Today on Blogcritics
Home » Testimony from Rove, Libby and Reporters Apparently Contradictory

Testimony from Rove, Libby and Reporters Apparently Contradictory

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Top White House aides Karl Rove and Lewis Libby apparently testified to a special prosecutor that they each learned of CIA Operative Valerie Plame’s name from reporters — which apparently contradicts infromation provided by the reporters.

Bloomberg Business News, relying on sources familiar with the testimony, reported today that Libby, who is Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, told Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that he first learned Plame’s identity from NBC News reporter Tim Russert.

But Russert apparently has testified before a federal grand jury that he didn’t tell Libby of Plame’s identity.

***

Meanwhile, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove apparently told Fitzgerald that he first learned the identity of the CIA agent from syndicated columnist Robert Novak.

Novak, who was first to report Plame’s name and connection to Wilson, has apparently said the opposite. In 2003, Novak said: “I didn’t dig it out, it was given to me. They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it.”

There are also contradictions between accounts given by Rove and Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper. The White House aide mentioned Wilson’s wife — though not by name — in a July 11, 2003, conversation with Cooper, the reporter has said. Rove apparently testified that Cooper called him to talk about welfare reform and the Wilson connection was mentioned later, in passing.

Cooper wrote in Time magazine last week that he told the grand jury he never discussed welfare reform with Rove in that call.

***

The “he said/he said” has to be sorted out by Fitzgerald, part of a broader effort to determine whether Libby, Rove or other administration officials made false statements during the course of the investigation.

The Plame case has its genesis in whether any administration officials violated a 1982 law making it illegal to knowingly reveal the name of a covert intelligence agent.

The CIA requested the inquiry after Novak reported in a July 14, 2003, column that Plame recommended her husband for a 2002 mission to check into reports Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger. Wilson, in a July 6, 2003, article in the New York Times, had said President Bush’s administration “twisted” some of the intelligence on Iraq’s weapons to justify the war.

Fitzgerald’s term of service lasts until October, which is also the length of time remaining for the grand jury hearing evidence in the case.

***

This article first appeared at Journalists Against Bush’s B.S.

Powered by

About David R. Mark

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    >>Meanwhile, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove apparently told Fitzgerald that he first learned the identity of the CIA agent from syndicated columnist Robert Novak.

    Novak, who was first to report Plame’s name and connection to Wilson, has apparently said the opposite. In 2003, Novak said: “I didn’t dig it out, it was given to me. They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it.”

    Now, this isn’t necessarily a contradiction. I speculate, however, that it’s a pile of steaming you know what

  • billy

    damn, what new talking point are they going to dream up to get around this?

    either rove and libby perjured themselves as well as leaked, or novak and cooper are both lying. given the motives of rove and libby, id bet on perjury AND leaking.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    You might want to consider that Novak and Cooper are also capable of having motives. The most notable being covering their asses.

    Dave

  • http://sussfr.blogspot.com Matthew T. Sussman

    Has anyone learned anything new about this for about 2 weeks?

    Yet we keep hearing about it.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    It’s all the left has to hammer on to keep their hopes alive.

    Dave

  • Deeno

    Matthew,

    You may wish it would go away, but yes, we have learned interesting stuff lately. Like that the widely circulated memo from the State Department about Wilson and his wife’s occupation had “Secret” stamped all over it and that Rove and Libby were specifically tasked to deal with the Wilson media blitz exposing the Bush administration’s manipulation of intelligence leading up to the war. Anyone who thinks that both Rove and Libby didn’t see that memo are real dupes. And anyone who has the slightest sense of history and doesn’t realize that Bush was covering up for Rove over the last two years has their head where the sun don’t shine.

    This story is fascinating because of it’s sense of historic inevitability. Bush is hosed.

  • http://www.markiscranky.org Mark Saleski

    no true…we also get to enjoy the surreal circus of those on the left spinning like mad.

    it’s pretty funny.

  • Deeno

    Mark,

    So what’s to spin on the left? We know for sure that Rove treasonously leaked Plame’s identity as a CIA operative to reporters as part of his normal MO of political sleaze. The spin is the Republican party trying to portray this act and the myriad lies by the Bush administration to cover their asses as some sort of public service to “correct” the media. That is the real joke.

