Sorry about your flu.

Drink some hot tea and gloat. You predicted enough two years ago to get this much needed ball rolling. That was plenty.

You've earned the right to rest...

Agreed. Get some rest. I mean, you BROKE this story. Don't forget that.

Given what we already know, given the persons involved, and given what we have recently learned what Judith Miller has most likely testified about in just the last week, it seems most curious that now everyone wants to have their say to clarify things all of them worked so hard to muddy earlier. Out of all this ooze some truth will be plucked. Three indicted and one unindicted co conspirator may be the least of it.

I hope Mr. Corn is deep asleep dreaming, as I am while awake, of the possible sweaty bunker scene going on in the all too terribly White House. Cheney instructing W on who will be made to fall on their sword. Maybe even a little talk of giving somebody the good old "William Casey right before Iran-Contra" job. It is starting to get a little Nixonian. Non-denial denials and attack the accuser tactics have historically been a bad omen, but I wonder if most people are so jaded that they just do not care.

These scum-sucking, pandering, murderous whores have got to go. The typical bloated fat cat or bourbon soaked bureaucrat is preferable to these thugs. Karl Rove is the paranoid consigliere of this particular crime family. Let's hope some of them can at least metaphorically go mad in prison from syphallis like Capone.

Solly

I hope Karl gets house arrest in that chicken coop he claims is his residence in Kerr County, Texas.

What the hell are you doing associating with Pajamas Media?

Rove to testify before CIA investigation grand jury

By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Presidential confidant Karl Rove will testify for a fourth time before the federal grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA officer's identity even though prosecutors have warned they can no longer guarantee he will escape indictment, lawyers said Thursday.

Rove's offer was accepted by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in the last week as the grand jury's wraps up its work and decides whether Rove, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby or any other presidential aides should face criminal charges.

Rove's lawyer said Thursday that Fitzgerald has assured him that he has made no decisions yet on charges and that his client has not received a so-called target letter, usually the last step before a grand jury indictment.

"I can say categorically that Karl has not received a target letter from the special counsel," attorney Robert Luskin said. "The special counsel has confirmed that he has not made any charging decisions in respect to Karl."

Luskin said that Rove "continues to be cooperative voluntarily" with the investigation but that he could not further discuss his dealings with Fitzgerald's office.

However, several people directly familiar with the investigation told The Associated Press that Fitzgerald sent a letter accepting Rove's offer to testify but warning prosecutors could no longer guarantee the presidential aide wouldn't be indicted.

Rove offered in July to return to the grand jury, and Fitzgerald accepted that offer last Friday after taking grand jury testimony from the formerly jailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller, the people said, speaking only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy.

*****end of clip*****

The 11th hour play to prevent an indictment?

Mountain Man: I'm gonna make you squeal like a pig. Weeeeeeee!

Bobby: Weee!

Mountain Man: Weeeeeeee!

Bobby: Weee!

HA!

capt

Maybe Rove figures it's time to save his own behind?
But then again what are the chances of that happening!

washingtonpost.com
Report Warns Democrats Not to Tilt Too Far Left

By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 7, 2005; A07

The liberals' hope that Democrats can win back the presidency by drawing sharp ideological contrasts and energizing the partisan base is a fantasy that could cripple the party's efforts to return to power, according to a new study by two prominent Democratic analysts.

In the latest shot in a long-running war over the party's direction -- an argument turned more passionate after Democrat John F. Kerry's loss to President Bush last year -- two intellectuals who have been aligned with former president Bill Clinton warn that the only way back to victory is down the center.

Democrats must "admit that they cannot simply grow themselves out of their electoral dilemmas," wrote William A. Galston and Elaine C. Kamarck, in a report released yesterday. "The groups that were supposed to constitute the new Democratic majority in 2004 simply failed to materialize in sufficient number to overcome the right-center coalition of the Republican Party."

Since Kerry's defeat, some Democrats have urged that the party adopt a political strategy more like one pursued by Bush and his senior adviser, Karl Rove -- which emphasized robust turnout of the party base rather than relentless, Clinton-style tending to "swing voters."

But Galston and Kamarck, both of whom served in the Clinton White House, said there are simply not enough left-leaning voters to make this a workable strategy. In one of their more potentially controversial findings, the authors argue that the rising numbers and influence of well-educated, socially liberal voters in the Democratic Party are pulling the party further from most Americans.

