We Have To Stop Meeting Like This

Patrick Fitzgerald will meet today with his grand jury investigating the Plame story, and he is bringing a friend:

WASHINGTON – Top White House aide Karl Rove arrived at the federal courthouse Wednesday for his fifth grand jury appearance in the Valerie Plame affair.

…Earlier Wednesday, Rove consulted with his private lawyers in preparation of his afternoon grand jry appearance. People familiar with the case, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy, said Rove was to answer questions about evidence that has emerged since his last grand jury appearance last fall.

That new evidence includes information that Rove’s attorney had conversations with Time magazine reporter Viveca Novak during a critical time in the case.

Months before Rove acknowledged speaking to Cooper about the CIA status of Plame, Novak told Rove’s lawyer the White House aide might have disclosed Plame’s CIA work to Cooper.

Fitzgerald has told Rove’s legal team recently that he has not made any decision on whether to charge the presidential aide and Rove hasn’t received a target notification that would indicate he is likely to be indicted, the people said.

His grand jury appearance comes a week after Rove, the architect of Bush’s election victories, gave up his policy duties at the White House as part of an administration remake to return him to a fulltime focus on politics.

Consensus opinion at the moment holds that Rove gave up his policy portfolio so that he would be a step or two away from the oval office when feds come to take him away, but that is only because I have not read many reactions from the right. Tom Maguire will doubtlessly weigh in soon about how this helps the White House.

In general I refuse to get very excited about the Plame story because anybody who does eventually go down will spend a year and a half appealing the verdict and then walk off with a presidential pardon. In the following ten or twelve years Lewis Libby and whomever else will collect ideological welfare checks from some partisan thinktank, and then when a suitable number of news cycles have come and gone they will find a happy home Elliot AbrahamsAbrams-style in some future administration. Being disgraced is not much of an impediment for people who do not feel shame.






160 replies
  1. 1
    DougJ says:

    I don’t agree, Tim. If Rove gets indicted, it’s a big, big deal. He loses a lot of clout in the party. The people who should rejoice the most are Republicans who are horrified by what Rove has done to the party and are ready to take it back. I think John falls into this camp.

  2. 2
    Perry Como says:

    I think Rove is sowing up to testify against Joe Wilson. Rove probably has some info on how Wilson was working with Mary McCarthy, France and al Qaeda.

  3. 3
    Pb says:

    I see Tim’s point… Remember Ollie North? How could you forget him, he’s got a show on Fox–man, the War Stories Ollie could tell (but won’t). In 10-20 years, Lewis Libby will probably be hosting Meet The Press, which is what we’ll be looking forward to after a week of Hardball With Karl Rove.

  4. 4
    JoeTx says:

    If nothing else, it will end Republicans hopes of a thousand year Reigh majority for years to come. Every quote Bush has made on the subject will be played over and over and over again further eroding his credibility and that of every republican who supports him.

  5. 5
    Sherard says:

    What it really means is that Fitzgerald’s fishing expedition continues unabated despite the fact that no crime occurred. I think if we lit one hundred dollar bills on fire for fun we’d get more value for our money than this.

  6. 6
    Jill says:

    He’ll probably get a pardon and a Presidential Medal of Honor all in the same day!

  7. 7
    Pooh says:

    Pb, the difference is, who the hell was Ollie North before Iran Contra? Karl Rove has been the Prince of Darkness to much of the public for 5+ years.

  8. 8
    Perry Como says:

    I agree Sherard. Our money would be better spent reinvestigating Clinton’s penis.

  9. 9

    Honestly from what I’ve seen of Republicans.

    Even if Rove was found guilty of murdering Vince Foster, they’d still support Bush, and blame the media for reporting it.

  10. 10
    SeesThroughIt says:

    Being disgraced is not much of an impediment for people who do not feel shame.

    Bingo.

    I too find the Fox News rehabbing of Ollie North bizarre. have the people at Fox News who get worked into a righteous lather about terrorism and (imagined) American support thereof completely forgotten that North actually sold arms to terrorists?

  11. 11
    Steve says:

    The moral of the story is that you need to drive a stake through their hearts, not that I expect our elected Dems to have the will to do so.

  12. 12
    Pb says:

    Pooh,

    Point taken, but much of the public is lucky if they know who Dick Cheney is, let alone Karl Rove.

  13. 13
    Mr Furious says:

    Your conclusion pretty much perfectly sums up my attitude about this whole thing. To get too excited along the way is pointless, since there are many turns ahead, and even in the best case scenario (charges filed, found guilty), what you laid out will be what unfolds.

    Since Bush is already approaching the nadir of die-hard base support only, this will not even have collateral damage on the White House.

  14. 14
    Mr Furious says:

    North actually sold arms to terrorists

    IOKIYARA

    The A stands for “Accessory”

  15. 15
    Krista says:

    I think if we lit one hundred dollar bills on fire for fun we’d get more value for our money than this.

    Ahem. Ken Starr. Forty. Million. Dollars. To determine that a man lied about screwing around on his wife.

  16. 16
    tBone says:

    What it really means is that Fitzgerald’s fishing expedition continues unabated despite the fact that no crime occurred.

    I disagree, Sherard. I think there was a crime here – the baseless smearing of selfless patriots like Scooter Libby and Karl Rove by the borderline-traitorous Wilson and Plame, aided and abetted by the slavering jackals in the media.

    Swing away – the spoof-ball is back in your court.

  17. 17
    ppGaz says:

    Swing away – the spoof-ball is back in your court.

    Oh man, you filleted him, bone.

  18. 18
    LITBMueller says:

    I think if we lit one hundred dollar bills on fire for fun we’d get more value for our money than this.

    Aren’t we pretty much doing that right now in Iraq?

    I suppose it all depends on what kind of indictment (if any) gets handed down. Just a new indictment that nails Rove for obstruction and perjury wouldn’t be a gigantic, earth shattering thing.

    A superseding indictment that nails Libby, Rove, Hadley, and Cheney for osbtruction, lying, and illegaly disclosing classified information? That would be pretty damn interesting, to say the least.

  19. 19
    Par R says:

    Tim writes:

    “Being disgraced is not much of an impediment for people who do not feel shame.”

    I assume he was referring to some of the following disgraced individuals associated with the Clinton Administration:
    Deputy Attorney General Webster Hubbell; Ag Secretary Mike Espy; Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros; National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, First Brother Roger Clinton; Ark. Governor and Clinton successor, Jim Guy Tucker; and the list goes on for days….

  20. 20
    Zifnab says:

    Remember when Republicans used to be fiscally conservative? I can almost hear the chanting now, as thousands of upper-income lawyers, doctors, and businessmen wept at the cruel and inhumane practice of theft that is the US tax system. How all that money under Johnson and Carter was piffled away on masses of lazy, pathetic, worthless citizens simply feeding from the national teet. How the Grand Old Party, were it in power, would spend our money wisely and prudently, making the country strong again both economically and morally.

    I miss those days.

  21. 21
    tBone says:

    Oh man, you filleted him, bone.

    Nah. I think the kid has what it takes to go the distance. Onward, Christian Spoofer!

  22. 22
    Brian says:

    This Fitz story is a God send. It continues to highlight the meme being pushed throughout the land:

    Plame “leak” = BAD
    McCarthy “leak” = GOOD

    It’s this lack of perspective on reality, this lack of respect for laws, this flagrant hatred of Bush, combined with a lack of brains, balls, and hope, that leads to this.

  23. 23
    Brian says:

    Oh man, you filleted him

    It’s spelled “fileted”.

    I hope you’re not teaching your grandkid how to spell. Or to speak, for that matter.

  24. 24
    p.lukasiak says:

    (crossposted at Next Hurrah)

    I think there is a much simpler answer. The “new” GJ is ready to indict Rove, but wants to hear him lying with their own ears before doing so — so they asked Fitz to arrange it. So Fitz goes to Luskin, and says “your boy gets one more chance to tell the truth, if he wants it, if not, indictments will be handed down next week.” And Rove gets “demoted” and winds up talking to the GJ this afternoon….

    ***************

    what I found most intriguing is this paragraph from the AP version of the story….

    Other unfinished business in the probe focuses on the source who provided Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward information about Plame, whose CIA identity was leaked to Novak in July 2003.

    I’ve always suspected that there was a link between the “Woodward disclosure” and the “Vivak–Luskin conversation” stories — i.e. that the Vivak story was Woodward’s “big scoop” that he wanted to write about that compelled Woodward’s disclosure to Downie on the 10/24/05 .

