Powered by TypePad

« All My Ex-es Pitch For Texas... | Main | Bill Keller, Incoherent »

October 23, 2005


Account Deleted

Give 'em hell,
Give 'em hell,
Fight, fight, fight!
Side show be damned, I say,
Prove that Rove was right!
Go-o-o-o-o-o Rove!


No question Tom, FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT.(No bold, fear the bold) For us, it would be the only way to find out what really happened. Besides, seeing Judy, Tim, Nick, Walter and the rest on the stand sweating, that alone would be worth it.(Looking foward to all those Perry Mason moments.)

Grand Juror #8

Since it's not my *ss on the line, if Rove is indicted he should fight. I want to see what comes out at trail about this entire fiasco. If Fitz has no smoking gun memo and is relying on these forgetful reporters, chances of proving anything beyond a reasonable doubt seems slim. Plus, if perjury/obstruction is due to the Cooper call, Rove came forward with that on his own. Finally, as you mentioned, Bush will pardon him anyway (at least by Jan 2009). So I go with your #2 and #3 choices.

However, I do not think Rove will be indicted. His first contacts in this seem relatively late in the game. I would think if anyone has a problem, it would be Libby. But, I don't care what Libby does. Let's face it, for the left, Rove is the grand prize Cadillac...Libby is the set of steak knives.

Seven Machos

If Rove is indicted, he should fight and he will. If Libby is indicted, it's up to him. If I were him, I'd just cop a plea.

I don't think Rove will be indicted. I have been wavering on Scooter. I wonder how many more column inches Scooter -- let alone Rove, God forbid -- would get for copping a plea than CLINTON'S NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR WHO STOLE ACTUAL, TOP-SECRET CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS.

creepy dude

Rove certainly talked a big Option 2 game this summer when he telegraphed his strategy. I still recall those halycon days:

“Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.” Conservatives, he said, “saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war,” firebreathed our little pudgebull.

Too bad they spent more time warring against Wilson than Osama-bin-forgotten. In any event, Rove certainly has been mum lately. No more fire-breathing. Which means he has orders from the top to slink offstage a la Option 1.


Heh! And the other witnesses have been chatting? Miller was forced to write a story by the paper according to her lawyer today. She didn't want to. Cooper's story was wee, and a big backtrack from his original story. We've heard nothing at all from some witnesses--like Tenet.

Casting entrails,cd.

Bill Arnold

Seven Machos, "Rove indicted on or before December 31st 2005" is selling for 60-65 gets you 100 on Tradesports/InTrade, so there is opportunity for a rather high ROI if you're sure that Rove will not be indicted. And what's with the all-caps? Looks like Clinton Derangement Syndrome to me. :-)

Seven Machos

Gee, Creepy Dude, what if Rove didn't break the law? Or what if he did? Does the legal analysis factor into what you should happen, you know, at all?

Bill -- I stand athwart the italics and bold functions on these threads, yelling stop.

creepy dude

"what if Rove didn't break the law?"

Option 4: he'll follow OJ's lead and devote his life to tracking down the real leakers.


Oh, I definitely want Rove to fight.

I want him to get up on the witness stand and talk about how ginning up a case for war and outing a CIA operative because her husband dared question the ginned-up evidence is "just politics," while the families and friends and coworkers and Congressional representatives of the 2000 dead and 40,000 maimed are watching.

I want the GOP leadership and the Limbaughs and Fox commentators and the rest of the conservative punditariat to bloviate about out-of-control prosecutors and partisan politics while Odom and Whittacker and Scowcroft are telling the American people that the Iraq war was the biggest strategic blunder in US history and Rumsfeld is "quite literally mad" and Cheney is a "dangerous, vindictive monomaniac."

I want Rove's testimony on the witness stand, esp. the cross-examination by Fitzgerald, to run on CSPAN and every network and every newspaper, every radio station and every blog.

I want wall to wall coverage so the American people can see the towering, stinking, moral and intellectual rot that is the Bush Administration and the GOP.


And you know Casey (a Balloon Juice inmate!),
the Evil One will still probably beat the rap.

No Fitzmas turkey for you.

Rick Ballard

If Rove can present a legal defense theory from the outset that would expose the CIA/DeMSM connection fully then he should definitely fight. A public declaration of intent to do so would garner all the money needed to assemble a legal team capable of shredding not just the government case but the CIA/Dem connection and the DeMSM propaganda organs which supported the central liar in this case, his covert/non-covert wife and the press cocktail suckups who carried the ball for them.

