Rovian Atmosphere

Howie Kurtz does the heavy lifting with an update on the goings-on in the Rove-Plame matter. I can only add a couple of things.

One, let's be adult about this, Rove was not "out to get" Joe Wilson or his wife. He was attempting to make the minor, but still valid, rhetorical point that Wilson could not be described as an internal critic of the Bush administration and was not vetted by the White House inner circle for his trip to Niger. Wilson, Rove was signaling in typical obscurant DC fashion, is a CIA guy, a permanent government guy. Not one of us. Not of the body.

That this distinction was, and evidently still is, important to the people at the top of the Bush power pyramid strikes me as the real important story of the matter. Input, cold hard fact, time-of-day, from anyone deemed an outsider simply cannot move this administration and should be ignored by everyone else.

Second, the White House and official GOPdom is fast approaching unsustainable, Clintonian "depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" territory by insisting that Rove somehow did not "name" Plame. Of course he did. And course Bush should fire Rove or else be judged a hypocrite on his pledge to fire any leakers involved in the matter.

But I think Bush and his closest aides do not want to risk showing any weakness heading into the Supreme Court brawl and, as a result, little thought will be given to letting Rove go unless somehow criminal charges result from the investigation of the matter.

Comments

mtm | July 13, 2005, 11:46am | #

"Actually, Wilson was right about the bogus Niger uranium tale, and the White House was wrong, although his credibility did take a hit from a critical Senate intelligence committee report."

Kurtz doesn't explain this or source this and I'm having trouble finding out what the real deal is regarding the quality/accuracy of Wilson's work on the yellowcake story. Could anyone point me to a good, brief rundown?

chthus | July 13, 2005, 11:46am | #

Or is this stonewall an opportunistic smokescreen for that upcoming nomination fight? Split their opponents' focus while this stonewall requires no effort/time/sound bytes from the Republican congress.

joe | July 13, 2005, 11:50am | #

I don't know if the retalliation motive can be ruled out so easily - see, career bureaucrats, this is what you get when you mess with us.

"Wilson, Rove was signaling in typical obscurant DC fashion, is a CIA guy, a permanent government guy. Not one of us. Not of the body." This concept is well summed up the word "hack" that Rove defenders keep hurling at Wilson - the fact that he was a career professional in the field in question should be considered a point against him in assessing his credibility as he writes about issues related to that field. Sort of like the dismissal of the State Department's "Future of Iraq Project" for planning the post-war, and the mass recruitment of AEI interns to staff positions in the CPA.

It is amusing to see the same people make the argument "he didn't actually say her name, just that she was Wilson's wife" shortly after making the argument "everyone knew Valerie Plame was Wilson's wife."

Matt | July 13, 2005, 11:52am | #

Jeff, im in basic agreement with all but point one. Your emphasis on out to get seems to imply that Rove would never do such a thing as manipulate the press in order to tarnish a political enemy. Now, I think undermining JW was the first goal, outing VPlame in the process was secondary (in KR's mind).

And you seem to contradict your defense of Rove with your condemnation of the Bush Admin's inability to consider outsiders. You recognize they wont consider them, but you dont see they try to destroy/undermine/tarnish those outsiders who say the emperor has no clothes. Lets not forget that Joe Wilson, suspect as his motives may be, was essentially correct about the yellowcake.

joe | July 13, 2005, 11:54am | #

But this, "But I think Bush and his closest aides do not want to risk showing any weakness" gets at the heart of how this adminstration fails.

They consider two options. 1) Give in on this and let the opposition score a point, or 2) Stand firm, and win it all. They don't consider option 3) Slug it out, lose the fight, and end up with the opposition achieving a major victory instead of a minor one.

They make the same mistake in rejecting the idea of an Iraq pullout. 1) Declare a not-so compelling victory and leave, with the fallout that it would entail, or 2) Stand firm, and score a big victory. They don't consider that option 3) End up evacuating people from the roof of the embassy, could be thrust upon them, and must be avoided at all costs.

Jeremiad | July 13, 2005, 12:00pm | #

Jeff, How do you square the Rove is just trying to signal that Wilson isn't an insider with the later reputed remark, "Wilson's wife is fair game?" to Chris Matthews.

(Matthews btw has never denied this quote)

Sounds like Rove was doing more than sending some obscure Washington signal to a reporter.

Sometimes going after a man's wife is going after a man's wife, no?

Jeff A. Taylor | July 13, 2005, 12:04pm | #

Matt, all ANYONE does in Washington is try to manipulate the press in order to get a political leg up. Rove surely wanted people to ignore Wilson's tale and to make it less sexy he wanted to take away the angle that somehow a Bush admin guy had flipped to the other side. Part of that was telling Cooper not to put too much stock in what he said, etc.

