Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Circling Back To Ari Fleischer | Main | Discrepancies, Real And Imagined »

July 25, 2005

Comments

kim

Another desperate attempt to drag a smoked herring across the trail. This is more a media battle than a criminal investigation. The politics involved is more important than the law. MSM has gone mad with desire to nail Rove. They are no longer interested in the truth, rather in pushing their vision of this matter, which is fading.
==============================================

SaveFarris

C'Mon TM, we're all waiting for your takedown of Russert's attempt yesterday to ask his panel group to comment on stories about Russert's own testimony.

A sadder MSM state, I have not seen.

kim

Sorry, Juke, it is fading. What's been demonstrated so far is that suddenly 2 years ago lots of people started talking about Val Plame. Why was that?

Period.
==============================================

Dwilkers

It just isn't credible that anyone is going to be prosecuted based on what we know now.

Miller is the key. She knows something we haven't heard yet. What that might be I could only guess. In a way I feel sorry for her. She's sitting in jail 'protecting' someone or something. On the other hand, its her choice. I wonder how long she's going to be willing to rot in jail eating baloney sandwiches.

kim

My idea is that Fitz is trying to establish Rove's innocence by developing a picture of everyone talking about Plame to everyone else. Cooper and Miller may have been two recalcitrant witnesses on the way to showing that. Cooper's testimony shows that he initiated the call to Rove. Miller, in the middle of it all, may well have evidence that Wilson functionally outed Plame.
Deliberate? Well, two earlier pieces with him as source failed to uncover his wife, so he got bolder, and stepped in it. The lies got wilder and the need to discover the source of all his disinformation became more urgent.
Hence, Plamegate.

But I still wish he would get to the bottomm of the Yellow Cake Mix.
==================================================

kim

Fitz, please get to the bottom of the Yellow Cake Mixing Bowl. You could get in a few good licks, there.
===================================================

Appalled Moderate

I think this one is "We don't have a big story today children, but we have a Plame space on our front page to fill." Zzzz.

I'd like to see if any other media confirms the Bloomberg stories commented on below.

kim

Hey, MSM, how 'bout a little fly on the wall stuff. Just what do V and J discuss with each other these days? Much more important information than the pastelity of little girl's clothes.
============================================

kim

You may sleep, AP, but it is another opportunity to gossip about the words and actions of peripheral characters.

How about a loud public interview with V or J, or jointly. Maybe a debate between them?
===============================================

Truzenzuzex

I saw the subject column and still can't figure out why it was written. Maybe it is designed to help people presuppose a conspiracy by some or all of the administration to cover up the whole affair by giving the nefarious Rove (and possibly others) time to destroy evidence or otherwise obstruct justice.

The fact that this kind of scandalmongering doesn't bear close scrutiny won't matter to those who have already decided Rove is a scofflaw and aught to be jailed.

Joe Biden's comment on this "revelation" is particularly telling:

"Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), appearing on the same program, questioned why Gonzales would not have notified the staff immediately by e-mail and suggested that Fitzgerald pursue whether Card may have given anyone in the White House advance notice of the criminal investigation."

Huh? How could it be "advance notice" when Gonzales was authorized to inform people anytime from the moment it was revealed to him until the next morning? What if Rove knew before Libby or Ari? Why the hell would that be important to anybody? I suppose Biden is advancing the theory that if they all weren't informed exactly at the same time, there must be some nefarious plot. How that might work is clear only to Biden (and perhaps the WaPo).

kim

Oh, and some of didn't have parents who condescended to us in the manner of MSM to its audience.
==============================================

Jim E.

The 12-hour gap would give Rove and others a chance to review the documents and get their stories straight.

For very busy people who are working so hard to keep our country safe, they might not have had time to focus on this task. Just speculating.

kim

Yeah, T, this is a play out of the Watergate playbook; create the appearance of a conspiracy.

Boo. Hissss! The plot is thin and old. The actors are wooden. The invisible presence on the stage is Saddam who renders the whole exercise into the theatre of the absurd.
==============================================

Davis

Those of you who criticize every member of the Administration should acknowledge that Alberto Gonzales has freely admitted that he testified before the Grand Jury. Gonzales has been a pinata lately - citicized from the religious right when he was considered a candidate for the Supreme Court, and criticized from the left about the Wilson/Plame matter. He is a good man, and we should be proud that he is our top official in the justice system.