The case would also allow for some 527 action hanging the "effectively anti-democratic and objectively pro-Islamofascist tag" on the Copperhead party and its propaganda organs.

Where do I send a check?

Cecil Turner

I want wall to wall coverage so the American people can see the towering, stinking, moral and intellectual rot that is the Bush Administration and the GOP.

Wow, that was persuasive. Don't you think it might be just a tad inconvenient for Joe Wilson to have to take the stand and explain those pesky little inconsistencies in his stories? Like how he actually got selected for the mission in the first place? Or knew in advance what the documents he hadn't seen looked like? And how much he and Valerie discussed it before he started his little leak campaign? Somehow, I don't think CSPAN coverage would be quite the boon you think it would be.


Fight. It will be the only way to expose those in the CIA (Wilson and his gang of traitors) who have been covering for a great deal of their dirty laundry.

And, along side that battle bring out Able Danger. My guess is the two are tied together by CIA associations heldover from the prior adminstration.


The conspiracy to mishandle classified information sounds particularly lame to me. Would Fitzgerald charge that minus some smoking gun memo or meeting. Especially considering that this was a leak war and there were 2 sides leaking.

It sounds triffling to me. People mishandle classified info all the time.


What type of deal would Fitzgerald give Rove, something similar to Berger's. I don't know. He would have to resign under either scenario, so I'd probably elect to fight.

Embarrass the media and CIA. The goal was to take out top officials not expose themselves. I would not give his enemies that victory.

See the light.


What, no faith in the overarching duty of a prosecutor to see that justice is done?

PERJURY: Wilson, Kristoff, Cooper, Pincus, and maybe, Miller.

Though I might have to wait for their testimony at the trial of an administration official


Susan, wouldn't it be nice if Able Danger got put on the back burner last month because it does have connections with this case?


Surely there are CIA guidelines about remaining covert. How has Val not violated thses guidelines?


Can the CIA withdraw the referral to DoJ and stymie Fitz? I know they can't do it without public outcry, but can they do it? The defense to any indictment will rock that boat like even Goss can't. There is one thing about which I am confident. If he needs to choose a course, Rove will find the one that hurts Democrats. One need only be reminded that Wilson et al woud just as soon see Saddam in power. Well he's still alive, go for it. Wouldn't that be a spectacle, Rove and Saddam on trial at the same time. One wonders how those courts would be reported.

Speaking of public outcry, there isn't much. This is pundit squawking. A bunch of newly hatched pundits. Our putative pundits got promiscuous with the truth and a lot of loud little bastards have proliferated.


SM: I don't like the way the Berger thing got swept away without public dissection; I don't like the way the corpse of Able Danger is sequestered from public discussion; and I'll really not like the way this is not publicly dissected if it isn't.

What? Do I find myself hoping for the indictment of a figure powerful enough to defend?


definitely fight...I want to see the CIA show us how they were taking active measures to protect Plame's covert identity and how Wilson knew about forged Niger docs


Here is one of the finest ironies of the Brave New Century. Saddam would get a fairer trial than Rove.


Does Rove pay his own legal expenses. I'm assuming he does. That might have an impact on what he chooses to do. The NYT said the paid millions for Miller's defense.

I'm sure this is what's going on the next few days, trying to get a plea.

The CIA folks and the MSM don't want a public trial.

Rove is probably seething and would opt for a trial which he will play into a loser for his enemies.


And why a dossier in March? In February, Wilson wrote an op-ed in the LATimes against the war but in support of the idea that Saddam had chem and bio WMD. Apparent agnosticism about nuclear WMD. Shortly thereafter, he is meta-gnostic about them. What bridge did he cross? Was it opportunism and the absense of mushroom clouds over Baghdad? Or was he guided across the bridge into attack mode.

If so, he is an IED, and we've got to understand that to avoid further casualty.

This is an important question. I can't believe Fitz isn't there.


I would like to see him fight to win.

What the political judicial thing to do is more difficult to pick right now.


Definitely fight.

Nothing will cleanse our democracy quicker than wall to wall coverage of the sleazy, cynical, amoral way this war was sold to us like a Madison Avenue product. We need to learn about the Niger documents. We need to hear from the many military and diplomatic critics of this incompetent administration who have been biting their tongues. We need to know how intelligence was stovepiped, manipulated and outright manufactured to create a phony sense that "everyone agrees" on Saddam's WMDs and terrorist connections.

The American people NEED to learn that their leaders are elitists who thought they had the right to drum up a fake cassus belli "for our own good" and sell it under false pretenses to our representatives. They did something even more dangerous than attacking our democracy outright. They gave us the back ally "clean forest" approach they prefer - they undermined and subverted our democracy, while silmultaneously painting over their crimes with the shiny fake lacquer that we were "spreading democracy" elsewhere.