    Perhaps Rove was Woodward’s source for the Vivak story….

  25. 25
    Brian says:

    Remember when Republicans used to be fiscally conservative?

    Remember when the Democrats had principles, or won elections?

    Have to go back to at least Kennedy to find someone inspiring enough to vote for.

  26. 26
    p.lukasiak says:

    Plame “leak” = BAD
    McCarthy “leak” = GOOD

    actually, McCarthy denies leaking classified information — all that she acknowledges is “unauthorized” contact with journalists. And there is no reason to believe that McCarthy did leak classified info, given the way this administration operates.

    also, whoever leaked about the CIA prison story was in their legal right to do so, because the kidnapping/rendition/imprisonment program was illegal, and you cannot classify illegal actions by the government.

  27. 27
    McNulty says:

    I hope you’re not teaching your grandkid how to spell. Or to speak, for that matter.

    Damn, Brian sauteed him.

  28. 28
    KC says:

    You guys need to get clued in here. Wilson’s guilty of . . . uh . . . well . . . something! No, treason! He’s guilty of treason! Rove is getting ready to testify against Wilson because . . . uh . . . well . . . Wilson was a CIA hatchet man–no Democratic operative posing as a CIA hatchet man–trying to undermine the President! He leaked his own wife’s name just to pin it on Rove and Libby.

    Just you wait and see, liberals. Just you wait and see.

  29. 29
    tBone says:

    Oh man, you filleted him

    It’s spelled “fileted”.

    I hope you’re not teaching your grandkid how to spell. Or to speak, for that matter.

    Heh.

  30. 30
    Zifnab says:

    Seriously, Brian, where do you get off. McCarthy got fired, last I checked. And no one’s even sure if she was the actual leaker or just a way to take a dig at Dana Priest. However, many people are acknowledging that Americans should know if their government is operating torture prisons on foreign soil. As a responsible Republican, you most of all should want to know where your tax dollars are being spent.

    Meanwhile, Patrick Fitzgerald has handed down all of one indictment, and that merely for obstruction of justice. In the best case, you could say that this highlights how the system is working oh so beautifully, with the President escaping incrimination for crimes he didn’t commit and McCarthy being fired and prosecuted for her henous leaking.

    Seriously, what are you bitching at, other than the oh-so-liberal media and it’s continued hounding of this non-issue.

  31. 31
    chopper says:

    Par R:

    what is it with you guys and clinton? 50 years from now you’ll still have a hard-on for the guy.

  32. 32
    Steve says:

    I assume he was referring to some of the following disgraced individuals associated with the Clinton Administration:

    See, the point isn’t that there were no legitimate scandals affecting Clinton’s people, although if we were crazy like you wingnuts we’d be steadfastly maintaining that none of them did anything wrong and, in fact, they should all get medals.

    The point is that when President Hillary or President Chelsea takes office in a few years, I don’t expect them to hand out positions of power to all the disgraced people from Clinton’s administration. Yes, you could probably staff an entire executive department with the list of people that Clinton pardoned, but the difference is, only the GOP would be shameless enough to actually do something like that!

  33. 33
    Zifnab says:

    Have to go back to at least Kennedy to find someone inspiring enough to vote for.

    How is it Bush gets the messiah complex, when Clinton seems to be the one who gets so many Americans on their knees in front of him?

    And when a party needs to rig elections and gerrymander just to put people in office, I’d hardly call that “inspiring”.

  34. 34
    McNulty says:

    Par R:

    what is it with you guys and clinton? 50 years from now you’ll still have a hard-on for the guy.

    Actually, Perry como was the first one to bring up Clinton in this thread.

    You guys are so used to spewing talking points (ie, CLINTON’S NOT PRESIDENT ANYMORE, WHY ARE YOU SO OBSESSED WITH HIM) that you went on auto pilot and typed it out before even noticing that it wasn’t some anti-Clinton folk that brought him up in the first place.

  35. 35
    Keith says:

    RawStory is currently reporting that Rove has now received his target letter. Film at 11.

  36. 36
    Eural says:

    This string highlights a pattern I’ve noticed across the net (and in some private conversations) – namely there are a lot of conservatives who actually are so tired of the crap this administration is throwing that they are willing and able to face the facts and demand some law enforcement. Then there are a few others – and you know who you are – who will say/twist/distort/lie and play dumb just so they can maintain their angry denunciations of Clinton/liberals. Its like a drug and they refuse to part with it.

    Time to detox, boys…I’m sure if the Democrats score big in the next few election cycles you’ll get to ramp up your rightious indignation and outrage once again!

  37. 37
    Par R says:

    Steve says, in part:

    “Yes, you could probably staff an entire executive department with the list of people that Clinton pardoned, but the difference is, only the GOP would be shameless enough to actually do something like that!”

    My point wasn’t meant as a “slam” against Clinton, as I personally consider him to be head and shoulders above almost all current leaders in the Democratic party….rather, I was commenting on the number of disgraced/convicted/indicted felons associated with the last Democratic Administration, a quantity that exceeds that of the current administration by a very sizable margin.

  38. 38

    Heh, indeed.

    Friendly typo alert, though: It’s Elliot Abrams, not Abrahams.

  39. 39
    Par R says:

    That’s kind of interesting, The Sanity Inspector.

  40. 40
    Andrei says:

    Remember when the Democrats had principles, or won elections?

    Oh yeah… that’s right… the 90s never happend. Damn all the fiscal prosperity and technology boom to hell!

  41. 41
    Brian says:

    also, whoever leaked about the CIA prison story was in their legal right to do so, because the kidnapping/rendition/imprisonment program was illegal, and you cannot classify illegal actions by the government.

    You have no clue what you are talking about.

    Seriously, Brian, where do you get off.

    Last I checked, my opinion is equal to yours, so where do you get off?

    Exactly which “many people are acknowledging” what you say they are? I’m really curious?

    And do these in fact prisons exist? Where are they? Do you know people who’ve been imprisoned there? Do you know what other intelligence may have been disrupted by McCarthy’s action? Please, do tell. As a responsible Democrat, you should have want to know what you want the public to know, since you’re a member of the “public”.

    And the Fitzgerald investigation is working out as it should, despite the yammering about Plame having been outed as a covert agent, how it was a crime of unimaginable magnitude, how Fitzmas would deliver multiple indictments, up to and including Cheney. Aren’t we all glad that all the assumptions about this story finally died down, right? Oh, wait, maybe not.

    At least you admit that the Plame case is a non-issue. The mere fact that it remains in the air, thanks to the media, while the other story is given short-shrift by that same media, despite being more serious of an offense by magnitudes, nakedly exposes the motives of the Left and its media enablers, both of whom are willing to sell out in order to settle a political score.

    Seriously, where do you get off defending this?

  42. 42
    Jim Allen says:

    From Brian:

    It’s spelled “fileted”.

    I hope you’re not teaching your grandkid how to spell. Or to speak, for that matter.

    From answers.com:

    fil·let (fĭl’ĭt)
    n.
    A narrow strip of ribbon or similar material, often worn as a headband.
    also fi·let (fĭ-lā’, fĭl’ā’)
    A strip or compact piece of boneless meat or fish, especially the beef tenderloin.
    A boneless strip of meat rolled and tied, as for roasting.
    Architecture.
    A thin flat molding used as separation between or ornamentation for larger moldings.
    A ridge between the indentations of a fluted column.
    A narrow decorative line impressed onto the cover of a book.
    Heraldry. A narrow horizontal band placed in the lower fourth area of the chief.
    Anatomy. A loop-shaped band of fibers, such as the lemniscus.
    tr.v., -let·ed, -let·ing, -lets.
    To bind or decorate with or as if with a fillet.
    also fi·let (fĭ-lā’, fĭl’ā’) To slice, bone, or make into fillets.

    Please note that “filet” is not the primary choice there.

    I think your grandkids should probably plan on getting their education from someone other than you, Brian.

    Wanker.

  43. 43
    Andrei says:

    …rather, I was commenting on the number of disgraced/convicted/indicted felons associated with the last Democratic Administration, a quantity that exceeds that of the current administration by a very sizable margin.

    Care to make that list and compare notes?

  44. 44
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    It’s this lack of perspective on reality, this lack of respect for laws, this flagrant hatred of Bush, combined with a lack of brains, balls, and hope, that leads to this.

