Another Fantasy Shot To Hell

Three weeks ago liberal posters over loaded the internet with breathless announcements that the indictment of Karl Rove was imminent. Maybe Federal prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald should have been told because this morning the New York Times reported that in a statement from Rove’s attorney Robert D. Luskin, Rove was advised yesterday by Fitzgerald that none was forthcoming.

This is terrific news for Rove and bad news for Democrats everywhere because now the former presidential adviser and campaign genius can devote all his time to the upcoming mid-terms, assuring that a Republican majority remains in both the House and the Senate.

The president is on a roll now. With all the good news that came out of Iraq last week, and now this, if I were him I think I'd buy a lottery ticket today. I can already hear the gnashing of teeth in the DNC now, as attack ads drafted by them may have to be re-written. Oh well, back to the drawing boards, I guess.

Posted by Sicilian Eagle at June 13, 2006 6:38 AM
Comment #157114

Here’s the complete story:


Posted by: Sicilian Eagle at June 13, 2006 7:04 AM
Comment #157117


The repubs can now let out the sigh of relief that their poster boy for the attack-dog right, it has been reported, will not be charged.

So me and the other liberals will have to let the process take its place.

i haven’t seen this much elation over a ruling since June 12th 1994, when O.J. was aquitted.

So Rove was not charged and O.J. wasn’t convicted. Feel better?

Posted by: john trevisani at June 13, 2006 8:15 AM
Comment #157119


So me and the other liberals will have to let the process take its place.

Wow, what a novel idea. Letting the process take its place. Would that Murtha could subscribe to that idea. Would that you yourself would take to that idea, as opposed to typing headlines about Rove’s indictment (now undeniably proven false, of course).

OJ was found not guilty under our system of law. I think he had the money to hire great lawyers, who managed to muddy the waters sufficiently enough to get their client off. That, and Darden and Clark bungling their case as if they were Laurel and Hardy, or the Three Stooges (despite being only a duo, they bungled enough to each qualify as an extra Stooge).

But OJ’s case was in the system, as has Rove’s been. The system ain’t perfect—no system is—but its as good a system as is on the face of the planet. Sometimes it works just as desired, and other times it doesn’t. It’s certainly skewed towards the wealthy, who can pay to muddy the waters. Not fair…just the way it is.

Follow your own advice. Allow the process to run along. Allow the system to work and then…then….make claims about the happenings. When we make the claims too early, its simple guesswork. The Marines in Haditha, even if guilty, deserve better than guesswork.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 13, 2006 8:28 AM
Comment #157122

John T.

Listen, the day you posted your piece, the internet was covered with that crap.Sometimes you hit it and come out in front of the story looking like a hero, and sometimes you hit a wall. That time you hit a wall, that’s all.

Can we agree that it’s a dead issue now? Plus I will say about the Libby thing…he too is entitled to his day in court.

I am confident that in a short time you guys will re-load and start shooting other things over our heads…like Kerry’s amendment that he introduced yesterday as an amendment on the war bill…so we will have plenty opportunity to exchange discourse very soon.

Right now, we all should be pulling for those 70,000 Iraqi troops who will hit Baghdad’s streets tomorrow….glad to see the president took my advice. :)

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 13, 2006 8:39 AM
Comment #157123

I don’t think Democratic strategy depended on Rove being indicted. I’m sure the Libby trial will be a lot of fun for people who like watching the White House squirm.

If Bush is on roll, it hasn’t shown up in the polls yet. According to the latest poll from CBS, his job approval is 33%, 2% lower than their previous poll.

It should not be a big surprise. We’ve seen this movie too many times before. Al Q’s number-two or number-four or number-whatever man in Iraq is killed, the government appoints a minister of tourism and falafel, etc. It all sounds like good news, but nothing really changes. We keep “turning a corner”, which basically means we are going around in circles.

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 13, 2006 8:44 AM
Comment #157125

By the way, that CBS poll was 6/10-6/11 — well after the news about the Zarqawi killing had gotten around.

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 13, 2006 8:45 AM
Comment #157128


That’s odd as I saw on Cnn that the president got a bounce on the polls. It doesn’t matter. IF progress can continue, and results are shown consistently, and IF the American people beging to see that progress, the polls will take care of themselves.

Now on Rove: He’s has been a punching bag this year, please. He’s bee a poster boy by the left for all that is wong with the Republican party. Now they have to re-direct their aim solely on the president, which could be a dangerous thing IF the situation in Iraq improves.

Good things come in threes…last week the scum bag was blown away…then the government there formed…now this…

A second set of good things is forming too, starting tomorrow with the securing of Baghdad.

I call it BUSH-MEMTUM (which thanks to Joe Lieberman)

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 13, 2006 8:56 AM
Comment #157130

Karl Rove and the WhiteHouse leadership are all guilty as hell. Just not of the incidents in Fitzgerald’s purview with sufficient evidence to prosecute. They are nonetheless guilty of leaderhip malfeasance, corruption of our Constitutional government of law, and ineptness in policy making again and again.

But, hey, at least the President says he has some regrets about one or two of those. That’s progress isn’t it?

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 13, 2006 9:07 AM
Comment #157131

First, let me say I wish he was indicted, but that I accept Fitzgerald’s decision.

All that in mind, I think we Democrats have had our share of vindication. Rove was involved in the leak, as were other administration officials. Valerie Wilson’s identity was a classified secret, even if she was no longer covert. The leak was politically motivated, and as the other premise would indicate, it was classified information that was given out.

So the essential substance of the Democratic charge against the administration is in fact true, while much of the rhetoric bandied about by the Republicans was just so much propaganda.

Not only that, we have learned of a dangerous new example of the president’s disregard for security issues when his political fortunes are at stake.

Politically speaking, An investigation has concluded which kept Rove occupied for quite some time now, and even with his dodging of this bullet, the administration still faces potentially damaging revelations of their operations and decisions which will further damage the Presidents image.

Once again, the Democrats were closer to the truth than the Administration apologists. We just weren’t close enough for our tastes this time.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 13, 2006 9:09 AM
Comment #157132

The Polling advertisement above asks: Should Karl Rove Resign? I say NO! Absolutely NOT!

He should be hung, drawn and quartered, and roasted over a spit with an apple in his mouth while IN his office. Absolutely he should not be allowed to resign and walk away. :-)

I hear he is a pretty likable guy though if you agree with him. So, maybe I am a tad bit too harsh. You think?

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 13, 2006 9:11 AM
Comment #157134
Now on Rove: He’s has been a punching bag this year, please. He’s bee a poster boy by the left for all that is wong with the Republican party.

Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi… none of these people have been indicted, yet they are punching bags, too.

The truth is, you guys made more of the non-indictment of Rove than we did, with all of this hyped-up “Fitzmas” business. It’s like with Hillary. You guys think we love her, but in truth it is more that you really, really hate her.

There are plenty of people out there to represent what is wrong with the GOP: Bush, Rumsfeld, Bob Ney.. take your pick.

If Baghdad is secured tomorrow, I’ll be very impressed.

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 13, 2006 9:14 AM
Comment #157148

David R. Reemer

Anger management, David, anger management. Personally, I see this president who has lost his aggogance and has a chance…however small..of achieving some success his last two and a half years. Slowly, he achieving a degree of statesmanship, and I think Condi Rice is responsible


You are winning the award this week as the original “ya, but” guy. He wasn’t indicted. End of story. On the merits, the charges lacked merit to bring them forward. That’s pretty much it.

For our nation’s sake, I amkeeping my fingers crossed.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 13, 2006 10:07 AM
Comment #157150

Bottom line sound bite messages voters will take away with this:

Democrats are insane MOONBATS with TINFOIL HATS! Liars, corrupt, false accusers! Not to be trusted to lead the nation into the 21st century.

Oh, lets not forget Democrat Icon William Jefferson (D-LA) is out there hanging like a sword over the KOS-Crats head and the case will blossom and become front page news with most unfortunate timing (for the CORRUPT-CRATS) down the road no doubt.

Democrats are full of hatred. But not hatred for the enemy. No, they continually and openly support the enemy on a daily basis for all of us to see. The hatred Democrats have is for America for tiring of them over the last decade or so. Democrats simply can’t take all the rejection. And they are too stupid to figure out why they are so out of step with Mainstream America – Thus the intense hatred the KOS-Crats have for America.

Democrats daily strive to defend the terrorists and blame America. Worth repeating over and over.

The Democrats are still in shock and mourning for Zarqawi and now Rove is declared innocent? It was all just a big nasty vindictive lie by Howard Dean and the DNC? Damn! This may be too much for our KOS-Mo-Nut Dem friends. My condolences.

Clinton was indicted on clear evidence when he lied about raping and sexually harassing women and the entire nation saw it when he wagged his finger and lied to the nation’s face. Rove was victimized by the Deaniacs and cleared, the obvious victim of a witch hunt. The Rats tried and failed with their corrupt DNC operatives, the Plame-Games who themselves will now be investigated.

The Democrats HATE our justice system, except when their own people (and terrorists) get away with murder (OJ, Clintons, etc) choosing to try to convict American citizens in politics who they hate without a trial - just because they hate the person.

KOS-Crats blog insanely on their wingnut blogsphere with wild accusations and absurd conspiracy “theories. One thing the Moonbats do provide is much hilarity to the rest of us normal Americans who read their rantings.

The Democrats are a bunch of nasty evil little “Trekkie-Crat” zombie geek weirdoes who go to laughable and oh-so-lame little Trekkie conventions in Vegas. No doubt this new face of the Democrat Party has the terrorists laughing, er, shaking in their boots. Meanwhile the Republicans are steadily racking up kills and captures of terrorists and taking the war to them and theirs.

Republicans understand that a war like the war on terror will NOT be over in a microwave minute, that it could last 100 years or more. Problem is with Scaredy-Crats is they to not convince people they have the will or stomach or even any ideas on how to deal with Islamofacist terrorism. Democrats are much better at murdering 80+ women and children like the time they burned them alive in Waco, TX. Democrats hated Texans even before Bush won the election – twice. Or going to Ruby Ridge Idaho and framing a man simply because he does not agree with them politically then shooting his wife, child and even his dog in front of him for no reason.
Or forcing children to go to Communist Cuba, the Democrat ideal utopia. Wow, it would seem that the Clinton years were nothing but the Democrats attacking Americans and letting Bin Ladin get away.

How about this great idea of the KOS-Mo-Crats? Their first act in office was to put open gays in the military which shows the Democrat party is simply the Gay Political Party and that’s all they are about and nothing else. Well, that and simply another weird twisted form of Communism. America needs real leadership, not a party ran and lead by the Gay Communist Agenda. Oh, and Joe McCarthy was indeed correct! And the massive failure of Communism proves it.

The KOS-Mo-Crats are closet communists as everyone knows. They seek to rule and force their will on the American people through courts that they stacked with Liberal Activist judges for 40+ years - instead of allowing Americans to vote in the political process. Thus the entire Democrat party is guilty of criminal conspiracy and treason.

It will take a long time to fix the damage done to America by the Democrats.

Posted by: DemonCrat at June 13, 2006 10:09 AM
Comment #157151

No system is perfect. We’ve proven that for sure. With regards to the headlines that were fales, yup let’s put that up with the hysteria surrounding this case and how i (as one of the re-posters) got caught up in it. But does that validate Rove’s behavior? Where’s the bar now. Is this really what we want to teach our children, that it’s okay to use everything at your disposal to malign your sworn enemies, even hiding behind some technicalities like not using Plame’s actual name? Is that where the ethic bar is sitting now? As long as you don’t get caught, it’s okay.

We can agree that the issue about Rove being indicted is finished. But with titles like “Fantasy shot to hell” the impression that you’re giving is far from the truth. If you think that Rove wasn’t involved in outing Plame, then i think you need to re-evaluate your use of ‘fantasy’ and apply it to yourself.

So buy yourself that lottery ticket; the senior citizens would most appreciate your donation.