Joe Wilson doesn't seem to have any fear whatsoever of a public fight, so that's no concern at all of mine. As for Rove, much as fighting any charges would be the only way he could repay his debt to our democracy, my guess is - if he can - the cowardly little candyass will plead.


Bush has a long history of doing the politically judicial thing. He also has a long history of doing the right thing. I believe that over a question and a person of this importance, and at this stage of his career, he will do the right thing. It will amount to the politically judicious thing in the end anyway; which is the secret to the Fortunate Son's success.

His career has had it's prodigalities, maybe it's time for prodigious legalities.


Bush, and Goss, and Fitz should be having a tete a tres this week-end.


JayDee illustrates just why there should be a cleansing battle. He and I have diametrically(hyperbolae alert) opposing views. We can't both be right. So let's get it straight. I don't think either of us are asking for an overly simple interpretation.

But his evidence that Joe is ready for a public fight brings a grin. That would be fun.


JayDee: what the trial will expose is the collaboration of the DEM/MSM/CIA(some elements) to destory a sitting Administration.

Remember, throughout the whole GJ process, the White House could not mount a defense or give its side. That ends with the filing of charges.

This may bring the MSM approval rating down to 15%, something the conservatives must do to counter the media's role as a mouthpiece of the DNC.

Plus Joe Wilson is totally unlikeable. Everytime he opens his mouth it's advantage Rove. He is worse than Cindy Sheehan.


Updated guess. No indictments. Rogue resignations, all around. Wake for the truth.

steve sturm

Kim: what are you talking about, Bush doing the 'right thing'? You must be thinking about his imposing trade restrictions on steel? not acting on Iran? signing campaign finance that he himself said was wrong? increasing spending at a rate far higher than any Democrat? Trying to make up for his not being prepared for Katrina by giving Louisiana a blank check? Adding a trillion or so in federal obligations through his expansion of Medicare? leaving the borders unprotected? proposing an immense amnesty for illegal aliens? nominating Miers?

As to the question at hand, Tom's asked a trick question. Fitzgerald is not going to indict anyone, so Rove won't have to face the decisions of whether to fight or not.

robert lewis

Caveat for Karl & Scooter: Backroom word is that the CIA may have provided Fitzgerald with the names and specifics of agent(s) and "assets" who were killed as a result of the Plame outing. There is a mysterious new star on the CIA wall of honor, with a date of installation that corresponds to the Plame outing period. If true, under the Espionage Act of 1917, this could trigger the death penalty. Have a good weekend, boys.


Rowed back on steel; keeping Israel updated on Iran; showing how poisonous McCain's bill is;spending a necessary evil to counteract 9/11 and dot.com, but it's time to close the vault; what would you do if a hurricane struck, go to Miami now; I'm pissed about hooking the old folks on drugs and enslaving their grandchildren to pay for it; a hard wall is comin' down; I know too many illegal aliens; I have no doubt that Harriet Miers is an extemely wise and capable woman. Got a problem with that?


rl, if that is true it may well be Joe.


I thought leftists were against the death penalty.


Or Val, or al.


I think commutation for full confession in lieu of death would do, if legally avalible. I'm not sure full confession from Joe is medically possible.


So, in Joe's case, treatment in lieu of death.


Just to drop a little bait in the water while we while away the wonder-filled weekend: which element of the public is least safe? The undocumented. Their lives are the least safe and they are least safe to the rest of the public. Interesting nexus there that just casually has the word play as magnetic representation or ennumeration. The just word there is shimmering off center.

Public safety, hmmm.


To what degree is our strength due to our porousness?


Yeah, sure.

Valery is the only agent in the world who has now been outed officially three times.

Some record.

Some people just don't know when to quit.


I wanta know what, when, why, where, who, etc. about that star, and if it comes to that, I shall.


Uh, Syl, since the paper work is probably in abeyance she is still probably covert. Shhhh. They may wanna go for four.


There are a lot of people who've never heard of her. Billions. Let me start counting.


