Why has no one brought up the idea that the term “Welfare Reform” was simply a code name for “Project Counter Wilson.”

I don’t seem to be able to visualize Hadley as having a very big role in the Bush welfare reform discussions. Was this to be his pro bono contribution to making-Iraq-safe-for-christmas effort?

As to your gripe about why the reporters fired: These were not “their” sources (except through possession), as they belonged to the bosses who told them what to write and where to source it. Their papers directed them what to do, and what & how to report. It happens anywhere you work for someone else. See: no one gets fired!! The boss can’t hang the spy – re-read The Art of War.

So, did Rove fabricate the email to Hadley? I mean there are enough ex-CIA or future-cons in that office that faking an email shouldn’t be too hard.

(I forgot, they did have trouble forging the Niger documents — probably because they thought banana republic and used a cirica 1950 Corona typewriter.)

thanks pollyusa for the date… that was the date that the waiver was granted, but it’ll be interesting to see when the waiver was requested by cooper, and denied by rover… if he denied the waiver before he testified to the gj, then wouldn’t that kill his defense, since it’ll show that he knew what cooper asking for? how can you deny a waiver for something you claim you didn’t know about?

Muzzy, Here it is:
Washington – When Al Qaeda operative Wadih El-Hage blamed false testimony he had given to a federal grand jury on confusion and jet lag, then-assistant US Atty. Patrick J. Fitzgerald was not impressed. “I submit to you,” Fitzgerald told jurors at El-Hage’s 2001 trial in New York, “you heard 10 of the most pathetic excuses of perjury ever known.”

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/081605Y.shtml

dachoste

The waiver was on July 6, 2005. See above comment.

what about the specific waiver of confidentiality given by rove to cooper? where does that fit into the timeline? if cooper asked rover for it, and was denied it (til the end), wouldn’t that blow rover’s cover story, since it’ll shows that rove knew the content of their conversation, and not in some come to jesus moment?

Robert Novak: Bush Knows identity of leaker

http://www.economicsbriefing.c…..s-who.html

i still think bush is woodwards source

new thread: “This ought to give you Pause

“Slightly OT, but what do you suppose is behind the “new Bush” we have seen this week, the sort of anti-bubble bubble? And what’s up with Bush meeting with three news anchors this week and yucking it up with them? Karen H. has been dishing her happy talk all over the place too.”

Meet the new Chimpy, Same as the Old Chimpy.

There is no new strategy – he is the same smiling, disconnected, lying bubbleboy that he has always been.

That he decided to take his bubbleboy act to TV isn’t new in the sense that he doesn’t say or do anything different. I saw previews of the Brian Williams interview and it was painful to watch the man.

There is something known as “getting out in front of a story,” something the NeoNuts (certainly Rover) liked to do, but they are so far behind now they can’t get in front of anything.

Consider Chimpy on TV a new disinformation campaign to try and raise Chimpy’s numbers that will END when Rover is indicted.

Newspaper columnist Robert Novak is still not naming his source in the Valerie Plame affair, but he says he is pretty sure the name is no mystery to President Bush.
“I’m confident the president knows who the source is,” Novak told a luncheon audience at the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh on Tuesday. “I’d be amazed if he doesn’t.”

Why would Bob Novak be saying this?

“I’m confident the president knows who the source is,” Novak told a luncheon audience at the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh on Tuesday. “I’d be amazed if he doesn’t. So I say, ‘Don’t bug me. Don’t bug Bob Woodward. Bug the president as to whether he should reveal who the source is.’ “

Does Robert Novak want a return trip to Fitz’s new GJ? Who is his source for this information? Instead of telling the John Locke foundation, did he think about phoning Fitz with it?

“Gang, woke up a little late this morning . . . ” Relax and enjoy your coffee, Redd.

Jeralyn has a good posting up about the Ken Lay trial: Ken Lay Bank Fraud Trial Will Follow Enron Trial

WAG Alert (wild ass specualtion), hat tip to anonymous about Raw Story story quoting Robert Novack “I’m confident the president knows who the source is,” Novak told a luncheon audience at the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh on Tuesday. “I’d be amazed if he doesn’t. So I say, ‘Don’t bug me. Don’t bug Bob Woodward. Bug the president as to whether he should reveal who the source is.’ “

IMO, this is a shot from Cheney against Bush. IMO Cheney knows Bush’s personal exit strategy from his low poll numbers includes the possibility that he will blame all this on Dick and ask him to resign. Dick is telling W, that that strategy will not work and that if push comes to shove, Dick is prepared to tell Fitzgerald that unlike what he told Fitz before, Bush explicity ordered the leak about by Plame. (At this point whether that is true is not important to the WH, it is what Dick is willing to tell Fitz. IMO Dick and his “Last Stand” neocons are figuring out, possibly, that Scooter’s defense involves them testifying again, but this time in open court without GJ secrecy, so they are using Novack as their mouth piece.

Robert Novack’s comments are way beyond incendiary. He is basically forcing Bush to issue a public denial that he does not know who the leaker is. If Bush doesn’t, Fitz almost has to ask the President to step forward and say whether Novack is a liar or not.
WAG alert.

lawyerbitesjudge:

He also needs some evidence that Rove was talking about Plame with others at the time, even if it was only within the government.

If Rove knew that Plame was covert and blabbed about it, “even if it was only within the government,” he could be in trouble on this basis alone. There is no need for the leak to reach the outside world to violate the IIPA statute. There is only a need to prove that he talked about it to White House employees who do not have security clearance at the appropriate level (’Secret’) and who do not have a ‘need to know’ it.”

Oh right, Redd, I am mixing up Hadley and Addington. But still, was already Hadley cooperating (fingering Scooter, I mean) with Fitz when he was appointed to replace Condi? He could have been. Either way, it is amazing that this admin even considered appointed him to Nat Security Advisor in the midst of his now well known entanglement.

There are only two plausible explanations. 1 – that the admin is so arrogant that they really believe that they would never – in the end – be burned by the Plame leak. Or 2 – that there is such an immutable firewall around the president (to such an extent that he does not even follow MSM accounts of any of this) that he really is clueless and just goes about his days of appointing and deciding as though none of this is happening.

BTW – there is a concise timeline re the origins of all this posted over at TalkLeft. http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013402.html

Correction

As I read through the July 11 WaPo referenced above, Luskin is in his own little way admiting the Plame part. The July 10 Newsweek is the watershed moment in my view. The WaPo has essentially the same discloure. No surprise, Luskin is a equal opportunity leaker when he wants to be.