Geek, Esq.

Yeah, not much to see here. If they shredded documents in that 12-hour gap because they heard about the criminal probe, it would be obstruction of justice anyways.

Filler material for people to kick around until the next truly relevant reports emerge.

Jim E.

"Those of you who criticize every member of the Administration should acknowledge that Alberto Gonzales has freely admitted that he testified before the Grand Jury."

Wow. Are we supposed to give him a cookie?

kim

AM and Geek want people to think there is nothing there? Facetiousness must be the word of the day.

Or they suspect there is nothing there. Like the rest of this mess, except for a sippin' fool at the center of it, high on theophylline, sugar, and self.
=================================================

Jim E.

Is kim mentally ill? Or am I the only one who can only comprehend half of what she writes?

DW West

We can all speculate endlessly about what happened from dusk to dawn. This is old news. The Special Prosecutor already knows who was still in the White House at that time, who returned later that evening, and who came in earlier than usual the next morning. But that knowledge won't prove anything. It is also technically possible (but perhaps not allowed for security reasons) that White House staffers could access and delete emails from home; this would show up on logs.

Since none of this information is public, all we can do is choose our favorite evil White House staffer and hypothesize.

It would be more interesting to follow that story about the forged yellowcake memorandum.

kim

Wilson's lie was a deliberate and treacherous lie at a critical moment in the War in Iraq. I will make the argument that had he not helped birth the monster called 'Bush lied, people died' that Sunni leaders would have joined the government sooner and squelched the terror in their midst.

This is what this is about. Where's the MSM? Off sneaking into closets in the middle of the night for nothing.
=================================================

Mackenzie

The real question about the dusk 'til dawn period is when Mr. Gonzales or Mr. Card informed the President. It is inconceivable that Mr. Bush was not informed within minutes of either gentleman hearing the news. Both had access to him.

kim

Out of my head, Jim E, and over yours.
=====================================

richard mcenroe

Are you daft, Tim? Why, with a twelve-hour headstart, they could do, um... stuff... and go, um... places...

What WOULD have been suspicious would have been if they had taken that twelve-hour advance notice and pulled something like an all-hands Kofi Anaan shredding party... any sign of that? No the suspicious thing is, with a twelve hour head start, they did... nothing.

DW West

Kim is right about "sneaking into closets in the middle of the night for nothing".

The important issue is the intelligence:
1) Who is responsible for producing and disseminating the forged documents that contributed to the claim about uranium from Africa?
2) How did this information make it into the State of the Union address?

Various commissions have circled around this issue, but have NOT directly answered EITHER of the above questions. If we don't learn how this happened, might it not happen again?

Kim, are you interested in finding out more about who fed us bad intelligence and how it got into the SOTU?

richard mcenroe

Jim E — That would be the story they didn't have straight already while allegedly orchestrating the destruction of Valerie Plame, or the story they supposedly don't have straight now accordingly to the posters here scrutinzing every pronounc and punctuation point like medieval divinity students ("How many leaks can Karl Rove balance on the head of a pinhead reporter...")?

kim

DW: I desperately want to know whether the Yellow Cake forgeries were the product of that Italian's greed, or more subtle motives. The FBI has been investigating the source of those forgeries for awhile, and I devoutly hope they have combined investigations with Fitzgerald. I do believe they have(think set theory) and that Fitz is after big game. Who? Dunno yet. And can't much be bothered with facts when intuition is a better guide. Wilson is the villain of the piece but seems too unlikely a character to have had backing.
=================================================

kim

What Joe did wrong is lie and launch a mortal political stroke; his crime is probably protected by his marriage.
==================

DW West

Kim, how about the 2nd question - are you interested in how the information got into the SOTU?

kim

Yes, but I suspect that is impossible to find.
==============================================

kim

What some people may not have sensed, or have forgotten, was the frisson of 'there's things they can't tell us' that went through hoi polloi when they heard Powell at the UN. It was, "Oh, no, it may be worse than nukes". Then, I was skeptical of an apparent con, and in fact it turned out to probably be not 'worse than nukes'.

But, the widespread concern re: nukes was legitimate, though not as immediate as perceived. That perception was modified by the post 9/11 trauma stress of the moment.

