July Xmas frog promenade ?
July 4, 2005 11:36 AM Subscribe
"Too many people know this. It should break wide open this week" First mentioned on Friday, Sunday brought confirmation : "E-mails surrendered by Time magazine to a grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA agent's identity show that a top White House aide, Karl Rove, was one of the sources, Newsweek magazine reported Sunday." Is Karl Rove in trouble ? Read between the lines.
Somebody - or more than one somebody even - is going down. Rove ? We'll see. There are a number of others implicated as well.
posted by troutfishing at 11:51 AM on July 4, 2005
posted by troutfishing at 11:51 AM on July 4, 2005
I agree, I could see Rove being dangled as bait, so "they" could pull another Dan Rather/Newsweek on whomever bites.
I fully expect "them" to fight all the way down to semantics, typefaces, fonts, paper weights, ink compositions, etc, on this one.
He still has a failsafe with the presidential pardon.
But we can all hope, right?
posted by Balisong at 11:54 AM on July 4, 2005
I fully expect "them" to fight all the way down to semantics, typefaces, fonts, paper weights, ink compositions, etc, on this one.
He still has a failsafe with the presidential pardon.
But we can all hope, right?
posted by Balisong at 11:54 AM on July 4, 2005
Four paragraphs from IHT summing up something we already know, a Kos post, and a topic already splooged over three days ago. Trout, if you need this information disseminated to those who would not ordinarily be all over it, why not challenge yourself by visiting pro-Bush blogs and sowing the information there (Or just address it on your own blog)? I don't mean that sarcastically--I mean it literally.
posted by dhoyt at 12:02 PM on July 4, 2005
posted by dhoyt at 12:02 PM on July 4, 2005
dhoyt writes "why not challenge yourself by visiting pro-Bush blogs and sowing the information there"
That would be as useful as trying to get you to admit that the Bush Administration was wrong on the WMD issue (or, really, about anything).
posted by clevershark at 12:05 PM on July 4, 2005
That would be as useful as trying to get you to admit that the Bush Administration was wrong on the WMD issue (or, really, about anything).
posted by clevershark at 12:05 PM on July 4, 2005
Valerie Plame outed herself years ago. It was an open secret. This will all amount to nothing.
posted by republican at 12:06 PM on July 4, 2005
posted by republican at 12:06 PM on July 4, 2005
That would be as useful as trying to get you to admit that the Bush Administration was wrong on the WMD issue (or, really, about anything).
Uh, I didn't vote for Bush nor did I support "the WMD issue" nor have I denied it was a terrible reason for war. What's your point again?
posted by dhoyt at 12:07 PM on July 4, 2005
Uh, I didn't vote for Bush nor did I support "the WMD issue" nor have I denied it was a terrible reason for war. What's your point again?
posted by dhoyt at 12:07 PM on July 4, 2005
Yeah, I've been to those sites. They call people names.
posted by Balisong at 12:08 PM on July 4, 2005
posted by Balisong at 12:08 PM on July 4, 2005
I don't mean that sarcastically--I mean it literally.
I don't meant it sarcastically either, for once -- have you ever discussed once in your MetaFilter undistinguished career the topic at hand, instead of reflexively crapping on liberal posters/Democrats/anti-war people. seriously.
not that I care what you, of all people here, have to say about someone in the White House outing an undercover CIA agent -- a borderline treasonous act -- but still. you have never enlightened the dumb commie masses here with your "centrist" 'wisdom' about stuff.
at least ParisParamus' form of Bush love is entertaining. and more sincere that your trademark passive-aggressive kind.
posted by matteo at 12:09 PM on July 4, 2005
I don't meant it sarcastically either, for once -- have you ever discussed once in your MetaFilter undistinguished career the topic at hand, instead of reflexively crapping on liberal posters/Democrats/anti-war people. seriously.
not that I care what you, of all people here, have to say about someone in the White House outing an undercover CIA agent -- a borderline treasonous act -- but still. you have never enlightened the dumb commie masses here with your "centrist" 'wisdom' about stuff.
at least ParisParamus' form of Bush love is entertaining. and more sincere that your trademark passive-aggressive kind.
posted by matteo at 12:09 PM on July 4, 2005
dhoyt writes "Uh, I didn't vote for Bush"
Whoa... I'm shocked. And I mean it this time.
posted by clevershark at 12:11 PM on July 4, 2005
Whoa... I'm shocked. And I mean it this time.
posted by clevershark at 12:11 PM on July 4, 2005
Oh, I get it.. dhoyt is just lookin' out for the Karls.
posted by Balisong at 12:14 PM on July 4, 2005
posted by Balisong at 12:14 PM on July 4, 2005
Those emails are New Courier. Rove is all Haetenschweiler, baby.
posted by Rothko at 12:25 PM on July 4, 2005
posted by Rothko at 12:25 PM on July 4, 2005
Wake up and smell the fascism. Rove can do whatever he pleases. Republicans loyal to Dear Leader will never be prosecuted for anything.
posted by bshock at 12:27 PM on July 4, 2005
posted by bshock at 12:27 PM on July 4, 2005
Even as a big lefty, I agree with dhoyt quite a lot on this.
Rove won't go to jail and at the worst he'll 'resign' and will have to move his cubicle further away from Bush's office.
posted by Arch Stanton at 12:30 PM on July 4, 2005
Rove won't go to jail and at the worst he'll 'resign' and will have to move his cubicle further away from Bush's office.
posted by Arch Stanton at 12:30 PM on July 4, 2005
not that I care what you, of all people here, have to say about someone in the White House outing an undercover CIA agent -- a borderline treasonous act
It's not borderline anything. It's completely treasonous. And like you, I hope he's locked up for it. By why is jumping on the bandwagon and making a benign "me-too!" comment considered any more engaging or interesting than asking the tougher questions, such as: why dump this information here? Why not take it to the people who disagree with it, who voted Bush/Rove/Cheney into office?
The point is: who gives a fuck what you or I think. We're both in the echo chamber. We both agree. But we didn't vote Bush/Rove/Cheney into office, so this information is just fodder for recycling the hatred, over and over. It's an exercise in futility. You may think bringing info to your ideological enemies is futile, too, though many in NC have argued that Mr. Freedom Fries came to his senses because he never disengaged with his constituents (and enemies), took their opinions into consideration, and acknowledged our mistakes in Iraq. No doubt, if handled correctly, the same thing could happen with PlameGate. Dopey analyses of "Dear Leader" and "fascism" nonwithstanding.
posted by dhoyt at 12:32 PM on July 4, 2005
It's not borderline anything. It's completely treasonous. And like you, I hope he's locked up for it. By why is jumping on the bandwagon and making a benign "me-too!" comment considered any more engaging or interesting than asking the tougher questions, such as: why dump this information here? Why not take it to the people who disagree with it, who voted Bush/Rove/Cheney into office?
The point is: who gives a fuck what you or I think. We're both in the echo chamber. We both agree. But we didn't vote Bush/Rove/Cheney into office, so this information is just fodder for recycling the hatred, over and over. It's an exercise in futility. You may think bringing info to your ideological enemies is futile, too, though many in NC have argued that Mr. Freedom Fries came to his senses because he never disengaged with his constituents (and enemies), took their opinions into consideration, and acknowledged our mistakes in Iraq. No doubt, if handled correctly, the same thing could happen with PlameGate. Dopey analyses of "Dear Leader" and "fascism" nonwithstanding.
posted by dhoyt at 12:32 PM on July 4, 2005
"Valerie Plame outed herself years ago. It was an open secret. This will all amount to nothing."
Well, that's news to Valerie Plame and the 75+ operatives in her employ.
How can you look yourself in the eye?
How can you continue to support this clearly criminal administration?
I am ashamed to claim you as a countryman.
Do us all a favor: go to Iraq and never come back.
posted by rougy at 12:42 PM on July 4, 2005
Well, that's news to Valerie Plame and the 75+ operatives in her employ.
How can you look yourself in the eye?
How can you continue to support this clearly criminal administration?
I am ashamed to claim you as a countryman.
Do us all a favor: go to Iraq and never come back.
posted by rougy at 12:42 PM on July 4, 2005
The important issue behind this development could be the intent behind outing Valerie Plame... Was it simply retaliation against her husband, Joseph Wilson? Or was it an attempt to silence her?
From Robert Novak's original article outing plame (emphasis mine): "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."
If Plame was able to disprove or discredit the Aministration's WMD reasoning for invading Iraq, removing her from her duties would further support the validity of the Downing Street Minutes - that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy".
posted by bk at 12:59 PM on July 4, 2005
From Robert Novak's original article outing plame (emphasis mine): "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."
If Plame was able to disprove or discredit the Aministration's WMD reasoning for invading Iraq, removing her from her duties would further support the validity of the Downing Street Minutes - that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy".
posted by bk at 12:59 PM on July 4, 2005
bk writes "From Robert Novak's original article outing plame (emphasis mine): 'Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction.'"
That has to make you wonder whether John Bolton was involved in this whole sordid affair -- he's already known to have attempted to influence the findings on WMDs supposedly held by Cuba so as to fit a political agenda.
posted by clevershark at 1:05 PM on July 4, 2005
That has to make you wonder whether John Bolton was involved in this whole sordid affair -- he's already known to have attempted to influence the findings on WMDs supposedly held by Cuba so as to fit a political agenda.
posted by clevershark at 1:05 PM on July 4, 2005
Rove is safe for a number of reasons. 1) He wasn't working in the White House at the time, he was simply an "adviser" to Bush. 2) As mentioned earlier Plame being an agent was a very very open secret. 3) At least 2 parties must corroborate a purgery charge and Judith Miller won't talk.
All of this doesn't smell right either. Why wait till after the election? If this was true it could have cost Bush the election. At the worst Rove will go back to Texas and continue to advise Bush by phone.
posted by TetrisKid at 1:12 PM on July 4, 2005
All of this doesn't smell right either. Why wait till after the election? If this was true it could have cost Bush the election. At the worst Rove will go back to Texas and continue to advise Bush by phone.
posted by TetrisKid at 1:12 PM on July 4, 2005
Why wait till after the election?
Maybe because Time wasn't compelled to turn over the documents until this week?
posted by dial-tone at 1:24 PM on July 4, 2005
Maybe because Time wasn't compelled to turn over the documents until this week?
posted by dial-tone at 1:24 PM on July 4, 2005
Exactlty. Why would they sit on them for almost a year? Their loyalty to Rove? Please!
posted by TetrisKid at 1:28 PM on July 4, 2005
posted by TetrisKid at 1:28 PM on July 4, 2005
Rove is safe for a number of reasons. 1) He wasn't working in the White House at the time, he was simply an "adviser" to Bush.
I'm confused. While he was a Senior Advisor to the President at that time, such a designation doesn't get him "off-the-hook" or make him "safe," if he was involved in leaking the name of a covert CIA agent.
posted by ericb at 1:34 PM on July 4, 2005
I'm confused. While he was a Senior Advisor to the President at that time, such a designation doesn't get him "off-the-hook" or make him "safe," if he was involved in leaking the name of a covert CIA agent.
posted by ericb at 1:34 PM on July 4, 2005
The Daily Kos analysis (to which troutfishing links in the FPP) makes some interesting points particularly relating to how Rove's attorney refers to Rove's status with the DOJ investigation: Rove is not a "target," but he has not been ruled out as a "subject." Also, the use of language -- Rove never "knowingly" leaked classified information -- is laying the groundwork for a possible defence.
posted by ericb at 1:39 PM on July 4, 2005
posted by ericb at 1:39 PM on July 4, 2005
The "why wait till after the election" charge is disingenuous at best. The process of gathering sufficient information to enact formal proceedings simply took too long to save Kerry. More's the pity. As for why they sat on the documents - journalists and their employers always always fight tooth and nail against revealing anonymous sources, because if they do not, no future whistle blowers will ever speak to them again. That's why.
That having been said, while we know that Cooper interviewed Rove at some point, there's nothing that solidly suggests Rove was the actual leaker.
Furthermore,
"Luskin declined, however, to discuss any other details. He did say that Rove himself had testified before the grand jury "two or three times" and signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him."
This is not the act of a man desperate to hide something.
On the flip side, Fitzgerald has been subpoenaing reporters, which as Josh Marshall points out in Talking Points Memo, is not something he'd do on a whim.
The big unknown in all of this is Robert Novak. There's no telling what he's said regarding all this, who he has said it to, or what kind of deals he's made.
