« Independent Cat | Main | The Opportunity Of Defeating The Enemy... »

Tuesday, July 05, 2005

Karl Rove Worse Than OBL

If you read one Ted Rall piece today, make it this one.


July 5, 2005 | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Karl Rove Worse Than OBL:


Karl Rove Worse Than OBL

And you guys really wonder why American voters don't trust you?!

Posted by: Charlie | Jul 5, 2005 7:48:05 PM

Charlie's squirming.

I likes it.

Squirm, baby, squirm.

Posted by: pie | Jul 5, 2005 8:59:38 PM

I'm the one squirming? When another Republican President is elected with over 60 million votes in 2008, tell me I am the one squirming. I thought YOU guys were the reality-based ones?

Posted by: Charlie | Jul 5, 2005 9:04:47 PM


Charlie's got a crystal ball. Who knew?

Got one of those swami hats, too? How's that carnival gig going?

Reality is gonna bite you hard, charlie, m'boy. Really, really hard.

Posted by: pie | Jul 5, 2005 9:30:33 PM

I was right the last time around - just ask NTodd if you don't believe me.

Posted by: Charlie | Jul 5, 2005 10:46:46 PM

Charlie, I don't believe you.

Posted by: Spadizzly | Jul 5, 2005 10:55:01 PM

Ask NTodd then - did I, or did I not, accurately predict a year prior to Election Day that GWB would win with 60 million votes last time around?

Posted by: Charlie | Jul 5, 2005 11:02:17 PM

Yes you're very smart. Shut up.

Posted by: NTodd | Jul 6, 2005 6:58:42 AM

"Shut up", NTodd? I know you can do better than that. Now, why don't you tell JimmyDandy & brisa to "shut up" over at Kevin's place - unless you believe too that the WTC buildings were demolished on 9/11 by a super-secret U.S. government inside job? Maybe you think Rove did it, so that's why you think he's worse than OBL? It is all starting to make sense now.

Posted by: Charlie | Jul 6, 2005 12:09:21 PM

1) You clearly are not a student of The Princess Bride.

2) I didn't realize it was my job to tell commenters at Kevin's blog to shut up.

3) I did express skepticism over there. Frankly, I'm not all that fucking interested in conspiracy theories.

4) Did you actually read the Rall piece?

5) You come over here and leave one-liners in response to long posts and expect me to say anything other than "shut up"? You're lucky I didn't say "fuck off", but I didn't because I respect you so much.

Posted by: NTodd | Jul 6, 2005 12:58:38 PM

1) I am a student of The Princess Bride but am not 10 years old.

2) It is not your job - nor mine as I've been banned from there - mine was simply an honest query whether you thought Karl Rove planted explosives on 9/11.

3) Good to hear you are not all that fucking interested in conspiracy theories. Thanks for answering my question finally. Now, perhaps we can have a sane discussion.

I disagree Rove is worse than OBL just based on the body count to date. And while we don't know that Rove "has handed over classified information or worked to undermine the CIA" even if he violated the law re: Plame, tell me one negative result. It certainly is not an "act of high treason." It is sad that I even have to ask why you are more upset with Rove than OBL. Next you are going to agree that the 19 terrorists were not cowards, right?! My initial reaction above: "And you guys really wonder why American voters don't trust you?!" still stands.

BTW: until proven otherwise, Ari Fleischer's PLANNED retirement so he could start a family is nothing more than "another interesting coincidence: Novak published his Plame column on July 14, Fleischer's last day on the job."

4) Yes (see above).

5) That's what you really call "respect"? Remind me not to get on your bad side. Is the above more than "one liners" for you?

Posted by: Charlie | Jul 6, 2005 1:46:45 PM

1) Then stop acting like one.

2) It was not an honest query and you know it.

3) Ask a direct question and you'll get a direct answer. Ask a stupid one, and sometimes I'll accidentally answer the question you meant to ask. I'm transparent. Be that way with me and we'll get along fine.