How soon we forget.
==================

DW West

Just as impossible as who leaked Valerie Wilson's name. But a lot more important an
issue.

kim

Actually, the forgetting is a sign of relief from the PTSD. We should rejoice. But we shouldn't forget so much that we don't act to prevent further trauma.
============================================

kim

DW, I simply hope the new Director is up to his task.
==============================================

Mike

It is important to remember that info from the forged Uranium memo did not make it into the state of the union. Bush stated that British intelligence believed Iraq was trying to buy uranium and the British Government still backs that claim. When Joe Wilson wrote his rebuttall in the Times, he was questioning info that stands to this day, and had nothing to do with his trip to Niger. By the way, three senators from the left publicly outed a covert satellite system that is providing the US with vital intel. Where is the outrage?

DW West

Mike, the forged documents were not mentioned in the SOTU, but were still being pushed forward as late as December 2002 by Mr. Bolton. Other than that, we relied on British intelligence that we were not actually shown, so we don't know if they were also relying on a source related to the forged documents. In any event, Rice Tenet and Fleischer all stated that the 16 words should not have been in the speech.

The entire issue of how the uranium claims made it into the SOTU was supposed to be included in the SSCI 2nd stage investigation, but Sen. Roberts has yet to keep his word on pursuing that investigation.

kim

Joe does not have a leg to stand on and the arms of those trying to support him will get tired.

With every word he speaks now his tongue shovels manure out of his grave.

One wonders how many others he'll take with him to final resting place of this fiasco.

Wow, that made me feel better.
===========================================

kim

DW, you are out on the unsupportable branch of British unreliability. Why should they specify their source just to satisfy you(oh, and reveal it to the world)?

And you are out of bounds with your 16 words analysis. They did belong there.

Get real.
==========================================

TexasToast

Sombody said “This isn’t tiddlywinks – its politics.”

Absolutely. ISTM a lot of this is driven by “team loyalty”. Examples on both sides abound. As Tom points out, Frank Rich inplys heavily that the 12 hour delay was intended to give a heads up to folks so they could do the shredder dance. I doubt that for the simple reason that 12 hours doesn’t seem like enough time to make sure everybody’s dances the same dance and shreds the same stuff. Shredding is dangerous because it is easily turned into obstruction of justice, so one must do these things del–i-cut-ly.

Similarly, the all out attack on Joe Wilson seems to be motivated by nothing more than politics. What Joe Wilson said or didn’t say will make no difference in determining whether or not Valerie Plame’s identity was leaked. It may go to the political motivation of the leaker – but that is a political defense and not a legal one.

We, as citizens, don’t have the access to all the facts that the special counsel staff, or the policy makers, as applicable, has, and there is a real danger in acting like Bill Frist and making what is analogous to a medical diagnosis based on a video. Still, ISTM that politics and “team loyalty” can’t change these facts:

a) Someone in the administration revealed the identity of a covert CIA spy/operative/agent/NOC/desk jockey to six reporters for “revenge” and may have violated the law by doing so;
b) Karl Rove revealed or “confirmed” the identity of a covert CIA spy/operative/agent/NOC/desk jockey to Matt Cooper (and probably Robert Novak) and may have violated the law by doing so:
c) The identity was revealed in the context of a political “push back”, and therefore national security information was put at risk for, at best, purely political reasons, and at worst, for revenge on Joe Wilson:
d) The Iraq War was politically sold fundamentally on a WMD rational and the subsequent evidence shows there was only a miniscule threat, if any threat, of any sort of reconstituted Iraqi “WMD program related activity.” This reliance on the WMD rational appears to be a significant motivation for the political “push back:” and
e) The evidence on the record of Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Niger is very thin, and the evidence on the record of attempts in the rest of Africa is even thinner.

The spin advanced by supporters of the administration doesn’t really change these facts.
Despite these facts, you may still have the opinion that invading Iraq was a good idea. You can have your own opinion – but not your own facts.

Scott Northwood

Newsweek has an article by Isikoff up now about Rusert's testimony. The jist of the article is Fitzgerald got Russert to testify about what he told Libby to compare it against Libby's testimony. The implication is Fitzgerald thinks Libby's testimony was false.


kim

Those are not facts, not in Texas and not here.