Bob Novak says Bush knows the name of the leaker — See Raw Story.

Green Lantern lights the way …

It’s a good bet that the President’s speech about journalists not revealing their sources just might appear in one of Fitzgerald’s indictments next year…. Good analysis, Green Lantern: anyone reading that little gem of an answer will come to the same conclusion: this man knows a helluva lot more about what happened and is happening than he has revealed.

Of course, there is a slight problem with being an accessory to a crime ….

Actor Viggio Mortensen says of Bush today: “I’m against cheating, greed, cruelty, racism, imperialism, religious fundamentalism, treason, and the seemingly limitless capacity for hypocrisy shown by Bush and his administration.” Hard to top that!

Rayne | Homepage | 12.14.05 – 7:20 am. Yes.

Ok, I’m going to go out on a limb here and have fun with reverse speculation. How about if we go back to the build up of the “invasion”. The admin knows it wants to oust Saddam and control the country, thus enlighten the region. They form the WHIG group because God knows they love to sell things. They start gathering talking points, realize they need a few facts. Cheney gets wind of the Niger papers, harasses his CIA contact to dig into the story. CIA responds with Joe’s trip. Joe comes back and debriefed verbally but if I remember, the CIA debriefer asked him questions (over Chinese takeout) in CIA language, so I’m thinking he wrote it down in report form. Report makes its way to Rice’s office where Hadley intercepts, sees that it’s not what they wanted so goes ahead and adds it to the discussion for the next WHIG meeting so they can decide how to spin it. They all see the report, decide to use the policy of let’s get the Niger Papers and just omit Wilson’s “discussion”. Hadley says that he can get the Italians to re-doctor the papers so the names and dates are corrected. During the discussion it comes up that Valerie works for the CIA and because we know Cheney is familiar with the history of WMD investigations somewhere along the lines he’s heard of the Brewster Jennings cover company. He realizes she may be getting close to info also debunking the Iraq WMD and then someone realizes they might get a 2fer here, out both Wilson and Plame and sidetrack discussion away from factual curiosity. Because Cheney underestimates the CIA just as I think the admin had underestimated Fitzgerald.

Meant to add this

The night I broke my keyboard I could only copy and paste. I included some links regarding Rove’s testimony from another diary I wrote on Rove. There are more links to be found on Rove in that Rove diary.

Jane,

I wrote the diary trying to pin down the Rove GJ dates. In it I floated the idea that Rove may have appeared before the GJ in late June or early July 2005. Note: I don’t think there is any doubt that Rove testified in 10/04 that he did talk to Cooper, I am looking at the idea that Rove didn’t tell the outing Plame part in 10/04.

I looked at, as you so aptly describe, Luskin’s rolling disclosures in that period. Here is the summary, you can find all the links in the dairy.

6/30/05 The Rove/Cooper angle broke when TIME lost it’s case in the SC and agreed to release Cooper’s notes and email. TIME announced this on 6/30/05.

7/1/05 O’Donnell drops the bombshell that Rove is Cooper’s source on “The McLaughlin Group” on 7/1/05.

7/2/05 Newsweek confirms that Rove and Cooper talked before Novak’s column on 7/2/05. Luskin is the source and is admitting that Rove talked to Cooper, but no mention of Plame yet. This article has Luskin saying that Rove testified “two or three times“

7/3/05 Everybody has the story and Luskin is talking to everyone. Bloomburg, WAPO, and Waas all have essentially the same story. Luskin is spinning so hard here it makes your head hurt. Luskin has still not acknowledged that Rove mentioned Plame or testified about Plame .

7/6/05 Cooper gets his waiver.

7/10/05 The first article I can find where Luskin is admitting that Rove testified about talking to Cooper. The Newsweek story breaks the contents of the email, that Rove told Cooper about Plame. Here Luskin states that Rove has testified 3 times to the GJ. Luskin still isn’t directly admitting that Rove mentioned Plame or Wilson’s wife, but Luskin is saying that Rove’s testimony is consistent with the Cooper email. This is when I think there is no doubt Rove has testified about the Plame portion of his Cooper conversation.

7/11/05 The WAPO has Luskin inching closer. I think Luskin is essentially admitting Rove talked about Plame. “Rove did not mention her name to Cooper,” Luskin said.

7/16/05 AP article where Luskin revealed the existence of the Hadley/Rove email.

7/23/05 Cooper testified on July 20th and talked about his testimony on 7/24/05 on “Meet the Press”. Luskin as always just ahead of the story finally admits that Rove talked about Plame in the July 23, 2005 WAPO.

This doesn’t prove that Rove testified sometime in this period. A commenter on that thread, Quicksilver, remembers a story in the LATimes on July 3 that said Rove had testified 3 times. I cannot find anyone hosting that article.

A couple of other points of interest:

the only article I can find stating that 10/04 was Rove’s 3rd appearance is Viveca’s 10/15/04 article in TIME. All other news accounts say the 10/04 appearance is Rove’s 2nd visit to the GJ.

This is the time when then IRN memo was breaking and dominating the Plame news. It was in this period Luskin also admited that Rove had talked to Novak.

This may be out there but I wonder if Fitz tells Luskin each time before he appears that he is or is not a target. Luskin says this on July 3rd.

Robert Luskin said, Fitzgerald assured him in October and again last week that Rove is not a target of his investigation.
July 3, 2005 WaPo

and this from the Newshour.

TOM HAMBURGER: Well, it’s a bit curious. There is, Margaret, a tradition, in fact it’s a requirement in the Justice Department handbook, that prosecutors notify any witness before a grand jury, called before a grand jury, if they are a target of the investigation, if they are going to be charged.
Newshour 10/6/05

Jane

I did see your comment on a previous thread about your email. Forgive me for not responding sooner, but I rarely check that account. Also, I had to replaced my keyboard for the zillionth time ( I think it was your revalation about Vandehei saying Hadley that caused me to spill a glass of water all over my keyboard.) and will send you the document later today in an email.

Rove hired Luskin because he though he would be the best man for the job as he understood it.
Now – what that means is open to conjecture.
Were the qualifications a fine legal intellect, strong argumentative skills, ink spreading, or some combination?
Also, the possibility of sliming a Dem might have appealed to him.
In any event, likability and agreement on valuses an principles are not characteristics one uses in selecting an attorney.
You want the person who will win your case.