As for Rove being worse than OBL, I agree with you. I like lobbing hand grenades into the discourse in hopes of getting somebody to take notice. Thanks for doing so. But Rall certainly makes you think, doesn't he? Of course we expect OBL to hate America and do things to hurt us. Would you expect that of someone who is ostensibly an American and yet leaks classified info (and please, spare me the "she was just a secretary" canard)?

4) Okay.

5) 'Respect' as far as it can go with someone who is essentially a troll. Now, I make you the same offer I've made others of your ilk: engage me honestly and I'll do the same.

Come here and dismiss a post like "The Opportunity Of Defeating The Enemy..." without any constructive discussion and I will ridicule you. If you don't like that, get your own damned blog. If you agree, then welcome to the community--I like having people here who don't agree with me, which you would know if you actually hung out here.

Posted by: NTodd | Jul 6, 2005 3:00:26 PM

So you admit you're "trolling" as well? I am more than happy to engage in a constructive discussion. But, I have not acted like a 10-year old - I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that one. I fail to see, however, how you can know better than I whether "Do you think Karl Rove planted explosives on 9/11?" was an honest query. Had you said "yes" I would know that any "constructive discussion" with you was pointless. Isn't that what I just said above?

To answer your questions, of course Rall makes you think, but as even you conceded, it did not take that hard of thought to disagree with his wild points. As to what I would expect of someone who is ostensibly an American and leaks allegedly classified info (still not proven a crime), I would have to see ALL the evidence before I draw a conclusion.

Posted by: Charlie | Jul 6, 2005 4:28:21 PM

Charlie, darlin', this is my blog. I don't troll, by definition. I post a link, I ask you to read it, and I expect you to post thoughts. Your thoughts were as succinct as mine, granted, but until you say something of weight, I'm not going to waste my incredibly valuable time responding to you. Consider it the blogger's prerogative. Or maybe, it's the teacher in me: I lob out posers and you, my grasshopper, think about them.

As for Rove planting explosives, that's a silly rhetorical strawman and you know it.

Posted by: NTodd | Jul 6, 2005 4:37:34 PM

But again, if you come to actually engage, take a lesson from my friend Hubris. He keeps me honest.

Posted by: NTodd | Jul 6, 2005 4:40:15 PM

As I said, I am here to engage in constructive discussion (even about Rove and Plame), but don't try to pawn me off to Hubris's blog - given the thread topic, this is exactly where I belong and my question was NOT a silly rhetorical strawman - some on Kevin's blog, for instance, still think Rove has done worse than the WTC.

Also, fine by me if you don't want to call "lobbing hand grenades" as a spade - keep making comparisons of Rove worse than OBL, or American troops at Gitmo worse than Nazis, and my initial point above: "And you guys really wonder why American voters don't trust you?!" still stands.

Want to discuss anything else?

Posted by: Charlie | Jul 6, 2005 5:25:57 PM

Charlie, Charlie, Charlie...I'm trying to teach you by example. Hubris and I rarely agree, and yet I consider him a good friend. Why? Because he's reasonable, thoughtful and willing to truly engage.

Your asking me, "And you guys really wonder why American voters don't trust you?!" is not engagement. Hubris doesn't ask me that. He asks me about my position. He posts his own thoughts.

Further, who is this "you" you think you're engaging? I'm not a Democrat. And when you choose to attack a snarky post like this one, and yet fail to address my longer post about knowing our enemy, I can't help but think that you don't really want to address me on substantive issues.

So, in answer to your question about wanting to discuss anything else: yes. I'd like to talk about why you think Rove is right in painting liberals with such a broad brush. Why do you think understand our enemy is wrong? Why do you think terrorist attacks have increased dramatically since Bush started his various wars-without-end? Why do you think people don't support the war on Iraq (let alone Bush's plans to dismantle SSI)?

Work with me here, buddy.