    Isn’t Glenn Greewald’s book No. 1 on Amazon? Once again, caught cherry-picking the intel…

  45. 45
    Brian says:

    Oh yeah… that’s right… the 90s never happend. Damn all the fiscal prosperity and technology boom to hell!

    Since 1968, Dem’s have won the WH 3 times (out of 10 possible), and since 1994, have not controlled Congress except for one brief period (the infamous Jeffords switch). Hardly a winning streak.

    And the tech boom? It would have happened despite who was in the WH. Clinton/Gore didn’t invent the Internet. You folks are like groupies.

  46. 46
    Steve says:

    rather, I was commenting on the number of disgraced/convicted/indicted felons associated with the last Democratic Administration, a quantity that exceeds that of the current administration by a very sizable margin.

    Well, I think you named 4 people from the administration, one of whom didn’t get in trouble until well after Clinton was out of office… so, your point is taken, but I wouldn’t close the books on the current administration just yet. They have potential!

    Bush’s presidency would undoubtedly look a lot different if Congress had been controlled by aggressive Dems with the subpoena power for the last several years. It’s unfortunate that we have a level of partisanship where the concept of checks and balances has been reduced to an all-or-nothing game of gotcha.

  47. 47
    Brian says:

    Please note that “filet” is not the primary choice there.

    Looks like you only proved my point. Not sure what it shows otherwise.

    Dipshit.

  48. 48
    Par R says:

    Andrei and Steve asked for a few more names of those individuals and entities that were associated with the last Democratic Administration and were indicted/convicted of various form of wrongdoing. While there are literally dozens of others out there, here’s a partial list from data readily available:

    Webster Hubbell
    Jim McDougal
    Susan McDougal
    Gov. Jim Guy Tucker
    Stephen Smith
    David Hale
    Eugene Fitzhugh
    Charles Matthews
    Robert W. Palmer
    Chris Wade
    Neal T. Ainley
    Larry Kuca
    Henry Espy
    James Lake
    William J. Marks, Sr.
    John Latham
    John Haley
    Michael Brown (Ron Brown’s son)
    Eugene Lum
    Nora Lum
    Johnny Chung
    Tyson Foods
    Sun Diamond Growers
    Richard Douglas
    James Lake
    Ron Blackley
    Smith Barney
    Crop Growers Corporation
    Brook Keith Mitchell Sr.
    Five M Farming Enterprises
    John J. Hemmingson
    Alvarez T. Ferrouillet, Jr.
    Municipal Healthcare Cooperative
    Ferrouillet & Ferrouillet
    Linda Jones
    Patsy Jo Wooten
    Allen Wooten
    Roger Clinton
    Dan Lasater
    Bill McCuen
    Dan Harmon
    Roger Tamraz
    Mike Espy
    Henry Cisneros

  49. 49
    Mr Furious says:

    And do these in fact prisons exist? Where are they? Do you know people who’ve been imprisoned there?

    Since you are posing those questions, it would seem that this “leak” didn’t really do any measurable harm now, did it?

  50. 50
    Andrei says:

    Since 1968, Dem’s have won the WH 3 times (out of 10 possible), and since 1994, have not controlled Congress except for one brief period (the infamous Jeffords switch). Hardly a winning streak.

    You include the executive branch for a 36 period then completely negate democractic wins in Congress from 1968 to 1994, removing some 26 years out of your 36 year period and call it a day!

    Truly inspirirational framing tactics you have there sir. I applaud your deft technique of attempting to the move the goal posts of your very own game in public view no less!

    And some people call you a moron? “Pshaw,” I say!

  51. 51
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    a few more names of those individuals and entities that were associated with the last Democratic Administration and were indicted/convicted of various form of wrongdoing

    Well, so? The last Democratic administration ran this country like a dream, and for that I’m willing to give it lots of leeway.
    The current administration is corrupt AND incompetent. Because I care about competence above all else, I hope these crooked boneheads hang.

  52. 52
    tBone says:

    Looks like you only proved my point. Not sure what it shows otherwise.

    Dipshit.

    Wow.

    The B-man is seriously off his meds today.

  53. 53
    Steve says:

    Since you are posing those questions, it would seem that this “leak” didn’t really do any measurable harm now, did it?

    The point is that we’re entitled to assume there is harm from a leak, except when a Republican does it.

  54. 54
    Steve says:

    And, uh, “filleted” is the preferred spelling, if not simply the correct one. Seriously.

  55. 55
    Mr Furious says:

    Fileted, filleted, who gives a shit? I’d say Brian by a nose as he is defending the more commonly accepted version, but that doesn’t make ppGaz, Jim, etc wrong.

    How about this: Brian agrees to stop being the Spelling Prick, and ppGaz stops calling every goddamn poster a spoof. Both of those acts got tired a long time ago.

  56. 56
    Par R says:

    Mr Furious asks:

    Since you are posing those questions, it would seem that this “leak” didn’t really do any measurable harm now, did it?

    It would appear that, at a minimum, the disclosure damaged our ability to secure future cooperation in the war on terror from countries that don’t want their assistance in the battle against Islamist terrorists to be exposed.

  57. 57
    DougJ says:

    How can anyone read Brian’s idiocy and not think that spoofing is necessary?

    Spoof, spoof against the dying of the right.

  58. 58
    tBone says:

    I’d say Brian by a nose as he is defending the more commonly accepted version

    Sheesh.

  59. 59
    Mr Furious says:

    Par R,
    Yeah, like that’s a bad thing. Since we seem to have given up holding our government accountable for anything, we should expect nothing better from our allies…?

    The reason they are secret is that they are illegal. Illegal for us, and in many cases, the foreign governements that cooperate are also operating outside the law. If so, they deserve to be held accountable to their citizens as well.

  60. 60
    chopper says:

    Actually, Perry como was the first one to bring up Clinton in this thread

    yeah, as a joke.

    par and his ilk actually bring it up seriously. the mind boggles.

  61. 61
    Pb says:

    Steve,

    the point isn’t that there were no legitimate scandals affecting Clinton’s people

    No, but compared to Bush’s White House, there were no legitimate scandals affecting Clinton’s people. See, Clinton just can’t compete with Bush, because the Bush administration totally raised the bar on scandals. And, for some reason, our wealthy billionaire(s?) just haven’t been spending their money on smearing the President–which, according to Republicans, is de-facto treason anyhow, except when they do it.

  62. 62
    Pb says:

    chopper,

    Why do you think Par R is serious, and not just a really bad spoof? If he is serious, he’s seriously deranged, but in either case he shouldn’t be taken seriously.

  63. 63
    Par R says:

    Gold Star for Robot Boy offers up the “Mussolini Defense:”

    Well, so? The last Democratic administration ran this country like a dream, and for that I’m willing to give it lots of leeway.
    The current administration is corrupt AND incompetent. Because I care about competence above all else, I hope these crooked boneheads hang.

    At least the trains ran on time.

  64. 64
    Mr Furious says:

    tBone,

    Yeah, as soon as I threw that post up I realized it was bad. Not bad because I took Brian’s side (which is bad), but because this whole thing is so fucking stupid. That and I botched it. It’s one of those words that when you look at it or think about it too much you can’t decide which way is the right way to spell it, and so you look it up and find that both are right.

    I stepped in it, and knew it, so I’m fine with being called out, but my point remains: Brian acts like a douche when he pull this stuff, and he actually deserves to lose on the principal that he called ppGaz out for a non-error error.

    But I’m also tired of the ppGaz spoof card. And I’m usually a ppGaz backer.

  65. 65
    Brian says:

    No surprise here. I always kick his ass.

  66. 66
    LITBMueller says:

    And do these in fact prisons exist? Where are they? Do you know people who’ve been imprisoned there?

    Well, they’re secret!

    Duh.

    And, if the prisons don’t exist, then why is the CIA conducting a leak investigation?

    Double duh.

  67. 67
    Par R says:

    Pb says, in part:

    “…there were no legitimate scandals affecting Clinton’s people.”

    Well, there were numerous courts of law that didn’t see it that way, as a great many of them, beginning with a Deputy Attorney General went off to prison.

  68. 68
    Steve says:

    Well, you’ve applied such a broad standard to define “people associated with the Clinton Administration” that if we applied it to the present administration, we’d need to include all the Enron folks, among others.