  • http://sussfr.blogspot.com Matthew T. Sussman

    Yes Deeno, I want it to go away, but I want it to come back when something new and relevant is reported.

    Or speculate away. Lord knows we haven’t seen enough of that from everyone.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    no true…we also get to enjoy the surreal circus of those on the left spinning like mad.

    Did you mean “those on the right”?

  • http://www.markiscranky.org Mark Saleski

    yikes bhw, i clearly put my brain in backwards this morning.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>So what’s to spin on the left? We know for sure that Rove treasonously leaked Plame’s identity as a CIA operative to reporters as part of his normal MO of political sleaze.<<

    Yes, that’s pretty much the spin on the left, to keep saying again and again that we ‘know’ this and that ‘Rove is a traitor’ in the hopes that people will start believing them, when in fact the evidence doesn’t support those conclusions and the investigation isn’t finished. What we DO know right now is that Rove is no longer the target of the investigation. Spin on that for a bit, spinmeister.

    Dave

  • Deeno

    Matthew,

    I guess that you could say that my assertion that Bush was involved in a cover-up is technically a speculation. But we know for sure that an executive order requiring federal agencies, including the executive branch, that becomes aware of a security breach is required to conduct an investigation, which has not happened and that failure is a breach of law. Then we have the real joke of Bush claiming that “I want to know the facts”, yet he seems to have never simply asked Karl if he was involved, even when he was the most obvious “senior White House official” to have been the source of the leak reported by Robert Novak.

    Be assured it ain’t going away and the conclusion is inevitable: Bush is hosed and exposed.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Deeno, where do you get your delusions from? Is it a chemical imbalance?

    Dave

  • Deeno

    Dave,

    What Rove’s lawyer says about who the target of the investigation is isn’t exactly a fact, now is it? The target of the investigation is whoever the prosecutor says it is, and he hasn’t said and he can change his mind any time he wants. We absolutely do know that Rove leaked to Matt Cooper and I don’t need the investigation to conclude to know it was a treasonous act for sleazy political purposes.

  • Deeno

    And Dave, do you want to try a coherent argument or just revert to Jr. High?

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com David R. Mark

    I’m not spinning anything. I’m just passing along a news story.

    This is what happens when things get leaked, in dribs and drabs, from what is supposed to be sealed testimony.

    You’ll note that I draw no conclusion in this article — I don’t say Rove and Libby are lying, just contradicting the reporters alleged testimony.

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com David R. Mark

    The question I guess I have is, why are the conseratives being so defensive?

  • Deeno

    David Mark,

    I didn’t hear anyone suggest you were spinning. As for me, I’m pretty damn sure Rove and Libby are lying and I’m pretty sure the prosecutor has a reasonable case for a crime. The dribs and drabs will become a flood once the principles in the case face criminal indictments and ten years in the slammer. What did the late Karen Carpenter sing? “We’ve only just begun…”

  • Deeno

    “…why are the conseratives being so defensive?”

    Oh, you know. They love to see themselves as the only true patriots, and for their heros to be caught dead selling out their country for a political hatchet job has to be disturbing.

  • http://sussfr.blogspot.com Matthew T. Sussman

    This whole thread = exactly what I’m talking about. Dueling theories. No new info.

    Keep yapping, I’ll see you all when I hear a real update.

  • Deeno

    Matthew,

    So why isn’t the new information about the secret memo and the conflicts in testimony “new” to you?

    I guess we’ll hear back from you when you come up with a justification of treason for the sake of political dirty tricks. Waiting…

  • Deeno

    Isn’t it funny how the Rove appologists make excuses to disappear or revert to juvenile insults when they realize they got their asses kicked in a real debate?

  • http://toddyarling.com todd

    Partisanship turns everybody into acrobats.

    Its just more fun seeing it happen to the Right, especially after all the crazy things they said about Clinton.

  • MCH

    Deeno and David Mark;
    Dave Nalle’s shallow defense of Karl Rove is based solely on that old Republican axiom, “Thou shalt not speak ill of another Chickenhawk.”

