Plame Gets the "Gate"

By: Greg Mitchell Today, July 15, 2005, may go down in history as the day when what has previously been known as the ?Plame Affair? or ?the CIA leak scandal? finally gets that most coveted of scandal slugs: Plamegate.

And with the eye-raising reports today from The New York Times, the Associated Press, and the Washington Post detailing Karl Rove's conversation with Robert Novak, six days before he wrote his fateful Plame column, we are suddenly into ?what-did-the-president-know-and-when-did-he-know-it? territory.

Plamegate. It's about time. Think about it: We had a Liddy then and a Libby now. It can't be just coincidence.

The New York Times' new duo on this case -- David Johnston and Richard Stevenson -- raised the specter of Watergate in one paragraph today when they noted that the latest news puts front and center the issue the White House ?has never addressed?: The president's knowledge of any of this.

If the Times pair stay on the case, will they be the new Woodward & Bernstein? Somehow Johnston & Stevenson doesn't have quite the same ring to it, though it is early, and other candidates may apply (Allen & Leonnig? Gannon & Guckert?).

And as in 1972 and 1973, a story that seemed fairly well contained, and threatening to become old hat, suddenly may spread, like an octopus, as testimony gets leaked, the press wakes from its torpor, and allegations appear that the White House may have been engaged in some kind of ?coverup? as bad as the possible crime at the center of the story.

It's far from proven so far, but: Is there a cancer on the presidency?

These Watergate links may seem like stretching the point, but you will have to forgive me: In a column about Rove today, John Dean, Mr. Cancer on the President himself, cites a recent E&P column on the case.

For in the 2000s, everything old is new again, or is it vice versa? Two years ago, when I was one of the first journalists to predict that the conflict in Iraq could become another Vietnam, many (okay, most) laughed. The analogy was never precise, and still isn't, and yet: who is laughing now? Certainly not Bush, Rumsfeld, or Cheney, or the tens of thousands of U.S. troops still languishing over there, not to mention their dead comrades, and the deceased Iraqis.

In any event, the next few weeks should be riveting. Now that we know that Rove was one of Novak's sources, and that Novak had two of them, surely speculation will center on the office of Vice President Cheney and his aide ?Scooter? Libby. What kind of name is "Scooter" anyway?

But more than anything, the question that will be asked today and this weekend is: What did the president know etc.?

Did Rove fill him in on his conversations with Novak and Cooper (and possibly others) a long time back? If he did and the president did nothing, should that be taken as a sign of approval, and what would that mean? If Rove didn't tell him, and this is all news to Bush, does that deserve a prompt dismissal? Or is it possible the entire smear-Wilson campaign originated in the Oval House, or the veep's chambers?

Will Alberto Gonzales get embroiled in this even before he makes it to the Supreme Court? Is former spokesman/chief spinner Ari Fleischer endangered? Will Rove still have his job when the Washington Nationals play in the World Series this autumn?

Who is the source for all the press revelations today? Likely not a new ?Deep Throat.? The New York Times opened by calling him someone who had been briefed on all of this, the AP raised that to someone in the ?legal profession,? while the Washington Post went all the way and called him a ?lawyer.? Speculation focuses on Rove's attorney, who if this is true, probably thinks most of this helps his client's cause. But then, such things took dramatic turns back in the Watergate days when documentary evidence, in the form of tapes, documents and testimony came out.

And as a sidelight: If Rove is telling the truth, and he heard about Plame first from another journalist before talking to Novak, who was that reporter? Rove apparently claimed amnesia on that matter before the grand jury. I can think of one or two prominent candidates, and probably you can too.

Then there's this amusing (if plausible) comment by Congressional Quarterly's Craig Crawford today: "So, now we have leakers leaking the leak investigation. Fitzgerald might have to put the whole press corps in jail before it's over with...."