On defense and social issues, "liberals espouse views diverging not only from those of other Democrats, but from Americans as a whole. To the extent that liberals now constitute both the largest bloc within the Democratic coalition and the public face of the party, Democratic candidates for national office will be running uphill."

Galston and Kamarck -- whose work was sponsored by Third Way, a group working with Senate Democrats on centrist policy ideas -- are critical of three other core liberal arguments:

· They warn against overreliance on a strategy of solving political problems by "reframing" the language by which they present their ideas, as advocated by linguist George Lakoff of the University of California at Berkeley: "The best rhetoric will fail if the public rejects the substance of a candidate's agenda or entertains doubts about his integrity."

· They say liberals who count on rising numbers of Hispanic voters fail to recognize the growing strength of the GOP among Hispanics, as well as the growing weakness of Democrats with white Catholics and married women.

· They contend that Democrats who hope the party's relative advantages on health care and education can vault them back to power "fail the test of political reality in the post-9/11 world." Security issues have become "threshold" questions for many voters, and cultural issues have become "a prism of candidates' individual character and family life," Galston and Kamarck argue.

Their basic thesis is that the number of solidly conservative Republican voters is substantially larger that the reliably Democratic liberal voter base. To win, the argument goes, Democrats must make much larger inroads among moderates than the GOP.

Galston, a professor of public policy at the University of Maryland, and Kamarck, a lecturer at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, in 1989 wrote the influential paper, "The Politics of Evasion," which helped set the stage for Clinton's presidential bid and the prominent role of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. In some ways, the report released yesterday showed how difficult the debate is to resolve.

Their recommendations are much less specific than their detailed analysis of the difficulties facing the Democratic Party.

They suggest that Democratic presidential candidates replicate Clinton's tactics in 1992, when he broke with the party's liberal base by approving the execution of a semi-retarded prisoner, by challenging liberal icon Jesse L. Jackson and by calling for an end to welfare "as we know it."

******End of Clip******

It looks like there's just not enough liberals to win a majority of the electorate. If democrats want to win, they're going to have to move the party to the center, to attract right-of-center moderates who re-elected George W. Bush. I said it here, and I'll say it again, no progressive/liberal democratic candidate has EVER won the presidency, but there have been several conservative republicans who have won.

Mr. David Corn,

Of course he HAD to clear up something, one never needs to clear up their innocence and the truth has never had a misunderstanding with reality.

I relish the thought that the traitors that leaked Plame’s name, information or whatever are forced to face their crime.

All of the mumbo-jumbo about whether the name was spoken or she was just Mrs. Joe makes no matter. People see right through the parsing of words and law. Wrong is wrong and I hope the criminals answer for their crimes in full measure.

I remember people saying Valeries name was being spread all around (6 reporters) THAT is what most people remember. It was on purpose to smear Joe. A few journalists would not run with it originally, how sleazy does something have to be to have "journalists" not want to touch it and the only slug that does is Bob "the snake" Novak?

Thanks for all of your work

Kirk

Third Way Releases Groundbreaking Report: The Politics of Polarization
New Study of Electorate Updates Seminal Work by Galston and Kamarck

Washington — Third Way today released a new study by William Galston and Elaine Kamarck entitled The Politics of Polarization , which examines the recent past, the present, and the foreseeable future of modern-day electoral politics. This paper follows the authors' enormously influential 1989 study, The Politics of Evasion, which helped shape Bill Clinton's approach to politics and governance.

Like their earlier work, the new study exposes several pervasive myths that are allowing Democrats to evade difficult truths about the electorate. The Politics of Polarization also reveals how Democrats have lost ground among key groups of voters, including married women and Catholics. And it uncovers a new phenomenon the authors call "the great sorting-out," which explains how the extraordinary new levels of partisanship have polarized the electorate to the detriment of Democrats.

After their earlier study, which was released by the Democratic Leadership Council, helped propel Clinton to the presidency, Galston, now the Saul Stern Professor of Civic Engagement at the University of Maryland and Director of its Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy, and Kamarck, now a lecturer in public policy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, served together in the Clinton White House.

"Bill Galston and Elaine Kamarck helped define an entire era of American politics and exploded some of the myths that Democrats harbored in the late 1980s," said Third Way President Jonathan Cowan . "We are delighted to be releasing this fascinating new portrait of the political landscape, and we are confident that this study will have a significant impact on the politics of our time."

