The number of resignations and those stepping away from the Administration continues to accelerate, as Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzales have both gone by the boards in recent weeks. Snow is only the latest to go.
Snow's departure had been rumored for some time now, and this would again look like a Friday night news dump - or perhaps it has been timed to coincide with the possible Craig resignation rumored to happen later today?
Dana Perino will take over Snow's responsibilities.
Showing posts with label Karl Rove. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Karl Rove. Show all posts
Friday, August 31, 2007
Monday, August 13, 2007
Darth Rove To Resign End Of August
Karl Rove, who has been the man with the plan for President Bush since before his election as President in 2000, is resigning at the end of the month. One has to wonder how long he's wanted to do so, and why he would wait until Monday to make the announcement. After all, Friday is the preferred day to do a news dump for the Sunday talk shows.
Expect Congressional Democrats to lick their chops over this development as some have been gunning for him since 2000. They may get their chance.
However, there is something else in play here. The 2008 elections. Is Rove setting himself up to be available to another candidate? That's something worth pondering.
UPDATE:
Somehow I don't get the feeling that Darth Rove will be reading want ads on a street bench anytime soon.
Besides, if someone were truly as evil and omnipotent as the far left claimed (that's a Blogs of War roundup of reactions), how come those on the right have such poor opinion of the guy? See Michelle Malkin's takedown of Rove, who also notes that Rove should have left in the wake of the 2006 election debacle.
Memeorandum has ongoing coverage.
Oh, and who can forget the Left's wishful thinking in the wake of Plamegate:
Finally, on a more serious note, who will actually take over Rove's duties for the Administration? I get the sense that no one person will take over all his duties or responsibilities.
Expect Congressional Democrats to lick their chops over this development as some have been gunning for him since 2000. They may get their chance.
However, there is something else in play here. The 2008 elections. Is Rove setting himself up to be available to another candidate? That's something worth pondering.
UPDATE:
Somehow I don't get the feeling that Darth Rove will be reading want ads on a street bench anytime soon.
Besides, if someone were truly as evil and omnipotent as the far left claimed (that's a Blogs of War roundup of reactions), how come those on the right have such poor opinion of the guy? See Michelle Malkin's takedown of Rove, who also notes that Rove should have left in the wake of the 2006 election debacle.
Memeorandum has ongoing coverage.
Oh, and who can forget the Left's wishful thinking in the wake of Plamegate:
Finally, on a more serious note, who will actually take over Rove's duties for the Administration? I get the sense that no one person will take over all his duties or responsibilities.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Plame Lawsuit Dismissed
Valerie Plame, whose name launched a federal investigation into who leaked her identity to the press and netted Scooter Libby in a tangled web of contradictions leading to his conviction of perjury and obstruction of justice charges (and commuted by President Bush after Libby was ordered to prison), had her lawsuit against members of the Bush Administration dismissed.
Expect the whining to begin from the Left and the spin from the Right.
UPDATE:
This story has more details:
So, once again, I'll trot out an old favorite because this is the one scene that the Left will not get to enjoy - No Fitzmas for you!
UPDATE:
Hot Air wonders whether anyone should be surprised that the AP screwed up its legal analysis of the rationale for the dismissal of the case. They completely ignored pages of the decision? When you have an actual case or document to work from, it's always a good idea to go back and actually read what it has to say. The AP screed ignores key evidence and legal reasoning behind the dismissal. Plame and Wilson failed to state a cause of action and the evidence was stacked against them, including the fact that the defendants were operating in official capacities at all times due to the nature of their jobs. The only thing this decision doesn't address is the actual leak itself - or its legality. It's characterized as unsavory, but that is when seen in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs.
Others blogging this circus: Macranger, Outside the Beltway, Tom Maguire, Michael van der Galien, Paul at Wizbang, Wake Up America, AJ Strata, and memeorandum is keeping tabs on the reactions.
Michelle Malkin wonders whether they'll now go away. Don't count on it one bit. They'll be making the talk show circuit this weekend and expect a movie deal before long too. The inconvenient fact is that the only person who actually leaked matters was Richard Armitage.
A federal judge on Thursday dismissed former CIA operative Valerie Plame's lawsuit against members of the Bush administration in the CIA leak scandal.The fact is that Richard Armitage admitted to being the first person to leak the name to the media, and that no one in the Administration purposefully leaked her name or violated federal law in discussing Wilson's wife.
Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had accused Vice President Dick Cheney and others of conspiring to leak her identity in Plame said that violated her privacy rights and was illegal retribution for her husband's criticism of the administration.
Expect the whining to begin from the Left and the spin from the Right.
UPDATE:
This story has more details:
Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had accused Vice President Dick Cheney and others of conspiring to leak her identity in 2003. Plame said that violated her privacy rights and was illegal retribution for her husband's criticism of the administration.It would have been entertaining had this case actually gone forward as the discovery portion would have been a complete hoot, especially when the defense teams would have gotten their licks in on Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie. I suspect that Wilson is secretly relieved that this matter has been dismissed because he can now claim that it was not only an uphill fight, but the cards were stacked against him, and the Libby conviction shows that he was in the right. Of course, the fact is that Libby was convicted on the basis of not being able to keep his story straight - the same problem that faced various other witnesses against him including Tim Russert. Only Libby was prosecuted, and that came after Fitzgerald knew that Armitage was the leaker. Fitzgerald was busy tying up loose ends in dealing with Libby.
U.S. District Judge John D. Bates dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds and said he would not express an opinion on the constitutional arguments. Bates dismissed the case against all defendants: Cheney, White House political adviser Karl Rove and former White House aide I. Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby.
Plame's attorneys had said the lawsuit would be an uphill battle. Public officials are normally immune from such lawsuits filed in connection with their jobs.
So, once again, I'll trot out an old favorite because this is the one scene that the Left will not get to enjoy - No Fitzmas for you!
UPDATE:
Hot Air wonders whether anyone should be surprised that the AP screwed up its legal analysis of the rationale for the dismissal of the case. They completely ignored pages of the decision? When you have an actual case or document to work from, it's always a good idea to go back and actually read what it has to say. The AP screed ignores key evidence and legal reasoning behind the dismissal. Plame and Wilson failed to state a cause of action and the evidence was stacked against them, including the fact that the defendants were operating in official capacities at all times due to the nature of their jobs. The only thing this decision doesn't address is the actual leak itself - or its legality. It's characterized as unsavory, but that is when seen in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs.
Others blogging this circus: Macranger, Outside the Beltway, Tom Maguire, Michael van der Galien, Paul at Wizbang, Wake Up America, AJ Strata, and memeorandum is keeping tabs on the reactions.
Michelle Malkin wonders whether they'll now go away. Don't count on it one bit. They'll be making the talk show circuit this weekend and expect a movie deal before long too. The inconvenient fact is that the only person who actually leaked matters was Richard Armitage.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Out of Hand
Protestors decided that their freedom of speech included throwing items at Karl Rove's car when Rove was leaving the campus of American University after giving a speech to College Republicans:
Jammie Wearing Fool also comments on the situation. Hot Air also weighs in and wonders about the leftist thuggery.
Rove was on the campus to talk to the College Republicans, but when he got outside more than a dozen students began throwing things at his car, an American University spokesperson said.Will assault charges be filed against those who threw items at Rove's vehicle? There's video of the encounter but it's of rather poor quality.
The students then got on the ground and lay down in front of his car as a protest.
The students said security officials picked them up and carried them away so Rove could leave.
Police said they have dealt with a lot of protests on campus and this one was handled peacefully.
Jammie Wearing Fool also comments on the situation. Hot Air also weighs in and wonders about the leftist thuggery.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Busy Karl Rove Keep Low Profile
Funny, but here I thought that he was working at Disney World for $5.25 an hour. Shows you what a cruel Internet rumor will do.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Wayback Machine Should Hit Joe Wilson Hard
It wasn't long ago when Joe Wilson said he would sue Vice President Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and the Tooth Fairy in order to get to the bottom of L'affair Plame.
So, when faced with the opportunity to confront the very folks that he claims outed his wife, Joe Wilson is trying to fight a subpoena to testify in the Lewis 'Scooter' Libby case.
There was no Fitzmas. No one was indicted for violating federal law. Richard Armitage was fingered as the person who first mentioned Plame's name to a media source, and no charges were filed against him.
Instead, we get a dog and pony show to somehow justify Fitzgerald's investigations. For his part, Libby has every right to bring in witnesses to testify to the criminal acts asserted and/or factual circumstances that would show that there was no criminal act. Wilson knows that he's fighting a lost cause on his own civil suit, and doesn't want to have to run the gauntlet twice - perhaps irreparably damaging his civil case before he can get to trial.
Others picking up the story: California Conservative, Bullwinkle Blog, Joe's Dartblog, and Let Freedom Ring.
So, when faced with the opportunity to confront the very folks that he claims outed his wife, Joe Wilson is trying to fight a subpoena to testify in the Lewis 'Scooter' Libby case.