A,C,D and E simply false, and B not shown as criminal.
===================================================

kim

Does Isikoff mention his source?
=================================

Mike

These claims that the administration were out to destrot Wilson have yet to be proven. What we know is that Cooper called Rove, and according to Cooper brought up the subject by telling Rove that Wilson's claims would hurt the President. We also know that Libby was called and told the same thing. However, Cooper's piece completely misrepresented the conversation by stating that the White House was tryng to smear Wilson. Where did that come from. As far as we know, Cooper added that in for "literary flair." The making of a scandal.

mike

You can twist facts in any way you want to. But the fact is that President Bush cited the British government as claiming that Iraq was seeking Uranium from Africa and the British Government stands by that claim. That is the fact, the President never cited Wilson for a source.

KC

TexasToast:"a) Someone in the administration revealed the identity of a covert CIA spy/operative/agent/NOC/desk jockey to six reporters for “revenge” and may have violated the law by doing so"
So why is there any mystery here? Why haven't six reporters stood up and said "So and so gave me this information" or at least identify themselves as having been given the information? Matt Cooper stated that K. Rove told him about Plame on a call Cooper intitated. Novak has an anonymous source and confirmation from (Libby?). Who else?

kim

Cooper's testimony establishes that Rove did not initiate the contact. Why don't we think that Russert's does the same for Libby and Miller's for who knows?
===============================================

Mike

What's interesting is the amicus brief that the Main Stream Media wrote to the courts a few months ago arguing that no crime had been committed. There were 36 news organisations involved-including the New York Times, Washington Post, and the White House Press Corps-yet none of these organisations cover this brief in there articles. Now, assumimng that reporters from these organisations know who leaked the info, wouldn't they want the truth to come out, especially if it could take down some government officials? But they pushed for this to diasappear.

TM

Here is the latest Isikoff;

a lot of it ia based on this Aug 2004 story.

Much as I hate to be both paranoid and picky, there is a yawning chasm between what NBMC said about Russert's testimony in 2004, and the way Isikoff describes it today. From 2004:

NBC, which has previously said Russert did not receive the leak, said in a statement Monday that Fitzgerald interviewed Russert under oath Saturday about a telephone call he received from I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, in early July 2003. Russert told Fitzgerald that he did not know Plame’s name or that she was a CIA operative and that he did not provide that information to Libby, it said.

NBC stressed that Fitzgerald’s questions “focused on what Mr. Russert said during that conversation” and did not ask Russert to compromise any of the network’s news sources. It said Libby had already told the FBI about the conversation and had formally requested that it be disclosed.

That has obvious holes - for example, did Russert not know her name, but tell Libby that Wilson's wife was at the CIA as an analyst (not "operative")?

Well, by 2005, Isikoff eliminates these puzzles:

An NBC statement last year said Russert did not know of Plame, wife of ex-ambassador Joseph Wilson, or that she worked at the CIA, and "he did not provide that information to Libby."

IS Isikoff basing that on a clarification and follow-up with Tim? Who knows?

Here is Russert yesterday on Meet the Press:

MR. RUSSERT: David Gregory, you've been asking question after question in the White House briefing room as to why the inconsistency of saying that Libby and Rove were not involved in this and as to the White House saying, "We're not going to comment." What's the current thinking of the White House on this?

MR. GREGORY: That they've got a big political problem at the very least. They were happy to change the subject to talk about Judge Roberts when they could this past week. There's a political problem and then potentially a legal problem because I think what the special prosecutor is looking at right now is who might have actually blown Valerie Plame's cover, or did somebody lie, in their testimony, about their conversations with reporters? The White House defense has been that they learned about Valerie Plame from reporters. There is now information, including a classified State Department memo, that may contradict that. There at least is the potential that White House officials were aware of who she was, what she did and her role in sending her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, to Niger to investigate this uranium-Iraq thing.

MR. RUSSERT: There has to be an original source, somebody.

MR. GREGORY: Yes.

MS. TOTENBERG: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: Even if it came from a reporter...

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: ...the reporter got it from someplace.

MS. TOTENBERG: Right. And...

MR. RUSSERT: But I was asked what I said. I did not know.

That "I did not know" seems more definitive. But I don't now, either.

kim

Oh, yes, Mike. The quarry that feels hot Fitzbreath is not the administration. MSM is in full voice chasing smoked fish hither and yon, while the fox is lying doggo in a copse.