Senator Tom Carper (D-DE), a founding co-chair of Third Way and chair of the group's Middle Class Project, said in a statement: "This report does a brilliant job of deciphering electoral trends over the last few national elections, while suggesting how Democrats can position themselves to win again. There's a leadership vacuum in this country that Democrats can fill by distinguishing ourselves from Republicans and offering a bold, positive vision of the future. The Politics of Polarization is a work of great importance, and I will be sending it to all of my Democratic colleagues in the Senate and urging them to consider it carefully."

The Politics of Polarization first looks back at the Clinton legacy and notes how his incumbency shaped voter opinion of Democrats in the areas of economics, where he restored Democratic credibility; national security, where he had few opportunities to change voter perceptions; and values, where he left a mixed legacy, with gains for Democrats in the areas of race-based values but substantial erosion in religion-based values.

The paper identifies four myths to which Democrats have fallen prey:

The myth of mobilization is the belief that the key to Democratic victory is to energize the base and bring them to the polls in record numbers.

The myth of demography is the view that long-term, ongoing changes in the U.S. population - such as an increase in the number of Hispanic voters and female professionals - will secure a Democratic majority for decades to come.

The myth of language holds that the problem with the Democratic Party is not what it advocates, but rather how it speaks.

The myth of prescription drugs is shorthand for the theory that the Party can win national elections by avoiding cultural issues, downplaying national security, and changing the subject to domestic issues such as health care, education, and job security in the post-9/11 world.
The report also unearths a dominant political trend the authors tab as "the great sorting-out" and demonstrates that the current climate of polarization has tilted the national playing field against Democrats. Over the past thirty years, the ideological segmentation of the electorate has barely budged, but the authors found that ideology is a far greater predictor of voting behavior than in years past. For Democrats, the ramifications of the great sorting-out are mostly negative as there are three conservatives for every two liberals. Thus, compared to a generation ago, blue states are bluer, red states redder, and swing states fewer. Citing one example, the authors note that Jimmy Carter captured 72% of the liberal vote and won, while John Kerry captured 85% of the liberal vote and lost.

The Politics of Polarization concludes by urging Democrats to confront the current myths of the party, stop hiding behind domestic policy and honestly confront national security, show tolerance and common sense on hot-button social issues, develop new economic policies that embrace global competition while establishing a modernized social safety net, and pay more attention to the very personal qualities of integrity and character that often win or lose elections.

"Sixteen years ago, we wrote The Politics of Evasion after a Massachusetts Democrat lost a race many thought he should have won to a Texas Republican of questionable political skills," said Kamarck. "Besides the obvious parallels, it was time for a deep analysis of the electorate relying on real data, not pre-conceived assumptions."

"Once the myths that cloud the minds of Democrats have been dispelled, they can begin to confront the real challenges they face in foreign policy and national defense, culture, and the economy, and also in their understanding of how successful candidates must present themselves to the American people," said Galston.

"This study should serve as a wake-up call to progressives," Cowan said. "The facts are clear and the news is sobering. But as we saw in 1989, sometimes facing facts can move people to action."

David, You're still getting one part of the story wrong. The offer Rove made to testify was in July. Fitzgerald is only now taking him up on that offer. It was Fitzgeralds idea he testify: http://greyhairsblog.blogspot.com/2005/10/bzzzzzzz-updated.html

Tim L, blah blah blah. Go to your room. Shut up. You bore the hell out of me.

Rove to Testify Again in CIA Leak Case

Federal prosecutors warn they cannot guarantee the presidential adviser won't be indicted.

By Tom Hamburger, Peter Wallsten
and Josh Meyer, Times Staff Writers

WASHINGTON -- Presidential adviser Karl Rove has agreed to give last-minute testimony to a grand jury in the ongoing investigation into the leak of a covert CIA agent's identity.

In Washington, talk of imminent indictments —†of Rove alone or with others as part of a conspiracy —†was overheard in the corridors of the FBI, Justice Department and White House, according to several officials. One Bush administration official who was in a meeting with Rove this week said he seemed "his usual self."

"He didn't seem worried," said the administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because she would get fired if she was attached to stories about the case. "He seemed fine."