Posted by: john trevisani at June 13, 2006 10:14 AM
Comment #157155


In a CBS poll released today, sixty-one percent say Zarqawi’s death won’t have any impact on the terrorist threat against the United States, while 22 percent it will increase that threat. Only thirteen percent predict a decreased risk of terrorism.

Those polled were Americans on both side of the aisle, not just Democrats. So who’s wearing the tin foil hat now?

Posted by: scoreggi at June 13, 2006 10:29 AM
Comment #157156


he should be hung, drawn and quartered, and roasted over a spit with an apple in his mouth while IN his office. Absolutely he should not be allowed to resign and walk away. :-)

Then i guess you’re not too happy that he still has access to classified data. Kinda gives me a warm and fuzzy.

Posted by: john trevisani at June 13, 2006 10:35 AM
Comment #157158


Politics is dirty business and its dirty on all sides. Democrats and Republicans both engage in the dirty tricks. So if we demonize them, lets demonize them all, cuz they all do it.

Regarding Rove, I really think there wasn’t so much an effort to “out” Valerie Plame as there was an effort to “out” the reality of Joe Wilson’s trip. I’m not so naive as to think that the admin didn’t go after Wilson— I think they did. But I think they were more after his credibility, which has been highly suspect. I’ve never seen how going after Plame really affected Wilson, other than to make him a cause celebre’.

Rove is a master politician, which makes him really good at a number of bad things. Clinton was a master politician, which meant he could speak out of both sides of his mouth, and out of his butt, all the while smiling and looking good and having people like him. No one did it like Bill. Bush isn’t as skilled at the nuances of the game—bit more of a bull in a china shop.

Don’t take this to mean that I like the dirty games—just that I recognize them. I’m certain Rove was interested in smearing Wilson’s reputation—in truth, Wilson is a bit of a schmuck and deserves it. I’m sure Rove didn’t mind doing dirty tricks—-I just haven’t seen how the whole Plame issue fit into that.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 13, 2006 10:37 AM
Comment #157165

i agree. Both sides suck. No argument there.

However i differ with the Plame case because the ramifications were larger than this administration could have imagined.

This administration says that are protecting our fatherland or homeland security in every way shape or form. They rationalize their actions that it’s okay to tap phone calls and read emails of American cititzens because it’s in the best interest of the bigger picture in the war on terror. They say it’s okay to torture people that they captured and held in captivity without representation because the information that they may get is too valuable in our bigger picture of the war against terror. Yet with Plame this was direct political attack. And this political attack had serious national security ramifications. For it wasn’t just Wilson that this administration attacked; it was Wilson’s wife and everyone that worked at Brewster Jennings & Associated, the CIA front-company.

Because now that Brewster Jennings & Associates is out of business, everyone involved with Brewster Jennings & Associates is out of business too. All of the progress that they were making in the dirty covert world of secret decoder rings and such went down the toilet.

For me there’s a few other people i’d like see swirling in that toilet instead of Brewster Jennings & Associates.

Posted by: john trevisani at June 13, 2006 10:56 AM
Comment #157166

Demoncrat said: “Democrats are insane MOONBATS with TINFOIL HATS! Liars, corrupt, false accusers! Not to be trusted to lead the nation into the 21st century.”

Talk about your Neverland wishful thinking. Poll histories predict millions of Americans who answered to being Republican in 2004 are answering to Democrat today.

While I don’t find this information particularly encouraging - those that voted for Bush in 2004 will be determining Democrat’s to be elected - it is a fact of electoral history research that there are millions of Americans who switch parties when government is not working for them.

That would be meaningless to you apparently since facts and research are not in your reportoire. Nonetheless, November will tell the story.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 13, 2006 10:56 AM
Comment #157190

When will we ever learn?

When will Democrats and Republicans sit up and realize that condemning people BEFORE they have their day in court just makes them look stupid.

OJ…convicted in the media and later found innocent…and then later found guilty.

Rove…convicted in the media and the Democratic party…not indicted.

Jefferson…convicted in the media and the Republican party…still in progress.

Delay…convicted in the media and the Democratic party…all charges except one has been dropped…still in progress.

McKenny…convicted in the media and the Republican party…still in progress.

Michael Jackson…convicted in the media and Democrats and Republicans…found innocent.

Bill Clinton…convicted in the media and the Republican party…Impeached by the House…Senate refused to remove him from office…served the rest of his term.

…And this is only the beginning of the list.

Each and every person charged with a crime…and each and every person “thought” to have committed a crime deserves their day in court.

And they also deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Are you listening, Murtha?

Posted by: Jim T at June 13, 2006 11:40 AM
Comment #157202

Bush? Bush? Rumsfeld? Cheney? The fantasy ends and the nightmare never stops. Flowers in Iraq? WMD? Oil will pay for it? Brownie?

Posted by: gergle at June 13, 2006 12:00 PM
Comment #157205


The polls numbers from USA today show a big spike up for the president, if that means anything.

However, I think he just pulled off a big coup flying to Baghdad to meet with the new prime minister.

Right now, the administration is on a roll, no denying that.


Halliburton had gross revenues of about 20 billion from All their world wide operations and a AGR of about 3 billion last year.

Don’t sound to me that they have raped anyone. Do you know anything about the company or its history before you continue to froth at the mouth?

By the way, I am NOT ashamed of anything. If anything, I am PROUD to stand with my president through every shitstorm that has been thrown his way.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 13, 2006 12:15 PM
Comment #157216

Unless Fitz announces he’s closing up shop soon it looks like he has at least one other target. Rove has been forced to testify in front of Plame grand juries 5 times now. It may just be that he’s turned on that target to get hismelf off the hook. Who would that target be? All the evidence points to Dick Cheney. Now who would Bush rather have around these days? Given the choice of throwing
turdblossom or Cheney overboard I say he picks Cheney. Lately he’s been overrruled on Iran by Rice and is a serious liability.

Posted by: markg8 at June 13, 2006 12:42 PM
Comment #157217

Where are all the liberals who will come out and admit they’re wrong?! I mean, that’s what the libs wanted from the “Culture of corruption” conservatives; if they’re convicted the Prez needs to get rid of them. Well, no conviction; Rove did nothing wrong. So, step up libbies and admit that your accusations were false and (flat out) wrong!!

Posted by: rahdigly at June 13, 2006 12:42 PM
Comment #157231

I think the distinction that Republicans are failing to make here is quite plain: not everything wrong is illegal. Not everything illegal gets prosecuted.

Moreover, the deed that the Republicans so strenuously denied was done by people in the White House, even to the point of suggesting that the Wilsons outed themselves, was indeed done by those people. It may be a simple quirk of the law that spelled the difference between an indictment, and the lack of same.

It might also be the furious negotiations between Rove and Fitzgerald. If he had really not been under any threat, he would have been excluded long ago. This is a victory for the Republicans, but only after a series of serious black eyes.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 13, 2006 1:09 PM
Comment #157233

Careful! According to the Luskin, the lawyer for Rove, no charges will be filed. That is not the same as saying Rove is cleared of wrongdoing. As Markg8 notes, Rove may have made a deal to cooperate & turn in someone else, such as Cheney. The Grand Jury has not been dismissed, which means the investigation may be continuing.

As Jim indicated earlier, you cannot be too careful when it comes to this kind of thing… best to hedge bets…

Posted by: phx8 at June 13, 2006 1:14 PM
Comment #157235

When Tom DeLay is proven innocent buy stocks in BIG PHARM, the run on anti-depressants will drive stock prices through the roof!

K is for the kangaroo court of liberal apologists
A ‘cause they’re almost ALWAYS wrong
R is for RIGHT, to the dismay of the left
L stands for liberal, the best friend a Republican campaign strategist could ever have.


Posted by: JR at June 13, 2006 1:16 PM
Comment #157240

I think it might be entirely possible that the price for not getting indicted here may be Rove throwing Libby under the bus, which might indicate why mum’s the word on the details of the letter.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 13, 2006 1:20 PM
Comment #157242

We’re not allowed to speculate on the guilt or innocence of people in rival administrations? This from the party that alleged Vince Foster’s suicide was murder.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 13, 2006 1:22 PM
Comment #157248

Rah, by your logic, there was no wrong committed when police are unable to apprehend a murderer and close the file as unsolved. The murder never took place because no one was convicted of it. WRONG!

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 13, 2006 1:33 PM
Comment #157253


Speculate by all means! Debate any evidence presented in facts with passion and determination. But smear, slander or just plain spew forth hate? Why, because he is:

A) Republican
B) Part of the Bush administration
C) A better player in the political strategy game

Do those of us on the right stray into the negative? Sure. Has it become a sacrament, a means of PROVING our devotion to conservatism? No. Libs have taken the cause up so vociferously they have become what they perceive their enemy to be; CEMENT HEADED IDEOLOGS.

If we have to keep talking about Clinton and how conservatives attacked poor Bill and his administration, stop and research the number of Clintonistas charged, the number indicted and prosecuted. How many of these investigations ended in job loss or prison/probation? Maybe, just maybe why we questioned Vince Fosters death. Just a thought.

Posted by: JR at June 13, 2006 1:44 PM
Comment #157259


C) A better player in the political strategy game

This is a very interesting point. From this statement, it appears that you appreciate Rove’s tactics and approve of his methods.

For me the bar must be higher than that. We mustn’t approve of illegal or unethical methods in maintaining our democracy. If we do; then what’s the point. Shall we stoop to the level of the Nazis during WWII where the bar was so low that imprisoned citizens were used for scientific experiments? Is that what we’ve become, on par with Nazis?

i hope we rise above the methods of the unethical.

Posted by: john trevisani at June 13, 2006 1:57 PM
Comment #157264

“Well, no conviction; Rove did nothing wrong.”

Amazing. No logic being used here AT ALL. Just because Fitzgerald didn’t convict Rove, doesn’t mean he did nothing wrong. Let’s look at the facts for a moment shall we?
1. We KNOW that Rove disclosed Valerie Plame’s CIA status to Matt Cooper who had not known that prior to their conversation. Additionally, we KNOW that Rove told Cooper that further information discrediting Wilson would soon be declassified and ended their phone conversation by saying “I’ve already said too much.” This is from Coopers testimony.
2. We also KNOW that a week before to publishing his column outting CIA agent Plame, Robert Novak spoke with Karl Rove, who confirmed the information that Plame worked at the CIA.

So, to claim Rove did nothing wrong is a mile-high pile of BULLSH*T!!! Rove testified FIVE times to the grand jury — which means his story wasn’t washing with Fitzgerald.
Furthermore, this quote appeared in the Washington Post last October: “Rove’s defense team asserts that President Bush’s deputy chief of staff has not committed a crime but nevertheless anticipates that special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald could find a way to bring charges in the next two weeks.”
This tells us that Fitzgerald obviously had enough to charge him. The fact that he wasn’t charged doesn’t mean Rove didn’t commit a crime, instead it suggests that he gave Fitzgerald enough information about others involved (and there are twenty three administration officials with known connections to the leak) to keep him from being charged.

My hunch is that Rove gave information about Cheney.
Why? For these reasons:
1. Because back in October it was reported: “A special counsel is focusing on whether Vice President Dick Cheney played a role in leaking a covert CIA agent’s name, according to people familiar with the probe that already threatens top White House aides Karl Rove and Lewis Libby.”
2. Because four members of Cheney’s staff were made to testify before the Grand Jury.
3. Because Cheney was interviewed by federal prosecutors.
4. Because Cheney and Libby had pestered the CIA about
5. Because Cheney’s notes proved that he was, in the words of Fitzgerald “acutely focused” on smearing Joseph Wilson after reading his op-ed: “What I Didn’t Find In Africa.”
6. Because in the Libby indictment it says: “On or about June 12, 2003, Libby was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson’s wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division [ie: part of clandestine operations].”