From V. Novak in Time, Oct, 2004:

“Karl Rove, one of President BushÂ’s top White House aides, testified this morning before a federal grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA operative’s name by administration sources. Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald questioned Rove about his contacts with journalists in what a source familiar with Rove’s situation said was his third appearance before the grand jury.”

I think you have that as Rove’s second appearance, Jane. Either Novak was right–she had to be tracking this very closely–or Luskin told her there’d been one more appearance than there had been to get her off his back.

Why promote some people involved in the Plame outing within the WH? Especially near to Cheney?

I was thinking maybe they hope to declare Executive Privilege or something to deny any wholesale questioning of these people.

Don’t know if that works for them legally, but I would expect they want those involved held close to the heart of the WH to hide them in plain site. If they were off on their own, they might find the antidote to the kool aid.

John Casper — don’t you think that Lay’s comments were a textbook Rovian defense? Every single comment as if scripted by Rove, published by the RNC…I expect to see the very same used by the next Fitz indictee.

“What mystifies me, is that given Hadley’s role as a leak conspirator and a rat, is that Dick Cheney promoted him to replace Scooter Libby!” Excellent point, (although if memory serves me correctly, Scooter’s replacement was David Addington), but your point still holds. My recollection is that emptywheel’s take on this was that the selection of Addington was Cheney’s “*uck you” to Fitzgerald. Cheney could have picked from all the people who have not testified before Fitz’s GJ for a new Chief of Staff, but instead he chose Addington who has appeared before Fitz. Addington was also part of WHIG and is Dick’s point man on torture. A few weeks ago there was a story about Cheney telling some Senator “*uck you,” in the “well” of the Senate. Evidently that particular verb and its companion phrases are not often heard in that particular location. This is the “game within the game” that we don’t hear about in the MSM. If accurate, and I believe it is, it suggests that Cheney understands from briefings his staff gives him about their GJ testimony that Fitz has him in his cross hairs.

To Norske and Prof: It has always intrigued me as to why Rove would hire Luskin. Why hire a known dem attorney? I have read that Luskin is well known in media circles, and is often using the media for aspects of winning his cases in the public’s mind.

The Plame outing, and the outcome, is totally a media case because that is the sheild they used to do illegal activites – such as outing a undercover CIA agent for spite. or worse.

Luskin was chosed precisely because of his contacts with Viveca Novak, David Corn, and other media outlets. They would accept his ’spin’ instantly.

Luskin is trying this case in the media only without worry about any trial. Public perception is everything to Rove.

Rove has said at various times that he first learned of Plame from reporters, but he can’t remember which one (or ones)

funny, isn’t it, that this was Libby’s excuse too…

Karl’s a bright guy, so it shouldn’t have been too tough for him to narrow down the potential list of reporters to a fairly small one, and call them up and ask “Hey, I’m in trouble here. I know one of you guys told me about Plame, but I can’t remember which one — and if I don’t, I will probably be indicted. So, did you tell me about her?”

But Karl hasn’t taken this rather obvious step, which suggests that his memory is not quite as faulty as it seems.

Karl is smart enough to know that in this case, a small lie is better than a big one — so I think he’s telling the truth that the first person he heard about Plame from was a journalist. And there were precious few journalists in that loop early on, and the earliest one is also the one with the best access to Karl Rove.

His name, of course, is Bob Woodward.

So, who was Woodward’s source? Well, if you were Karl Rove, wouldn’t you get that information and contact the source for confirmation? And wouldn’t that same person be someone you would get in touch with when the subject of Wilson’s wife was raised again?

Now, who does Karl Rove email right after telling Matt Cooper, and who does he talk to right after confirming the story for Novakula? Hadley and Libby. Woodward says it wasn’t Libby, so that leaves Hadley.

Karl “can’t remember” who his original source was because it leads back to Woodward’s original source — and that will lead back to Karl knowing a whole lot more about Valerie Plame than he says he did when he talked to Novak and Cooper.

BTW, it still doesn’t make any sense to me that Luskin would try to get Karl from being indicted at the last minute by telling FitzG about his conversation with Vivak. What makes far more sense is that FitzG heard about the conversation elsewhere, went to Luskin, and asked him about it — and Luskin is spinning that story to make it appear that he initiated the contact.

So, where would FitzG hear about the Vivak-Luskin conversation? From the Washington Post — Rove was spinning the “this whole thing is bullshit” line to people like Woodward, and told Woodward that he had completely forgotten about the Cooper disclosure, and the proof was the Vivak-Luskin conversation.

Woodward sees this as significant, and wants to write a story about it under his own byline. (This, and not Woodward’s own involvement, would also have been the “bombshell” that Woodward later denied having.)

But, in order to write the “karl is innocent, and this whole Plame thing is bullshit” story, he has to sell it to Downie. Part of that “sale” is explaining to Downie that the Plame outing was just some inter-office gossip that got out somehow — and he knows this because he was the first person on the receiving end of the gossip — and backs that up by telling Downie he’d told Pincus about it.

Which creates a serious problem for the Post, whose lawyers negotiated (and sat in on) Pincus’s deposition in which Pincus disavoweled knowledge of Plame prior to having a White House source disclose it. The Post has to tell FitzG right away that Pincus’s testimony is questionable — and that means explaining to FitzG why the Post is coming forward at the last minute. (Woodward finding out about Vivak-Luskin, and wanting to write about it.)

THAT is how FitzG heard about Vivak-Luskin. And it was the whole shooting match (Woodward’s “new” source, questions about Pincus’s testimony, and the Vivak-Luskin conversation) that kept Karl from being indicted on October 28th.

http://www.newsobserver.com/114/story/377675.html

Is this a revelation?

“So I say, ‘Don’t bug me. Don’t bug Bob Woodward. Bug the president as to whether he should reveal who the source is.’

Isnt Novak saying his and Woodward’s source are the same person. Note the use of the singular “source”.

Gang, woke up a little late this morning, and I’m trying to chase down two leads that I got in my in-box this morning. (Whew! What a week thus far, eh?) Will get something new up soon and, in the meantime, suck down more coffee. Hope everyone is having a good morning…

Actually, Cheney promoted David Addington (his chief legal advisor) to replace Scooter after the indictment. Hadley is still the Preznit’s National Security Advisor (and very close to Cheney, btw). It’s easy to get confused with all the players in this, since they all seem to have dipped their hand in somewhere — including Addington, who was involved in some of the matters detailed in Libby’s indictment. It’s a tangled, tangled web…

From John Casper | 12.14.05 – 6:48 am | # :

Because Fitz deposed Luskin, he probably has a pretty good idea of what Luskin thinks his client told the GJ.