Kate, it's interesting that you silmultaneously deride your hated "msm" as you show how much you've become addicted to it. WIlson's unlikability will give Rove an advantage? You've become so compliant in the republicanization of our media that you forget this isn't a game, a PR stunt, or a popularity contest. This is our country - all of ours. It isn't the property of Republican elitists who cook up their version of "the right thing" in ivory tower think tanks and then impose it upon the rest of us by fiat (or cooked intelligence). It is alarming the extent to which the rightwing in America no longer has any use for democratic process here at home and so obsequiously prefers to be led blindly by autocratic superiors.

kim is right. There are two diametric visions of America and our recent past - the rush into a preemptive war of choice - that the American people need and deserve to analyze and debate for themselves. It is a scandal that we are waiting on the results of a grand jury to initiate this process. If there were any honor in our one party government, the dialogue would have begun as an adjunct to the 9/11 commission, but that plan was scuttled by the one party autocrats.

Here is a question the silent American majority should be asked - do you support the subversion and undermining of American Democracy, and the imposition of preemptive war by elitist intellectuals making knowingly false representations, in order to spread a dubious form of democracy to the Middle East, a democracy whose outcome is unpredictable and whose efficacy in deterring terrorism is completely undefined? Is this a cause you would recommend your sons give their lives for? Yes or no.


The Bell is Tolling.


JayDee, a fair question. My best answer is that in my immediate family are three siblings who are veterans of Vietnam, and I have four children whose understading of geopolitics will one day surpass mine, and I have faith that they will not disgrace me at the gates.


By the way, CT, I've heard my children and friends play a reverse dozens, 'I'm so special, I' and so on, for a dozen ego boosting quips. Apparently the same structure, but even better warfare.


When you get ffve of 'em snappin' together, they can put out some B-ball, too.

Cecil Turner

We need to know how intelligence was stovepiped, manipulated and outright manufactured to create a phony sense that "everyone agrees" on Saddam's WMDs and terrorist connections.

And Wilson's testimony on pre-war intelligence is going to make the case about phoniness? I doubt it:

MOYERS: President Bush's recent speech to the American Enterprise Institute, he said, let me quote it to you. "The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away." You agree with that?
WILSON: I agree with that. Sure. I…
I wanta know what, when, why, where, who, etc. about that star . . .

Me too. But there is in fact a star in the possible time frame (between Feb 5, 2003 and Oct 25, 2003).

(And I'm not sure what to think about positive dozens.)

Patrick R. Sullivan

'I want him to get up on the witness stand and talk about how ginning up a case for war and outing a CIA operative because her husband dared question the ginned-up evidence is "just politics," '

Rove wouldn't have to testify at all, but all the people who were involved in Joe Wilson's caper would be called by his defense counsel. Including the Wilsons themselves.

IF Valerie was actually covert, so would have been the people who worked alongside her. The CIA would have to allow them to testify, risking exposing their identities.

Also, Judy Miller and Bob Novak would be called, and they've already said publicly that they were not on the receiving end of any plot to expose Valerie as a CIA covert operative. No one in journalism has yet to come forward publicly to say they were either. I doubt there is anyone who would volunteer to throw away their career by so testifying.

The people with the most to lose in a trial are the CIA, and a slew of journalists and news organizations mostly sympathetic to Democrats. It would be a very entertaining show. I wonder if Fitzgerald will produce it.


CT, taking this case to the public will not be confined merely to the specific, dehydrated facts of the case, as it is so often discussed in the rarified atosphere of online blogs. It will open up a huge can of worms. It will start the questions that should have been asked three and four years ago. For the American people, this case is not about whether or not Joe Wilson is likable, believable or honorable. It's about why they are paying, in blood and money, for this asinine debacle in Iraq. That's what this is all about, has always been about , and we may finally be reaching the point where the true national dialogue can begin in an honest, open fashion.


I agree with JayDee. We need to get this in the open to expose the CIA's and Wilson's lies and forgeries that they used to undermine national security.


Well, CT, Positive Dozens may be the future of conflict.



What did Wilson find in Africa?

He found it was highly unlikely that Niger had sold Saddam uranium.

That's it.

That's ALL.

That has NOTHING to do with any other evidence. NADA.


It has nothing to do with Bush lying, sexing-up intel, exaggerating, misleading, hyping.


But Wilson claimed it did.

And you can't read!!


CT: Per Asperum Ad Astra. Those shooting stars fell in North Europe. Any energy ovah theyah?


A major, major problem with indictments in this (or any other case involving the CIA and classified intel) is that the government may refuse the introduction of lots of evidence on grounds of national security. Any smart prosecutor in Fitz's position is likely to recognize that their ability to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is going to be compromised to a significant extent on potential violations of the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act, the 1817 Espionage Act or even Title 18, U.S.C. Section 641 (essentially theft or misappropriation of public records).

