 |
||||
|
|
June 13, 2006Rove EscapesFrom my "Capital Games" column at www.thenation.com.... Early this morning, Robert Luskin, Karl Rove's lawyers, told reporters that special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald had sent him a letter stating that Rove would not be indicted in the CIA leak case. In a statement, Luskin declared, "We believe that the Special Counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct." Bush administration (and Rove) advocates will spin this news as vindication for the mastermind of George W. Bush's presidential campaigns. But there is no need for baseless speculation to conclude that Rove was involved in the leak and that the White House misled the public about his participation and broke a pledge to fire anyone who had leaked information about Valerie Wilson, the CIA officer married to former ambassador Joseph Wilson, a critic of the administration. Here is what is known about Rove and the leak. On July 9, 2003--three days after Joe Wilson published a New York Times op-ed piece disclosing that he had been sent to Niger by the CIA to check out the allegation that Iraq had been seeking to purchase uranium there and had reported back that such a transaction was highly unlikely--Rove confirmed to columnist Robert Novak that Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. By this point in time, the White House--particularly Dick Cheney's office and Scooter Libby--had been gathering information on Wilson, his wife, and his trip for weeks. (In May and June, stories had appeared in the media quoting an unnamed ambassador who had gone to Niger and found nothing to substantiate the uranium-buying charge, which Bush had alleged in his 2003 State of the Union address.) And when Rove spoke to Novak--who had first heard about Valerie Wilson from another administration official--the White House was engaged in an effort to discredit Wilson. Cheney and others believed that if Wilson's mission to Niger could be depicted as a junket or boondoggle arranged by Wilson's wife, Wilson and his findings would be undermined. Spending a week in one of the poorest countries in the world for no pay would hardly qualify as a junket, but the White House was trying to use whatever they could. Two days after Rove spoke to Novak and gave the columnist the confirmation he needed to proceed with a piece that would out Valerie Wilson as an undercover CIA officer working on weapons of mass destruction, Rove spoke to Matt Cooper of Time. According to an email Cooper wrote immediately after this conversation, Rove told him that Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and had sent Wilson to Niger. This conversation occurred three days before the Novak article appeared. So Rove spoke to two reporters about Valerie Wilson. Her employment status at the CIA was classified. Rove was not merely gossiping, he was disseminating secret information, whether he realized it or not. After the leak appeared in Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Scott McClellan, who had just taken over as White House press secretary, said of the leak, "That is not the way this President or this White House operates." He was wrong. It was precisely how the White House had operated. Scooter Libby--according to Fitzgerald's legal filings, Cooper's account, and the account of New York Times reporter Judy Miller--had also discussed Valerie Wilson's CIA connection with Cooper and Miller before the Novak column was published. After the news broke in late September 2003 that the CIA had asked the Justice Department to launch a criminal investigation of the leak, McClellan declared that he had spoken to Rove and that "he was not involved" in the leak. McClellan also asserted that the vice president's office had not leaked the information about Valerie Wilson. He noted, "If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration." Bush affirmed that Rove was uninvolved and said, "If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action." Rove--with or without the knowledge of the president and other White House aides--kept his leading role in the leak a secret for almost two years. In the summer of 2005, Newsweek revealed the Cooper email. And Fitzgerald's indictment of Libby months later disclosed that Rove had told Libby that he had spoken to Novak about Joe Wilson's wife. The White House responded to these revelations by stonewalling, claiming that it could not answer any questions about Rove and the leak while a criminal investigation was underway. And it maintained that it could not even explain its previous--and false--statements about Rove and Libby. McClellan's promise--made on behalf of the president--that anyone involved in the leak would be booted from the administration--was not honored. Nor was Bush's statement that action would be taken against anyone who leaked classified information. The evidence was clear. Rove had conveyed classified information about Valerie Wilson to two reporters as part of a White House effort to undercut Joe Wilson. Fitzgerald had a high burden of proof in the Rove case. To win a prosecution under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act--which makes it a felony to disclose identifying information about a covert officer--Fitzgerald would have had to prove that Rove definitely knew that Valerie Wilson was not just a CIA employee but an undercover CIA employee. If Rove could raise doubt about his state of knowledge on that point, he would be able to mount an effective defense. Fitzgerald had kept Rove in the crosshairs for so long because he suspected that Rove had lied to FBI agents and his grand jury when Rove said at first that he had not spoken with Cooper about Valerie Wilson. It was only after a Rove email emerged--under somewhat puzzling circumstances--that noted that he had talked to Cooper that Rove acknowledged that he had a conversation with Cooper (though he still said he did not recall it). Fitzgerald spent over a year-and-a-half trying to determine if he could prosecute Rove for perjury or obstruction of justice, as Rove's lawyer tried mightily to explain the delay in producing that one email. In the end, Fitzgerald concluded his case was not strong enough. Given his pursuit of Libby and the time he kept Rove hanging, it's reasonable to assume that Fitzgerald rendered a good-faith judgment based on the law and the facts he had in hand. Which brings us back to the Democrats' early mistake. From the start, they called for a special counsel--as if that would get to the bottom of the controversy. But Fitzgerald's mission was to investigate possible crimes and then mount prosecutions if he had the evidence to do so. His job was not to be a fact-finder for the public. He is not compelled to release any report detailing what he discovered about the leak and the White House role. Independent counsels in the past were required to write public reports. But the law establishing independent counsels expired years ago, with the consent of Democrats angry at Kenneth Starr. A special counsel has no obligation to report on what he or she discovered. Congress was the body that should have investigated the leak--not as a criminal matter but as an issue of White House conduct--and it did not. Senior congressional Democrats did not push that point when they had the chance. That means now that the whole story of the leak has yet to be disclosed. And it may never be--in an official sense. (Stay tuned for a book I am writing that will be out in the fall.) But several essentials are well-established: Rove leaked classified information that may have harmed national security; the White House said he hadn't and that leakers would be fired; Rove remains at the president's side today. Not all wrongdoing--not all lying--in Washington is illegal. Rove escaped prosecution. But the episode has revealed the way the Bush White House really operates. Posted by David Corn at June 13, 2006 12:10 PM |
|
|
"HUBRIS is a bold and provocative book that will quickly become an explosive part of the national debate on how we got involved in Iraq." --Tom Brokaw |
Comments
Rove is piece of crap.
Posted by: anonymous at June 13, 2006 12:21 PM
You say, "In the end, Fitzgerald concluded his case was not strong enough." But other noted blue-blogosphere commentators are speculating that Rove has (conditionally) escaped charges by making a deal -- perhaps to seal Fitz's case against Cheney, or perhaps to seal the case against Libby (to perhaps further pressure Libby to seal the case against Cheney). Is there a reason you think that's not a possibility?
Posted by: anonymousdeux at June 13, 2006 12:27 PM
Deux, C'set mois, un. J'agree. If Fitz had a deal with Rove to deliver the goods on others in return for a skate - and who couldn't imagine Rove selling out his own mom to skate - then its a possibility.
But Fitz would have to have something on Rove but not too much. He couldn;t let Rove off with nothing if he had a significant role.
And Fitz would have to have bigger fish to fry. Have you ever tasted Cheney? It's good with Old Bay and plenty of beer. It's an acquired taste.
Posted by: anonymous at June 13, 2006 12:34 PM
Hey! What happened to the other comments?
Posted by: Kid Charlemagne at June 13, 2006 12:52 PM
Those conversations never happened.
Posted by: anonymous at June 13, 2006 12:58 PM
43
I think you're busy parsing statements and missing the bigger picture.
Bush made his statement with full knowledge that he had declassified select parts of the NIE. He therefore knew it was not an illegal leak when he made the statement. It was a legal leak but it was a leak nonetheless, which he allegedly deplores.
Furthermore it was this administrationÕs considered policy to 'go after' Wilson, an enemy of the administration, to discredit him and exact a price. Wilson was creating doubt about the justification for war. He called attention to the bogus claim about yellowcake in Niger. Mind you, this was not a mistaken claim; this was a bogus claim. The administration knew it was not true.
Two main claims justifying an invasion of Iraq - yellowcake, Saddam/Bin Laden operational coordination - were conclusions that were NOT supported by the CIA. Bush and his team asserted them as fact.
Parse the statements and claim Bush never actually said it. Then poll the country, ask them what they believe. The lies - and there were many - were knowingly and deliberately told to take this country to war in Iraq for reasons our government has not been honest about.
The attack on Wilson was a policy and it was an organized effort by senior administration officials to exert a back stabbing blow to WilsonÕs credibility. WilsonÕs wife was a CIA agent working on nuclear non-proliferation, who was in transition from Non-Official Cover (NOC) to official cover and she was identified as a CIA agent by Libby, Rove and Hadley to the press. The fact that Rove will not be indicted proves nothing; either the prosecutor doesnÕt think he guilty or the prosecutor doesnÕt have the evidence to prove heÕs guilty.
PlameÕs status was classified. It is against the law to disclose classified information to unauthorized personnel. Libby, Rove and Hadley told Judy Miller, Matt Cooper, Bob Novak, Bob Woodward, Tim Russert.)
Parse BushÕs words again if it makes you feel better. If you think this is just government, support it.
Non-official back channels to the press are what got the Iraq WMD stories nationwide coverage . . .. only it wasnÕt true. Senior White House officials leaked the stories to Judy Miller of the NYT. The NYT times published it. Senior white house officials went on Sunday morning national TV and wanted us of smoking guns and mushroom cloud. The people who read this blog ought to be smart enough to know ehn theyÕve been had.
Wilson was prepared to risk his reputation to call attention to this administration's bogus claims to justify the war. Wilson did the research on Yellowcake in Niger. He knows what he reported back to the CIA. . . then he hears the administration assert patently untrue stories as fact.
Bush said he would fire anybody who made unauthorized illegal leaks but he thinks whatever actions the presidentÕs administration takes are legal.
Libby and Rove should be charged with disclosing classified information. It was malicious and illegal to identify Plame whose status was classified.
Larry Johnson had something interesting to say last weekend. He is disgusted by the way reasonable republicans are falling all over themselves to justify decisions and policies by this administration that they never before would have supported. What's up with that?
Posted by: anonymous at June 13, 2006 12:59 PM
Ha ha ha ha ...
I'm going to LMAO reading all the pathetic whining which is about to erupt here!
If Wilson wants to know who outed his wife all he has to do is look in the mirror.
Sincerely,
The REAL Tim
Posted by: Tim at June 13, 2006 01:03 PM
I dunno. Sure seems like Fitz had plenty on Rove. Sounds, or looks like a deal was cut somewhere, for something.
Posted by: Alan at June 13, 2006 01:08 PM
Escapes?????? Escape is a good word for a convict. Good to know that you are just a writer and not a judge.
Posted by: Kevin Duffy at June 13, 2006 01:11 PM
Hope David has more facts in his new book than what he's posted here.
Posted by: LBH at June 13, 2006 01:29 PM
If Wilson wants to know who outed his wife all he has to do is look in the mirror.
I wonder when we're going to see that indictment?
ROTFLMAO!
Posted by: Don at June 13, 2006 01:39 PM
Oh give it up already, you people are truly pathetic. He did not leak classified information. When will you get that through your tinfoil hats? Karl Rove must really scare the hell out of you people. Can't wait until November.
November 7th, 2006 - The official death of liberalism
Posted by: Proud to be a Republican at June 13, 2006 01:41 PM
I did predict that Rover would not be indicted. Now the Libby indictment will be thrown out. I guess the leaking of CIA operatives is not a crime?
Posted by: Gerald at June 13, 2006 01:47 PM
Never Argue With a German If You're Tired - Grace Slick
Sticken in mine haken
sticken in mine haut
fugen mine gas mit mine auss pucken
straightem zee nicht mit
einem duetschen venn zee
mewden sint.
mine auto fairt ser
schnell aber ess rast
gegen mawen
Ya das ben mine
ya das bin du
du das ben ich
fair zuc ess
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at June 13, 2006 01:49 PM
Hello, Everyone:
I'm a Republican who regularly reads Democrat-related information sources to get a wide variety of perspectives on issues. While I typically disagree with the ideas, arguments, and evidence presented at Democrat sources, I still appreciate and respect the people who write.