At the Justice Department, officials said that the wall between their prosecutors and Fitzgerald has kept even the slightest details about the investigation compartmentalized.

But in recent days, speculation at the department has grown regarding Fitzgerald's plans as the probe appears to be drawing to a conclusion. There have been indications that the prosecutor plans to initiate some proceedings soon.

Today, that speculation increased significantly with reports of Rove's reappearance before the grand jury, which one Justice Department official said was clearly an ominous sign for Rove and the White House.

"Certainly, it's not particularly good," said the Justice Department official. "What, exactly, the significance is, I can't say. But it can't be good."

*****end of clip*****

It cannot be good. The caveat that "they cannot guarantee the presidential adviser won't be indicted" sound to me like: "Nothing Rove could say will stop us from indicting him."

I might be wrong but . . .

capt

David wrote: "But the big point--at the moment--is that Rove would not have asked to appear once more before the grand jury unless he had to. And note that Fitzgerald did not take him up on this offer for nearly three months."

Ah, Mike. Please re-read.

Key findings from the report:

"The myth of prescription drugs is shorthand for the theory that the Party can win national elections by avoiding cultural issues, downplaying national security, and changing the subject to domestic issues such as health care, education, and job security in the post-9/11 world."

"The report also unearths a dominant political trend the authors tab as "the great sorting-out" and demonstrates that the current climate of polarization has tilted the national playing field against Democrats. Over the past thirty years, the ideological segmentation of the electorate has barely budged, but the authors found that ideology is a far greater predictor of voting behavior than in years past. For Democrats, the ramifications of the great sorting-out are mostly negative as there are three conservatives for every two liberals. Thus, compared to a generation ago, blue states are bluer, red states redder, and swing states fewer. Citing one example, the authors note that Jimmy Carter captured 72% of the liberal vote and won, while John Kerry captured 85% of the liberal vote and lost."

"The Politics of Polarization concludes by urging Democrats to confront the current myths of the party, stop hiding behind domestic policy and honestly confront national security, show tolerance and common sense on hot-button social issues, develop new economic policies that embrace global competition while establishing a modernized social safety net, and pay more attention to the very personal qualities of integrity and character that often win or lose elections."

capt, of course, Rove would act like his "usual self," "not be worried" etc. That's what power-mad, narcissistic sociopaths do.

Bush aide faces questions on CIA leak

By Tim Reid

Disclosure of agent's identity to lead to a criminal scandal that goes to the heart of the White House

KARL ROVE, President Bush’≥ chief political adviser, is to give 11th-hour testimony to a grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA official’≥ identity, and faces possible indictment in the case, sources close to the inquiry said last night.

In a highly unusual move that could presage a criminal scandal that reaches to the heart of the Bush Administration, Mr Rove, who has already testified three times, has agreed to appear again, just days before the two-year investigation was due to end.

If Mr Rove is indicted, it would be a hammer blow for Mr Bush, bringing the taint of criminal behaviour into the Oval Office at a time when Republicans face mounting sleaze allegations.

No adviser has been closer or more intimately involved in Mr Bush’≥ political rise than Mr Rove. The White House has already been rocked by last week’≥ unrelated indictments of Tom DeLay, the Republican House leader. Mr Rove’≥ lawyer, Robert Luskin, said he had been assured that no decisions on criminal charges have been made. He said Mr Rove would first have to receive a "target letter" that he is about to be indicted. "I can say categorically that Karl has not received a target letter from the special counsel," Mr Luskin said.

Starting in 2002, Ms Miller’≥ stories about purported weapons of mass destruction in Iraq bolstered the Bush Administration’≥ case for going to war and toppling Saddam Hussein. The failure to find the weapons in Iraq provoked heavy criticism of Ms Miller and The New York Times as well as of the Bush Administration. Mr Fitzgerald has characterised Ms Miller’≥ testimony as key to completing his investigation into the White House role in the disclosure of the CIA agent’≥ identity.

The grand jury expires on October 28.

*****end of clip*****

A little perspective from across the pond.

capt

CIA director defends 9/11 officers

October 07, 2005

WASHINGTON: CIA director Porter Goss has rejected the agency's inspector general's recommendation to hold CIA officers accountable for their performance leading up to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US.

Mr Goss said the inspector general recommended that the performance of some CIA officers who were working against al-Qa'ida before the attacks on New York and Washington be reviewed by an accountability board.