Beyond investigation-related charges such as perjury, obstruction of justice and/or conspiracy, it's hard for me to see how Fitgerald makes a winnable case against any of the alleged perpetrators, including Wilson and lots and lots of as-yet-unnamed people at the CIA.

On that point, it should be noted that the CIA was leaking classified information in support of its position with impunity throughout the time period in question, and special prosecutors are charged with pursuing illegality everywhere they encounter it. IMHO, while the behavior of some members of the Bush Administration may have been deplorable, the behavior and yes, lack of patriotism on the part of "unnamed sources" at the CIA during this period is worse than despicable.

That said, I don't see how Fitzgerald responsibly indicts any of the deplorable or despicable parties on any of the classified Intel charges because the trial would be impossible to conduct in an open courtroom.

If I were Rove, Libby or even Wilson, I'd fight relentlessly 'til my last penny was spent, because I don't see the prosecutor winning in court on anything but the most egregious perjury charges - which if anything may put Wilson in as much jeopardy as Rove or Libby but that's not a topic the MSM is the least bit interested in.


Oe la la, just catching up with new threads at J-O-M.
This one is rocking! (Like I said a while ago, "They have been féted long enough by the Rosenberg fan club crowd; it's time the truth comes out.")

Cecil Turner

For the American people, this case is not about whether or not Joe Wilson is likable, believable or honorable. It's about why they are paying, in blood and money, for this asinine debacle in Iraq.

As with the Wilson thing, the MSM is already giving the anti-war crowd far more sympathetic treatment than is deserved. (You could also make a pretty good case that the coverage plays into the hands of the "insurgents," encourages resistance, and increases the price in blood and money. Having Wilson admit under oath that he lied in order to discredit the Administration bolsters that case, and won't play well in Peoria.) Further, it's working . . . hurting the Administration without leaving them an effective means of response. The one-sided Plame coverage helps there, too, since it strengthens the public and media suspicion of government (especially leakers). More in-depth coverage can, in my opinion, only hurt your cause. (And since I disagree with your cause, I'm all for it.)

Rick Ballard


I agree with you but I seriously doubt that Rove or Libby would ever have to put up a dime of their own money for a defense. Raising $20 million or so might take as long as two weeks but it would be one of the easiest sells ever undertaken. I'm rooting for a 527 dedicated to publicizing the links between the CIA and DeMSM propagandists. I believe that such a 527 could be very effective in keeping turnout momentum up for the '06 race. It might be worth a couple of Senate seats - MI and MD spring to mind. That would be a fitting end to the Liar's Club efforts in the Plame matter.

Valery is the only agent in the world who has now been outed officially three times.
Seems only fair, since she is the agent of the triple identity. There's her life as a spy. There's her official non-official cover, energy analyst for Brewster-Jennings. And there's her unofficial official cover, WMD analyst for the CIA.

I just love the "official non-official cover" and "unofficial official cover." In CIA lore, the canonical example for a job title for the CIA station chief who has an official cover job at the embassy is "chief assistant to the assistant chief."

cathy :-)


Indict Indict Indict

let's end this one sided media leak farce and have a real trial....you know, where both sides get to present their case


There''ll be a parade of Shriner Spooks leading Lions Liars: The Halt leading the Blind.


this whole circus reminds me of a joke

libs and the media have been screeching for these indictments since they had asses handed to them in the last few elections

anyway...the joke

woodsman and son out cutting wood in the forest.....the son screws up

woodsman "the whip the whip"

son "no no anything but the whip"

woodsman "anything but the whip??"


Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest)

Fight like a tiger and win!

If what we've seen represents the outline of the case against Rove, if Rove is indicted, this may not even make it to trial. And I would expect a fair-minded judge to dismiss it early on.


What happened to the 22 indictments and the resignation of Cheney with Condi to replace. That was last week's excitement.

Now we're back to same ole suspects?


If I were on the right, I might want to see them act to stop the bleeding - not fight in the courts for the next year and then have Bush pardon folks.

After all, a presidential resignation started with a "two-bit" burglary and a presidential impeachment started with a blow job.

Its interesting that Senator Kay is setting up a defense that perjury and obstruction are no big deal. Tell that the the house impeachment managers.

Still, have at it guys, fight fight fight!


If I were on the right, I might want to see them act to stop the bleeding


Cecil Turner

After all, a presidential resignation started with a "two-bit" burglary . . .

This "scandal" started with telling the truth to Bob Novak.

richard mcenroe

Fight. Even if he's convicted, that will let us put every sordid detail of the press's, the CIA's and all the manipulation by all parties into the inarguable public record.