In the interests of creating politics that are beneficial to all of us, I'd like to share my observations as an outsider looking in.
Everything I read from Democrat sources sounds like 2000, 2002, and 2004. The tone, the tenor, the emotion, the evil Republicans theme, the Wile E. Coyote search for the next Acme product to catch the Republican Road Runner; it's all the same. There is no fundamental change in the thinking and talking among Democrats.
If you continue on this path, do you expect a different result this November? You must stop this constant search for external causes of Democrat election losses and realize that it is for internal reasons (the issues, positions, and candidates) that Democrats primarily lose elections.
Posted by: Republican Visitor at June 13, 2006 02:00 PM
In Loving Memory - Billy Preston
BILLY PRESTON lyrics - "Will It Go Round In Circles"
www.OldieLyrics.com
I've got a song, I ain't got no melody
I'ma gonna sing it to my friends
I've got a song, I ain't got no melody
I' ma gonna sing it to my friends
Will it go round in circles
Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky
Will it go round in circles
Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky
I've got a story, ain't got no moral
Let the bad guy win every once in a while
I've got a story, ain't got no moral
Let the bad guy win every once in a while
Will it go round in circles
Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky
Will it go round in circles
Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky
I've got a dance, I ain't got no steps, no
I'm gonna let the music move me around
I've got a dance, I ain't got no steps
I'm gonna let the music move me around
Will it go round in circles
Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky
Will it go round in circles
Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky
[Instrumental Interlude]
Will it go round in circles
Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky
Will it go round in circles
Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky
I've got a song, I ain't got no melody
I'ma gonna sing it to my friends
I've got a song, I ain't got no melody
I' ma gonna sing it to my friends
Will it go round in circles
Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky
Will it go round in circles
Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at June 13, 2006 02:05 PM
SmirkingChimp.com has several good articles for June 13, 2006.
Posted by: Gerald at June 13, 2006 02:06 PM
When will we ever learn
Posted by: Gerald at June 13, 2006 02:16 PM
The fix is in
Posted by: Gerald at June 13, 2006 02:19 PM
Now that the investigation against Rove has been called off its time for the press to seek some answers to all those questions that were deflected with the "we will not comment on a continuing investigation" excuse (ie. leaking is not how the white house operates, if there was a leak the leaker will be dealt with appropriately, etc.).
The fact that Fitzgerald declined to prosecute now leaves these issues wide open to public inquiry (whereas if an investigation was opened Rove/Bush etc. could have continued to dodge any questions related to the same) and represents a tremendous opportunity for the white house press corp., the MSM and the demoncratic party in general.
Tony Snow should have his work cut out for him.
Posted by: GMC Anchorage at June 13, 2006 02:23 PM
Religious Leaders Urge U.S. to Ban Torture
By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 13, 2006; Page A04
Twenty-seven religious leaders, including megachurch pastor Rick Warren, Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel and Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington, have signed a statement urging the United States to "abolish torture now -- without exceptions."
The statement, being published in newspaper advertisements starting today, is the opening salvo of a new organization called the National Religious Campaign Against Torture, which has formed in response to allegations of human rights abuse at U.S. detention centers in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Titled "Torture is a Moral Issue," the statement says that torture "violates the basic dignity of the human person" and "contradicts our nation's most cherished values." "Nothing less is at stake in the torture abuse crisis than the soul of our nation. What does it signify if torture is condemned in word but allowed in deed?" it asks.
More.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at June 13, 2006 02:23 PM
Cure the Disease
A great article to read!
Posted by: Gerald at June 13, 2006 02:25 PM
If Wilson wants to know who outed his wife all he has to do is look in the mirror.
I wonder when we're going to see that indictment?
ROTFLMAO!
By Don
There isn't an idictment for lying, egotistical, money grubben, cockroach, scum of the earth or Joe wilson would have been indicted long ago along with your buddy Dingy Harry.
Posted by: LBH at June 13, 2006 02:28 PM
Hey what happen to Capt, Saladin, Hajji, Jeanne, Pandenial and the other regular tin-foil hatters?
Are we hiding from the embarrassment of defeat once again?
Posted by: LBH at June 13, 2006 02:32 PM
Here are my Beatitudes!!!
The Beatitudes
I have shared with you SHALOM as an important part of moving our world to justice and peace. Here is another part that is important from Matthew 5:1-12. The Bible is God's love letter to us. The Bible is not about a punishing and a vengeful God.
You may or may not know that when I examine my conscience I go through the Ten Commandments and the Seven Capital Sins. I will also go through the Beatitudes and give an example to examine in my conscience.
1. Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Do I share my gifts, talents, time, and treasure to help build the kingdom of God here on earth?
2. Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. Do I, in turn, try to assist those who are suffering?
3. Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. Do I ever look down on others because they may not look or act like me?
4. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be fulfilled. When I see or hear stories of people suffering injustice, what is my response?
5. Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy. When I am wronged, am I willing to forgive?
6. Blessed are the pure of heart, for they will see God. Do I respect the gift of my body, created in God's image?
7. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. Do I work for peace in my country and throughout the world?
8. Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Am I willing to take a stand that is unpopular, but is based on gospel values?
9. Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven. Is my life on this earth focused on the life to come?
Hopefully, born again Christians may want to read the Bible more carefully.
Posted by: Gerald at June 13, 2006 02:32 PM
#21 RS, why does it take so long for religious leaders to respond to immoral acts?
Posted by: Gerald at June 13, 2006 02:34 PM
#15,
Ah, a concern troll. I must admit, it's a breath of fresh air compared to the usual blasts of fart-stank from Mr. Dow-Jones, factless, and that genius businessperson who is still waiting for Reid to be indicted.
Since it was thoughtful enough to post it's advice twice, I'll do the same:
We appreciate your concern. Now kindly fuck off.
Posted by: Don at June 13, 2006 02:35 PM
David, please remember that a man is innocent until proven guilty. Rove won't be indicted much less proven guilty of anything. The Truth is Out. Move On.
Posted by: Bobo at June 13, 2006 02:39 PM
We appreciate your concern. Now kindly fuck off.
By Depressed Don
What's the matter Don, you can dish it out but you take it like a little girl.
Posted by: LBH at June 13, 2006 02:42 PM
Nah, I take that back Don. That's an insult to all little girls.
Posted by: LBH at June 13, 2006 02:43 PM
Lieutenant Watada may God bless and keep you
Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called children of God. I believe that Lieutenant Watada is living up to the words of St. Ambrose. "I shall pass this way but once. Any good that I can do let me do it now for I shall not pass this way again."
Posted by: Gerald at June 13, 2006 02:43 PM
you take it like a little girl.
How do little girls take it? Your contempt for Don and liitle girls is palpable.
Posted by: anonymous at June 13, 2006 02:48 PM
Camilio Mejia
I would like to share with you some very powerful words from a person whom I consider a disciple of Jesus.
"I am only a regular person who got tired of being afraid to follow his own conscience. For far too long I allowed others to direct my actions even when I knew they were wrong. I cannot accept this award on behalf of those who have truly refused and resisted. There are far too many of them who deserve the honor more than I. I will, however, accept the award on behalf of those who are still quiet, those who are still afraid to speak their minds. Not too long ago I was one of them. Not too long ago I was ordered to be part of a war that I knew in my heart was immoral and criminal, a war of aggression. Many have called me a coward. Many have called me a hero. I believe I can be found somewhere in the middle. For those who have called me a hero I say that I don't believe in heros but I believe that ordinary people can do extraordinary things. For those who have called me a coward, I say that they are wrong and that without knowing it they are also right. They are wrong when they think I left the war for fear of being killed. I admit that fear was there, but there was also the fear of killing innocent people, the fear of putting myself in the position where to survive means to kill. There was the fear of losing my soul in the process of saving my body, the fear of losing myself to my daughter, to the people who love me, to the man I used to be, the man I want to be. I did my job as a soldier. I commanded an infantry squad and we never failed to accomplish our mission, but they who called me a coward, without knowing it, are also right. I was a coward for not leaving the war, for having been a part of it in the first place. Refusing and resisting this war is my moral duty, a moral duty that called me to take a principled action, a moral duty that was clear and the accomplishment was urgent. I failed to fulfill my moral duty as a human being and instead I chose to fulfill my duty as a soldier all because I was afraid. I was terrified. I did not want to stand up to the government and the Army. I was terrified, afraid of punishment and humiliation. I went to war because at the moment I was a coward and for that I apologize. One of the reasons I did not refuse the war from the beginning is that I was afraid of losing my freedom. Today as I sit behind bars I realize there are many types of freedom and that in spite of my confinement I remain free in many important ways. I am confined to a prison but I feel today more than ever connected to all my brothers and sisters throughout the world."
Posted by: Gerald at June 13, 2006 02:50 PM
you take it like a little girl.
How do little girls take it? Your contempt for Don and liitle girls is palpable.
By Analmus
You're a sick fuck-get help!
I love Don, I just wish he'd be a man for once instead of a little girl. That's all.
Posted by: LBH at June 13, 2006 02:54 PM
The neverending war
Posted by: Gerald at June 13, 2006 02:55 PM
The fact that Fitzgerald declined to prosecute now leaves these issues wide open to public inquiry (whereas if an investigation was opened Rove/Bush etc. could have continued to dodge any questions related to the same) and represents a tremendous opportunity for the white house press corp., the MSM and the demoncratic party in general.
Let the lame duck games begin.
Posted by: anonymous at June 13, 2006 02:56 PM
I would love to drink a beer with Molly
Posted by: Gerald at June 13, 2006 03:00 PM
34 Those are your words, you take it like a little girl not my words. Your animous towards down and little girls is triking. Pointing the finger at me, a cover for pathology. If there is illness afoot, it is your illness not min.
What do mean calling me anulmus? I don't understand that word. Is it a word?
Posted by: anonymous at June 13, 2006 03:01 PM
34 Those are your words, you take it like a little girl not my words. Your animous towards down and little girls is triking. Pointing the finger at me, a cover for pathology. If there is illness afoot, it is your illness not min.
By analmus
Yes, they are my words which you twisted into something perverted. Not my intention, but yours (creep). Not the first time a liberal has twisted someone elses words to smear someone, won't be the last.
Posted by: LBH at June 13, 2006 03:08 PM
Republican Visitor #15
[I]t is for internal reasons (the issues, positions, and candidates) that Democrats primarily lose elections.
This is not entirely untrue, and many of the regular posters here will agree that Dems have failed to impart a message that resonates with voters. Dems DO have ideas but they have not been good at articulating those ideas in a unified way that mainstream media will recognize and report.
But...
-- Since 1996 more votes have been cast for Democratic congressional candidates than Republican candidates. During this time the GOP has picked up more and more seats despite their overall vote disadvantage. This is partly due to GOP gerrymandering of districts in places like Texas, which give Repubs narrow victories in a majority of districts and Dems big margins of victory in a small number of districts.
-- It's indisputable that Gore received more votes than Bush in 2000.
-- Without well-documented Republican vote-stealing methods, Bush would have lost the electoral voate in both 2000 and 2004.
-- Republicans almost always have bigger war chests than Democrats. This is because the GOP is much more blatant about arranging sweetheart deals for the big campaign donor categories like oil companies (and energy traders like Enron), pharmaceutical cos., telecommunication cos., and so on. More money for ads does not guarantee success at the polls--but it sure helps get your message across, and it certainly helps you "swift-boat" your opponent.
Democrats are not holy on any of these points. They've been known to gerrymander districts, they may have stolen the 1960 election, and they take PAC money from the labor unions and trial lawyers who give them money. But all the navel-gazing in the world is not going to erase the external advantages Repubs have enjoyed for the past 14 years.
Posted by: eggman at June 13, 2006 03:09 PM
There isn't an idictment for lying, egotistical, money grubben, cockroach, scum of the earth or Joe wilson would have been indicted long ago along with your buddy Dingy Harry. - lbh
I was watching then yearly kos convention over the weekend and heard Amb. Wilson speak. He was talking about representing the United States and standing up against Saddam Hussein while wearing a pin in his lapel that said U.S.