Former ambassador Joseph Wilson asked a federal judge Wednesday not to force him to testify in the CIA leak case and accused former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby of trying to harass him on the witness stand.Walton might try to keep much of the back story out of the case, but the problem is that without that backstory, there was no case to begin with as the Patrick Fitzgerald searched for nearly two years without a single indictment for the actual leak.
Libby, who faces perjury and obstruction charges, subpoenaed Wilson as a defense witness this month. Libby's attorney, William Jeffress, said in court Tuesday that was a precautionary move and he did not expect to put Wilson on the stand.
Libby is accused of lying to investigators about his conversations with reporters regarding Wilson's wife, outed CIA operative Valerie Plame. Plame and Wilson have sued Libby and other Bush administration officials, accusing them of plotting to leak Plame's identity as retribution for Wilson's criticism of prewar intelligence on Iraq.
"Mr. Libby should not be permitted to compel Mr. Wilson's testimony at trial either for the purpose of harassing Mr. Wilson or to gain an advantage in the civil case," Wilson's attorneys wrote.
While Wilson and Plame are at the center of the CIA leak scandal, Wilson is a minor figure in Libby's perjury trial. U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton has sought to keep much of the back story of the leak out of the case.
There was no Fitzmas. No one was indicted for violating federal law. Richard Armitage was fingered as the person who first mentioned Plame's name to a media source, and no charges were filed against him.
Instead, we get a dog and pony show to somehow justify Fitzgerald's investigations. For his part, Libby has every right to bring in witnesses to testify to the criminal acts asserted and/or factual circumstances that would show that there was no criminal act. Wilson knows that he's fighting a lost cause on his own civil suit, and doesn't want to have to run the gauntlet twice - perhaps irreparably damaging his civil case before he can get to trial.
Others picking up the story: California Conservative, Bullwinkle Blog, Joe's Dartblog, and Let Freedom Ring.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Stop Digging
John Kerry doesn't know when to stop digging. The mess he made yesterday is going to carry through all the way till election day, especially if the GOP is shrewd enough to exploit the gaffe.
Kerry can say that it was a botched joke all he wants, but his statements and declarations have not cast doubt on what he meant. He either consciously or subconsciously dislikes our military and his disdain for the military shines through at times like this.
Even some prominent liberals have taken note. Don Imus thinks Kerry would best serve Democrats by shutting up and going windsurfing or biking. Anything to get out of the way of destroying whatever chances Democrats had of retaking the House or Senate.
Kerry still thinks he's botched a joke. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. He hasn't apologized for botching the joke. He thinks that we're rubes who have misinterpreted his statement, but the statement speaks for itself.
Kerry is an embarrassment. Don't take my word for it. Take the Boston Herald's.
Candidates around the country are realizing the repercussions of Kerry's gaffe, and his appearances are being cancelled around the nation. He doesn't want to be a distraction to the Party in the final days? Sorry, but it's too late. Your foot in mouth disease is all too prominent and the damage has been done. You cannot undo the damage, and your mealy mouth non-apologies only reinforce the disdain you have for the men and women of the US Armed Forces.
Sharp repercussions and rebukes? Hell yes. Did Kerry gift the 2006 elections to the Democrats? Quite possibly. Kerry now has to spend the next week in damage control mode and defending the indefensible, while the GOP can not only slam Kerry, but the Democrats at large who harbor similar sentiments.
This beats anything Karl Rove could have contemplated as an October surprise, unless Kerry was on the Rove payroll.
UPDATE:
The GOP is breaking out the big guns. Let the ads commence (HT: digger12291970 at LGF.) Don't expect any apologies though. Kerry doesn't think he's done anything wrong. He thinks that we're the dumb ones who misinterpreted his lame joke. Sorry, but few are buying it. Even fewer should buy it because it fits his pattern of disdain for the US Armed Forces.
Where are the leading Democrats to come out and call for Kerry's full and proper apology? Thus far, nothing but crickets. That speaks volumes about what they think of the military and those who would consider serving. The reactions should have been immediate. Heck, I'm just as patriotic as the next guy or gal, and thought Kerry should have apologized immediately. Why don't the likes of Pelosi, Dean, Clinton (both), Kennedy, and Schumer call for an apology? Are they putting their own political ambitions ahead of the apology - to watch Kerry flame out any chances of a run for 2008? Do they agree with Kerry? This is a no-win situation for those leading Democrats - because they've got to defend the indefensible.
Ed Morrissey notes the Rube Goldbergesque contortions that Kerry must endure to try and salvage this so-called joke.
Others blogging: Flopping Aces, Gaius, and Michelle Malkin (and here).
UPDATE:
Democrat candidate for Senate Harold Ford, who's in a tough race in Tennessee with Bob Corker, has called on Kerry to apologize. Kerry's appearance with Bob Casey in Pennsylvania was cancelled. An Iowa candidate cancelled their appearance with Kerry.
Kerry has made his name and likeness radioactive going into the homestretch of a pivotal election that would determine control of Congress. Way to go!
UPDATE:
Jon Tester also calls on Kerry to apologize. That's in stark contrast to the Leftists who are rallying behind Kerry because he was speaking the truth. Well, that's what I've been saying all along. Kerry is telling you exactly what he thinks of the military and those that serve. It just bears absolutely no resemblance to reality, or what a majority of Americans think of those who serve. However, Kerry's comments do appear to jibe with many on the hard Left.
LaShawn Barber and Brendan Loy think that Kerry would be insane to publicly immolate himself by saying that the military is stupid. I'd strenuously disagree with them because Kerry's MO over the past 30+ years has been to show nothing but utter contempt for those in the Armed Forces. His repeated statements and gaffes have all been in one direction - disparaging the military and those who serve. That cannot be a coincidence.
Greg at the Belgravia Dispatch wonders whether this will have any effect on the races decided next week. From the look of the various candidates who are calling for apologies or distancing themselves from Kerry, I'd say that the politicians and their advisors think it could do serious damage. Democrat candidates in red states clearly do not want to be associated with this nonsense, and those in tight races would be similarly concerned.
Others blogging: Big Lizards, Macranger, AJ Strata, Hyscience, and memeorandum has constant updates.
UPDATE:
John McCain again calls for Kerry to apologize. Good luck with that. Kerry is digging in his heels and is doing the non-apology apology. That isn't cutting it with the military either. Some take the humorous approach, while some are calling for his resignation from the Senate.
UPDATE:
What we've got here is another non-apology apology.
Anyone else finding a wee bit of dissonance between his two statements? A flip flop perhaps? Or maybe that Kerry's nuanced apology isn't much of an apology because he's still offending those who were offended in the first place with his condescension. Kerry continues to think that its our interpretation that is flawed, not his utterances.
Here's the thing. This isn't a one-off event. Kerry has a history of making such statements. His record of making these statements makes the likelyhood that this was a botched joke less reasonable to an observer.
Big deal that he went to college - he did worse than President Bush, who he regularly lampoons and calls stupid. He served in the Navy (after being unable to be deferred yet more times). His service is not being questioned, but his every utterance about the military since he went into politics has been anti-military, going back to the Winter Soldier hearings. This has nothing to do with Bush, Cheney, or the GOP. It has everything to do with what John Kerry said about the US military and those that serve in an all-volunteer force - one that is the most highly educated in our history and one whose educational background is superior to that of the general public.
Technorati: john kerry, support the troops, democrat, politics.
Kerry can say that it was a botched joke all he wants, but his statements and declarations have not cast doubt on what he meant. He either consciously or subconsciously dislikes our military and his disdain for the military shines through at times like this.
Even some prominent liberals have taken note. Don Imus thinks Kerry would best serve Democrats by shutting up and going windsurfing or biking. Anything to get out of the way of destroying whatever chances Democrats had of retaking the House or Senate.
Kerry still thinks he's botched a joke. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. He hasn't apologized for botching the joke. He thinks that we're rubes who have misinterpreted his statement, but the statement speaks for itself.
Kerry is an embarrassment. Don't take my word for it. Take the Boston Herald's.
Candidates around the country are realizing the repercussions of Kerry's gaffe, and his appearances are being cancelled around the nation. He doesn't want to be a distraction to the Party in the final days? Sorry, but it's too late. Your foot in mouth disease is all too prominent and the damage has been done. You cannot undo the damage, and your mealy mouth non-apologies only reinforce the disdain you have for the men and women of the US Armed Forces.
Sharp repercussions and rebukes? Hell yes. Did Kerry gift the 2006 elections to the Democrats? Quite possibly. Kerry now has to spend the next week in damage control mode and defending the indefensible, while the GOP can not only slam Kerry, but the Democrats at large who harbor similar sentiments.
This beats anything Karl Rove could have contemplated as an October surprise, unless Kerry was on the Rove payroll.
UPDATE:
The GOP is breaking out the big guns. Let the ads commence (HT: digger12291970 at LGF.) Don't expect any apologies though. Kerry doesn't think he's done anything wrong. He thinks that we're the dumb ones who misinterpreted his lame joke. Sorry, but few are buying it. Even fewer should buy it because it fits his pattern of disdain for the US Armed Forces.