I doubt that. Luskin, as Rove’s attorney, cannot reveal what Rove has said to him. Attorney-client privilege.

What mystifies me, is that given Hadley’s role as a leak conspirator and a rat, is that Dick Cheney promoted him to replace Scooter Libby! It makes one think that they knew someone had to fall on his sword (at least make it look so) to make this all go away.

I wonder if it will turn out that Scooter’s sword was made of rubber.

“HOUSTON (Reuters) – Former Enron Corp. Chairman Ken Lay on Tuesday said he was the victim of a “wave of terror” by prosecutors and blamed his former chief financial officer for the energy company’s spectacular downfall.” Thanks rwcole. FWIW, three books I really enjoyed about the Enron scandal were THE SMARTEST GUYS IN THE ROOM, 24 DAYS, and CONSPIRACY OF FOOLS.

“when Fitzgerald said at his news conference that the investigative phase of Plamegate was finished, what does that mean in terms of going after, say, Cheney?”

He didn’t say that the investigative phase was finished.

“Is that what you are saying, Jane? And if so, why would a savvy lawyer facilitate his client’s deeper and deeper hole-digging through slow-rolling disclosures?
I can understand Rove doing such inadvertent digging, but I can’t understand a lawyer facilitating it.”

It is my understanding that attorneys are not allowed in the GJ, nor do they have access to secret GJ testimony until their clients are indicted, but I still think you raise a very important point that I have not seen before. Because Fitz deposed Luskin, he probably has a pretty good idea of what Luskin thinks his client told the GJ. If Luskin’s leaks to journalists contradict Luskin’s understanding of Rover’s GJ testimony (as given in his deposition), Luskin might be in a lot of trouble. Hope springs eternal.

Prof,

“…then it has Luskin (not merely Rove) in the position of knowing that Rove’s testimony to the grand jury was less than the truth…” And that is the point isn’t it, of Fitz very carefully and methodically nailin’ both Luskin’s feet ta the floor in sworn testimony along with whorevak. I have been sayin for some time now that this stalling and misdirection on the part of Rove is only gunna expand the number of charges and number of indictees.

I have a question about Fitzgerald’s work in the Illinois GOP corruption case, the one that went on for 4(?) years and resulted in 66 indictments, with Ryan the last indictee.

I don’t know if any of the cases have come to trial yet, and I’m curious about how many of those indictments came from GJs, and how many may have come from trial testimony. IOW, when Fitzgerald said at his news conference that the investigative phase of Plamegate was finished, what does that mean in terms of going after, say, Cheney?

Prof,

Maybe Luskin has known from the beginning that this whole thing was not “winnable” in any legal sense and he knows that it will never get ta trial (pleas and pardons first)…that’s why he’s not concerned about holding harmless and stuffing his client in a closet until trial. Luskin’s marchin’ orders seem ta be “throw as much shit and smoke as ya ken and drag as many folks inta the dirt with ya so it becomes harder and harder for the average rube ta sort it out.

HOUSTON (Reuters) – Former Enron Corp. Chairman Ken Lay on Tuesday said he was the victim of a “wave of terror” by prosecutors and blamed his former chief financial officer for the energy company’s spectacular downfall

President Clusterfuck is goin to have a LOT of turkeys to pardon come next Thanksgiving.

Another old one that I have on my bumper: “Somewhere in Texas a village is missing its idiot.”

The bald guy on Hardball is lawyer Stan Brand. When Matthews asked if Fitzgerald was going after Cheney, Brand replied “if you’re going to shoot the king, you’d better kill him.” By this I believe he meant that Fitzgerald would love to go after Cheney, intends to if he can, but knows he must build an absolutely bulletproof case against him first. This may in fact explain why Fitzgerald has proceeded with such care and caution. Let’s hope. I would love to see Dick’s fat head on a stake.

Favorite bumper sticker in my highly red area:

“My dog is smarter than your president”.

hunh?, we don’t know Woodward’s source. And that NatRev author is an idiot for saying the case is “undermined” in any way. Fitz didn’t know because Woodward and the source withheld the information!

Thanks everyone, what great information. You’re right, I don’t worry much about my stickers here, there are many in my community who are aging anti-nuke hippies and it’s a really blue area. I used to have a Blazer with most of the back windows full of stickers from Northern Sun. People would stop me in parking lots to talk about them. I have a few now, including:

You can no more win a war then you can win an earthquake.

and

Amnesty, Concerned scientists, Tibet, greenpeace, etc. I also have a set of 2×2 prayer flags in the window which people like a lot.

I am re-doing, got a new one:

Fire Liars
Impeach criminals

which needs FDL and I’d also like an oval that says “Plameologist”. Got a Subaru Outback with a big back window just begging to be a little billboard for my informed opinion!!

Really, thanks much.

Jane wrote:

Luskin talks to Viveca Novak, who probably doesn’t shake any earth when she tells him his client is Matt Cooper’s source. But she does let him know that the story is in circulation, and that any one of a number of people might wag their chins at Fitzgerald.

If this means that Luskin already knew that Rove was Matt Cooper’s source but that V. Novak led Luskin to realize that the information might come out, then it has Luskin (not merely Rove) in the position of knowing that Rove’s testimony to the grand jury was less than the truth — and yet not having Rove come clean immediately.

Is that what you are saying, Jane? And if so, why would a savvy lawyer facilitate his client’s deeper and deeper hole-digging through slow-rolling disclosures?

I can understand Rove doing such inadvertent digging, but I can’t understand a lawyer facilitating it.

Prof

http://www.nationalreview.com/…..140829.asp

According to this right-wing nut, apparently Libby was Woodward’s source?
“….the perjury and obstruction case Fitzgerald has made against Libby, which itself was somewhat undermined when it turned out that there was at least one significant part of that story — Libby’s conversations with the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward — that Fitzgerald didn’t know about at the time he indicted Libby. “

I’ve been sick for a few days and haven’t followed the story as close as I normally do but,
is this common knowledge?

leon county florida election
supervisor does hack test
on diebold.

machines a blazing failure —
supervisor says no more diebold in his county

see blackboxvoting.org

marysz

i really like pondering this: Hughes may end up being the target of one of Rove’s smear campaigns

yes, there definitely seems to be a struggly thing happening between the karl and the karen for dubya’s leash…. question tonight for me is: will rove slide down the indictment drain this week and hand the reins to herr hughesness??

or is there some way that karen-the-mommy will disappear first? as if by magic…

gods, these idiots have so screwn the country i was born in! i shrewly hate them all and can only wish them the greatest political ill…

http://www.averyant.com/video_prbush.htm

well, this is kinda cute.

haven’t read comments, BRB.

zennurse , have you tried watching Olbermann’s Countdown, which is on after Hardball at 8 PM? It’s about the only news show I watch regularly.