Funny, I thought if I had a chance to ask him a question, it would be what he thought of John Perkins book, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" and whatr he thought of Halliburton selling Kuwait slant drilling equipment, as he was in Iraq promoting U.S. corporate economic as well as political interests.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at June 13, 2006 03:13 PM
LBH,
ÀSoy una peque–a muchacha? Conjeturo que es una buena cosa, porque la œnica cosa que usted tiene gusto mejor las muchachas que peque–as son peque–os muchachos.
Coma mi mierda y coja a su madre, usted esfinge estœpida.
Posted by: Don at June 13, 2006 03:16 PM
Just dropped in to see how the troops were taking the news, and darned if you haven't suddenly started sounding like Marc Ash redux. When it comes to whether or not the whole story of the leak will ever be disclosed, though, either officially or otherwise, who better to tell us than you? What "we" know is obvious enough -- then there's what you know. I note that your own role remains remarkably opaque.
Posted by: JM Hanes at June 13, 2006 03:22 PM
LBH,
ÀSoy una peque–a muchacha? Conjeturo que es una buena cosa, porque la œnica cosa que usted tiene gusto mejor las muchachas que peque–as son peque–os muchachos.
Coma mi mierda y coja a su madre, usted esfinge estœpida.
By Don
Hey Don, like the Philly Cheesecake business owner said: If you can't say "Cheez Wiz" then get the hell out (moron).
Posted by: LBH at June 13, 2006 03:28 PM
#12
You're actually proud to be a Republican? You are defending Rove? Yikes.
Posted by: Jeanne at June 13, 2006 03:50 PM
That means now that the whole story of the leak has yet to be disclosed. And it may never be--in an official sense. (Stay tuned for a book I am writing that will be out in the fall.)
Is that what they call...a tease?
Posted by: Jeanne at June 13, 2006 03:57 PM
like the Philly Cheesecake business owner said: If you can't say "Cheez Wiz" then get the hell out (moron).
He calls his ESL kanguage customer-rejects morons.
Posted by: anonymous at June 13, 2006 04:07 PM
LBH,
DŽjeme hacerle un emparedado de filete delicioso del queso - lo cubrirŽ en mi propio whiz cremoso especial. Prometo que usted gozar‡ de este convite sabroso, usted mono repugnante. ÀA prop—sito, c—mo su negocio el peddling del asno va?
Posted by: Don at June 13, 2006 04:20 PM
Rove, White House Can Breathe Easier
Karl Rove, the President's political mastermind, never acted like someone who feared he was about to be indicted. But it seems clear that he came dangerously close. If this White House weren't so straightlaced, there would be dancing on the South Lawn now that Rove is in the clear.
This lifts a huge burden Ñ not only from Rove, but also from the President and the entire White House political operation. Rove is Mr. Bush's closest political adviser Ñ and the architect not only of his campaigns but also of the GOP's drive to keep Republicans in control of the House and Senate at a time when things haven't been going all that well for the President.
-----------------
The evidence concerning Rove is very apparent as is outlined in David Corn's post.
As well as the other disasters.
Iraq is still a disaster.
The economy sucks.
Oil prices stink.
Global warming is a problem regardless what the Bush administration pays somebody to say.
Health care is abysmal.
Afghanistan is far from a success.
Rove is part of the leadership team that has been overseeing, creating, ignoring, screwing up, poo-pooing all the problems. The only thing he's smiling about is he doesn't have to go to prison. If he's smiling because he can't wait to get back into the campaign world he's is showing his true colors. There are a lot of probems to be solved and he's out campaigning to keep a majority party in power that has totally screwed up everything it touched. Anybody who respects Rove has shut their eyes to the real world.
Posted by: Jeanne at June 13, 2006 04:25 PM
Here's another legal problem for Rove. This one won't be so easy to worm out of.
Statement from Christopher Wolf, attorney for outed CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson
Statement of Christopher Wolf, Proskauer Rose LLP, Counsel for Ambassador Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson
"We have become aware of the communication between Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Luskin concerning Karl. Rove's status in the criminal investigation. We have no first-hand knowledge of the reason for the communication or what further developments in the criminal investigation it may signal. While it appears that Mr. Rove will not be called to answer in criminal court for his participation in the wrongful disclosure of Valerie Wilson's classified employment status at the CIA in retaliation against Joe Wilson for questioning the rationale for war in Iraq, that obviously does not end the matter. The day still may come when Mr. Rove and others are called to account in a court of law for their attacks on the Wilsons."
Posted by: Jeanne at June 13, 2006 04:28 PM
Robert,
That was one of my favorite songs growing up. Billy Preston also did "Nothing from nothing" and an instrumental called Space Race," if I recall correctly. I think he also did a real nice cover of Joe Cocker's "You are so beautiful." Or it might have been the other way around. "Rock On!" Billy, as David Essex sang. Don't forget the song "Rock and Roll Heaven," by the Righteous Brothers. They must have a hell of a band!
Posted by: TRH at June 13, 2006 04:29 PM
LBH,
DŽjeme hacerle un emparedado de filete delicioso del queso - lo cubrirŽ en mi propio whiz cremoso especial. Prometo que usted gozar‡ de este convite sabroso, usted mono repugnante. ÀA prop—sito, c—mo su negocio el peddling del asno va?
Don, I'm not impressed, but if your looking for an illegal immigrant hand out, I hear the DNC is looking for a few good illegals to bribe. Now run along and get in line.
Posted by: LBH at June 13, 2006 04:32 PM
ÁQuisiera disculparme a Pandemoniac por el espa–ol tremendo de los pescados de Babel, pero como cualquier persona puede ver, conduce a idiota loco!
Posted by: Don at June 13, 2006 04:39 PM
here's another one you can gloat over LBH...
Patrick Kennedy Pleads Guilty to DUI
Congressman Sentenced to Probation and Treatment
WASHINGTON (June 13) - Rep. Patrick Kennedy pleaded guilty Tuesday to driving under the influence of prescription drugs and was sentenced to undergo court-ordered drug treatment and a year's probation.
Posted by: Alan at June 13, 2006 04:39 PM
Anybody heard from that Jason guy that said Rove was indicted already awhile back?
Posted by: Alan at June 13, 2006 04:41 PM
What happened to all this mornings comments? How weird.
Posted by: Saladin at June 13, 2006 04:57 PM
"The one means that wins the easiest victory over reason: terror and force."
- Adolph Hitler
Posted by: Saladin at June 13, 2006 05:04 PM
Talk Left
Tuesday :: June 13, 2006
EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove
Sometimes people just don't know when to cry "uncle." I do. I asked Robert Luskin this morning if Karl Rove has made a deal with Fitzgerald. His response:
There has never, ever been any discussion of a deal in any way, shape or form.
Which is exactly what Luskin told me weeks ago. It's over, folks. Karl Rove will not be charged with a crime. He's cooperated with Fitzgerald by testifying to the grand jury five times and providing whatever information he had without a safety net. Without a 5k. Without assurances he would not be indicted. That's a hell of a risk, but Luskin pulled it off. My hat's off to Luskin.
I opined repeatedly on TalkLeft and HuffPo that Karl Rove would be charged at least with making a false statement to investigators in the fall of 2003 before a grand jury was convened -- the Martha Stewart crime. That was wrong.
I'm ready to put this to bed. Karl Rove walked. He's one of the rare subjects of an investigation who was able to talk his way out of an Indictment.
And yes, I think Jason needs to out his sources. If there was and will be no Indictment of Rove, his sources lied. If any are lawyers at Patton Boggs, I hope they lose their jobs and their law licenses.
As for Joseph Wilson's lawyer's statement, it appears to me his lawyer is threatening a civil suit.
Will there be more indictments? I'm not ready to speculate right now.
----------
I know there are those who believe fitz to be upfront and honest. I don't trust him, I never did.
Posted by: Saladin at June 13, 2006 05:08 PM
More proof that your vote REALLY counts!
Judge Overturns Controversial SF Hand Gun Ban
POSTED: 3:43 pm PDT June 12, 2006
UPDATED: 10:33 pm PDT June 12, 2006
SAN FRANCICSO -- A state trial judge sided Monday with the National Rifle Association in overturning a voter-approved city ordinance that banned handgun possession and firearm sales in San Francisco.
Measure H was placed on the November ballot by the San Francisco County Board of Supervisors, who were frustrated by an alarmingly high number of gun-related homicides in the city of 750,000. The NRA sued a day after 58 percent of voters approved the law.
In siding with the gun owners, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge James Warren said a local government cannot ban weapons because the California Legislature allows their sale and possession.
----------
Though I personally am glad this got dumped, it was stupid.
Posted by: Saladin at June 13, 2006 05:12 PM
Gerald, many religious leaders have been speaking out from the beginning, including the Methodist leader of the church Bush claims to belong to.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at June 13, 2006 05:57 PM
#59 Saladin,
Moral of the story:
For a crooked politician: hire a Republican.
To get a crooked politition off the hook: hire a Democratic lawyer...
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at June 13, 2006 06:03 PM
Oops #58, sorry.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at June 13, 2006 06:04 PM
TRH,
I remember seeing the "Concert for Bangla Desh" movie in the theaters when it came out, from the smokin' balcony.
"The God given Billy Preston"
Anyway, yeah they got quite the band in heaven, if there is a heaven.
But TRH, what happened to the enlightened child you were?
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at June 13, 2006 06:09 PM
Kar-Rov escaped indictment! Yayy!! No Phantom Zone for our beloved Rov! Another proof that Rao bestows eternal good fortune on the planet Krypton and its ruling Traditional Privilege Party! Ignore that crazy Jor-El! The mega-groundquakes are a purely normal phenomenon! They've happened many times through our planet's history! So has that green radiation, even though you've never seen it before! Trust the TPP! Our corporate friends have the best hired shills, er, scientists, and they reassure us that this is just a random hissy fit from Mother Nature and we'll ride it out like we always do! Trust the TPP! Krypton will live forever!
Hoping Tomar-Re can mine enough giant Stellarium rods in time, Kid-Char
Posted by: Kid Charlemagne at June 13, 2006 06:12 PM
"Rove Escapes"......
David Cries/Laments/Rants/Shouts/Screams......
Do you mean Rove was guilty and "escapes" having to pay his debt to society?
Or, do you mean you accept Fitz's good-faith judgment that 2+ years of `in-limbo' is enough `punishment' to now let Rove "escape"?
Or, what you really mean is that Rove's legal "escape" is just a prelude to your upcoming book which will put Rove on `trial' and of course, be `convicted'!
All this time and effort for something so obvious: No players assumed Ms. Plame's was `covert'! People have definite impressions of what constitute a `covert' agent! And, it ain't what Ms. V was!
Posted by: Happy loves Great Escape at June 13, 2006 06:14 PM
here's another one you can gloat over LBH...
Patrick Kennedy Pleads Guilty to DUI
Congressman Sentenced to Probation and Treatment
WASHINGTON (June 13) - Rep. Patrick Kennedy pleaded guilty Tuesday to driving under the influence of prescription drugs and was sentenced to undergo court-ordered drug treatment and a year's probation.
By Alan
Alan, no gloating here. I'm glad he admitted to having a problem and got help. Too bad Teddy didn't get help, Mary Jo would still be alive.
Posted by: LBH at June 13, 2006 06:23 PM
Bear with me if you saw this from the deleted posts this morning, but the anarchists who post here, in their zeal to get Karl Rove, remind me of Cotton Mather, the Puritan preacher. In 1697 he solemnly announced the world was coming to an end. Was absolutely sure of it. And in 1713 and 1716 and 1720. Funny, we're all still here.
The Millerites did the same thing in 1845. And 1846. And 1851. And... When nothing happended, they deemed the non-event, "The Great Disappointment". Sound familiar?
You folks were all so sure Rove would be indicted. Poor you. You can join Cotton Mather and the Millerites on the junkheap of history.
Posted by: factchecker at June 13, 2006 06:32 PM
there goes fact chucker with his all emcompassing "all" again. You are lame.
Posted by: Saladin at June 13, 2006 07:12 PM
I copped a deal with Fitz.
Immunity rawks!
Posted by: TurdBlossom at June 13, 2006 07:17 PM
TB, that's an interesting handle you've chosen.