Contra Joe Wilson's post-leak line, it was never about him or his wife per se. They were to be marginalized and shot down, because, of course, no one outside the admin has a valid view.

In sum, Rove would've been much better off to say the guy's nut and leave it at that.

nobody | July 13, 2005, 12:21pm | #

Interesting, maybe this is what I get from spending too much time on left-wing websites, but my understanding had been that Rove's motivation, plain and simple, was to punish Wilson for speaking ill of the administration. So Jeff, you don't think "outting" Valerie was Karl's motivation? I'd be willing to cut KR some slack if that were the case.

joe | July 13, 2005, 12:23pm | #

"They were to be marginalized and shot down, because, of course, no one outside the admin has a valid view."

Another common theme in the actions of the administration and their circle. Karl Rove probably doesn't hate John Kerry, or consider him a coward, a liar, or a traitor. He didn't engineer the Swift Boat farce because of hatred towards John Kerry, or a sense of justice.

For people like that, ruining a decent person like that isn't personal. It's just business.

joe | July 13, 2005, 12:24pm | #

nobody, I think Jeff is distinguishing between intent and motive.

kwais | July 13, 2005, 12:26pm | #

Joe,
Two things;
1 Wilson IS a political hack. His main focus was to discredit Bush, not to uncover any truth. That the CIA nominated him, is a disgrace to the CIA.

2 Evacuating people from a rooftop? The only way we lose this war is if the American government gives up. The bad guys can blow up bombs at a check point, they can kill a cop, they can kill a polititians family, but they can't stop the progress. They can't dictate anything. They are losing. These bad guys are no Vietcong.

ChrisO | July 13, 2005, 12:27pm | #

This is the summer silly season in national politics. Nobody's paying attention. And so you tend to get silly little DC foodfights like this one during this time of year. Karl Rove is not going anywhere. Once Bush appoints the S.Ct. nominee, this little affair will be quickly forgotten.

theCoach | July 13, 2005, 12:45pm | #

"One, let's be adult about this, Rove was not "out to get" Joe Wilson or his wife. He was attempting to make the minor, but still valid, rhetorical point that Wilson could not be described as an internal critic of the Bush administration and was not vetted by the White House inner circle for his trip to Niger. Wilson, Rove was signaling in typical obscurant DC fashion, is a CIA guy, a permanent government guy. Not one of us. Not of the body."

From where are you inferring this? I have seen no indication (other than self serving assertions) that this is true and plenty to suggest otherwise. Is this just a libertarian attempt to give a little to each side to appear nonpartisan?

From the Washington Post:

"Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. Wilson had just revealed that the CIA had sent him to Niger last year to look into the uranium claim and that he had found no evidence to back up the charge. Wilson's account touched off a political fracas over Bush's use of intelligence as he made the case for attacking Iraq.
"Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge," the senior official said of the alleged leak."

My reading of "it was purely and simply for revenge" is more consistent with "'out to get' Joe Wilson or his wife".

scott | July 13, 2005, 12:48pm | #

Jeff,
You say that Bush should fire Rove to live up to his word, but as I was watching a CNN report on the story last night, it seems to me that the press has been somewhat incorrect in their characterization of what Bush said. On the tape Bush says (and I'm parapharazing) "I want to know who the leaker is. And if that person violated the law they will be fired". This isn't the exact quote, but a qualifier was definetly in there. It wasn't just "I'll fire the leaker".

joe | July 13, 2005, 12:53pm | #

kwais, on what do you base your assertion that was a hack - because he wrote an article that looked bad for Bush?

Tell me if you see a problem with this logic:

"X wrote something critical of Bush. We can safely ignore X, because he is a partisan hack. How do we know he's a partisan hack? Well, X wrote something critical of Bush."

2) "The only way we lose this war is if the American government gives up." They said the same thing about Vietnam.

"The bad guys can blow up bombs at a check point, they can kill a cop, they can kill a polititians family, but they can't stop the progress." You mean, they hold no territory, our troops move freely, and we win every military engagement? I feel so much better.

"They can't dictate anything. They are losing." Is this the part where they launch a nationwide series of coordinated attacks on a holy day? How does "The Ramadan Offensive" grab you?

"These bad guys are no Vietcong." Perhaps, but you've just given me three examples of how they ARE like the Viet Cong.

HJA | July 13, 2005, 1:00pm | #

I've got a question: does anyone know if, in identifying Plame as a CIA agent, Rove was saying to Cooper that while it was technically true that Wilson had gone to Niger on behalf of the CIA, that it really would be more accurate to say that he'd gone at his wife's behest? That is, was Rove trying to trivialize Wilson and his NYT editorial by characterizing him and his wife as a couple of busybodies with a lot of self-regard and professional prerogatives but no real business acting on behalf of the government in this matter? So that throughout the Times editorial, wherever you see the word "CIA" or something like it, you should mentally substitute the words "my wife," which would, in theory, make the whole piece seem less impressive. I ask, I guess, because I'm one of those people who hasn't exactly understood how the revelation of his wife's profession undermined Wilson. I know that the Bush people think pretty poorly of the CIA and all, but would Rove have assumed that Matt Cooper felt the same way? I'm just trying to imagine what Rove might have been thinking if his comments to Cooper were in fact not intended primarily to punish Wilson by outing his wife.