Posted by: NTodd | Jul 6, 2005 5:44:42 PM

I will be happy to work with you and even re-visit the other thread (I honestly just bookmarked this one since it attacks my glorious mentor ; )

As for your other questions, the "you" I am engaging is the anti-GWOT liberals (not necessarily registered Democrats as Karl pointed out). "Understanding" the enemy is no more wrong than understanding ourselves - it's the "coddling terrorists like criminals rather than killing them like warriors" that Rove was right in calling out liberals. Terrorist attacks in the U.S. have NOT increased dramatically - and if that continues, I could care less why people don't support the war being taken to Iraq rather than here. The reason a significant portion of the non-liberal population are turning against the war is the MSM not providing a balanced account so it seems like all that is happening is bad. Once there is a thriving democracy spreading from Iraq to other dictatorships in the Middle East, public sentiment will turn. I wonder how popular the Marshall Plan was before it succeeded?

As for the plans to dismantle SSI (although I haven't seen that specific), it has always been difficult to wean people off the public tit. Big surprise - I also think once people grasp the VESTED OWNERSHIP aspect, they will come around too.

P.S. I see you have some of Harry Turtledove's books on your Amazon wish list - did you ever read "How Few Remain" or his earlier Civil War alternative history (title escapes me)?

Posted by: Charlie | Jul 6, 2005 6:03:50 PM

Re: Rove / Plame - think plausible deniability – for instance, what if, without naming names, Rove disclosed that a CIA operative arranged for Wilson's trip (is that alone illegal, or maybe the part that Rove did not "know" was classified?) but then someone else disclosed that Wilson's very own wife, Valerie Plame, arranged said trip? Novak is then left to put two and two together that Plame is the CIA operative in question. That would at least explain why Novak cited two sources in his original article.

Posted by: Charlie | Jul 6, 2005 7:42:50 PM

good god. i was thinking that kevin's blog was so much nicer since charlie left. i didn't realize that the little sack of shit decided to spam yours to oblivion. seriously, you aren't going to get anywhere. the best thing you could do is find some way to ban him.

charlie, isn't there a set of teenage female genitalia you should be policing somewhere?

Posted by: spacebaby | Jul 7, 2005 12:06:42 PM


Posted by: Charlie | Jul 7, 2005 12:22:40 PM

If we could get back to Rove-bashing now, I notice the lastest such thread at Washington Monthly contains a link to a private meeting with the families of slain troops at the Oval Office: http://www.lewisnews.com/article.asp?ID=105971

I thought you guys didn't think Rove let GWB meet with such families - I knew all along that he was in contact with the families but did not want it public knowledge for fear of being accused of playing politics - like I've said before thout, damned if you do . . .

Posted by: Charlie | Jul 8, 2005 9:31:19 PM

No, we've said he doesn't go to funerals. We've seen a gazillion news reports about Dubya meeting with families and praying with them and shit.

Now I gotta go back to Star Wars. The original, not that re-release shit where Greedo shoots first.

Posted by: NTodd | Jul 8, 2005 9:40:34 PM

Oh, the "funerals" themselves - no, he does not want to impose his security concerns / intrude on those private memorials - I can tell you he has been in personal contact with the vast majority of families though to express the country's gratitude and condolences.

P.S. I can't wait for "Revenge of the Sith" to come out so we can watch all 6 in a row.

Posted by: Charlie | Jul 8, 2005 9:48:29 PM

P.P.S. Han shooting Greedo first is a classic pre-emptive attack, I agree.

Posted by: Charlie | Jul 8, 2005 9:50:21 PM

I just got my wife the new Razor V3 and downloaded Darth Vader's mask and the "Imperial March" to ring whenever my phone calls her . . . cool!