  • billy

    like

    its not the [sex} leak, its lying about the [sex] leak.

    damn, treason vs. private consentual sex.
    i think the dems are going to win this one big and the republicans are going to look like petty hypocrites and fools.

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com David R. Mark

    Billy, if that’s true, will the American people remember come the 2006 elections?

  • billy

    couldnt say. probably. the republican majorities are pretty thin, and their wins are even thinner, so i wouldnt count it out.

  • Marty Thau

    Dave, you’re getting your ass kicked in this room, aren’t you?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    No, Marty. To get your ass kicked you have to be involved in a debate. I just made a comment and then watched the lefties try to spin and spin. I haven’t even tried to defend Rove. My point all along has been that there’s no defense for Rove because we have no idea what he’s done or not done. What I’ve done is point out that everything being brought up on this subject is pure supposition. It’s a battle of half-wits with half-truths and half the information, and none of it confirmed.

    I’ve got no ponies in this race. I don’t give a rat’s ass about Rove. He’s a Neocon and therefore not on my team. I’d rather see Bush cut him loose, all things being equal. It would win him a lot of friends among the old-line GOPers.

    Dave

  • Deeno

    I think this thread is a good microcosm for the situation the Bush Administration and their pathetic ideological supporters find themselves in. They wish like hell it would just go away, and they desperately try to defend their heroes, but in fact they are discovering to their horror that their defacto party leader, Rove, is a total slimebag who’s heroes are Donald Segretti and Richard Nixon and who would sell out his country if he thought he could trash the honor of a supposed enemy. And now they are finally comprehending that Rove is leading them into the same deadly quagmire that John Mitchell and Nixon did thirty some years ago and for the same stupid, paranoid reasons. It’s too bad for him that the 70’s was Bush’s hard drinking days. He might have avoided such an obvious repeat of history if he hadn’t lived so bleary eyed through that important era of learning for the Republicans.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    As I’ve said before, Rove is nothing like a GOP party leader. He’s a hired gun and doesn’t have the kind of status or respect in the party to be a leader.

    Dave

  • Deeno

    “…there’s no defense for Rove because we have no idea what he’s done or not done.”

    Now isn’t that just classic. A great example of the huge efforts to divorce themselves from this looming disaster and cram their heads as far as possible up their own asses by desperately proclaiming “We don’t know nothin, boss.” I don’t know about you Dave, but I heard that Rove definitely identified a covert agent to the press. Did you miss that? There’s absolutely no question that happened, the only question is can his lawyer can get him off by claiming that he didn’t realize she was covert because he – guess what? – had his head up his ass when that secret memo was being circulated all over the White House.

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com David R. Mark

    Dave, “lefties”?

    I thought you were a “moderate” …

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>I don’t know about you Dave, but I heard that Rove definitely identified a covert agent to the press. Did you miss that?<<

    Apparently I did, Deeno. Perhaps you could show me his statement to that effect. Last I heard he had admitted only to confirming the identity of an agent who was not undercover and would never be undercover again.

    You can say anything you like about what Rove did or didn’t do, but so far the confirmed evidence neither definitively supports the supposition that he originated the outing of Plame, nor does it support the supposition that Plame had any kind of intact or protected covert status. Rove’s role in ‘outing’ Plame is at least open to debate until all the parties are heard from and all the evidence is in. The fact that Plame was not an undercover operative in any meaningful sense of the term is much more clearly defined by evidence from multiple sources.

    Remember, I have no affection for Rove at all. I just care about the truth, and I’m seeing it distorted an awful lot by both sides here.

    Dave

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    David, I am a moderate if you average all of my beliefs together. But that doesn’t mean I like extremists on either side – I revile both Neocons and Lefties.

    Dave

  • Deeno

    “…Rove is nothing like a GOP party leader”?

    I’d say that if, as we just learned, Rove was editing the “confession” of the director of the CIA for blowing the “sixteen words” State of the Union fiasco, there’s not much question who’s really in charge. Call him the “Architect”, “Turdblossom” or “Der Fuehrer”, Karl is the man. The dead man walking.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    But he’s not a leader, he’s a strategist. The leaders tell him what they want done and he figures out how to make it happen.