"I want wall to wall coverage so the American people can see the towering, stinking, moral and intellectual rot that is the Bush Administration and the GOP." Say... Whatever did happen to those Katrina hearings the Democrats were gonna hold, anyway?


TM, you little rat (I bet you are the family prankster), why did you even plant this seed in my mind?!!! I would rename your column "VEX POPULI" <-- namely me. (grin)


Say... Whatever did happen to those Katrina hearings the Democrats were gonna hold, anyway?

richard mcenroe once again demonstrates the basic ignorance of the American people about the simple mechanics of their own government.

Because we have a one party dictatorship in our congress, all committees are chaired by the one party These committees determine whether or not a hearing can be held. Since no Democrats control a committee, no Democrat can decide to convene hearings. They can only do this with the compliance of the ruling party. Since the ruling party apparently has no interest in providing truthful accountability to the citizens of the nation, Democrats' hands are tied.

I continue to be shocked (but not really) by the newfound Republican approval of perjury, as long as it is performed by Republicans. It also remains a source of amusement how you are all as frightened as ninnies of the all powerful M.S.M.!!! and how you are already scrambling together your personal smear jets against Father Fitzgerald, should he do the cowardly thing and indict your heroes. "Please, Officer Fitzgerald, try and do the brave thing here and tear up that speeding ticket."

One of the most delicious hidden pleasures of this turtuously slow exposure of admin corruption is the way all the levels of rightwing hypocrisy are exposed like shiny onion rings, one by one.

I think it's pretty clear which side is rooting for the truth to be discovered here. Those who hope for indictments fear nothing from the incitement of a public forum.


Rove should get the Kenneth Bacon punishment, i.e. none.


JayDee demonstrates the basic ignorance of the American people about the simple mechanics of their own government.

JD...last time I checked that one party dictatorship was won fair and square in democratic elections and the rule of majority party holding chairmanships is yep!! legal too...


Those who hope for indictments fear nothing from the incitement of a public forum.

be careful what you wish for...and read the posts in the fight or plea thread


windandsea, did I say different?

However, richard mcenroe makes the stupid mistake, which is frequently repeated by your boogeyman MSM, of expecting the minority party to exert any power whatsoever when the "democracy" is held in the hands of a 51% majority. Especially when that majority is unethical at its core.

Rick Ballard


Things are very different in the Alterman Reality and there is nothing to be done about it. Well, maybe chuckle a bit at the noisy minority which has never had the support of more than 20% of the electorate continuing to believe that things will be different tomorrow.

The lefty's ship is always just over the horizon but never quite makes it to port.



windandsea, I've read almost every word written on this excellent site about this complex matter, as well as a great deal written elsewhere. I fear absolutely nothing from public exposure of the facts.


RB, Up until a few years ago, it didn't matter. The press would announce the ship had made it to port.Unfortunately,for the left, as the situation has changed and the media has lost both its monopoly and its credibility the left hasn't learned another way .


clarice, I'd like to remind you right now of what you just said. The press is no longer under the monopoly of the left - as it purportedly was back in those days of independent ownership, before it was completely and wholely owned by a tiny handful of gigantic corporations.

Kindly remember that in days to come and refrain from whining about the MSM's unfair & biased reporting of any major news events that may possibly be about to break.

You can't have it both ways, though Republicans are having a hard time accepting that these days.

Stephen M. St. Onge

Rove should fight.

If a man pleads guilty, I presume he is guilty. On the basis of the evidence so far, Rove is innocent, and should fight for his reputation in court.

Rick Ballard


Are you referring to corruption like this in East St. Louis or the type that the citizens of New Jersey describe or are you partial to Philadelphia, Detroit or Kings County, WA political chicanery? You Dems have so many varities and so many levels of corruption going on at any given time that it would be helpful if you were more precise.


Oh, JD, it is still pretty close to a monopoly if you talk about the coastal biggie of the press, Reuters, AP, CNN and the alphabets, but there are other voices which we can hear.

If things continue as they are, however, that MSM megaphone will shrink ever farther as the LATimes, BYT tank completely; Newsweek and Time fold their tents and the alphabets stops havign news hours which no one pays attention to. And CNN--also on the way to oblivion.


Oh, clarice, in the future then how do you propose the masses obtain any information about the world they live in? I noticed you left the "fair and balanced" network off your list. I mean, we can't trust the Associated Press, but Rupert and Roger - they'd never mislead anyone. They give us the unvarnished truth as pure as snow.


By all means let's have a public outing of the pre-war intel. Then the public can see that not only Bush lied...Clinton did when he was prez, both Dems and Repubs in congress did, Italy did, the Brits did, the UN did, the French did....because a lot of the free world's intel services thought/said Iraq had WMD.