“Warning: Watch where you park your car!”

zennurse: Since you live in liberal Massachusetts, I don’t think you’ll have any worries about your car being vandalized if you have a liberal bumper sticker on it. We’ve been spending time in the Berkshires lately, and you still see Kerry/Edwards signs, etc. If only we could afford to retire there . . .

A cheaper way is to buy a packet of large shipping labels and cut them to fit…..also, instead of buying the ink-jet overcoat, I’d pick up a spray can of spray-

acyllic satin clear coat finish- if can cost as little as $3.00

Also, go to your computer accessories to paint and go crazy! Do a print preview and print it to regular paper BEFORE committing yourself– you don’t want to waste precious sticker paper.

Hope this helps! Now, back to the slicing and dicing. Yesterday, a poster somewhere said the Froomkin column should be changed to “Cooking with Walnuts”……I love that one.

arbogast

“feculent nonsense”

all-right!

zennurse: here’s a nice tutorial on the art of crafting your very own hand-made slogan bumper sticker. I saw them a couple of weeks ago–they’re about $16.99 and you get about 24 pages, which should do at least 4 to a page.

Warning: Watch where you park your car!

http://www.paper-paper.com/bumper_stickers.html

zennurse

Cafe Press (http://www.cafepress.com/cp/customize/product.aspx?clear=true&no=90) will do a custom bumper sticker for about $3. You can do a graphic yourself and upload it to their site. I do mine with Photoshop, but found I had to experiment with the sizing to get it to fit the frame. They do have a preview feature to help with this. I also buy sheets of magnetized material, cut it to size and attach the sticker to that before putting it on the car. I always have 10 or 12 stickers on my car, including “Free Speech — Use it or lose it,” making me the envy of all my neighbors.

Everythingseemssoneat | 12.14.05 – 5:16 am |

I agree with you that Matthews let Hughes off pretty easily. IMO Matthews is still the best, even though I sure would appreciate it if he would disclose his GJ appearance and testimony as many here have suggested happened. It may be that Matthews sees Hughes as a much better alternative than Rover running the WH. It may be (and I am in serious WAG territory here (Wild ass guess)) that Chris thinks she could help persuade Bush to fire Cheney, where Rover could not. JMO

wtf: good eye re: your 10:28. Jane should like it, too, me thinks!

marysz | 12.14.05 – 5:02 am | # I agree completely that Hughes and Rover are in a cutthroat competition. IMO President Shrubbery pits them against each other. He is a “dry drunk” who needs to “scapegoat” someone for his low poll numbers.

OT: Matthews IMO has been doing a really really good job lately of hammering home that while Cheney and Bush did not specifically order anyone to “out” Plame or “get Wilson,” they did not have to. They hired Rove, Libby and the others specifically, because they knew they were skilled in character assasination specifically and media manipulation in general. Now of course when the truth comes out, Bush says he wants everyone to “cooperate.” It is reminiscent of Jack Nicholson’s character in A FEW GOOD MEN. He orders Kiefer Sutherland’s character to order the “Code Red,” but then when the Marine dies as a result of it, he spends the rest of the movie trying to pin the blame on the two Marines who carried out his orders, while wrapping himself in the flag of honor.

I would like to watch these shows, but I can’t stand the lies and missed opportunities by the interviewers to follow up on things these fools put out as accurate information. I look at clips on hardball, watch The Daily Show now and then and listen to npr.

I had the misfortune of watching hardball last night. After 30 almost unchallanged minutes of Karen Hughes (linking Saddam to 9/11 among other lies) they had some bald guy try to intimidate Fitzgerald by saying prosecuters don’t go after top leaders if there is any dought.

I bet Georgie is none too happy with having to pretend he’s the kinder, gentler wartime president. They don’t wear fake flight suits and hang out with the big boys. Between the Harriet treatment and now this “let’s chat” persona, I’m sure he hates being told he has to do anything that smacks of kissing up to the unwashed masses. It won’t work anyway.

Aw gee, too bad.

Good Morning friends-

Sad news for Du. Please send a note, even if you don’t feel you know him very well. I think he pays close attention here and will surely appreciate it. His posting is alert and articulate and his brother was the light of his life.

cc-

Since it is early and there’s not a lot of traffic yet, could you tell me more about how to do FDL stickers? I’m not that familiar with such things. Can I buy bumpersticker-type media for my own printer? Is there a site that wil help me? Thanks.

I’m really glad the heat is on again with the investigation and I agree that Rove’s story is not only bullshit, it won’t fly past the Grand Jury. I’m also really interested in how Fitz will deal with other cases of obstruction, like Woodward. I think he should be charged for keeping evidence from an active and well-publicized investigation.

“Slightly OT, but what do you suppose is behind the “new Bush” we have seen this week, the sort of anti-bubble bubble? And what’s up with Bush meeting with three news anchors this week and yucking it up with them? Karen H. has been dishing her happy talk all over the place too.”

The “new” Bush is an invention of Karen Hughes (and Rove must be in a real snit). Remember, Hughes was a TV reporter, so setting up these “conversations” is right up her alley. But it won’t take long for the novelty of the “new” Bush to wear off when the public realizes that it’s just the same old Bush regurgitating the same tired talking points. I bet she and Rove despise each other–Rove squeezed her out of the White House and into her ludicrous job selling the US to the Muslim world so he could have Bush to himself. Hughes may end up being the target of one of Rove’s smear campaigns. And wasn’t Hughes a member of WHIG? She’s as dirtied as the rest of them.

Dear Jane, minor correction: Fitzgerald referred to our friend Karl as “Official A”, not “Official X”.

Rove was the source for two reporters who wrote about this. For one year this story was all over the news, from the moment Plame’s name was first published by R. Novak, aka douchebag of liberty. By Oct. 2003 the President spoke about it as did Scott McCuckoo. So I ask all of you this: how could Rove have forgotten that he was the source for this story when the story was all over the media for at least a year at that point. I could understand if no one wrote about this and then he says he forgot about it. But this was all over the news, and people were writing stories speculating that Rove was one of the leakers. So he must’ve known that he spoke to these reporters. He would have had to forget immediately that he was the source. But three months after R. Novak wrote about it Rove was interviewed by the FBI and lied. So i think the mofo is a bald headed liar.
wtf | 12.13.05 – 10:28 pm | #

This is a really really good point that I have not seen before. The MSM attention to what has become known as the “CIA Leak investigation” is date stamped in the public record. Rover and Bob goldbars Luskin will have to navigate their “recovered memories” defense through what to them will appear as a minefield of print and electronic media reports.