    Dave

  • Deeno

    “Perhaps you could show me [Rove’s]statement to that effect. Last I heard he had admitted only to confirming the identity of an agent who was not undercover and would never be undercover again.”

    Karl’s not doing a lot of talking these days, now is he? And I sure as hell wouldn’t believe him if he was. But we know that the reporter he outed her to, Cooper, testified under oath that Rove brought up Plame and he had never heard of her before. Rove wasn’t confirming, he was leaking. The director of the CIA requested a criminal investigation into the outing of a covert agent and several former agents just today detailed the damage done by Rove’s treason. You only seem to have memorized the RNC talking points. Unfortunately they are a pack lies and distortions.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    I don’t have access to the RNC talking points. I keep trying to get them, but no one will let me have them. I’m not ideologically pure enough or something. So, I just have to muddle through on my own.

    In this case, I just pick up on the obvious stuff, like that people are saying contradictory things and that Rove has already testified and the result is that more investigation of other people ensued. I’ve also caught on to the fact that people who start throwing around the word ‘treason’ midway through the investigation as if it were an established fact, can’t be taken very seriously.

    Dave

  • Deeno

    Dave,

    And I know that folks who say “Rove was not involved in the leak” are damn liars. And unfortunately they are leading our country to hell.

  • http://dumpsterbust.blogspot.com Eric Berlin

    I think the RNC talking points are released right after the instructions for the Secret Handshake are bequeathed.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Well, those folks aren’t me, Deeno. I’m only saying that we don’t know what the hell really went on and people who leap to one conclusion or the other aren’t doing anybody any good. Rove was clearly involved in some way – no denying that. Whether his involvement was significant isn’t entirely clear and neither is whether the whole thing isn’t just a tempest in a teapot.

    Frankly, I don’t care much either way. The way I see it Plame was misusing her position at the CIA to get her husband involved in the first place and if she was outed it was inappropriate and vindictive. On the other hand, the whole afair seems stupid and pointless to me. Everyone’s behaving childishly. Rove comes off as a weasel, Novak comes off as a blustering buffoon and Wilson appears to be a self-important clown. Let’s not even get into the quality of his ‘investigation’ in Niger. I’d just as soon put the lot of them in GITMO so I don’t have to hear about them anymore.

    Dave

  • Deeno

    As a public service, here are the RNC Rove talking points:

    and here are the facts:

    I’ll be honest. The moment I heard about the Plame leak, I knew damned well that Karl Rove was behind it. Call me prejudiced against a “dedicated public servant” or call me right, that was pure Karl Rove, just as the lies that Ann Richards was gay, that John McCain was a crazed Viet vet and that the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” had anything to do with the truth and nothing to do with the Bush/Rove campaign. But I was right and I am right in my contention that Rove is a lying, traitorous scumbag and I’ve got no appologies for anyone.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Thanks for the links to those talking points. I wish I could get on a list so I could see them when they’re current. Those aren’t much use because they’re all about the Wilson trip to Niger and not much about the investigation that’s going on now. Perhaps the GOP strategy is to just avoid the current controversy?

    Also nice to see that FactCheck.org is back in business. I was distressed when they shut down after the last election.

    BTW, check out that timeline. If we’re to believe FactCheck.org – which I generally do – then in fact the Niger yellowcake claim AKA the ‘sixteen words’ is in fact substantiated, at least as far as Iraq’s interest in buying more uranium from Niger, which they had done twice before in well documented in well documented cases. They may not have completed the transaction, but the intent to buy the uranium was clearly there, so Bush ends up not being the liar some have claimed, at least on this issue.

    The timeline also seems to accept Rove’s claim that he was not the leak, but in fact only confirmed what Novak already knew – something apparently borne out by both Roves and Novaks testimony. And then, presumably in the belief that if Novak knew about Plame everyone did, Rove inadvertently leaks the name to Cooper.

    Laid out like it is at FactCheck.org it all kind of makes sense.