I'm waiting with baited breath to see how all this turns out. I think Rove will wind up with a felony charge for something, but I doubt it will be for outing Plame, or for perjury. As you said, Tetris, Miller won't talk.
posted by Ryvar at 1:40 PM on July 4, 2005
That having been said, while we know that Cooper interviewed Rove at some point, there's nothing that solidly suggests Rove was the actual leaker.
Furthermore,
"Luskin declined, however, to discuss any other details. He did say that Rove himself had testified before the grand jury "two or three times" and signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him."
This is not the act of a man desperate to hide something.
On the flip side, Fitzgerald has been subpoenaing reporters, which as Josh Marshall points out in Talking Points Memo, is not something he'd do on a whim.
The big unknown in all of this is Robert Novak. There's no telling what he's said regarding all this, who he has said it to, or what kind of deals he's made.
I'm waiting with baited breath to see how all this turns out. I think Rove will wind up with a felony charge for something, but I doubt it will be for outing Plame, or for perjury. As you said, Tetris, Miller won't talk.
posted by Ryvar at 1:40 PM on July 4, 2005
As mentioned earlier Plame being an agent was a very very open secret.
Where the hell do you guys get this stuff? She was non-official cover. (From what I've read, NOC is a deeper level of secret than a "regular"covert agent). That means she was one of the CIA's most valuable assets. If she wasn't NOC, there would be no criminal investigation. No one that is a NOC is going to have their as an "open secret" and still be a NOC. If she prepared a report for the top leadership, her name wouldn't even be on the report. It would simply reference a CIA asset.
More importantly, outing her outed the entire damn fake spy company that the CIA had built up over years and years. That jeopardized dozens of people.
Whoever leaked the info may get off, as it may be hard to prove, but a crime was absolutely committed here. The idea that it was somehow known to everybody in Washington that she was NOC is both a) Novak rationalizing and lying, and b) not even the remotest kind of defense.
I'm way to cynical about the disrespect for law in the Bush White House to think it likely that anyone does time, but somebody is most certainly guilty of a felony. Plame didn't out herself.
posted by teece at 1:48 PM on July 4, 2005
Where the hell do you guys get this stuff? She was non-official cover. (From what I've read, NOC is a deeper level of secret than a "regular"covert agent). That means she was one of the CIA's most valuable assets. If she wasn't NOC, there would be no criminal investigation. No one that is a NOC is going to have their as an "open secret" and still be a NOC. If she prepared a report for the top leadership, her name wouldn't even be on the report. It would simply reference a CIA asset.
More importantly, outing her outed the entire damn fake spy company that the CIA had built up over years and years. That jeopardized dozens of people.
Whoever leaked the info may get off, as it may be hard to prove, but a crime was absolutely committed here. The idea that it was somehow known to everybody in Washington that she was NOC is both a) Novak rationalizing and lying, and b) not even the remotest kind of defense.
I'm way to cynical about the disrespect for law in the Bush White House to think it likely that anyone does time, but somebody is most certainly guilty of a felony. Plame didn't out herself.
posted by teece at 1:48 PM on July 4, 2005
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame
"Novak has also claimed that Plame's CIA employment was an open secret in Washington..."
This is probably what Novak has also told the grand jury (assuming he has testified).
posted by republican at 1:52 PM on July 4, 2005
"Novak has also claimed that Plame's CIA employment was an open secret in Washington..."
This is probably what Novak has also told the grand jury (assuming he has testified).
posted by republican at 1:52 PM on July 4, 2005
Those emails are New Courier. Rove is all Haetenschweiler, baby.
it's the kerning, man.
posted by quonsar at 1:54 PM on July 4, 2005
it's the kerning, man.
posted by quonsar at 1:54 PM on July 4, 2005
It seems to me that it is still too early to tell what is going to come of all of this. I believe that those of us who are not Bush supporters (the phrase "those of us on the left" does not really apply anymore) have been burned too many times by this sort of information to take it too seriously.
When I see Rove in handcuffs, I'll believe they are charging him with something. Until then, I believe it is just as likely that somebody else was behind this.
Finally, Novak is a prick. He endangered dozens of people and is now using the same "everybody knew" argument that my first and second graders use when they accidentally spill a secret. Lame, Novak, lame.
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:00 PM on July 4, 2005
When I see Rove in handcuffs, I'll believe they are charging him with something. Until then, I believe it is just as likely that somebody else was behind this.
Finally, Novak is a prick. He endangered dozens of people and is now using the same "everybody knew" argument that my first and second graders use when they accidentally spill a secret. Lame, Novak, lame.
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:00 PM on July 4, 2005
Rove is safe for a number of reasons. 1) He wasn't working in the White House at the time, he was simply an "adviser" to Bush.
Well, if Rove wasn't working for Bush, he really should not have had access to classified information.
Besides, even if Plame's status was an "open-secret" Novak's original story was meant to discredit Wilson. It was still a smoke and mirrors trick to fool U.S. voters but discrediting critics.
The question really isn't Does Rove work for the White House?; the question is does Novak?
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 2:11 PM on July 4, 2005
Well, if Rove wasn't working for Bush, he really should not have had access to classified information.
Besides, even if Plame's status was an "open-secret" Novak's original story was meant to discredit Wilson. It was still a smoke and mirrors trick to fool U.S. voters but discrediting critics.
The question really isn't Does Rove work for the White House?; the question is does Novak?
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 2:11 PM on July 4, 2005
Joey Michaels, I'm with you. There is so much we - and the media - don't know yet. Hard to handicap this one.
posted by ericb at 2:12 PM on July 4, 2005
posted by ericb at 2:12 PM on July 4, 2005
I sure hope that no further information about Ms. Plame's secret identity leaks out. The consequences for national security could be disastrous.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2091907/
(Lawrence O'Donnell is a boob.)
posted by esquire at 2:13 PM on July 4, 2005
http://slate.msn.com/id/2091907/
(Lawrence O'Donnell is a boob.)
posted by esquire at 2:13 PM on July 4, 2005
Rove's I-Did-Not-Inhale Defense
"Karl Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, had his holiday weekend ruined on Friday when I broke the story that the e-mails that Time delivered to the special prosecutor that afternoon reveal that Karl Rove is the source Matt Cooper has been protecting for two years. The next day, Luskin was forced to open the first hole in the Rove two-year wall of silence about the case. In a huge admission to Newsweek and the Los Angeles Times, Luskin confessed that, well, yes, Rove did talk to Cooper. It is a huge admission in a case where Rove and Luskin have never, before Friday, felt compelled to say a word about Rove's contact with Cooper or anyone else involved in the case.posted by ericb at 3:28 PM on July 4, 2005
Luskin then launched what sounds like an I-did-not-inhale defense. He told Newsweek that his client 'never knowingly disclosed classified information.' Knowingly. That is the most important word Luskin said in what has now become his public version of the Rove defense.
Not coincidentally, the word 'knowing' is the most important word in the controlling statute (U.S. Code: Title 50: Section 421). To violate the law, Rove had to tell Cooper about a covert agent 'knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States.'
So, Rove's defense now hangs on one word—he 'never knowingly disclosed classified information.' Does that mean Rove simply didn't know Valerie Plame was a covert agent? Or does it just mean that Rove did not know that the CIA was 'taking affirmative measures' to hide her identity?
In Luskin's next damage control session with the press, let's see if any reporter can get him to drop the word 'knowingly' from the never-disclosed-classified-information bit."
republican:
Yes, and we are all to trust Bob "Douchebag of Liberty" Novak at his word.
posted by wakko at 3:40 PM on July 4, 2005
Yes, and we are all to trust Bob "Douchebag of Liberty" Novak at his word.
posted by wakko at 3:40 PM on July 4, 2005
- All of this doesn't smell right either. Why wait till after the election? If this was true it could have cost Bush the election. At the worst Rove will go back to Texas and continue to advise Bush by phone.
posted by TetrisKid at 1:12 PM PST on July 4 [!]
-----------------------------------
Why wait till after the election?
Maybe because Time wasn't compelled to turn over the documents until this week?
posted by dial-tone at 1:24 PM PST on July 4 [!]
-----------------------------------
Exactlty. Why would they sit on them for almost a year? Their loyalty to Rove? Please!
posted by TetrisKid at 1:28 PM PST on July 4 [!]
Example: Watergate.
I clearly remember volunteering as a "get out the vote" canvasser for the Nixon-McGovern election when at college (November 7, 1972.)
The local Dems were sending we Michigan State student Democrat idealists out in buses to key cities in So. Central Michigan to campaign on Election Day.
With visions of standing on an "exotic" street corner in downtown Gotham Detroit dancing in my head, I endured the long city assignment lottery until the last city designation was drawn from the bowl...and *sigh* drew my not-exotic hometown: Jackson, MI.
Feh.
My strategy (in the hometown and also at my ironic and oxymoronic blue-collar Republican home) was to point out that voting for Nixon was futile and insane...the man was going to be impeached before the end of his term on the Watergate fiasco.
I felt the charges were serious, only needed time to be confirmed, and were inescapable.
No one else, no Republicans, no one at the Dem ward, and no fellow bus-mates, thought anything of the sort.
Obviously, this simmering legal volcano also didn't make the slightest dent in the minds of the greater electorate at the time either.
Nixon won 521 electoral college votes and carried 49 states while Mr McGovern took just 17 votes and won only two states, Massachusetts and the predominantly black district of Columbia.
Same thing during volunteering for the Kerry campaign phone canvassing this last election. I said "Plumegate" was waiting in the wings for a chance to fly. All I heard was, "Plume who?" (Republicans) or "Plume...dastardly...not ever going to touch the Executive, though." (Democrats)
Referencing a quote from Gore Vidal in 2003, an earlier MeFi thread cited this quote: "I actually see something smaller tripping him up: this business over outing the wife of Ambassador Wilson as a CIA agent. It's often these small things that get you. Something small enough for a court to get its teeth into. Putting this woman at risk because of anger over what her husband has done is bitchy, dangerous to the nation, dangerous to other CIA agents. This resonates more than Iraq."
(Sometimes I wish that the Dems had run the above cited Gore rather than the incumbent VP once-upon-a-time. But I digress....)
The tiny teeth of the Fly-Wheel of Justice. I was stunned how many people thought during Nixon's, Clinton's, and Bush W's re-elections that "small stuff" wasn't worth the sweat or thought when contrasted against the "big issues": Nixon - Vietnam...Clinton - Economic surplus...Bush - Gulf War II.
Top-dogs lie? Pffft. Nuttin's. Gonna. Happen.
Yet, with Nixon, Clinton, and now mayhaps Bush, it is EXACTLY the hubris of deception and belief that lies issued from the Executive and support staff are never lies, but "Executive Privilege"* that become the tiny teeth that wouldn't go away, or ever let go, and chew away at the toga ties until the Emperor stands unclothed (*wince*...excuse that mental picture) or, at least, exposure of the meddlesome that meddle with meddlesome priests.
Lying is what gets you...really. The ole' chestnut someone in a blog comment recently quoted says quite a bit: "You can't always tell the truth because you don't always know the truth - but you can ALWAYS be honest." Or not. and then...eventually...surprise!..."Here come the consequences."
Someone, somewhere in government, is going to be held accountable for the outing of a CIA operative...and this is at least somewhat about National Security and the ability to secure operatives for clandestine work, along with...well, lying and conspiracy.
The final act will be the answer to a question distantly echoed from long-past Watergate: "When did he know?"
That and "Who is the senior-most 'he?'"
- * ...when combined with the intersession of a Special Prosecutor as the "Piranha of Process" of course.
posted by Dunvegan at 4:18 PM on July 4, 2005
Even if true, that leaves perjury and several other possible charges.
posted by troutfishing at 4:37 PM on July 4, 2005
posted by troutfishing at 4:37 PM on July 4, 2005
Lawrence O'Donnell: No Crime in Plame Case*
posted by republican at 4:23 PM PST on July 4
* Link to NewsMax article.
Anyone willing to defend NewsMax as a "non-partisan" news source.
*crickets*
posted by Dunvegan at 4:41 PM on July 4, 2005
posted by republican at 4:23 PM PST on July 4
* Link to NewsMax article.
Anyone willing to defend NewsMax as a "non-partisan" news source.
*crickets*
posted by Dunvegan at 4:41 PM on July 4, 2005
Wow!