HJA | July 13, 2005, 1:03pm | #

Whoops, sorry if my comment is now out-of-date; in the time it took me to write that paragraph there were like ten more posts, several of them long as hell. This internet place is too fast-paced for me.

joe | July 13, 2005, 1:04pm | #

HJA, Plame did not have the authority to send Wilson on the mission. Tht action was taken by Presidential Medal of Freedom winner George Tenant. Plame just recommended him for the job.

But seeing how resolutely Tenant stood up for his people and insisted that the qualifications and warnings about the WMD intelligence be included in the briefs given to, and by, high administration officials, it's pretty clear that was helpless to spurn the advice of career CIA analysts.

kwais | July 13, 2005, 1:08pm | #

Joe,
Didn't the guy write a whole book about how bad Bush was? A left wing Ann Coulter type book? Before he even went to Nigeria or wherever.

If the Ramadan offensive consits of leaving a lot of bombs and then running away perhaps.

I WISH these fuckers would try to come over the wire.

madpad | July 13, 2005, 1:11pm | #

Trunabout, after all, is fair play...except when Dems do it BACK to Reps.

Never forget, Rove has artfully used wordgames, and insinuation to destroy - not just deflect, counter or blunt but DESTROY - the careers and life of ANYONE that dare deviate from the Bush & Co. official line.

That Rove should get hamstrung over a relatively minor and possibly (dare I say it) 'innocent' slip is truly poetic justice at its finest.

That the Reps are forced into "Clintonian "depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" territory" is sherely delightful.

And that because of this the Whitehouse may be forced to deal when it comes to the Supreme Court by a bunch of supply-siders tired of the the Morality Police bullshit and threatening to jump on board the "Kill Piggy" train is nothing short of proof that there is indeed a God and he (or she) has a terrific sense of humor.

Tom Crick | July 13, 2005, 1:12pm | #

"The bottom line is Karl Rove was discouraging a reporter from writing a false story based on a false premise and the Democrats are engaging in blatant partisan political attacks."

----Ken Mehlman, RNC Chairman

What a stupid thing to say! ...am I supposed to think he would feel better if the Democrats were engaging in nuanced non-partisan physical attacks?

bigbigslacker | July 13, 2005, 1:13pm | #

Too bad nobody at the New York Times knows who outed Plame. If they did, they could serve the public by running a story on it. The last thing we need is a "chilling effect" when it comes to disseminating the news.

paul | July 13, 2005, 1:16pm | #

OK, just because Honest Joe Wilson was on the Saudi payroll does NOT mean he's a hack.

madpad | July 13, 2005, 1:19pm | #

"One, let's be adult about this, Rove was not "out to get" Joe Wilson or his wife.

Jeff, as this one goes, I think you're on pretty thin ice. The specific statement at issue may not be clear evidence of that. But the larger context of Rove's statements (plural) and the overall position of the White House indicate that not just Rove but the whole administration may have been "out to get" Joe Wilson.

joe | July 13, 2005, 1:21pm | #

paul,

We're using closeness with the Saudis as evidence of corruption now?

joe | July 13, 2005, 1:26pm | #

kwais,

To avoid jacking, and because I feel bad about arguing such things with somebody in country, I'm dropping our line of discussion.

Tom Crick | July 13, 2005, 1:27pm | #

I just hope the Bush Administration handles this scandal as competently as it handled making the case for invading Iraq, post-occupation planning in Iraq, the disgrace at Abu Gharib, Social Security reform, etc. ...They've risen to other challenges, and they can rise to this one.

kwais | July 13, 2005, 1:27pm | #

The "kill piggy" train?

joe | July 13, 2005, 1:29pm | #

Is that a crack about Muslims?

theCoach | July 13, 2005, 1:30pm | #

kwais,
"Wilson IS a hack". That seems a lot like an irrelevant assertion not based on evidence, other than that Wison was claiming that some of the Bush adminstration's evidence on WMDs in Iraq was false.[later getting pissed when his wife's cover was blown].

"The only way we lose this war is if the American government gives up." - Well duh...you do realize this is a democracy and that we will not stay as long as George W. Bush's silly resolve remains firm; We will stay when with GWB's ability to convince the American people that the war was a good idea. The evidence that he will remain convincing is faltering [although it is unclear whether or not GWBush himself knows that, or if his handlers keep him insulated enough from public opinion[as on SS]].

paul | July 13, 2005, 1:31pm | #

you got me wrong joe. i think it's an outrage to whistleblow on a cia agent who's husband is in the pay of a foreign power.

