:: Friday, July 15, 2005 ::
Rove's latest line
This NYT story is as clear as mud:
:: Thursday, July 14, 2005 ::
Karl Rove, the White House senior adviser, spoke with the columnist Robert D. Novak as he was preparing an article in July 2003 that identified a C.I.A. officer who was undercover, someone who has been officially briefed on the matter said. However, after reading it about a gazillion times (and being pointed to this version at the Post) it becomes pretty clear.
This is Rove's latest line of defense. "A lawyer briefed on the matter" is almost certainly Luskin -- the leaks from Fitzgerald's office have been nil, and the only one BESIDES Fitzgerald who would know Rove's testimony would be Rove's lawyer. Well -- to be technical, it's what Rove claimed he said to the Grand Jury.
This is really an attempt to counter the Time emails -- basically to get a defense out there. The problem with the latest defense is that it directly contradicts Novak's first statements (he claimed the story was shopped to him) as well as multiple statements made by Rove and Novak in the past. If that's what Rove really told the Grand Jury, it's not hard to imagine why Fitzgerald might be adding perjury charges to the list. I'm sure it's the GOP talking point of the day -- but talking points don't matter anymore. The law -- at least in the hands of the honest and dedicated -- is a slow methodical bitch that eats spin for breakfast. And Fitzgerald's reputation is such that I trust him -- if he closes without an indictment, I'm going to honestly believe no one could have gotten one. Somehow, given the effort he's put in, I don't see that happening though. It doesn't matter what Rove or Rove's lawyer is leaking to the press -- what matter is what has been said in front of the Grand Jury, and while Rove knows what he said and what Novak said -- he doesn't know what Cooper said, or what any of the other people pulled before the Grand Jury said. He and Novak are having to lie in a vacuum, without knowing what Fitzgerald knows and can prove. It's the most dangerous sort of lie, and reeks of desperation.
I don't think the press is buying it either -- the NYT piece was a muddle, but the Post piece made it as clear as possible (without violating their usual promise of anonymity) that the "sources" in the piece are lawyers for those on the block. I expect the press isn't going to back off a whiff. They smell blood.
:: Morat 8:27 AM :: ::
Why Not Hillary?
This ridiculous bullshit is why not Hillary. And why not Lieberman, for that matter. Get a goddamn clue, Hillary -- the Righties like it when Republicans get all purient about sex and culture because they believe Republicans share their values.
:: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 ::
When lefties get that way, all they see is pandering and nanny-stateism. Why? Because they don't believe you share their values, or else you'd be a Republican. So if you're going to bitch about video games, they're not going to see "Protecting the moral fiber of America" -- only Republicans do that -- they're going to see "Fucking nosy bitch who wants the government's paws all over my life".
Kind of hypocritical, but true.
In the meantime, I -- one of those lefties whose vote you really need -- see you as a pandering idiot.
For the record, Hillary is pissed that GTA:SA can show sex scenes. How? Apparently a downloaded mod. Perhaps Rockstar is lying on that count -- personally, I don't care. The game is rated "M" and Hillary's ridiculous "It could fall into the hands of children" argument is so specious as to defy belief -- Children turn the TV to Cinemax, Showtime and HBO and get to see real people faking sex as opposed to fake people having fake sex....and I don't see her bitching about cable yet -- mainly because that's too many voters to piss off. Red Staters LOVE their Skinemax.
Hillary -- I won't vote for Lieberman because I find his righteous-ass moralizing offensive. It reeks of a deep-seated belief that HIS moral values should be explicitly imposed on ME -- despite the fact that I'm pretty certain my moral values are better than his. You're even worse -- you're not even religiously self-righteous...you're just doing it for votes. Worse yet -- votes you're never get.
You're not only pandering, you're really BAD at it.
:: Morat 9:31 AM :: ::
Looks like a one-day scrub on Discovery. Hopefully tomorrow will see a smooth launch.
:: Monday, July 11, 2005 ::
Update: Looks like the scrub is more than 24 hours. It appears the launch won't be until Friday or -- more likely -- Saturday. At the earliest.
Update II: Looks like as late as Monday.
:: Morat 10:35 AM :: ::
Atrios has the best explanation of this NYT article I've come across:
This New York Times article on the Rove case is typically clear as mud, but after reading it several times and consulting with a handful of liberal intellectuals, I've gained new respect for Matt Cooper. Basically, he got fed up with Rove's lawyer lying to the press, and figured that combined with the waiver he'd previously received and the emphasis Luskin placed on it, was enough. It's pretty obvious Cooper wasn't going to testify and suddenly -- and quite dramatically -- changed his mind.
I don't think it was the prospect of jail -- Cooper had months to sort that out, and I suspect he would have simply used the "Time Magazine has already done the damage" excuse to go ahead and testify.
Hell, just from the news dump over the weekend we know that Rove's "I never uttered Plame's name to any reporter" really meant "I called her 'Wilson's wife' when I was pushing the story to people". If I remember correctly, Oliver North got burned by a reporter for doing pretty much the same thing -- assuming reporters would keep silent no matter what bullshit he was peddling.
:: Morat 9:49 AM :: ::