Posted by: Saladin at June 13, 2006 07:34 PM
Robert,
I have always been "politically aware" since the 6th grade, when our teacher decided that the impeachment hearings of Nixon were such an important "historical" event for the whole school to see. Which it was, the first impeachment of a President in our lifetime. I never took sides politically until the leadup to the 2000 election, when during the debates, the things that were important to me, taxes, education and a strong military, clearly made me see that I had been conservative a long time, but didn't care enough to get involved. When I voted for Bush in 2000, it was the first time I had voted in "any" election. I will be the first to admit, that once I took a side, all other views became irrelevent and soon I began to defend actions that I had viewed for many years as cynical. I had viewed "all government" as hypocrites and doing nothing but pandering for a vote with one hand while the other was greased by a special interest. I have recently reverted to my previous position of viewing all government as cynical. There are things I agree with but I will admit when there things that I view are wrong. I was for the forceful removal of Saddam Hussein if necessary, bout I would never have believed that 3 years later we would still be there engaged in daily battles. With hindsight, I believe there could have been a better way to accomplish the removal of Saddam, but still don't know what that would have been. He was defying U.N. sanctions and most of the countries who were helping him defy them were against his removal. Give me some time. Once I became partisan, I dove into it head first. Now I have to pull myself out, ass backward. That isn't easy to do, even after losing 80 pounds. I would much rather discuss music, even though I do enjoy political debate and topics. My degree is in political science, not that it has ever done me any good.
Posted by: TRH at June 13, 2006 08:04 PM
I declare today the official:
"Corn-nut Hysteria Day"
I think Capt maybe in a deep funk of drunkiness, no where to be seen.
Posted by: LBH at June 13, 2006 08:05 PM
Bush is on a bit of a roll after months of unrelenting bad news
Mercury News ^ | Tue, Jun. 13, 2006 | Ron Hutcheson and William Douglas
As Bush basked in cheers from U.S. troops during a secret visit to Baghdad... The developments added to the optimism that swept through the White House after last week's slaying of terrorist chief Abu Musab al Zarqawi in Iraq and the completion of a new Iraqi government.
In addition, a Republican won the June 6 special election to fill the San Diego congressional seat left vacant by former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham's bribery conviction, reviving hope among Republicans that congressional elections in November may not doom them.
Bush's recent appointments of Josh Bolten as White House chief of staff and Henry Paulson as treasury secretary also won widespread praise. "All of a sudden the clouds broke and the sun started to shine," said Ed Gillespie, a former Republican Party chairman. "After six months of thunderstorms and rain it feels pretty good."
...The resolution of Rove's legal troubles means that the president's top political operative is now free to focus on retaining Republican control of Congress in November's elections.
Rove, the architect of Bush's rise from baseball executive to governor of Texas to president, has broad influence over the Republican Party and serves as its chief strategist...
Friends and associates said the announcement removed a personal burden that Rove had done a good job of concealing... Republicans said Fitzgerald's decision showed the viciousness of Democrats' attacks on Rove. Democrats questioned the prosecutor's decision to forgo prosecution
Posted by: LBH here to gloat at June 13, 2006 08:12 PM
Robert, re music,
There are a multitude of guitar players in my family. Ask Hajji. As far as my musical background, my Dad was all '50's and a little of '60's Motown. Mom ran the gamut. I was listening to Tammy & George way before it was "cool" to listen to country. Mom always like country, such as Merle, Cash & others, as well as pop. She even got me to listen to the Eagles in the early 70's before I was 10 years old. I bought an album at a used record store once of the Platters, just because it was one I used to fall asleep listening to as a kid. I used to listen to an album by Gary Lewis and the Playboys in the late 60's. As a freshman in college, I had a chance to meet him when he was hired to play at a campus party. I was singing him the words to all the old songs and he couldn't believe I could still remember the words. This would have been '80 or '81. Music is a strong trigger of memory for me. Especially when I used to listen to the radio, which I basically gave up when I was in Germany from 1986-1988. A lot of reruns, nothing new except for American Top 40.
Posted by: TRH at June 13, 2006 08:31 PM
TRH, the removal of saddam was just side dressing. If violating UN resolutions was such a big deal we would have dealt severely with Israel, a state currently in violation of 69 UN resolutions, and guilty of many heinous crimes against the Palestinian people, a long time ago. They don't give a damn about the inhumanity, all they care about is the fact that saddam decided to take his ball and go home, it really is as simple as that. We set him up, and we took him out, we do that shit all the time. If the tyrant plays along, it doesn't matter how brutal he is, he will be our best friend. The hypocrisy reeks.
Posted by: Saladin at June 13, 2006 08:35 PM
If you become weary of the hubris-drunk piffle posters, there's always driftglass.blogspot.com and another good one that can be reached from driftglass's site, shakespearessister.blogspot.com. Both show a low incidence of Bushevik cultists.---KC
Posted by: Kid Charlemagne at June 13, 2006 08:42 PM
Hubris-drunk piffle.
Had enough?
Posted by: anonymous at June 13, 2006 09:08 PM
Saladin,
You are correct in that there is a history to that. Many nations escape severe penalties for U.N. violations when there are "other" national interests involved. Hard to believe, I was serving in the U.S. Army when Saddam was an ally of the U.S. in their war against Iran. Reagan had his Saddam, Carter had his Ortega, Clinton had his Milosovic, and now Bush has his "Saudi" pals. Which, I believe, when it really gets down to it, that it is what Democratizing the Middle East is all about. We can strong arm and invade all the others, but we can never threaten the Saudi's for fear of the spigot being turned off. Drip...drip..drip. Hasta Manana, Americanos!
Posted by: TRH at June 13, 2006 09:22 PM
Corn pulled a fast one! I was reading another thread of his then it disappeared. Maybe something top secret? Maybe he read something from one of you that disturbed him? lol
Anyway, I was reading someone's post that said something like: Maybe we should go on a killing spree because the law is napping.
hmmmm, I do not really want to murder anyone right now soooo no thanks!
The rest of the posts....lost forever!
Posted by: Anna at June 13, 2006 10:11 PM
Corn,
Guilty until proven innocent?
Posted by: Anna at June 13, 2006 10:15 PM
54 LOL a DUI? Like that is BIG news? It's like 2nd nature to WAY too many people! To live in this country, you HAVE to drink to remain sane! (Before the goody-2-shoes,a ll mighty perfect people come after me with torches---Drinking & driving is wrong, though!)
Posted by: A. at June 13, 2006 11:07 PM
61 They are ALL crooked, and they ALL lie and step on others for their own personal gain.
Posted by: Anna at June 13, 2006 11:09 PM
The rest of the posts....lost forever!
I'm still not clear on what happened earlier today. There were some posts removed? So, server prob, or censored??
Posted by: Alan at June 13, 2006 11:22 PM
Alan,
I posted earlier. David Corn had a very short thread (same title) and came back with a similar more detailed thread. He scraped the posts along with scraping the shorter thread. I think that's all it was. Shucks, my posts today were the most profound and inspired post ever. Not.
Posted by: Jeanne at June 13, 2006 11:31 PM
What is going on? I hope David explains the deletions because the possible reasons run the gamut.
However, it is his blog. He can toss us overboard anytime he wants to.
Posted by: caroline at June 13, 2006 11:38 PM
Remember when Tricky Dick said (something like) "they aren't going to have me to kick around anymore." Remember that? Well, I hope Rove is saying that when he finally leaves the white house. I want the people of this country to make his life miserable for the rest of the time serving Bush (when he should be serving his country).
I hope the reporters hound him. I hope they don't let go of the bone. Because if they do hound him....he can't smear anyone. He can't lie about someone and purposely destroy the character of someone who is decent and honest. He can't blow the cover of another hard working career person. There is nothing patriotic about Rove and he shouldn't be given an ounce of power.
Posted by: Jeanne at June 13, 2006 11:49 PM
Look for the missing posts HERE
******
Is this what you were looking for?
capt
Posted by: capt at June 13, 2006 11:56 PM
Wow Capt,
You are a magician. Can you make Rove and the Bush white house go away?
Posted by: Jeanne at June 14, 2006 12:02 AM
As far as I know (which might be limited and subject to my assumptions):
Mr. David Corn has only tossed spam posters, name spoofers, and given a warning to people that abuse the blog. He has asked for reasonable consideration from in our community.
To post an update with the same name for a title ends up with the "name" and the "_1" - as above is rove_escapes_1.php.
This is a common occurrence and not censorship nor blog monitoring.
So, there you go!
capt
Posted by: capt at June 14, 2006 12:07 AM
Jeanne,
I set the blog (current post) as my homepage. When I have been offline and return, I always see the previous thead and have to set the new page accordingly.
So less magic and more being behind! (makes up a little for not having a behind)
HA!
capt
Posted by: capt at June 14, 2006 12:11 AM
Re: Spammers
Anybody else notice that whatever David is doing seems to be working?
No spam posts, no encyclopediac posts, nobody spoofing your handle?
It makes a better board.
IMHO
capt
Posted by: capt at June 14, 2006 12:14 AM
Yes Capt, I agree. About the better board not your lack of behind.
Posted by: Jeanne at June 14, 2006 12:20 AM
"Can you make Rove and the Bush white house go away?"
Um, the White House is ours not his so we have to keep the actual house, the rest is an ongoing project, a process if you will.
HA!
capt
Posted by: capt at June 14, 2006 12:21 AM
Jeanne,
"No behind" is what my better half says, she says I have such a dearth of backside that I might owe some! (she is seldom wrong)
capt
Posted by: capt at June 14, 2006 12:23 AM
"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." : Thomas Jefferson
=
"The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes." : Thomas Paine
=
What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society?
In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. : James Madison - Memorial and Remonstrance -1785
===
Thanks ICH Newsletter!
Posted by: capt at June 14, 2006 12:26 AM
#94
Funny.
Posted by: Jeanne at June 14, 2006 12:29 AM
Anybody (even trolls) that does not "Update" Windows automatically - check for updates at the MS Windows Update site.
There has been a new set of updates (eight total)
Keep your systems up to date!
capt
Posted by: capt at June 14, 2006 12:29 AM
capt, updates screw up my system.
Anna, I have known for quite awhile that they all lie for personal gain, however, that is not a very popular opinion among some of the people here, tsk, tsk.
TRH, glad you realize that saddam was just an outmoded tool, movin' on now.
Posted by: Saladin at June 14, 2006 12:36 AM
73 by LBH
Bush is on a bit of a roll after months of unrelenting bad news
Mercury News|Tue, Jun. 13, 2006|Ron Hutcheson and William Douglas
I saw this and `gloated' as well! However, reflecting on my time on this blog (since Dec.), I had done well: UT beats USC, Stocks on a roll, funning the Cornuts, I was just so Happy.....all the while, Bush & the GOP were being hammered.
In recent weeks, as we mount a comeback, UT won't be defending its Baseball title, and the market is gripped by irrational fear of inflation! Now, it looks like we are on the cusp, not yet irreversible, of `inflating' into a Bernanke recession! One of my major predictions hangs in the balance!
Not whining since as a patriot, I celebrate our country's (=GOP) success regardless of my portfolio's affinity for the Dems!
Posted by: Happy share Gloat burden at June 14, 2006 12:36 AM
capt, just checked those missing posts. Lot's of pollution, we didn't miss much.
Robert, saw your reply, didn't mean the conference, just wondered if you'd be in town.
Posted by: Saladin at June 14, 2006 12:42 AM
Me thinks Corn is too kind to Fitzgerald AND Rove/Bush. Fitzgerald didn't spend a year and a half pondering whether a jury would believe HIS meticulously collected evidence that Rove purjured himself as opposed to Rove and his lawyers sorry explanations of sorry explanations in my opinion. Corn says:
"In the end, Fitzgerald concluded his case was not strong enough. Given his pursuit of Libby and the time he kept Rove hanging, it's reasonable to assume that Fitzgerald rendered a good-faith judgment based on the law and the facts he had in hand."
Concluding what Fitzgerald "thought" when his MO is not tell anyone anything about anything is way to generous.
There is absolutely NO evidence that Fitzgerald did not actually conclude the opposite (that the evidence against Rove was strong). The known facts that Fitzgerald indicted Libby but did not indict Rove and notified him recently that he didn't plan to is not indicative of his conclusions or wishes.