"After great consideration of this report and its conclusions, I will not convene an accountability board to judge the performances of any individual CIA officers," he said.

It was not immediately known how many CIA officers were named in the report, or why.

The CIA said the report was classified and would not be made public even in a censored form.

*****end of clip*****

So, nobody is to fault at the CIA, another "slam dunk?"

Whatever happened to taking responsibility for your failures.

"rejected the agency's inspector general's recommendation "

That is how effective an IG report is.

capt

Maybe you people can explain to me what the hell Howard Dean meant by saying "hide the salami" with his supreme court pick???

Dean is the best you people can throw at them? You people are pathetic!

Is Tim L trying to convince me that Pande is becoming Republican?

Capt wrote:

"So, nobody is to fault at the CIA, another "slam dunk?"

Whatever happened to taking responsibility for your failures."

I have no idea in hell how to explain these contradictory statements. Wait, if Bush planned 9/11, then how could it be his failure!?!?!

So Capt, either Bush planned 9/11 or he was negligent to protect the American people!?!? Which is it? lol

The only way I can discribe your contradictory statements are that you hate Bush so much, that you will use anything you can against him, even if make absolutely no sense!

If only I could have faith that justice has anything to do wih this. I want someone to name even one politician, who, after being caught red-handed, actually suffered any real consequences, like prison time. They may be out there but I can't recall, please remind me, it may restore my faith.
Hajji, I want to thank you for the recommendation of the movie "Crash." I haven't cried so much over a movie since I saw " The Life of David Gale." My only thought at the end was, "what is wrong with us?" I don't know if there is a devil or if it is genetic, I have no proof of either, but there is really something wrong on planet Earth, that much is evident.

Tim,
Sooooo...what's wrong with that? I hate Bush so much that I make absolutely no sense whenever I talk about him. It's hard to sound rational and use the name Bush in a sentence.

Jeanne, my point is, Capt sounds like an illogical fool. He has claimed several times that Bush orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. But now, he is blaming Bush for not doing enough to prevent 9/11, which would indicate that Capt doesn't believe Bush orchestrated 9/11.

So the only conclusion I can think of is, that he just hates Bush so much that ANYTHING negative towards Bush he can think of, he will use, even if it contradicts his previous beliefs about Bush.

Saladin,
There are so many good people out there like Hajji who just do their job, who comfort the sick. Those people are everywhere. The mechanic who does the repair work for free for the single mom. The cop who rounds up Christman presents for the family who lost everything. It goes on and on.
There is something wrong with the leaders. They need a good ass kicking.

No, Tim, I think that Bush is so incompetent that he could orchestrate 9/11 and not do enough to prevent it.

So what do you think Tim? Is Rove guilty or what?

Jeanne, you make no sense, just like Capt. I never thought Rove was guilty, since Fitzgerald already told him that he wasn't the target of the investigation.

When Rove does get off, are you progressives going to say the whole thing was a whitewash or something similiar?

Of course not. I'm going to say he's guilty. Because he is. And I make perfect sense. Have you ever heard Bush speak? I have never understood a single sentence that has come out of that man's mouth. Except when he was at that wedding and he was drunk. He was very coherent then.

Jeanne, I know there are many good people in the world. I personally know people who are a credit to the human race. What I meant was that it seems a sickness has overcome people, not everyone, but enough that the majority suffer. If you have not seen Crash, you should. The race issue is one that I simply cannot fathom and this movie delves deeply into it. I am a mutt, a mix of native American and Anglo, I don't have a racist bone in my body, and it is really painful to me to see people display such cruelty and hatred based on such a surface ideal. Hatred and cruelty for any reason is unacceptable to me. My father, a half-breed, was the most racist person I have ever known. Why are people like that? I am very thankful I have met people who are as adverse to this way of thinking as I am.

President Bush Stifles Science, Researchers Say

By Paul Recer
Associated Press
21 February 2005

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The voice of science is being stifled in the Bush administration, with fewer scientists heard in policy discussions and money for research and advanced training being cut, according to panelists at a national science meeting.

Rosina Bierbaum, dean of the University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment, said the Bush administration has cut scientists out of some of the policy-making processes, particularly on environmental issues.

"In previous administrations, scientists were always at the table when regulations were being developed,'' she said. "Science never had the last voice, but it had a voice.''