Posted by: Charlie | Jul 8, 2005 9:53:54 PM

Back on topic - what did you think of my hypothetical above: suppose that Rove, without naming names, disclosed that a CIA operative arranged for Wilson's trip (is that alone even illegal, or maybe the part that Rove did not "know" was classified) but then someone else disclosed that Wilson's very own wife, Valerie Plame, arranged said trip? Cooper / Novak are then left to put two and two together, i.e. that Plame is the CIA operative in question? That would at least explain why Novak cited TWO Administration sources in his original article. You know, bottom line, Karl Rove is not going to jail no matter what, right?

Posted by: Charlie | Jul 8, 2005 10:00:47 PM

I can tell you he has been in personal contact with the vast majority of families though to express the country's gratitude and condolences.


Posted by: pie | Jul 8, 2005 10:12:08 PM

That would at least explain...

In your own mind.

Enough of this nonsense.

charlie, you're a kook.

Night, NTodd.

Posted by: pie | Jul 8, 2005 10:14:53 PM


Well, which one is it: "a gazillion news reports about Dubya meeting with families and praying with them and shit" or not?

. . . you're a kook.

Two for two ain't bad - good night, and have a nice weekend.

Posted by: Charlie | Jul 8, 2005 10:39:17 PM

P.S. pie - aides say GWB has not attended any funerals because he does not wish to favor one ultimate sacrifice over another, although he has remembered fallen soldiers on Memorial Day and similar observances. Here are some links for the number of families GWB has met with:

28 fallen soldiers http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A11572-2003Nov24

15 or 16 fallen soldiers http://www.lewisnews.com/article.asp?ID=105971

33 fallen soldiers http://www.capitalnews9.com/content/top_stories/default.asp?ArID=137791

More than 50 fallen soldiers http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20041208-9999-1n8bush.html

"A room full of families" http://www.tampatrib.com/FloridaMetro/MGBOIW8SLVD.html

Those were just the first couple hits out of about 7,020 on Google for "president bush" met families "fallen soldiers" - not even counting phone calls or letters to families rather than in person meetings - you really want me to keep going? BTW: don't forget this story: http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/bushkettler.html

Posted by: Charlie | Jul 8, 2005 11:14:53 PM

I still can't figure out if charley read the rall piece or not.

Posted by: desi | Jul 9, 2005 12:29:07 AM


7 fallen soldiers http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Ft_Polk_Troops_021804.htm

26 fallen soldiers http://www.josephbosco.com/2003/11/bush-meets-with-families-of-fallen.html

32 fallen soldiers http://www.talkradionews.com/newsandcommentary/article.php?articleID=403

28 fallen soldiers (different date than above) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2004/06/mil-040618-usia03.htm

3 fallen soldiers http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/854cvlfo.asp

In addition to these private meetings with families, Dan Bartlett has stated that GWB "writes a letter to every family of a fallen soldier" - doesn't that count as "personal contact with the vast majority" - or, is he a "liar" too?

As a side note, U.S. governors have been forced into difficult decisions as they chose whether to attend funeral services for their states' residents in the service, particularly National Guard members.

Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, for example, has attended none of the funerals for the 13 Iowans who have died in combat in Iraq, including five members of the Iowa National Guard. Vilsack said he has not wanted his presence to intrude into observances.

An informal survey of governors around the country found a wide range of approaches by state chief executives, who command National Guards in time of peace. Some governors have attended as many services as they can, while others - like Vilsack - have avoided all the memorial services.

Vilsack, a Democrat, said he prefers a less obtrusive manner of observance. He has called each of the 13 families and has visited with some in person. "Funerals, in my view, are very, very personal. And the one thing you don't want to have happen is you don't want the spotlight or the emphasis to be taking (anything) away from the soldier and his or her family," Vilsack said. "You ask National Guard folks whether they think I'm doing my job and I think they'll tell you I am."

Oliva Smith of New Liberty thinks so, too. She said the phone call she received from Vilsack after her husband, Bruce, died in November meant more than if Vilsack had attended the funeral. "I certainly did not feel slighted. I had a wonderful conversation with him," Smith said. "I was very happy he called. I think it means more than attending the funeral."

www.desmoinesregister.com/ apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2004405110353

Who's squirming now, pie?