Where are the leading Democrats to come out and call for Kerry's full and proper apology? Thus far, nothing but crickets. That speaks volumes about what they think of the military and those who would consider serving. The reactions should have been immediate. Heck, I'm just as patriotic as the next guy or gal, and thought Kerry should have apologized immediately. Why don't the likes of Pelosi, Dean, Clinton (both), Kennedy, and Schumer call for an apology? Are they putting their own political ambitions ahead of the apology - to watch Kerry flame out any chances of a run for 2008? Do they agree with Kerry? This is a no-win situation for those leading Democrats - because they've got to defend the indefensible.
Ed Morrissey notes the Rube Goldbergesque contortions that Kerry must endure to try and salvage this so-called joke.
Others blogging: Flopping Aces, Gaius, and Michelle Malkin (and here).
UPDATE:
Democrat candidate for Senate Harold Ford, who's in a tough race in Tennessee with Bob Corker, has called on Kerry to apologize. Kerry's appearance with Bob Casey in Pennsylvania was cancelled. An Iowa candidate cancelled their appearance with Kerry.
Kerry has made his name and likeness radioactive going into the homestretch of a pivotal election that would determine control of Congress. Way to go!
UPDATE:
Jon Tester also calls on Kerry to apologize. That's in stark contrast to the Leftists who are rallying behind Kerry because he was speaking the truth. Well, that's what I've been saying all along. Kerry is telling you exactly what he thinks of the military and those that serve. It just bears absolutely no resemblance to reality, or what a majority of Americans think of those who serve. However, Kerry's comments do appear to jibe with many on the hard Left.
LaShawn Barber and Brendan Loy think that Kerry would be insane to publicly immolate himself by saying that the military is stupid. I'd strenuously disagree with them because Kerry's MO over the past 30+ years has been to show nothing but utter contempt for those in the Armed Forces. His repeated statements and gaffes have all been in one direction - disparaging the military and those who serve. That cannot be a coincidence.
Greg at the Belgravia Dispatch wonders whether this will have any effect on the races decided next week. From the look of the various candidates who are calling for apologies or distancing themselves from Kerry, I'd say that the politicians and their advisors think it could do serious damage. Democrat candidates in red states clearly do not want to be associated with this nonsense, and those in tight races would be similarly concerned.
Others blogging: Big Lizards, Macranger, AJ Strata, Hyscience, and memeorandum has constant updates.
UPDATE:
John McCain again calls for Kerry to apologize. Good luck with that. Kerry is digging in his heels and is doing the non-apology apology. That isn't cutting it with the military either. Some take the humorous approach, while some are calling for his resignation from the Senate.
UPDATE:
What we've got here is another non-apology apology.
Thrust into the midst of the midterm election campaign, Sen. John Kerry apologized Wednesday to "any service member, family member or American who was offended" by remarks deemed by Republicans and Democrats alike to be insulting to U.S. forces in Iraq.Let's get this straight. Just 24 hours after saying that he wasn't sorry and wouldn't apologize for anything, he's now saying that he's apologized to those who were offended by remarks. Michelle Malkin's emailer got it right:
Six days before the election, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee said he sincerely regretted his words were "misinterpreted to imply anything negative about those in uniform."
Kerry said that if anyone thought his remarks were intended for the military then they were crazy.This isn't an apology. He was saying only yesterday that if you thought that his statement was offensive to the military you were crazy. Now, he's claiming to apologize to those who were offended by his remarks. No wonder so many people are genuinely outraged over his statements.
Yet he apologized today for remarks that he made if people took offense.
Well, if folks took offense that means that they thought his remarks were offensive to the military.
That means that he called those folks to whom he apologized CRAZY.
Anyone else finding a wee bit of dissonance between his two statements? A flip flop perhaps? Or maybe that Kerry's nuanced apology isn't much of an apology because he's still offending those who were offended in the first place with his condescension. Kerry continues to think that its our interpretation that is flawed, not his utterances.
Here's the thing. This isn't a one-off event. Kerry has a history of making such statements. His record of making these statements makes the likelyhood that this was a botched joke less reasonable to an observer.
Big deal that he went to college - he did worse than President Bush, who he regularly lampoons and calls stupid. He served in the Navy (after being unable to be deferred yet more times). His service is not being questioned, but his every utterance about the military since he went into politics has been anti-military, going back to the Winter Soldier hearings. This has nothing to do with Bush, Cheney, or the GOP. It has everything to do with what John Kerry said about the US military and those that serve in an all-volunteer force - one that is the most highly educated in our history and one whose educational background is superior to that of the general public.
Technorati: john kerry, support the troops, democrat, politics.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Supporting Our Troops Again
I see that John F. Kerry has come out in support of the troops again. Of course, no one is clear as to which troops he's supporting, but it is apparent that our troops aren't among them:
This is someone who was close to winning the Presidency and leading those same troops? This is someone who thinks that he should again run for President? This is a leader of the Democrat party of the United States?
Here's some news for you Kerry. You and your ilk are despised because you despise our troops so. You think that they're stupid or worse to join the military and serve our country through thick and thin. You have dishonored our troops, and you continue to dishonor the uniform that you once wore.
Oh, and the statement is factually and demonstrably false. Our military is an all-volunteer force - no one was forced to sign up. Many have had college and advanced level educations.
And he thinks that this is going to rally people to vote for a Democrat? I have a bridge to sell in Brooklyn.
UPDATE:
And here's the video:
UPDATE:
How this cannot turn into anything but Democrats shooting themselves in the foot just days before the election is simply amazing. Karl Rove, you magnificent bastard. Getting Kerry to mouth off like this is a stroke of genius. Others blogging: GOP and the City, Stop the ACLU, Texas Rainmaker, Hot Air, Patterico, Michelle Malkin, Ed Morrissey, Dan Riehl, Gaius, and Sister Toldjah.
This is just the start folks. Welcome to Halloween - Kerry style.
UPDATE:
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has called on Kerry to apologize. Like apologies mean anything for statements such as this? Kerry's contempt for the military and those who have a calling to serve in the US Armed Forces is palpable and visceral.
UPDATE:
Kerry was speaking to his core constituency. The anti-war anti-US far left. They lap this stuff up and their venom towards the US Armed Forces is palpable in everything Kerry says and does. So Kerry continues to make such statements - not as gaffes, but as sincere beliefs to his audiences.
The problem is that Kerry's core constituency is insufficient to win an election nationally or poll a majority of Americans. He's out of step with most Americans, but because he thinks that it plays well with the remnants of the Democrat party he continues to stick his foot in the collective mouth of Democrats across the country.
It bears repeating - if Kerry is going to appear with any other candidates for the duration of this election cycle, this video should follow him around. If he's appearing with Menendez in NJ - the RSCC or other groups (including the Kean campaign) should plaster the airwaves with this video. This video must follow him around if the GOP is smart (and I'm sure Rove is watching closely).
That's how radioactive this kind of thing should be. It's the Democrat party in action - and don't think for one instant that enemies of the US aren't watching and reading US media closely to see who would do a lesser job against them.
UPDATE:
The Anchoress and Tom Maguire have more. Gateway Pundit picks up on the Kerry lies about education and military service. Tigerhawk notes that the mask slips.
UPDATE:
Via Stop the ACLU, Kerry is blaming the GOP and media for distorting his statements.
UPDATE:
Here's the direct link to the Kerry "rebuttal."
UPDATE:
So, Kerry wants to make this all about Bush. The media is trying its best to spin this as a Bush attack on Kerry, disregarding that it was Kerry's asinine statements about those serving in the military that demanded a strong response. Kerry's supporters wants us to believe that it was simply a joke that was misunderstood. At least that's what some are trying to say that Kerry meant to say. Too bad that doesn't come across in Kerry's presser or official statement on the matter. In those, Kerry is unrepentant and refuses to admit he was wrong. That's because he doesn't believe he was wrong. Don Surber still thinks that Kerry should have been smart enough to apologize. Hey, for political expediency it would be the right thing to do, but this is why Kerry could not get elected president in 2004, and why people will be even less willing to take a flier on him in 2008.
QandO's irony meter is pegged in the red zone because the first person to lay into Kerry was none other than John McCain, and was followed shortly afterwards by the American Foreign Legion, whose military service is pretty well known.
Frank J. lays down the humor bat.
Others blogging: Cold Fury, Macranger, Wizbang, and Political Pit Bull.
UPDATE:
Glenn Reynolds notes Kerry is the gift that keeps on giving to the GOP. Stop digging suggests Marc at USS Neverdock especially when Kerry admits back in 2004 that he wasn't misled - he simply flipped positions. Roger L. Simon wonders if this fiasco might rescue the GOP from losing on Election Night. Quite possibly.
Tammy Bruce, among others, notes that those serving in the Armed Forces have higher educational achievement than those who haven't served.
Austin Bay isn't amused.
Senator Bill Frist joins the choir of those demanding apologies.