Will the upshot be vermin innards all over the ground or a corpse in a copse?
====================================================

kim

The error in the MTP logic is that there was ever a single source.

Not bloody likely, mate.
==========================

kim

I wonder of V's article, suppressed from public release by her bosses at the CIA, is in evidence for the Grand Jury?
==============================================

kim

Oh see how the dogs avoid the copse. It's the fox that didn't stink.
================================================

kim

But oh, boy will this story stink when it's dead.
================================================

kim

MSM gallivanting off in noble seeking and pursuit of chimera. Journalism in bright and shining armor.
===============================================

Rich

So you see no problem with waiting 12 hours to notify staff about a criminal investigation that has national security overtones? Regardless of the bent Mr. Rich may or may not contribute to the story, if you're under investigation for a security leak in a post 9/11 environment, do you not make absolutely sure, you're going to deal with this in the most strictest of terms? Please, your hiding behind the veil of Rove's apron strings. It isn't working...

kim

If the Italian was the forger and the CIA merely inept, then the Sulzutler did it. It was the after dinner entertainment cleverly arranged to conceal real murder. Or is it just going to be political murder, a show for polloi, and a ploy for power.
==============================================

kim

Veil of Apron Strings?

Please, what do you mean? Any particulars of wrong-doing, or only your suspicions?
============================================

Tommy V

"Please, your hiding behind the veil of Rove's apron strings. It isn't working..."

I don't even know what that means.

If someone saw documents being shredded like they did the night Vince Foster died, this might be something (Yeah, that's right, I said it!). It might even be a little suspicious, if Gonzo was told at 9am and waited until 9pm to tell anyone...

But if this is supposed to increase the suspicion (It is, it's Frank "Broadway" Rich) on the administration, I don't get it.

So far this has gotten sillier and silier since its peak of right after Cooper's testimony. It's been all downhill from there.

kim

I miss Damon Runyon.
=====================

kim

Ring Lardner, too. Even his 'I could tell you, Senator, but I'd regret it in the morning' son.
===============================================

kim

Those two posts were all in aid of dissing Frank, Boy Is He, Rich.

Your mention of Broadway evoked a couple of Jedi.
===============================================

Slartibartfast

kim, please, lay off the caffeine.

kim

Didn't I talk earlier about a fool high on theophylline, sugar and self?
==============================

kim

In the times gone by, old ladies would add a little laudanum to lend a hand to their lover, Arthur.
=================================================

Jim E.

Did Tommy V, who repeatedly mocks the conspiratorial left with regards to the ongoing Plame investigation, just allude to much-investigated Vince Foster conspiracy stuff in the affirmative? Fascinating.

kim

So then what is the status of V v J? Why has an intramarital relationship become so important to the dynamic of this particular apparently nonsexual scandal?
=============================================

Jim E.

I almost felt bad about my "is kim mentally ill?" question above. But then she had to go and post some weird shit again. Must be off the meds.

kim

So you pretend to know Vince Foster's mind?
==========================================

kim

Like I said Jim E, "Out of my mind and over your's".

I regret
To say,
For me,
It's cliche.
========================================

J Mann

"So you see no problem with waiting 12 hours to notify staff about a criminal investigation that has national security overtones?"

I sure don't see a problem with waiting until business hours to notify staff, particularly since the Department of Justice gave specific permission to wait. That way, you have a full staff to make sure the message is right, as opposed to Gonzales drafting whoever was in the White House at 8 pm to send all all points e-mail.

Truzenzuzex

TexasToast wrote:

a) Someone in the administration revealed the identity of a covert CIA spy/operative/agent/NOC/desk jockey to six reporters for “revenge” and may have violated the law by doing so;

This and your other so-called "facts" are not facts at all. They are conclusions drawn from information uncovered by the investigation which have made it into the public domain.

Example of a fact: Rove had a telephone conversation with Cooper in which he mentioned that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

From this fact, you create a conclusion that this was done by Rove for "revenge". That is unsupported by the facts that we have available. Attacking Wilson's credibility would certainly have been advantageous, but given the context of the disclosures both by Cooper and Rove's own email, "revenge" doesn't appear to be his motivation.