Yesiree, let's get it all out in the open. Then our friends on the Left will be forced to see (maybe not admit, but see) that poor old Chimpy McBush-Hitler isn't the only fish in the pond who said Iraq had WMDs. Its a lead pipe cinch the DNC isn't going to tell the truth here. The MSM often seems to be truth adverse. Maybe a public trial will is just what the country needs.


While you fight the country has been stolen. They have divided the country into liberal and conservative as a giant distraction. Does anyone really see a differance between the two parties. They espouse supposedly different idealogies but when it comes to practice it is the the same old shit.
The day you go to higher office you are bought and paid for. Otherwise you don't get to go.


Unsafe at any Tea Party.


"poor old Chimpy McBush-Hitler isn't the only fish in the pond who said Iraq had WMDs."

Lots of people said Saddam was dangerous. Bush went a step further. He said Saddam was so dangerous that the only solution was a war of choice, and that this war needed to start on 3/19/03 and not a day later. Bush was wrong.

"both Dems and Repubs in congress did [think Saddam had WMD]"

Speaking of lies, one lie that's been told over and over again is that Congress approved the war based on the same intel that Bush was looking at. Nonsense.

Most people don't realize there were two NIEs. Bush was looking at the classified NIE, portions of which were unclassified in 7/03 (link). Most of the rest of us were looking at the unclassified NIE (html, pdf), a document called "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs," which SSCI refers to as "an unclassified White Paper."

Pre-war, this White Paper was essentially all the public, and most of Congress, had to work with. The classified NIE was restricted to SSCI and perhaps a small number of other congressmen. (If someone has a reliable source indicating exact Congressional distribution of the classified NIE, I'd love to see that.)

Funny thing, this highly inflammatory and distorted White Paper was released a week before Congress voted on the war. This was also shortly before mid-term elections; in selling a war, timing is everything! The often-repeated claim that Congress supported the war based on the same intelligence Bush had is simply a lie.

There are many important differences between the two versions of the NIE. Only one included this text: "the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious." Tenet acknowledged this in his famous speech. In other words, someone cut the word "dubious" out of the NIE before handing it to Congress about a week before they voted on the war.

In light of current events, it's interesting to recall that WHIG influenced the production of the White Paper, and rejected early versions of it as being "not strong enough." Pincus laid this out in detail two years ago ("Depiction of Threat Outgrew Supporting Evidence," 8/10/03, link, alternate link).

The public has never really heard a thorough explanation of how and why this happened. This is partially because the SSCI report is heavily redacted, and partially because SSCI never finished its work. We've also still never seen anything remotely resembling a full version of the original classified NIE. We've been shown 14 of the original 93 pages (link).

More on the distortions in the unclassified NIE ("White Paper") here, here, here, and here.

Reality Check

1998 Bill Clinton signs Iraqi Regime Change on the basis of his refusal to abide by UN resolutions and his obvious hiding of his WMD program and desires for a nuclear program.
Dems all supported it then. That really closes the case right there.
Of course it took a republican to get it done.

Reality Check

Remember when Clinton was president?
OBL and Saddam were connected at the hip then. All dems said so and the madia even said so. See this ABC news video. http://www.mediaresearch.org/rm/cyber/2004/binladen061704/segment1.ram
But once a republican got into office suddenly it was all "lies".
LOL - libs are so hilarious!

Reality Check



Reality: "1998 Bill Clinton signs Iraqi Regime Change"

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (link) called for support to "Iraqi democratic opposition organizations," via a limited amount of money, training and equipment. It specifically indicated we should have no military role beyond that: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act."

I guess there must be a redacted portion of the bill which calls for an unprovoked invasion. Maybe you can help us find that section.

"OBL and Saddam were connected at the hip then. All dems said so and the madia even said so. See this ABC news video."

Ah, the media said so, so therefore it must be true. You provided a clip of Sheila MacVicar doing a good impression of Judith Miller. Let us know what you think that proves.

Jack is Back!

In the immortal words of the CalTech cheerleaders:

Impede them, impede them
Make them relinquish the ball

If Rove or Libby are indicted along with Hanhah, they should plea NG and go to trial and lets see all the evidence. Also, lets get Cooper, Miller, Novak, Pincus, Russert, et.al. back on the stand. Also, Wilson, Plame, Tenet, Bill Keller, Jill Abramson, et.al. What a witness list, what a story to keep the flame (Plame?) lit. Why not?