Posted by: Charlie | Jul 9, 2005 12:55:25 AM

P.S. desi - I did (as stated above).

Posted by: Charlie | Jul 9, 2005 12:56:27 AM

So, nothing about my hypothetical? Or even the Newsweek article? Did anyone else see "Dark Art of Interrogation" on the History Channel tonight?

Posted by: Charlie | Jul 10, 2005 11:56:50 PM

From www.dailyhowler.com

. . . Novak may have named his sources to the grand jury. But two paragraphs later, he bristles with rage because Judith Miller, who didn’t cooperate, is in jail and Novak isn’t. No, the letter doesn’t make sense. But so what? The outraged writer typed it up—and the Post, for some reason, chose to print it.

But then, the pseudo-con virus—sheer stupidty—is clearly infecting the left. Consider reaction to this week’s Newsweek piece about Rove’s contact with Matt Cooper. Michael Isikoff reports the text of a contemporaneous e-mail in which Cooper described his conversation with Rove. But does the e-mail show that Rove committed a crime? Such talk is widespread on the net. But here’s the key sentence in Isikoff’s report—a sentence which puts that conclusion in doubt:

ISIKOFF (7/18/05): Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative.

Did Rove know that Plame was “covert?” According to conventional understanding of the legal case, a leaker would have to know this fact to be guilty of criminal conduct. And the Newsweek report explicitly says that Rove may not have known. But so what? All over the web, triumphalist typists tell the world that we how have Rove dead to rights. And tortured reasoning is all around. See, for example, this illogical post, approvingly linked to by Atrios. Or see Josh Marshall’s “careful review,” which shows that Rove “almost certainly” knew. The review may be careful, but it doesn’t show much.

For “careful,” we’d substitute “tortured.”

Did King Karl know that Plame was covert? Let’s note one key point for the record: Under terms of the most relevant statute, it isn’t clear that Plame really was such an agent. (Under terms of this statute, a “covert” agent is someone "who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States.” It isn’t clear that Plame qualifies.) At any rate, if Rove didn’t know that Plame was covert, it isn’t clear that he committed a crime—and no one has really begun to show that he had such knowledge. But so what? This hasn’t stopped the triumphalist liberal web from aping the pseudo-con world of the 90s. In that decade, everything Clinton did was a crime, and every bit of “evidence” “proved” it. This produced a decade of sheer stupidity—a decade the liberal web starts to match.

Did King Karl Rove commit a crime? We don’t have the slightest idea. But it’s sad to see the liberal web adopting the dumbness of Rush and his cronies. Over the course of the past several decades, sheer stupidity has been a core value of the talk-show pseudo-con right. Excitable people on the left are discovering the age-old appeal of this value—a value which is rapidly spreading into the liberal web.

Posted by: Charlie | Jul 11, 2005 1:33:55 PM

"Did King Karl Rove commit a crime?"

Lemme see, does the pope wear white and shit in the Vatican?

In a word, the answer to both questions is "yes." In fact, I would argue that Karl Rove's crimes go back at least as far as November/December 2000, any one of which ought to be enough to get him a nice long vacation at taxpayers' expense, though in considerably less comfortable quarters than the ones he now enjoys.

Don't let Scotty "I'm a big boy now!" McClellan's fan-dancing today fool you, Charlie. His non-denial denial was just as unconvincing as it was the first five thousand times he tried it. And considering the field day the Republicans (not just limited to Rush Limboob, I hasten to remind you, but up to and including then-Speaker Newt Gingrich) had when President Clinton tried to do a semantic tap dance around a tricky legal point, I find their antics now that it's Unca Karl wearing the tap shoes rather more galling than amusing.