NewsMax said "Lawrence O'Donnell: No Crime in Plame Case"
Now THERE'S an unimpeachable source.
posted by Relay at 4:42 PM on July 4, 2005
NewsMax said "Lawrence O'Donnell: No Crime in Plame Case"
Now THERE'S an unimpeachable source.
posted by Relay at 4:42 PM on July 4, 2005
Benedict Arnold.
Julius Rosenberg.
Karl Rove.
Traitor!
This guy outed a CIA operative that was working on stemming nuclear proliferation amongst terrorists when this country is at war, and he did it to gain political advantage and to drag the country into an unnecessary war that has made us LESS safe.
We hang him.
We hang him from the highest yardarm of the USS Constitution.
Period.
posted by Relay at 4:48 PM on July 4, 2005
Julius Rosenberg.
Karl Rove.
Traitor!
This guy outed a CIA operative that was working on stemming nuclear proliferation amongst terrorists when this country is at war, and he did it to gain political advantage and to drag the country into an unnecessary war that has made us LESS safe.
We hang him.
We hang him from the highest yardarm of the USS Constitution.
Period.
posted by Relay at 4:48 PM on July 4, 2005
Okay...(finally actually drinks coffee)...not "Plumegate"...but, "Plamegate."*
Still hungover from watching the Impactor comet "plume" last night into the wee small hours.
...or something.
Still hungover from watching the Impactor comet "plume" last night into the wee small hours.
...or something.
- * Rhymes with "Blamegate."
You don't have to trust Newsmax...it was on WABC last night. Did you even read the article?
posted by republican at 5:14 PM on July 4, 2005
posted by republican at 5:14 PM on July 4, 2005
TetrisKid wrote:
At least 2 parties must corroborate a purgery charge
Umm, how likely is it that you possess a sharp legal mind if you can't sp . . . . never mind.
Let's see, Miller, Cooper . . . that's . . . two. One down, one to go.
I believe strongly that this is the real thing, and I am overjoyed about it. You can smell it. It's different from any previous scandal. It's got teeth. Stinky ones. There is virtually no explanation for why Fitzpatrick rode this one out to the SCOTUS, or why the SCOTUS refused to hear it, that doesn't include perjury or obstruction within the white house staff, either those who testified before the GJ or those who spoke to the FBI (that includes Bush). The only plausible scary alternatives -- the Fitzpatrick is trying to challenge DoJ guidelines on respect for journalists' need for situational privilege as part of the regime's general crackdown on truth-tellers hypothesis, for example, falls completely flat unless you believe Fitzpatrick himself is a made man for the admin (all evidence is to the contrary) and unless you believe the SCOTUS decided to let such an effort pass after 30 years of workable compromise on the journalist privilege issue that kept the DoJ free to do what they are doing now to Miller and Cooper but only in extraordinary circumstances. Prosecutors have generally been respectful of the guidelines except in rare and mostly justified (like this one) cases. And if Fitzpatrick had more on the journalists than obstruction and contempt, that is, if they were the primary potential top level indictees here, it would have to be as part of a much more damning case against the admin. None of the journalists, after all, had any reason to know even the "open secret" of Plame's cover. If they did, they had no reason to print it except to assist the administration, as Novak clearly intended to do. (And it was hardly an "open secret," which is becoming a Stupid Rightwing Distortion Talking Point of late, and in any case, open secrets are still secrets, in this case legally so. Unless Novak made up his *two* claimed sources in the white house, someone there is going to do the perp walk here, probably more than one, maybe a whole lot, and won't it be sweet. No way to spin that, especially if your chief spinner is the one in leg irons.
posted by realcountrymusic at 5:24 PM on July 4, 2005
At least 2 parties must corroborate a purgery charge
Umm, how likely is it that you possess a sharp legal mind if you can't sp . . . . never mind.
Let's see, Miller, Cooper . . . that's . . . two. One down, one to go.
I believe strongly that this is the real thing, and I am overjoyed about it. You can smell it. It's different from any previous scandal. It's got teeth. Stinky ones. There is virtually no explanation for why Fitzpatrick rode this one out to the SCOTUS, or why the SCOTUS refused to hear it, that doesn't include perjury or obstruction within the white house staff, either those who testified before the GJ or those who spoke to the FBI (that includes Bush). The only plausible scary alternatives -- the Fitzpatrick is trying to challenge DoJ guidelines on respect for journalists' need for situational privilege as part of the regime's general crackdown on truth-tellers hypothesis, for example, falls completely flat unless you believe Fitzpatrick himself is a made man for the admin (all evidence is to the contrary) and unless you believe the SCOTUS decided to let such an effort pass after 30 years of workable compromise on the journalist privilege issue that kept the DoJ free to do what they are doing now to Miller and Cooper but only in extraordinary circumstances. Prosecutors have generally been respectful of the guidelines except in rare and mostly justified (like this one) cases. And if Fitzpatrick had more on the journalists than obstruction and contempt, that is, if they were the primary potential top level indictees here, it would have to be as part of a much more damning case against the admin. None of the journalists, after all, had any reason to know even the "open secret" of Plame's cover. If they did, they had no reason to print it except to assist the administration, as Novak clearly intended to do. (And it was hardly an "open secret," which is becoming a Stupid Rightwing Distortion Talking Point of late, and in any case, open secrets are still secrets, in this case legally so. Unless Novak made up his *two* claimed sources in the white house, someone there is going to do the perp walk here, probably more than one, maybe a whole lot, and won't it be sweet. No way to spin that, especially if your chief spinner is the one in leg irons.
posted by realcountrymusic at 5:24 PM on July 4, 2005
"All I heard was, "Plume who?"
I agree, who is this PlUme you speak of?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 5:26 PM on July 4, 2005
I agree, who is this PlUme you speak of?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 5:26 PM on July 4, 2005
Hey, Dunvegan self-corrected that already, and rather charmingly at that.
posted by realcountrymusic at 5:33 PM on July 4, 2005
posted by realcountrymusic at 5:33 PM on July 4, 2005
Lawrence O'Donnell: No Crime in Plame Case
Such a statement seems quite contrary to O'Donnell's very own words which he posted today at the Huffington Post (and referenced above).
posted by ericb at 6:07 PM on July 4, 2005
Such a statement seems quite contrary to O'Donnell's very own words which he posted today at the Huffington Post (and referenced above).
posted by ericb at 6:07 PM on July 4, 2005
I am interested to see how Bush reacts. Shrub could distance himself from Rove, but I think he might stick by his guns and refuse to walk away from the scandal. He's nothing if not tenacious.
But then again, it could be wishful thinking. It will be interesting to see if the media actually holds this administration responsible.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 6:15 PM on July 4, 2005
But then again, it could be wishful thinking. It will be interesting to see if the media actually holds this administration responsible.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 6:15 PM on July 4, 2005
Well, there is the crime of falsifying evidence and leading a nation into war under patently false pretenses. If you care about those things...
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 6:18 PM on July 4, 2005
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 6:18 PM on July 4, 2005
Did you even read the article?
Did you? Some guy said "Karl Rove may not have known that" which gets wrongly exaggerated to he "likely" didn't break *any* laws by Newsmax, and then he headline exaggerates that to "OMG NO CRIME LOLone". In other words it's a typical Newsmax article.
posted by queen zixi at 6:47 PM on July 4, 2005
Did you? Some guy said "Karl Rove may not have known that" which gets wrongly exaggerated to he "likely" didn't break *any* laws by Newsmax, and then he headline exaggerates that to "OMG NO CRIME LOLone". In other words it's a typical Newsmax article.
posted by queen zixi at 6:47 PM on July 4, 2005
From the New York Times:
"Karl Rove...rode the flight from Washington to West Virginia but did not respond to requests for an interview over his reported role in a controversy that threatens to put two reporters in jail. Newsweek had reported over the weekend that Mr. Rove had talked to Matthew Cooper of Time magazine for an article about Valerie Plame, a C.I.A. operative whose name was illegally disclosed by an unidentified White House official in a case now under investigation.posted by ericb at 7:54 PM on July 4, 2005
The Newsweek article did not identify Mr. Rove as that source, but Bush critics have been eager to tie him to the leak. Outside the presidential rally in Morgantown, one protester made reference to the case, holding a sign that read: 'Jail Karl Rove.'"
Did you even read the article?
yes, the reporter called Matt Drudge an Internet Guru.
i still have the hiccups from laughing my ass off
posted by tsarfan at 8:26 PM on July 4, 2005
yes, the reporter called Matt Drudge an Internet Guru.
i still have the hiccups from laughing my ass off
posted by tsarfan at 8:26 PM on July 4, 2005
republican:
Then answer me this. And I have posed this to multiple people who've pulled this "her identity wasn't REALLY a secrety" crap, and *EVERY SINGLE ONE* of them has failed to even attempt to respond.
The only reason for the leak that has *ever* been postulated is that it was retailiation against Joe Wilson for refusing to go along with that nigerian "yellowcake" nonsense.
But if his wife's name was an "open secret" in Washington, why leak it? It wouldn't hurt him.
Why were two reporters put in jail over this? Why did Rove, in all likelihood, at least seriously bend the truth and risk perjuring himself before a Grand Jury over it? Why has Robert Novak been granted immunity from what you're claiming wasn't a crime at all?
I say again in both bold and italic: WHY?
Come on. Justify it. Give me motive. Just TRY.
posted by InnocentBystander at 8:36 PM on July 4, 2005
Then answer me this. And I have posed this to multiple people who've pulled this "her identity wasn't REALLY a secrety" crap, and *EVERY SINGLE ONE* of them has failed to even attempt to respond.
The only reason for the leak that has *ever* been postulated is that it was retailiation against Joe Wilson for refusing to go along with that nigerian "yellowcake" nonsense.
But if his wife's name was an "open secret" in Washington, why leak it? It wouldn't hurt him.
Why were two reporters put in jail over this? Why did Rove, in all likelihood, at least seriously bend the truth and risk perjuring himself before a Grand Jury over it? Why has Robert Novak been granted immunity from what you're claiming wasn't a crime at all?
I say again in both bold and italic: WHY?
Come on. Justify it. Give me motive. Just TRY.
posted by InnocentBystander at 8:36 PM on July 4, 2005
Rove is looking like a traitor. Outing a CIA agent is a crime and a particularly unpatriotic one at that. He can't even claim some noble motive. No, the motive seems to be to hide the truth about a lie being used to support going to war. If I am not wrong, the penalty for treason during war is still death. I see no reason why the build up to war is not included. Death to the traitor. (I would be fine with political death.)
posted by publius at 8:48 PM on July 4, 2005
posted by publius at 8:48 PM on July 4, 2005
Someone, somewhere in government, is going to be held accountable
"I take full responsibility." Magic words, those. No need for resignation, criminal charges, or marred stock options. Hell, only Europeans resign, and even then, really only the Dutch.
And hasn't "treason" ceased to mean anything at all except as mud to sling? Rove could go Sweeney Todd and start putting G.I. kidneys in pies and we'd still be talking about whether a crime had "really" taken place. I mean, those soldiers really butchered themselves.
posted by dreamsign at 8:58 PM on July 4, 2005
"I take full responsibility." Magic words, those. No need for resignation, criminal charges, or marred stock options. Hell, only Europeans resign, and even then, really only the Dutch.
And hasn't "treason" ceased to mean anything at all except as mud to sling? Rove could go Sweeney Todd and start putting G.I. kidneys in pies and we'd still be talking about whether a crime had "really" taken place. I mean, those soldiers really butchered themselves.
posted by dreamsign at 8:58 PM on July 4, 2005
Valerie Plame outed herself years ago. It was an open secret. This will all amount to nothing.
One of the legal predicates of Fitzgerald's investigation would be whether or not Plame was indeed a covert agent. If this predicate were not met, Fitzgerald would have moved on to something else years ago.
posted by McBain at 9:10 PM on July 4, 2005
One of the legal predicates of Fitzgerald's investigation would be whether or not Plame was indeed a covert agent. If this predicate were not met, Fitzgerald would have moved on to something else years ago.
posted by McBain at 9:10 PM on July 4, 2005
Yes, and we are all to trust Bob "Douchebag of Liberty" Novak at his word.
it's also a wikipedia link, which can't be trusted on controversial issues (check the entry on Joseph McCarthy every few days and you'll see what I mean).
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:14 PM on July 4, 2005
it's also a wikipedia link, which can't be trusted on controversial issues (check the entry on Joseph McCarthy every few days and you'll see what I mean).