Issues on global warming, for instance, that achieved a firm scientific consensus in earlier years are now being questioned by Bush policy makers. Proven, widely accepted research is being ignored or disputed, she said.

Government policy papers issued prior to the Bush years moved beyond questioning the validity of global warming science and addressed ways of confronting or dealing with climate change.

Under Bush, said Bierbaum, the questioning of the proven science has become more important than finding ways to cope with climate change.

Among scientists, said Lane, "there is quite a consensus in place that the Earth is warming and that humans are responsible for a considerable part of that'' through the burning of fossil fuels.

And the science is clear, he said, that without action to control fossil fuel use, the warming will get worse and there will be climate events that "our species has not experienced before.''

Asked for comment, White House spokesman Ken Lisaius said, "The president makes policy decisions based on what the best policies for the country are, not politics. People who suggest otherwise are ill-informed.''

"This administration has distanced itself from scientific information,'' said Gottfried. He said this is part of a larger effort to let politics dominate pure science.

*****end of clip*****

The science is clear.

Maybe God told bunnypants that there is no global warming.

capt

It is time to realize the fact that two seperate individuals (Libby and Rove) at the same time approached reporters to give them the dual sources they needed to report for Valerie Plames outing. This is evidence of a conspiracy. Rove was under Bush and Libby was under Cheney. Did the president and vice president agree to Valerie Plames outing with Rove and Libby? ( I wonder who will take the blame?) These are questions I want asked.

Saladin,
My sister in law is Ojibwa and Dakota. She deals with racism a lot at work. It's very hard. I think the hardest thing about racism is the victim must realize that he or she is not considered human but is an object to the SOB who committing the act. And that the act is done to humiliate, to take dignity away. Why? I'm sure there is a billion different reasons and none of them are acceptable.
If you look at the polls and the Bush pep fests the numbers are crashing. Things are starting to change. I tell my kids this is an exciting time. They are witnessing change and they are a part of it. The air is being let out of the neo con blimp. It doesn't matter if Rove walks. He's damaged goods and so is everyone in the white house.

It is time to realize the fact that two seperate individuals (Libby and Rove) at the same time approached reporters to give them the dual sources they needed to report for Valerie Plames outing. This is evidence of a conspiracy. Rove was under Bush and Libby was under Cheney. Did the president and vice president agree to Valerie Plames outing with Rove and Libby? ( I wonder who will take the blame?) These are questions I want asked.

Good posts everybody. Ehh, except for one that kept trying to change the subject. We won't mention his name. *props* to the regs for keeping him on 'ignore'
Now... I'm wondering if our government is using any of their expanded powers to monitor all of themselves to see who's 'flipping' and who ain't. Some wiretapping and blackberry-hacking 'n such. Doesn't that make you guys curious? I am ! I'm already looking forward to Fitzgerald's book in a few years, ala *Vince Bugliosi (sp ck). wooohooozzzz!

*prosecutor of Charles Manson

A Case Of Treason by Larry Johnson
October 06, 2005

Maybe just one sip?

Juan Cole takes apart the Bush speech at:

http://www.juancole.com/

capt

Finally, the news covering natural disasters has subsided. Now we can get back to reporting the Rove White House disaster...

O.T. - Yesterday, the Pres. warns us that we need to stay the course in Iraq to keep Al Qaeda from taking over the country.

Today's CNN headline - NYC Subway on terror alert for "specific threat". Al Qaeda plot uncovered in southern Iraq. Coincidence? I think not. Stevie Wonder could see through this manipulation of the media.

Hounds of the Bastardvilles

Another name for the repugnants are the Hounds of the Bastardvilles. They hounded Clinton for lying about oral sex and they were even willing to bring down America with all kinds of allegations.

We have in the WH a murderer and a war criminal but since he is repugnant, no effort has been made to remove him from the WH. Plus, this murderer is also stupid and corrupt. It's okay with the repugnants because he is repugnant.

The Hounds of the Bastardvilles believe lying is wrong but murders and war crimes are wonderful.

Untruth, Injustice and the American Way

By DOUG THOMPSON
Oct 7, 2005, 08:27

President George W. Bush flat out lied to the American people, Congress and our allies to justify an illegal, immoral and ill-conceived invasion of Iraq. Aide after aide and expert after expert told the President of the United States that his pre-conceived notions were wrong yet he chose to ignore them.