Ken Starr got Clinton on the stand because of an alleged act in a hotel room with Paula Jones that Clinton's attorney's ended up admitting to (whether it actually occured or not)-- it wasn't a crime. If Starr's boss was a Clinton underling that would not (and should not in my opinion) have happened, period.
Fitzgerald is not an independent prosecutor. There is absolutely no reason to conclude that Bush didn't simply exercise executive authority over the justice department and direct Fitzgerald's superior to prove to him that an actual crime occured and if he could not do it to his satisfaction, order him to end further pursuit of Rove.
There is simply no law in place that prevents him from doing that. Rove knows where all the Bush bodies are buried, and in Bush's case this may not just be a figure of speech, I think their might be actual dead bodies Rove could point to. Bush is highly motivated to keep Rove on the fairway.
Come to think of it, Bush calling off Fitzgerald wouldn't even have to be a conspiracy. Bush could direct Fitzgerald's prosecution himself without involving another human. He would have no statutory duty to reveal his motives or even answer questions about the matter.
Nicknames and hardnose reputations aside, can anyone cite a statute that prevents Bush from simply claiming he came to the exact conclusion that Corn assumes Fitzgerald did, and directing Fitzgerald not to waste time on what Bush would describe as an unwinnable case against Rove?
What law would allow Fitzgerald to prosecute Rove against Bush's directive?
Corn assumes that if such an intervention occurred, Fitzgerald would have the personal conviction strong enough to either go public with any Bush funny business in the case or at a minimum resign and say nothing.
Deep Throat and probably dozens of others that could have fingered Nixon remained silent for decades. There are $12/hr landscapers and trash collectors who will go to the wall and further to conceal their bosses impropriety, loyalty to the guy who signs your future checks is a strong motivator.
It's sad because Corn is the perfect guy to call out Fitzgerald on this. The hyothetical scenario could be raised without accusation. Wouldn't Fitzgerald have to admit that 18 months of hounding Rove that ended in complete silence coupled with his clearly non-independent status leaves reasonable people to at least be curious whether someone tied his hands?
What statute prevents him personally from clearing the air and making a full report even though one is not required?
If it's not a statute then it must be either his preference or a superior directing him not to issue a report, right? If Fitzgerald himself prefers not to issue the report, why shouldn't we doubt his commitment to keeping the citizens faith in our elected officials? We know he's a Republican as much as Cheney knew Wilson was a Democrat, why should we trust him? Does he think a single prosecution should stand as the only proof that he was doing an impartial job? Isn't it reasonable to speculate he may be covering for someone? Wasn't it Rove, who purportedly said Wilson's wife, an udercover US spy, was "fair game"? Isn't Fitz's unclassified status as a registered Republican partisan "fair game" when he won't even issue a mild statement like "The administratiopn's current on the record statement that Karl Rove was not involved with the Plame leak should be revised in my opinion."
At some point it would seem Mr. Fitzgerald would crack and blame others for the lack of light shed on the whole affair, especially with the categorical denial of Rove involvement by Bush's spokesperson left standing on the record with dozens of opportunities to correct it. Then we could get somone else in the hot seat higher up the food chain and it's a short chain to the top.
Posted by: john D at June 14, 2006 12:43 AM
76
If you become weary of the hubris-drunk piffle posters, there's always xxxxxxx.com and ....zzzzzzz.com. Both show a low incidence of Bushevik cultists.
Posted by: Kid Charlemagne at June 13, 2006 08:42 PM
=============================================
KC:
Does the thought ever occur to you that the Cornuts here, depite what they post to the contrary, needs our company for therapeutic and enjoyment reasons?
Secondly, you have on several occassions, tried to `direct' David's posters away....Why? Should'nt we be encouraging more traffic here to up his page view counts? (Let me add, DIVERSE traffic)
Maybe it's you that ought to take a hike; especially if you can't take our `piffles'!
Posted by: Happy unloads on KC at June 14, 2006 12:48 AM
David C., Saladin and others. Remove the thin metal headgear and Move On. I suppose that David has a good excuse for continuing this fools errand against Rove. Money. He has a lot of time and effort in the latest book and an innocent Rove is a big time bummer. For the rest of you, try to return to the Reality Based Community. I know that it feels good but pretend only works for a limited time.
Posted by: Bobo at June 14, 2006 01:22 AM
How Jesus Got Demoted by the Religious Right
Leaders of the decidedly nonconservative "conservative" right avoid focusing on what Jesus actually said; his teachings would prohibit their campaign to forcibly remake others Ð Christian and nonChristian alike Ð into their own image.
But they can't just come out and say "don't pay any attention to Jesus' teachings" because this would alarm the majority of Christians who would revolt. So Right-Wing religious leaders are doing what tyrants aiming to divide and conquer Christians have always done:
(1) They distract us away from Jesus' teachings and commands by focusing exclusively on his birth, death, and ticket-to-salvation role,
(2) They claim to be biblical literalists, "Bible-believing Christians" to preempt criticism, yet blatantly pick and choose only those verses that serve their purposes, and
(3) They refer constantly to "God" rather than "Jesus," a potent subliminal strategy that convinces Christians to focus on a violent disciplinarian God rather than a gently shepherding Jesus. By instilling the terror of God's punishment instead of the love of Jesus' guidance, rightwing Christian leaders have convinced American Christians that the wrathful, violent God portrayed in pre-Christian times is the one theyÕ¤ better obey, while they need only to believe in Jesus (easy), not obey him (difficult).
That's why Jesus had to be demoted in the current strain of politically-focused "conservative" Christianity. Such Christians deny this of course, exclaiming that they do obey Jesus' teachings Ð in their hearts. They'll say that Jesus never expected us to actually implement those teachings, that they were more or less spiritual insights: We can persecute and kill, so long as we do it with a pure heart.
Leaders of the radical right give all manner of creative reasons for disobeying Jesus' teachings--especially those that contradict other scriptures condoning sexism, war, slavery, domestic violence and the domination of others.
Most damaging of all, rightwing political and religious leaders are inserting the word "Jesus" into their ugliest campaigns in the US and around the world.
"Let's get Jesus back" Bill Moyers
It's lonely, going through that narrow gate. That's why we're forming a fellowship of Christians who are grieved by the way our faith is being used to create suffering at home and abroad, and long to stand up for Jesus. We're out to clear his name.
Contrary to George W. Bush's view of Jesus, in a comment that brings to mind the phrase, "damning with faint praise," Jesus was not a "political philosopher." Jesus is, for believing Christians, the Messiah, in case we've forgotten. For Christians, Jesus isn't just another philosopher to read and discuss and put back on the shelf.
Christianity in America has been infected with an insidious virus that's eating away at the very cornerstone of our faith. If you listen carefully to the words of radical rightwing Christian leaders, you'll detect a subconscious disrespect for Jesus and something akin to atheism regarding his divinity: Were Jesus truly believed to be divine, his teachings would be granted the same respect and obedience as those of the wrathful God taught in other parts of the Bible.
If "conservative" Christian leaders really believed that Christians must give top priority to Jesus' teachings, they wouldn't dare urge us to endorse contradictory attitudes and behaviors. But they do, and it's time we called them on it. There comes a time, particularly when pre-emptive wars are waged in Jesus' name, when silence is betrayal.
Christians who take seriously the Sermon on the Mount may not be in The Moral Majority, but that doesn't mean we're wrong: It means we're The Christian Minority, following Jesus at a time when many Christians are following men.
This Christmas, let us celebrate the passions of the Christ Ð the teachings he gave to a troubled world Ð and honor him by bringing him back into Christmas, and into Christianity, too. Jesus called for a revolution of the heart and the soul. Let it begin with us.
"For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life,
and those who find it are few." Jesus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Teresa Whitehurst [send her mail] is a clinical psychologist and the author of Jesus on Parenting: 10 Essential Principles That Will Transform Your Family (2004). She offers parenting workshops and writes the column, "Democracy, Faith and Values." Visit her website.
Copyright ? 2004 LewRockwell.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: Gerald at June 14, 2006 01:48 AM
I suggest other sites, such as driftglass.blogspot.com and shakespearessister.com, in order to provide my friends with quiet havens from the shrill chihuahua yippings of piffle-posting Bushevik cultists (hi, Cap), since for some reason, those sites seem never to attract cultists.---KC
Posted by: Kid Charlemagne at June 14, 2006 02:01 AM
Oops, shakespearessister.blogspot.com, that is.
Posted by: Kid Charlemagne at June 14, 2006 02:02 AM
Making Tolerance a Sin
Posted by: Gerald at June 14, 2006 02:05 AM
Why Are American Christians So Bloodthirsty
Posted by: Gerald at June 14, 2006 02:11 AM
#s 107-108: Amen. The righteousness of the Religious Right is the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees.
Posted by: Kid Charlemagne at June 14, 2006 03:13 AM
Posted by: LBH here to gloat at June 13, 2006
Gloat,insult,provoke,spew
Posted by: anonymous at June 14, 2006 03:41 AM
Don, #53 that was too freekin' funny. I scroll up when I read. And it still caught me off guard and had me rolling on the floor giggling. Wait, does that make me a terrist? Which way do them Ay-rabs read? (Top to bottom, left to right like the freedom lovers?)
Well, Billmon has a response to the Fitzgerald porkroast. His screed isn't anywhere near as funny as this. Pig in a blanket, indeed, warm, soothing, safe blanket of Freedom.
Speaking of soothing and safe, there's another plan to make Iraq safer. It's the same as the previous 136 plans, only newer. I'm sure this time it'll work. Fer sure. The last time they tried it in Hilla, insurgents bombed the shit out of a municipal building in the deadliest attack in that city. Won't happen this time cause the natives trust us now. And now that al-Zarkowi's dead, these trifling death tolls will just evaporate. Two weeks ago we'd have had like 240 dead instead of just 24 in those bomb blasts. That's progress.
And if you believe that, you'll have faith in the uplifting power of Kaka.
Better yet, you'll believe in the power of the President to wipe away ugly investigations with the point of a pen. Billions. They "lost" Billions. That's Republican governance for you. As I said before, I'm not worried about it. We can borrow another $5 Trillion. Mr. Bush is good for it. Really.
And for my friend Anna who thinks that Hurricanes and poverty share the same causal connexion: notice how poverty grows under a Bush? And went down under a Democratic Administration. Yeah, public policy, hurricanes, rolling the dice, all the same thing.
Dems? Reds? No dif. You guys are right. Millions more in poverty don't mean a thing. Let's give the Reds more time to fuck things up. Maybe they'll get their shit together. Or maybe we could just throw our hands in the air and just give up. Sounds like a worthwhile experiment. I'm sure the lower and middle class won't mind.
Not that the Dems are perfect. Every party has its greed freaks. But it's time to flush the leaders in the Grand OrangeJumpsuit Party. You can vote GOP, but explain to me again what they say about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result? Yeah, Trillion. With a T.
Time to make the donuts
Posted by: Pandemoniac at June 14, 2006 07:10 AM
No justice. Our America grows into something ugly and unrecognizable. Get ready for another Rove fueled hate fest that will further divide the nation.
Posted by: corky at June 14, 2006 08:03 AM
How great! Bush can celebrate the news that his primary political advisor is not going to prison Homer www.altara.blogspot.com
Posted by: Homer Hewitt at June 14, 2006 08:30 AM
How Hispanics Became the New Gays
HE never promised them the Rose Garden. But that's where America's self-appointed defenders of family values had expected President Bush to take his latest stand against same-sex marriage last week. In the end, without explanation, the event was shunted off to a nondescript auditorium in the Executive Office Building, where the president spoke for a scant 10 minutes at the non-prime-time hour of 1:45 p.m. The subtext was clear: he was embarrassed to be there, a constitutional amendment "protecting" marriage was a loser, and he feared being branded a bigot. "As this debate goes forward, every American deserves to be treated with tolerance and respect and dignity," Mr. Bush said.
Skip to next paragraph
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Frank Rich.
Everyone's a Critic
Send Your Comments About This Column
Readers respond to Frank Rich's recent columns and to questions he poses on pop culture.