    Dave

  • Deeno

    Dave,

    I’m not too sure what timeline you were reading, but my computer says:
    March 7, 2003 – The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – the international body that monitors nuclear proliferation – tells the UN Security Council that, after a “thorough analysis” with “concurrence of outside experts,” that the Italian documents— “which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger—are in fact not authentic.”
    And:

    July 7, 2003 – White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer retracts the 16-word yellowcake claim from the State of the Union address, calling the President’s statement “incorrect.”
    And:
    July 11, 2003 – Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet concedes in a statement that the State of the Union claims about Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa were a mistake and that the “16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President.”
    Of course that last statement we now know was actually written by Rove, laying the blame on the CIA, even though they warned Bush about the shakiness of the information. It’s no wonder that there are no shortages of former CIA agents willing to criticize the Bush administration over the Plame affair.
    And as to whether Rove told Novak or Novak told Rove and he confirmed Plames identity as a CIA agent, it is a violation of a standing executive order to confirm information that may be classified by someone with access to that information, without checking to confirm the information is not classified. That still makes it a violation of the law. And:

    July 11, 2003 –Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper calls Rove, who cautions him to be careful of Wilson’s story, “‘Don’t get too far out on Wilson ,’ he told me,” Cooper later writes. Rove tells Cooper that Wilson’s wife works for the CIA on “WMD” (Weapons of Mass Destruction) and that it was she, not Cheney or the CIA’s director, who was “responsible” for sending Wilson to Africa.

    Of course that last remark by Rove was a lie, but he directly leaked Plame’s secret employment status with the CIA. And it was secret.

    Care to clarify?

  • Shark

    My question:

    Where’s Ken Starr when ya really need him?

    Watching the Right spin this one is a hoot. Thanks for the laughs, *boyz.

    re: *DaveNulle’s : “I’ve got no ponies in this race.”

    Yep. uh-huh.

    And who writes yer denials, Davey, Scott McClellan?

    ~ahahahahaha

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com David R. Mark

    Ken Starr was such an embarrassment to the country. Amazingly, he’s trotted out every now and then — part of the old boys conservative network in Washington.

    But I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. If G. Gordon Liddy has credibility as a talk show host and pundit, and Elliot Abrams and Admiral John Poindexter have roles in our national security, then anything’s fair game.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Nice cherry picking, Deeno. I like the way you just skip over the parts that don’t support your argument.

    For example

    June 1999 – Niger ’s former prime minister Ibrahim Mayaki meets with an Iraqi delegation wanting to discuss “expanding commercial relations.” Mayaki interprets this as an interest in uranium, Niger ’s main export, and later tells Wilson that he did not discuss it because Iraq remained under UN trade sanctions. (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 43-44, July 2004).

    July 6, 2003 – Wilson publishes ” What I didn’t find in Africa” …Wilson does not mention that he learned there was a possibility Iraq had sought uranium during a 1999 trade meeting with Niger ’s former Prime Minister.

    And remember this is all in the context of fully documented cases of Niger selling hundreds of thousands of pounds of Yellowkake to Iraq throughout the 1980s and 1990s.

    I’m not saying that Iraq did buy yellowcake from Niger, merely that the evidence that they had planned to is real, and that the likelihood of them following through on those plans had to have been perceived as high based on their prior deals with Niger for Uranium.

    >>July 11, 2003 –Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper calls Rove, who cautions him to be careful of Wilson’s story, “‘Don’t get too far out on Wilson ,’ he told me,” Cooper later writes. Rove tells Cooper that Wilson’s wife works for the CIA on “WMD” (Weapons of Mass Destruction) and that it was she, not Cheney or the CIA’s director, who was “responsible” for sending Wilson to Africa.

    Of course that last remark by Rove was a lie, but he directly leaked Plame’s secret employment status with the CIA. And it was secret.<<

    Except that at this point – if you follow the chronology – it was NOT secret, because it had been made clear to Rove that Novak and others already knew about Plame and so her cover either had been blown or was going to be blown no matter what he said to Cooper. In fact, his statement to Cooper is almost the opposite of a leak, cautioning Cooper not to play up the story because of the security issues associated with it.

    You can, of course, believe whatever you want to believe about all of this. But the truth is that the situation is not as cut and dried as some would like it to be. It’s not sufficient to just shout ‘Bush Lied’ or ‘Rove is Evil’. Reality is more complex than that.