So what have other milbloggers had to say about this? It's pretty unanimous - and the use of strong language is quite prevalent. They're not amused one bit by Kerry's latest antics. Those commenting include Blackfive, Argghhh! (The Donovan), Lt Smash, and WillyShake.
UPDATE:
President Bush drops 50 and fires for effect. So does an unnamed Democrat Congressman. Apparently they dislike what Kerry said, but not enough to go on the record publicly.
Technorati: john kerry, support the troops, democrat, politics.
“You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”For someone who went to an Ivy League school, that's not only an incredibly dumb thing to say, but it demeans all the troops serving our country with honor and dignity.
This is someone who was close to winning the Presidency and leading those same troops? This is someone who thinks that he should again run for President? This is a leader of the Democrat party of the United States?
Here's some news for you Kerry. You and your ilk are despised because you despise our troops so. You think that they're stupid or worse to join the military and serve our country through thick and thin. You have dishonored our troops, and you continue to dishonor the uniform that you once wore.
Oh, and the statement is factually and demonstrably false. Our military is an all-volunteer force - no one was forced to sign up. Many have had college and advanced level educations.
And he thinks that this is going to rally people to vote for a Democrat? I have a bridge to sell in Brooklyn.
UPDATE:
And here's the video:
UPDATE:
How this cannot turn into anything but Democrats shooting themselves in the foot just days before the election is simply amazing. Karl Rove, you magnificent bastard. Getting Kerry to mouth off like this is a stroke of genius. Others blogging: GOP and the City, Stop the ACLU, Texas Rainmaker, Hot Air, Patterico, Michelle Malkin, Ed Morrissey, Dan Riehl, Gaius, and Sister Toldjah.
This is just the start folks. Welcome to Halloween - Kerry style.
UPDATE:
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has called on Kerry to apologize. Like apologies mean anything for statements such as this? Kerry's contempt for the military and those who have a calling to serve in the US Armed Forces is palpable and visceral.
UPDATE:
Kerry was speaking to his core constituency. The anti-war anti-US far left. They lap this stuff up and their venom towards the US Armed Forces is palpable in everything Kerry says and does. So Kerry continues to make such statements - not as gaffes, but as sincere beliefs to his audiences.
The problem is that Kerry's core constituency is insufficient to win an election nationally or poll a majority of Americans. He's out of step with most Americans, but because he thinks that it plays well with the remnants of the Democrat party he continues to stick his foot in the collective mouth of Democrats across the country.
It bears repeating - if Kerry is going to appear with any other candidates for the duration of this election cycle, this video should follow him around. If he's appearing with Menendez in NJ - the RSCC or other groups (including the Kean campaign) should plaster the airwaves with this video. This video must follow him around if the GOP is smart (and I'm sure Rove is watching closely).
That's how radioactive this kind of thing should be. It's the Democrat party in action - and don't think for one instant that enemies of the US aren't watching and reading US media closely to see who would do a lesser job against them.
UPDATE:
The Anchoress and Tom Maguire have more. Gateway Pundit picks up on the Kerry lies about education and military service. Tigerhawk notes that the mask slips.
UPDATE:
Via Stop the ACLU, Kerry is blaming the GOP and media for distorting his statements.
Senator John Kerry issued the following statement in response to White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, assorted right wing nut-jobs, and right wing talk show hosts desperately distorting Kerry's comments about President Bush to divert attention from their disastrous record:Sorry, but that doesn't fly. Kerry has repeatedly smeared veterans of wars, from Vietnam through the current conflicts, including claiming that they engaged in war crimes and violations of the Geneva Conventions. If anyone is lying here, it's Kerry (again). Indeed, the media is doing its best to spin this in Kerry's favor by blaming it on GOP.
"If anyone thinks a veteran would criticize the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq and not the president who got us stuck there, they're crazy. This is the classic G.O.P. playbook. I'm sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did.
I'm not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium, or doughy Rush Limbaugh, who no doubt today will take a break from belittling Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's disease to start lying about me just as they have lied about Iraq. It disgusts me that these Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country lie and distort so blatantly and carelessly about those who have.
UPDATE:
Here's the direct link to the Kerry "rebuttal."
UPDATE:
So, Kerry wants to make this all about Bush. The media is trying its best to spin this as a Bush attack on Kerry, disregarding that it was Kerry's asinine statements about those serving in the military that demanded a strong response. Kerry's supporters wants us to believe that it was simply a joke that was misunderstood. At least that's what some are trying to say that Kerry meant to say. Too bad that doesn't come across in Kerry's presser or official statement on the matter. In those, Kerry is unrepentant and refuses to admit he was wrong. That's because he doesn't believe he was wrong. Don Surber still thinks that Kerry should have been smart enough to apologize. Hey, for political expediency it would be the right thing to do, but this is why Kerry could not get elected president in 2004, and why people will be even less willing to take a flier on him in 2008.
QandO's irony meter is pegged in the red zone because the first person to lay into Kerry was none other than John McCain, and was followed shortly afterwards by the American Foreign Legion, whose military service is pretty well known.
Frank J. lays down the humor bat.
Others blogging: Cold Fury, Macranger, Wizbang, and Political Pit Bull.
UPDATE:
Glenn Reynolds notes Kerry is the gift that keeps on giving to the GOP. Stop digging suggests Marc at USS Neverdock especially when Kerry admits back in 2004 that he wasn't misled - he simply flipped positions. Roger L. Simon wonders if this fiasco might rescue the GOP from losing on Election Night. Quite possibly.
Tammy Bruce, among others, notes that those serving in the Armed Forces have higher educational achievement than those who haven't served.
Austin Bay isn't amused.
Senator Bill Frist joins the choir of those demanding apologies.
So what have other milbloggers had to say about this? It's pretty unanimous - and the use of strong language is quite prevalent. They're not amused one bit by Kerry's latest antics. Those commenting include Blackfive, Argghhh! (The Donovan), Lt Smash, and WillyShake.
UPDATE:
President Bush drops 50 and fires for effect. So does an unnamed Democrat Congressman. Apparently they dislike what Kerry said, but not enough to go on the record publicly.
Technorati: john kerry, support the troops, democrat, politics.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Throwing the Flag on NFL Dirty Bomb Plot
The Jawa Report tracked down the origination of the rumor of the so-called NFL dirty bomb plot whereby a number of NFL football games would be targeted by trucks carrying dirty bombs.
It appears that the origination of the story is someone who believes that the US would be behind the attacks, and will place the blame for the attacks on al Qaeda, who would willingly take the credit for the attacks.
Did I mention that this guy was a 9/11 conspiracy freak?
Did I also mention that this guy is now being questioned by the FBI?
This guy would have been better off splitting atoms with his mind (hey, works for Ace).
UPDATE:
The Jawa Report has additional updates, including that javness, the chap from Wisconsin currently being questioned by the FBI, is not the first to repeat this rumored attack. Check back for more.
UPDATE:
The wiseass known thus far as javness claimed it was all a hoax. No one is laughing. Not at the FBI. Not at the NFL.
And speaking of the NFL, MSNBC notes the following about security at NFL games:
UPDATE:
Not only was this a hoax, but part of a contest to come up with the scariest scenario possible.
Sorry, but he's still the big loser. The Islamic terrorists, led by Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, Osama bin Laden, Mohammad Atta, and the gang at al Qaeda came up with the scariest scenario possible. They came up with 9/11 - a bolt from the blue that hit with such a crashing thud of reality that it should have shaken people to the reality of the dangers the West faces from Islamists, but hasn't.
There was Operation Bojinka, which would have crashed 10 jetliners in a singular operation but was thwarted by law enforcement.
Or the massacre at Beslan School Number One.
Or the Moscow Theater siege.
Or, if you want to keep things fictional, try reading some of Tom Clancy's best works - Debt of Honor, The Sum of All Fears, Rainbow Six. Heck, I even came up with an idea for a book and had been working on it before 9/11. I gave up writing it because the reality of 9/11 was so much worse than I could have envisioned in my writing (it involved terrorism, the President being targeted, building collapses, and mass casualties).
Heck, all this guy was doing was riffing on the theme from Black Sunday.
Others blogging: Wretchard and No More Mister Nice Blog (who originally thought this was a Rove/Bush plot, but retracted that when it turned out to be a prank - nice). How come so many people on the Left come out and question the timing of every terror threat and plot that is discovered.
It appears that the origination of the story is someone who believes that the US would be behind the attacks, and will place the blame for the attacks on al Qaeda, who would willingly take the credit for the attacks.
Did I mention that this guy was a 9/11 conspiracy freak?
Did I also mention that this guy is now being questioned by the FBI?
The FBI was interviewing a Milwaukee resident Thursday believed to be responsible for posting threats on a Web site about radiological dirty bombs being delivered to seven NFL football stadiums this weekend.And, if the Jawa Report's information is accurate, and I believe that it is, the person behind the threat has no ties to reality. However, he will be introduced to the harsh reality of making terroristic threats - if criminal charges are forthcoming.
The person, described only as a young adult, did not appear to have any ties to terrorist groups, according to a law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation was ongoing.
