The scandal swirling around Karl Rove continues to widen. As the GOP continues to mount a "defense" for Rove, it becomes apparent that without Rove to write the talking points, the party is in deep trouble.
The scandal swirling around Karl Rove continues to widen. As the GOP continues to mount a "defense" for Rove, it becomes apparent that without Rove to write the talking points, the party is in deep trouble. Each new Republican talking point seems to either strengthen the argument that Rove is intricately involved in this crime or implicate Rove and other Republicans for either conspiracy, perjury, or obstruction of justice.…
Article comments
76 - Tao Jonez
wuz one of da push poll lies in south carolina primary in 2000, like the shit pulled in georgia about that amputee dude in the wheelchair, ya know, the Nam vet
77 - billy
that nasty john mccain. adopting an asian baby to give it a better life. what a monster.
78 - rbp0554
Thanks Tao,
for telling the truth while I was absent. Push polls as Tao was saying: The 2000 Bush campaign called people in SC asking them how they would feel about McCain if they knew he had a black baby. His standing in the state plumitted. It got all kinds of mainstream press coverage. Thus, either Dave and John don't read much (a distinct possibility given their comments), or they need to refer to my comments 60 & 64 about intellectual honesty.
Dave, do I detect a tinge of racism in your comment 75? Not accusing, just asking.
- RBP
79 - billy
classic rovian dirty trick against mccain. i wonder why the republican prosecutor P. Fitzgerald is doing this?
is he an honest repub and sees evidnce of crime? or is he dishonest, sees evidence of crime, going through the motions now, and later will not do anything?
80 - Dave Nalle
Oh, we're talking about the SC push poll question. I thought there was some actual new story that was relevant. I should have known from the rest of the stuff in RPB's list that none of it was relevant or interesting.
Dave
81 - rbp0554
Billy:
Make no mistake about it... the WH is scared. Largely b/c Fitzgerald has the reputation of being a tenacious no non-sense prosecutor. However, this does not change the fact that Fitzgerald is a partisan as Tao and I have both pointed out above.
- RBP
82 - Dave Nalle
Scared of what? At this point Rove seems to have been conclusively cleared. What you perceive as trying to stonewall is more likely that they are just ignoring a non-issue to concentrate on more relevant things.
Dave
83 - rbp0554
Dave:
1) Only the most partisan ideologue would dismiss my list as irrelevant and uninteresting.
2) I tied it into Plamegate in the context of a growing credibility gap within the Bush Administration.
3) Even if KR is in the clear as you claim (which is far from "conclusive"), he is not the only game in town. What about Libby and Fleisher (both have been implicated). There's still another source out there and the idea that it was Tennet (as someone suggested earlier) is laughable. GT had no motive to out one of his own.
Again, see my comments 60 & 64 about intellecual honesty.
- RBP
84 - John Bambenek
rpb: before we start talking about who has been implicated by a discredit lair (aka Wilson), why don't we wait for the investigation to be don...
Then maybe you can have your beheadings.
You guys wanted the investigation, you got the investigation, now wait for it to be done already.
85 - Tao Jonez
yo Bambenek, might taste better if the prosecutor hadn't been given his job by the peeps he's supposed ta investigate
can ya even spell conflict of interest?
86 - John Bambenek
Tao:
Maybe you should take a look at what Fitzgerald is doing in Illinois if you think he's a partisan hack. He single-handed made sure this state is solid democrat by indicting half the freaking IL GOP here. Not that I blame him, they were crooks, but still...
87 - Tao Jonez
and how does that change the fact that he got his fed job in 2001 from this WH?
please playah, sell that horseshit ta somebody thas buyin
88 - John Bambenek
If he's such a partisan hack, why did he wipe out IL GOP?
Thanks for playing. We know you'll see no investigation as valid that doesn't impeach every Republican and give the Democrats the Socialist dream state they've always wanted but could never get enough votes for.
89 - Tao Jonez
yo Bambineck, did i call him any kinda hack?
or did i just say there coudl be a conflict of interest cuz of who gave him his job in the Fed?
clean yer ears out, hatah, get a grip
and try not ta have too many wet dreams about the fascist state ya obvioulsy want that can't question nutcuppers like you
90 - rbp0554
John:
Tao (comment 62) and I (comment 81) have both given Fitzgerald his due props, so do something besides namecalling. My suggestion is that you admit that Fitzgerald has ties to the administration, and that he could, as Tao pointed out, have a conflict of interest.