"I know weapons of mass destruction are in Iraq and we will find them after we go in," Bush told the intelligence pros who said he was wrong. The weapons weren’t there and, of course, we didn’t find any.

"I know Saddam Hussein is in cahoots with Osama bin Laden," he said. The pros said otherwise but Bush ignored them. Bush went before Congress in his State of the Union speech and said such proof existed. It didn’t.

Polls show American confidence in Bush at an all-time law, lower than even Jimmy Carter after the failed Iran hostage rescue mission, lower than Richard M. Nixon in the throes of Watergate, lower than Lyndon B. Johnson at the height of Vietnam.

Americans don’t trust Bush and they shouldn’t. He lies. He mangled facts to support his distorted view of the world and he ignores reality to pursue a fantasy vision of himself as some vindicating leader destined to save the world. In reality, he’s a hallucinating little man with delusions of grandeur who couldn’t lead a troop of Cub Scouts on a back yard hike.

*****end of clip*****

Love the rant.

capt

U.S. Snags Letter From bin Laden Deputy to Zarqawi

WASHINGTON (Oct. 7) - The United States has obtained a letter from one terrorist leader to another that discusses plans to force a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, create an Islamic state there and then spread war to neighboring countries, Pentagon officials said.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman would only broadly characterize the intercepted letter, which he said was written by Osama bin Laden deputy Ayman al-Zawahri to the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Whitman would not say where, when or how it was obtained, or who intercepted it, but he said the Pentagon is confident it is authentic.

Whitman said the letter demonstrates "that there is this detailed planning and intent on the part of the insurgents in Iraq to one day control that country and to really try to extend their extremism to neighboring countries. It demonstrates to me they clearly understand the importance and significance of the battle in Iraq right now."

In the letter al-Zawahri urges Zarqawi - who has declared war on Iraq's Shiite Muslim majority - to avoid bombing mosques and slaughtering hostages to avoid alienating the masses, Whitman said.
-------------
Osama has some timing eh? Right on the heels of bush's support the war speech and claims of "19" operatives planning to bomb a NY subway. People must still be swallowing this BS or they wouldn't keep using it. The boogeyman lives!

In response to Damn_em I agree in that I believe Rove and Libby were givin' the ok from Bush and Chaney to let Plames' name fly to the press. I think either Bush and Chaney are involved or Chaney himself. I believe Bush didn't have the guts to give the ok himself and the more I think about it the more I believe it was Chaney. I hope all the truth comes out because this will make "Monica Gate" look just like it was, nothing at all compaired to this scandal. One last thing let us not forget about the other scumbag, Tom Delay. They should give Delay, Rove Bush, Chaney, Rumsfield, and Rice a rifle and no bullet proof vests and send them to Iraq to fight. With any luck they won't make it back...

Tim L. you sound the fool, not capt... not once has capt. ever said that bush orchestrated 911...
as for myself, I believe that a faction within the bushco admin. did indeed orchestrate 911, but as for bush himself? he couldn't even orchestrate a sandwich on his own.

"People must still be swallowing this BS or they wouldn't keep using it."

Take heart. The polls would seem to indicate that group is now mostly limited to the Tim Ls of the world - the same folks who even now would insist the only thing we did wrong in Viet Nam was not cross into the north, bomb everything back to the stone age, and start WWIII with China and the USSR. The reason they keep using it is that it is the only strategy they have ever had, and it is wearing quite thin, actually. Remember, Bush & co are the political equivalent of the Gottis - a crime family, nothing more - they are not brilliant intellects, just relentless and willing to do absolutely anything to further their short sighted self interest.

"he couldn't even orchestrate a sandwich on his own."

...not without falling and bruising his head on it, anyway...

I hope you are right Robb. But I know quite a few people who, while detesting bushco, completely believe the Arab terrorist spiel, many right here on this blog. This is in spite of a mountain of evidence proving otherwise. Oh well, what can you do?

All I ask is that there will be two indictments, one for the murderer, George W. and a second for Cheney, the corruptor and the impregnator. Those two indictments would make my day.

I,m listening to you!!!!! SECRET SERVICE!!!!!

Nice to see that the Secret Service does not know the difference between an apostrophe and a comma. Servant, just like master, does not know up from down. Then they both claim that we all had them backward all along.