So, both Libby and Rove are without a doubt GUILTY, but it seems extremely likely (at least it does to me) that to keep from being charged the way Libby was, Rove was finally forced to give Fitzgerald some info about the head leaker: Vice President Cheney.
Time will tell.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 13, 2006 2:08 PM
Comment #157272

John T

I am suprised that you made the Nazi referance. It’s a quantum leap and really doesn’t fit the discussion.It would be similar me accusing the Democratic Party of behaving like Nazis because a couple crackpor assemblymen
from New Jersey who are Democrats want to ban Coulter’s book (and by the way, I do not endorse her book, although I have purchased her bikini calendar).Didn’t the Nazis do that in the 1930’s?

Why can’t you guys…just once..admit that MAYBE this was much ado about nothing.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 13, 2006 2:17 PM
Comment #157273

Adrienne, Stephen, David etc.:

The problem with the speculation that the left is having is that they don’t have that kind of speculation about their own. And really, to be fair, the right doesn’t speculate enough about its own either.

We can look back and find many people on the left who were suspected of doing wrong things (Ron Brown, Henry Cisneros, Hillary, Bill, Vernon Jordan, Hubbell, Sandy Berger etc.). But we shouldn’t hold them as being “without a doubt GUILTY” if they were not proven to be. We know the law provides a lot of leeway sometimes, so that certain people are not charged and others charged with minor offenses only slightly related to their alleged crimes. While not necessarily fair, that’s just how our system works.

We all are free to speculate as we wish. But lets all try to speculate with less partisanship so that when one of “our” guys is accused, we treat him/her to the same standard as when one of “their” guys is accused.

For now, Rove has gone through Fitzgerald’s guantlet and come out with no charges. Libby has come away with charges that have yet to be fully adjudicated. Adrienne’s speculative scenario could be true, but it could also be just the insane ranting of a lunatic (just kidding, A).
To continue to hold forth on Rove’s guilt, despite the lack of charges, simply smacks of having made the decision, regardless of the facts of the case, to find him guilty.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 13, 2006 2:24 PM
Comment #157275


ummmm….Fitzgerald doesn’t “convict”…he brings charges. A judge or jury convicts. Freudian slip, right?

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 13, 2006 2:31 PM
Comment #157280

Sure; it’s an extreme example. But it’s still applicable. (i can’t say for the life of me, what censorship and Ann Coulter has to do with anything, but hey, that’s your problem). It’s applicable because it’s about rationalizing one’s behavior.

You support Rove for whatever he does regardless whether his motives, actions and methods are ethical or legal. As long as he keep the party in power; it’s okay with you. There were many Nazi supporters that felt the same way in WWII.

Posted by: john trevisani at June 13, 2006 2:37 PM
Comment #157282

Troll on over to Truthout and see that the D’Nile is still flowing…..

Marc Ash

Posted by: George in SC at June 13, 2006 2:42 PM
Comment #157283


You wrote:

We KNOW that Rove disclosed Valerie Plame’s CIA status to Matt Cooper”

“My hunch

“This tells us that Fitzgerald obviously had enough to charge him. The fact that he wasn’t charged doesn’t mean Rove didn’t commit a crime, instead it suggests

“So, both Libby and Rove are without a doubt GUILTY” my emphasis added.

So to paraphrase:

Your hunch, without a doubt, suggests, obviously guilty. PHEW!!! Thanks for clearing that up for me, and here I was thinking that liberals had lost confidence in the judicial process!

Your clear, impartial and obvious grasp of the complicted inner workings of Federal investigations has put my mind at ease. Thank you, I can rest easier knowing the outcome of the case before the rest of America. Hey, could you E-mail me the winning Powerball numbers for this Wednesday?

Posted by: Jr at June 13, 2006 2:42 PM
Comment #157287


What tactics politically did he endorse that moved him into the realm of Nazism? Grassroots developement? Get out the vote? Spotlighting obvious differences in liberal and conservative ideas? Yeah, you’re correct, just like Hitler and the brownshirts! How ‘bout we use the detainees in GITMO for the experiments? I’m hearing the theme music for the Twilight Zone all of a sudden, anybody else hear it?

Posted by: Jr at June 13, 2006 2:50 PM
Comment #157289

“But we shouldn’t hold them as being “without a doubt GUILTY” if they were not proven to be.”

But Rove WAS proven guilty of disclosing Plame’s undercover CIA status to both Cooper and Novak. Moreover, the fact that he told Cooper he had “said too much”, is the proof that he knew he was doing something wrong. You can try to slice this up as much as you want Joe, but Cooper’s testimony was proof positive of Rove being a GUILTY TRAITOR of highly classified American secrets.
In my opinion, Rove and Libby, and Novak (and whoever else had a hand in this leak), deserve to go jail for the rest of their lives for being traitors to our country.

Sic Eagle:
“ummmm….Fitzgerald doesn’t “convict”…he brings charges. A judge or jury convicts. Freudian slip, right?”

Nope. Rah used the word “conviction” first, and without thinking, I used the word “convict” in my reply to his illogical and nonsensical post. I really meant “indict.”

Posted by: Adrienne at June 13, 2006 2:52 PM
Comment #157292


Why are you so excited? Rove did not accomplish anything useful. He was told he would not be charged. That deserves a sigh of relief for Republicans. But it is nothing to rave about.

Libby is under indictment. And everybody knows that the White House (we don’t know the details yet) outed Valerie Plame - an act of treason. And the president thinks this is OK? And YOU think this is OK?

Republicans have nothing to cheer about. They missed a bullet. That’s all.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at June 13, 2006 3:03 PM
Comment #157293


Its pretty clear to see that you decided long ago that Rove was guilty. I’d bet you decided that even before Joe Wilson went to Niger. You were just waiting for the right moment to pronounce your verdict.

Fortunately, that’s not how due process works in the good ole U.S.A. Perhaps it works that way in L.U.S.A. (pronounced loo—zah), yknow…the Liberal United States of America. :)

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 13, 2006 3:10 PM
Comment #157296


That’s two points for JBOD on the L.U.S.A joke for originality. :)


You’re kidding, right? Had ahe been indicted, you and John would be co-authoring pieces about it across the column to the left.

As I said, the president is on a streak. How about : George-Mentum if you don’t like Bush-Mentim, then? Which is better? Hey ! Adrienne…which do you prefer? :)

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 13, 2006 3:18 PM
Comment #157297


Rove proven leaker! Guilty traitor to be hanged tuesday afternoon at DNC headquarters. Video to be posted at the KOS.

He was proven to have committed a crime and yet he is not convicted. I smell another WATERGATE. I can see it now, Rove getting up in front of the world and saying those famous words, “I am not a crook!”

WHOA! Sorry about that, I think I was channeling Adrienne for a second!

Posted by: Jr at June 13, 2006 3:19 PM
Comment #157300

“Libby is under indictment. And everybody knows that the White House (we don’t know the details yet) outed Valerie Plame - an act of treason.”

Yes. An act of treason which was done try to cover for another act of treason: lying to the country and before the UN over the justification to go to war in Iraq. They are traitors to America.

Hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil. All for partisan purposes. All of you should be ashamed of yourselves, but at this point America knows that Neocons have absolutely no sense of shame or decency — no sense of right or wrong.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 13, 2006 3:22 PM
Comment #157301

We do not have to prove in a court of law that Rove did something wrong in order to believe rightly that he did. There is enough confirmed evidence to indicate that these people did exactly what we said they did. There is no need for an indictment or a conviction to say that Rove leaked what we said he leaked. We just can’t say that Fitzgerald indicted him for it.

We’re not asking people to believe idle speculation. We’re asking people to face the fact that if they wait for a conviction to start acknowledging what’s going on in their government, they will wait too long to redeem it. The time to act is when reasonable evidence enters the picture, not when a conviction gives you no choice but to admit that something happened.

This administration did in fact carelessly release classified information to the public that damaged our intelligence capability, and put at risk our intelligence assets in the region, and all to rebut an issue in the court of public opinion. It is a fallacy of logic to assert that the lack of a post-condition of an indictment implies the lack of a crime or a wrongful action. An indictment is only the confirmation of the legal opinion of the prosecutor relating to a case, and such a decision can include factors like the cooperation of a potential defendant in another defendant’s case, or the judgment of a prosecutor that a crime may have been committed, but prosecuting the criminal successfully for it would be unlikely.

The court of public opinion, where political matters like this are rightly discussed, need not satisfy so high or professional of a threshold; this will not compromise Roves rights, because this court has no binding power to convict or punish him in the legal sense.

The Republicans should just come right out, and tell us that they oppose what Rove and the other did, or the can take the political untenable position of arguing that Rove and company are special cases who deserve to be above the law for the evil they fight. Stop hiding behind standards that don’t apply to the forum in question.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 13, 2006 3:27 PM
Comment #157304

For all the liberal cries of foul, there are reports that Plame was not covert anyway, hadn’t been for years. Don’t hear much about that. Not a stretch for a VP to challenge someones verasity (Joe Wilson lied about the info he collected by the way) when that person is using him as a foil in public, is there? But, alas, all things liberal are sacred, all things conservative evil. And libs want to know why Ann Coulter writes with such a biting satire?

Posted by: Jr at June 13, 2006 3:35 PM
Comment #157309

“there are reports that Plame was not covert..”
Love it. This is what FNC says when they don’t have ANY PROVE TO BACK UP THERE ASSERTION. Forget that Brewster Jennings & Associates was an active CIA front. That the Novak, who outed Plame, chastised her for working for a non-company called “Brewster Jennings & Associates”. Gotta love it.

But go ahead JR, move along with the same method that FNC does. Say things like “there are reports..” or ‘some say..” or “it’s been discussed that…” but never, ever, ever substantiate that statement with fact.

So i ask you JR:
Proof or no Proof?

Feel free to document you assertion with all the REPORTS that we can handle.

Posted by: john trevisani at June 13, 2006 3:44 PM
Comment #157313

“For all the liberal cries of foul, there are reports that Plame was not covert anyway, hadn’t been for years.”

John is right. This totally retarded argument has been made many times before and has never once had any validity. Fitzgerald said Plame was undercover, and there would never have been a grand jury investigation if she wasn’t. Furthermore, her level in involvement at the moment of her outting really made no difference whatsoever. When all these traitors outted Valerie Plame in order to try to discredit her husband for telling the truth about their totally bogus case for the war, they were in reality outting that entire CIA operation, and every single person Plame had ever been connected with.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 13, 2006 3:59 PM
Comment #157314

The indictment of Scooter Libby said that Valerie Wilson’s identity was classified information. Covert or not, her identity was not supposed to be discussed with those not cleared for the information. That there aren’t indictments for this, according to Fitzgerald, does not mean offenses occur. It merely means that prosecutors did not think they could convict them, given the law and the evidence.

My advice to Rove at this point is: don’t lie. Libby committed the mistake of lying to investigators, and see what resulted?

It seems there won’t be a Fitzmas this year. Still, things aren’t over yet.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 13, 2006 4:00 PM
Comment #157315

Sorry: does not mean offenses didn’t occur.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 13, 2006 4:01 PM
Comment #157317

“Amazing. No logic being used here AT ALL. Just because Fitzgerald didn’t convict Rove, doesn’t mean he did nothing wrong.”

It means that all that has been written and printed about this topic is nothing but left-wing (bias) spin trying to take down the “Architect” of the Bush admin. And, it didn’t work! And, I’m glad it didn’t work b/c it has nothing to do with the big issues facing our country. The War on Terror, the Borders, taxes, gas prices, they are the issues that are important. Not a case that was about outing a CIA agent which was proven(last year) that no one outed her; she was already outed by her (housewife) husband and she wasn’t even a “covert” agent. The public already knows this and there’s nothing (I repeat) nothing you libs can do to change that. So, take the loss like an adult and move on. You’re not getting rid of Bush or Rove and we will win in Iraq. Period!

Posted by: rahdigly at June 13, 2006 4:08 PM
Comment #157319

Steohen,John T,Adrienne

What part of “Not Indicted” is confusing to the three of you?

You three are now pulling a Murtha by convicting Libby before his day in court. Is that how it goes with the left? Why don’t we just do away with the court system and substitute mob rule?

Just becuase mob rule is part of the official Democratic platform, doesn’t wash on this side of the column.

He wasn’t indicted.

Next issue to debunk, please.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 13, 2006 4:15 PM
Comment #157322

The problem is that when liberals say “investigate” they mean bring charges and when they say bring charges, they mean convict.

I say constantly on these pages that we need to check the facts and not the emotions. This is another in the long line of nothings which include BTW:

-Disenfranchisement in Florida
-Abortions in the United States rose 25 percent after Bush was elected in 2000
-Stolen election in Ohio
-Lots of liberals would move to Canada (they promised but few did)
-Katrina theory that blacks died because of racism
-And the various Fitzmas allegations.

All these things were alleged but no facts came out at the time or later to support them.

Posted by: Jack at June 13, 2006 4:26 PM
Comment #157323


Thanks for the compliment on my use of L.U.S.A to describe the liberal element. I thought it quite apropos.

Its interesting now that there are no charges against Rove how the left is coming out swinging with the “Well, hell, he’s guilty anyway” admonitions. Well, some are doing that, at least. The more erudite and intelligent are not doing that.

Patrick Fitzgerald must really be ticked off right now. He’s spent all this time investigating, and now he finds out that none of his investigations mattered at all. All he really needed to do was say,” Hang ‘em, they’re guilty”, and he would have assuaged the members of LUSA. What a waste of his time.

Posted by: jeobagodonuts at June 13, 2006 4:27 PM
Comment #157335

JBOD and Jack

Seriously, I sense a big shift in momentum. This afternoon, I watched the president address the troops in Baghdad, and I thought it was terrific.For every soldier in that room,there is a wife,,husband, parent, kids, family, little town back home rooting for him or her.

If Baghdad can get under control or if another big fish is caught, this thing will have legs lasting right thru November.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 13, 2006 4:55 PM
Comment #157336

Mob rule? Oh dear, the plebes are at it again!

We’re not looking to take Rove to the nearest tree and hang him. We’re just saying that the lack of an indictment does not indicate the lack of something worth indicting somebody for. The justice system is not perfect, nor is the law it serves. That is why we have courts, that is why we have legislatures: to refine and work these things out.

Besides, a conviction in the court of public opinion carries with it the sentence of a bad reputation, which Rove already enjoyed.

You’re trying to leverage Rove’s failure into a definitive statement on Rove’s actions, though, using presumed innocence, a judicial concept, to intimidate your fellow debaters into accepting your conclusion concerning events out in the real world.

What you fail to realize is that there’s nothing definitive here, no statement that Rove has been cleared of all wrongdoing. In fact, sworn testimony indicates the opposite. He did in fact reveal the information Democrats believe he did, knowing that it was indeed classified information.

Whether or not he committed a crime in judicial terms, does not bear on whether he committed an offense in moral terms and broke the spirit of the law in his actions. You can put forward all the legalistic logic you want to, but you will then fail to understand the key issue: Did Rove carelessly reveal the classified identity of a CIA agent for the political benefit of his boss?

Yes he did. Whether he would ever stand criminal trial for this, much less be convicted, is a separate issue.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 13, 2006 4:55 PM
Comment #157339


Based on your application of judicial law versus the court of public opinion, I again state that Fitzgerald must feel that his investigation was a waste of time. Since the court of public opinion (at least the left side of the country) has already found Rove guilty, what difference does a real legal conviction matter?

You can assume Rove’s intent, but you cannot know it. You could be right that Rove intended to skirt the legal law, while breaking the moral one. But you don’t know that; you can only speculate on it.

If we hold all political figures to that standard, then many of the people I mentioned earlier are as guilty as you think Rove is. For instance, does anyone really think Vernon Jordan thought enough of Monica Lewinsky on his own to offer his highpowered assistance in her job search? I mean, really??? Yet I’m not going to convict Jordan because there was no crime, no charges, no discernable way to judge intent.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 13, 2006 5:07 PM
Comment #157341


I bet if you did a DNA analysis, you’ll find that you are a straight line decendant of the captain of the Titanic.

Talk about a guy that toots the party line no matter what.

Only in the mind of the left was Rove guilty. That’s it. Virtual reality.

To me, and maybe to a few more (like those who pack every fundraiser that he speaks),he is the quarterback that executes a game plan to victory in elections. That is his genius. The left has no one close to him.

Right now, what is the left? Are they anti-war? If they are, how will you and the left support Hillary if she gets nominated?

The left is really two parties now but you guys haven’t realized it. First a moderate group of “normal” people with pretty normal philosophies that can actually get along with moderate Republicans, then the mad-dog loonies waving their peace flags.

Please tell me which is the Democratic party?

Even on the war, the biggest issue, they speak out of both sides of their mouths.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 13, 2006 5:11 PM
Comment #157345

To all screeching Libs

So when the co-author of the CIA anti-leak law , Victoria Toensing, states unequivically that NONE of the pertinent benchmarks set in the law were met, that she, Val Plame, WAS NOT covert for the last five years, that she WAS NOT on assignment out of the country and there had to be PROOF that the government took “affirmative measures” to hide her identity. Why was she at a desk in Langley? Hard to cover yourself driving day to day to this facility. I know, I know, Toensing is a right wing hack, right? Your logic works both ways. Fitz says so, so that’s it. But no Rove? Adrienne says he was “proven to have leaked” but no indictment? I’ll bide my time and wait for justice to run it’s course, but don’t be angry with me when the whole house of cards comes tumblin’ down on ol’ Fitz & the Libs.

Posted by: JR at June 13, 2006 5:25 PM
Comment #157350

OK, so Rove gets a pass. Good job for the rep’s.
As the lawyers walk off the field patting themselves on the back for playing the game so well, please take a moment to remember that the bar has yet again been lowered and new standards accepted.
Political power is cyclic.

So congradulations again!

Posted by: Ted at June 13, 2006 5:42 PM
Comment #157360

“Its interesting now that there are no charges against Rove how the left is coming out swinging with the “Well, hell, he’s guilty anyway” admonitions. Well, some are doing that, at least. The more erudite and intelligent are not doing that.”

So, are we to presume that what you’re really saying is that Cooper and Novack lied to Fitzgerald? That Rove never disclosed anything to either of these men?
In addition, are you saying that Stephen and I aren’t erudite or intelligent for stating that Rove is clearly guilty of having leaked her name and her CIA status to those two reporters?

“So when the co-author of the CIA anti-leak law , Victoria Toensing, states unequivically that NONE of the pertinent benchmarks set in the law were met,”

No matter what she says, it wasn’t up to her to decide whether the leak investigation at the request of the CIA would go forward — and, since it did in fact go forward, I really have no idea what you think you’re point is here.

“Adrienne says he was “proven to have leaked” but no indictment?”

Yes, that’s what I’m saying. I guess you’re with jbod on this one? Cooper and Novack both lied to Fitzgerald?

Hmm. I suppose that’s what Jack and the Sic Eagle must believe too, since they’re so happy about their boy Karl getting off today. I doubt any of you Right-wing Patriots would actually relish the idea that anyone would get away with treason, right?

Posted by: Adrienne at June 13, 2006 6:03 PM
Comment #157361


Nobody got away with anything. The proper investigation determined that there was insufficient evidence that Rove commmited crimes (or even that a crime had been committed at all). If you have evidence they don’t, maybe you can share it.

Let’s be clear on this. You need some reason to investigate. YOu need some evidence to indict. Then you have to prove the evidence to convict. You guys got to stage #1. And then stage #2 didn’t pan out. This is not very far down the road. Essentially, you had suspicions and they were proven unfounded.

Posted by: Jack at June 13, 2006 6:12 PM
Comment #157363

or now that I think of it, there is a lot less evidence againt Karl Rove than there is that Iraq sought to buy yellow cake in Niger.

Posted by: Jack at June 13, 2006 6:15 PM
Comment #157369

Joe, SE-
This is a textbook appeal to inappropriate authority. A person, having no legal binding power over another, except through a court of law, is entitled to their opinion about a person.

Just because the government is not allowed to indict, convict, and punish a person without due process and the presumption of innocence, does not mean that arguments made in informal forums such as this one are invalid because they do not afford the same presumption. We’re talking two different situations.

There are other laws in place to prevent people or politicians from taking the law into their own hands and changing personal opinion into the dictate of law. I would be wrong to gather up a bunch of people, Kidnap Rove, and drop him off a cliff in my moral indignation. I have no such right, and here and now disclaim it, just so you guys are clear on the matter.

Yes, I may form an opinion about things before a legal proceeding is in place, and all the facts are in, and the jury has convicted or acquitted the accused. But haven’t you fellows done the same? Without the bind of the law to prevent it, we are equally entitled to our opinions. Only the courts must presume innocence, and act as if nothing criminal happened, until it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

We, on the other hand are free to take up our own opinions, based on the facts we are given. Though I am defending a person’s right to come to their own opinion and express it prior to the rendering of a verdict, I am not advocating taking a prejudiced attitude towards things. We should do our best to be open to available information, and to its implications. Being that we are not bound to the constitutional requirements of presumed innocence, we can be open to a full continuum of possiblities. Since we don’t have the formal requirement of matching the facts of the case to the law, and applying it that way, we can discuss the case in a much more free manner than people inside a courtroom can.

These complaints about trying cases in the media overlooks the basic facts of a society like ours. To wit: we are entitled to freely discuss the matters before us; not only that, it is very important that we discuss things so freely.

The lack of an indictment here does not put to rest the controversy about the revelation of Valerie Wilson’s identity. The documents relating to the case, including the indictment of Scooter Libby, corroborate the secret nature of Wilson’s identity, and the identities of those who leaked the information. It corroborates that a leak did occur. Matt Cooper’s testimony corroborates that Rove knowingly revealed this classified information.

Other information recently uncovered shows that the president declassified information from the WMD reports in order to reply to his critics. This was done without the involvement or consultation of the CIA to make sure that the information wasn’t too sensitive for that purpose. Such revelation of information has been done before, but there are serious moral and ethical considerations regarding doing this to win a political argument, when the consequence could be problematic for national security.

There is much to discuss about the Rove case that continues to be of importance regardless of the lack of the indictment and conviction of Karl Rove.

Other matters of public concern are at play with the Haditha case, regardless of which soldiers did what. It is not unreasonable for members of the public to form opinions about the matter of what happened in Haditha. They are not convicting the soldiers by believing that their unit was involved in a massacre. The investigation could very well clear that up, if it is the hoax some Rightwingers claim. But the likelihood, I believe, given the evidence, is that some folks in that unit massacred innocent people. Even then, though, I am willing to change my mind, based on what I learn.

Am I not allowed to have beliefs on what happened? Should I be made to be quiet because my beliefs are not optimistic about the innocence of the unit as a whole? I have not, and cannot pronounce a sentence on the Marines here. Even if I did, if you simply look around, you will find few here in America are blaming the rest of the Marines for the actions of a few, especially on the left. We believe that the pressures of the war, magnified by bad policy and deficient troop levels, and worsened by repeat deployments, are part of what lead to this incident. I believe personally that the insurgents brought this on people through their actions. I believe, despite this, that the war is now strategically important to us, and that Iraqi’s deserve a full chance to become a peaceful Democracy.

I believe though, that whether we can managed that depends on our ability to maintain discipline, and our administration’s willingness not to put our soldiers under such pressure that discipline can no longer restrain our soldiers.

It’s insulting to me that this is being treated as if any consideration of possible guilt is a betrayal of our troops and a collaboration with the enemy.

This shouldn’t be a partisan issue here. Discipline is discipline. Our troops are not perfect, and it’s not traitorous to believe, on what we consider good evidence, that they may have committed an atrocity like this. This protection by some code of silence is not a solution, but a bandaid on a deeper wound that will not help it heal.

The real support we can give our troops is to recognize the situation they are really in and address that, rather than create some fiction for the benefit of artificially pumping up morale. We cannot win by whitewashing this matter. We must not only claim our superiority to our enemy, we must demonstrate it.

But you would shut me up simply because I believe there is a problem, without relying on verdicts in a court of law as my basis for believing that. Well let me tell you: as much as there is a need for accurate information in coming to these conclusions, there is also a need to address these problems in a timely fashion. We must be open minded about such possibilities even when such formal conclusions have not yet been reached, because often the real business of how one wins a war, or successfully manages an organization or crisis depends on the informal operations going on behind the scenes.

There can be great harm in such a closed-minded view about what we Americans are capable of. If we deny we do evil, despite evils done elsewhere by those who represent us, we will be seen as hypocrites with no standing to inform others of what is right and what is not. And they will be right, for those who cannot believe they can do evil, those who are confident about their infalliblity, are among the most Amoral of actors on society’s and the world’s stage.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 13, 2006 6:28 PM
Comment #157384

Well Jack, this won’t be the first time a civil suit will have to go forward for the public to finally get at the real facts. That is what Wilson’s lawyer seems to be suggesting will happen now that Rove hasn’t been indicted.
Personally, I’m still getting the impression that Rove may have rolled over on Cheney and/or other officials in the VP’s office in order to get himself off — simply because there were too many comments made earlier by too many people about Fitzgerald having the ability to indict Rove. The other thing that comes to mind is the thought that Fitzgerald decided to preserve Rove’s reputation in order to make him a star witness against Libby — AND possibly Cheney as well.
Sure I’m speculating, but I’ve gotten the feeling (see my comments in the first post to this thread) that Cheney is really the one who has been in the crosshairs of Fitzgerald’s sights for a long time.
Btw, now that Rove isn’t under investigation and isn’t going to be indicted, do you think he should still be allowed to keep his security clearance? Just curious — though I can certainly guess how you Karl-lovers will answer.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 13, 2006 6:51 PM
Comment #157401

Looks as though the Democrats ‘Fitzmas’ is falling apart. Let’s all have a moments silence in mourning it’s demise.
I don’t have any doubt that Rove is guilty of something. But it looks as though Fitzgerald couldn’t get enough to indict.
That’s the way it works. Even if the Liberals don’t like it.

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 13, 2006 7:33 PM
Comment #157406

SE thanks, for accusing me of frothing at the mouth and accusing Haliburton of rape. By the way, I’ve negotiated contracts with Brown and Root, prior to Haliburton. You must have read that the same place you read the Murtha Statements. At least we now know where and with whom the fantasies exist.(play Outer Limits music)

Since I am frothing, I’d offer you a capaccino, but you’ve clearly had WAY too much caffiene.

Posted by: gergle at June 13, 2006 7:52 PM
Comment #157409

There’s a name for the argument Sicilian Eagle uses concerning the Haditha incident and now Rove’s non-indictment: Poisoning the well.


To poison the well is to commit a pre-emptive ad hominem strike against an argumentative opponent. As with regular ad hominems, the well may be poisoned in either an abusive or circumstantial way. For instance:

“Only an ignoramus would disagree with fluoridating water.” (Abusive)
“My opponent is a dentist, so of course he will oppose the fluoridating of water, since he will lose business.” (Circumstantial)
Anyone bold enough to enter a debate which begins with a well-poisoning either steps into an insult, or an attack upon one’s personal integrity. As with standard ad hominems, the debate is likely to cease to be about its nominal topic and become a debate about the arguer. However, what sets Poisoning the Well apart from the standard Ad Hominem is the fact that the poisoning is done before the opponent has a chance to make a case.

SE starts out with a pre-emptive attack: you’re prejudging the troops, he says, or you’re judging Rove despite the decision not to indict. Never mind the positive evidence for both- just by giving it, we are judged ourselves, for the crime of prejudgment.

Trouble is, we are never given the chance to present our reasons that we believe something, and therefore denied the opportunity to demonstrate our non-prejudiced status. We’re assumed to be out to get the soldiers from the start, without being asked ourselves whether that is our opinion.

This is representative of most GOP debate tactics impugn credibility before the other candidate has the opportunity to speak for themselves.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 13, 2006 8:02 PM
Comment #157410


To pull his clearance you would need to show he did something to violate it. Nothing is certain. There is a great deal of doubt whether Plame was undercover according to the rules in place.

Wilson can sue if he wants, but on what grounds? What loss did he suffer?

Speculation doesn’t work in serious situations.

Posted by: Jack at June 13, 2006 8:03 PM
Comment #157411

I apologize. The paragraphs before the one that starts “SE starts out with a pre-emptive attack” is part of the quotes preceding them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 13, 2006 8:04 PM
Comment #157412

He signed an NDA agreement stating that he would not disclose Classified information. Valerie Wilson’s identity is (or was) classified information, according to the Libby Indictment. Testimony from Matt Cooper indicates that this classified information was given out by Rove before it was common knowledge. He claims it was declassified, which begs the question: who declassified it? Either somebody did, and that person in authority is responsible for the leak, or Rove knowingly leaked classified information.

The doubt was whether she was covert, not whether her identity was classified information.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 13, 2006 8:10 PM
Comment #157423

Then Stephen, there are proper procedures for security clearances and their suspention. I think the FBI does that and if they feel there is cause, they can take action.

BTW - one does not always lose a clearance for a violation. In fact, many people with clearances have a violation or two. They get warnings etc. It is a serious thing, but not a sudden death.

Posted by: Jack at June 13, 2006 9:22 PM
Comment #157425

Stephen, good call on the “poisoned well” comment. I’ve internalized that feeling about a million times without having a name to hang on it. That describes perfectly a tactic our rightie opponents seem to use very frequently.
Anyway, I want to ask you something: I believe there is something very strange about this Rove thing today, and I’d like your opinion — if you’ve got one, that is.
Take a quick look at this page — it describes how Rove had actually played a far greater role in the outting of Plame, yet hadn’t disclosed a lot until much later in his grand jury appearances. Let’s face it, that Repulsive Worm was forced to go before them FIVE times in all!
But now today, Fitzgerald is refusing to comment on Rove being cleared. Doesn’t that seem really odd to you? Why wouldn’t his spokesman just say, yes, he’s all clear, it all checked out, or whatever?
Smells more than a little fishy to me.
Maybe that link that “OurLadyOfTheTruth” put up earlier actually explains what happened???
Just so you don’t have to go hunting for it, here it is again:
Sealed Vs. Sealed: Did Gonzales Kill Rove Indictment?
Might this be just another miscarriage of justice courtesy of the Neocon fascists who are literally destroying the America we’ve known and loved?

P.S. to you Rightwing Knuckleheads out there — I’m addressing Mr. Stephen Daughtery here, so I won’t be replying to any of your barbs, needles or annoying buzzes in response.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 13, 2006 9:25 PM
Comment #157434


You don’t need to respond. I know liberals enjoy talking to each other since they all are equally taken in by their own rhetoric.

Posted by: Jack at June 13, 2006 9:46 PM
Comment #157435


Listen, when you lead with your chin, expect to get it bruised.

Again, both side of your mouth talk at the same time. Rove is a royal pain in your party’s ass. Your party spent a lot of energy crucifying the guy. It didn’t work. Now he’s gonna roll up the whole party all summer long, and you guys are out of bullets.

He will end up playing your party like a guitar because time and again, on virtually every issue, your party has ended up wrong.

Answer the question that you spent 20 paragraphs above avoiding: which party do you belong to? The anti-war group or the moderate group? while you’re mulling it over, who is gonna lead the party?


Step right up to the plate and take a swing at that answer too. I am curious about both of you.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 13, 2006 9:47 PM
Comment #157450

Jack, buzz buzz.
Stephen answered you before I had the chance. As he spelled out, Rove no longer deserves to hold any security clearances. If Bushco gave a flying sh*t about the law (which we all know they don’t) they’d have revoked his clearance by now.
So, the Traitor in our midst will no doubt keep this unwarranted privilege.

I’m an Anti-Iraq War Democrat. But you already knew that. Who becomes the leaders for those like me?: Anti-Iraq War Democrats, of course.
Take your pick, there are many. A few: Feingold, Murtha, and now, finally, Kerry. Outside of Congress: men with balls like Al Gore and recently, Gen. Wesley Clark have been speaking for smart, fine looking ladies like myself.
I’m no slave to party politics (unlike all you Brave New World Neocon Robots out there), thus, I’m unwilling to give my vote to pandering, spineless, Pro-Iraq War, Dem-appease-o-crats.
Hope that answers your question.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 13, 2006 10:36 PM
Comment #157480

When Scooter said he was told to leak Plame that came from either Bush, Cheney, or Rove.

Don’t you guys want to know? Shouldn’t you be demanding to know? I guess that’s the sound of your fantasy of you having a shred of self-respect being shot to hell.

Posted by: Max at June 14, 2006 12:33 AM
Comment #157481

“men with balls like Al Gore.”

sorry, just thought that was kinda funny.

Posted by: andy at June 14, 2006 12:48 AM
Comment #157513


You are free to you opinion, of course. That’s what makes this country great. Anyone can have an opinion, but the facts of this case are set in stone now. Fitzmas is over and Rove is not indicted.

Remember the Clinton rape allegations with Juanita Brodderick. Nothing legal ever came from that. Do you know why? Because in our society, you need facts to prove a case (unless you are Adrienne and then you only need to know that the accused is Republican—-then you can pronounce guilt). There were no provable facts in that case, ergo no legal proceedings. Is it fair for me to claim that Clinton is a rapist, simply on my opinion? I know that some have done exactly that, and I do not condone their allegations.

The question to you, sir, is this: Do YOU condone it, in the same way you are condoning comments about Rove’s guilt, with no legal rationale behind them?


Were you by any chance a gymnast? If your physical contortions could have come anywhere close to your verbal contortions, you’da been great. I love the logic. Back when Fitzgerald was beginning his investigation, you were frothing about what he would find and how Rove would be indicted and found guilty. Now, when no such thing happened, you simply create your fantasy world rationale and say the investigation didn’t matter anyway.

Sour grapes anyway. I think our dear Adrienne has plenty to spare.

The left is simply working the spin. I’m already on record as saying that certainly there are dirty tricks in politics, and that Rove is not above playing them. Adrienne and Stephen are taking the route that Dems are morally incapable of doing so, adn that only Republicans are slimy enought to do so. Adrienne is going even further than Stephen dares go…which is really a fun thing to watch as Stephen circles warily around a point while Adrienne just shoots from the hip.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 14, 2006 7:39 AM
Comment #157522


You are right. It is really interesting.

I also like all this talk about security clearances from people who clearly do not understand how they are granted or taken away.

I think we can sum up the Dem position on this in the following:

“I don’t like them, so they are guilty of something. If we cannot prove it, it is still true so we should punish them as if we had the evidence.”

And when anyone disagrees, apply emotion and moral indignation.

Posted by: Jack at June 14, 2006 8:12 AM
Comment #157523


Clark isn’t anti-war.He’s not a cut and run guy.He belongs in the pack with Biden and Clinton.

Your cut and run guys are Kerry,Gore,Feingold,Kachinich,.

Question:how does the anti-war left respond if a guy like Biden gets nominated or Clinton?

Do you knowingly support a candidate who has polar opposite views on the most important issue?

Isn’t that a tad hypocriticial? Folloing the though, who is now in lock step agreement, you or I?

I am waiting for your answer.

You too

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 14, 2006 8:16 AM
Comment #157541

I believe I addressed that earlier when I said that my belief in the informality of the forum did not obviate the need to make evidence-based rather than prejudice-based argument.

I am not expecting you to believe that Rove leaked Plame’s identity simply because that’s my opinion. I’m expecting you to believe that on the strength of Matt Cooper’s sworn grand jury testimony, which he revealed to Americans in an issue of Time Magazine.

I’m not expecting you to believe that Rove leaked Classified information on just my word. I’m expecting you to believe that because the special prosecutor on this case has determined in the Libby indictment that her identity was Classified information. I admit that the question of whether she was a covert agent at the time is open, but it stands to reason that even somebody back from the field might need that cover maintained for different reasons.

We can establish, again through Matt Cooper’s testimony, that Rove leaked this classified information to Cooper before it became common knowledge. Through the Libby indictment, and through Cooper’s testimony again, we can establish that Cooper did not hear this from anybody else before

That is the argument I put forward. It may be incomplete, given how much has been kept secret, but it’s not a fallacious argument, nor a close-minded one that ignores the facts present.

This argument, by presenting facts that indicate the truth of Rove’s leak, rebuts the assertion by defenders of Rove that Rove did nothing wrong. We can say very well, given the value of security in this country, in this day and age, that revealing an agent’s identity for purpose so middling as winning a political debate is wrong. It’s immoral to risk our security so one man or one party can have an advantage at the polls, even if legitimate issues are raised by the identity of the agent outed.

I do not condone trying a case in the media on terms of emotional hysteria. I do believe, however, that is is perfectly alright to discuss the facts of a case as known, and to form and opinion and arguments based on such facts. The difference between this and spin, is that spin relies on seductive fallacies of logic, while legitimate positions, even those made in advocacy depend on the facts and on valid arguments. I have tried to do the latter, and would like others to attempt the same.

Rove is a pain in the ass. That said, people can argue what I argue now, that innocence in the eyes of the law is not the same as innocence in the eyes of the evidence. I have presented a cogent argument for why Rove is guilty of something, even if he’s not guilty of an indictable offense.

What party do I belong to? The Democratic party. It is neither anti-war nor pro-war. We don’t need such black and white thinking. We need people who chose their course of action when they have the facts solidly in hand, rather than those who make their decision, then seek out the facts to support their decision.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 14, 2006 9:19 AM
Comment #157549


Thanks for the response. It was very good. I’d hope that you see some of the factual analysis in my comments as well. It can be opined, by virtue of the facts, that Wilson needed to be corrected, since his statements were not accurate. As an aside, Wilson never really said he was sent by Cheney’s office, though he may have hinted that. It was the media that took up that meme and ran with it, thereby distorting the reality of how Wilson was selected.

Since it was made to appear that Cheney indirectly sent Wilson, when he did not, I have no problem with the administration saying that Wilson was not sent by Cheney, but rather at the suggestion of Wilson’s wife. That’s an adequate explanation that certainly throws a damper on Wilson’s statements and credibility. (Even though Wilson never specifically stated that Cheney sent him, he never corrected the media when they ran with that falsehood.)

You have presented a rational thought process of why you think Rove is guilty of something, even if not criminal. But folks on your side take that and run with it, to the point of wanting to take away security clearances etc.

Our society isn’t perfect. But I’ll tell ya what—if someone were to suggest that I were a rapist, and they showed that I travel, am alone for periods of time, that I’ve been in cities where rapes have occurred, that I’m involved with youth and women etc, I’d expect to be investigated. But when that investigation showed no evidence that could result in charges, then I’d expect to be cleared, as opposed to people saying that I may not be guilty by law, but I’m guilty anyway.


That position isn’t all Dems. But it sure fits some of the posters in here. They can’t even see it, because their eyes are screwed tightly shut while they pound their keyboards in tiny-fisted fits of emotional angst. Facts are of no consequence, only their certainty that their great intelligence and wisdom makes them undeniably correct.

Posted by: joebagdonuts at June 14, 2006 9:44 AM
Comment #157550

SE, Just to add a dose of reality here, I never made one single comment about Haliburton. Thanks for your rabid response to my non existant comment. I have no idea who you are talking to or what you are commenting on, but that pretty much seems to be par for the course in this la-la land.

Posted by: gergle at June 14, 2006 9:51 AM
Comment #157562

The only difference between these Liberal vigilantes and the KKK they so love to throw at conservatives is the color of their robes.

Posted by: pige at June 14, 2006 10:31 AM
Comment #157570

SE, Joe, Jack,
So, would you send your kids to play unsupervised at Neverland Ranch? Michael Jackson was not convicted, so obviously nothing wrong ever happened there, right?


Since it was made to appear that Cheney indirectly sent Wilson, when he did not, I have no problem with the administration saying that Wilson was not sent by Cheney, but rather at the suggestion of Wilson’s wife….
(Even though Wilson never specifically stated that Cheney sent him, he never corrected the media when they ran with that falsehood.)

This is a pretty lame excuse. First, Wilson told the truth about that, and the only ones who made it into a big deal were right-wing types who were trying to show what a liar he was. How easy do you think it is to make the press admit a mistake or a lie, and why is that his job? He told the truth!

Second, do you think that clarifying a matter of whose office sent him on the trip was worth blowing the cover off of a CIA front company and compromizing their work, and everyone they’ve dealt with?

Third, even if it was worth it for some reason that I can’t understand, why couldn’t they just say, “no, the CIA sent him.” In fact, that is what Cheney said, without needing to covertly leak his wife’s status to the media.

The brief Fitzgerald wrote in response to Libby’s attempts to obtain more documents indicated that there was in fact an effort by the White house, including Cheney, to discredit Wilson by characterizing his trip as a junket arranged by his wife—in other words, attacking him, not his results. (It seems that we have higher standards than the White house. Interesting.)

So, was outing Plame a crime? I don’t know. I hear the statute is very hard to convict on, especially with the President’s ability to declassify things at will. Did Rove do it? He at least leaked the information to reporters. Remeber, he didn’t deny this, he even went back to court to change his testimony to agree with what the reporter had noted. Was blowing her cover and that of the company she worked for a bad thing that harmed our national security, even if not technically illegal? Yes.

Posted by: Brian Poole at June 14, 2006 10:47 AM
Comment #157572

JBOD, you’d really expect to be cleared? Who does that happen to in this world?

If I were investigated based on your given criteria, the only way I’d expect to be cleared, is to make a media fuss and embarass the investigators for their bizarre suspect selection techniques.

Posted by: gergle at June 14, 2006 10:54 AM
Comment #157575


Yeah, I’d expect to be cleared. Evidence is evidence. Of course, I would also know that there would be nitwits out there who wouldn’t believe the facts. I’d fully expect that.

I’d also expect that people would and should be more careful around me, just as a result of the suspicions.

To Brian’s point of allowing kids to Neverland. I’d never have done so in the first place. But certainly I’d investigate more thoroughly after the suspicions before sending a kid in there. Based simply on Jackson’s comments that he sees nothing wrong with sharing a bed with a child, I’d say no way. That relates to Rove or Cheney: Would I share a secret with them that I needed to keep secret no matter what? No way. Does that make them guilty. Again, no way.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 14, 2006 11:05 AM
Comment #157582

The Libby trial should be interesting, no? Everyone surely eagerly awaits the moment when superhero Joe Wilson takes the stand. That should be a doozy. I suspect Libby’s attorneys will rip him to shreds.

Posted by: nikkolai at June 14, 2006 11:20 AM
Comment #157583

“The Democratic party. It is neither anti-war nor pro-war.”

This is the problem with the Democrats and why the party keeps losing elections. Neither-Nor. Wishy-washy. Flip-flop. If Democrats can’t stand up against this pre-emptive, illegal war that the Neocons lied us into, and fully support a plan to get us out of there, they’re going to lose again — and they will deserve to lose.

“We don’t need such black and white thinking.”

Yes, the GOP has that one covered. While for the past several elections the Democrats have been trying for some non-descript shade of grey, atop a fence which has never supported too many.

“We need people who chose their course of action when they have the facts solidly in hand, rather than those who make their decision, then seek out the facts to support their decision.”

I have said the exact same things that you have in this thread, I just haven’t been so wordy — nor so careful about being extra polite and friendly with all of these lockstep Neocons who make it a point of honor to insult liberals daily.
I asked you for your opinion on something that seemed strange. It is strange, even if you choose not to address it.
While I make no decisions or draw conclusions here, I still want to look at the facts. When one considers that Rove produced other evidence late in his grand jury appearances, and has been using the “I forgot” excuse while all those e-mails which magically came to light clearly imply he’s been lying from the beginning, it seems pretty unbelieveable that he’s gotten completely off the hook. It’s also strange that Rove’s lawyer has come out claiming that he’s been cleared, while Fitzgerald and his spokespeople have been refusing to comment. And when someone like George Washington University Law professor Johnathan Turley says: “I’ve never seen, frankly, someone involved in an investigation of this kind given so many chances to continually correct and amend prior testimony. There are many prosecutors who would have indicted Rove on his first statement. He was given a great deal of deference and quite frankly, assistance, by the prosecutor”, I personally have to say that I agree.
This time, I’ll ask for no reply — I’ll just let you get back to metaphorically bowing and scraping along the edges of this poisioned well full of arrogance and disrespect.

jbod, thanks for all the insults. Great job at critiqing the messenger, rather than the message.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 14, 2006 11:21 AM
Comment #157586


To Brian’s point of allowing kids to Neverland. I’d never have done so in the first place…. That relates to Rove or Cheney: Would I share a secret with them that I needed to keep secret no matter what? No way. Does that make them guilty. Again, no way.

Well, I didn’t vote for them in the first place, and I agree with you that they are untrustworthy, even if not jail bound, so I guess we’re mostly on the same page. As to whether they are guilty or not, Guilty in the very strict, constrained eyes of the law, probably not. Guilty of making a huge national security blunder, yes.

Posted by: Brian Poole at June 14, 2006 11:28 AM
Comment #157609

I’m saying we shouldn’t compromise policy in the name of satisfying politics. We should go to war when it’s appropriate, and abstain from it when the evidence tells us there’s not a need.

Which is more important: Correcting Wilson, or maintaining National Security? Responding to a political critic, or revealing information to our enemies? At least the people arguing about the NSA program have constitutional issues to fight for in the balance. This is nothing more than media spin.

As for taking away Rove’s security clearance, I don’t see why not. If you wouldn’t share your personal secrets with him, why should we share the nation’s secrets with him? As for your final example, I’d say that the difference here is that the hypothetical you wasn’t caught by the police stalking a woman. We now know where Rove’s priorities are concerning national security: whatever it takes to win elections.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 14, 2006 12:26 PM
Comment #157621


I most undoubtedly did critique the messages. I think if you read back, you’ll see that your hurt feelings are only a function of a misunderstanding of my intent.


There is much disagreement over whether Plame was NOC, undercover, covert etc. By many definitions, she was not, but I’ll leave it that its open to question.

If so, then Rove disclosing that she was involved in sending her husband to Niger is a big nothing.

As far as not sharing secrets with Rove, I’d also not share them with Hillary, John Kerry, Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Tom DeLay etc. My meaning, of course, was that I don’t trust politicians. They ALL use information as a weapon. Should we remove all their security clearances based on the fact that I wouldn’t trust any of them with my information? It ain’t just Rove—its the whole bipartisan lot of em.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 14, 2006 12:53 PM
Comment #157632

“I most undoubtedly did critique the messages. I think if you read back, you’ll see that your hurt feelings are only a function of a misunderstanding of my intent.”

Believe me Joe, I understood your intent perfectly. And you have puffed yourself up like a proverbial doughnut if you actually believe that a lockstep Neocon who must ignore facts and never question anything in order to keep to the official Talking Points could ever wound my feelings.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 14, 2006 1:21 PM
Comment #157638


Wow, those insults hurt. And you directed them right at me. You did just what you criticized me (albeit incorrectly, in my opinion)for doing. That seems hypocritical, but I’m sure there’s a solid logical reasoning that you can provide.

I should not have used the term “hurt feelings”. You said you felt insulted (“jbod, thanks for all the insults”), which I took to mean that your feelings were hurt or wounded. I should have known that your feelings would be stronger than that.

My apologies for giving the impression that I was insulting you personally. I truly was saying that your statements are ones I disagree with utterly and entirely. But that shouldn’t mean that you are the sum of your statements. I’ll do a better job so we can avoid such misunderstandings in the future.

By the way, if I’m a donut, I’d like to be a KrispyKreme rather than a Dunkin. They are much sweeter, better looking and tastier.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 14, 2006 1:38 PM
Comment #157675

Does anyone truly believe that Karl Rove is innocent? There are no innocents! Does one truly believe that Rove, Bush, Cheney and Libby had no idea what the other was doing? Learn your history, Rove and Dubya were both schooled by Lee Atwater. So if you knew Lee Atwater, then you know Rove covered his tracks and had a patsy in place. The fix was in…Say it ain’t so Joe! Think about your elation, an intelligence officer’s identity was unveiled for all the world to see…For the entirety of her life. Something to be truly elated about?

Posted by: Eisai at June 14, 2006 2:58 PM
Comment #157676

Almost missed this:
“Clark isn’t anti-war.He’s not a cut and run guy.”

Clark to O’Reilly on Fox, June 2nd:

O’REILLY: I’m going to give you the last word, general, but this is about Murtha saying I told you so, it’s a bad war. That’s what it’s about. It’s about him. Go ahead. I’ll give you the last word.

CLARK: Bill, I think - here’s my last word. I’m glad you’ve come around. Iraq was an unnecessary war.

Here’s the other point. It’s a failure by the way the president defined the mission. The problem is how do we move gracefully from this position?

What we’ve said is we need to turn this over to the Iraqi government…

O’REILLY: All right.

CLARK: …and begin responsible redeployment. But we’ve got to protect the men and women in uniform and the integrity of our institutions.


CLARK: John Murtha is worried about that and so am I.

O’REILLY: And I don’t…

CLARK: And you should be, too.

O’REILLY: You’re bending over backwards to give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe I’m wrong.

CLARK: I’m just telling you the way I see it.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 14, 2006 2:59 PM
Comment #157681

Whatever Valerie Wilson’s status, The Libby indictment, as given out by Patrick Fitzgerald clearly states her status as an agent of the CIA was classified information. Whether she was covert is a seperate question under the law, I believe.

Another thing to keep in mind was that her presence in the mission was itself a classified secret, and marked as so in State Department documents

As for denying clearances, that’s an interesting point, since the Bush adminstration denied Clearances for most Senators and Representatives, leaving only eight to be informed about top secret matters. The disturbing part of this is that of those eight only two people out of each intelligence committee are included. Even the intelligence committees aren’t being given full information.

Whether people use the information at hand as a weapon is irrelevant up until that point that the ammunition they’re packing is classified information. The Bush administration priorities on secrets seem to be screwed up. The nation gets told what it shouldn’t know, and the Legislature isn’t told what it should know.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 14, 2006 3:15 PM
Comment #157683

I really cannot believe how forcefully and passionately we fight for these “beliefs” (opinions) that really have no consequence. It reminds me of “My dad can beat up your dad” from grade school. Who cares if more republicans are suspected of corruption this particular year. Take a close look at how one gets a party nomination to run for office in the first place. This is when the issue becomes very stark, and very non-partisan.

It REQUIRES a certain level of corruption (or ass kissing of corrupt people) just to get elected. The scary part is that everyone is so busy paying attention to what party they are affiliated with at the time of the alleged corruption, there is not a resounding demand for fundemental change. Seeing as how we’re advertising our brand of democracy all over the world (forcefully in most cases), I think we should focus on getting our own house in order first (ie. embarrasing voter turnout showing just how out of touch both parties have become, blatent gerrymandering attempts by both parties, targetted smear campaigns in local elections, etc.

But people simply take the easy way out and throw snowballs at whoever happens to be on stage the time. But my favorite is those people who then get personally offended when someone critisizes a member of their party. Critisizing Bush does not make a person an effectual Anti-Bush, or a liberal democrat, or anything else.

The issue at hand here is whether someone in the Bush administration did something wrong for political purposes. DUH!!! Of course they did, if not in this case, then in another. This administration as well as every other one. It’s called politics and until people demand something better than Red v. Blue to represent a million different issues, we are going to continue to see this type of back-and-forth nonsense.

But I guess it does get the blood boiling for those die-hard, straight-party-line voters to hear that someone from the other side has accused someone from their side of something. Heaven forbid!

So from a third party perspective I must say that this SicilainEagle guy appears foolish enough to charge a machine gun holding only a pitchfork - noble, yet pointless. Why are you not in Iraq? Seems the perfect place for your baseless yet spirited attacks. Come to think of it, maybe a preemptive suicide bomb attack on Iraq’s stockpile of WMD’s?

Posted by: Kevin at June 14, 2006 3:18 PM
Comment #157695


I didn’t write those things you quote, but I would have so I will answer.

There appears to be no underlying crime at all or particular damage done to U.S interests. The worst you could say is that they showed bad judgment in defending against Wilson’s political attack. I do not think they should have used the information in this way. I would not have done it and it may be unethical. But that is a value judgment not a criminal one. And it was not such a big thing as you have made it out to be.


I don’t know which is more important. Joe Wilson’s baseless accusations were damaging to the U.S. It was important to counter them. Plame may or may not have been undercover. Evidently according to the statute she was not. I have never seen serious analysis that said revealing her identity caused any particular harm, except theoretically. Her well-known status as the wife of a U.S. Ambassador would tend to make it more difficult for her to keep a low profile anyway. When Wilson made a major public statement, he would have ruined her ability to act covertly anyway.

Posted by: Jack at June 14, 2006 3:58 PM
Comment #157721

While I do believe that Rove is innocent I would warn against bragging about this victory. This has been a poor year for Republican ethics (Duke Cunningham)and I for one am not proud of this fact. My hope is that Republicans will use this past year as a signal to make sure our ethical standards are what they should be (significantly higher than those of Democrats).

Posted by: Carnak at June 14, 2006 4:48 PM
Comment #157732

I thought you guys might like to know you will reap a bit of what you sow:

“In an interview yesterday, Wilson said that once the criminal questions are settled, he and his wife may file a civil lawsuit against Bush, Cheney and others seeking damages for the alleged harm done to Plame’s career.

If they do so, the current state of the law makes it likely that the suit will be allowed to proceed — and Bush and Cheney will face questioning under oath — while they are in office. The reason for that is a unanimous 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling that Paula Jones’ sexual harassment suit against then-President Bill Clinton could go forward immediately, a decision that was hailed by conservatives at the time.”


Posted by: Max at June 14, 2006 5:01 PM
Comment #157740

Great non-point Carnak! First of all you admit work must be done to improve the lack ethics in the republican party. Then you set a benchmark for them: to be better than the Democrats. Way to aim high. Reminds me of our education system and our fiscal management policy under Bush: Achieve success by re-defining success.

And just so you know, being significantly better than crap is nothing to be proud of. It just means you are no longer crap.

Posted by: Kevin at June 14, 2006 5:15 PM
Comment #157748

May I be the first to buck convention and say I don’t like Krispy Kreme? I think their donuts are over priced, iced and even somewhat stale. I prefer a fresh uniced cake donut myself.

Posted by: gergle at June 14, 2006 5:22 PM
Comment #157752


Finally a point of agreement…I don’t like Krispy Creme either…..

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 14, 2006 5:25 PM
Comment #157755


I think the Democrats have gotten their mileage out of this. It’d be great to see Cheney and Bush have to testify though. I’d laugh for a week. We already know that Bush is a proven liar, and Dick is his low life political operative submarining all enemies domestic and domestic. He had to fire Scooter to save Dick’s ass. Even my Texas Republican friends see Bush as a liar now. I hope the Dems play back the “I’ll fire the leaker” tapes pointing at Cheney and Rove these next elections along with the “were turning the corner” in Iraq tapes.

Posted by: gergle at June 14, 2006 5:32 PM
Comment #157782

SE, oh you are there. So what was the screed about Haliburton about? Acid flashback?

Posted by: gergle at June 14, 2006 5:58 PM
Comment #157795


Wilson won’t go through with it. He would fear discovery and being himself under oath.


Crispy Creme are too sweet. Would not eat them if they were free.

Re publishing secrets

Posted by: Jack at June 14, 2006 6:29 PM
Comment #157805


“It REQUIRES a certain level of corruption (or ass kissing of corrupt people) just to get elected.”

“This is simply Not True.”

Perhaps not, but I know one thing that is a prerequisite to getting elected—money, and lot’s of it.

“We’re going to bring Dignity and Honesty back to the White House.”

Frankly, I don’t give a rat’s ass about dignity and honesty—I want some plain, old-fashioned competence and good ‘ol American know-how. This Keystone Kops version of governance, the robbing the poor to reward the ultra-rich, is really starting to tell on the nation.

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 14, 2006 7:03 PM
Comment #157816

I’m sorry OurLadyOfTruth, but as much as I think you are doing a good job of keeping your eyes on the ball here (another baseball analogy I couldn’t resist), anyone who truthfully believes there are candidates running for high offices in the federal gov’t who never accept gifts and kickbacks from lobbyists, promise gov’t contracts for friend and family owned businesses, or do anything else of the sort is just living on Fantasy Island.

Just go to Washington DC and look around. You’ll see a very neatly divided pyramid of political standing. The lobbyists are right on top with their Italian suits and rolex watches. They all walk around like gangsters! It is very hard not to be cynical. It is not like normal people have access to their representatives.

Lets be real, running for, but especially winning office is about being chosen by your party. They either choose you based on your chances of winning and throw money into your campaign, or they “make” you by throwing money into your campaign. The sad thing is that most elections are won or lost before the candidates are even set.

So I’m asking you: do you really feel that after spending the last few years creating a tactical gameplan (including re-drawing districts, etc.), that they are going to let some regular Joe have the party nomination straight out and hope for the best? Call it cynicism, but I’m a realist. These candidates know where their bread is buttered on an everyday basis.

Any amount of impropriety can easily be remedied with a good soundbite or headline…money can buy both of those things.

Talk about your elephant in the room. Everyone knows of the problem. Nobody will take any action to stop it (at least not in black and white - only in a soundbite) because they all benefit. And then the issue is swept under the rug for more pressing concerns like who is marrying who and what does that mean for society.

I’m just wondering, where have all the true conservatives gone? The ones who believed government intervention on any issue was a last resort. We wouldn’t have so many scandels involving lobbyists if the feds would stop sticking their nose into every issue and giving incentive for lobbyists to buy their votes.

Posted by: Kevin at June 14, 2006 7:21 PM
Comment #157820

Kevin, let me see if I have your position figured out. If I am a Republican I’m a bad guy because I probably just support my party on everything. If I’m a Democrat I’m a bad guy because I just probably just support my party on everything. If I belong to a 3rd party like Kevin I’m a good guy because 3rd party people are not Republicans or Democrats. Keep up your solid thinking there and keep voting Green or Communist or whatever party it is you favor.

Posted by: Carnak at June 14, 2006 7:27 PM
Comment #157822


Way to find something that wasn’t written anywhere! I gotta give you credit, you’ve made another great non-point.

I am a conservative libertarian if you must have a label. But I se that you have just made my point for me by frantically searching for a group to put me in in order to insult me. Try arguing on merit, it requires a whole lot more thought, but much more rewarding for the group.

Posted by: Kevin at June 14, 2006 7:33 PM
Comment #157825


Been a busy day, sorry. About Halliburton, I thought it was you that has been trashing them Sorry if it wasn’t. They are a good company doing a tough job right now with a storied history.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 14, 2006 7:38 PM
Comment #157833

Sorry, it was Joe who wrote what I quoted. The harm that was done to America is probably not possible to measure, because we can’t know what would have happened had the leak not been made. The fundamental weapon in the war on terror is intelligence. Demonstrating that the American government is willing to betray entire front organizations and all of the agents who are associated with them on a political vendetta will hurt our human intelligence recruiting ability. The agents that were exposed were working on obtaining information about weapons of mass destruction. Now they are no longer covert. I don’t know what they could have found had they remained covert, and now we won’t ever find out.

You continue to insist that she may or may not have been covert, without ever responding to the evidence that is brought up over and over again that she was. You say it would have been hard to be covert as the wife of an ambassador, but apparently she did a good job, since she hadn’t been revealed as an agent until this administration told everyone. You said that she couldn’t remain covert after Wilson made his big announcement, but he didn’t talk at all about her until after her cover had been blown. You’re really reaching.

The point is, the “war president” who made his political fortunes in promising to protect America from the big bad terrorists, casually destroyed an intelligence organization dedicated to doing that, and harmed our intelligence recruiting abilities, to make a meaningless point (who cares who sent him, anyway?) as part of a political vendetta.

Posted by: Brian Poole at June 14, 2006 7:56 PM
Comment #157855


From press reports (and I have heard nothing different) her job here was a researcher. She was mostly working open sources. I do not think it was a good thing to reveal her, but she acted foolishly when she recommended her husband and he acted irresponsibly when he published an article in the NYT. If you are really trying to keep a secret, you … well don’t push so far into the public.

We care about who sent him for two reasons (1) Why send HIM when there were plenty of people on the ground. Answer his wife (nepotism) (2) Wilson implied that Cheney had sent him. He was not being accurate.

In any case, the proper (and very LONG) investigation has uncovered no underlying crime and evidently no damage to national security (which would have made it a crime). Fitzgerald concluded that the charge that Karl Rove criminally blew Plame’s CIA cover is false.
That is our bottom line. Everything else is speculation not supported by the evidence.

Posted by: Jack at June 14, 2006 9:06 PM
Comment #157906

Do you mean the list of biggest donors and who they give to?

It seems that the big guys give to both parties, but the biggest ones give more to Dems.

Of course what has this to do with fact that all that sound and fury about Rove was just sound and fury?

Posted by: Jack at June 14, 2006 11:00 PM
Comment #157920

So many words on Plame-Wilson and her exposure. Her hubby, Joe Baby, is the one who spilled the beans. If he didn’t go to Niger, there would have been no story even though Joe had already confirmed that his wife worked at Langley. Maybe Fitz’s investigation will drop a bomb and serve up an indictment on JW. Wow, wouldn’t that blow a lot of liberals, leftists, democrats, and Bush haters minds.

Posted by: tomh at June 14, 2006 11:42 PM
Comment #157927

Why did she act foolishly by recommending her husband? He was qualified to do the job, and she had no reason to believe that anyone would tell the world that it was her idea. In fact, being covert, she had a pretty good reason to think they wouldn’t. Why was it foolish for Wilson to publish the article? His trip wasn’t a secret. He’s an ambassador. He didn’t mention his wife. Where’s the foolishness? I guess it’s foolish to get on the bad side of the administration, since they will sink to any level, including exposing our own undercover CIA officers to get you back, but how would he have known that then?

We care about who sent him for two reasons (1) Why send HIM when there were plenty of people on the ground. Answer his wife (nepotism) (2) Wilson implied that Cheney had sent him. He was not being accurate.

(1)Is there a big contention that someone else should have been sent? Who? Why are they better? Would someone else have found different facts? No. It’s just an attack on him to try to make him look bad, without refuting his conclusions. Is understanding why he in particular was sent worth outing his wife? If so, why?

(2)He never implied that Cheney sent him. Your and Cheney’s favorite source, discredited that lie completely. He said that the CIA sent him because of a conversation that they had with Cheney, which is exactly what happened. Anyway, I answered this one already. Why out Plame because of this? Cheney could have just said “I didn’t send him”, which is what happened anyway.

in any case, the proper (and very LONG) investigation has uncovered no underlying crime and evidently no damage to national security (which would have made it a crime). Fitzgerald concluded that the charge that Karl Rove criminally blew Plame’s CIA cover is false. That is our bottom line. Everything else is speculation not supported by the evidence.
First, the standard for it being a crime is not whether or not it damaged our national security. It may come down to whether Rove actually used her name, or whether the president had declassified the information, or something like that. That’s a bogus argument.

Second, the only one demanding to know that “Karl rove CRIMINALLY blew Plame’s cover” is the president. He moved the goalposts. First it was that anyone who was involve with the leak would be dealt with, then, later, he changed it to anyone who was involved in a crime would be fired. I’m still sticking to the first standard.

Posted by: Brian Poole at June 14, 2006 11:59 PM
Comment #157947

The documents he said were fake WERE fake. The source of the original request WAS Cheney’s office. There’s some confusion as to who knew what then, but by the time the president’s speech rolled around, he trotted out, to gain political backing for the war, the alarming piece of information that Iraq was seeking Yellowcake for Nuclear weapons. This information, based on both the documents, and on a document based on the original, was false. The documents themselves were revealed as forgeries almost immediately after receipt by the IAEA.

What precisely was baseless? The presidents staff actually replaced this information in the speech after the CIA had warned them of its falsity. They wanted this there. They wanted an Iraq out of control, seeking nukes.

I don’t know why defenders of this president keep on taking this tack of blaming whistleblowers for the harm of the policies and incidents they reveal, when it is indeed those things, and the people who set them in motion which have done the damage. When are the Bush supporters going to learn that it is actions and not images by themselves that create problems for folk’s reputations?

Wilson was careful to limit what he said to things that were public knowledge, or which could be found out without the need for clearance. His trip to Niger, while not meant to draw attention to itself, was by no means secret, nor could it be. He never mentioned his wife’s involvement. The documents he spoke of had already been debunked in other unclassified reports.

Valerie Wilson’s identity was classified, and the CIA took steps to keep it that way. This should be the touchstone of the right and wrong of what was done. In terms of damage, I’m not sure the CIA would publicize it’s losses, especially if some of them were NOC. Those would be disavowed if they were killed or caught.

Nothing about Wilson’s statement exposed her. That took the efforts of Rove and company. Otherwise, nobody would have known.

As for being in the public eye, that’s no problem, as long as nobody tells folks you’re CIA. The secret is not that you exist, but rather that a relationship exists between you and the CIA.

Now, tell me something: What do all these excuses amount to? A license to expose secrets when people aren’t being nice, are making inconvenient arguments, are exposing the falseness of your claims with information they’re cleared for- see, you just get wrapped up in this world of moral relativism.

The bottom line is, Rove, his colleagues, and his boss revealed classified information to win a political fight.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 15, 2006 12:48 AM
Comment #157951


“The bottom line is, Rove, his colleagues, and his boss revealed classified information to win a political fight.”

And, by golly, it looks like they’re still winning! Truth, justice and the American Way.

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 15, 2006 1:03 AM
Comment #157989


You should never recommend your spouse for a contract in the government. It always looks bad (and usually is). Beyond that, if you are trying NOT to call attention to yourself, you certainly keep a lower profile. This is very much like what people accuse Rove of doing in that it is not illegal, but it shows poor judgment.

Now think about Wilson and his article. Assume he wants to keep his wife’s work secret. He knows he got the job through her. Don’t you think he might consider that will come up? It is a relevant fact. Wilson was not an obvious choice for the job. There are many people on the ground who could do as good or better job than someone who left years ago. In fact, why send a contractor to do a job that the local station should do?

Re different fact, they would have found exactly the fact that Wilson did. They would have found an ambiguous situation. Wilson’s contention that he knew about the falsehood of the allegation is based on facts he did not have at the time. And the British BTW still stand by their intelligence.

Re the crime and the law, those who investigate those things say Rove committed no crime. This is THE truth, not A truth. After many months and millions of dollars these lawyers couldn’t find enough even to charge Rove. You can have your doubts, but this is (sorry) a slam dunk.


See above

Re technical classification, I think you guys should be careful. I respect classification, but I know that it often is used for technical, bureaucratic or even invalid reasons. The media depends on leaks to inform the American people. They happen every day. If you get very technical on them, lots of people are going to be in trouble lots of the time.

The NYT recently broke the law revealing the telephone records and the Washington Post did it with the renditions. In both these cases, it was a much more serious breach. Do you really want a special prosecutor on each of these (and all the others?)

And BTW whoever leaked this used classified information to win a political fight.

You are a reasonable guy, but sometimes I think you have too much confidence in the efficacy of procedures. They cannot be turned on and off and if you let the big dog in, he bites lots of people you didn’t expect.

The whole Rove investigation is a tempest in a teapot. It really was not a big deal, as the investigation has shown.

Posted by: Jack at June 15, 2006 7:39 AM
Comment #158014

You just repeated yourself, without answering any of the questions or points I raised.

Comparing Plame’s recommendation of her husband, who had the status and the contacts to talk to the appropriate people in the region and actually find things out to her boss, to Rove’s deliberate leaking to try to make a political point is ridiculous.

Maybe if you keep repeating that it was vitally important to know exactly why he was sent and which office sent him (you still haven’t answered why that might matter even a little bit), and that leaking the name of a covert agent was the only way to accomplish that, you can convince yourself. I kind of doubt it, though.

Posted by: Brian Poole at June 15, 2006 9:45 AM
Comment #158172


He (Wilson) never implied that Cheney sent him.

Not quite accurate, Brian. Wilson did imply it, but it was really the media that made the connection. They ran with the idea that Cheney had sent Wilson, whether directly or indirectly. Wilson did absolutely nothing to change the media’s opinion, perhaps because he saw the political advantage in how the media positioned it. But…if he was such a steadfast seeker of the truth, he should have clarified the misperception quickly and definitively, instead of allowing it to fester.


It has been shown by the Senate report that Wilson could not have known at the time of his trip to Niger that the documents were fake. This was only found out later. His article was written to make it seem that this knowledge was included in his original reporting.

Secondly, the Senate report clearly stated that Wilson’s information was murky at best, and actually might have bolstered the thought that Iraq was trying to get yellowcake from Niger. It most certainly was not conclusive that Iraq was not trying, as Wilson tried to claim.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 15, 2006 5:44 PM
Comment #158246

The first account, published in the NY times, said “I’m told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president’s office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger.” True.

The second account (In the New Republic) says “Cheney had given the information to the CIA, which in turn asked a prominent diplomat, who had served as ambassador to three African countries, to investigate.” Still true, still not saying Cheney sent him.

The third account of the trip, written by Wilson himself, says “In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney’s office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990’s. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president’s office.”
Again, he was asked by the CIA to go in response to a question by Cheney’s office. Absolutely true.

In fact, Joe, the people who started the lie that he said that Cheney himself sent him WAS THE WHITE HOUSE! “Contrary to later statements by White House officials, Wilson does not claim that Cheney sent him on the Niger trip, only that he was sent to answer questions from Cheney’s “office.””

All quotes and references are from href=””>factcheck
(I don’t know why the link doesn’t work, but copy and paste will get you there)

Your claim that he didn’t try to get the truth out there is pretty sad. Three independent sources report what he said about who sent him, and all were accurate. The White House distorts what he said in an attempt to smear him as a liar, and you blame him for not refuting the rumor better. That is quite possibly the biggest reach I’ve ever seen.

Even if he had led people to believe that he was sent by Cheney, what possible political gain could he have achieved? Is refuting this (self-inflicted by the white house)small, semantic, completely inconsequential point really worth blowing the cover off of not only an agent, but a CIA front company? If so, why?

About the evidence, I suggest you read the article he wrote about what he found. His conclusion was that there was too much oversight over a very small industry for any such transaction to have happened. One additional quote that I thought was interesting was:

For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger’s uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq — and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington.

This answers Jack’s question about why they didn’t use someone who was already there. They did, the ambassador just didn’t give them the answer they wanted.

Really, read the factcheck article. It gives an excellent timeline and answers most of the talking points that you guys keep repeating.

Posted by: Brian Poole at June 15, 2006 10:23 PM
Post a comment