Not that it matters, though. As someone pointed out above, the "why" isn't really important. The fact of the disclosure and how the source of the disclosure came to know the information is what is most relevant to Fitzgerald's original inquiry.

Joe Jackson

You people just don’t get it. But I don’t care -- stay in denial with your fearless leaders. But what you don’t see is that in little over a year, the Republicans will be in the minority in both the House and Senate. It’ll just be a prelude to at least twenty five years of Democratic control on the hill. Mark my words, there is at least one Republican in the Senate or House that will soon become aware of the magnitude of Rovegate and then, the rattlesnakes will become carnivorous.

You are delusional if you think this story is just about a “gotcha”. Watergate was just a break-in to an office for crying out loud. Rovegate is about killing Americans to guarantee Bush got a second term. Hmmmm, burglary, treason, burglary, treason…which is worse?

There will be stain on all of you, a smelly ugly scorch mark, so vile, so disgusting that no one will want a repeat of the last five years. Repercussions from the Iraq war will last for decades. So 15 years from now, when someone is on the voting fence, they’ll remember how one dumb pseudo-texan republican and his cronies really screwed things up “Big-Time” (to use the VP’s favorite phrase) and how they are still paying for their vote. And the voting public won’t ever want to risk that again. So they’ll vote Democrat. Their choice won’t be that hard at all. For when the smoke clears, they will vote for smart over dumb, planning over make-it-up-as-we-go-along, fiscal discipline over out of control spending, transparency over Skull & Crossbones secrecy and, above all, truth over lies.

Oh God, is this going to fun to witness!! Yipeeeeeee!!

Tommy V

Jim,

You may have missed my point (I'm being polite. You did)

I stated facts only. No conspiracies. Just facts. My point is an important one, and from your tone I take it that you would agree. The outlandish claims incolving Vince Foster's death had no foundation, yet there was actually more evidence there to suggest a conspairacy then in this case. That's not a comment about how much evidence they had, but how little there is here.

That should bother you, not increase your smugness.

Tommy V

"Rovegate is about killing Americans to guarantee Bush got a second term. "

The American public seem to have a much better understanding of this than you do.

"Yipeeeeeee!!"

No comment needed.

kim

Say it ain't so, Joe. Widdout no legs to stand on you ain't got no need fo' shoes.

The people of Iraqi have been waving purple fingers and self-determination at you for months. Where have you been getting your news?
=============================================

Tommy V

"But what you don’t see is that in little over a year, the Republicans will be in the minority in both the House and Senate. "

We'll find out soon enough. But history is on our side.

You guys made this promise in 2002, and we gained seats. You made it again in 2004 and Bush was re-elected and we gained seats.

Everytime you guys declare a new day you do or say something stupid that reminds the American people that they really dont trust the Democrats to run this country. Even Clinton, who was polarizing, but still relatively popular, never got over 50% of the vote and lost seats in Congress.

Anger does not translate well into other people's votes.

Jim E.

Tommy V,

Sorry, I totally misinterpreted your post. Thanks for the clarification. My bad.

kim

Nowhere, Joe, have I seen it so eloquently expressed the desire to see Iraq turn into another Vietnam.

What, two million dead in SE Asia not enough for you?
==========================================

Tommy V

"Sorry, I totally misinterpreted your post. Thanks for the clarification. My bad."

No apology necessary, I should have been more specific. I was being a smart-ass instead, which is not a good way to communicate.

Seven Machos

1. To borrow a line from Jim E., this is fascinating. I have this theory that many Lefties think real political drama is like "West Wing" or "Law and Order." Crises are solved in neat one-hour episodes. This investigation has dragged on for -- what? --two years. And now the Left's Very Serious Concern is that the Attorney General didn't send an email for 12 hours (eight of which he was probably asleep)? This is a joke, right? Some kind of test?

2. "You are delusional...Rovegate is about killing Americans to guarantee Bush got a second term." Riiiight. WE'RE delusional. I thought this kind of over-the-top, silly rhetoric went out of style when Lenin died. But, please, I urge you to make exactly that line the slogan and agenda for the entire Democratic party in 2006.

Joe Jackson

"The American public seem to have a much better understanding of this than you do."

I’m sorry, but I beg to disagree. The Americans put their faith and their future in the hands of the President. That was right and good. Any American president has deserved as much.