This guy would have been better off splitting atoms with his mind (hey, works for Ace).
UPDATE:
The Jawa Report has additional updates, including that javness, the chap from Wisconsin currently being questioned by the FBI, is not the first to repeat this rumored attack. Check back for more.
UPDATE:
The wiseass known thus far as javness claimed it was all a hoax. No one is laughing. Not at the FBI. Not at the NFL.
And speaking of the NFL, MSNBC notes the following about security at NFL games:
NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said stadiums are well protected through “comprehensive security procedures” that include bag searches and pat-downs.Those comprehensive security procedures aren't nearly as comprehensive because of lawsuits by the ACLU that have limited security procedures at Raymond James Stadium in Tampa among others.
UPDATE:
Not only was this a hoax, but part of a contest to come up with the scariest scenario possible.
Sorry, but he's still the big loser. The Islamic terrorists, led by Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, Osama bin Laden, Mohammad Atta, and the gang at al Qaeda came up with the scariest scenario possible. They came up with 9/11 - a bolt from the blue that hit with such a crashing thud of reality that it should have shaken people to the reality of the dangers the West faces from Islamists, but hasn't.
There was Operation Bojinka, which would have crashed 10 jetliners in a singular operation but was thwarted by law enforcement.
Or the massacre at Beslan School Number One.
Or the Moscow Theater siege.
Or, if you want to keep things fictional, try reading some of Tom Clancy's best works - Debt of Honor, The Sum of All Fears, Rainbow Six. Heck, I even came up with an idea for a book and had been working on it before 9/11. I gave up writing it because the reality of 9/11 was so much worse than I could have envisioned in my writing (it involved terrorism, the President being targeted, building collapses, and mass casualties).
Heck, all this guy was doing was riffing on the theme from Black Sunday.
Others blogging: Wretchard and No More Mister Nice Blog (who originally thought this was a Rove/Bush plot, but retracted that when it turned out to be a prank - nice). How come so many people on the Left come out and question the timing of every terror threat and plot that is discovered.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Tacking in a Storm
The war on terror is going to be a generational conflict, especially given the way Islamists have been preparing the fields of battle - from mosques to the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq to Lebanon, Israel, and Gaza. Today had a bunch of major news releases while I was away from the keyboard.
Funny how that happens.
The first bit came early this afternoon, as it was announced that a number of high value detainees were being transferred to Gitmo from locations around the world. What was the purpose behind such a move?
That became clearer when President Bush made an important speech later in the day. The full text is here. Hot Air has the video, and a live-blog of the speech.
Congress is being told to set the rules. Expect laundry lists of activities to go into the acceptable and unacceptable columns. The trick will be figuring out which ones are not mentioned at all, and how those are treated. Will Congress provide that any items or techniques not specifically mentioned be treated as legal? If it does, then the Administration will have surmounted and circumvented the issues in Hamdan.
Michelle Malkin notes, among other things, that Sen. Mitch McConnell has introduced the legislation.
Macranger thinks Bush had a winning combination with today's speech. John at Powerline notes that the AP is already spinning furiously by claiming that Bush admits that high value terrorists were being held in secret detention facilities overseas. Here's a newsflash. That isn't news. We've known for a couple of years now that certain terrorists, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were being held somewhere other than Gitmo.
The AP also thinks that terrorists ought to be given the right to look through the classified information that was gathered in order to capture those terrorists in the first place. The Administration position, and indeed the position of anyone seeking to defend this country from terrorists, should be against allowing terrorists access to classified information at trial.
The Moderate Voice notes that the war will be a major issue in the November elections, but that potential voters are still processing information coming from the battlefront and much can change their view between now and then. You can be sure that the Administration knew this implicitly when they went ahead with this policy speech today.
Dan Riehl discusses the speech at length, and thinks that the lawyers outsmarted themselves and thinks this will be painted as a total reversal by the Administration on the issue of detainee rights under the Geneva Conventions). There may be something to that, but I think his concern might be mitigated by the fact that people will realize that the Administration is doing what it thinks is right, and that by putting the matter in Congress' hands to circumvent Hamdan, that he's not only pushed his agenda forward, but has shortcircuited some of the criticism coming from the Left over the Administration's handling of detainees in general.
The Democrats who have brayed loudest over the treatment of detainees will now get to set forth what they think is acceptable, and the country will see for themselves just how Democrats seek to protect us from terrorists during a time of war when terrorists themselves have absolutely no inclination to treat their enemies with Geneva Convention protections - note that they invariably attack civilians and seek to inflict maximum casualties on civilians, and will exploit any and all laws to their advantage - including our freedom of speech, and rights granted to citizens of the US.
Others blogging: Babalu Blog, Jeff Goldstein, Stop the ACLU.
UPDATE:
Confederate Yankee was busy churning away articles of impeachment of President Bush for giving away the farm, but that was because he was busy relying on AP and other wire reports. Seems that reading further, and you'll find that the Administration did anything but cave on the issue of detainee rights under the Geneva Conventions.
One thing I can't help but wonder about is why it took the Administration this long to craft a policy that simultaneously defangs much of the Democrat talking points, and takes the judiciary (via Hamdan) out of the equation. Then again, this could be crafty Karl Rove showing his impeccible timing to provide the GOP with an issue to hammer home the failure of the Democrats to craft a national security policy.
Technorati: hamdan, gitmo, geneva convention, bush, war crimes act, war on terror, terrorism, terrorist.
Funny how that happens.
The first bit came early this afternoon, as it was announced that a number of high value detainees were being transferred to Gitmo from locations around the world. What was the purpose behind such a move?
That became clearer when President Bush made an important speech later in the day. The full text is here. Hot Air has the video, and a live-blog of the speech.
He’s asking Congress to:Ace thinks the President has Bushwhacked the opposition once again. I think he's on to something. Democrats have been playing up the anti-war card for quite some time, and have been saying that the President has been acting unconstitutionally under Hamdan. Well, now the President is telling Congress to put up or shut up. Specifically, that means that Democrats have to come up with something that passes muster, and actually defends the country against terrorism by enabling investigators to interrogate and procure information from detainees in a manner necessary to disrupt terror plots and/or uncover other terrorists before they could strike.
1. List specifically which interrogation procedures will violate the War Crimes Act.
2. Make clear that interrogators are authorized under Article 3.
3. Prevent terrorists from using Article 3 to sue interrogators.
Congress is being told to set the rules. Expect laundry lists of activities to go into the acceptable and unacceptable columns. The trick will be figuring out which ones are not mentioned at all, and how those are treated. Will Congress provide that any items or techniques not specifically mentioned be treated as legal? If it does, then the Administration will have surmounted and circumvented the issues in Hamdan.
Michelle Malkin notes, among other things, that Sen. Mitch McConnell has introduced the legislation.
Macranger thinks Bush had a winning combination with today's speech. John at Powerline notes that the AP is already spinning furiously by claiming that Bush admits that high value terrorists were being held in secret detention facilities overseas. Here's a newsflash. That isn't news. We've known for a couple of years now that certain terrorists, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were being held somewhere other than Gitmo.
The AP also thinks that terrorists ought to be given the right to look through the classified information that was gathered in order to capture those terrorists in the first place. The Administration position, and indeed the position of anyone seeking to defend this country from terrorists, should be against allowing terrorists access to classified information at trial.
The Moderate Voice notes that the war will be a major issue in the November elections, but that potential voters are still processing information coming from the battlefront and much can change their view between now and then. You can be sure that the Administration knew this implicitly when they went ahead with this policy speech today.
Dan Riehl discusses the speech at length, and thinks that the lawyers outsmarted themselves and thinks this will be painted as a total reversal by the Administration on the issue of detainee rights under the Geneva Conventions). There may be something to that, but I think his concern might be mitigated by the fact that people will realize that the Administration is doing what it thinks is right, and that by putting the matter in Congress' hands to circumvent Hamdan, that he's not only pushed his agenda forward, but has shortcircuited some of the criticism coming from the Left over the Administration's handling of detainees in general.
The Democrats who have brayed loudest over the treatment of detainees will now get to set forth what they think is acceptable, and the country will see for themselves just how Democrats seek to protect us from terrorists during a time of war when terrorists themselves have absolutely no inclination to treat their enemies with Geneva Convention protections - note that they invariably attack civilians and seek to inflict maximum casualties on civilians, and will exploit any and all laws to their advantage - including our freedom of speech, and rights granted to citizens of the US.
Others blogging: Babalu Blog, Jeff Goldstein, Stop the ACLU.
UPDATE:
Confederate Yankee was busy churning away articles of impeachment of President Bush for giving away the farm, but that was because he was busy relying on AP and other wire reports. Seems that reading further, and you'll find that the Administration did anything but cave on the issue of detainee rights under the Geneva Conventions.
One thing I can't help but wonder about is why it took the Administration this long to craft a policy that simultaneously defangs much of the Democrat talking points, and takes the judiciary (via Hamdan) out of the equation. Then again, this could be crafty Karl Rove showing his impeccible timing to provide the GOP with an issue to hammer home the failure of the Democrats to craft a national security policy.
