Symantictude. Syntactitude.

"I see inside your souls, ALL OF YOU!!"


If you've turned on the news at all this week (five minutes is all it would take), then you've no doubt noticed that there's something happening in regards to some reporters, their source(s), and an undercover US intelligence agent. White House press briefings in the last few days have consisted of a barrage of questions from reporters coupled with an endless stonewall of non-answers from the White House. A few examples:

MONDAY

Reporter: Does the President stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in the leak of a name of a CIA operative?

McClellan: Terry, I appreciate your question. I think your question is being asked relating to some reports that are in reference to an ongoing criminal investigation. The criminal investigation that you reference is something that continues at this point.

Reporter: Excuse me, but I wasn't actually talking about any investigation. But in June of 2004, the President said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak, to press of information. And I just want to know, is that still his position?

McClellan: Yes, but this question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation, and that's why I said that our policy continues to be that we're not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation from this podium.

...

TUESDAY

Reporter: Scott, some Democrats are calling for the revocation of Karl Rove's security clearance. Does the President see any need for that?

McClellan: I don't think it's helpful for me from this podium to get into discussing what is an ongoing investigation.

Reporter: But the issues of security clearance and criminal investigations are often on very separate tracks. So does the President see any reason, any necessity, at least in the interim, to revoke Karl Rove's security clearance?

McClellan: Again, if I were to get into discussing this, I would be getting into discussing an investigation that continues and could be prejudging the outcome of the investigation.

Reporter: You also made comments in defending Mr. Rove... Do you regret putting yourself out on a limb, Scott?

(Note: Mr. McClellan stated on the record a year ago that Mr. Rove had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CASE.)

McClellan: I do want to talk about this, and we will talk about it once the investigation is complete.

WEDNESDAY

Reporter: Scott, you know what, to make a general observation here, in a previous administration, if a press secretary had given the sort of answers you've just given in referring to the fact that everybody who works here enjoys the confidence of the President, Republicans would have hammered them as having a kind of legalistic and sleazy defense. I mean, the reality is that you're parsing words, and you've been doing it for a few days now. So does the President think Karl Rove did something wrong, or doesn't he?

McClellan: No, David, I'm not at all. I told you and the President told you earlier today that we don't want to prejudge the outcome of an ongoing investigation. And I think we've been round and round on this for two days now.

Reporter: Even if it wasn't a crime? You know, there are those who believe that even if Karl Rove was trying to debunk bogus information, as Ken Mehlman suggested yesterday -- perhaps speaking on behalf of the White House -- that when you're dealing with a covert operative, that a senior official of the government should be darn well sure that that person is not undercover, is not covert, before speaking about them in any way, shape, or form. Does the President agree with that or not?

McClellan: Again, we've been round and round on this for a couple of days now. I don't have anything to add to what I've said the previous two days.

Of course, dubya had to weigh in: "President Bush deflected questions today about the alleged role of one of his top advisers in leaking the identity of a CIA agent, saying he would not discuss the matter until an investigation is complete." -- Wasington Post

And on and on it goes. I thought the mafia did stuff like this -- now I understand why lawyers get such a bad rap. From what I understand, Mr. Rove (or rather, his lawyer) has stated that he never explicitly named Valerie Plame -- the undercover CIA agent -- but merely referred to her as "Joe Wilson's wife" (actually, Mr. Novak used these terms in an article for TIME, but I think we know who his source was by now), and has therefore committed no crime. If that isn't taking advantage of the versatility of the English language, I don't know what is. On top of this, in the all-familiar fashion of confusing people into turning the channel, GOP members have been given talking points aimed at discrediting Plame's husband, Joe Wilson (who, it should be mentioned, is an opponent of the war in Iraq -- naturally they like to flush out the opposition, even if it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.)

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. So far, one reporter in jail for refusing to reveal her source, and other "folks" remain standing behind a wall of lawyers and various other power vendors. Judging by the way these people slither around every other important issue, it's hard to imagine that Rove will be going anywhere -- one can only hope.