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:14 PM on July 4, 2005
One of the legal predicates of Fitzgerald's investigation would be whether or not Plame was indeed a covert agent. If this predicate were not met, Fitzgerald would have moved on to something else years ago.
Exactly. I don't understand how folks on the right can be so gullible when they hear talking heads spewing such transparent bullshit.
Fitzgerald would have his case dismissed by the first judge to see it if Plame were not a non-official cover CIA agent. A prosecutor wouldn't take a case like that.
It's just plain sophistry to keep spouting that crap. It makes one look either very gullible or very dishonest.
posted by teece at 10:04 PM on July 4, 2005
Exactly. I don't understand how folks on the right can be so gullible when they hear talking heads spewing such transparent bullshit.
Fitzgerald would have his case dismissed by the first judge to see it if Plame were not a non-official cover CIA agent. A prosecutor wouldn't take a case like that.
It's just plain sophistry to keep spouting that crap. It makes one look either very gullible or very dishonest.
posted by teece at 10:04 PM on July 4, 2005
I imagine that if the USA were to publicly execute Rove, it would really set the terrorists back on their asses. They'd sit down and take close notice to what happens next.
A wise man could make good use of that. Alas, I suspect no wise men exist at the Administration level.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:51 PM on July 4, 2005
A wise man could make good use of that. Alas, I suspect no wise men exist at the Administration level.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:51 PM on July 4, 2005
I only wish Rove the worst, but the way that reporters have been forced to give up anonymous sources really bothers me, and it wouldn't surprise me if all of this were just a ploy to destroy the reporting of news in a free press. None of this is good.
posted by interrobang at 12:01 AM on July 5, 2005
posted by interrobang at 12:01 AM on July 5, 2005
I only wish Rove the worst, but the way that reporters have been forced to give up anonymous sources really bothers me, and it wouldn't surprise me if all of this were just a ploy to destroy the reporting of news in a free press. None of this is good.
As has been noted in these comments, anonymous sources exist for a specific reason. In this case, the anonymous source test is utterly failed.
posted by McBain at 12:35 AM on July 5, 2005
As has been noted in these comments, anonymous sources exist for a specific reason. In this case, the anonymous source test is utterly failed.
posted by McBain at 12:35 AM on July 5, 2005
All these people in this thread who are attacking Karl Rove, are they Jews?
What about the rich Jews? The IRS is full of Jews, Bob. Please get me the names of the Jews. You know, the big Jewish contributors to MetaFilter. Could we please investigate some of the cocksuckers? That's all.
Oh, sorry, wrong presidential scandal.
posted by orthogonality at 12:39 AM on July 5, 2005
What about the rich Jews? The IRS is full of Jews, Bob. Please get me the names of the Jews. You know, the big Jewish contributors to MetaFilter. Could we please investigate some of the cocksuckers? That's all.
Oh, sorry, wrong presidential scandal.
posted by orthogonality at 12:39 AM on July 5, 2005
I think the reason Plame's name was brought up is because people couldn't see how it was that Wilson was given an assignment he was clearly unqualified for. It was assumed that his wife pulled some strings and that was how Plame's name came into this. In fact, Wilson was completely discredited exactly one year ago this month:
U.S., British probes reach similar findings
Butler report vindicates President Bush on the allegedly misleading "16 words" regarding uranium from Africa: "We conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that 'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded."
posted by republican at 4:37 AM on July 5, 2005
U.S., British probes reach similar findings
Butler report vindicates President Bush on the allegedly misleading "16 words" regarding uranium from Africa: "We conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that 'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded."
posted by republican at 4:37 AM on July 5, 2005
Which justifies the outing of undercover CIA agents how exactly?
posted by shawnj at 5:18 AM on July 5, 2005
posted by shawnj at 5:18 AM on July 5, 2005
Those emails are New Courier. Rove is all Haetenschweiler, baby.
it's the kerning, man.
posted by quonsar at 4:54 PM EST on July 4 [!]
Can't you read between the lines, quonsar? That's called leading.
posted by Rothko at 6:13 AM on July 5, 2005
it's the kerning, man.
posted by quonsar at 4:54 PM EST on July 4 [!]
Can't you read between the lines, quonsar? That's called leading.
posted by Rothko at 6:13 AM on July 5, 2005
Leaving shawnj's question out there...
That article you linked to does not mention Joe Wilson at all. It also doesn't mention Valerie Plame or Nigerian Yellowcake.
What it DOES discuss is how the Brits and US both got suckered in by faulty intelligence - like the yellowcake.
The yellowcake that Wilson said was not real, but the US insisted on using as part of its intel anyway.
It does assert that, at one point, thanks to "independent intelligence" Saddam sought to purchase uranium from Africa. This might come as a shock to you, but AFRICA IS A CONTINENT. With MANY countries in it. Not just Nigeria. And furthermore, it specifically mentions the memos that *were* forgeries, those being the ones that Wilson said were fake.
(I'll even be REALLY nice and give you a pass on attempting to cite a situation involved forged memos, and "Oh, but we KNOW the information on them is correct!" Sound like something last campaign?)
So you appear to now be handing me articles that support my viewpoint. Perhaps you think I'm too lazy to read them. I'm not sure, but thank you.
And even IF what you said made a modicum of sense, it would still utterly fail to address my question of: If Valerie Plame's name was an "open secret," why would dropping it hurt Wilson?
posted by InnocentBystander at 6:19 AM on July 5, 2005
That article you linked to does not mention Joe Wilson at all. It also doesn't mention Valerie Plame or Nigerian Yellowcake.
What it DOES discuss is how the Brits and US both got suckered in by faulty intelligence - like the yellowcake.
The yellowcake that Wilson said was not real, but the US insisted on using as part of its intel anyway.
It does assert that, at one point, thanks to "independent intelligence" Saddam sought to purchase uranium from Africa. This might come as a shock to you, but AFRICA IS A CONTINENT. With MANY countries in it. Not just Nigeria. And furthermore, it specifically mentions the memos that *were* forgeries, those being the ones that Wilson said were fake.
(I'll even be REALLY nice and give you a pass on attempting to cite a situation involved forged memos, and "Oh, but we KNOW the information on them is correct!" Sound like something last campaign?)
So you appear to now be handing me articles that support my viewpoint. Perhaps you think I'm too lazy to read them. I'm not sure, but thank you.
And even IF what you said made a modicum of sense, it would still utterly fail to address my question of: If Valerie Plame's name was an "open secret," why would dropping it hurt Wilson?
posted by InnocentBystander at 6:19 AM on July 5, 2005
We already know Rove would do anything to protect dear George.
posted by Pollomacho at 6:22 AM on July 5, 2005
posted by Pollomacho at 6:22 AM on July 5, 2005
Wilson was given an assignment he was clearly unqualified for.
You are the first person, even on the right, whom I have ever heard even imply this. Wilson had a distinguished track record of service in the diplomatic corps in Africa, and appears to have been highly regarded as the best man for the job by everyone, including the administration that sent him. If you really believe this nonsense, then you are saying the white house is incompetent, not Wilson. I suspect that's why this canard has not become a right wing talking point, unlike the "Plame's identity was an open secret" canard. Several posters correctly point out that the "open secret" nonsense is officially irrelevant if Fitzpatrick is still pursuing indictments. If no crime was committed, what's he up to? Puhleeze.
On the issue of journalistic privilege, see my longish post upthread. There is NO federal law that privileges journalists to protect their anonymous sources. Many people mistakenly believe this, despite the fact that the matter was determined 30 years ago by SCOTUS. No legal privilege exists, and it would be very difficult to define who is a "journalist" for the purpose of creating a hard and fast privilege. What there is is a set of official DoJ guidelines that, in effect, make the pursuit of anonymous journalistic sources a "last resort" option for federal prosecutors. This solution has worked well for the most part, and is treated with respect by prosecutors, courts, and even defense counsel, for reasons that appeal to both the right AND the left.
Only rabid anti-free-press ideologues oppose these guidelines. Fitzpatrick does not seem to be one of those, or doing their bidding. And if that were his motive -- overturning these long-established guidelines -- I almost guarantee the SCOTUS would have decided to hear the contempt appeal for Miller and Cooper, not passed on it without comment. Else they look like corrupt morons when the indictments are unsealed and Miller and Cooper are the major targets of the grand jury, not Rove, Libby, or someone else in the administration. I'm a big believer in the importance of protecting anonymous whistleblowers in almost all cases that do not pervert the principle worth defending here. This is not one of them, because the source(s) in question here *cynically* exploited the convention of protecting sources to commit a crime of the greatest magnitude, and the reporters in this case are *not* serious investigative journalists (or were not doing investigative journalism when they learned Plame's identity), and not exposing *anything* the source's bosses did not *want* exposed. (I can leave aside even the "this is national security" exception.) Exceptional cases like this are the reason the privilege is enshrined in guidelines and not federal law. Miller and Cooper and Novak are at best dupes and tools, at worst parties to a conspiracy of the highest criminality, against the national security interests of the United States. THEY are to blame for whatever damage this does to the venerable convention of journalistic privilege. They are NOT martyrs. They're fools. One of them should have revealed her/his sources in a front page story the next day after learning about Plame, exposing the cynical attempt by the admin to use the press in the service of a political vendetta and *undermine* the tradition of limited privilege for anonymous sources and the journalists who use them.
One last point in this catch-all post. Wikipedia unreliable? Damn right. The single most overrated result of the blogging revolution is wikipedia, spreading disinformation since 2003 (or whenever it started). Get a bunch of idiots together and they produce . . . collective idiocy. On several subjects, my work is quoted in wikipedia entries (I'm an academic). Or rather, it is misquoted, taken out of context, and clearly hasn't been read in any detail. These entries wouldn't get a passing grade in my classes. The mistakes are harmless and dumb, but revealing of the madness of crowds. Hey, rather like MeFi! Kidding . . . .
posted by realcountrymusic at 6:34 AM on July 5, 2005
You are the first person, even on the right, whom I have ever heard even imply this. Wilson had a distinguished track record of service in the diplomatic corps in Africa, and appears to have been highly regarded as the best man for the job by everyone, including the administration that sent him. If you really believe this nonsense, then you are saying the white house is incompetent, not Wilson. I suspect that's why this canard has not become a right wing talking point, unlike the "Plame's identity was an open secret" canard. Several posters correctly point out that the "open secret" nonsense is officially irrelevant if Fitzpatrick is still pursuing indictments. If no crime was committed, what's he up to? Puhleeze.
On the issue of journalistic privilege, see my longish post upthread. There is NO federal law that privileges journalists to protect their anonymous sources. Many people mistakenly believe this, despite the fact that the matter was determined 30 years ago by SCOTUS. No legal privilege exists, and it would be very difficult to define who is a "journalist" for the purpose of creating a hard and fast privilege. What there is is a set of official DoJ guidelines that, in effect, make the pursuit of anonymous journalistic sources a "last resort" option for federal prosecutors. This solution has worked well for the most part, and is treated with respect by prosecutors, courts, and even defense counsel, for reasons that appeal to both the right AND the left.
Only rabid anti-free-press ideologues oppose these guidelines. Fitzpatrick does not seem to be one of those, or doing their bidding. And if that were his motive -- overturning these long-established guidelines -- I almost guarantee the SCOTUS would have decided to hear the contempt appeal for Miller and Cooper, not passed on it without comment. Else they look like corrupt morons when the indictments are unsealed and Miller and Cooper are the major targets of the grand jury, not Rove, Libby, or someone else in the administration. I'm a big believer in the importance of protecting anonymous whistleblowers in almost all cases that do not pervert the principle worth defending here. This is not one of them, because the source(s) in question here *cynically* exploited the convention of protecting sources to commit a crime of the greatest magnitude, and the reporters in this case are *not* serious investigative journalists (or were not doing investigative journalism when they learned Plame's identity), and not exposing *anything* the source's bosses did not *want* exposed. (I can leave aside even the "this is national security" exception.) Exceptional cases like this are the reason the privilege is enshrined in guidelines and not federal law. Miller and Cooper and Novak are at best dupes and tools, at worst parties to a conspiracy of the highest criminality, against the national security interests of the United States. THEY are to blame for whatever damage this does to the venerable convention of journalistic privilege. They are NOT martyrs. They're fools. One of them should have revealed her/his sources in a front page story the next day after learning about Plame, exposing the cynical attempt by the admin to use the press in the service of a political vendetta and *undermine* the tradition of limited privilege for anonymous sources and the journalists who use them.