Posted by: Michael | Jul 11, 2005 11:18:20 PM

And I find your rushing to judgment even if no crime was committed hypocritical if you defended Clinton on the same grounds - I remain constant, if a crime was committed BOTH should have resigned and, if unwilling to do so, fired (impeached).

Posted by: Charlie | Jul 12, 2005 11:23:39 PM

Meh. Clinton was an idiot for letting Monica give him a hummer. Doubly so for lying about it. But comparing treason to consensual sex is low, even for a Republican.

Posted by: Michael | Jul 13, 2005 8:02:38 PM

Last time I checked, consensual sex (and I thought it was not "technically" sex) is not a crime and not what I was comparing. However, assuming Rove committed treason, that would indeed be a worse crime than perjury, suborning perjury, or obstruction of justice - as stated, I remain constant, if any of those crimes were committed BOTH should have resigned and, if unwilling to do so, fired and charged with the crimes. Next question?

Posted by: Charlie | Jul 13, 2005 8:27:34 PM

So if consensual sex is not a crime, then what the fuck was Ken Starr doing asking about it? Riddle me that. Why did we waste like 10 years and $40 million of taxpayers' money to produce the biggest and lousiest piece of pornography the world has ever seen?

Posted by: Michael | Jul 14, 2005 12:30:09 PM

Because sexual harrassment in the workplace IS a crime. Because perjury (even about consensual sex) IS a crime. Because suborning perjury IS a crime. Because obstruction of justice IS a crime. If YOU had Lewinsky's false affidavit, wouldn't you agree it could be proof of a pattern here?

Posted by: Charlie | Jul 14, 2005 12:39:29 PM

Charlie - Clinton was not convicted of the crime of perjury or sexual harrassment by a court or the Senate. Most likely Rove will not be convicted either.

That said, you guys crowed about the rule of law. Are you saying that when national security is at stake, it's okay to drop it because Clinton "got away" with something? Pretty slim defense.

Further, as we've seen from Rove's lawyer, he admits that he did out Plame. The only issue is whether it's punishable the way the law is written/interpreted. I fail to see how that absolves him of everything from the POV of trusting the administration with national security.

Posted by: NTodd | Jul 14, 2005 2:17:27 PM

I'm not saying Rove has to be convicted before he is kicked out of the White House. Until Clinton admitted his lies, I was not even sure back then. So, no, I am not saying that when national security is at stake, it's okay to drop it because Clinton "got away" with something.

As for Rove admitting anything, perhaps I should re-post this from Newsweek's article:

ISIKOFF (7/18/05): Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative.

What exactly has been admitted?

Posted by: Charlie | Jul 14, 2005 5:53:15 PM

In addition, Joe Wilson was the one to first leak his wife's name, and if you'd like to discuss any of these "claims" let me know:

1) Wilson Insisted That The Vice President’s Office Sent Him To Niger;

2) Wilson Claimed The Vice President And Other Senior White House Officials Were Briefed On His Niger Report;

3) Wilson Has Claimed His Niger Report Was Conclusive And Significant;

4) Wilson Denied His Wife Suggested He Travel To Niger In 2002;

5) Wilson Has Claimed His 1999 Trip To Niger Was Not Suggested By His Wife;

6) Wilson Claimed He Was A Victim Of A Partisan Smear Campaign

7) A Month Before The Bob Novak And Matthew Cooper Articles Ever Came Out, Wilson Told The Washington Post That Previous Intelligence Reports About Niger Were Based On Forged Documents;

8) Wilson Claimed His Book Would Enrich Debate, but Later Admits In His Book That He Had Been Involved In “A Little Literary Flair” When Talking To Reporters;

9) Wilson Claimed The CIA Provided Him With Information Related To The Iraq-Niger Uranium Transaction;

10) Wilson Claimed He Is A Non-Partisan “Centrist"

Posted by: Charlie | Jul 14, 2005 7:02:33 PM

11) Rove Got Plame's Name from Novak.