“I’m starting to think we need a whole new news medium”

RT,

We have one and you’re on it.

I think you’re right, lemond54. It’s that new dance (created when Bush took office) and it’s taking the world by storm!

It’s called the Dance of the Lemons. Karen Highes was making the rounds showing off her facelift. That’s why she had such a happy face when discussing the war in Iraq. She’s thrilled to be “in the loop” again and it’s probably pissing both Rice and Miers off Big Time.

Slightly OT, but what do you suppose is behind the “new Bush” we have seen this week, the sort of anti-bubble bubble? And what’s up with Bush meeting with three news anchors this week and yucking it up with them? Karen H. has been dishing her happy talk all over the place too. Are they finally resigned to the fact that Rover will be indicted so they are using her to deflect the inevitable? Will she be the next chief of staff? Why else do we need to see an under secretary of staff on the networks? What’s next, the humanization of Darth Vadar?

Dubhaltach: Thinking of you ……..
___________
___________
An good early-morning read while waiting for our first feed of the day:

At war: Government and The Media
By Michael Socolow

a snippette:
The conversations held in Roosevelt’s White House are clearly relevant to today’s climate of press-government tension. Just as Roosevelt, in a 1942 fireside chat, inveighed against ”the typewriter strategists who expound their views in the press or on the radio,” the Bush administration fumes over reporting it considers inaccurate, unrepresentative of reality, and antagonistic. The current administration continues to develop multiple strategies to connect directly with people — whether in the United States, Iraq, or elsewhere. The recent furor over payments to Iraqi journalists in exchange for publication of US government-authorized news accounts attests to a level of desperation. This administration’s recurrent attempts at direct communication demonstrate an intention to subvert the purpose of the First Amendment.

http://www.boston.com/news/glo…..the_media/

Keep it up, Jane. Thank God there is something I can read that isn’t feculent nonsense written by airhead toadies.

And the next time you hear some empty head on TV talking about how Fitzgerald will think twice before indicting someone as powerful as Karl Rove…

“No man is above the law” seems to be of little import to this crew.

It’s odd how the tone of their coverage is in the vein of how those who would hold the Administration responsible for its words and deeds will get their deserved comeuppance.

If we were in the script of Robin Hood, today’s media, with rare exceptions, would be in the Sheriff of Nottingham’s corner.

I’m starting to think we need a whole new news medium.

muzzy — that’s a good one, I’ll take a look for that.
jane hamsher | Homepage | 12.13.05 – 11:13 pm | #

jane if you find it first, please post it asap…it sounds like a marvelous bit of subjunctive icing on the cake we’d all love to stick a fork into…

Siun–
I, too, have sent along a note for you to forward to Dubaltach. Thank you for taking the time to do this for us. My heart is heavy tonight.

siun –

Thank you so much for telling us about Dubhaltach. My heart hurts for him.

Tomorrow I’ll write something for you to pass on; it’s getting too late now and my head’s too fuzzy for me to be sure my brief note to him is worded with the care it deserves.

God bless you for doing this service for him, and for us.

On a post over at Froomkin’s, a poster said something like, “Who knew when Jesus came he’d be carrying a bible and wearing a flag pin.”

When are we going to get it!

They donÂ’t have to sell subscriptions anymore! The government is paying them bigger bucks than they used to collect on the street.. We already knew they were whoresÂ…Â…now weÂ’re surprised because they dickered for a better price?

They don’t need to sit around all day rolling all them quarters anymore….that is so out! The new fashion is to sit around cobbing the corn right out of the big governments’s shit……

In Fort Lauderdale, for instance, the price of a Sunday paper is $1.00. Each Sunday, the most sober of the homeless, get a paper drop from white delivery vans . They stand in the lanes and sell papers to the passing cars. They keep 75 cents of the dollar and the paper gets the other quarter. I imagine the quarter must cover the cost of the vans, the drivers and the gasoline.

Now, they have to pay for the paper and the printers and all the other crap associated with the process. Take your basic newspaper one day. Figure out how much the paper gets for each ad space size. Then go thru the paper and add it all up. Now, after paying the big CEOÂ’s and big-time editors, and all those wonderful reporter salariesÂ…is there any left to fly a couple of guys to Africa to do a feature about aids? Editors sure as hell donÂ’t pay reporters to walk the beat anymore or fly them around the world digging out facts. When was the last time we saw a reporter live in Niger, trying to discover who forged the documents? When did we last see them try to get into Extended Stay Xray doing a feature on torture. We haven’t seen it because they are too busy staying here torturing us!

As far as the Plame affair, they each take turns doing spots on the investigation. 93% are nothing but a bunch of monkey’s that only go home at night in order to shine up the glass inserted inside the frames holding their certificates and “featured columns” they have so lovingly displayed on their “I love me Wall” in their “family room.”

And as far as their advertisers go, the ads are most likely kickbacks to companies contributing campaign funds, bought and paid for earlier, by this here administration.
When in the hell are the rest of the citizens of this country going to wake up and use their bingo markers?

siun, i will be sending an email. my sister died and this is an experience one cannot describe.

ok, my dog is dying so please forgive me if you already know this, i have not been reading all the comments. but it is news to me. apparently VandeHei’s wife used to work for delay
left coaster

Siun–I didn’t know Dub either, but I send my sympathy to him for his deep loss.

siun – I don’t know Dubaltach well enough so that any personal note would mean anything. But, as one of many, my heart goes out to him in his grief.

The most telliing part of the Bush quote is this phrase, which I think has been overlooked as to significance:

“everything we know the investigators will find out”………………………..Yep. That’s probably why Cheney accompanied Bubble Boy for the 911 Commision queries.

oops. the link didn’t make it.
trying again:

http://www.madison.com/wsj/mad…..ntid=64670

Thank You Siun for the message about our dear Dubhaltach’s shocking terrible loss. He spoke of his little brother often with so much love. I will send out my condolences to you to forward as soon as I can.

a bit OT here but y’all may find this amusing. i know i’m still grinning…

i’m working late tonight, tv on for noise, and a replay of ‘Chicago Tonight’ was just on. [it’s a local news / features show on our local pbs station].

i just heard this:

It’s been done with stadiums, pools and concert halls. Now, in an unusual move, Madison’s WIBA radio station has sold the naming rights to its newsroom.