Technorati: hamdan, gitmo, geneva convention, bush, war crimes act, war on terror, terrorism, terrorist.
Friday, September 01, 2006
All Over But The Whining
L'affaire Plame is toast, as Richard Armitage has been identified at the initial person who leaked the name of Valerie Plame to the media.
And who else should be blamed for this fiasco? Joe Wilson. Ed Morrissey has the details. AJ Strata has details on Wilsons other trip to Niger, and a potential connection to the AQ Khan nuclear proliferation network. Macranger notes that when the WaPo bails on you, that your 15 minutes are nearly up. And yet, we know that this will not close this sorry chapter in intel follies.
Tom Maguire wraps up the latest revelations in a bow.
UPDATE:
There was no Fitzmas. There will be no Fitzmas. There's no chance that there will be a Fitzmas. If that means I'm the Grinch, so be it.
So, what about those odds I had set on the primary figures? Well, looks like I wont have to pay out because I correctly chose no odds for the possibility that no crime was committed.
The hard left was dreaming the impossible dream, but just to refresh your recollection:
I wish I could say that this will mark the end of this sorry chapter, but the hard left is too vested in this nonsense to let it go.
UPDATE:
The wailing from the left is worse than fingernails on a chalkboard. They can't believe that Plamegate was a nonscandal wrapped in a media hailstorm.
Hot Air has more. James Joyner points out (as many others have done) that Joe Wilson is most to blame for the end of Plame's career at CIA, not anyone at the White House.
Others blogging: Flopping Aces, Tigerhawk, and The Real Ugly American.
Others blogging
Technorati: Plame, wilson, niger, yellowcake, judy miller, rove.
It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue. The partisan clamor that followed the raising of that allegation by Mr. Wilson in the summer of 2003 led to the appointment of a special prosecutor, a costly and prolonged investigation, and the indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury. All of that might have been avoided had Mr. Armitage's identity been known three years ago.That doesn't speak well of Fitzgerald, who was conducting the investigation and only managed to find someone, Scooter Libby, whose inability to recall certain details of conversations had years prior led to a perjury charge that will likely not stand the scrutiny of a trial.
And who else should be blamed for this fiasco? Joe Wilson. Ed Morrissey has the details. AJ Strata has details on Wilsons other trip to Niger, and a potential connection to the AQ Khan nuclear proliferation network. Macranger notes that when the WaPo bails on you, that your 15 minutes are nearly up. And yet, we know that this will not close this sorry chapter in intel follies.
Tom Maguire wraps up the latest revelations in a bow.
UPDATE:
There was no Fitzmas. There will be no Fitzmas. There's no chance that there will be a Fitzmas. If that means I'm the Grinch, so be it.
So, what about those odds I had set on the primary figures? Well, looks like I wont have to pay out because I correctly chose no odds for the possibility that no crime was committed.
The hard left was dreaming the impossible dream, but just to refresh your recollection:
I wish I could say that this will mark the end of this sorry chapter, but the hard left is too vested in this nonsense to let it go.
UPDATE:
The wailing from the left is worse than fingernails on a chalkboard. They can't believe that Plamegate was a nonscandal wrapped in a media hailstorm.
Hot Air has more. James Joyner points out (as many others have done) that Joe Wilson is most to blame for the end of Plame's career at CIA, not anyone at the White House.
Others blogging: Flopping Aces, Tigerhawk, and The Real Ugly American.
Others blogging
Technorati: Plame, wilson, niger, yellowcake, judy miller, rove.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Funny Story of the Day
If someone said that Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson would find a way to brighten up an otherwise gloomy day, I'd have said that you were talking crazy. However, the fact that Plame and Wilson plan on suing Vice President Cheney, Louis "Scooter" Libby, and Karl Rove, just hits my funny bone.
Can they be any dumber than to open themselves up to discovery? Can you imagine defense questions during depositions? This is a sitcom waiting to happen.
Tom Maguire is surprised that they went through with the filing.
Macranger sees this as having his prayers answered.
AJ Strata thinks that this is all to further the book deal. I concur. The book needs a closing chapter, and suing Cheney, Rove, and Libby would be the way to go out in a blaze of glory.
Mark Levin notes that these buffoons file this kind of lawsuit on a day when the Middle East lurches towards war saying that they're after 15 more minutes of infamy. Well, the wheels of justice do grind on regardless of what is happening overseas.
Can they be any dumber than to open themselves up to discovery? Can you imagine defense questions during depositions? This is a sitcom waiting to happen.
Tom Maguire is surprised that they went through with the filing.
Macranger sees this as having his prayers answered.
AJ Strata thinks that this is all to further the book deal. I concur. The book needs a closing chapter, and suing Cheney, Rove, and Libby would be the way to go out in a blaze of glory.
Mark Levin notes that these buffoons file this kind of lawsuit on a day when the Middle East lurches towards war saying that they're after 15 more minutes of infamy. Well, the wheels of justice do grind on regardless of what is happening overseas.
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Pardon What?
So, we're now witnessing speculation that Louis "Scooter" Libby will be pardoned by President Bush at some point for lying about telling the truth about a serial liar in a case where no crime was actually committed. What kind of loony logic is this?
Libby himself may be off the hook as Fitzgerald's case keeps getting weaker and weaker. That's why he wasn't able to indict anyone under the original mandate of his office - to determine whether someone violated federal law - Intelligence Identities Protection Act. As it stands, too many people in the media and on the left were absolutely certain of Rove's guilt, and presumed as much. When that didn't come to pass, they have had to invent new rationales for the lack of an indictment.
The simplest explanation is usually the correct one - there was no crime committed. Hence, no indictments.
WASHINGTON -- Now that top White House aide Karl Rove is off the hook in the CIA leak probe, President George W. Bush must weigh whether to pardon former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the only one indicted in the three-year investigation.President Bush has no reason to pardon Libby - as an trial would clearly exonerate Libby and shed light on the journalistic stylings of many of the critics of the Administration and reveal the true identity of the person who may have revealed Plame's game.
Speculation about a pardon began in late October, soon after Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald unsealed the perjury indictment of Libby, and it continued last week after Fitzgerald chose not to charge Rove.
"I think ultimately, of course, there are going to be pardons," said Joseph diGenova, a former prosecutor and an old Washington hand who shares that view with many pundits.
"These are the kinds of cases in which historically presidents have given pardons," said the veteran Republican attorney.
The White House remains mum on the president's intentions. Spokeswoman Dana Perino declined to comment Friday.
Bush has powerful incentives to pardon Libby, however. They range from rewarding past loyalty to ending the awkward revelations emerging from pretrial motions, a flow that could worsen in his trial next year.
Libby himself may be off the hook as Fitzgerald's case keeps getting weaker and weaker. That's why he wasn't able to indict anyone under the original mandate of his office - to determine whether someone violated federal law - Intelligence Identities Protection Act. As it stands, too many people in the media and on the left were absolutely certain of Rove's guilt, and presumed as much. When that didn't come to pass, they have had to invent new rationales for the lack of an indictment.
The simplest explanation is usually the correct one - there was no crime committed. Hence, no indictments.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Step Away From the Ledge
There will be no Fitzmas. There will be no Rove perp walk. Karl Rove will not be indicted, much to the chagrin of the rabid left. More to the point, there was no crime committed by anyone actually 'leaking' the name of Valerie Plame. The only indictment obtained by Fitzgerald was for obstruction of justice and perjury for Scooter Libby, who contradicted himself in testimony before the Grand Jury.
AJ Strata calls this quitting while behind. Stop the ACLU notes that the DUers are shocked. Well, if they weren't blinded by their partisan hackery, they would have seen that the facts simply didn't support any contention that the alleged crime of leaking the identity of a CIA agent had occurred.
Tom Maguire has a good roundup and notes that while he had considered a Rove indictment, he had been lengthening the odds as time went on because Fitzgerald simply didn't have a case and couldn't get anyone to flip on anyone else.
Others noting the Left's bitter disappointment, and otherwise commenting on the lack of Fitzmas: Tigerhawk, Don Surber, Rick Moran, and Hot Air.
Scott Ott at Scrappleface has the best headline of the week:
Rove Cleared, Zarqawi Dead, GOP Doomed. Poor Jason Leopold, who still clings to hope beyond all hope that a Rove indictment will come. No truth for you.
UPDATE:
Decision 08 has a roundup of the top 10 themes running at the Lefty websites. From conspriacy to bad timing, with a smattering of hopeful holdouts, the Left has it covered.
UPDATE:
Christopher Rose, of megafirm Proskauer Rose LLP, who represents Wilson and Plame, issued a statement today:
Can you imagine the circus surrounding any legal action taken by Plame or Wilson against Rove or Cheney or anyone else in the Bush Administration for that matter? Those folks would have a field day with a witness list that would include everyone from Matt Cooper to Judith Miller, Woodward to Russert, and that's before getting into the likes of Armitage and Novak.