"Un-provoked" invasion of Iraq?

Every time Iraq fired on a U.S. warplane patrolling one of the no-fly zones, it was an act of war. As far as I'm concerned, if the Iraqis even "painted" one of our a/c flying in the UN mandated no-fly zones, it was an act of war.

When Saddam tried to have Bush 41 assassinated, it was an act of war.

Was Clinton's defense secretary in "the media" when he linked AQ and Iraq?


Was Clinton cooking the Intel when he said Iraq had WMD?

Finally, was the totality of the Intel the Senate was seeing so different than what Bush saw that it would have kept them from supporting the war? I doubt it. As for one senator's opinion....Chuck Schumer said yesterday on Meet The Press he'd didn't regret his vote for the war.

"Schumer said he is willing to accept Fitzgerald's decision. Russert asked him if he regretted his vote for the Iraq war knowing what he knows now, and Chuck said: "No, Tim." His vote in favor of the war, he explained, was a vote in favor of "an active war on terror."


I seriously doubt Senator Schumer would feel this way if he thought he'd been lied to.


"Every time Iraq fired on a U.S. warplane patrolling one of the no-fly zones, it was an act of war."

Yes, I guess that's why Bush built his case for war around that concept: "we must invade Iraq because sometimes they fire on our planes in the no-fly zones."

"When Saddam tried to have Bush 41 assassinated, it was an act of war."

I guess that's another part of the SOTU that was redacted in the version I saw: "I'm really pissed because he tried to kill Daddy."

"Was Clinton's defense secretary in 'the media' when he linked AQ and Iraq?"

If you look hard enough, you can find minor linkages between AQ and Iraq. Likewise regarding minor linkages between AQ and Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, and every other major Arab country. Likewise, it's easy to find all sorts of linkages between the Bush family and the bin Laden family. Let me know what you think all this proves.

Also, since AQ links with Saudi Arabia are perhaps strongest of all, I'd be interested in knowing how you feel about this.

"Was Clinton cooking the Intel when he said Iraq had WMD?"

I don't know and I don't care, because Clinton wasn't trying to build a case for an invasion.

"was the totality of the Intel the Senate was seeing so different than what Bush saw that it would have kept them from supporting the war?"

Apparently WHIG felt the differences were pivotal. Otherwise they wouldn't have worked so hard to keep certain words (like "dubious") out of the unclassified NIE.

"Chuck Schumer said yesterday on Meet The Press he'd didn't regret his vote for the war."

That's Schumer's problem, not mine.


Minor linkages? Perhaps you need to read the article a little more closely. I think Clinton and his people claimed a little more than minor linkages.

And whether Bush mentioned no-fly zone violations or not to justify the invasion is immaterial to this discussion. You say the invasion was un-provoked. Firing numerous times on American warplanes, and trying to assassinate any ex-president, is all the provocation needed to fry anyone.


"I think Clinton and his people claimed a little more than minor linkages"

You're obviously entitled to your opinion about what's "minor" and what's not. I notice no comment from you about whether you consider this a "minor" linkage.

Or this: "the Council of Foreign Relations concluded almost three years ago that Saudi Arabia is the main source of al Qaeda backing and that Saudi officials have refused to take serious action to end it."

Or this, for that matter.

Anyway, as I said, lots of people said Saddam was dangerous. Bush went a step further. He said Saddam was so dangerous that the only solution was a war of choice, and that this war needed to start on 3/19/03 and not a day later. Bush was wrong.

"whether Bush mentioned no-fly zone violations or not to justify the invasion is immaterial"

The way it's supposed to work is that Congress and the public gets to know the entire truth about reasons for war, especially when it's a war of choice.

Why do you hate democracy? Why are you so willing to export it via violence while forgetting what it means at home?


You say you don't care if Clinton was cooking the intel? So are you telling me its OK to foment an overthrow of Saddam with cooked intel...its OK to bomb him with cooked intel...its OK to pad your defense bona-fides with cooked intel...just don't invade with it? Please.

I don't hate democracy. Neither do I hate George W. Bush. I think the man made a hard choice, considering the totality of the intel available, and with 9/11 as a backdrop. When I see something from a source I consider reputable that convinces me Bush lied to the American people, I'll readily admit it.

As for Saudi Arabia....Maybe if we developed our own domestic energy sources, we could be a little tougher on the Saudis? Just a thought.

In reference to Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam (or our former relationship with Saddam): weren't the Japanese our allies during World War I? Or, have we always chosen our friends wisely (or honestly)?

BTW, how about the Iraqi constitution vote?

The comments to this entry are closed.