Beginning Jan. 1, the WIBA newsroom will be called the Amcore Bank News Center.

“This simply means they get ‘name branding’ with the description of the news center on air,” confirmed Jeff Tyler, vice president of Clear Channel Radio-Madison, which owns WIBA-AM 1310 and FM 101.5. “What listeners will hear on air is something like, ‘Now from the Amcore Bank News Center, here’s WIBA’s Jennifer Miller.’• “

Tyler and Amcore would not divulge what was paid for naming rights. But Tyler said “there are many examples of this in broadcasting and in other industries, from stadiums to business schools.” Clear Channel Milwaukee’s WISN-AM 1130 sold its newsroom naming rights to Pyramax Bank last year.

i couldn’t believe it but when i stopped laughing, i googled and sure enough…

here’s the link:

Luskin knows the full details about the email, and yet he has leaked very little about it. I think that tells us that the whole email story is bad for Rove.

Thanks Trish – forwarded it right away. This is a very special community indeed!

going to get some sleep here as well – working from home tomorrow so I’ll be back here early as well

Make that 2006 for the Year of the Squealer, when the Neocon Fat Cats all turn into Fat Rats and then turn on one another…

muzzy — that’s a good one, I’ll take a look for that.

Fitzgerald is a Brooklyn working class “mick.” In plain Brooklyneze: Fitzy would never chicken out with some White House chickenhawk punk like Rove, anymore than he backed down to the Gambino crime family punks.

He will nail Rove’s tail.

2007 will be The Year of The Squealer: when the Fat Cats all turn into stool pigeons.

siun,
thank you for letting us know about Du, I have sent an email care of you.

This community is remarkable!

Hopeful in NM: On earlier threads there was an extensive and spirited discussion of the Hadley e-mail, whether or not it exists, including speculation it was a forgery, and denial of that by folks expert in the inner workings of electronic information storage.

All we have as evidence so far are quoted excerpts from such an alleged document.

I have always been impressed that Du has a pretty firm grip on what really matters, haven’t you? We should remember to tell Mrs K in the am, she will want to know. I’ll be up first, EST, and will repost.

Going to bed, it’s 2am here.

Dreams for Du.

‘night.

z

The most telliing part of the Bush quote is this phrase, which I think has been overlooked as to significance:

“everything we know the investigators will find out”.

Your are awesome…

Particularly like the use of “wingnut fairy tale.”

Jane and Zennurse – I’ve passed the notes along to Erdla (and everyone else – I will do the same for other messages – see above for address) – I’m sure this will mean a lot to Du.

what a sad day … begun with the news of Tookie’s execution and finishing with this

lighting candles here and thinking about life and how often we forget what really matters

Semblance
Thanks for the reply. I always had the feeling there was a bit of a vacuum regarding the Hadley email and I was shocked (though not surprised) at how often the press talks about it as if is were a verifiable fact, rather than the suspicously discovered document that it seems to be…

When I was searching for information last spring to learn about the gifted prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, I came across an article that escapes all my searches now. If i recall, it was an article that began by talking about his work in a WTC bombing trial and provided an early quote from Fitz to the jury. Interestingly, the quote was was in response to a defendant’s claims of a ‘faulty memory.’ It began something like, “Ladies and gentlemen, what you heard is one of the most common and worst excuses for lying you will ever hear…” Somehow the exact quote was much more damning. The verve of the smackdown was undeniable.
.

Oh God Jane, such writing. You’re tetched like a saint in the best possible way. Take me with you to glory when you finally go, unless I’m already there.

“Because all I see is an inveterate liar being busted time and time again in his lies by a dogged and thorough prosecutor, even with Rove’s own highly paid spinners being the sole dispenser of public information as Fitzgerald remains unflinchingly silent.”

The sentence works just as well if it says “invertebrate liar”.

how cool would it be if Karl Rove really was the stupidest guy on the planet?

hopeful in NM, we know almost nothing at all about the nature of the email search, where it was found, how it was found, when it was turned over, which computer/server it was on, etc.

Thanks, siun, have sent e mail to you. So good of you to share this with us.

add this to your time line

Karl Rove talked to Cooper about Plame

Karl Rove told Sue Ralston to wipe the phone log of the Cooper call

Karl Rove wrote the “Hadley” email to cover his tracks

THEN Karl Rove forgets all THREE ACTS

and Karl Luskin seems to think that a faulty memory explains that ???

well that explains it, your Honor. I can’t be guiolty since I don’t seem to recall robbing any bank ???

where the hell did Luskin get his law degree, from a box of cracker jax ???

there are only two explanaitions here

either Karl Rove is the STUPIDEST person on this planet or Karl Rove is a LIAR

and since I see Rove next to duhbu all the time, I don’t think anybody will believe that Karl Rove is the dumbest guy on the planet (george bush is definitly in the top 10 though)

so, is there anybody who thinks a jury will believe that Karl Rove is that stupid ???

siun — I’ll send Dubhaltach an email too but please also send along my best wishes and deepest sympathies, so sorry this happened during the holidays.

The problem is, Fitzgerald’s not sure he can convince a trial jury to find that beyond a reasonable doubt. Rove and Luskin have laid the ground work for a recovered-memory theory of the case.

No. You don’t know Fitzgerald or the way he works. Fitzgerald is obsessive about discovery. He won’t indict until he has discovered and vetted all the evidence in a case. He is never surprised in court because he is obsessively thorough. It’s a case of discovery and obsession… Not convincing a jury beyond reasonable doubt… Fitz exceeds that standard on every case.

He has never presented an indictment that did not stick full “in your face” but one… The judge disagreed that Fitz could make the full charges stick… Fitzgerald differed, and said he could get a conviction… But over the judge’s objection and hesitance, Fitz reduced the charge and they struck a plea with the perp… No trial, the perp served time.

But that was the only time, one case.

re: the Hadley email. I know it didn’t appear on rover’s computer during initial examinations—wrong search parameters, as I recall, choke, choke—-but the email NEVER appeared on Hadley’s machine, right? And who conducted the initial searches? Was it just the WH or did the FBI or DoJ do some, too?