No, this statement is nothing more than saving face - knowing full well that there will be no further legal action because it can't possibly help their cause.
UPDATE:
Roger L. Simon asks the salient question that has remained unanswered all these years - who sent Joe Wilson to Africa and why was he chosen.
Super Fun Power Hour has the mother of all Rovian roundups.
Jeff Goldstein and Pajamas Media note this has been a pretty bad week for the left.
Others blogging: Big Dog's Weblog, Politburo Diktat, Sister Toldjah, Flopping Aces, Confederate Yankee, Pretend Pundit.
AJ Strata calls this quitting while behind. Stop the ACLU notes that the DUers are shocked. Well, if they weren't blinded by their partisan hackery, they would have seen that the facts simply didn't support any contention that the alleged crime of leaking the identity of a CIA agent had occurred.
Tom Maguire has a good roundup and notes that while he had considered a Rove indictment, he had been lengthening the odds as time went on because Fitzgerald simply didn't have a case and couldn't get anyone to flip on anyone else.
Others noting the Left's bitter disappointment, and otherwise commenting on the lack of Fitzmas: Tigerhawk, Don Surber, Rick Moran, and Hot Air.
Scott Ott at Scrappleface has the best headline of the week:
Rove Cleared, Zarqawi Dead, GOP Doomed. Poor Jason Leopold, who still clings to hope beyond all hope that a Rove indictment will come. No truth for you.
UPDATE:
Decision 08 has a roundup of the top 10 themes running at the Lefty websites. From conspriacy to bad timing, with a smattering of hopeful holdouts, the Left has it covered.
UPDATE:
Christopher Rose, of megafirm Proskauer Rose LLP, who represents Wilson and Plame, issued a statement today:
We have become aware of the communication between Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Luskin concerning Karl Rove's status in the criminal investigation. We have no first-hand knowledge of the reason for the communication or what further developments in the criminal investigation it may signal. While it appears that Mr. Rove will not be called to answer in criminal court for his participation in the wrongful disclosure of Valerie Wilson's classified employment status at the CIA in retaliation against Joe Wilson for questioning the rationale for war in Iraq, that obviously does not end the matter. The day still may come when Mr. Rove and others are called to account in a court of law for their attacks on the Wilsons.Last time I checked, truth is an absolute defense to the tort of defamation. Unless they've got some novel legal theory cooked up (and would be a dubious one at that), this is sound and fury signifying a big nothing. It's a pandering to the holdouts on the Left hoping for some kind of legal action against Rove (and in effect Bush) for Plame's 'outing.'
Can you imagine the circus surrounding any legal action taken by Plame or Wilson against Rove or Cheney or anyone else in the Bush Administration for that matter? Those folks would have a field day with a witness list that would include everyone from Matt Cooper to Judith Miller, Woodward to Russert, and that's before getting into the likes of Armitage and Novak.
No, this statement is nothing more than saving face - knowing full well that there will be no further legal action because it can't possibly help their cause.
UPDATE:
Roger L. Simon asks the salient question that has remained unanswered all these years - who sent Joe Wilson to Africa and why was he chosen.
Super Fun Power Hour has the mother of all Rovian roundups.
Jeff Goldstein and Pajamas Media note this has been a pretty bad week for the left.
Others blogging: Big Dog's Weblog, Politburo Diktat, Sister Toldjah, Flopping Aces, Confederate Yankee, Pretend Pundit.
Saturday, May 20, 2006
Indict Another Day
Truthout has finally realized that they were peddling fantasy and not real news - though they couch their retraction in terms of being ahead of the news curve.
Sorry to break it to you, but when you're that far out in front of the news curve, you're not breaking news, but peddling delusional fantasy.
This isn't going to happen anytime soon:
Sorry to break it to you, but when you're that far out in front of the news curve, you're not breaking news, but peddling delusional fantasy.
This isn't going to happen anytime soon:
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Are You Dreaming the Impossible Dream
All you lefties out there would love to see this come to fruition. Jason Leopold said it would happen last week (and then nuanced to say it would be at some point later than his surefire sources informed him). Another 'journalist,' Wayne Madsen, says it will be tomorrow.
The suspense is killing me. All you folks who know that this is going to happen, can you let me know. Because I care.
Also blogging: Point Five, Thoughts Online, Capitol Hill Blue, and Barking Aardvark.
The Parallax View thinks that Fitzmas may come in May, but the indictment du jour will be Richard Armitage, not Rove. Tom Maguire has a more detailed posting to that effect. If there's going to be an indictment, that may be the target.
Sunday, May 14, 2006
The Left's Atwitter
There's a reporter floating the idea that Karl Rove is being indicted for his involvment in some aspect of the Valerie Plame investigation. The Left, naturally, seems to love this idea thinking that it will somehow get them one step closer to impeaching President Bush, or VP Cheney.
As others note, there's more than a few problems with the story - namely that there's no proof of any wrongdoing. It is quite likely that this is just a lot of fantasizing about what the Left will do if and when an indictment comes down. And that's assuming that one will come down - which is far from clear.
Don Surber wonders whether someone will investigate who purportedly leaked a sealed indictment, which itself is a criminal act.
As others note, there's more than a few problems with the story - namely that there's no proof of any wrongdoing. It is quite likely that this is just a lot of fantasizing about what the Left will do if and when an indictment comes down. And that's assuming that one will come down - which is far from clear.
Don Surber wonders whether someone will investigate who purportedly leaked a sealed indictment, which itself is a criminal act.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Synchronicity
Is Mary McCarthy a scapegoat or being held to a double standard on leaking classified information? Stephen Green thinks that, if anything, she's being treated far too leniently. If he had leaked classified information, he would have been fired and tossed in jail. He thinks McCarthy deserves no different a treatment.
Meanwhile, Fitzgerald is back at the grand jury and Karl Rove even made another appearance.
The problem is that there's no way to tell who is getting this story right. The Times, Washington Post, and many of the other outlets have vested interests in the outcome of these investigations. Their journalists are deeply involved in these leak scandals, and these same journalists are often trying to get government employees to leak information all the time - both classified and unclassified information. The WSJ ran an op-ed to that very effect:
Tom Maguire notes that the media is finally getting the issue of campaign contributions right. Took 'em long enough. I guess they finally got their opensecrets.org memberships approved (it's a free service with no registration, though there is are premium pay options).
Max Boot busts out the World War II slogans in dealing with the leakage of classified information. It's as relevant now as it was back then.
UPDATE:
Fixed link to AJ's comments above. Also blogging: Gina Cobb, Blue Crab Boulevard, and Ace of Spades (who notes that the LAT is trying not to confuse readers by providing information that would denote that McCarthy's motives were less than pure - aka being a partisan hack).
UPDATE:
Confederate Yankee takes the Washington Post to task for its claims that Porter Goss made questionable use of his power and authority to search for leakers. Sorry, but making sure that the agency doesn't leak classified information, especially during a time of war, should be the top priority of an agency dedicated to finding out what the enemies know - and making sure that they don't give away what we know about our enemies. Expose the Left and Newsbusters may be one of the few folks still watching Olbermann - he's deep and not playable.
Granddaddy Longlegs has a roundup of views on matters, including a link to Hugh Hewitt who notes:
Earlier coverage: McCarthy's Mess, L'Affaire McCarthy, Web of Leaks, Cronyism at the CIA, Friday Night Link Dump.
AJ Strata updates and wonders:
Technorati: intel, leak, cia, nsa wiretapping, porter goss, bush.
Meanwhile, Fitzgerald is back at the grand jury and Karl Rove even made another appearance.
The problem is that there's no way to tell who is getting this story right. The Times, Washington Post, and many of the other outlets have vested interests in the outcome of these investigations. Their journalists are deeply involved in these leak scandals, and these same journalists are often trying to get government employees to leak information all the time - both classified and unclassified information. The WSJ ran an op-ed to that very effect:
The deepest damage from these leak frenzies may yet be to the press itself, both in credibility and its ability to do its job. It was the press that unleashed anti-leak search missions aimed at the White House that have seen Judith Miller jailed and may find Ms. Priest and Mr. Risen facing subpoenas. And it was the press that promoted the probe under the rarely used Espionage Act of "neocon" Defense Department employee Lawrence Franklin, only to find that the same law may now be used against its own "whistleblower" sources. Just recently has the press begun to notice that the use of the same Espionage Act to prosecute two pro-Israel lobbyists for repeating classified information isn't much different from prosecuting someone for what the press does every day--except for a far larger audience.Sweetness and Light notes that McCarthy and her mouthpieces have all denied what the CIA states:
We've been clear all along that we don't like leak prosecutions, especially when they involve harassing reporters who are just trying to do their job. But then that's part of the reason we didn't join Joe Wilson and the New York Times in demanding Karl Rove's head over the Plame disclosure. As for some of our media colleagues, when they stop being honest chroniclers of events and start getting into bed with bureaucrats looking to take down elected political leaders, they shouldn't be surprised if those leaders treat them like the partisans they have become.