Readers' Comments »
Columnist Page »
Podcasts
Audio Versions of Op-Ed Columns
TimesSelect subscribers can now listen to a reading of the day's Op-Ed columns.
Enlarge this Image
Barry Blitt
That debate died on the floor of the Senate less than 48 hours later, when the amendment went down to an even worse defeat than expected. Washington instantly codified the moral: a desperate president at rock bottom in the polls went through the motions of a cynical and transparent charade to rally his base in an election year. Nothing was gained — even the president of the Family Policy Network branded Mr. Bush's pandering a ruse — and no harm was done.
Except to gay people. That's why the president went out of his way to talk about "tolerance" at this rally, bizarrely held on the widely marked 25th anniversary of the first mention of an AIDS diagnosis in a federal report. Mr. Bush knew very well that his participation in this tired political stunt, while certain to have no effect on the Constitution, could harm innocent Americans.
When young people hear repeatedly that gay couples aspiring to marital commitment are "undermining the moral fabric of the country, that stuff doesn't wash off," says Matt Foreman of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Most concretely, the Washington ruckus trickles down into sweeping assaults on gay partners' employee benefits and parental rights at the state level, as exemplified by a broadly worded referendum on the Virginia ballot this fall outlawing any kind of civil union. Had Mr. Bush really believed that his words had no consequences, he would have spoken in broad daylight at the White House and without any defensive touchy-feely bromides about "tolerance."
Posted by: B. at June 14, 2006 09:09 AM
Sorry, I missed the posts for "Karl Rove Freedom Day"....knew I'd see some funnies here by the Children of the Corn, so had to make a return engagement over to the ol' Corn-hole.
Fort still being held down by "Saladin" and "capt", I see.
Got to agree with an earlier poster....David hoped Rove would get indicted, so he could sell his book better this fall....now he has to sell it as a "question remain about Rove, even though he was cleared" and his sales effectively move to 1/2 what he expected.....guess the Corn kids will have to go to U-Pitt and not Harvard now.
Posted by: Gare at June 14, 2006 09:34 AM
Bobo 103, WTF are you talking about? I have already stated that I never cared what happened to rove nor did I expect anything to ever come from this massive waste of time and money, is there something about that you don't get? Maybe you should remove your own thin metal head gear and move on.
B, there always has to be someone to hate, it seems to be what fuels the culture in this country.
Posted by: Saladin at June 14, 2006 09:34 AM
JUDGE ISSUES INFO BAN ON TORONTO TERROR CASE
Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - FreeMarketNews.com
The elements surrounding the alleged Toronto terror plot continue to swirl, but we may not hear much about it from now on. According to a CTV News report, an Ontario "justice of the peace" has imposed a "publication ban" over the current proceeding against the 17 alleged terrorists.
The ban came only a few hours after lawyers for the suspects claimed their clients had been through "cruel and unusual punishment" while behind bars, up to and including "torture." According to one lawyer, speaking before the cone of silence had been lowered, the alleged torture included "being kept in a room that's lit 24 hours a day, being woken up every half-hour, being beaten by the guards," and other similar mistreatment, most of which is forbidden by both Canadian law and the Geneva Convention.
The lawyers also noted that the publication ban had occurred "too late" and amounted to "clos[ing] the restaurant after they've had the buffet," since much information had been released in the first two days after the arrests.
------------
I guess this trumped up "terrorist plot" is caving too. At least they're using the word "alleged". All you panicky bushbots can come out from under the bed now, false alarm, as usual.
Posted by: Saladin at June 14, 2006 09:41 AM
Pande #111,
Isn't that Rove quote too much? A guy who dodged the draft calling veterans cowards. But this is par for the course. Witness the witless one in post #99 quoting the Mercury News:
Republicans said Fitzgerald's decision showed the viciousness of Democrats' attacks on Rove.
BWAHAHAHAHA! Those mean ol' Democrats are picking on poor widdle Karl! Mind you, this is the guy who's mastered the politics of destruction and put Atwater to shame. I wonder if the little pig will find Jesus on his death bed as well.
When are people finally going to pay attention to what these assholes DO instead of what they say?
Posted by: Don at June 14, 2006 09:46 AM
Don, they're too broke to pay attention.
Posted by: Saladin at June 14, 2006 09:53 AM
From the "Lost Thread" archive that the capt was kind enough to link. I thought this worthy of repost.
Prof.Steven Jones was interviewed on Alex Jones yesterday. He(Prof.) had studied samples obtained from metal beams at memorial sites and found strong evidence that Thermate, a higher sulfur content than Thermite was used to bring down the Towers. He was asking people that have such memorials in their towns to photograph the beam fragments near ends to verify possible Thermate evidence. I have no more specifics.
Posted by: DEN at June 13, 2006 10:11 AM
I know the subject has been posted ad-nauseum but until we get answers, correct ones, we cannot let it rest.
Posted by: DEN at June 14, 2006 10:11 AM
Josh Marshall provides a brief, cogent summary of Rove's involvement in the Plame affair in this post.
Posted by: Don at June 14, 2006 10:15 AM
Rove gets off; I want my money back
Evelyn Pringle | June 14 2006
The American people were told three years ago that an investigation was being set up to do one thing, find out the names of the two Bush administration officials who were the sources for a newspaper article by Bob Novak that revealed the identity of Valerie Plame, a CIA operative.
We now know that Rove was one of the sources -- end of story. He should have been charged.
Does the Bush administration really think that the public will not remember what they were told when this investigation was set up?
As a taxpayer, I want my money back. Not only for this charade of an investigation but also I want my share of the money spent on supporting Valerie Plame's cover for 18 years in the CIA that was flushed down the toilet by top administration officials, including the two worst thugs at the top.
To think that tens of millions of dollars have gone up in smoke is not acceptable and the media need to start reporting on how the hard earned money of working Americans is being wasted.
The Karl Rove case is just the latest example of six years of investigations that do nothing more than prove what we knew to begin with, while the crooks walk away unscathed in plain sight.
How much money has been wasted investigating Halliburton since the war began, only to find that the company got the contracts illegally through Cheney, ripped us off left right and center in Iraq, and was guilty as charged every single time and then let off the hook?
How much money was spent investigating the lies by Bush administration officials to Congress about the cost of the prescription drug bill only to determine the parties were guilty as sin, at a cost to taxpayers of $130 billion more than expected, and then let off the hook because the lead crook had already gone out the revolving door of the White House to work for the drug companies?
How much money have we spent to verify that the Bush administration used over a billion tax dollars to illegally advertise its policies, with phony ads to boot, to buffalo the public into only seeing what the administration wants it to see?
How much money has been wasted investigating the WMD lies that got us into the disaster in Iraq only to verify that we were lied to, and the war was totally unnecessary, while half of the liars are back in the private sector making big bucks off war profiteering schemes set up at the same time the lies were being told?
How much money was spent chasing after those WMD that the liars knew never existed?
I could go on and on and on but I don't have all day. This is my money and I want to know who is going put a stop to the on-going robbery by this administration?
The Rove spectacle is merely the icing on the cake and another kick in the teeth to American taxpayers.
-----------
Yep, massive waste of time and money. The MSM doesn't say shit and the dems sit on their hands. Pan, what was that you were saying about the huge increase in poverty? I wonder how far all these wasted millions would have gone to offer relief? I just read that the house passed, by 351-67, another 66 BILLION for military operations, more money into the meat grinder, and for what? They bitch about the war but keep dumping money into it, borrowed money. Maybe they will send the poverty stricken people to the military, where they can have a job, maybe even some food. They'll need to take care with the halliburton supplied water though.
Posted by: Saladin at June 14, 2006 10:22 AM
DEN, I have been wondering why none of those brainiacs over at physorg haven't laid claim to the million dollars being offered to anyone who can conclusively prove those towers weren't brought down with some type of explosive device. They are so sure of themselves, surely at least one of them could provide the proof very easily, or maybe several could get together and work as a team. A million bucks is still a pretty good chunk of change.
Posted by: Saladin at June 14, 2006 10:26 AM
Fitzgerald has won evey case he has tried. If the evidence was not strong enough to convict the rovester he was not going to indict him.
This brings up another problem for anyone wanting to prosecute anyone in this administration. With all the secrecy surrounding their activities, evidence of malfeasons is incredibly difficult to obtain. In effect it renders them "Teflon" and they know it.
Blatant human rights violations including torture and Gitmo, as well as violations of the Geneva Convention and other "external" malfeasons should be very convictable.
Time has come to leave the petty charges and step up to the BIG stuff. Any prosecutorial volunteers?
Posted by: DEN at June 14, 2006 10:27 AM
DEN, I read about some pretty shifty tactics fitzy has used to win in the past, his case history is hardly lilly white.
Posted by: Saladin at June 14, 2006 10:36 AM
Sal #119,
Believe me, I understand that many folks are simply too busy trying to keep a roof over their heads and food in their cupboards to pay any attention to weasels like Rove; most of them don't even know who he is. That doesn't surprise me.
What does surprise me is the people who are paying attention who actually believe that men like Bush and Rove represent their best interests. The Bushes of the world snicker over brandy and cigars as they contemplate people like Hapless, factless, the English-speaking business genius, and the Bible-thumping morons that make up their electoral base. These people don't realize that they are just fodder for the military-industrial complex and will be abandoned once they are no longer of any use. Compare what these Republican "leaders" say vs. what they do in regards to our veterans. Support the troops - that is, unless they need better armor on their trucks or their bodies, or they come home needing treatment for the physical and emotional damage resulting from their service. And God forbid they go into politics representing the Republican opposition, ala Cleland, Murtha, or Kerry. Then they are smeared as cowards by worthless chickenhawks such as Rove or Cheney.
Anyway, I'm beginning to rant. Sorry! It's a beautiful June day here in Michigan, and I am grateful to be alive. Have a great day!
Posted by: Don at June 14, 2006 10:49 AM
Sal, It's not about fitzy and his little "Tabloid gossip" crap, who said what to revenge someone else's challenge to someones power. That needs attention but not ALL the attention.
Until people wake up and realize that this administration has performed atrocities on people of other nations with willfull disregard to even the most basic tennants we claim like freedom and democracy, we will not be regarded by the world as anything other than Hitleresqe thugs bent on world domination. To me THAT is unacceptable and in need of prosecution by world court. Rovers escapades are small potatoes.
Once this cabal has been dealt with, we can focus on our future and convictions of the bit players.
Posted by: DEN at June 14, 2006 10:50 AM
DEN, I agree, that has been my opinion all along. That little fiasco is just a drop in the scum bucket.
Posted by: Saladin at June 14, 2006 10:56 AM
#155 Where are Mary Cheney's kids gonna go to university? (If she has any.) Her book will be languishing on the remainders table very soon. It has sold only 6,000 copies. hahaha Oh, but wait...she got a million bucks anyway from the publisher. She can send her kids to the University of Halliburton with that kind of dough.
I hope Ann the Man's book tanks, too. But Richard Mellon Scaife will come to HER rescue and buy a million copies. Oh, well.
Posted by: micki at June 14, 2006 10:57 AM
Don, I'm with you on chickenhawks, you cannot talk the talk until you walk the walk. Slap a uniform on those chumps and give them a rifle and insert them into the war they caused they would pee their pants like the girly men they are.
Posted by: DEN at June 14, 2006 10:57 AM
Congress Gives Itself 7th Straight Pay Raise
Source: Associated Press
URL Source: http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/9364688/detail.html
Published: Jun 13, 2006
WASHINGTON -- Despite record low approval ratings, House lawmakers Tuesday embraced a $3,300 pay raise that will increase their salaries to $168,500.
The 2 percent cost-of-living raise would be the seventh straight for members of the House and Senate.
Lawmakers easily squelched a bid by Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, to get a direct vote to block the COLA, which is automatically awarded unless lawmakers vote to block it.
Like last year, Matheson led a quixotic drive to block the raise. He was the only member to speak on the topic.
"I do not think that it is appropriate to let this bill go through without an up or down vote on whether or not Congress should have an increase in its own pay," Matheson said.
The pay raise would also apply to the vice president - who is president of the Senate - congressional leaders and Supreme Court justices.
This year, Vice President Cheney, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Chief Justice William Rehnquist receive $212,100. Associate justices receive $203,000. House and Senate party leaders get $183,500.
