Minneapolis: One of the many intriguing details in your story yesterday was that Karl Rove retains a photo of Scooter Libby and his wife on the day Libby was convicted on four counts of obstruction of justice, perjury and false statements. This reminded me of the very odd comments President Bush made shortly after commuting Libby’s sentence, lamenting the fact that the person involved didn’t come forward — seemingly referring to Armitage, who however did exactly as the White House directed people with information to do. Do you think that the White House in part blames Libby, who blatantly and egregiously lied to investigators to cover for the vice president, for making the case a much bigger headache for the administration than it would have been otherwise?

Peter Baker: It’s a very good question and one I would like to explore further as well. Some of them clearly do think Scooter Libby made things worse for himself (and for them) and a lot of them have questioned his original lawyer’s approach to the investigation. And remember, at trial, the Libby defense strategy was to portray him as a White House scapegoat left hanging in the wind to protect Karl Rove. Having said that, most White House folks I spoke with after the trial took that to be a strategy and were not taking it personally, or at least not with me.

Reporters during these chats often seem to say they want to look more into the whole thing, but never seem to get around to it. Oh well. It’s interesting the way Libby has sort of disappeared from the history of the administration, when he was, while he was there, clearly such a central figure. In any case, I’m not convinced the scapegoat defense was merely a strategy with no truth behind it. And I’m not convinced that Rove keeps that newspaper clip either out of pure sympathy or mere relief at a fate avoided – if that were so, would he really disclose the fact to Baker (presuming that he did), or even acknowledge it?

And this might be the scoop of the week:

In a new Gallup Poll, 77 percent of Republicans say that the news media is “too liberal.”

Proving they really aren’t interested in the Truth, just in hearing their own words echoed back to them by the media.

OT – I just looked over at the upcoming Sunday Book Salon lineup. Mark Penn is actually gonna come here? Really? I know all of us here at FDL will be respectful, but while I am sure there will be plenty to ask about his book, I think he’ll he asked a lot of questions about the campaign and his role at Burton-Marsteller.

I want to hear him tell about how Hillary took the lead on the anti-flag-burning legislation and how that makes her a Modern Progressive.

Joe Wilson: “Chronic Liar” Robert Novak Is “Going Straight To Hell”

Wilson’s angry over a story today in The Hill which quoted Novak saying that Wilson did not forcefully object when Novak spoke to him before publishing his now infamous column naming his wife, Valerie Plame, prompting a Federal investigation and getting Scooter Libby carted off to jail.

Ya gotta read it…

How about those Petraeus numbers showing how swell the surge was working? Were they accurate? Public editor for the NYT Clark Hoyt rolls up dem sleeves in search of the truth. He couldn’t find it.

The same is true of all those claims that only Iran can be the supplier of Explosively Formed Projectiles in Iraq. Looking at the IED numbers and the July statistics on EFP attacks and you find it nearly impossible that ONLY shiite militias supplied with EFP’s from Iran can be responsible for all the EFP attacks. If the number of attacks are as high as the Pentagon claims then some of the attacks must be occurring in Sunni militia dominated areas. And a good number also have to be cming from mixed areas in Baghdad where attribution to Shiiye militias are unclear, as well. And of course it’s utterly unlikely that Iran would be supplying Sunnis with these weapons.

So there has to be more than the Iranian source, which isn’t surprising given that shaped charges do not require sophisticated metalworking to fabricate.

Here’s another small “scoop” from Novakula:

Sen. Robert Byrd, president pro tempore of the Senate, who joined the most liberal senators in voting against censure of MoveOn.org, received $824,000 from the left-wing organization for his 2006 re-election campaign. Only 25 senators refused to condemn MoveOn .org for a newspaper ad belittling Gen. David Petraeus, the commander in Iraq.

My bold. Thanks for reminding us of that fact.

(Same link as my 60.)

Can anyone confirm Novak’s assertion from the actual campaign reports. I’ve looked on OpenSecrets, Newsmeat, and the Federal Elections Commission sites and can’t find that the MoveOn Pac or MoveOn.org ever contributed that amount in the 2006 election to Byrd.