    Remember, in wingnut land, you’re a raving lunatic if you compare Bush to Hitler, but it’s perfectly ok to compare Clinton to Mussolini.

  69. 69
    tBone says:

    because this whole thing is so fucking stupid.

    Now that I think we can all agree on. :)

  70. 70
    Mr Furious says:

    Yeah, you and every Brian on the internets…

  71. 71
    Pb says:

    Par R says, in part:

    there were numerous courts of law that did […] see it that way

    Context, man, context.

  72. 72
    Par R says:

    Steve says,

    “Remember, in wingnut land, you’re a raving lunatic if you compare Bush to Hitler, but it’s perfectly ok to compare Clinton to Mussolini.”

    I, of course, did no such thing. I don’t wish to initiate another “filleted” vs “fileted” type of discussion, but it would appear that Steve can’t even comprehend the meaning of simply stated declarative sentences. In an earlier comment in this thread, I expressed my positive feelings toward former President Clinton.

  73. 73
    RonB says:

    I always kick his ass.

    Alright, that made me chuckle.

  74. 74
    tBone says:

    Yeah, you and every Brian on the internets…

    All 398,000,000 of ’em.

    *shudder*

  75. 75
    RonB says:

    It would appear that, at a minimum, the disclosure damaged our ability to secure future cooperation in the war on terror from countries that don’t want their assistance in the battle against Islamist terrorists to be exposed.

    Par, are you a Scrutator writer? Comedy gold like this should be appreciated elsewhere.

    Not here, that is.

  76. 76
    Brian says:

    Isn’t Glenn Greewald’s book No. 1 on Amazon? Once again, caught cherry-picking the intel…

    As an Amazon ranking ,yes. But that has no relationship to books sold. The books sold rating, provided by Nielsen (and quoted by Drudge) is the relevant number. Amazon rankings are notoriously mercurial and unreliable as a barometer of popularity.

  77. 77
    RonB says:

    Gold Star For Robot Boy…heh…I just pulled out my copy of Bee Thousand yesterday. I’m not crazy about it, but it has its moments like “Echos Myron”and “Queen of Cans and Jars”.

  78. 78
    Brian says:

    All 398,000,000 of ‘em.

    I’m everywhere, baby.

  79. 79
    ppGaz says:

    It’s spelled “fileted”.

    fil-let \fi-`la \ vt. (2) to cut into fillets.

    Websters Ninth New Collegiate.
    Merriam-Webster Inc.

    Whatever you say, you tiresome piece of spoof shit.

  80. 80
    Pooh says:

    Brian doesn’t post according to Amazon sales rankings, except when he does…

    I’ve heard that one somewhere, haven’t I?

  81. 81
    ppGaz says:

    So Brian, you going to take me up on that bet?

    All it will cost you is your name and address on a check.

    Surely you have no qualms about identifying yourself, do you?

    John can hold our money, I trust him.

    Surely you can spare five bucks to prove that you are not a spoof?

    And who knows, you might even win the bet? The future’s not ours to see, que sera, sera, and all that.

  82. 82
    jg says:

    It would appear that, at a minimum, the disclosure damaged our ability to secure future cooperation in the war on terror from countries that don’t want their assistance in the battle against Islamist terrorists to be exposed.

    It would appear that, at a minimum, the disclosure damaged our ability to secure nuclear material and keep it out of the hands of rogue nations. The Plame disclosure I mean.

  83. 83
    Pb says:

    The books sold rating, provided by Nielsen (and quoted by Drudge) is the relevant number. Amazon rankings are notoriously mercurial and unreliable as a barometer of popularity.

    No doubt, seeing as how Drudge’s book is #1,204,460 on Amazon–apparently it’s overpriced, at $0.01….

  84. 84

    I thought it was rather interesting when Par R declared the janitor caught stealing whitehouse toilet paper was somehow an indictment upon the corruption of the clinton administration.

  85. 85

    Perry Como Says:

    I think Rove is sowing up to testify against Joe Wilson. Rove probably has some info on how Wilson was working with Mary McCarthy, France and al Qaeda.

    Did you forget the connections Wilson has with Alger Hiss, the Rosenbergs, and Benedict Arnold?

  86. 86

    Sherard Says:

    What it really means is that Fitzgerald’s fishing expedition continues unabated despite the fact that no crime occurred. I think if we lit one hundred dollar bills on fire for fun we’d get more value for our money than this.

    If no crime occurred, why the coverup? Why the obstruction and false testimony?

    BTW, from what I hear Fitzgerald’s investigations have been more cost-effective than Ken Starr’s work.

  87. 87

    Pooh Says:

    Pb, the difference is, who the hell was Ollie North before Iran Contra? Karl Rove has been the Prince of Darkness to much of the public for 5+ years.

    Far longer. I found out awhile back that Karl Rove was once a protege of Watergate player Donald Segretti back in the late 1970s. Man, that sure dropped my opinion of Segretti down to zilch.

  88. 88

    Brian Says:

    Isn’t Glenn Greewald’s book No. 1 on Amazon? Once again, caught cherry-picking the intel…

    As an Amazon ranking ,yes. But that has no relationship to books sold. The books sold rating, provided by Nielsen (and quoted by Drudge) is the relevant number. Amazon rankings are notoriously mercurial and unreliable as a barometer of popularity.

    This is true. My collection of short stories is on Amazon.com’s list somewhere between Swedish Yodeling for Dummies and Mary Higgins Clark’s Auto Repair Tips. But my book is WAY better than either of those titles!

  89. 89
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    Gold Star for Robot Boy offers up the “Mussolini Defense:”

    What’s Italian for “Godwin’s Law?”

  90. 90
    Brian says:

    I’m sure this all means absolutely nothing in the larger scheme of things.

  91. 91
    ppGaz says:

    I’m sure this all means absolutely nothing in the larger scheme of things.

    Everything you say means absolutely nothing in the larger scheme of things, Mister Spoofbuttcrack.

  92. 92
    Brian says:

    Rather than ginning up torture stories, here’s one that happened in Tennessee. This is why I am against the War on Drugs, and I doubt that this is an isolated example of scuh abuse. There is an audio link that I have yet to listen to (it’s over 40 minutes long), but I don’t know if I will, based on what I’ve heard about it.

  93. 93
    ppGaz says:

    This is why I am against the War on Drugs

    Yawn. Even without the torture story, the WOD is a clusterfuck and wrong on every frigging level.

    Even Bill Buckley is for decriminalizing drugs.

    So, all of your other stupid schtick having failed, you are trying the “Brian: Just a regular fella” tactic today?

    This is downright heartwarming, I tell you.

  94. 94
    Brian says:

    No, ppGaz, my position is that there is a difference between “torture” of people who want to kill as many of us as possible, and torture, within one of our own states, to one of our own citizens who is at worst a small time criminal. It’s possible to be conflicted about it happening to war prisoners, but not to this guy I linked about.

    But I wouldn’t expect you to see that difference. I expect very little of you.

  95. 95
    Par R says:

    I’m with Mr Furious who requested that:

    “… ppGaz stops calling every goddamn poster a spoof. Both of those acts got tired a long time ago.”

    On the other hand, if ppGaz complied with that request, he would be left with very little to say.

  96. 96
    Steve says:

    Ehhhh, yeah, if it helps you feel better about the torture at Abu Ghraib to believe that every one of the people we tortured wanted to kill as many of us as possible, go for it, I guess. I still don’t feel particularly conflicted about it; torture is wrong, it’s not something America should do, period.

    What’s ironic is that many of the same people who make excuses for Abu Ghraib were the ones saying we had to approve the Dubai ports deal or else alienate the hearts and minds of the Muslim world.

  97. 97
    r4d20 says:

    “if it helps you feel better about the torture at Abu Ghraib to believe that every one of the people we tortured wanted to kill as many of us as possible”

    You have PROOF that a single innocent person has been arrested by US troops or Private Contrators?

    Where could you possibly get this idea? I mean, apart from the fact that we are fighting a guerrilla war against an enemy adept at hiding amongst the civilian population. Details….Details….

  98. 98
    ppGaz says:

    I don’t call every poster a spoof. I call posters who exhibit spoof patterns and behaviors, spoofs.

    Currently, the list includes Par, Brian and scs.

    Just for starters, you might ask why none of these posters seems interested in denying that they are spoofs?

    You don’t need to ask whether I am a spoof. I have a real name, which is known to John Cole, among others here. I have an accessible email address where you can contact me and anyone reading this post can find it and use it.

    It’s not rocket science, kids. You are either representing your real self and your real views, or you aren’t. If you are, it should be easy to verify.

    Another thing you’ll notice about my spoof candidates is that they follow the same cyclical posting patterns. From the “oh gosh, I’m just tryin’ to be one of the folks” to the in-your-face-troll to the “all lefties are poopyheads” mantra. Round and round they go, never seeming to be able to fix on one personality and one voice.

    Why is that, Brian? Par? scs?

    Hmm.

  99. 99
    Steve says:

    You have PROOF that a single innocent person has been arrested by US troops or Private Contrators?

    I don’t have proof that YOU are innocent of plotting terrorist attacks on America, friend. You demand an impossible standard.

    But we certainly have a good-faith basis to draw such conclusions. For example:

    In a report in February, the Red Cross stated that some military intelligence officers estimated that 70 percent to 90 percent of “the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake.” Of the 43,000 Iraqis who have been imprisoned at some point during the occupation, only about 600 have been referred to Iraqi authorities for prosecution, according to U.S. officials.

  100. 100
    D. Mason says:

    Brian, I see and understand your point, there is a difference between torturing an “enemy”(I use that as loosely as possible) and torturing your own people. The problem is that when you hand government any power they will naturally stretch it well beyond any reasonable limit. So you can bet your bottom dollar that if you say “ok you can torture enemies”, before long your countrymen will be getting tortured. Same goes for spying really. But you knew that I’m sure.

  101. 101
    Par R says:

    Again, ppGaz, what is your stupid ass point?

    I recognize from your comments over recent weeks that you are obviously a very challenged individual, probably with relatively little education, a poor paying job and few, if any, prospects for improving on your lot in life. Nevertheless, you should strive to make the most of a bad lot. To that end, you may wish to consider anger management classes; my understanding is that several United Way organizations in the Phoenix area offer such classes, and I have no doubt that you could benefit from applying.

    Good luck.

  102. 102
    ppGaz says:

    No, ppGaz, my position is that there is a difference between “torture” of people who want to kill as many of us as possible, and torture, within one of our own states, to one of our own citizens who is at worst a small time criminal. It’s possible to be conflicted about it happening to war prisoners, but not to this guy I linked about.

    Say whaaaa? So your “this is why I’m against the war on drugs …” What was that? Window dressing? A coded clue to your actual thinking?

    BTW, did you read the post that went with your link? The guy called terror torture victims “suspects … who want to kill us all” or something to that effect. Get it?

    They’re suspects, but we take them to be people who want to kill us all, so even though convicted of no crime, we … what? … excuse torturing them? Or, did I miss something? Where does the “conflicted” part come in?

    Straighten it all out, will you Brian?

    In fact, can you just go ahead write up a simple summary of the three main drivers for your political positions? What point of view are you representing here? Can you actually state it in a few words?

    Please, the floor is yours.

  103. 103
    ppGaz says:

    Again, ppGaz, what is your stupid ass point?

    The one at the end of your very, very long nose, Pinnochio?

  104. 104
    Steve says:

    Perhaps Par is not a spoofer. Perhaps he is one of those random Internet flame generators.

  105. 105
    ppGaz says:

    Perhaps Par is not a spoofer.

    Yes, it’s possible that he actually is the complete horse’s ass that he seems to be. But there is something that is just one half notch too clever about the appearance of complete stupidity.

    In any case, I guarantee you that there is considerable spoof traffic here, and I suggest that it’s bad mojo. Not a good thing.

  106. 106
    Par R says:

    Whether their comments make any sense or not, the writing by ppGaz and Steve usually has all the clarity and sophistication of late night chatter among somewhat horny and incredibly stoned basic training recruits.

  107. 107
    ppGaz says:

    Tell you what, Par. Send me one piece of email that convinces me you aren’t a spoofing troll, and I’ll get off your back.

    Guaran-fuckin-teed.

  108. 108
    Steve says:

    I’m not sure Par could have provided any better support for my thesis if I had paid him.

  109. 109
    Par R says:

    Sorry, ppGaz, but I don’t tend to have dealings with riffraff.

  110. 110
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    Time, I think, to reprint Mark Kleiman’s Sunday night post on the supposed Traitorous Evil of Ms. McCarthy (or whomever) exposing our Little Outsourced Shops of Horrors:

    “When Dana Priest of the Washington Post broke the story about secret prisons in Eastern Europe to which suspected terrorists were ‘disappeared’ so they could be interrogated without the nosies from the Red Cross knowing about it and without any risk of having questions asked about torture in American courts, BushCo and its collaborators and useful idiots in the right-wing media and Red Blogistan were up in arms.

    “Didn’t we know, they said, there’s a war on? Wasn’t it obvious, they argued, that revealing this information, on top of what had already come out about Abu Ghraib, would help inflame anti-American sentiments and cost soldiers’ lives? And could anyone but a liberal doubt that secret interrogation sites were ‘vital to national security’? (Of course the leak was said to prove how wrong it was to be concerned about whether the White House had decided to burn a CIA NOC, but then more or less everything is said to prove that.)

    “Now that the leaker of the information has been unmasked and fired, the same folks are gleeful about the fact that she turns out to have been a Democrat. And they’re out for blood: Why, they demand, was she fired rather than being prosecuted? (Hat tip: Glenn Reynolds. If Glenn disagrees, he doesn’t say so.)

    “Duhhhhh… wait, don’t tell me … ummmm …. because she’d assert a ‘public interest’ defense, which would mean putting the story back on the front pages for weeks, and risk having the facts about what’s been going on in those dungeons revealed in open court? Just a guess.

    “Anyway, she’d probably get off. I’d be surprised if even this Supreme Court would hold as a matter of law that revealing criminal activity is a crime if the activity in question is labeled ‘classified.’

    “But demanding that a political opponent go to jail for embarrassing the Beloved Leader is just par for the course. This is a special situation, so it calls for a special brand of lunacy.

    “Right Wing Nuthouse (their label, not mine) jumps on a report that the European Union investigator has said that there is no ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ that the ‘renditions’ happened or that the secret prisons exist (which, quoting from Little Green Footballs, RWN overinterprets as ‘no evidence’) and proceeds to ‘connect the dots’: the whole thing was made up out of whole cloth as a sting to catch CIA leakers. (No, really: I lack the invention to make this stuff up.)

    “Captain’s Quarters endorses the idea, and embellishes this fantasy by calling a leak search a ‘mole hunt’: a ‘mole,’ of course, is a traitor working for a foreign intelligence service, but of course in Rightwingistan anything contrary to the will of the Great Decider is effectively treason anyway, so who’s counting?

    “And Glenn Reynolds links to Captain’s Quarters without in any way suggesting that the whole thing is idiotic babbling. A Technorati search shows that much of Red Blogistan is repeating as fact that the secret prisons are now known not to have exist, and that Priest just won a ‘Pulitzer for a lie.’

    “Of course, Dear Reader, you’ve spotted the crashing fallacy here. (Put aside for the moment the facts that (1)the Administration has steadfastly refused to confirm or deny the report — rather than denouncing it, which of course would have been the obvious thing to do if it were false and damaging to the national interest; (2)Priest had multiple sources, including documents; and (3) that the Administration asked her to withhold the names of the countries where the secret prisons are located. Those, after all, are mere facts.)

    “Think about it: If revealing the information was a crime because it was sure to inflame anti-American sentiment and encourage jihadis, wouldn’t putting that information out as a sting to catch a Democratic leaker at the CIA have been just a tad … extreme, like getting rid of termites by burning down your house? (And of course trying to prosecute someone for leaking a spoof document would be absurd.)

    “After all, whatever damage the story did to the nation was largely independent of its truth; even if it were convincingly refuted now, the people making IED’s would surely never hear about the refutation, and wouldn’t believe it if they did hear about it.

    “Glenn’s in a tough spot. He despises torture as un-American (by contrast with, e.g., LaShawn Barber, who seems to like it), but he loves the War on Terror, and if he’s not actually pro-Bush he’s certainly anti-anti-Bush. So he’d much, much rather believe that torture, and the permanent imprisonment of falsely accused innocents like the Uighurs held at Gitmo, aren’t part of the War on Terror as BushCo is now fighting it.

    “But they are. Any grown-up discussion of the problem needs to start from there, and then ask what to do about it. Spy-novel fantasies should be reserved for play-time.”
    ________________________

    As for the Plame case: every judge (and there have been several) who’s looked at Fitzgerald’s still-secret evidence has concluded that a “serious crime” WAS committed and that he is therefore justified in indictments connected with it. To say nothing, of course, of the fact that whoever leaked Plame’s identity did so to try to discredit what we now know to be entirely correct rumors that the White House was distorting the hell out of the intelligence information it was receiving. By contrast, the White House itself tells us that any criminal prosecution of McCarthy for leaking the revelation of our Torture International is “extremely unlikely”. Goodness! Like Kleiman, I wonder why that could be, if (as Brian keeps insisting) her offense was “far greater than the Plame leaker’s offense”.

  111. 111
    ppGaz says:

    Sorry, ppGaz, but I don’t tend to have dealings with riffraff.

    Well then, just prove it to somebody else, and have them contact me. I’m easy to reach.

  112. 112
    ppGaz says:

    her offense was “far greater than the Plame leaker’s offense”.

    Hmm .. and yet no actual offense has actually been alleged, nor any criminal investigation begun, apparently. Nor any charges brought against her, nor any actual crimes been described, no places, no times, no people, no details of any kind. No court involvement. No nothing. Just a firing that appears to be technically supportable but can hardly be taken to be justifiable.

    Like I said, $100 bucks says that no charges will be brought, no case will be prosecuted.

    Par, Brian? A hundred bucks too rich for you? Make it five, or ten, or twenty. All we need is a check with your signature on it, and an email address, and some verification that you actually own the bank account, and the bet is on.

    Money, mouth, etc.

  113. 113
    Par R says:

    I assume that “Bruce Moomaw” translates to “Bruce Moonbat” in some foreign language. All of those pixels consumed to such a silly purpose. It reads as if the writer was on LSD or crack cocaine, or possibly some admixture of the two substances.

    I was particularly intrigued by the last of the substantial number of lies included in the lengthy post, to wit: “As for the Plame case: every judge (and there have been several) who’s looked at Fitzgerald’s still-secret evidence has concluded that a “serious crime” WAS committed and that he is therefore justified in indictments connected with it.” There have not been “several” judges involved, nor have there been any expressed dispositive views expressed, privately or publically. If you have information to the contrary (and the lunatic ravings of Jane Hampster don’t count), please provide them as I am sure the New York Times, The Washington Post, CBS News, etc. would love to get their hands on such information.

  114. 114
    rachel says:

    Methinks Brain some people here been dipping into the Woolly-Thinker’s Guide to Rhetoric site a wee bit more than is good for them.

  115. 115
    Par R says:

    ppGaz, you act as if I have some need or desire to prove something to you. Personally, I could care less whether you like me, hate me, curse me, or whatever. I have no interest in you or your mindless drivel…having said that, I must admit that I have a hard time resisting the impulse to respond; it’s not often that such a “perfect” idiot puts himself out there with such wild abandon, you silly twit.

  116. 116
    ppGaz says:

    ppGaz, you act as if I have some need or desire to prove something to you.

    As I thought. You’re just a spoof and a troll.

  117. 117

    Aren’t we pretty much doing that right now in Iraq?

    No – if we had to light $100 bills on fire as fast as we’re spending money in Iraq, we’d have to light about 20 per second. At that rate, it’d stop being fun really damn quickly.

  118. 118
    Par R says:

    “As I thought. You’re just a spoof and a troll.”

    Very clever rejoinder. Did you get help in crafting it from a two year old? As I inferred above, you are like a spigot from which idiocies flow endlessly once opened. I hope you haven’t given up on the anger management courses.

  119. 119
    Ancient Purple says:

    This is why I am against the War on Drugs, and I doubt that this is an isolated example of —>scuh

    Oh, the irony.

  120. 120
    ppGaz says:

    As I inferred above

    You’re a walking advertisement for “It Pays To Increase Your Word Power.”

    Well, there you are, folks. BJ is now the stomping ground of perpetual spoofers.

    Say hello to Par, Brian and scs, your new commentariat.

    Probably all written by the same person.

  121. 121
    Par R says:

    ppGaz, if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

    And by the way, you are continuously and boringly writing about “spoofs,” who are preventing the progress of good and reasoned debate on this site. You must be fucking kidding. I’m still waiting for you to contribute something more than a familiarity with some new piece of profanity. In the weeks I have visited here, I can hardly ever remember you making an informed statement on anything beyond news about your latest bowl movement. You appear to be about the biggest cry baby in town

  122. 122
    stickler says:

    ppGaz, if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

    ParR, he challenged YOU to a bet. YOU seem unable to stand the heat of that challenge.

    I can hardly ever remember you making an informed statement on anything beyond news about your latest bowl movement.

    PpGaz has been moving his bowls around again? What is it with that guy — can’t he leave his VillaWare in one place? Anal retentive, I’d guess. And God only knows what his workbench looks like.

  123. 123
    Sojourner says:

    It’s really pathetic that the only thing the Bush-lovers can brag about is winning elections. They’re strangely silent on issues relating to the ability to govern.

  124. 124
    ppGaz says:

    And by the way, you are continuously and boringly writing about “spoofs,” who are preventing the progress of good and reasoned debate on this site.

    That might be more compelling if you weren’t a spoof, dude.

    Yes, I hold that spoof traffic is bad mojo. Do you want to argue otherwise? Please go right ahead. Make your case.

  125. 125
    ppGaz says:

    PpGaz has been moving his bowls around again? What is it with that guy—can’t he leave his VillaWare

    It’s Fiestaware, but that’s okay.

  126. 126
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    Par R: “I was particularly intrigued by the last of the substantial number of lies included in the lengthy post, to wit: ‘As for the Plame case: every judge (and there have been several) who’s looked at Fitzgerald’s still-secret evidence has concluded that a “serious crime” WAS committed and that he is therefore justified in indictments connected with it.’ There have not been ‘several’ judges involved, nor have there been any expressed dispositive views expressed, privately or publically. If you have information to the contrary (and the lunatic ravings of Jane Hampster don’t count), please provide them as I am sure the New York Times, The Washington Post, CBS News, etc. would love to get their hands on such information.”

    Actually, Mark Kleiman has had some quite extensive information on that subject (complete with quotes from the judges involved). Stay tuned while I dig up the details, which are several months old.

    As for the rest of my “lies”: we excitedly await your listing of them. It certainly isn’t a lie that the White House is saying that the criminal prosecution of McCarthy for leaking this information that’s supposedly Dreadfully Important To Our National Security is “extremely unlikely” — that, after all, what the right-wing bloggers have been raising hell about — and it certainly isn’t a lie that the Justice Department IS investigating the Plame leak for possible criminal prosecution, at the request of the CIA. This, to repeat, is ever so curious, since (as Brian and yourself keep assuring us) the former is so much more important than the latter.

  127. 127
    tBone says:

    Perhaps Par is not a spoofer. Perhaps he is one of those random Internet flame generators.

    More like a badly-calibrated TPDD (Talking Points Delivery Device). They’ve gotten so much use lately that I doubt they’ve had time for routine maintenance.

  128. 128
    Pooh says:

    They’re strangely silent on issues relating to the ability to govern.

    No, they aren’t, all failings were either impossible to foresee, or the fault of the disloyal opposition party (which seems to have a ridiculous amount of actual power relative to what a casual viewing of the facts would suggest)

  129. 129
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    Ah. Here we are:

    (1) Washington Post, July 6, 2005:

    “A US judge has sent New York Times reporter Judith Miller to jail after she refused to disclose the name of her confidential source to a grand jury probing the leak of a CIA operative’s name.

    “Chief District Judge Thomas Hogan ordered Miller to jail immediately and said she must stay there until she agreed to testify or until the jury’s term ends in October.

    “The grand jury investigation by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, a Justice department prosecutor, seeks to determine whether senior Bush administration officials broke the law by knowingly leaking the name of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame to the media in 2003 as retaliation for an opinion piece written by her diplomat husband.

    “Hogan said Miller was mistaken in her belief that she was defending a free press. He said that the government source she ‘alleges she is protecting’ had already waived her promise of confidentiality. He said her source may have been providing information not to shed light on government secrets but to try to discredit an administration critic.

    ” ‘This is not a case of a whistle-blower’ revealing secret information to Miller about ‘dangers at a nuclear power plant,’ Hogan said. ‘It’s a case in which the information she was given and her potential use of it was a crime. . . . This is very different than a whistle-blower outing government misconduct.’ ”

    (2) Mark Kleiman, July 16, 2005:

    “One of John Cole’s commenters points to the full text of the [US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia] opinions upholding the subpoenas for [Judith] Miller and [Matthew] Cooper. [Linke to the opinion provided by Kleiman.]

    “Reading those opinions makes it evident that the reporters who are so eagerly lapping up the ‘no crime’ theory haven’t read them. All three judges agree that, if a common-law ‘reporter’s privilege’ exists, Mr. Fitzgerald has submitted enough evidence about the commission of a serious crime or crimes to warrant overcoming that privilege. Judge Tatel in particular speaks without qualification of a ‘plot against Wilson’ (I’m not sure whether he means Joseph or Valerie) and calls the revelation of Plame’s identity ‘a serious breach of public trust.’ ”

    One of the three judges who agreed on this, by the way, is David Sentelle, Jesse Helms’ former right-hand man.

    The White House, says that it feels differently about Ms. McCarthy. So, any more questions, Par R? Your performance today seems to be a bit Under Par.

  130. 130
    RonB says:

    there is no ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ that the ‘renditions’ happened or that the secret prisons exist (which, quoting from Little Green Footballs, RWN overinterprets as ‘no evidence’)

    Would that they could let go of the Iraqi WMD contention this easily.

  131. 131
    RonB says:

    Currently, the list includes Par, Brian and scs.

    Interesting, PPGaz…that you don’t include GOP4Me there.

  132. 132
    ppGaz says:

    A friend sends the text of a Herbert piece in NYT today. Since it’s pay per view, I’ll take the chance that my inept ctrl – V will paste it here:

    The libertarian Cato Institute is about to release a study titled “Power Surge: The Constitutional Record of George W. Bush.” It says, “Unfortunately, far from defending the Constitution, President Bush has repeatedly sought to strip out the limits the document places on federal power.” While I disagree with parts of the study, I certainly agree with that particular comment.

    In the current issue of Rolling Stone, Sean Wilentz, a distinguished historian and the director of the American Studies program at Princeton University, takes a serious look at the possibility that Mr. Bush may be the worst president in the nation’s history.

    What in the world took so long? Some of us have known since the moment he hopped behind the wheel that this reckless president was driving the nation headlong toward a cliff.

    The worst thing he did, of course, was to employ a massive campaign of deceit to lead the nation into a catastrophic war in Iraq — a war with no end in sight that has already claimed tens of thousands of lives and inflicted scores of thousands of crippling injuries.

    When he was a young man, Mr. Bush used the Air National Guard to hide out from the draft in a time of war. Then, as president, he’s suddenly G. I. George, strutting around in a flight suit, threatening to wage war on all and sundry, and taunting the insurgents in Iraq with a cry of “bring them on.”

    When the nation needed leadership on the critical problem of global warming, Mr. Bush took his cues from the honchos in the oil and gasoline industry, the very people who were setting the planet on fire. Now he talks about overcoming the nation’s addiction to oil! This is amazing. Here’s the president of the United States scaling the very heights of chutzpah. The Bush people and the oil people are indistinguishable. Condoleezza Rice, a former Chevron director, even had an oil tanker named after her.

    Among the complaints in the Cato study is that the Bush administration has taken the position that despite validly enacted laws to the contrary, the president cannot be restrained “from pursuing any tactic he believes to be effective in the war on terror.”

    This view has led to activities that I believe have brought great shame to the nation: the warrantless spying on Americans, the abuses at Abu Ghraib, the creation of the C.I.A.’s network of secret prisons, extraordinary rendition and the barbaric encampment at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, in which detainees are held, without regard to guilt or innocence, in a nightmarish no man’s land beyond the reach of any reasonable judicial process.

    The sins of the Bush administration are so extensive and so egregious, they could never be adequately addressed in a newspaper column. History will be the final judge

    Sobering, when even the Cato institute thinks you’re wrecking the Constitution.

  133. 133
    ppGaz says:

    Interesting, PPGaz…that you don’t include GOP4Me there.

    GOP4 doesn’t make me livid. Besides, he’s a helluva writer.

  134. 134

    Brian is always in a defensive mode, feeling it necessary to strike out at Democrats.

    I’d like a little essay from him on why he likes President Bush, Vice President Cheney and the Republican Congress. I’d like to hear the things that he feels are important and why he thinks that the current administration is performing so well.

    Seriously, his attack dog mode needs a rest.

  135. 135
    stickler says:

    I’d like a little essay from him on why he likes President Bush, Vice President Cheney and the Republican Congress. I’d like to hear the things that he feels are important and why he thinks that the current administration is performing so well.

    Bwaaahaaahaa. Come on, Bob. How do you defend the indefensible?

    You attack. Thus, “Brian” and his obsession with The Left(tm), The Clenis(tm), and winguttery in general.

  136. 136
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    Mr. Par? Mr. Par?… Hey! Where’d he go?

  137. 137
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    The Washington Post quotes one of Rove’s friends tonight as saying that Rove is unsure “whether or not he will be indicted.”

  138. 138
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    The Washington Post quotes one of Rove’s friends tonight as saying that he’s not sure “whether or not he will be indicted.”

  139. 139
    ppGaz says:

    ppGaz, if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

    Oh, that reminds me: I’m a better cook than you are, too.

  140. 140
    Jim Allen says:

    Looks like you only proved my point. Not sure what it shows otherwise.

    Dipshit.

    Uh, since your point was that the word is spelled “filet” and not “fillet”, and I showed you that the prefered spelling is “fillet” and not “filet”, exactly how did I prove your point? Unless your point was that you are, in fact, a wanker, in which case, maybe your point was proved.

  141. 141
    Jim Allen says:

    No, they aren’t, all failings were either impossible to foresee, or the fault of the disloyal opposition party (which seems to have a ridiculous amount of actual power relative to what a casual viewing of the facts would suggest)

    And the liberal press, too, don’t forget them. And Cindy Sheehan.

  142. 142
    Halffasthero says:

    ppGaz Says:

    Interesting, PPGaz…that you don’t include GOP4Me there.

    GOP4 doesn’t make me livid. Besides, he’s a helluva writer.

    ppGaz also did not name Stormy. Probably for the same reason. For my own part, anyone who likes scotch like she does will always be ok. Sometimes, we all need to find common ground. : )

    And has Darrell been around lately or am I skimming posts too fast?

  143. 143
    ppGaz says:

    ppGaz also did not name Stormy. Probably for the same reason

    I have exchanged email with both Stormy and GOP4. They are real people with real identities.

    There’s trolling, and then there is spoofing. I’d say that with Stormy, what you see is what you get. With GOP4, there’s some trolling, obviously, but it’s done with style and humor.

    With these other characters, you have what appears to be spoofing just for its own sake. Basically, just performance art of low quality. A little like watching mimes at the park, and it turns out that they are the ones who flunked out of mime school.

    We’re not talking about DougJ-type spoofing, which rises to the level of satire. If GOP4 is a spoof, which is yet to be determined, then he certainly is working at the satire level. So is BIRDZILLA, I’d say. Two totally different approaches there!

  144. 144
    Par R says:

    Bruce Moonbat can’t understand English.

    Since he ascribes certain views to Mark Kleiman, let’s look at what Mark wrote a mere two months ago; you will note that it in no way supports the construction by Moonbat.

    “In fact, the newly-unredacted portion of Judge Tatel’s concurrence (p. 38)refers to a footnote in Fitzgerald’s submission (note 15, p. 28 of the document, p. 30 of the .pdf). The footnote says that, if Libby were to be charged under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the government would have to prove that Libby knew or believed that VPW in fact met the criteria under that act — including being covert, having travelled, and being the subject of active agency efforts to conceal her status —, but that the government has no evidence of Libby’s having had such knowledge or belief.” [Bruce Moonbat: Note this closing sentence; reread it four or five times for clarity]

    As Tom McGuire has noted: “So far, Fitzgerald has resisted all defense efforts to document Ms. Plame’s status, although he did say at his Oct 2005 press conference that her status was classified. “Classified” is not “covert” as per the IIPA statute, however – there is still the matter of overseas service in the previous five years, and uncertainty about whether “service” means a stop-over at a European airport or a formal posting abroad.”

    In short, Bruce Moonbat, you have no idea what the words mean that you have posted in this thread.