    Dave

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com David R. Mark

    In fact, his statement to Cooper is almost the opposite of a leak, cautioning Cooper not to play up the story because of the security issues associated with it.
    >>

    That’s the RNC talking point. It doesn’t seem like Fitzgerald is buying it.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    If I can come up with something that matches a supposed talking point just by applying logic then maybe the talking point isn’t that far off the mark.

    Dave

  • Deeno

    Dave N,

    What matters is that at the time Rove talked to Cooper, the identity of Rove was not public and the CIA considered it secret. Even if Rove is telling the truth about Novak bringing up Plame (which is highly doubtful), it was against an executive order and his secrecy agreement to even confirm it, much less volunteer the information to Cooper. Keep trying. Maybe Rove’s attorney could find a use for your tortured logic.

  • Nancy

    Deeno, I think you mean ‘the identity of Plame….’ Tha’s awright; I see by the time on your post that it’s very, very late. Or very, very early. :)

    Dave, while I sympathize w/your valiant attempts to defend Rove, I think your boy is going down. Latest news reports on radio state that Fitz is zeroing in on discrepancies & issues of perjury as well as outing Plame, & Smirk has stopped holding Karl’s hand in public. I suspect the wh is getting ready to throw him to the wolves – or sharks – or Shark – or whatever.

  • http://www.arcaneoracle.com Billy Braindeath

    Deeno, I tried to read your last comment, but it made no sense. Plus why do you just automatically assume that Rove is lying and not Novak? It’s interesting that both are conservatives and yet you seem to have more hatred for Rove just because he’s part of the administration. More Bushating on parade.

    BB

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com/ gonzo marx

    this history between Novak and Rove working together to push forward neocon agendas goes all the way back to the Bush 1 administration…

    Rove was fired for questionable ethics surrounding some shenanigans involving Novak by Bush senior…

    now, simple research can show Rove’s handiwork in Texas, during the 2000 primaries and on to the present day…

    Novak is no gem when it comes to ethical behaviour…but he does NOT have any kind of security clearance, therefor he cannot “leak” that type of information…a previous comment nailed it..it is in definitive violation for ANYONE with a clearance to either divulge or confirm such information…

    they are actually supposed to report anyone without clearance that has such knowledge and asks for confirmation…

    so, if everything Rove and Novak have stated is completely true…then Rove is still in violation of his security clearance

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • Deeno

    Billy,

    Novak and Rove are both conservative, but Rove has the much greater motive to lie. Novak is pretty well off the hook, it would appear.

    I don’t hate Bush. I just think he’s a lying, incompetent, hypocritical bastard who has taken our country down a disasterous path of destruction and disrespect around the world. But I’d love to have a beer with him.

    Thanks Nancy (yawn) Yes, it does look as though Fitzgerald is no respector of politically powerful lawbreakers.

    Gonzo, you nailed it again.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    If Rove and Novak work so closely together, then why isn’t Novak, who has gotten so much value from Rove, covering for him here? Novak could easily have backed up Rove’s version of events and come out just looking like a reporter who got lucky.

    >>I don’t hate Bush. I just think he’s a lying, incompetent, hypocritical bastard who has taken our country down a disasterous path of destruction and disrespect around the world. But I’d love to have a beer with him. <<

    Oh yeah, sounds like you’ve got a really unbiased take on Bush there.

    Dave

  • Deeno

    Dave,

    Now when did I ever claim to be unbiased when it comes to Bush? I live in Texas. I drink beer with assholes all the time.

  • Deeno

    And Dave,

    When getting caught “covering” for someone involves ten years in the slammer it’s not surprising that people get awfully honest before a federal grand jury. That’s what brought Nixon down and it will bring Bush down. Rove pushed it a little too far on this one and now he’s “got his tit in a wringer” to paraphrase John Mitchell of Watergate fame. That may seem gender inappropriate, but Rove is pretty much a girly man.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    So you’re a homophobe too, Deeno? Guess that makes it easier to drink beer with ‘assholes’. Here in my part of Texas I can find pretty openminded people to drink with.

    Dave

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com David R. Mark