One last point in this catch-all post. Wikipedia unreliable? Damn right. The single most overrated result of the blogging revolution is wikipedia, spreading disinformation since 2003 (or whenever it started). Get a bunch of idiots together and they produce . . . collective idiocy. On several subjects, my work is quoted in wikipedia entries (I'm an academic). Or rather, it is misquoted, taken out of context, and clearly hasn't been read in any detail. These entries wouldn't get a passing grade in my classes. The mistakes are harmless and dumb, but revealing of the madness of crowds. Hey, rather like MeFi! Kidding . . . .
posted by realcountrymusic at 6:34 AM on July 5, 2005
... Wilson was given an assignment he was clearly unqualified for. ... his wife pulled some strings and that was how Plame's name came into this. ... Wilson was completely discredited ... Butler report vindicates President Bush on the allegedly misleading "16 words" regarding uranium from Africa:
Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.
The last time I heard spin like this was on Fox.
You're going to have to do better than that.
posted by Relay at 7:29 AM on July 5, 2005
Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.
The last time I heard spin like this was on Fox.
You're going to have to do better than that.
posted by Relay at 7:29 AM on July 5, 2005
What realcountrymusic said.
They at the very least aided and abetted an administration official (or more than one) in an act of treason they knew would ruin someone's life and jeopardize our security, and why? For continued access? Not good enough. Don't forget that this administration also had plenty of other "journalists" on the payroll too--they didn't need to give the info to Novak, Russert, Cooper and Miller--they could have used Gannon/Guckert, Williams, Gallagher, etc--any of the many people they were actually paying.
It's actually pathetic that these "real" journalists were so willing to do this thing, even if you disregard the treason, security risks, and cover blown.
posted by amberglow at 7:34 AM on July 5, 2005
They at the very least aided and abetted an administration official (or more than one) in an act of treason they knew would ruin someone's life and jeopardize our security, and why? For continued access? Not good enough. Don't forget that this administration also had plenty of other "journalists" on the payroll too--they didn't need to give the info to Novak, Russert, Cooper and Miller--they could have used Gannon/Guckert, Williams, Gallagher, etc--any of the many people they were actually paying.
It's actually pathetic that these "real" journalists were so willing to do this thing, even if you disregard the treason, security risks, and cover blown.
posted by amberglow at 7:34 AM on July 5, 2005
they could have used Gannon/Guckert, Williams, Gallagher, etc--any of the many people they were actually paying
Thanks for the backup, amberglow. I might add that as yet we don't know whether the admin was NOT paying Miller, Cooper, or Novak (either in cash, in promised future access, etc.) or coercing them into going along with the outing. Given the admin's track record with this, I have a sneaking hope that something like this might emerge from the grand jury. It is certainly widely believed -- if perhaps unfairly -- that Miller has been a tool for the admin for a long time, and there are even people who think *she* must be a non-official-cover operative given her outrageous role in promoting the "WMD" story basically by reprinting every outrageous claim Ahmad Chalabi ever made. When he became persona non grata, and a huge gaping embarrassment to the admin (remember he attended a state of the union address as an honored guest?), she might have been placed on a shit list as well, and this leak business might have had something to do with that.
posted by realcountrymusic at 8:19 AM on July 5, 2005
Thanks for the backup, amberglow. I might add that as yet we don't know whether the admin was NOT paying Miller, Cooper, or Novak (either in cash, in promised future access, etc.) or coercing them into going along with the outing. Given the admin's track record with this, I have a sneaking hope that something like this might emerge from the grand jury. It is certainly widely believed -- if perhaps unfairly -- that Miller has been a tool for the admin for a long time, and there are even people who think *she* must be a non-official-cover operative given her outrageous role in promoting the "WMD" story basically by reprinting every outrageous claim Ahmad Chalabi ever made. When he became persona non grata, and a huge gaping embarrassment to the admin (remember he attended a state of the union address as an honored guest?), she might have been placed on a shit list as well, and this leak business might have had something to do with that.
posted by realcountrymusic at 8:19 AM on July 5, 2005
I only wish Rove the worst, but the way that reporters have been forced to give up anonymous sources really bothers me, and it wouldn't surprise me if all of this were just a ploy to destroy the reporting of news in a free press. None of this is good.
posted by interrobang at 12:01 AM PST on July 5 [!]
It's worth the worry. But it's also a different battle.
I too am deeply uncomfortable with the implications of the appelate court ruling in the case, but as it happens, unlike doctor-patient privilege, or lawyer-client privilege, there's no clear leagl provision for privleging journalists' commumination with sources- particularly when such sources have disclosed information related to a crime (or, in this case, when the disclosure itself amounts to a crime).
There's an excellent article on freedom of the press re: Plamegate in the latest issue of the NY Review of Books by Anthony Lewis, which includes a terrific account of the legal arguments in the Pentagon Papers case. Unfortunately, a pword is required for some of the content. But I promise that it's worth picking up from a newstand. I apologize for the lengthy paste, but it's a good read for those who are interested:
The claim that the First Amendment gives journalists a privilege to withhold the names of confidential sources when they are demanded in legal proceedings was rejected by the Supreme Court in 1972. The vote was five to four. One of the five, Justice Lewis Powell, while joining the majority, added an enigmatic concurring opinion saying that journalists could look to the Court when "legitimate First Amendment interests require protection." A good number of lower courts, taking the Powell opinion into account among other things, have refused to insist that journalists testify despite the 1972 Supreme Court decision. The formula generally used is that someone seeking a journalist's testimony must show that there is a compelling need for it and that it is not available from some other witness.
Nevertheless, I think there is little chance that the Supreme Court will now find a testimonial privilege in the First Amendment. For one thing, the privilege claim does not fit easily with the main use of the amendment, which is to prevent censorship before or penalty after publication of something one knows. It rarely is seen as constitutional support for acquiring information. And in this case the argument is that a privilege is necessary for journalists to get information. What really underlies the lower courts' refusal to compel some journalists' testimony is not a constitutional right, though the judges may couch their actions in those terms, but a question of wise policy for society.
Judges commonly consider claims of privilege as a matter of public policy. The Constitution does not give lawyers, or spouses, or doctors privileges not to testify. Those privileges have been adopted by courts or legislatures because they are seen to advance important social interests. Congress in 1975 enacted a "rule of evidence" explicitly authorizing federal courts to develop privileges in keeping with "the principles of the common law as they may be interpreted...in the light of reason and experience." Under that authority, the Supreme Court has recognized privileges for communications between attorneys and clients, wives and husbands, and psychotherapists and patients.
It is in this perspective that the cases of Judith Miller and Matt Cooper should be seen. And it was in fact the way the cases were analyzed in the most thoughtful and persuasive of the three opinions issued when the Court of Appeals upheld the contempt findings, the one by Circuit Judge David Tatel. Judge Tatel concluded that the courts should add a privilege for journalists to the other privileges recognized under the 1975 congressional enabling act. "Reason and experience" pointed that way, he said, referring to the important role of the press in exposing official wrongdoing and to the fact that forty-nine states have adopted some form of journalists' privilege by statute or judicial decision.
Judge Tatel rightly dismissed as useless in investigations of leaks the formula that the government must show a convincing need for information about which other witnesses are unavailable. In those cases the leaker and the reporter are probably the only ones who know what happened, so there is no alternative witness. The interests that have to be balanced, Judge Tatel said, are "the public interest in compelling disclosure, measured by the harm the leak caused, against the public interest in newsgathering, measured by the leaked information's value." And then, weighing those interests in the Miller and Cooper cases, he decided that the need to find out who leaked the dangerous information of a secret agent's identity outweighed the reporters' interest in finding the motivation of the leaker who targeted Valerie Plame.
Ronald Dworkin urged years ago in these pages that the issue of a testimonial privilege for journalists be considered as a matter of policy rather than constitutional right.[13] At a minimum, he said, judges should show respect— even gratitude—for the courage of a journalist who risks much in thus carrying out the highest obligation of the profession. Judge Tatel certainly met that obligation. He recognized the seriousness of the two journalists' work. Moreover, his record shows sensitivity to the First Amendment. It cannot be doubted that he gave the claims of Miller and Cooper full consideration.
posted by foxy_hedgehog at 8:24 AM on July 5, 2005
posted by interrobang at 12:01 AM PST on July 5 [!]
It's worth the worry. But it's also a different battle.
I too am deeply uncomfortable with the implications of the appelate court ruling in the case, but as it happens, unlike doctor-patient privilege, or lawyer-client privilege, there's no clear leagl provision for privleging journalists' commumination with sources- particularly when such sources have disclosed information related to a crime (or, in this case, when the disclosure itself amounts to a crime).
There's an excellent article on freedom of the press re: Plamegate in the latest issue of the NY Review of Books by Anthony Lewis, which includes a terrific account of the legal arguments in the Pentagon Papers case. Unfortunately, a pword is required for some of the content. But I promise that it's worth picking up from a newstand. I apologize for the lengthy paste, but it's a good read for those who are interested:
The claim that the First Amendment gives journalists a privilege to withhold the names of confidential sources when they are demanded in legal proceedings was rejected by the Supreme Court in 1972. The vote was five to four. One of the five, Justice Lewis Powell, while joining the majority, added an enigmatic concurring opinion saying that journalists could look to the Court when "legitimate First Amendment interests require protection." A good number of lower courts, taking the Powell opinion into account among other things, have refused to insist that journalists testify despite the 1972 Supreme Court decision. The formula generally used is that someone seeking a journalist's testimony must show that there is a compelling need for it and that it is not available from some other witness.
Nevertheless, I think there is little chance that the Supreme Court will now find a testimonial privilege in the First Amendment. For one thing, the privilege claim does not fit easily with the main use of the amendment, which is to prevent censorship before or penalty after publication of something one knows. It rarely is seen as constitutional support for acquiring information. And in this case the argument is that a privilege is necessary for journalists to get information. What really underlies the lower courts' refusal to compel some journalists' testimony is not a constitutional right, though the judges may couch their actions in those terms, but a question of wise policy for society.
Judges commonly consider claims of privilege as a matter of public policy. The Constitution does not give lawyers, or spouses, or doctors privileges not to testify. Those privileges have been adopted by courts or legislatures because they are seen to advance important social interests. Congress in 1975 enacted a "rule of evidence" explicitly authorizing federal courts to develop privileges in keeping with "the principles of the common law as they may be interpreted...in the light of reason and experience." Under that authority, the Supreme Court has recognized privileges for communications between attorneys and clients, wives and husbands, and psychotherapists and patients.
It is in this perspective that the cases of Judith Miller and Matt Cooper should be seen. And it was in fact the way the cases were analyzed in the most thoughtful and persuasive of the three opinions issued when the Court of Appeals upheld the contempt findings, the one by Circuit Judge David Tatel. Judge Tatel concluded that the courts should add a privilege for journalists to the other privileges recognized under the 1975 congressional enabling act. "Reason and experience" pointed that way, he said, referring to the important role of the press in exposing official wrongdoing and to the fact that forty-nine states have adopted some form of journalists' privilege by statute or judicial decision.
Judge Tatel rightly dismissed as useless in investigations of leaks the formula that the government must show a convincing need for information about which other witnesses are unavailable. In those cases the leaker and the reporter are probably the only ones who know what happened, so there is no alternative witness. The interests that have to be balanced, Judge Tatel said, are "the public interest in compelling disclosure, measured by the harm the leak caused, against the public interest in newsgathering, measured by the leaked information's value." And then, weighing those interests in the Miller and Cooper cases, he decided that the need to find out who leaked the dangerous information of a secret agent's identity outweighed the reporters' interest in finding the motivation of the leaker who targeted Valerie Plame.
Ronald Dworkin urged years ago in these pages that the issue of a testimonial privilege for journalists be considered as a matter of policy rather than constitutional right.[13] At a minimum, he said, judges should show respect— even gratitude—for the courage of a journalist who risks much in thus carrying out the highest obligation of the profession. Judge Tatel certainly met that obligation. He recognized the seriousness of the two journalists' work. Moreover, his record shows sensitivity to the First Amendment. It cannot be doubted that he gave the claims of Miller and Cooper full consideration.
posted by foxy_hedgehog at 8:24 AM on July 5, 2005
Oops! Missed realcountrymusic's discussion of this point on preview. Sorry to point out the now-obvious.
posted by foxy_hedgehog at 8:25 AM on July 5, 2005
posted by foxy_hedgehog at 8:25 AM on July 5, 2005
What's really stunning to me is the lengths some people will go to in defending the administration, no matter what they do. Treason - or at least a very strong act against the interests of the state - has been committed, and they will turn around and blame the victims rather than admit a crime may have occured.
