>This is quintessential Rove: the master of plausible deniability. On this
>account, he never named Plame, and he never said she was an agent. But
>because he confirmed that it was a CIA sponsored trip; and because he said
>the director of central intelligence didn't authorize it; and because the
>conversation was introduced as being on super-duper background -- the
>impossible to avoid inference is that Wilson's wife was in the CIA. For
>how else could she have arranged a CIA-sponsored trip? Why else would
>anyone in the CIA have defered to her wishes?
>
>It's so inescapable a conclusion it's as if he said it. But he didn't.
>That plausible deniability in a nutshell: the reporter heard it, but he
>didn't say it. Nor did he name her.
>
>That looks like evil brilliantly done. And it seems like he has
>manipulated the investigation perfectly too. He seems to have given Novak
>conditional permission immediately so as to immediately close the story
>there. He seems to have told Novak that he could tell all on the
>condition that he not discuss any of it with the press. And then advised
>him that it would probably go more smoothly for him if he attributed this
>taciturnity to his legal strategy. Then no further explanation would be
>needed.
there's an entire book on how this happens, organizationally: Moral Mazes by Robert Jackall. All about how, if you get into a position of power, the one thing you've learned is how to get what you want done without every giving a direct order. It's about a lot more than that, but it's a good sociology of how corporations do repeatedly crappy things.
kelley
"Finish your beer. There are sober kids in India."
-- rwmartin