-----------
The concern for the uninsured and poverty stricken is touching. This raise is on top of all the groovy bennies they and their families receive, at our expense.
Posted by: Saladin at June 14, 2006 11:01 AM
Praying 24/7
Dear Cornposters:
I enjoy reading Teresa Whitehurst's articles. She just seems to have a connection with Christianity. She wrote an article about putting Christ back in Christianity. In that article she mentions that the religious right has demoted Jesus. They have Jesus being born and Jesus dying but they forget to mention about His beautiful words of loving one another or blessed are the peacemakers or when you do it for the least of my brethren, etc.
In fact this past Christmas the holyday came on a Sunday and churches said that Christmas is a family day and church would not be in session. I ask you what better day to attend church on Christmas to honor the Son of God. Yes, we saw first hand that Jesus was demoted.
I say to you that if the Muslims are called to prayer five times per day, I am called to repeat Jesus' name several times per day, such as ten or fifteen times in one day. I repeat Jesus' name three times. I say "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus" at least ten or fifteen times per day. Let us put Christ back into Christianity and let us put Jesus back in our lives along with His beautiful words that we read in the Bible. The Bible is God's love letter to us.
I am also called to pray several times a day the prayer, "Dear God, please have mercy on me a sinner."
I am proudest most of all because I pray 24/7. I know that you will find it difficult to believe but I do pray 24/7. With each breath I inhale is God's gift to me. With each breath that I exhale is my thank you to God.
Sincerely,
Gerald
Posted by: Gerald at June 14, 2006 11:30 AM
The United States military has ordered all independent media off the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base following the suicides of three detainees, RAW STORY has learned.
Oh yea the fascists do not like the truth being reported so out ya go, we ai'nt shutin down Gitmo. Lalalalalalalala! See no evil hear no evil.
Posted by: DEN at June 14, 2006 11:31 AM
115 I think the Corn kids got into Harvard and Brown and chose Brown. Where are you kid going?
Posted by: anonymous at June 14, 2006 11:36 AM
ThinkProgress has obtained a "Confidential Messaging Memo" from Boehner instructing his caucus to conduct a very different kind of deliberation. Here's a quick summary:
1. Exploit 9/11. The two page memo mentions 9/11 seven times. It describes debating Iraq in the context of 9/11 as "imperative."
2. Attack opponents ad hominem. The memo describes those who opposes President Bush's policies in Iraq as "sheepish," "weak," and "prone to waver endlessly."
3. Create a false choice. The memo says the decision is between supporting President Bush's policies and hoping terrorist threats will "fade away on their own."
If that is not disgusting enough for ya read more here.
Posted by: DEN at June 14, 2006 11:36 AM
oops I meant #115 above...
Different thought..
There is much yakking about all politicians being corrupt, crooks, liars, etc. However, some corrupt politicians have done the right thing, at times. Some non-corrupt politicians have done the wrong thing, at times.
But, using Karl Rove as the litmus test, he exemplifies the fact that Repugs see all things in terms of win/lose, as opposed to right/wrong.
Repugs will stand with their crooks and liars 'til hell freezes over because, to them, backing down or denying them support is a sign of weakness. No principles, no values -- it's all about winning, at any cost, using any tactics.
Posted by: micki at June 14, 2006 11:49 AM
Bush fails women
Posted by: Gerald at June 14, 2006 12:21 PM
What about Chainy
Posted by: Gerald at June 14, 2006 12:26 PM
David `dug in' his heels with the following:
"Two days after Rove spoke to Novak...to...out Valerie Wilson as an undercover CIA officer...."
"...Her employment status at the CIA was classified."
and "...Act--...a felony to disclose identifying information about a covert officer--Fitzgerald would have had to prove that Rove definitely knew that Valerie Wilson was not just a CIA employee but an undercover CIA employee."
What I and many people w/some interest in this entire episode want to know, or to have clarified, are:
1) What % of CIA's employees' status (as employees) is "classified"?
2) Isn't everything looked into by the CIA "classified" to some level or another? We sure would NOT task the CIA to see if housing values are out-of-whack, would we? Or, if the levees in NO are in sufficient Cat.III shape?
3) and most curious of all, if Ms. V was "undercover", I think we deserve to know exactly what were her COVERS?....Stuff like her (fake) name, employer,...you know, the usual stuff of UNDERCOVER-NESS?
Maybe these fundamental questions have been answered in the past and, not locked into details, I just missed them!
capt, with your technical knowledge, why do you waste such a large portion of it here?
Posted by: Happy follows up at June 14, 2006 12:44 PM
David, the right has been claiming since July, 2005, that no crime has been committed because Plame's name was mentioned in documents relating to the CIA in an inadvertent disclosure to the Cubans (Gertz, WTimes and McCarthy, NatRev, 7/05). Now, this is clearly false in that the CIA and the DoJ concluded that a crime had been committed. However, Baker Law presented this as a defense for the media defendants. The filing is-- interestingly-- gone from B-Law's website.
Now, this presents interesting questions. As Needlenose pointed out, this disclosure appears to have occurred under Bush. It was also evidently known to media outlets, presumably because a Bush Administration official with classified entree told them. This raises the question of whether the inadvertent disclosure to Cuba was entirely "inadvertent."
At any rate, one explanation that hasn't been put forward as a hypothesis is that Rove threatened to demand disclosure of classified material in court, just as Libby has done. Whatever the case, Fitzgerald has always seemed very iffy about prosecuting the underlying crime, going after lying instead.
This is pathetic. Larry Johnson aptly called the disclosure of Plame's identity "cold-blooded treason." It looks to me as if no one will pay the proper price. We have become a lawless nation, ruled by jackals and wolves.
Posted by: Charles at June 14, 2006 12:52 PM
Making it clear. Parts 1 , 2, and 3.
To borrow, no, outright commit a thievery of Charles' post ........ our nation HAS become a lawless nation. Ruled , ineptly yet cunningly,
by jackals and wolves .
The wolves and jackals are NOT powerful because of their superiority.
They are powerful because the general public allows it.
This will not be the case very sooooooon.
President Bush has been avoiding a very, very, very troubling TRUTH. Which is, very,
very, very FEW young Americans are join-
ing the American military.
So while the hoooooopla surrounding the not-an-entire-day visit just completed by President Bush is a " bounce " ........
it still does not address the
big, big, big BIG BIG issue :
The safety of Americans on-the-ground in Iraq PLUS the safety of Americans on-the-ground in the good old U.S.A. . That's the big issue.
That's where sticking with Rumsfeld is gonna
cost President Bush and the future of the U.S.A. for months and months and months and months and months and months and MONTHS .
Anderson Petition
www.warisaracket.org
Posted by: Anderson Petition at June 14, 2006 01:47 PM
You were road-ripped. Rove's just laying his ground case for the next election. There was some deal, and yes Rove payed off sombody. This is not what we were expeting?
Posted by: Carey at June 14, 2006 02:08 PM
Now, What About Cheney?
David Corn's colleague, John Nichols, gives credit where credit is due:
"Of course, as David Corn and others have ably illustrated, Rove's actions demanded scrutiny. But the fury that so many Democrats feel toward Rove caused them to obsess on the question of whether he would be indicted, rather than to recognize that the critical indictment was that of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff and a key advisor to President Bush on national security matters."
But, Nichols also poses this...
"Thus, from the time of Libby's indictment, the question that always mattered most was not: Will special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald indict Rove? It was always: Will Fitzgerald connect the dots that lead to Cheney?"
Posted by: micki at June 14, 2006 02:16 PM
Are you ready to die?
Posted by: Gerald at June 14, 2006 02:31 PM
The Scamming of America
Posted by: Gerald at June 14, 2006 02:34 PM
70
TB, that's an interesting handle you've chosen.
____________________________________________
I used to use J-Dub but after reading screeds from the angryman who calls himself Happy, and the opinionater who calls himself factchecker I figured this was some kind of superman type of bizarroworld where up is down.
Posted by: TurdBlossom at June 14, 2006 02:39 PM
Even Capt kirk is more like Mr. Spock, rational, not driven by emotion, but by logic.
Posted by: TurdBlossom at June 14, 2006 02:39 PM
Everyone -
Sign the petition ---> www.savetheinternet.com!
David Corn - Add your blog to www.savetheinternet.com!
Thanks in advance,
Rob
Posted by: Rob McIntosh at June 14, 2006 02:43 PM
Why not be cannon fodder
Posted by: Gerald at June 14, 2006 02:49 PM
Terroist in the White House
Posted by: Gerald at June 14, 2006 03:02 PM
Here he goes again:
Kerry: I was wrong about the war before I was right.
Kerry: I voted for the war before I voted against it.
Kerry: I was smart before I was dumb.
Posted by: LBH at June 14, 2006 03:02 PM
Dems have a new agenda/ideas - again!
1. Min Wage
2. Health Care
3. Tax Increase
Hey, wait a minute, these aren't new ideas.
Posted by: LBH at June 14, 2006 03:06 PM
congress vote themselves a raise
Posted by: spy on this! at June 14, 2006 03:12 PM
In fact this past Christmas the holyday came on a Sunday and churches said that Christmas is a family day and church would not be in session. I ask you what better day to attend church on Christmas to honor the Son of God. Yes, we saw first hand that Jesus was demoted.
Gerald, MY church was in session on Christmas Day. In fact, we always have the kids do a play in honor of Jesus. What church(es) did not have service on Christmas Day?
Posted by: Anna at June 14, 2006 03:12 PM
147 rational? lol! not from what I have read.
Posted by: B.M. at June 14, 2006 03:14 PM
152 Lets stick with the Republican agenda. It seems to be working out pretty well BUT pray for good weather... Hope things go better in Iraq... Spenp spend spend. tax cut. tax cut. tax cut.
Posted by: anonymous at June 14, 2006 03:19 PM
141 I live in a huge military community, and see just the opposite. Many (here, anyway) are eager to join the military. Maybe some are still joining for free college, but they are joining.
Also, many, many more are finishing their tours and then signing up for another.
Posted by: A. at June 14, 2006 03:21 PM
canuck, eh?
Posted by: DEN at June 14, 2006 03:23 PM
156 The richest and ALSO the small business owners all do that..."spend, spend, spend .. tax cut, tax cut, tax cut". Everyone wants their cut and tries to find ways to cheat the government. They just don't see that all they are doing is hurting themselves. In the end, they will pay anyway.
Posted by: B.M. at June 14, 2006 03:26 PM
Hey, wait a minute, these aren't new ideas.
Nope, but they're good ones.
Posted by: Don at June 14, 2006 03:26 PM
Rob, hmm I will check it out, but Corn doesn't actually read these posts. He is just the match.
Posted by: A. at June 14, 2006 03:29 PM
go to majormover.org now tell your friends too
read this now news black out to the people u s a
and indiana people too
Posted by: steve at June 14, 2006 03:33 PM
no church on christmas? as if. but what would it matter anyway? what if all church were to be called off indefinitely, would it affect your faith in the god of your choice one way or the other? doubtful. don't worry about any attacks on the church. anyway there are as many attacks by the church as there are on the church.
Posted by: spy on this! at June 14, 2006 03:37 PM
Beware of Monster.com
Posted by: Gerald at June 14, 2006 03:37 PM
# 120 from DEN about sulphur and thermate...
I know the subject has been posted ad-nauseum but until we get answers, correct ones, we cannot let it rest.
I agree DEN. You should write Jones and ask him how much sulphur he found. Ask him to quantify his findings and also how much of the other ingredients of thermate he found in those same samples. Other scientists know that sulphur by itself proves nothing since it's in alotta things. (didya read the one I posted about sulphur in that guys barbecue pit? noone believes there's thermate or thermite in his pit)
Jones is a scientist (nuclear fusion is not the correct specialty but...) so he knows whether he'll tell us common folk or not, that he's not being scientific without showing how much and what ratio of sulphur he found.
James, I've written to four diff professors at Clemson about Judy Wood. They were in both the civil engineering and mechanical engineering departments. So far none has responded with a word of support to her 'paper', either personally or departmentally as a Clemson institution. I linked them to her web page, but I doubt they've seen it since it isn't on the Clemson site. She knows how to submit papers to peer review because she has several published in her specialty of dental repair. Why oh why wouldn't she do the same for this one, unless she's also pulling the wool over 'common' people's eyes and knows it won't hold up to scientific review?