That's very disturbing. Especially in terms of making me wonder, at what point WOULD they admit wrongdoing? If ever?
posted by InnocentBystander at 8:43 AM on July 5, 2005
That's very disturbing. Especially in terms of making me wonder, at what point WOULD they admit wrongdoing? If ever?
posted by InnocentBystander at 8:43 AM on July 5, 2005
I'm sure that if Bush used a cigar on an intern, they'd be in a pickle.
posted by crunchland at 8:56 AM on July 5, 2005
posted by crunchland at 8:56 AM on July 5, 2005
What's really stunning to me is the lengths some people will go to in defending the administration
Right on Innocent. It's outrageous. We now know, for certain and without a doubt. that *someone* in the white house revealed the identity of a covert CIA agent to the press to extrace political vengeance. Regardless of whether this agent's identity was an "open secret" (it was not, and that is a BS phrase in this context), regardless of issues of privilege, regardless of whether any actual harm resulted from this, the facts plainly in evidence should outrage *every* thinking American and cast a pall of shame on the Bush administration, not just on the leaker(s), but on the President and Vice-President for tolerating this, condoning it, and obstructing legal resolution, whether criminally or not. Compared to this, Clinton's dalliance with Monica and subsequent perjury is trivial stuff. And what's worse is that this is just the most glaring example of a pattern of abuse of the press, abuse of the trust of the American people, abuse of the truth, and abuse of power.
My god. Had Clinton's staff done anything even remotely close to this, he would have certainly been impeached forthwith. The nakedness of this is appalling, but far more appalling are the quietude of the media, the hypocritical silence of those who lambasted Clinton over much more trivial misconduct, and the blithe ignorance and sheeplike obeisance of the American electorate.
We know enough, for certain and incontrovertibly, for every thinking American of any political persuasion to condemn the Bush administration in no uncertain terms. The reason some of us on the left are either cynical or hysterical at this point is now plain. This administration apparently can get away with what common sense (if not the law) would have to call treason and thuggery. But even under the law, those common sense accusations have standing here: if not treason, then what? If not thuggery, then what? If not abuse of power, then what? Someone give me one explanation for the facts we already know that restores any semblance of honor to the administration. I have not seen any such explanation anywhere. All I hear from the right is rationalization, technicality-based weaseling, and bluster.
This confirms the worst charges against their conduct in the 2000 and 2004 elections, because it implies that we live under a state of coup d'etat. I am dead serious. The test of whether we still have a functioning democracy will be whether the legal process now underway delivers even a modicum of justice for Plame, her network of contacts, Ambassador Wilson, and the American people. Otherwise, it is inescapably my conclusion that the Bush administration has put itself outside and above the rule of law. Yes, I said "the rule of law." And I mean it. How dare this administration lecture anyone else -- the American people, or any other nation -- on democracy, morality, or accountability. How dare they.
posted by realcountrymusic at 9:02 AM on July 5, 2005
Right on Innocent. It's outrageous. We now know, for certain and without a doubt. that *someone* in the white house revealed the identity of a covert CIA agent to the press to extrace political vengeance. Regardless of whether this agent's identity was an "open secret" (it was not, and that is a BS phrase in this context), regardless of issues of privilege, regardless of whether any actual harm resulted from this, the facts plainly in evidence should outrage *every* thinking American and cast a pall of shame on the Bush administration, not just on the leaker(s), but on the President and Vice-President for tolerating this, condoning it, and obstructing legal resolution, whether criminally or not. Compared to this, Clinton's dalliance with Monica and subsequent perjury is trivial stuff. And what's worse is that this is just the most glaring example of a pattern of abuse of the press, abuse of the trust of the American people, abuse of the truth, and abuse of power.
My god. Had Clinton's staff done anything even remotely close to this, he would have certainly been impeached forthwith. The nakedness of this is appalling, but far more appalling are the quietude of the media, the hypocritical silence of those who lambasted Clinton over much more trivial misconduct, and the blithe ignorance and sheeplike obeisance of the American electorate.
We know enough, for certain and incontrovertibly, for every thinking American of any political persuasion to condemn the Bush administration in no uncertain terms. The reason some of us on the left are either cynical or hysterical at this point is now plain. This administration apparently can get away with what common sense (if not the law) would have to call treason and thuggery. But even under the law, those common sense accusations have standing here: if not treason, then what? If not thuggery, then what? If not abuse of power, then what? Someone give me one explanation for the facts we already know that restores any semblance of honor to the administration. I have not seen any such explanation anywhere. All I hear from the right is rationalization, technicality-based weaseling, and bluster.
This confirms the worst charges against their conduct in the 2000 and 2004 elections, because it implies that we live under a state of coup d'etat. I am dead serious. The test of whether we still have a functioning democracy will be whether the legal process now underway delivers even a modicum of justice for Plame, her network of contacts, Ambassador Wilson, and the American people. Otherwise, it is inescapably my conclusion that the Bush administration has put itself outside and above the rule of law. Yes, I said "the rule of law." And I mean it. How dare this administration lecture anyone else -- the American people, or any other nation -- on democracy, morality, or accountability. How dare they.
posted by realcountrymusic at 9:02 AM on July 5, 2005
What's really stunning to me is the lengths some people will go to in defending the administration
Right on Innocent. It's outrageous. We now know, for certain and without a doubt. that *someone* in the white house revealed the identity of a covert CIA agent to the press to extrace political vengeance. Regardless of whether this agent's identity was an "open secret" (it was not, and that is a BS phrase in this context), regardless of issues of privilege, regardless of whether any actual harm resulted from this, the facts plainly in evidence should outrage *every* thinking American and cast a pall of shame on the Bush administration, not just on the leaker(s), but on the President and Vice-President for tolerating this, condoning it, and obstructing legal resolution, whether criminally or not. Compared to this, Clinton's dalliance with Monica and subsequent perjury is trivial stuff. And what's worse is that this is just the most glaring example of a pattern of abuse of the press, abuse of the trust of the American people, abuse of the truth, and abuse of power.
My god. Had Clinton's staff done anything even remotely close to this, he would have certainly been impeached forthwith. The nakedness of this is appalling, but far more appalling are the quietude of the media, the hypocritical silence of those who lambasted Clinton over much more trivial misconduct, and the blithe ignorance and sheeplike obeisance of the American electorate.
We know enough, for certain and incontrovertibly, for every thinking American of any political persuasion to condemn the Bush administration in no uncertain terms. The reason some of us on the left are either cynical or hysterical at this point is now plain. This administration apparently can get away with what common sense (if not the law) would have to call treason and thuggery. But even under the law, those common sense accusations have standing here: if not treason, then what? If not thuggery, then what? If not abuse of power, then what? Someone give me one explanation for the facts we already know that restores any semblance of honor to the administration. I have not seen any such explanation anywhere. All I hear from the right is rationalization, technicality-based weaseling, and bluster.
This confirms the worst charges against their conduct in the 2000 and 2004 elections, because it implies that we live under a state of coup d'etat. I am dead serious. The test of whether we still have a functioning democracy will be whether the legal process now underway delivers even a modicum of justice for Plame, her network of contacts, Ambassador Wilson, and the American people. Otherwise, it is inescapably my conclusion that the Bush administration has put itself outside and above the rule of law. Yes, I said "the rule of law." And I mean it. How dare this administration lecture anyone else -- the American people, or any other nation -- on democracy, morality, or accountability. How dare they.
posted by realcountrymusic at 9:02 AM on July 5, 2005
Right on Innocent. It's outrageous. We now know, for certain and without a doubt. that *someone* in the white house revealed the identity of a covert CIA agent to the press to extrace political vengeance. Regardless of whether this agent's identity was an "open secret" (it was not, and that is a BS phrase in this context), regardless of issues of privilege, regardless of whether any actual harm resulted from this, the facts plainly in evidence should outrage *every* thinking American and cast a pall of shame on the Bush administration, not just on the leaker(s), but on the President and Vice-President for tolerating this, condoning it, and obstructing legal resolution, whether criminally or not. Compared to this, Clinton's dalliance with Monica and subsequent perjury is trivial stuff. And what's worse is that this is just the most glaring example of a pattern of abuse of the press, abuse of the trust of the American people, abuse of the truth, and abuse of power.
My god. Had Clinton's staff done anything even remotely close to this, he would have certainly been impeached forthwith. The nakedness of this is appalling, but far more appalling are the quietude of the media, the hypocritical silence of those who lambasted Clinton over much more trivial misconduct, and the blithe ignorance and sheeplike obeisance of the American electorate.
We know enough, for certain and incontrovertibly, for every thinking American of any political persuasion to condemn the Bush administration in no uncertain terms. The reason some of us on the left are either cynical or hysterical at this point is now plain. This administration apparently can get away with what common sense (if not the law) would have to call treason and thuggery. But even under the law, those common sense accusations have standing here: if not treason, then what? If not thuggery, then what? If not abuse of power, then what? Someone give me one explanation for the facts we already know that restores any semblance of honor to the administration. I have not seen any such explanation anywhere. All I hear from the right is rationalization, technicality-based weaseling, and bluster.
This confirms the worst charges against their conduct in the 2000 and 2004 elections, because it implies that we live under a state of coup d'etat. I am dead serious. The test of whether we still have a functioning democracy will be whether the legal process now underway delivers even a modicum of justice for Plame, her network of contacts, Ambassador Wilson, and the American people. Otherwise, it is inescapably my conclusion that the Bush administration has put itself outside and above the rule of law. Yes, I said "the rule of law." And I mean it. How dare this administration lecture anyone else -- the American people, or any other nation -- on democracy, morality, or accountability. How dare they.
posted by realcountrymusic at 9:02 AM on July 5, 2005
Aggh. Sorry for the double post. Self-flagged.
posted by realcountrymusic at 9:03 AM on July 5, 2005
posted by realcountrymusic at 9:03 AM on July 5, 2005
here's the kicker.
Rove indicted in 2007 (about how long it will take for all the stuff to get a good head of steam on it).
big media affair, huge scandal, lots of talk and bluster and screaming and talking heads going "pop" on the tuberific.
finally, the trail is over in late 2008, Rove gets sentenced to something like 4 life sentences, the Democrats are so enraptured with their success at outting the bastard and getting a conviction, they completely forgot to do anything like, you know, get a real candidate prepped and presented for the media during the 2008 election season (plus the media is on full alert for Rove-gate news. "today, he ate a bagel for breakfast. What do you think this means for his case? John?" "I think you are all idiots")
another 4 years of a republican in the oval office.
Former President George W. Bush, on his last day in office, signs his requisite Presidential Pardons....
Learn about politics. It's all about the circus and who's in the big tent, kids.
posted by daq at 9:12 AM on July 5, 2005
Rove indicted in 2007 (about how long it will take for all the stuff to get a good head of steam on it).
big media affair, huge scandal, lots of talk and bluster and screaming and talking heads going "pop" on the tuberific.
finally, the trail is over in late 2008, Rove gets sentenced to something like 4 life sentences, the Democrats are so enraptured with their success at outting the bastard and getting a conviction, they completely forgot to do anything like, you know, get a real candidate prepped and presented for the media during the 2008 election season (plus the media is on full alert for Rove-gate news. "today, he ate a bagel for breakfast. What do you think this means for his case? John?" "I think you are all idiots")
another 4 years of a republican in the oval office.
Former President George W. Bush, on his last day in office, signs his requisite Presidential Pardons....
Learn about politics. It's all about the circus and who's in the big tent, kids.
posted by daq at 9:12 AM on July 5, 2005
OK, it looks like this is how they're going to try and spin this:
Lawrence O'Donnell
Rove's "I Did Not Inhale" Defense
(Rove's attorney) Luskin then launched what sounds like an I-did-not-inhale defense. He told Newsweek that his client "never knowingly disclosed classified information." Knowingly. That is the most important word Luskin said in what has now become his public version of the Rove defense.
Not coincidentally, the word 'knowing' is the most important word in the controlling statute ( U.S. Code: Title 50: Section 421). To violate the law, Rove had to tell Cooper about a covert agent "knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States."