- RBP
91 - Nancy
From what I've been able to find out about him, Fitzgerald has a pretty solid rep for being an 'honest cop'. The kind of Republican that USED to run the party. Good for him. I'll keep hoping this is true & remains so. We need more like him: honest, regardless of party.
What still perplexes me (& it's been hashed out in other threads) is why Novak is still walking & talking out in public instead of behind bars. If Rove is suspect for being part of the daisy chain of leakers, why isn't Novak, who actually published the piece? Isn't it just as illegal for a reporter to 'out' a CIA as it is for a technical 'civilian' like Rove? It would seem if Rove is going to be lambasted, Novak (historically his partner in crime in other dirty tricks episodes in the past) should be too, instead of just keeping his head down & walking away from it all as he seems to be doing. Situations change day to day on this, any thoughts about why Rove is being targeted (aside from the obvious that anyone w/any ethics at all loathes him for the amoral maggot he is, plus he's (literally, lol) a bigger target politically) & Novak seems to be getting off scott free?
92 - Temple Stark
speaking ot Nancy's question only - Rove would have signed all kinds of Non-Disclosure agreements and having security clearance makes you culpable in so many ways.
Novak, a columnist. I'm really struggling about the morality of what he did and how wrong he may have been. But he isn't equal when it comes to revealing information. He wrote that he got his information from government officials. Usually that's code words for White House from all that I've read.
I'm gauging the fear factor for Rove supporters by their volume of posts here and elsewhere trying to explain the un=explainable and asserting "nothing here" at the slightest whiff of hope.
93 - Nancy
Noooo...I can't buy that, quite. It seems to me a law is a law is a law, & if Rove ends up hanging, so should Novak. There aren't two laws, one for reporters & one for everyone else. Treason & outing someone are treason & outing someone, regardless. And if media types are that irresponsible, they deserve to hang...but in view of past history between the two, this was not an uncoordinated thing, I'm betting. Novak has been Rove's journalist hack for decades. IF Rove is guilty, then Novak sure as shit is, too. I'm still intrigued by - was it yours, Temple? - someone's speculation that Miller is actually in jail voluntarily (i.e. by her own choosing) as a way to avoid a yet bigger "bottom feeder" she's protecting as a source, that she's more afraid of than Rove or jail time.
94 - Temple Stark
Somebody said there was a possibility of Miller being behind bars as pennance. And I said I had been thinking of the same thing. No proof at all, just speculation .. and the information has moved forward since then.
I also am glad at least one journalist went to jail. I hope to post about that, soon. Tomorrow probably.
95 - John Bambenek
I won't admit that Fitzgerald has ties because no one in the DNC said one word against him and lots of words for him when he got appointed. So in short, it's only you kooks who are complaining because you aren't going to get the result you want.
96 - billy
i have solved this whole dilemma, (maybe)
the oroginal source is unknown (probably libby) who leaked to miller, to novak, to rove, to cooper, and without miller's testimony the original source (libby) may be hard to get.
rove probably lied and said to the grand jury he had nothing to do with it.
bye bye martha, i mean rove
97 - Dave Nalle
RPB:
>>1) Only the most partisan ideologue would dismiss my list as irrelevant and uninteresting.<<
Only the most partisan ideologue would put forward a silly list like the one in #67. All but about two of your items are either utter crap or distillations of totally ludicrous left wing spin.
>>2) I tied it into Plamegate in the context of a growing credibility gap within the Bush Administration.<<
Keep saying it. If enough people repeat it, it apparently becomes true.
>>3) Even if KR is in the clear as you claim (which is far from "conclusive"), <<
I'm just going on the latest news reports which seem to be tending that direction pretty definitively.
>>he is not the only game in town. What about Libby and Fleisher (both have been implicated). There's still another source out there and the idea that it was Tennet (as someone suggested earlier) is laughable. GT had no motive to out one of his own.<<
This is why we have a special prosecutor.
>>Again, see my comments 60 & 64 about intellecual honesty.<<
Based on #64 you wouldn't know intellectual honesty if it bit you on the ass.
Dave
98 - Nancy
I'm not complaining about Fitz; so far I think we should clone him. A lot.