Posted by: Alan at June 14, 2006 03:38 PM
The Coming Draft
Posted by: Gerald at June 14, 2006 03:41 PM
Let's Not Pretend
Posted by: Gerald at June 14, 2006 03:45 PM
The 'Christian Nation' Bombs Again
Posted by: Gerald at June 14, 2006 03:57 PM
math is math and the NIST report is the NIST report irregardless of whether you think prof. wood janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls has any credence or not. you can see for yourself that the very first words on her report are "under construction" - maybe her report is not finished and she will submit it for peer review when it is. or maybe she feels the same as a certain professor on this blog has claimed; that peer review means nothing. why, alan, are you focusing on her supposed lack of credentials instead of her report? even if she were a simple escalator repairman instead of a professor of mechanical engineering her report speaks for itself, and her report would seem to put the lie to the claims of bushco and their obvious lapdog NIST. i suggest that you instead dwell on the myriad of motives that bushco might have for committing such a crime of the new american century (911). - or better yet, email professor wood (janedoe) and tell her what you think.
Posted by: spy on this! at June 14, 2006 03:59 PM
As I Lay Crying
Posted by: Gerald at June 14, 2006 04:00 PM
As an evangelical Christian, I am told by the men pounding on their Bibles and pointing their fingers at their studio audiences that I should vote for Bush. Yet I see the children in my dreams, the children and all the "family values" promoted with such fervor in this country that will be washed with their blood into the Iraqi soil.
But tomorrow I will drink an extra cup of coffee and square my shoulders and try to forget that on this night I lay crying.
Posted by: Gerald at June 14, 2006 04:06 PM
Do You Think He's Dead, Mom?
Posted by: Gerald at June 14, 2006 04:10 PM
alan, that's really quite amusing that you would take the time to find and email 4 different professors at clemson univ. about prof. wood behind her back, when her report has: "email me @...." no fewer than 3 times. - take it up with her! she is no doubt smarter than i am and does not need me to defend her or her report.
Posted by: spy on this! at June 14, 2006 04:13 PM
Enlist Today
Posted by: Gerald at June 14, 2006 04:14 PM
Genuine defense of one's country and kin is something for which most Americans, young and old, would make huge sacrifices. Nation-building and preemptive strikes are not. If ambitious old men in leather chairs want those kinds of wars, let them go fight without drawing our precious children Ð or their beloved teachers Ð into the bloody mess.
Posted by: Gerald at June 14, 2006 04:18 PM
No Bravery
Posted by: Gerald at June 14, 2006 04:21 PM
Support the Troops
Posted by: Gerald at June 14, 2006 04:28 PM
i agree gerald! (175) and so i am reposting your comment with added bold emphasis!
Genuine defense of one's country and kin is something for which most Americans, young and old, would make huge sacrifices. Nation-building and preemptive strikes are not. If ambitious old men in leather chairs want those kinds of wars, let them go fight without drawing our precious children Ð or their beloved teachers Ð into the bloody mess.
Posted by: spy on this! at June 14, 2006 04:34 PM
Your Christian President
Posted by: Gerald at June 14, 2006 04:38 PM
why, alan, are you focusing on her supposed lack of credentials instead of her report?
Because I've read the work of scientists with the correct credentials, that back up their work with their reputation and peer reviewed it with other credentialed scientists. That puts a hella lot more credibility to what they say, then what this dental person says on a web page. Like we all say, anybody can put anything on a web page, but to submit it to professionals that can test it is something completely different. Why would you support anything someone says that won't submit it to others to test for themselves?? Cause you've never heard of a conspiracy that you didn't like? haha You still think there were hologram planes in the towers? See, you'll believe anything. Me, I want proof.
I still don't know whatcha mean by escalator repair people? Who is that?
Posted by: Alan at June 14, 2006 04:40 PM
that's really quite amusing that you would take the time to find and email 4 different professors at clemson univ. about prof. wood behind her back
behind her back??? I'm just trying to find out if her own dept backs her, or if it's like Jones where noone else at his school does.
Posted by: Alan at June 14, 2006 04:43 PM
whatever you say alan. as i said, email prof. wood yourself! i can attest to the fact that she is a nice gal and will treat whatever you have to say about her report with respect.
holograms are science fiction. don't presume to know what i am thinking.
Posted by: spy on this! at June 14, 2006 04:50 PM
MARINE APOLOGIZES TO MUSLIMS
cpl. joshua belile says the "Hadji Girl" video describing an encounter with an iraqi woman was just a joke.
the song's lyrics included:
i grabbed her little sister and put her in front of me. as the bullets began to fly, the blood sprayed from between her eyes, and then i laughed maniacally.....i blew those little f**kers to eternity.....they should have known they were f**king with the marines
---------------
a joke. ha ha what a good one. what if one of us were to make a similar joke about certain members of a certain administration? how funny of a joke would that be?
Posted by: spy on this! at June 14, 2006 04:55 PM
whatever you say alan. as i said, email prof. wood yourself!
And ask her what? "Are you credible?"
What'dya think her answer would be? Think she'd answer me if I asked why she set up a site named "jane doe"? Think she'd be a credible person to ask about her own credibility? C'mon James, you're not that stooooopid.
So, do you now not believe that hologram planes were used? When did you change your mind? Or, if you never thought that, then why did you post those wack links to that subject? Here's another non-subject... the million buck challenge to prove a negative. Doesn't take alotta brainpower to see through that one, does it? But some people don't think things through and just add it their list.
"Lapdog NIST" is another good one. Think they are all crooked and have been bribed, do ya? There's that many more thousands added to the conspiracy? They've all conspired against you James! Run 'n hide maaaaan!
Posted by: Alan at June 14, 2006 05:02 PM
at least you are spelling the word hologram correctly lately. i have never once said that i believe that holograms were employed anywhere other than for princess leia in star wars.
And ask her what?
if you are truly concerned about professor wood's use of the name janedoe or have doubts about her report, then maybe THAT is what you should ask HER. are you trying to get me to say that NIST is crooked or has been bribed? i have no idea if they are or have, but upon reading janedoe's report it is obvious to me that the NIST report has lowered the status of NIST to that of lapdog.
Posted by: spy on this! at June 14, 2006 05:29 PM
Rob McIntosh @ #148
I would like to share with you what my congressman, Rick Larsen (D-WA) replied to me when I asked him to explain his rationale for his vote on HR 5252 (he voted against the Markey Amendment). IMO, he is combative and non-responsive -- well, he didn't answer my question. He just threw it back at me -- what kind of representation is that? (Rhetorical)
Hello Micki,
Ê
Thanks very much for the e-mail concerning my vote on the Markey Amendment. We don't disagree that the internet should maintain is open best efforts delivery platform. A question for you: Do you have an existing example of an Internet Service Provider "blocking" or "tiering" a content provider from you? The internet has been amazingly democratic and empowering to non traditional businesses and individuals. It has also been left mostly free from government regulation and as a result the free market has driven internet development and use. I want an open internet just like you but I am concerned that there is not a consumer protection problem that would require a new government regulated set of rules at this time. What are your thoughts?
Best,
Rick
PS:Ê Major Corporations, such as Microsoft, supported the Markey Amendment.Ê Does theirÊsupport of the amendment, as one of biggest corporations in the world cause you pause?
++++++
Here is what I wrote to him -- maybe he didn't like that I called him a DINO, but you have to understand that Rick and I have a *tenuous* relationship.
Dear Representative Larsen:
Once again, I am disappointed that you have become a DINO (Democrat in Name Only), as evidenced by your vote on HR 5252.Ê
I cannot imagine why you voted in favor of the telephone companies and against the people on HR 5252 -- any bill that guts internet neutrality is unacceptable to many Americans, no matter what their party affiliation (if any).
Congressman Larsen, would you kindly take the time to explain your rationale for your vote?Ê I would appreciate a response.
Senators Murray and Cantwell, I am copying you on this e-mail to Mr. Larsen, because I urge you to support the bipartisan Snowe-Dorgan Internet Freedom Preservation Act, S. 2917.ÊÊ I hope the Senate will undo the damage done by the irresponsible vote in the House of Representatives.Ê Thank you.
Thank you.
Posted by: micki at June 14, 2006 05:29 PM
Rick & Micki,
I will be sure to check on my state (Maryland) representative & senators votes on these amendments that you mentioned above and if they have voted against net neutrality, then I will send a similar letter that Micki wrote above.
Everyone - check your state represntative & senators votes on net neutrality and DO something about it!
Thanks so much and do it,
Rob
Posted by: Rob McIntosh at June 14, 2006 05:36 PM
wow micki, rep larson is trying to cleverly deflect your concern back onto yourself, asking you if your internet use has been impeded in any way - he knows as well as the rest of the congressmen (voted themselves another raise!) that only now that the markey amend has been shot down will any internet impedement begin. dissembler! (larson)
Posted by: spy on this! at June 14, 2006 05:44 PM
are you trying to get me to say that NIST is crooked or has been bribed? i have no idea if they are or have, but upon reading janedoe's report it is obvious to me that the NIST report has lowered the status of NIST to that of lapdog.
say wha?? What does lapdog mean then? They're covering up something that Jane Wood finds to be not true. Would that be a correct statement for you? Then the obvious answer to that is... submit your proof to scientific review and become famous, instead of throwing some shyt up an internet flag pole (the swiftboat veterans of 9/11 come to mind) and seeing who salutes. If she's got truth on her side and can prove what she says, then stand behind it, shout it to the high heavens, show others how she got to that point with verifiable tests, back up that nice graphic and let the experts come to the same results. She'll be famous!! Instead of Jane Doe.
Posted by: Alan at June 14, 2006 05:44 PM
rob mc -
check your state represntative & senators votes on net neutrality
how does one do that?
Posted by: spy on this! at June 14, 2006 05:47 PM
what are you high? do you think that she doesn't stand behind her report because she goes by the handle janedoe? do you think her report is untruthful? her report is simply the use of mathematics to disprove the official NIST report. YOU should spend YOUR time disproving her report if YOU think it is untruthful. YOU would be famous.
Posted by: spy on this! at June 14, 2006 05:56 PM
maybe she's put her report on her own site because shouting to the high heavens doesn't get very far these days.
Posted by: spy on this! at June 14, 2006 05:58 PM
do you think that she doesn't stand behind her report because she goes by the handle janedoe?
uh huh I think she stands behind it to a point, just not far enough for it to be tested by the people that could prove it wrong or right. That makes me not trust her.
YOU should spend YOUR time disproving her report if YOU think it is untruthful. YOU would be famous.
Why should I bother? If she won't submit her paper to peer review, there's nothing to disprove. You don't get famous by debunking a jane doe, so that last part is nonsense. Like I said, she's published with peer review before, so why not this time? Stood behind her other work, so why not this? Jane Doe indeed.
Posted by: Alan at June 14, 2006 06:25 PM
I forgot to add... I'm disappointed in you my friend. Posting links to hologram planes when you didn't even believe it yourself. Thought it would play well with the conspiracy folks, or what? Thought what, that it was 'cute'? Maybe you should label your posts so we'll know which ones you're serious about, and which ones are 'swiftboat'.
Posted by: Alan at June 14, 2006 06:29 PM
I'm disappointed in you my friend. Posting links to hologram planes when you didn't even believe it yourself.
you show me where any link i endorse endorses holograms as a viable theory.
i'll tell you what i believe alan, for the umpteenth time.
the images of flight175 impacting the wtc2 that we were shown by the mcmedia were computer generated images (cgi) inserted onto the footage of an explosion on the same wtc2.
THAT is what i believe, and i have not led anyone to believe otherwise.
what specifically about janedoe's report do you have an issue with other than that it goes against the NIST report? she is a professor of mechanical engineering even if her internet handle is janedoe, but i said before that i believe that even if her report were written by an escalator repairman it would be no less credible than if it were written by einstein himself. info is info. or at least it should be.
Posted by: spy on this! at June 14, 2006 07:10 PM
Post a comment