So, Rove's defense now hangs on one word—he "never knowingly disclosed classified information." Does that mean Rove simply didn't know Valerie Plame was a covert agent? Or does it just mean that Rove did not know that the CIA was "taking affirmative measures" to hide her identity?
posted by Relay at 9:17 AM on July 5, 2005
Lawrence O'Donnell
Rove's "I Did Not Inhale" Defense
(Rove's attorney) Luskin then launched what sounds like an I-did-not-inhale defense. He told Newsweek that his client "never knowingly disclosed classified information." Knowingly. That is the most important word Luskin said in what has now become his public version of the Rove defense.
Not coincidentally, the word 'knowing' is the most important word in the controlling statute ( U.S. Code: Title 50: Section 421). To violate the law, Rove had to tell Cooper about a covert agent "knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States."
So, Rove's defense now hangs on one word—he "never knowingly disclosed classified information." Does that mean Rove simply didn't know Valerie Plame was a covert agent? Or does it just mean that Rove did not know that the CIA was "taking affirmative measures" to hide her identity?
posted by Relay at 9:17 AM on July 5, 2005
Well, at least one of them closed the tag. ;->
Actually, I'll tell you what I find most bothersome about this, although it's a little more esoteric. No one is seriously trying to argue that the outing didn't happen. That thing about her name being an "open secret" is BS on its face. What might be an "open secret" among Washington insiders is most definitely NOT common knowledge in the countries where Plame would be working. So it's a completely moot point. It doesn't matter that the US people know it - it's that countries where she, and her associates, might be working now ALSO know it.
The problem is that the willingness of the administration and its supporters to *redefine* things until they sound good. It's an attempt to change reality through solely rhetorical means. As long as we can change the words being used, and frame the debate sufficiently, we can sweep the objective reality of the situation under the rug.
The problem, of course, is that talk doesn't define reality. We can quibble over the exact definition of "P.O.W." or "enemy combatant" all we want, but it doesn't change the FACT that there are people being held, and being tortured, while no charges are brought against them. But they constantly seek to redefine all these things until people might believe no wrong is actually happening.
But it is.
And the same thing is true here. Redefine things, change the terms of the debate, and *pretend* nothing happened.
And if no one is left to argue with them, then I guess it never did.
posted by InnocentBystander at 9:28 AM on July 5, 2005
Actually, I'll tell you what I find most bothersome about this, although it's a little more esoteric. No one is seriously trying to argue that the outing didn't happen. That thing about her name being an "open secret" is BS on its face. What might be an "open secret" among Washington insiders is most definitely NOT common knowledge in the countries where Plame would be working. So it's a completely moot point. It doesn't matter that the US people know it - it's that countries where she, and her associates, might be working now ALSO know it.
The problem is that the willingness of the administration and its supporters to *redefine* things until they sound good. It's an attempt to change reality through solely rhetorical means. As long as we can change the words being used, and frame the debate sufficiently, we can sweep the objective reality of the situation under the rug.
The problem, of course, is that talk doesn't define reality. We can quibble over the exact definition of "P.O.W." or "enemy combatant" all we want, but it doesn't change the FACT that there are people being held, and being tortured, while no charges are brought against them. But they constantly seek to redefine all these things until people might believe no wrong is actually happening.
But it is.
And the same thing is true here. Redefine things, change the terms of the debate, and *pretend* nothing happened.
And if no one is left to argue with them, then I guess it never did.
posted by InnocentBystander at 9:28 AM on July 5, 2005
Learn about politics. It's all about the circus and who's in the big tent, kids.
Ah, the cynicism defense. I'd be more open to it if the administration and its defenders did not strike a holier-than-thou attitude, and did not wage senseless wars under the guise of bringing open, accountable democracy and civil society to other nations wallowing in benighted conditions. After all, all politics is corrupt, the means justify the ends, and idealism is just a crutch for people who can't handle reality, and a damn good stick to beat people with when you have no real ideals yourself.
Yes, it was ever thus. America is supposed to be the grand experiment in something better, a beacon to the world, and a stronger nation for this idealism. Of course it's always been an imperfect experiment, but this gang of thieves in the white house seems to have gone through the looking glass.
OK, I give up. I'm just going to go back to my quiet life and hope they never come for me or my loved ones. There's a word for that: oppression. Just don't cry to me when the screw turns and at some future date we get the left-wing equivalent of this monstrosity. I'll just say "politics is corrupt, get used to it." And polish my guns.
Sorry, I'm getting worked up. I'm going for a walk now.
posted by realcountrymusic at 9:28 AM on July 5, 2005
Ah, the cynicism defense. I'd be more open to it if the administration and its defenders did not strike a holier-than-thou attitude, and did not wage senseless wars under the guise of bringing open, accountable democracy and civil society to other nations wallowing in benighted conditions. After all, all politics is corrupt, the means justify the ends, and idealism is just a crutch for people who can't handle reality, and a damn good stick to beat people with when you have no real ideals yourself.
Yes, it was ever thus. America is supposed to be the grand experiment in something better, a beacon to the world, and a stronger nation for this idealism. Of course it's always been an imperfect experiment, but this gang of thieves in the white house seems to have gone through the looking glass.
OK, I give up. I'm just going to go back to my quiet life and hope they never come for me or my loved ones. There's a word for that: oppression. Just don't cry to me when the screw turns and at some future date we get the left-wing equivalent of this monstrosity. I'll just say "politics is corrupt, get used to it." And polish my guns.
Sorry, I'm getting worked up. I'm going for a walk now.
posted by realcountrymusic at 9:28 AM on July 5, 2005
the means justify the ends
Just before my walk, self correct again: the ends justify the means. Though in the present administration's case, the synechdoche is just as valid. The means (war, abuse of power, redefinition of the meaning of "truth" etc.) are the ends.
In college, I took a course on moral philosophy with Harvey Mansfield, one of the scariest minds I've ever encountered. I wish Harvey would blog this story. I'd like to see how a true cynic with the brain cells to really make the case would spin it.
Over and out.
posted by realcountrymusic at 9:34 AM on July 5, 2005
Just before my walk, self correct again: the ends justify the means. Though in the present administration's case, the synechdoche is just as valid. The means (war, abuse of power, redefinition of the meaning of "truth" etc.) are the ends.
In college, I took a course on moral philosophy with Harvey Mansfield, one of the scariest minds I've ever encountered. I wish Harvey would blog this story. I'd like to see how a true cynic with the brain cells to really make the case would spin it.
Over and out.
posted by realcountrymusic at 9:34 AM on July 5, 2005
Aggh again. I really did drink too much coffee this morning.
For "synechdoche" (sic, should be synecdoche) substitute "chiasmus."
Merry Chiasmus, y'all.
posted by realcountrymusic at 9:44 AM on July 5, 2005
For "synechdoche" (sic, should be synecdoche) substitute "chiasmus."
Merry Chiasmus, y'all.
posted by realcountrymusic at 9:44 AM on July 5, 2005
No need to polish those firearms realcountrymusic . Consider: Bushco (which includes CEO K. Rove) stopped lying about the WMDs. Why? They just didn't need to sustain it anymore. This is a smart move. You don't want to be tripped up by excess once you've achieved your goal.
(Rove is following the Machiavelli playbook.)
Plame is a similar instance. Once the rank and file have been shown they are vulnerable you don't need to belabor the point. Again, smart, but short term. You have a lot of people with NOCs and people who know them and who take their jobs very seriously, to the point of zelotry. Most of them are not corrupt so you can't really control them that way (hence Plame's outing) but because of that you know they won't simply assassinate you like the Praetorians. Unlike the Praetorians they believe in the country, not the Emperor. Unfortunately like the Praetorians, they have their Evocati. Folks who will be there long after Bushco is out of power. They won't do anything to hurt the country of course, but if Rove isn't castigated in some way for this, I expect him to die of the measles in short order.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:57 AM on July 5, 2005
(Rove is following the Machiavelli playbook.)
Plame is a similar instance. Once the rank and file have been shown they are vulnerable you don't need to belabor the point. Again, smart, but short term. You have a lot of people with NOCs and people who know them and who take their jobs very seriously, to the point of zelotry. Most of them are not corrupt so you can't really control them that way (hence Plame's outing) but because of that you know they won't simply assassinate you like the Praetorians. Unlike the Praetorians they believe in the country, not the Emperor. Unfortunately like the Praetorians, they have their Evocati. Folks who will be there long after Bushco is out of power. They won't do anything to hurt the country of course, but if Rove isn't castigated in some way for this, I expect him to die of the measles in short order.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:57 AM on July 5, 2005
UPDATE :
"WASHINGTON - A federal prosecutor on Tuesday demanded that Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper testify before a grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA officer's identity, even though Time Inc. has surrendered e-mails and other documents in the probe.
Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald also opposed the request of Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller to be granted home detention — instead of jail — for refusing to reveal their sources.
Allowing the reporters home confinement would make it easier for them to continue to defy a court order to testify, he said. Special treatment for journalists may "negate the coercive effect contemplated by federal law," Fitzgerald wrote in filings with the court.
"Journalists are not entitled to promise complete confidentiality — no one in America is," Fitzgerald wrote.
Fitzgerald is investigating who in the administration leaked the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame, a possible federal crime. Plame's identity was leaked days after her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, publicly disparaged the president's case for invading
Iraq.
Plame's name was first published in a 2003 column by Robert Novak, who cited two unidentified senior Bush administration officials as his sources. Novak has refused to say whether he has testified or been subpoenaed.
Miller and Cooper could be ordered to jail as early as Wednesday when U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan will hear arguments from Fitzgerald and lawyers for the reporters about whether they should testify.
Hogan has found the reporters in contempt of court for refusing to divulge their sources and he indicated last week that he is prepared to send them to jail if they do not cooperate.
posted by troutfishing at 11:01 AM on July 5, 2005
"WASHINGTON - A federal prosecutor on Tuesday demanded that Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper testify before a grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA officer's identity, even though Time Inc. has surrendered e-mails and other documents in the probe.
Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald also opposed the request of Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller to be granted home detention — instead of jail — for refusing to reveal their sources.
Allowing the reporters home confinement would make it easier for them to continue to defy a court order to testify, he said. Special treatment for journalists may "negate the coercive effect contemplated by federal law," Fitzgerald wrote in filings with the court.
"Journalists are not entitled to promise complete confidentiality — no one in America is," Fitzgerald wrote.
Fitzgerald is investigating who in the administration leaked the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame, a possible federal crime. Plame's identity was leaked days after her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, publicly disparaged the president's case for invading
Iraq.
Plame's name was first published in a 2003 column by Robert Novak, who cited two unidentified senior Bush administration officials as his sources. Novak has refused to say whether he has testified or been subpoenaed.
Miller and Cooper could be ordered to jail as early as Wednesday when U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan will hear arguments from Fitzgerald and lawyers for the reporters about whether they should testify.
Hogan has found the reporters in contempt of court for refusing to divulge their sources and he indicated last week that he is prepared to send them to jail if they do not cooperate.
posted by troutfishing at 11:01 AM on July 5, 2005
How is it that participation in a treasonous act can be protected from investigation at all? Those reporters broke significant laws in outing an agent.
Why the hell aren't they swinging from a yardarm? Why isn't that even a possibility, such that they'd be highly incentivized to reveal their source?
Yes, indeed, that would completely destroy anyone's desire to reveal such information to reporters. But that's the whole frigging point! Treasonous acts aren't to be allowed, period, let alone encouraged!
posted by five fresh fish at 11:15 AM on July 5, 2005
Why the hell aren't they swinging from a yardarm? Why isn't that even a possibility, such that they'd be highly incentivized to reveal their source?
Yes, indeed, that would completely destroy anyone's desire to reveal such information to reporters. But that's the whole frigging point! Treasonous acts aren't to be allowed, period, let alone encouraged!
posted by five fresh fish at 11:15 AM on July 5, 2005
Well, that's encouragingly put. But Rove is small potatoes here, just a symbol for Bushco. Unless the praetorians at NSA, CIA, DHS, et al. understand the corruption of the electoral process needs their attention, their Evocati might start getting the measles as well soon into the reign of Bush III, Imperator Americanarum. A while back I posted an analogy to Suetonius' history of Nero's fall from the "Life of the 12 Caesars.". You sound like you might enjoy the exercise of thinking about it. Locus classicus, amicus curiae.