Rove was the source for two reporters who wrote about this. For one year this story was all over the news, from the moment Plame’s name was first published by R. Novak, aka douchebag of liberty. By Oct. 2003 the President spoke about it as did Scott McCuckoo. So I ask all of you this: how could Rove have forgotten that he was the source for this story when the story was all over the media for at least a year at that point. I could understand if no one wrote about this and then he says he forgot about it. But this was all over the news, and people were writing stories speculating that Rove was one of the leakers. So he must’ve known that he spoke to these reporters. He would have had to forget immediately that he was the source. But three months after R. Novak wrote about it Rove was interviewed by the FBI and lied. So i think the mofo is a bald headed liar.

Good post Green Lantern. I think the WH spin machine keeps reaffirming how distant the bubble boy is from those nasty meanies like rover and cheney, but I have long felt Bushit’s speech was a reminder to journalists to keep quiet “you do a very good job of protecting the leakers” i.e. “keep it up, keep it up”, not to mention the necessity of honor and integrity, right? Choke, choke.

Without a more robust study of the timeline, could it be this simple?

Rove lied to the FBI and/or grand jury about being Cooper’s source back when his buddy, John Ashcroft, was running the investigation. Now he’s got a problem: He knows Cooper is going to spill the beans, and he knows about the e-mail. Everyone knows Time is buzzing with this information, so Luskin earns his money by finding a patsy (Novak – it doesn’t matter if she realized it or not) to “jog Karl’s memory” about the e-mail. Four glasses of wine and a little “push back” later, Luskin’s got his client’s alibi.

Pretty smart, if that was his intention.

If this was the case, it also means that Bush himself was very much in the loop and fully aware of what was afoot within the ranks of his inner circle at that time.

God himself… No fear.

fitzgerald is going to the grand jury for the second time wednesday morning

I think Fitzgerald believes Rove lied to the FBI, lied to him, and lied to the grand jury. Rove lied to the FBI because at the time, Ashcroft’s DOJ was conducting the investigation–not much likelihood of any obstruction of justice/false statement/perjury prosecution coming from the quarter. Once Ashcroft recused and Fitzgerald was appointed, the calculus changed. That’s when the rolling disclosure started.

The problem is, Fitzgerald’s not sure he can convince a trial jury to find that beyond a reasonable doubt. Rove and Luskin have laid the ground work for a recovered-memory theory of the case. Fitzgerald needs to figure out whether he can prove the Hadley email is a forgery, or else that it was deliberately concealed with Rove’s complicity. He also needs some evidence that Rove was talking about Plame with others at the time, even if it was only within the government. That’s the kind of evidence that will convict Libby, and it will also work against Rove by disproving the possibility that Rove “just forgot” about the Cooper conversation.

Dear FDL friends:

I have just received an email from Du’s fiance with very sad news:

“I am Erdla … and am girlfriend and fiancee to Dubhaltach ……… I found your name in his notebook and weep to write to you to tell you that his little brother Dario was very badly hurt on 2005 december 8 when a drunk man lost control of his car. The car went into the bicycle lane and hit him. Dario died in hospital on 2005 december 8.
 
The medical examination to confirm what injury it was that made Dario die is today  (december 14 wednesday) and they have the funeral next Friday.”

Erdla asks that those who have Du’s email address write him directly and I have offered to collect and forward to her any messages others would like to send along. (Du and I began a correspondence because he was very concerned about my willingness to post my email address online so I am blanking out his full name and his fiance’s and offering this email transfer since I think he would want that.)

I’m sorry to post such sad news – Du has been such a wonderful contributor here and I hope we can reach out to him at this hard time to offer our care.

My email address is christina_siun at mac.com and I will simply forward any message you wish to send to Erdla. 

And the next time you hear some empty head on TV talking about how Fitzgerald will think twice before indicting someone as powerful as Karl Rove, don’t believe it. I’ve spoken with people he’s worked with in both the FBI and the justice department who say that while some US attorneys are reluctant to prosecute the high and the mighty for fear that as political appointees they’ll ruin their careers, Patrick Fitzgerald is not one of them.

Fitzgerald would indict and prosecute God himself if he violated a criminal code Fitzgerald was sworn to uphold. The man has no fear. None.

Regarding the possible role of the President himself in the Plame leak, I keep recalling the following exchange that took place very early in the investigation (on 10/7/03):

QUESTION: Mr. President, how confident are you the investigation will find the leaker in the CIA case?

THE PRESIDENT: Randy, you tell me, how many sources have you had that’s leaked information that you’ve exposed or have been exposed? Probably none. I mean this town is a — is a town full of people who like to leak information. And I don’t know if we’re going to find out the senior administration official. Now, this is a large administration, and there’s a lot of senior officials. I don’t have any idea. I’d like to. I want to know the truth. That’s why I’ve instructed this staff of mine to cooperate fully with the investigators — full disclosure, everything we know the investigators will find out. I have no idea whether we’ll find out who the leaker is — partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers. But we’ll find out.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news…..007-2.html

IÂ’ve always thought there was much more here than meets the eye.

Though seeming to express a certain displeasure with the well oiled leak machine that connects officials to reporters, Bush is at the same time implicitly acknowledging here that he expected the Plame leak to be protected by the usual practice of reporters not revealing confidential sources.

Moreover, his answer does reek of deliberate prevarication (wanting “to know the truth” while doubting that the truth will ever be found), which leads me to suspect his true intent.

My thought is, he may well have been unwittingly letting the cat out of the bag by revealing what was at that time the key operational principle motivating organizers of the leak , i.e. the presumption that the prevailing norm among reporters would give them adequate cover for the operation.

If this was the case, it also means that Bush himself was very much in the loop and fully aware of what was afoot within the ranks of his inner circle at that time.

Gosh, the chance to be one of the first to comment–never thought it would happen so soon after joining the conversation.

I write fantasy, too. I guess the reason it’s so hard to get published is because the White House has a monopoly.

Bautiful graphic and touching sentiment.

http://fusioner.proboards60.co…..1131129004

^^^ Send Letters ^^^

Corrupted Media, Propaganda, terror jingoism, criminal activity and corruption… Write about one, or all of them ;)

Sorry I was not on today, but my internet was blinky, and FDL would not come up.

I would encourage people to pile on the Froomkin controversy over at the WaPo… Pile on, and it’s getting hot… Nastygrams to Johnny on the Spot Harris and his nazibudsman Howell are totally in order at this point. Links to follow:

http://blogs.washingtonpost.co…..s_res.html

http://blogs.washingtonpost.co…..colum.html

Send Flames here ^^^

And have a good evening!!!