The Plame Game: The Latest Commentary on the CIA Leak Investigation

By: E&P Staff Coverage and opinion on the Plame scandal continues to grow. Here is our daily digest:

* Timothy Noah of online magazine Slate.com questioned why major newspapers weren't calling for top Bush adviser Karl Rove's resignation. He criticized the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post for remaining silent. He also argued that the New York Times, while it published an editorial on the matter, showed too much timidity. Noah suggested that perhaps the reason for this is because that, ?To call on Rove to resign, the Times may believe, would be to legitimize a rogue prosecution that's landed Times reporter Judy Miller in jail.?

* L.A. Times opinion writer Margaret Carlson labeled Rove a coward who ?could have come clean long ago, saved millions in taxpayers' dollars and spared everyone a lot of agony. Instead, we've had a two-year investigation to find out what President Bush could have learned by walking across the hall.? She also wrote that the only good that came of this situation -- one she believes will lead to Rove working as a political consultant elsewhere and the Times and Miller allaying their guilt over the WMD story -- is that maybe now the media will be more careful promising confidentiality to sources.

* In a similar vein: Rather than criticize special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, Michael Miner wrote in the Chicago Reader that he has done journalists everywhere a service by helping send Judith Miller to jail. It is because of her prosecution, he wrote, that journalists are finally beginning to question the gross usage of anonymous sources.

* Columnist Debra J. Saunders wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle: "Spare me the hand-wringing about "the national security of our country," as Sen. John F. Kerry put it. I agree that the White House is too lofty a perch for bad-mouthing a federal employee -- that's what the Republican National Committee is for. Be it noted, however, that America is no less safe with Valerie's name -- be it Plame or Wilson -- in the spotlight. Besides, surely Wilson knew he was compromising his wife's anonymity when he wrote the piece for the New York Times."

* Jim VanDeHei and Carole Leonnig in The Washington Post report: " A number of legal experts, some of whom are involved in the case, said evidence that has emerged publicly suggests Rove or other administration officials face potential legal threats on at least three fronts.

"The first is the unmasking of CIA official Valerie Plame, the original focus of special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's probe. But legal sources say there are indications the prosecutor is looking at two other areas related to the administration's handling of his investigation. One possible legal vulnerability is perjury, if officials did not testify truthfully to a federal grand jury, and another is obstructing justice, if they tried to coordinate cover stories to obscure facts. Legal experts said the evidence that has emerged in recent days -- including confirmation that Rove and Cooper spoke about Plame's role at the CIA as a way of knocking down a damaging story about the administration's Iraq policy -- does not by itself necessarily indicate a crime was committed. Even so, White House officials acknowledged privately that they are concerned that the investigation will lead to an indictment of someone in the administration later this year."

* Executive director of the Minnesota News Council Gary Gilson wrote in the Star Tribune that in the most recent press conference with White House spokesman Scott McClellan, ?the White House press corps, cowed and mute since 9/11, suddenly awoke and swarmed in for the kill.? He said that members of the media were finally beginning to show vigor and skepticism, thus returning to the watchdog days of journalism.

* Sidney Blumenthal, writing in Salon, quotes former top newspaper editor Bill Kovach: "Whoever was leaking that information to Novak, Cooper or Judy Miller was doing it with malice aforethought, trying to set up a deceptive circumstance. That would invalidate any promise of confidentiality. You wouldn't protect a source for telling lies or using you to mislead your audience. That changes everything. Any reporter that puts themselves or a news organization in that position is making a big mistake."