PS - I had a nice walk.
posted by realcountrymusic at 11:22 AM on July 5, 2005
PS - I had a nice walk.
posted by realcountrymusic at 11:22 AM on July 5, 2005
I was talking to Smedleyman -- a few more posts arrived while I was writing. Sorry I failed to quote.
The latest news is fascinating. I think the name Fitzpatrick will be a top-scoring item on Lexus-Nexus this week. He sounds like a tiger, and I hope to god he's on the right side of this fight.
posted by realcountrymusic at 11:26 AM on July 5, 2005
The latest news is fascinating. I think the name Fitzpatrick will be a top-scoring item on Lexus-Nexus this week. He sounds like a tiger, and I hope to god he's on the right side of this fight.
posted by realcountrymusic at 11:26 AM on July 5, 2005
Lexis-Nexis. Someone get me a secretary please.
posted by realcountrymusic at 11:26 AM on July 5, 2005
posted by realcountrymusic at 11:26 AM on July 5, 2005
Is Rove It? [The Nation | July 5, 2005]
Karl and Karma [The Huffington Post | July 5, 2005]
posted by ericb at 11:47 AM on July 5, 2005
Karl and Karma [The Huffington Post | July 5, 2005]
posted by ericb at 11:47 AM on July 5, 2005
"Unless the praetorians at NSA, CIA, DHS, et al. understand the corruption of the electoral process needs their attention ... "
Yeah, and there's the rub ... and that's something that Wilson pointed out when all this broke; sure, outing Plame was a warning shot to keep others quite, but it was also a move that should have seriously pissed off intelligence professionals in all of the branches of service (CIA etc.).
So the question is, beyond the CIA purges and the installation of Porter Goss as chief yes-man, why have the various intelligence services put up with this?
That's another thing that has slipped off the radar, or quite because the Bush team has taken care of them, is that there are far fewer "leaks" coming from the CIA & the FBI these days.
posted by Relay at 11:49 AM on July 5, 2005
Yeah, and there's the rub ... and that's something that Wilson pointed out when all this broke; sure, outing Plame was a warning shot to keep others quite, but it was also a move that should have seriously pissed off intelligence professionals in all of the branches of service (CIA etc.).
So the question is, beyond the CIA purges and the installation of Porter Goss as chief yes-man, why have the various intelligence services put up with this?
That's another thing that has slipped off the radar, or quite because the Bush team has taken care of them, is that there are far fewer "leaks" coming from the CIA & the FBI these days.
posted by Relay at 11:49 AM on July 5, 2005
Problem with the whole theory of the internal intelligencia being concerned with this whole affair:
9/11 report stating that the countries intelligence agencies need to be restructured.
No time to worry about some pissant in the white house when your career is at stake.
posted by daq at 12:45 PM on July 5, 2005
9/11 report stating that the countries intelligence agencies need to be restructured.
No time to worry about some pissant in the white house when your career is at stake.
posted by daq at 12:45 PM on July 5, 2005
There's more than one administration official involved in this--don't forget.
posted by amberglow at 12:57 PM on July 5, 2005
posted by amberglow at 12:57 PM on July 5, 2005
Democrats' letter: Rove must explain role in CIA outing or resign .
posted by ericb at 1:14 PM on July 5, 2005
posted by ericb at 1:14 PM on July 5, 2005
"There's more than one administration official involved in this--don't forget."
Do you mean Scooter Libby amberglow?
posted by Relay at 1:50 PM on July 5, 2005
Do you mean Scooter Libby amberglow?
posted by Relay at 1:50 PM on July 5, 2005
Karl Rove: Using Reporters--and Abusing the First Amendment. [Editor & Publisher | July 5, 2005]
Karl Rove: Worse Than Osama Bin Laden. [Yahoo News | July 5, 2005]
posted by ericb at 2:21 PM on July 5, 2005
Karl Rove: Worse Than Osama Bin Laden. [Yahoo News | July 5, 2005]
posted by ericb at 2:21 PM on July 5, 2005
Shocking revelations appear to be on the horizon, but who will notice given the coming war over a new Supreme Court justice to replace the current swing vote on the court?
posted by publius at 2:48 PM on July 5, 2005
posted by publius at 2:48 PM on July 5, 2005
but who will notice
Yeah, especially if some White House intern goes missing, another kid gets kidnapped or multiple hurricanes devastate Southern states. The media will give us half-hour updates and use the court nomination process as filler...knocking the Plame affair to the back burner. Or, maybe not. Let's hope this story "has legs."
posted by ericb at 2:58 PM on July 5, 2005
Yeah, especially if some White House intern goes missing, another kid gets kidnapped or multiple hurricanes devastate Southern states. The media will give us half-hour updates and use the court nomination process as filler...knocking the Plame affair to the back burner. Or, maybe not. Let's hope this story "has legs."
posted by ericb at 2:58 PM on July 5, 2005
You are all wasting your breath. Nothing. Nothing will happen. Rove knows this. There will be bigger potential fish to fry and this Plame shit is all distraction.
But, by all means, continue. Just remember-- check back on this statement is eight months: Civil War in Iraq.
posted by tkchrist at 3:12 PM on July 5, 2005
But, by all means, continue. Just remember-- check back on this statement is eight months: Civil War in Iraq.
posted by tkchrist at 3:12 PM on July 5, 2005
Three Questions for Karl Rove's Lawyer. [The Huffington Post | July 5, 2005]
posted by ericb at 3:53 PM on July 5, 2005
posted by ericb at 3:53 PM on July 5, 2005
Checking In With Scottie: Has Turd Blossom Really Stepped Into It This Time? [The Huffington Post | July 5, 2005]
posted by ericb at 3:55 PM on July 5, 2005
posted by ericb at 3:55 PM on July 5, 2005
hasn't the civil war in Iraq already started? months ago even?
posted by amberglow at 4:12 PM on July 5, 2005
posted by amberglow at 4:12 PM on July 5, 2005
A final agggh. I realize I have routinely referred to prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald as "Fitzpatrick" throughout this thread. Perfectly cringeful mistake. Sorry.
posted by realcountrymusic at 4:31 PM on July 5, 2005
posted by realcountrymusic at 4:31 PM on July 5, 2005
no biggie, real.
A fiction as powerful as WMD:It is not withdrawal that threatens Iraq with civil war, but occupation
posted by amberglow at 5:08 PM on July 5, 2005
A fiction as powerful as WMD:It is not withdrawal that threatens Iraq with civil war, but occupation
posted by amberglow at 5:08 PM on July 5, 2005
What's really stunning to me is the lengths some people will go to in defending the administration
I'm not sure why it is so surprising. "My political party, right or wrong" is the logical next step from "My country, right or wrong".
posted by spock at 9:51 PM on July 5, 2005
I'm not sure why it is so surprising. "My political party, right or wrong" is the logical next step from "My country, right or wrong".
posted by spock at 9:51 PM on July 5, 2005
hasn't the civil war in Iraq already started? months ago even?
Merely the appetizer plate. The entree is still cooking.
posted by tkchrist at 9:39 AM on July 6, 2005
Merely the appetizer plate. The entree is still cooking.
posted by tkchrist at 9:39 AM on July 6, 2005
Politics taints probe of CIA leak
"One leading suspect of having leaked Plame's identity is the president's chief political adviser, Karl Rove. Given how utterly Machiavellian Rove is, readers who take press reports of Fitzgerald's pristine independence at face value are touchingly naïve.posted by ericb at 9:47 AM on July 6, 2005
Given the stakes, do you really think this administration would let a Justice Department official just pick some highly independent prosecutor to launch a wide ranging probe -- one that could net Novak, a reliable administration toady, and the chummy high officials Novak talks to, say, Rove or Vice President Dick Cheney?
Nor is it an accident that this investigation, rather than fingering whoever inside the administration broke the law by outing Valerie Plame, is instead putting the squeeze on two news organizations that just happen to have been critical of the Bush administration, Time magazine and The New York Times, and by extension the entire press corps."
Indeed, realcountrymusic, aquila non capit muscas. But I'm sure there are a few folks who will take Rove's acts personally and as dangerous to the country. The electoral college isn't their business though. I hope the community never thinks it is.
It's security. If they ever think it's anything else than they really will be praetorians.
It's not just that Bush the Greater still has pull with the old school, the cold warriors are retiring and the snake eaters (Vietnam era folks) are being marginalized. Why? Because the same crew - Bushco - has been in power since the mid 80s. And there is a serious drying of the well for those who actually do (non-political) work. I just hope they're not sowing real corruption, they seem to be rewarding it. Look at Ollie North. But that's the thing, most of the problems have always been external politics monkeying around with what the real job is. Noriega and Just 'Cause comes to mind. That had all the fun of Iraq, including being "unprepared" for the widespread looting, the military & intelligence community giving the administration excellent advice that was completely ignored or distorted, etc, on a smaller scale.
But blowback works both ways doesn't it?
Politics is just business, but it's very personal too. I don't see Rove ultimately skating on this.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:32 AM on July 6, 2005
It's security. If they ever think it's anything else than they really will be praetorians.
It's not just that Bush the Greater still has pull with the old school, the cold warriors are retiring and the snake eaters (Vietnam era folks) are being marginalized. Why? Because the same crew - Bushco - has been in power since the mid 80s. And there is a serious drying of the well for those who actually do (non-political) work. I just hope they're not sowing real corruption, they seem to be rewarding it. Look at Ollie North. But that's the thing, most of the problems have always been external politics monkeying around with what the real job is. Noriega and Just 'Cause comes to mind. That had all the fun of Iraq, including being "unprepared" for the widespread looting, the military & intelligence community giving the administration excellent advice that was completely ignored or distorted, etc, on a smaller scale.
But blowback works both ways doesn't it?
Politics is just business, but it's very personal too. I don't see Rove ultimately skating on this.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:32 AM on July 6, 2005
Statement from Ambassador Joseph Wilson on the sentencing of New York Times Reporter Judith Miller:
"The sentencing of Judith Miller to jail for refusing to disclose her sources is the direct result of the culture of unaccountability that infects the Bush White House from top to bottom. President Bush’s refusal to enforce his own call for full cooperation with the Special Counsel has brought us to this point. Clearly, the conspiracy to cover up the web of lies that underpinned the invasion of Iraq is more important to the White House than coming clean on a serious breach of national security. Thus has Ms. Miller joined my wife, Valerie, and her twenty years of service to this nation as collateral damage in the smear campaign launched when I had the temerity to challenge the President on his assertion that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium yellowcake from Africa.posted by ericb at 2:04 PM on July 6, 2005
The real victims of this cover-up, which may have turned criminal, are the Congress, the Constitution and, most tragically, the Americans and Iraqis who have paid the ultimate price for Bush’s folly."
It's so true--they appointed someone they knew wouldn't go after anyone in the Administration. Pathetic.
posted by amberglow at 2:09 PM on July 6, 2005
posted by amberglow at 2:09 PM on July 6, 2005
Why Is The White House Press Corps Ignoring Rove?
"White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan took questions from the press today aboard Air Force One. No one asked him about Karl Rove’s role in outing undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame.posted by ericb at 2:18 PM on July 6, 2005
Yesterday, McClellan held a press conference and no one asked him about Karl Rove’s role in outing undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame.
In fact, no member of the White House press corps has asked McClellan about Rove’s role in the Plame outing since his lawyer admitted on Saturday that Rove was one of Matt Cooper’s sources. (And there are plenty of good questions to ask.)
Why is the White House press corps ignoring this story?"
Indeed, realcountrymusic, aquila non capit muscas
Well, in this case, the eagle ought to look more closely. Bushco's gaming of the electoral system is the greatest long-term threat to American "security" there is. I guess what I meant is that I had hoped the praetorian contingent might have gotten more brutal BEFORE November of last year.
Analysis much appreciated. As is the Latin!
posted by realcountrymusic at 3:43 PM on July 6, 2005
Well, in this case, the eagle ought to look more closely. Bushco's gaming of the electoral system is the greatest long-term threat to American "security" there is. I guess what I meant is that I had hoped the praetorian contingent might have gotten more brutal BEFORE November of last year.
Analysis much appreciated. As is the Latin!
posted by realcountrymusic at 3:43 PM on July 6, 2005
« Older When in the course of human events | The bowler's Holding, the batsman's Willey Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by clevershark at 11:48 AM on July 4, 2005