But the truth will be revealed that Rove, the president's closest friend and advisor, is a political psychopath. A political psychopath is defined as one who’s political aspiration trumps all, where “all” includes but is not limited to: national security, American lives, America’s safety, American fiscal responsibility, and, by the way, The Ten Commandments.

Bush will never ever admonish this man because the presidency is more Rove’s than it is Bush’s. Regardless, even if he did, Bush will never be able distance himself. But even that is not what will turn the Americans to the left. American’s will understand magnitude of the crime and then they will witness every single Republican lying like children caught with cookie crumbs on their mouth. This, the blatant unwillingness to admit a wrong, will say to voters that Republicans do not know right from wrong.

Seven Machos

I'm sorry, I just have to make two more comments about Joe Jackson's screed above:

1. "The rattlesnakes will become carnivorous." This is absolutely the worst mixed metaphor ever written. Who are the rattlesnakes? Aren't rattlesnakes already carniverous?

2. It's good to see that "Skull & Crossbones" is back in vogue. I know it was out for a while, given that John Kerry also went to Yale and was reportedly a member of the same "secret" fraternity that everybody knows about. By the way, it's just "Bones."

Joe Jackson

Kim, if you choose to use your thinking skills superficially and interpret my “Yippee” or any other note of glee in my post as a desire to see another Vietnam, that is your prerogative.

But my “Yippee” is visceral cheer for truth. If you have ever seen the movie The Verdict, try to remember the feeling you had when Paul Newman finally discovered that his closest confident was working for the other side. You saw the lying and the deception unfold throughout the movie and you didn’t feel good about it. But when the hero finally found out, you were happy. That’s the feeling I have. And the hero in this case is the American Public.

That is my glee, a joy of finally being able to stop hitting my head against the wall just as a metaphorically did while watching The Veridct. For I saw the truth from day one. And I rejoice that others will now see it as I have.

The truth that this administration used 9/11 for their own personal, political and financial gain in itself is horrific. The truth that my children will live is a much more dangerous world because our “Christian” leader is evil. Thus, I rejoice as our forefathers once rejoiced: for the saving of The Republic.

Seven Machos

Joe Jackson:

1. "the truth will be revealed" -- What kind of person usually says this? Religious nuts, that's who. You, sir, are a member of cargo cult that believes that President Bush and the Republican congress will somehow be miraculously washed away by the forces of good as soon as people see the light that only a certain elite can see right now. Think about it.

2. Karl Rove and George W. Bush aren't best friends. Even if they were, you couldn't possibly know it.

3. If Karl Rove is so psychopathically cunning and conniving and running the country and all, how could he POSSIBLY have done anything as stupid as has been claimed by the Left? Which is it, kids? Is he brilliant or not?

kim

It's a good thing for cookie crumbs. That's how I'm finding my way home from Aunt Jo's Gingerbread House.

I think he meant 'cannibalistic' rather than 'carnivorous'. It might have been the caffeine talking.
=========================

kim

J, your description of what benefit would accrue to the Democratic Party if Iraq mimics Vietnam is evocative. I'll ask again. Is not 2 million dead enough? I'll tell you right now that the representatives of those dead are more likely voting Republican than Democratic. They will continue to bear witness in the future, as will the violet Iraqis. Can you not see?
===============================================

Truzenzuzex

Joe Jackson said

"But the truth will be revealed that Rove, the president's closest friend and advisor, is a political psychopath. A political psychopath is defined as one who’s political aspiration trumps all, where “all” includes but is not limited to: national security, American lives, America’s safety, American fiscal responsibility, and, by the way, The Ten Commandments."

Why, somebody get me my smellin' salts, I just feel faint! Karl Rove a political psychopath!?! I just don't know what to... Why, that sweet, tow-headed young man has gone plum crazy? Crazy, that's what psychopath means, right? And a political psychopath too, why what's just, why its just... His poor, sweet mother must be just so ashamed, oh, lordy, what's to be done...?

But seriously, we can't have psychopaths, especially political ones, running around in our administrations. Why, next thing you know he might lie to a judge about sex or something. It's kind of like smoking pot, you know - just one small step from being a political psychopath to using cigars as a marital aid.

Oh, the humanity!

Joe Jackson

Seven,

You are correct, I meant to say:

"The rattlesnakes will become cannibals".

