Comments on: Meet Dorothy Rabinowitz

By: Fred Murphy

Fred Murphy — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 00:41:19 +0000

Nothing you said invalidated the substance of what Dor said.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 00:12:31 +0000

GSD @ 27

Chris Matthews to his credit asked Boris DiGenova what the “underlying crime” with the Clinton impeachment had been.

FANTASTIC !!!

I’ll bet Boris stuttered for a few seconds before changing the topic.

BTW, don’tcha just love a great big comfy chair like Ms. Rabinowitz is sitting in? I’ve got one which is similar, but doesn’t have the roll arms. You can sink into them and almost disappear from the world for a while.

I wonder, is she Israeli, American or dual-citizenship? We seem to have far too many NeoCons and dual-citizenship American-Israeli types running things just now. Why is that?

By: Japandrew

Japandrew — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 00:00:09 +0000

The scary/sad/despressing thing is that while Republicans completely understand the political importance of the Libby conviction – which is why the “no underlying crime” meme is repeated and propagated without mercy – there are no prominent Dems countering to argue that this case does what it does: reveal the underlying irresponsibility and criminality of the Bush/Cheney regime. Their silence and passivity is distressing, and we will be paying for it for a long time…

By: robinhood

robinhood — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 23:01:13 +0000

I assume that Fitzgerald had to know how Armitage came into possession of the info about Plame, since Armitage “cooperated” and testified under oath. So Fitzgerald had to have asked Armitage:

-”How did you find out about Valerie Plame working at the CIA

-Did you know or suspect she was a covert agent?

Logically, Armitage likely found out about Plame from within the State Department (based on inquiries the OVP and Libby had made about Plame that were passed back to OVP and Libby). I assume Armitage did NOT find out directly from Libby about Plame, though if Armitage did find out from Libby, and so testified, Fitzgerald would then clearly see Armitage as the strawman–the gossip who was given this info to throw investigators off the track.

By: Get Tough

Get Tough — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 22:28:50 +0000

And it is my understanding that Armitage was not charged because he was set up as the strawman once Fitzgerald focused on Libby, and that Fitz didn’t bite. Prosecutorial discretion is a bitch.

By: Get Tough

Get Tough — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 22:25:05 +0000

For those who were around who read the day to day editorials and the like during the Watergate era, were there editorials like this? Editorials that spin the underlying facts of the case, and spin them in a way that is counterproductive to the rule of law? I was born in the 70s so my understanding of the Watergate era is that it was BAD on all fronts, and every person I read/speak with underscores that sentiment. Will it be the same this time around?

By: marshen

marshen — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 22:15:27 +0000

In the end, when Libby really really has to go to jail, will all of these journalists and some “officials” in the office of the Vice-President threaten an already weak President with some damaging new scandal unless Libby is pardoned? There is alot journalists know that never gets written about in the papers. The OVP is expert at leaking information that will benefit them politically. I wonder if these people will threaten to use it as the last resort to sway the President should their good friend have to report to the pokey. Cheney has been somewhat marginalized lately by the White House on Iran and Gitmo and probably mid-east peace policy. Cheney himself said this week he is not a part of the executive branch. At this point what does Cheney really have to lose? He’s sporting a much better legacy than Bush as going down in history as the most powerful vice-president and having the greatest influence over a sitting President. All these articles, as I’ve said before, are written for the benefit of the one person sitting in the audience that might actually believe these arguments to pardon Libby which is George Bush. George Bush is the only person that will be able to change Libby’s fate once he actually has to go to jail, and as the weeks and days get closer and closer these people’s patience with George Bush could run out.

By: Tom Maguire

Tom Maguire — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 22:15:01 +0000

– She gives none other than Ann Coulter glowing reviews as the “Maureen Dowd” of conservative outrage branded commentary, and manages to try and link her with McCarthy as two positive peas in a marketing pod.

You are too funny,or else you are relying on your readers to (a) fail to follow th elink, or (b) fail to grasp some not-so-subtle put-downs.

First hint - I think it is true among lefties as well, but amongst righties, calling someone a “Maureen Dowd” is emphatically *not* a compliment.

Or, for non-link followers, here are a few article excerpts:

She [Ms. Coulter] also thanks her publisher for his bravery–a suggestion that it took courage to publish this work. Here we are, only up to the acknowledgments page, and already enjoying a laugh. True, at one point a book representing the Democrats as the party of treason, and Sen. McCarthy as one of the greatest heroes of the age, might have given some publishers pause. Not today–the era that has put its money on outrage merchants and shock jocks.

Tricky - was that written as a compliment? Try this one:

Yes, a book with everything–and we don’t forget the classy prose. “Needless to say, the scrawny pinko was also a failure as a soldier,” writes Ms. Coulter, about Peress.

That was easy! Look, she is panning Coulter in this review, OK? Jiminy.

By: Fred Garvin

Fred Garvin — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 22:00:34 +0000

To the list of history’s man-monsters, in there with Vlad The Impaler, Jack The Ripper, Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein, add the disgraced name of Scooter–Scooter Libby.

By: PAULQX

PAULQX — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 20:31:45 +0000

I went to the opinion journal link and read her peice and left a comment but it looks like they are filtering out anti-Rabinowitz letters as there was only one, but it did mention the supreme court case. I will check back later and see if my comment got through.