A C.I.A. spokeswoman, Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, said: "The officer was terminated for precisely the reasons we have given: unauthorized contacts with reporters and sharing classified information with reporters. There is no question whatsoever that the officer did both. The officer personally admitted doing both."Someone isn't telling the truth there and my hunch is that it's McCarthy though AJ Strata points out the latest theory by Cobb and McCarthy; the was authorized to leak the information. If that pans out, that suggests someone higher up thought this information should be released. That's a very small group of people - and therefore should be easily verified.
Ty Cobb, a lawyer representing Ms. McCarthy, said again on Tuesday that she never admitted divulging sensitive material. "She did not confess, orally or in writing, to leaking classified information," Mr. Cobb said.
Tom Maguire notes that the media is finally getting the issue of campaign contributions right. Took 'em long enough. I guess they finally got their opensecrets.org memberships approved (it's a free service with no registration, though there is are premium pay options).
Max Boot busts out the World War II slogans in dealing with the leakage of classified information. It's as relevant now as it was back then.
UPDATE:
Fixed link to AJ's comments above. Also blogging: Gina Cobb, Blue Crab Boulevard, and Ace of Spades (who notes that the LAT is trying not to confuse readers by providing information that would denote that McCarthy's motives were less than pure - aka being a partisan hack).
UPDATE:
Confederate Yankee takes the Washington Post to task for its claims that Porter Goss made questionable use of his power and authority to search for leakers. Sorry, but making sure that the agency doesn't leak classified information, especially during a time of war, should be the top priority of an agency dedicated to finding out what the enemies know - and making sure that they don't give away what we know about our enemies. Expose the Left and Newsbusters may be one of the few folks still watching Olbermann - he's deep and not playable.
Granddaddy Longlegs has a roundup of views on matters, including a link to Hugh Hewitt who notes:
If the CIA employee fired today for leaking highly classified material to the press had instead taken a computer and given it to a reporter, the reporter would be guilty of receiving stolen goods, right?
And if an Apple employee leaked key design and development info to a competitor, the competitor would be in the wrong, right?
So, how can the journalists recipient of the pilfered info be a hero?
Becaue the reporters' colleagues are reporting the news about the leak?
Because government needs watchdogs?
But what if the leaked information compromised an anti-terrorist operation, allowing terrorists to escape and strike U.S. interests, or the homeland, later?
Earlier coverage: McCarthy's Mess, L'Affaire McCarthy, Web of Leaks, Cronyism at the CIA, Friday Night Link Dump.
AJ Strata updates and wonders:
So, where are we? It is clear Mary McCarthy has been provided one top-notch scandal attorney for someone who did not leak anything. This story had every indication of dying from lack of attention until Rand Beers, Kerry and the DNC’s Howard Dean started jumping into the fray. And WaPo is also hurting it’s cause and keeping this alive by NOT leaking like the CIA with regards to Dana Priest’s role in all this. As Tom Maguire so aptly noted yesterday, if there is no leak of classified data and McCarthy is not a Priest source, why are we have som much fun here? Why can’t Priest come out and say we are focused on the wrong person?MacRanger has two pieces up - one dealing with Rove's testimony once again in front of Plame investigation grand jury, and one on what's going on with McCarthy. He's pointing fingers at a couple of senators - Rockefeller, Durbin, and Schumer. I say it's idle speculation, though I agree with the fact that a lot of people are sweating over whether McCarthy will flip and make a deal with prosecutors and start naming names.
Technorati: intel, leak, cia, nsa wiretapping, porter goss, bush.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
The Chairs Are Rearranged
As White House spokesman, Scott McClellan has one of the toughest jobs in D.C. Fending off the media hordes whose agenda isn't just getting news, but undermining an Administration - moreso during GOP Administations than during Democratic Administrations. It's a pressure filled job, and he's stepping down.
And Karl Rove fans (and haters) take note: he's shifting from policy to election duties. Expect him to have a major role in the November elections.
Wuzzadem has the best suggestion for White House Spokesman. Well, it's a whole lot funnier than my suggestion, which was to can the position.
UPDATE:
Don Surber also thinks that the position of official spokesperson doesn't make sense. The Man thinks that Jack Bauer should be the next White House spokesperson (and yes, there is humor there too).
Upon further reflection, Jack Bristow would be an acceptable alternative if Jack Bauer isn't available and we know that he probably is (despite the fact that Jack Bauer can bend time and space). Bristow has theater training as a cover, knowledgable in all the martial arts, and has excellent diction and known for pithy statements and steely demeanor. Oh, and knows how to use a screwdriver for more than putting together a crib.
Others blogging the Administration changes: Ed Driscoll, and Stop the ACLU.
And Karl Rove fans (and haters) take note: he's shifting from policy to election duties. Expect him to have a major role in the November elections.
Appearing with Bush on the White House South Lawn just before the president boarded a helicopter at the start a trip to Alabama, McClellan, who has parried especially fiercefully with reporters on Iraq and on intelligence issues, told Bush: "I have given it my all sir and I have given you my all sir, and I will continue to do so as we transition to a new press secretary."UPDATE:
Just over a year ago, Rove was promoted to deputy chief of staff in charge of most White House policy coordination. That new portfolio came on top of his title as senior adviser and role of chief policy aide to Bush.
But now, the job of deputy chief of staff for policy is being given to Joel Kaplan, now the White House's deputy budget director, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the president had not yet made the announcement.
The move signals a possibly broad effort to rearrange and reinvigorate Bush's staff by new chief of staff Joshua Bolten. Bolten moved into his position last week; Kaplan was his No. 2 person at the Office of Management and Budget.
Wuzzadem has the best suggestion for White House Spokesman. Well, it's a whole lot funnier than my suggestion, which was to can the position.
UPDATE:
Don Surber also thinks that the position of official spokesperson doesn't make sense. The Man thinks that Jack Bauer should be the next White House spokesperson (and yes, there is humor there too).
Upon further reflection, Jack Bristow would be an acceptable alternative if Jack Bauer isn't available and we know that he probably is (despite the fact that Jack Bauer can bend time and space). Bristow has theater training as a cover, knowledgable in all the martial arts, and has excellent diction and known for pithy statements and steely demeanor. Oh, and knows how to use a screwdriver for more than putting together a crib.
Others blogging the Administration changes: Ed Driscoll, and Stop the ACLU.
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Messing With NYC Transit
A law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity said the threat was "specific to place, time and method," which was a bombing. The official said the information resulted from the arrest of al-Qaida operatives in Iraq.Depending on who you hear this information from, it is either specific as to time, place, and manner, or it isn't. Later reports might be downplaying the find, to minimize details relating to how our intel services came upon the original information.
But in Washington, Homeland Security Department spokesman Russ Knocke said "the intelligence community has concluded this information to be of doubtful credibility. We shared this information early on with state and local authorities in New York." Knocke did not elaborate.
A counterterror official, who was briefed about the threat by Homeland Security authorities, said the intelligence was considered doubtful because it did not reflect "on-the-ground, detailed" information. Rather, the official, who also insisted on anonymity, said the intelligence was similar to "what can be found on the Internet and a map of New York City."
The law enforcement official in New York said that city officials had known about the threat at least since Monday, but held the information until two or three al-Qaida operatives were arrested in Iraq within the past 24 hours. Once the arrests were made, officials felt they could go public, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation was ongoing.
Authorities are concerned, the official said, that there might be al-Qaida operatives in New York City connected to the plot. They have no hard evidence of that, but are investigating.
Confederate Yankee notes that the terrorists were apprehended by a joint FBI-CIA group (he's also liveblogging it. That must surely rankle Jamie Gorelick, who sought to keep that kind of fieldwork out of the realm of possibility.
My personal observation of the subway and transit systems in general is that even if you put cops on every single bus and railcar, something could still happen. However, we might get the bead on the terrorists before they're ready, and that gives our cops a chance to save lives. NJ Transit cops and special weapons teams have been more prevalent in Hoboken's terminal over the past week, but that could be a routine show of force.
NYC has been on a higher level of alert since 9/11 than the rest of the country. It has never gotten lower than orange since 9/11.
Ace notes that the deranged left is questioning the timing of the alert. Something about Karl Rove, Tom DeLay, itchy trigger fingers, and evil plots afoot. The Left is always with their negative waves.
UPDATE:
GOP and the City has more. They've even posted an email that smacks of the usual hoax/urban legend kind of deal - just enough information to be credible, but not so much that one really has anything to go on.
The fact is that the NYC metro area is chock full of targets. It's the target rich environment of target rich environments. Every subway stop in the city is a potential target. The stations mentioned are high profile, but certainly not the only ones - they're the kind of thing that anyone with a subway map could discern.
However, the fact that they're talking about 19 terrorists (Where have we heard that number before? Oh yes, on 9/11 when 19 hijackers took over four planes and murdered nearly 3,000 of my fellow Americans in the blink of an eye.) and that they're going to use briefcases. That's kind of specific, don't you think?
And that's why I've passed this information on.
Technorati: NYC, terror threat, subway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)