The reference to "Skull and Crossbones" was intentional to emphasize not only the dishonesty but the pirating of American resources: human and financial.

I hope that clears things up.

Seven Machos

Until this moment, until reading Joe Jackson, I never realized that the Left is religiously against George W. Bush. They don't believe in God, of course, just Goodness. But Goodness is on their side. Hell is coming for the Republicans. And the Second Coming of Left-liberal socialism will emerge as soon as people see the Republicans for the slime they really are.

In Joe's mind, it is up to the annointed elite, such as himself, to preach this gospel to the unbelievers.

I'll stop now, because you certainly can't argue about the real world with these people.

TexasToast

Truz

A factual claim is a statement that “(1) admits of being adjudged true or false in a way that (2) admits of empirical verification.” Pizza Hut, 227 F.3d at 496 (quoting Presidio Enters., Inc. v. Warner Bros. Distrib. Corp., 784 F.2d 674, 679 (5th Cir. 1986)). To be actionable, the statement must be a “specific and measurable claim, capable of being proved false or of being reasonably interpreted as a statement of objective fact.” Coastal Abstract Serv., Inc. v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 173 F.3d 725, 731 (9th Cir. 1999.

You are quite correct that, for the purposes of a court of law, the facts I recite are conclusions of fact as typically found in a closing statement or brief or as found by a judge or jury. However, for the purposes of an internet post (which, I would argue, is like a brief in its exposition of the facts), all five conclusions of fact are abundantly supported by the record available to us, which has been more than adequately covered by other posters on this blog (I’ll not name any names), and none misstates the record we have available to us.

I’ll grant that “revenge” is the conclusion of a witness (the first leaker of 1 by 2 by 6), but none of my statements constitute a legal conclusion as I do not apply any law. They summarize, in argument, the facts as a recitation of the specific instances of evidence supporting each would by quite impractical for this medium.

That is quite different from stating something like “Bush lied” or "Joe Wilson lied about who sent him to Niger" or "There may be more to this, but right now it is clearly a whole lot of nothing" or “Invading Iraq was justified or not justified”.

We clearly don’t have enough facts to determine if a crime has been committed, but we do have enough facts to draw some conclusions based upon them. But, as I pointed out, this is a political arena, not a court of law.

Adam

The story just won't go away. Every day it's 'nothing to see here' or 'Fitz is helping Rove' or 'Miller is protecting Plame'. Pretty much every president, especially second term presidents, have to deal with scandals. This isn't going away. Lessons learned from presidents like Nixon, Reagan and Clinton are being ignored again.

kim

But Shoeless Joe had sox not piracy on his feet.
===================================================

Tommy V

"I hope that clears things up."

Oh, I how I wish it did.

Joe, you are out there, man. You really commit, I'll give you that.

Your mind sounds like an awful place to spend time in.

Tommy V

"The story just won't go away."

It's already started to go away because there is no story.

You may get a 2nd term scandal yet, but this ain't it. Good hunting!

John Gillnitz

I wonder why this is front page news when it came out a long time ago. Even then it had a "well duh..." quality.

kim

TT: I summarize, in different argument, to other conclusions. I'll agree there is a paucity of facts.
====================

Truzenzuzex

TexasToast said:

We clearly don’t have enough facts to determine if a crime has been committed, but we do have enough facts to draw some conclusions based upon them. But, as I pointed out, this is a political arena, not a court of law.

Hey, draw any conclusions you want to, pal. You are entitled. My entire point was that you embellished your facts with conclusions (either by yourself or others) that that facts we now know (or think we know) don't really support, regardless of the legal implications.

Um, by the way, I am not a lawyer and don't play one on the Internet (and I hope it shows), so it isn't necessary to cite case law to support your argument. I mean, go ahead if it makes you feel better - I certainly don't mind. It just seems to me like trying to swat a gnat with a bazooka - it certainly works, but it can leave a mess.

Seven Machos

Texas Toast: a factual claim is something that is true. You don't need a court of law to tell you that.

kim

Oh I should have said "as will the violaceous Iraqis in first blush of freedom".
============================================

kim

No: "as will the purple fingered dawn of the Iraqis, violaceous in first blush of freedom.
================================================

kim

Oh, say, why can't you see?
=============================

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame