Redstate

"Karl Rove--You've Been Served! is a COOKBOOK!"  ]:-)

I don't know what that means, and I don't think I care.

that everyone would quit dropping all of these hints to them.

If they wish to take out the big "Howard Dean Ginsu knife set" and make with the Hari-Kari thing, who am I to tell them not to?

They are adults.  If the medication isn't working any more and they want to end it all, I'm just libertarian enough to say that it's their decision.

So cut it out with the interventions, all ready!

ROTFL.

We'll be back to prisoner-abuse stories by next week.

I don't know that today's news means much more than any other news we've gotten so far.  In fact, if someone in Rove's circle leaked his testimony, it might even add to his troubles.

I think it's really important to remember that no one really knows anything right now.  It may be a trap ... but that really doesn't make any sense.  A trap set by whom?  To what end?  Tough questions to answer, although the Ackbar photo is clever.

Ultimately, Fitzgerald will indict, or he won't.  No sense in either side going all triumphalist on everyone until one of those events occurs.

Don't you think Internet blogs are nerdy enough without obscure "Star Wars" references?

An entire article filled with Known Facts(tm) for your amusement. Some of them are still jumping into the trap.

I think you get me wrong.  I'm urging BOTH sides to quit throwing the Known Facts around.

We simply don't know what's going to happen.  Maybe it will turn out Rove did nothing.  Maybe he'll be indicted under the espionage act.  WE DON'T KNOW, because the investigation is still ongoing, and Fitzgerald's office has actually been good about keeping leaks plugged.

I'm just saying, wait and see.  Right now, either side could end up looking significantly dumber than they already do.

to invoke french here, but

touche ... or is it Fauxche?

But the meaning to this one isn't very clear.

Are we supposed to be the Alliance or the Empire on this one?

 ... This isn't some elaborate trap set by Rove.  I realize that's the line pushed by InstaPundit et al. (Rove-a-Dope or whathaveyou), but it's the wrong way to look at it.  I reliaze this is an unpopular view in the modern (or, really, any) age, but the Plame Game should not be about scoring political points.  

To repeat something I posted elsewhere:

So:  Don't fall into the false trap of thinking that this is battle of Rove v. Wilson, or Wilson v. the Administration, or even Democrat v. Republican.  Don't fall into the mentality that this is a political game with endless layers of nuance to be fought on multiple fronts, or some quasi-battle between the press and President for Rove's job.*  It ain't any of that.  The question at hand is very simple:  have one or more laws have been broken?  

If they have, bring on the frog-march.

Indeed, after all this, I hope Fitzgerald can muster something more than a perjury charge.  Because it'd be a true waste of taxpayer's money if the only indictments are for crimes that were committed during the investigation.

von

*The star makes the point that, whatever the outcome as to Rove, his and the WH's credibility has taken a terrible hit in their denials that he had anything to do with the so-called Plame "leak."  When the next scandal comes down the line -- and, in this modern age, a scandal can happen without anyone doing anything wrong -- who will accept McClellan's claim that the WH had "nothing to do with it"?  

As far as its meaning, just remember the good Admiral's famous line on learning that the Death Star was in fact, full operational.  I guess we're about to start seeing Mon Cal cruisers go up in flames.  Don't worry about direct engagement; our orders are  only to prevent their escape.

... that their overconfidence is their weakness?  Okay, back to lurking with me.  But in my defense, there is a Mon Calamari on the front page.

Also, IAWTP.

Its not a game, lives were potentially at risk, and one report even claims to that CIA sources report that at least one anonymous star placed on the CIA's Wall of Honor at its Langley, Virginia headquarters is a clandestine agent who was executed in a hostile foreign nation as a direct result of the White House leak.

The legal and ethical precedent for how to deal with Rove has already largely been set by the bush administration in the prosecution and conviction of Jonathan Randel.

italics reference.

This line strikes me as the essence of a standard-less media.

"a scandal can happen without anyone doing anything wrong".

Don't get me wrong - I'm not criticizing you. I agree with this, and think it offers a real big clue as to both the genesis and solution to many of these problems - politics!

In other words, let's assume "wrong" means illegal. (Forgetting ethics and morality for the moment). If this is true, then a scandal with no wrong is purely political - a contest of wills and judgment and discretion.

A while back I posited that Fitzgerald may reach the end and simply declare "no crime" - fix it yourselves all you elected officials, and try to explain it to the voters.

I still think he may issue indictments (the GJ technically will), and allege crimes, but it still amazes me the amount of press time the left is using up going after Rove - a guy who extremely rarely makes public or press appearences. Obviously, he has plenty of tools to fight back with, but of all the targets to pick, he's the least public (except for Libby).

If Rove skates here, he'll be in the same position as W is on the TANG - namely, what in the world was all that about.

And I think Rove may already be there. He'll just let us know later.

reference makes my day.

Randel "leaked" info straight from a DEA file. If anything, the evidence against Rove is moving away from a leak and toward gossip. Heck - McClellan may even be clear when all is done!

Sure - they could throw the kitchen sink at Rove as well (check the Espionage Act - there's plenty of open spaces to cook up a charge), but what if Rove was relaying gossip, that he neither created, stole, nor originated.

Are you going to prosecute the other 53 people who also were calling around with the "wife at CIA" chatter?

If anything, RS has done a good job of pointing out the enormous missing steps between the evidence so far, and a prosecutable offense.

Granted, speculation is frenzied, but there is scant evidence of anything yet.

Fark has invaded RedState!  :)

No one did anything wrong?

that this is solely a political issue and to get so caught up in sniggering at the other side's obsessive flailing, that we neglect  to soberly address the underlying policy matters at the core of it.  There are people of conservative bent, especially in the services, who don't take this sort of thing lightly, particularly on the heels of the failure to take care of Zarquawi ante-Bellum and the snafu with regard to the British bomber.

whatever the outcome as to Rove, his and the WH's credibility has taken a terrible hi

You wish. Half the country is laughing out loud at the Dems and their media. It's another Wile E. Coyote moment for the donks and their pet reporters.

Beep beep.

Young padwan Wilson tried to use simple Jedi Mind Tricks against a Sith Lord.

Even now, Darth Rove plots his next campaign as he disappears into the shadows.....

Hillary looks like a totally different being under the make-up. I guess this un-veiling goes well with the recent trip-ups on the "move to the center."

At least George W. "Alfred, E. - What, me worry? Neuman" Bush is comfortable in his skin.

I'll bet the smartest woman in the world isn't.

Can you tell if the underarms are bare?

British Nazi-Al Qaeda Links? They are unmistakable and definite

The Independent reported on July 10, 2005 that Al Qaeda may have hired a gang of "white mercenary terrorists" to carry out the London bombings

I'm a new poster here, mainly because I've been worried about this business. I've been trying to warn that there's a danger in conservatives going out on a limb without knowing the facts.  I believe in the princple that a man should be regarded as innocent until proven guilty, and  that principle should apply to Mr. Rove.  However, I believe it is a mistake to aggressively paint Mr. Rove as a genius or a hero.  Certain aspects of Mr. Rove's behavior are troubling.  Thay may eventually be explained.  In the meantime, however, you risk turning off conservatives who value integrity by making light of what are obviously grave matters.  I have no desire to become a cheerleader in a race to be one small notch above the bottom.

I also agree with von about the damage to credibility.  President Bush would do well to heed the warning Mr. Goldwater once gave another President regarding "a tendency to dibble and dabble and argue on very nebulous grounds like executive privilege and confidentiality when all the American people wanted to know was the truth."

CIA management has hosed this royally. After that, we dunno anything official until Fitzgerald decides we do.

You snark off Von's well-made points as if you think he's a Democrat shill. Perhaps argument by emphatic assertion, served with relentless partisan trimmings, is considered a tasty dish in some corners. Heaven knows you're good at it, but you produce thoughtful, insightful commentary as well -- when you want to. I rather think Von deserves the extra effort.

Are you suggesting this entire fiasco was orchestrated by Rove?  Do you base this on fact or on the suggestions that there have been others?  Many on the left claim that TANG was a deliberate trap.  Do you agree?  If so, what does that say about our country that the party running the show apparently has the time to play tricks and games on this scale?  What the hell is wrong with everybody?  Is this a big fun game?

I also don't get all the Wilson bashing.  It has no bearing on whether or not a crime was committed, none.  And if anything it only bolsters the claims of the left.  i.e. presents an administrative motive for why they would want to 'hurt' Wilson.  It isn't like the statute excuses outing CIA agents if you think their husbands lie.  

This is like saying, "I didn't murder my wife.  Oh, and the b** was cheating on me too."  Not very smart in my book.

were like you and von and a few others here, the country would have far fewer problems.  Thank you for being a voice of reason in what seems like a sea of people willing to forgo all ethics just to garner power.

he is a partisan liar, who used knowledge he learend to at first make anonymous political hits against the administration, and later put his own name to them.

He misrepresented his own report.

He lied about his wifes involvement.

Although I am not convinced anyone has set any knid of trap for anyone.  I think at this point based on the WH response that they think/believe/know they are in the clear, and they are just letting the other side hang themselves with the rope they brought to the party.

What did Sandy Berger know, and when did he know it?

terrific motive for outing her.  Not the best defense for a charge of outing a CIA agent, when there is not justifiable excuse in the statute.

The left's claim all along is that Rove and Co. outed the identity of Wilson's wife to exact revenge against Wilson.  These additional facts blasting Wilson support this theory.

Put another way, this is like claiming:  "I did not rape that woman; but did you see how she was dressed?  She was asking for it."

Not much of a defense in my book.  

reason.

And that is the problem.  The media and the left have painted themselves into this-the only possible reason to mention this was to get revenge on Wilson.

Okay, now we know that Wilson was misrepresenting his trip, his conclusions and his report to the media when he was both an anonymous source and an open one.

Reporters were chasing the story (they were probably chasing it to figure out how the WH was responding, how much damage etc) as the story was investigated, the reporters come across the fact that Wilson's trip wasn't exactly as it was made to be in the media, and they dug up the Plame angle.

We have the reporters being entirely too passive in the "WH wanted to get revenge on Wilson" angle, when in fact reporters do what they do, by calling contacts, putting pieces of the puzzle together and making conclusions.

The whole story may not have been motivated by revenge at all, and may not have been instigated by the WH at all.

If anything, RS has done a good job of pointing out the enormous missing steps between the evidence so far, and a prosecutable offense.

Leon, in particular, has done yeoman's work.  Lindgren (on Volokh) and John Cole (on his own blog) have also done tremendous work in this regard.  My reaction is solely to what I see as wrongheadedness on the part of the more, umm, partisan members of both sides:  Kos & TMP on the left, InstaPundit on the right.

Incidentally, don't get me wrong Krempasky:  I appreciate an obscure Star Wars reference as much as the next guy.  This one was clever.

A while back I posited that Fitzgerald may reach the end and simply declare "no crime" - fix it yourselves all you elected officials, and try to explain it to the voters.

If Fitzgerald is trying to hold folks in contempt, spending millions of the taxpayers' money, thowing folks in jail for failing to cooperate, and generally causing a high holy ruckus -- well, he better have a real case.  If this is all a chase down a rabbit hole, my opinion of him (at the moment, extremely high), will drop like a stone.

Because I'd hate for my words to be given extra emphasis as a so-called "conservative who bucks his party" (i.e., as a media-darling "maverick"):

I'm not a political conservative, as the term is currently applied in US.  I do think of myself, however, as a Republican (or Republican leaner) because I support significant parts of the Republican agenda -- CAFTA, social security reform, tort reform, textualist judges, etc.  

obliterated in the end, though.  Bwhahahahaha!

But he may also be trying to cover all possibilities, but if he knows there isn't any crime involved, I don't know that he should be fighting so hard to put somebody in the pokey if there isn't a crime for them to help expose.

I can't help but think that Miller may have the missing link to the whole thing.

Maybe in the end she is protecting somebody who isn't all that culpable, but honestly if that is the case, then she is either one very stupid or one very brave lady (I am voting for stupid).

the next round of Abu Ghraib photos are to be released on the 22nd. I predict you're right.

OK - Let's recall all our views of Ken Starr and his work. Give a lawyer (prosecutor there, counsel here) plenty of time, money, and staff, and you get a thorough investigation.

Now - did we the american people get our tax dollars worth out of Mr. Starr's work?

If you have great respect, now, for Mr. Fitzgerald, why would that lessen upon his findings (absent something hilarious like he's been spending time at the slots in Vegas or something)? If you trust his work now, wouldn't you trust his conclusions?

I don't want to prejudge his conclusions, but I also don't want to condition my present respect for him on the results of his conclusions absent some egregious conduct on his part (as in certain arguments against Starr while he was at work).

If anything, Fitzgerald has learned a bit from Starr's efforts and political reactions.

If you have great respect, now, for Mr. Fitzgerald, why would that lessen upon his findings (absent something hilarious like he's been spending time at the slots in Vegas or something)? If you trust his work now, wouldn't you trust his conclusions?

I don't want to prejudge his conclusions, but I also don't want to condition my present respect for him on the results of his conclusions absent some egregious conduct on his part (as in certain arguments against Starr while he was at work).

These are good points, so far as they go.  Fitzgerald, however, is (1) prosecuting this case very aggressively (2) weilds considerable power as the government's representative -- far more power than a mere attorney for a company or individual would; and (3) under the DOJ guidelines (not to mention the dictates of prosecutorial ethics) is required to exercise his power with a measure of judgment.  If it's all a wild goose chase -- if Fitzgerald doesn't have substantial basis at this point to think he has the goods under the IIPA or EA on someone -- we should properly question his judgment.

In other words, if Miller's in jail because Fitzgerald is trying to prove up a perjury charge, I'll be disappointed.*

von

*Now, again, there's a lot to suggest that Fitzgerald is behaving responsibly:  save for the recent leaks from Rove's camp, his investigation has been impressively leak free and he has convinced the Court, despite substantial opposition from the WaPo and NYTimes, that it is likely that serious crimes have been committed.    

Of course, Scott McClellan's recent cringe-inducing on-camera beatdowns don't exactly bolster this theory.  If this is really a trap, why was the White House Press Secretary so woefully unprepared to answer questions about Karl's involvement?  I mean, those press briefings were humiliating for the administration.  Why didn't their game plan extend to actually dealing with the press in a way that made them not look like they were scrambling to cover their rear ends?  This is rather like screwing up badly in chess, then insisting "I meant to do that!"

Perhaps your position is that this administration, and Rove in particular, is strong on ethics and weak on message control?

The Emperor's intentional leak ultimately got him thrown down a power shaft.  Food for thought.

The problem is that the Democrats and their fellow party members (the New York Times, Washington Post, etc.) were instrumental in getting Patrick Fitzgerald involved in this in the first place.

Remember when this all started? The Democrats shrieked and the Press (especially the New York Times) yelled up and down for a special prosecutor because they believed the White House would inappropriately interfere with an ordinary DOJ investigation.

And even then, they shrieked for John Ashcroft to recuse himself from anything to do with this case so he couldn't even pick the special prosecutor; that was left to Larry Johnson.

Let us not suffer any sudden cases of amnesia here. Fitzgerald was assigned to this due to political pressure from the Democrats and their allies, the Press. Imagine what would have happened if the administration had not complied with the Democrats' demands.

And, considering the nature of today's politics, Fitzgerald is probably (very wisely) covering every possible angle through which he can be attacked, by investigating everything with even the most tangential of connections to the subject.

He's very probably well aware that if he were to end the investigation with the conclusion that no crime had been committed, with the administration unscathed, without this amount of legwork, the New York Times would stop at nothing to tarnish his reputation and destroy him.

but I would consider it a waste of time and money, but the politics of the situation probably would have demanded the investigation anyway.

I mean just thinking about it-what if the CIA had made an announcement that there appeared to be no violation of crime regarding the leak and there would be no investigation referral to the DOJ?  Does anyone think the dems would have said "okee dokie let's get back to making laws" or do you think the cries would have gone from "crime" to "cover-up?"  I vote for the latter.

As for Ken Starr I admit I wasn't one who thought there was the need for the whole whitewater et al investigations (I realize there are those who would vehemently disagree).  The perjury stuff did bother me-it was while he was in office and it was, at least to me a serious enough crime to warrant impeachment and removal from office.  

He is, at best IMHO, merely average. IMHO both Begala and Carville are marginally more gifted politically.

The difference is that Rove has a President who listens, and is even more strategically sound politically than Rove is tactically. And of course the Dems strategy is being run by a tug-of-war between Hillary/Bill and Moveon/Hollywood. Not exactly fair when someone competent faces off against the clowns in the circus.

All that being said, Fitzgerald is not stupid. He wouldn't waste time if there was nothing to pursue. I don't believe he is operating under a vendetta against Miller (though she did burn his Hamas investigation, tipping off an "Islamic Charity" allegedly funneling cash to Hamas that Fitzgerald was investigating them and giving them time to shred evidence hence his case collapsed).

However, Judy Miller has had reportedly inside info on the Iraq War runup, including WMD stuff that was supposedly good enough and vetted enough to get on the front page of the NYT.

Either she pulled a Jayson Blair and made it up, or she had a serious source that by his/her very name could get things published by vouching for their accuracy. Tenet? Powell? This source may or may not be the source for Plame/Wilson info but it seems logical Fitzgerald would seek it.

In addition, it seems odd that if Miller had sat on info exonerating Karl Rove for over a year, or was in some way party to very partisan politics by selective leaks against the President and his policies coming out of State or CIA, her credibility and that of the NYT would be shot. Hypothetically if Tenet or Plame or Wilson had told Miller "hey Valerie is a CIA agent so listen to Joe" or some variant thereof, and Miller deliberately or inadvertantly stirred up a press storm on the subject (or facilitated it) ... no law may have been broken but the reputation of the NYT among even Democrats as anything but a partisan rag would be shot. Thus a huge CYA reason to sit in jail rather than answer questions such as "did Valerie or Tenet or Wilson tell you about Valerie's job?"

Miller did do a lot of work on WMDs which co-incidentally was Valerie Plame's job at the CIA, by all accounts Plame enjoyed the role of working socialite wife which she had as Wilson's spouse. VERY embarrassing for Miller if she knew because Plame told her at a party somewhere that Plame was CIA, and that was repeated around her Press buddies. Her career would tank like raTHers and cBS's.

for 42 yr olds. I thought it was Hillary without the make-up.

The New Republic fell to the Yuzhon Vong while the Imperial Remnant and Empire of the Hand are thriving.  No real details on what happened to the CSA though.