Posted by: Charlie | Jul 15, 2005 5:18:23 PM

Young fools . . . only now - at the end - do you understand.

Posted by: Charlie | Jul 15, 2005 6:05:39 PM

Charlie - you are so full of shit and you know it. As this intensifies, it amuses me immensely.

Posted by: NTodd | Jul 15, 2005 6:52:48 PM

It will amuse me more when Karl Rove is never indicted. You did hear the latest that NOVAK told Rove re: Plame?

Posted by: Charlie | Jul 15, 2005 7:47:24 PM

Yes, Chuckles, I heard the latest bullshit. You go ahead and keep whistling past the graveyard.

Posted by: NTodd | Jul 15, 2005 7:55:14 PM

I don't know how to whistle.

Posted by: Charlie | Jul 18, 2005 1:15:27 PM

"You know how to whistle, don't you Steve? You just put your lips together and blow . . ."

Posted by: Lauren | Jul 18, 2005 1:18:05 PM

Back on this topic - just one short month left in the Plame grand jury investigation - would you guys agree to let whomever leaked Plame's name off with the same punishment Sandy Burger got?

Posted by: Charlie | Sep 10, 2005 2:14:17 AM

I told you guys things would heat back up in D.C. - wait till Fitzgerald issues some indictments too ; )

Posted by: Charlie | Sep 30, 2005 12:33:11 PM

Yes, Chuckles, you're very smart.

Posted by: NTodd | Sep 30, 2005 3:46:44 PM

Thank you. Mark my words that a Democrat will get indicted when this whole thing is over. As you know, my point about things heating up on that other thread was that Sheehan's 15 minutes are up as a result thereof. Since my predictions thus far have been 100% I will predict that this fall and spring in DC will be quite a roller-coaster ride - more volatile than anything GWB has seen so far - especially the jockeying for midterm elections. I also never said "the war will start to become more popular again once DC heats back up" as I pointed out in that other thread. GWB will nonetheless stay in Iraq until he thinks the job is done. He will not pull out one minute sooner. Sheehan will not be effective in that regard. Any other questions?

Posted by: Charlie | Sep 30, 2005 4:01:53 PM

Too bad this didn't all hit the fan last year right before the election ; )

Posted by: Charlie | Oct 7, 2005 11:31:20 AM

Yeah, haha, your guys won, even though they are incompetent at everything that's important, 'cept spin.

Posted by: NTodd | Oct 7, 2005 1:21:23 PM

I still want to know if you guys would agree to let whomever leaked Plame's name off with the same punishment Sandy Burger got?

Posted by: Charlie | Oct 7, 2005 2:44:52 PM

Sandy Burger? That sounds rather inedible...

eh? what?

Posted by: TheaLogie | Oct 7, 2005 3:08:46 PM

LOL - as you may or may not know, former Clinton administration national security advisor Samuel "Sandy" Berger was caught smuggling classified terrorism-related documents out of the National Archives last year. On September 8, 2005, federal Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson ordered him to pay a $50,000 fine, as well as $6,905 in administrative costs, give up his security clearance for three years, serve a two year probation, and perform 100 hours of community service. The question pending on the floor is whether that same punishment would be acceptable against whomever leaked Plame's name?

Posted by: Charlie | Oct 7, 2005 6:32:30 PM

Why on earth would you equate Berger's 'crime' with the Plame affair? They are not even comparable.

Posted by: ellroon | Oct 7, 2005 7:24:54 PM

So, I guess that means the punishment would NOT be acceptable? To answer your question (even though you didn't answer mine), I equate them because they are comparable so far. For instance, what specific damage to national security can you point to from the Plame affair? Lucky for us, I guess, any report on said damage is, itself, classified. So, if there is none to introduce at trial, yeah, both "crimes" (if Plame even is a crime) sound pretty comparable to me.

Posted by: Charlie | Oct 7, 2005 7:44:07 PM

Post a comment