99 - Nancy
BTW, maybe it's just me, but has anyone else noticed all these fat, pasty white men seem to look alike? I could swear Rove & Novak look alike enough to be related genetically. Maybe they both don't have strawberry marks from birth....
100 - Dave Nalle
>>My suggestion is that you admit that Fitzgerald has ties to the administration, and that he could, as Tao pointed out, have a conflict of interest.<<
Special prosecutors are ALWAYS appointed by the White House. They appoint people they know who they think will be impartial. That's the way it's done. It's not like what was done with Fitzgerald was any different than any previous special prosecutorial appointment. Nixon appointed the Watergate prosecutors - more than one (Sirica, Cox, Jaworski) because he kept firing them and appointing new ones who then proceded to prosecute him the same way.
If it worked despite Nixon's efforts to undermine the system I doubt we have to worry about it in this case.
Dave
101 - Nancy
I don't think so either, Dave. For once we agree on something. If Fitz says in the end Rove isn't to blame, I'll hate it, I admit, but I'd accept it, he's that credible, even to me.
102 - rbp0554
Woh Dave... Easy Boy... Get Down.
Comment 64 has a hyperlink, so if that information is wrong, you should write the SF Chronicle so that they can make a correcction.
As for my other list... run a google new search on any of those topics. All this is documented Dave. Also note that I said "at the very least there has been considerable dispute". Aren't credibility gaps about disputed information?
- RBP
103 - Nancy
Fitz, that is, not Rove. I wouldn't trust Rove for any reason at any time. His past record regarding veracity & honesty is too poor.
104 - Tao Jonez
yo Dave, howabout Starr?
but i give props ta Fitz so far, we will see what the skinny is when it's tucked inta bed
now, when is somebody like Fitz gonna look inta Gannon/Guckert and let us know how somebody with a fake name got inta the WH after he wuz rejected on the Hill?(dat's the normal path fer WH correspondents)
how do these things fit? only one i know might have the 411 on that, would be Ari, and he's gone and ain't talking
how bad it gotta be ta stick in his craw and make him resign?
105 - DrPat
There has been much speculation about exactly who Miller might be protecting, up to and including herself (there was no "government official," she was writing from the rumors gleaned from Washington parties).
It's ALL hot air until the investigation concludes...
and heaven knows there's enough here to float a blimp the size of the District of Columbia!
106 - Dave Nalle
>>Woh Dave... Easy Boy... Get Down.<<
Not likely. I'm not going to stand silent when you start spewing garbage that looks like it came straight off of a leftist disinformation mill like DailyKos. You can feed that pablum to the true believers, but with thinking people it's not going to fly.
>>Comment 64 has a hyperlink, so if that information is wrong, you should write the SF Chronicle so that they can make a correcction.<<
Actually, it doesn't have a hyperlink, and regardless of where it came from, you posted it so you own it.
>>As for my other list... run a google new search on any of those topics.<<
I'm intimately familiar with each of the topics and how they've been manipulated and distorted to serve political agendas.
>> All this is documented Dave.<<
The topics are documented, but the documentation doesn't necessarily back up the way they're commonly being used.
>> Also note that I said "at the very least there has been considerable dispute". Aren't credibility gaps about disputed information? <<
Only in the mind of the disputer. And there are those who dispute anything which comes out of the administration just because of pure partisan hate. If Rove said the sky is blue John Conyers would have a petition drive going with 100,000 people signed up to say it is red.
Dave
107 - hst
So sorry DAVE, your information like yourself is coming up SHORT! Ha Ha, Silly FReep.
>>Special prosecutors are ALWAYS appointed by the White House.<<
* Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor who was ((appointed by Congress)) to investigate the events surrounding the Watergate.....
108 - rbp0554
Has anybody speculated that Miller may have received different information from Cooper and Novak, but from the same sources or with some source overlap?
- RBP
109 - DrPat
I believe that's "FReeper," hst...
110 - rbp0554
Well on my browser it has a hyperlink.
Anyhow, cut and paste this into your browser Dave.
- RBP
111 - Dave Nalle
>>So sorry DAVE, your information like yourself is coming up SHORT! Ha Ha, Silly FReep.<<
At least you gave me a laugh. I have the honor of having been permanently banned from Freepland for being too liberal. They don't even return my emails.