"In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."
-Erasmus

Solly

Mike is correct -- David's whole premise for writing this is based on the assumption that Rove requested to appear now.

Rove did not ask to testify again -- in fact, I really haven't a clue why so many liberal bloggers are writing stories from this angle -- it simply is not true.

Rove, and his lawyer, volunteered to reappear before the grand jury back in July. Fitzgerald was the one that took him up on the offer, not the other way around.

So forget trying to find motivation for Rove appearing now -- he has none because he could not force Fitzgerald to recall him. Instead, you should be asking why would Fitzgerald bring Rove back now.

IDEM, thanks. The liberals who are writing from the angle that Rove wanted to go back are wrong. The way the original AP story was written makes it look like Rove wanted to. But the story is poorly written and has led a bunch of us down the wrong track. I'm not sure if it matters all that much in the end as I think it still means Rove is toast. But it's a much less damning story if Fitzy made the request.

Prediction:

Karl Rove and Lewis Libby will be indicted for:

Perjury
Obstruction of Justice
Lying to Investigators (they lie to everyone)
Destruction of Evidence
Intimidation of Witnesses/Witness Tampering
The 1917 Espionage Statutes (see below):

Title 18, Section 793:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000793----000-.html

Just failing to report a negligent disclosure is a violation of Title 18, Section 793.

Title 18, Section 794:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000794----000-.html

The violated Non-Disclosure Agreement:

"I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of Sections 641, 793, 794, 798, 952 and 1924, Title 18, United States Code, the provisions of Section 783(b), Title 50, United States Code, and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982."

http://www.fas.org/sgp/isoo/sf312.html

A prior conviction under Title 18, Section 794 created the precedent that giving information "related to the public defense" or "to the advantage of any foreign nation" to the press is the same as giving it to foreign spies (US v Morison):

"Finally, the danger to the United States is just as great when this information is released to the press as when it is released to an agent of a foreign government. The fear in releasing this type of information is that it gives other nations information concerning the intelligence gathering capabilities of the United States. That fear is realized whether the information is released to the world at large or whether it is released only to specific spies."

http://www.mtsu.edu/%7Elburriss/morison.html

Violations of Title 18, Section 794(b) during War Time, Merits Death!

To prove the necessary "intent" under 794(b), Fitzgerald only has to present sufficient evidence that Rove and others knew the enemy would have access to the main stream media at the time they communicated information relating to the public defense to Novak and/or other reporters

Remember, a violation of Title 18, Section 794(b) during War Time merits DEATH (carefully read the first and last sentences):

"Whoever, in time of war, with intent that the same shall be communicated to the enemy, collects, records, publishes, or communicates, or attempts to elicit any information with respect to the movement, numbers, description, condition, or disposition of any of the Armed Forces, ships, aircraft, or war materials of the United States, or with respect to the plans or conduct, or supposed plans or conduct of any naval or military operations, or with respect to any works or measures undertaken for or connected with, or intended for the fortification or defense of any place, or any other information relating to the public defense, which might be useful to the enemy, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life."

David, I believe you meant well when you suggested the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act had been violated, but it has a much higher threshold for conviction and far lower penalties. Take a look at what has been given you. It's long past time that someone said, hey this is treason and this is why. Remember, these are the same laws that were used against the Rosenbergs, Aldrich Ames, Kim Philby and Robert Hansen. It's fitting for Rove and Libby to join that group.

David,

From what I've read about Ms. Miers, I think she would make a decent justice. As you know, she wouldn't be the first justice never to have been a judge. More importantly, I don't think she is the kind of ideologue (Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, ect) that worries the left the most. She, as well as John Roberts, seem like they are reasonable conservatives, and won't judge cases based on ideological determinism. Thus, I think we should quietly support this one.

Hal Perry

On a related topic:

The Miller "found notes" that relate to Wilson/Plame are being reported as coming from a meeting between Libby and Miller on June 25th, 2003, before Wilson's oped piece appeared on July 6, 2003. Wilson's oped piece was published in the New York Times [where Judith Miller works, and has an obviously privledged position].

Could this have been a meeting where Ms. Miller told Libby what was coming? Surely it was in the hands of NYT editors long before it was published. Maybe the New York Times is just as "leaky" as the White House. And maybe that would explain why the paper has been so protective of her, even though her antics have been so damning to them...