since the Times can't provide readers with a sense of who's saying what, we'll note that the whispers at the paper are that this is "an intermural, White House face off." (I didn't come up with that sports analogy -- please, I write without a cup.) The reason for caution (which doesn't mean no to war, only to smaller groups) is because Bully Boy's faction is worried about the poll hits. Cheney's faction (which includes Rumsfeld and his people) aren't worried about polls.
Bully Boy's faction favors squads sent in undercover, the rumor is. Cheney's favors full frontal (and would we expect anything less from Cheney after the "appendage" photo?).
That's what was passed on to me. Is it true? Who knows? You can't tell a damn thing from this article.
Again, bad morning re: phone calls coming in. I'm going to post this entry and that'll be it until much later today. We will note The Laura Flanders Show before it begins airing.
No post called "Other Items" and no additional links offered due to the fact that there is just not time at present. My apologies.
The e-mail address for this site is firstname.lastname@example.org. On Plamegate, to make up for these morning entries, I'll note this question needs to be asked: Where did Miller find the notes re: earlier conversation with Scoots? January 2004 may hold part of the answer. (It's a puzzle, like a jumble. Put on your thinking caps.)
the new york times