>>>>Special prosecutors are ALWAYS appointed by the White House.<<
* Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor who was ((appointed by Congress)) to investigate the events surrounding the Watergate.....<<
Your source is wrong, plus the link doesn't work. Cox was appointed by acting attorney general Elliot Richardson with the approval of the WH but at the request of Congress. He was later fired by Robert Bork who was then acting AG.
I should clarify what I wrote earlier. Sirica was not a special prosecutor, he was the judge in the B&E trial of the Watergate Seven. After teaching this stuff for 20 years I should have remembered that.
Dave
112 - rbp0554
Dave is right about Archibald Cox. Check out http://www.igpa.uiuc.edu/ethics/cox-bio.htm . Admittedly, I checked with hopes that Dave would be proved wrong, but he was right.
- RBP
113 - Paul
Why hasn't Bob Novak been brought forth publicly on this matter? Reporters should have no immunity when they are involved in jepadozing National Security of the country.
Novak claimed to be so knowledgeable of the laws and have no excuse for publicly exposing the CIA agent. He therefore is guilty of a serious crime with the rest of his cronies in the Whitehouse.
Paul
114 - Nancy
Well, Paul, this is the question a lot of us have been asking for months now. I suppose it will all come out in the wash, eventually... but it's torture to our sense of curiousity waiting for it, isn't it? We all hate to be kept waiting....
LOL, DrPat, that must be why it's 100+ w/near-100% humidity here in the DC area. You'd think w/congress out of town for a few weeks, the hot air would go away for a bit.
115 - rbp0554@hotmail.com
New developments: COOPER SPEAKS. Check out these links:
1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/17/AR2005071700400.html
- RBP
116 - rbp0554
damn thing would not let me post two hyperlinks at once!
2) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/17/AR2005071700369.html
117 - John Bambenek
And in that story Cooper indicated their might be more sources but refused to identify them...
Miller is in jail protecting sources and those aren't Rove and Libby who've signed confidentiality waivers.
118 - Tao Jonez
here's da facts and da timeline, layin it all out fer peeps ta scope
119 - BE
Bambenek,
Like Cooper, Judith Miller did not accept the generic confidentiality waiver the WH forced everyone to sign. Cooper only revealed sources when the sources personally gave him permission. It is still possible that (one of) Miller's source was also Rove. You obviously haven't been paying attention. Which explains the nonsense you've written all over this thread.
120 - John Bambenek
I'm sorry, I'm not buying that line of BS.
Rove made it clear repeatedly, and once again to Cooper, he meant it when he waived it. It isn't Rove. Move on. Miller is in jail protecting someone else... if it wasn't clear that Rove waived it 2 years ago, it was made clear to Cooper last week.
121 - BE
Bambenek,
Again, your not paying attention. Rove has made no personal waivers to Miller. Neither she nor Cooper have accepted anything but a personal waiver from sources. A waiver to some other reporter is as worthless as the WH generic waiver. Rove could have been on both sides of the leak; leaked it one way and then it got back to him through a different reporter. This would give him a plausible story, and a way to deny being the original source. I'm not saying this is what happened, but I would not be surprised if it is.
122 - John Bambenek
BE:
I'm paying attention, he signed a blanket waiver for everyone. I'm not buying this interpretation he has to sign waivers for everyone. I don't accept that legal interpretation or that interpretation of the facts. It makes no sense and it is simply not plausible.
The document as signed applied to Miller and Cooper, whether or not they want to play games or not.
123 - BE
Bambenek,
Cooper did not accept the WH blanket waiver, did he? Neither did Miller. Cooper only talked after he was given personal permission from his source. Whether you choose to look at the press as playing games as they attempt to protect sources, or not, the facts are that Rove could be a source of Miller's. There is no reason to rule that out. He has not given a personal waiver to Miller.
124 - andy marsh
BE - how can you use the words fact and could in the same sentence and expect me to take you seriously...the fact is....that this could be...why isn't the factof the matter...that he could not be???
125 - BE
Bambenek,
It is a fact that whether (one of) Miller's source(s) was Rove is unknown. He could be, he may not be. The waivers are insufficient to rule Rove out as a source of Miller's. We can see how Cooper and Miller operate with respect to waivers: They only accept personal waivers, Miller has not received one such waiver from Rove, therefore Rove could be one of her sources, therefore she may know more than Cooper about what Rove disclosed to the press.