  145. 145
    Vladi G says:

    Mike Espy, huh? How ’bout some of you wingnuts do a little research on him and get back to me. You might find this:

    On August 27, 1997, Espy was indicted on charges of granting favors in exchange for thousands of dollars in gifts such as sports tickets, lodging, and airfare. Espy refused to plea bargain and on December 2, 1998 he was acquitted of all 30 criminal charges in the trial. Independent Counsel Donald Smaltz presented more than 70 witnesses in the trial and spent more than $20 million preparing and trying the case.

    The defense rested without calling witnesses, stating simply that the prosecution had not proved its case. The jury deliberated less than 10 hours before finding Espy innocent of all charges. One of the jurors stated “This was the weakest, most bogus thing I ever saw. I can’t believe Mr. Smaltz ever brought this to trial.” At least four other jurors echoed this view, though with softer words.

  146. 146
    Steve says:

    Par has taken us back many months in the talking points timeline, back to the days when Bushbots wanted you to believe the IIPA was the only statute that conceivably could have been violated by the Plame leak. He might want to rank his Google results by date before responding to the next point.

  147. 147
    ppGaz says:

    Par has taken us back many months in the talking points timeline, back to the days

    Proving that spoofing, like being prez-dint, is just Hard Work.

  148. 148
    Par R says:

    Nature, not content with denying ppGaz and Steve the ability to think, has unfortunately endowed them with the ability to type on a keyboard. You two fools are so dumb and ill informed that you should just “give it up.”

  149. 149
    ppGaz says:

    You two fools are so dumb and ill informed that you should just “give it up.”

    Okay, help a brotha here. “Give it up” is in quotes because …. it’s a song title?

    Or ….?

  150. 150
    tBone says:

    Nature, not content with denying ppGaz and Steve the ability to think, has unfortunately endowed them with the ability to type on a keyboard.

    You’re just jealous because you have to peck at the keyboard with your beak, Par Rot.

  151. 151
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    Since Kleiman has made it clear that he still believes there’s solid evidence of a serious crime in the Plame affair, it was really very unwise of Par R not to quote his two paragraphs immediately following the quote from Kleiman that he just threw at me. So, let’s quote the whole thing:

    “I think Mike Isikoff, and the blue bloggers who are gleefully quoting his assertion that Patrick Fitzgerald told the D.C. Circuit that Valerie Plame Wilson was in fact covert and had in fact travelled abroad on covert missions within the five-year period before the Administration outed her via Robert Novak, are just a little bit ahead of what the evidence shows.

    “In fact, the newly-unredacted portion of Judge Tatel’s concurrence (p. 38) refers to a footnote in Fitzgerald’s submission (note 15, p. 28 of the document, p. 30 of the .pdf). The footnote says that, IF [the italics are Kleiman’s] Libby were to be charged under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the government would have to prove that Libby knew or believed that VPW in fact met the criteria under that act —- including being covert, having travelled, and being the subject of active agency efforts to conceal her status —- but that the government has no evidence of Libby’s having had such knowledge or belief.

    “Of course, it would also be necessary under the act for VPW to have actually had those characteristics: you can’t be guilty of revealing the identity of a covert agent unless the agent in question was actually covert. And undoubtedly Fitzgerald has determined what VPW’s status actually was, since that’s no harder than asking the CIA. So Judge Tatel’s inference from what Fitzgerald said is a reasonable inference.

    “But it’s not quite the same thing as an assertion of fact by Fitzgerald (who is probably still constrained by the fact that VPW’s then-status remains technically classified, even though it has now been published) or a finding by the judge.

    “So it seems to me that Isikoff gets closer to the truth than does right-wing flack-posing-as-a-lawyer Clarice Feldman —- in polite circles we don’t accuse prosecutors of deceiving judges, which is a disbarrable offense, without some better basis than malicious speculation, or assume that appellate judges are so gullible they can be taken in by transparently deceptive language —- but that he goes beyond the actual evidence.

    “It’s fair to say that Fitzgerald’s submission is inconsistent with the wingnut claim that VPW was not covert, but it’s not (quite) fair to say that he asserts the opposite.”

    That is, nothing Kleiman says in this quote clashes in the least with the already-public portion of the Appeals Court’s conclusion that — to quote Kleiman again, since Mr. Par seems to suffer from very severe language-comprehension problems — “if a common-law ‘reporter’s privilege’ exists, Mr. Fitzgerald has submitted enough evidence about the commission of a serious crime or crimes to warrant overcoming that privilege. Judge Tatel in particular speaks without qualification of a ‘plot against Wilson’ (I’m not sure whether he means Joseph or Valerie) and calls the revelation of Plame’s identity ‘a serious breach of public trust.’ ”

    Libby has not yet been charged with that specific crime. What Fitzgerald has charged him with is engaging in provable perjury to help cover up the identity of the leaker, whether the leaker was Libby himself or another member of the Administration.

    Give it up, Mr. Par. No amount of frantic mathematical juggling can prove that 1=2, even if your particular religious beliefs (in this case, Bush-worship) require that you believe that fact. And before you blather again, might I suggest that you talk to Kleiman himself (as I’ve been doing for a very long time)?

  152. 152
    Steve says:

    I don’t get why Par believes there is any point to his repeated ad hominems, particularly on the Internet. If you have no substance whatsoever, people just skip past your post and move on.

  153. 153
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    Well, my God, 95% of the comments in these threads consist of ad hominems (and childish ones at that). I wish Mr. Below Par would stop making fun of my name, though — especially since, unlike most posters, I don’t hide behind a synonym. (Yes, this is my real name. To steal a line from Lincoln: if I had a different name, would I be using this one?)

  154. 154
    Pb says:

    Vladi G,

    What comes out of Par R’s mouth is invariably bullshit, it’s really not worth wasting any time on it, even when you’re already posting to a blog.

  155. 155
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    *sigh* That’s “pseudonym”, not “synonym”. (“Synonym”, of course, consists of two words or phrases with the same meaning, such as “Par R” and “halfwit”.)

  156. 156
    Steve says:

    See, if I say “Bruce is an idiot for thinking Plame was covert, considering she went to work at Langley every day,” at least I’ve made a point with my ad hominem, even if it’s a stupid point. Throwing in the occasional cheap shot is standard stuff for Internet discourse.

    But if I just say “Bruce is an idiot,” well, I don’t really get why it’s worth wasting my breath, no matter how many clever ways I find to phrase the same insult. At least pretend to make some sort of point, that’s all I ask.

  157. 157
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    The fact that “throwing in the occasional cheap shot is standard stuff for Internet discourse” is the main thing that’s wrong with Internet discourse. (I say this even though I often do it myself. The most I can say is that I try to do so only in response to other people who have ALREADY done so. One can make a good case that it shouldn’t be done even then.)

  158. 158
    Steve says:

    Well, Bruce, that’s the kind of attitude I would expect from a punk like you.

  159. 159
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    Getting back (for the last time, I hope) to Under Par’s ridiculous misreading of Kleiman’s Feb. 5, 2006 comment, let’s quote the actual footnote on pg. 38 of Judge Tatel’s decision to which both of them refer:

    “As to the leaks’ harmfulness, although the record omits specifics about Plame’s work, it appears to confirm, as alleged in the public record and reported in the press, that she worked for the CIA in some unusual capacity relating to counterproliferation. Addressing deficiencies of proof regarding the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the special counsel refers to Plame as ‘a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years’ — representations I trust the special counsel would not make without support. (8/27/04 Aff. at 28 n.15.) In addition, Libby said that Plame worked in the CIA’s counterproliferation division (I-53 55, 245- 46), * * * * * [REDACTED] * * * * *

    “Most telling of all, Harlow, the CIA spokesperson, though confirming Plame’s employment, asked Novak to withhold her name, stating that ‘although it is very unlikely that she will ever be on another overseas mission… it might be embarrassing if she goes on foreign travel on her own’ (II-168-69), a statement that strongly implies Plame was covert at least at some point. While another case might require more specific evidence that a leak harmed national security, this showing suffices here, given the information’s extremely slight news value and the lack of any serious dispute regarding Plame’s employment.”
    _____________________________

    Thus Tatel’s references, in the same opinion, to the leaking of Plame’s identity being “a serious breach of public trust” and part of “a plot against Wilson”.

  160. 160
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    Your mother wears Army shoes, Steve. Four of them.

Comments are closed.