Bargaining. “This latest news doesn’t prove or disprove the basic question of whether Fitzgerald was ready to indict Rove,” claims Duncan “Atrios” Black. “It’s quite likely Rove has cut a deal of some sort. It’s quite possible that Fitz’s letter to Luskin, which hasn’t been made public as far as I can tell, says something along the lines of ‘as long as you cooperate as promised your ass is safe for now.’ ” Black’s employer, Media Mutters, says maybe Rove will lose his security clearance for–well, for what isn’t quite clear.

Anger. “He doesn’t belong in the White House. If the president valued America more than he valued his connection to Karl Rove, Karl Rove would have been fired a long time ago,” says Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean on the “Today” show. “So I think this is probably good news for the White House, but it’s not very good news for America.”

Despair. “My Heart Is Broken, My Spirit Crushed, My Faith in America Destroyed,” declares “Dementer” on DemocraticUnderground.com. “On the other hand, I am sure that there are numerous other criminal enterprises that Kkkarl [sic] has participated in, so we just have to keep digging. Perhaps Fitz is doing just that–he has the license to do so. Or am I approaching the definition of insanity, here?”

Acceptance. “I think the chances are nil that Luskin is making this up since that’d be practically daring Patrick Fitzgerald to indict his client,” says Josh Marshall, who had been one of the most credulous cheerleaders. “Whatever else he may be . . ., he’s no fool.” Though Marshall must be feeling quite foolish for having been one of Wilson’s most enthusiastic and credulous cheerleaders way back when.

The New York Daily News
Rush & Malloy

http://www.nydailynews.com/fro…..0017c.html

President Bush didn’t realize that reporter in sunglasses was legally blind.

President Bush might want to get a little more sleep before his next press conference – or, better yet, just ignore anybody in Ray-Bans.
Just back from his surprise trip to Baghdad, the jet-lagged leader deftly inserted his foot into his mouth yesterday while taking questions from reporters in the Rose Garden.

The classic moment in Dubya’s media relations came when he admonished Los Angeles Times reporter Peter Wallsten for wearing sunglasses while addressing him.

“Are you going to ask that question with shades on?” the President joshed Wallsten. “I’m interested in the shade look. Seriously. For the viewers, there’s no sun.”

But Wallsten wasn’t trying to look cool. He’s legally blind.

“Peter covered Bush on the campaign,” one colleague noted. “[The President] should have known better.”

Read that again.

Maliki made this announcement the day after Mr. “I looked in his eyes and I could see his soul” Bush left Iraq’s green zone after his lengthy 5 hour plastic turkey-like visit/photo op.

SO, GEORGE BUSH HAS GIVEN TOTAL FAITH, CONFIDENCE AND RESPECT TO THE NEW IRAQI PRIME MINISTER, MALIKI, A MAN WHO OPENLY CONDONES THE KILLING OF AMERICANS. Nice. Very nice. Good job George. When will people learn that Bush has the worst judgment of any President in history, particularly on matters of war.

FRONT PAGE NEWS THURSDAY:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..02432.html

Can hardly wait to hear Bush and the Right/Fox spin this to make Bush look good.

I can’t wait to see the new Fox News chryon. It will be like one of their others that is one of my favorites:

“Could a full blown Civil War in Iraq be a good thing?”

…that is an actual Fox News graphic/chryon from a couple of months ago. When they lost the battle of trying to brainwash their viewers into thinking Iraq was nowhere near a Civil War and it would never happen, they were forced to put a desperate spin on it. They had to make their moronic viewers think that, ‘oh, well Fox likes the idea of a Civil War, therefore a Civil War must good and it will make Bush look good.’

I’ll expect the same on Maliki’s AMNESTY to those in Iraq who killed, maimed, attacked Americans.

Something like:

********FOX NEWS*********
MALIKI HAS TO JUSTIFY KILLING AMERICANS TO ADVANCE FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ

or:

************FOX NEWS************
COULD KILLING U.S. TROOOPS IN IRAQ BE A GOOD THING?

also, isn’t the word/idea of ‘AMNESTY’ a huge no no to conservatives? This will further divide the GOP in their Iraq debate/”strategically nebulous and morally obtuse” ploy. I’d like to see any Republican stand behind this kind of Amnesty (from Bush’s new best friend)

Additionally, Bush is RE-billing the War in Iraq as the ‘front on the War on Terror’….yet at the same time, in the same speech today, he said he wants to turn responsibility of Iraq to Maliki and the Iraqi ‘government’. WHY IS BUSH TURNING OVER ‘FIGHTING THE WAR ON TERROR’ to a relatively clueless government that have no interest/nor obligation to pursuing people who attacked US on 9/11 ?! Bush truly thinks people will believe that the violence in Iraq has very little to do with Insurgency, Civil War. He really thinks that people will be fooled into thinking that the enormous, endless amount of violence and death will be assigned to his Iraq-scapegoat, al Qaeda.

She doesn’t mind taking cheap shots at the press for supposedly reporting from balconies.

After all, she spent eight whole days there.

How many days has Bush spent in Iraq? Less than 10 hours?

Some Commander.

Yea, things are just peachy in Iraq.

Sistani will raise one cheek of his ass and fart, and for starters, the brits will be looking at 50,000 armed Shiites, telling them that their mother’s are calling them from Kuwait.

If goatboy decides that things are getting out of hand, and/or if the new “parliament” sends him a demand for a fixed withdrawal timetable, and NOT one with a 5 year shelf-life, and junior Cromwell’s the parliament out of existence, the coalition will evaporate like a puddle of back-alley piss.