Shem | July 13, 2005, 1:34pm | #

Or is this stonewall an opportunistic smokescreen for that upcoming nomination fight?

If it is then it's risky as all hell. There's a small but significant percentage of the electorate who vote for Bush because he's not Clinton, and is perceived as being nothing like Clinton. The more the present administration indulges in this sort of rhetorical hair-splitting, the more likely it is to get back to those people, and as a result, the more likely they are to stay at home next year during the incredibly important midterm elections. They can't afford this at all. If even the House is lost, the prospect of Bush doing anything in the next two years is quite low, and if he somehow manages to lose the Senate too, then he's completely screwed. This is a dangerous game they�re playing, and I have a feeling they�ve pushed their luck just far enough that they aren�t going to be able to carry it off.

sulla | July 13, 2005, 1:34pm | #

At the risk of being a parser, I don't believe that Bush ever pledged to "fire the leaker". He make a statement that leaks pissed him off, and that if any criminal act was committed vis a vis the leak, that the person would be "dealt with".

The Dems have fallen into the same quagmire that captured the Pubs during Clinton's second term. They hate the President so much that they try to make every proto-scandal stick. This, while no one outside the Beltway could give a blue goose about Valerie Plame and her hubby.

Shem | July 13, 2005, 1:37pm | #

Should be-*This is a dangerous game they're playing, and I have a feeling they've pushed their luck just far enough that they aren't going to be able to carry it off.

I previewed it! I just didn't look so carefully...

mitch | July 13, 2005, 1:38pm | #

MadPad's use of the phrase "Kill Piggy" seems to be a reference to "Lord of the Flies;" perhaps MadPad is suggesting that this Plame mess may convince some libertarian types to join the lefties in "Borking" the next Supreme Court nominee?

Slainte' | July 13, 2005, 1:39pm | #

I thought everyone knew by now that Wilson's report about the 'yellowcake' was thoroughly discredited. He was a fool, caught trying to make the Bush admin appear to be liars; in the end he was the one who got caught lying.
Seems to me the one who revealed to the world that Plame was a CIA agent was Novak. If the question is "Did Rove break the law by deliberately outing Plame?", the answer is "Not in his 'deep confidentialty' conversation with the Time reporter.
This whole thing is a joke that is rapidly becoming tiresome.

Xmas | July 13, 2005, 1:47pm | #

Shem,

What does Bush have to lose by being like Clinton?

He can't be re-elected. Dick Cheney certainly isn't going to be running for any office. Conde Rice says she isn't running. There is no annointed successor to the Bush dynasty at the moment.

The rest of this presidency is end-game.

Jeff | July 13, 2005, 1:49pm | #

So, Iraq was buying yellowcake, the documents were not forged, and Iraq did have WMD? Wow, this story really has been misreported by the MSM, huh?

Seriously, can anyone imagine what a freaking shitstorm a Republican congress would make of this if Clinton were president right now? Why, I bet they'd consider impeaching him.

ed | July 13, 2005, 1:50pm | #

Trying...to...care.
Trying...trying...
Don't.

Les | July 13, 2005, 1:51pm | #

At the risk of being a parser, I don't believe that Bush ever pledged to "fire the leaker".

Bush at a June 10, 2004, press conference after the G8 summit:

Q: Given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President [Dick] Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?

BUSH: That's up to --

Q: And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

BUSH: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts.

theCoach | July 13, 2005, 1:52pm | #

Sulla,
I know individual statements have and can be parsed that way, but I think it is hard to parse the following, excerpted at Media Matters:
Bush at a June 10, 2004, press conference after the G8 summit:

Q: Given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President [Dick] Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?

BUSH: That's up to --

Q: And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

BUSH: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts.

McClellan at a September 29, 2003, press briefing:

McCLELLAN: The president has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the leaking of Plame's identity], they would no longer be in this administration.

[...]

Q: You continue to talk about the severity of this and if anyone has any information they should go forward to the Justice Department. But can you tell us, since it's so severe, would someone or a group of persons, lose their job in the White House?

McCLELLAN: At a minimum.

Q: At a minimum?

McCLELLAN: At a minimum.

theCoach | July 13, 2005, 2:03pm | #

Les,
Looks like you beat me on the draw.

theCoach | July 13, 2005, 2:06pm | #

Ed,
If it helps tie it in to something you find interesting, this is directly related to the administration's claim that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Because of that claim we are currently occupying Iraq.
The US involvement in Iraq is a pretty important story!

gaius marius | July 13, 2005, 2:13pm | #

i have to admit, mr kwais, your continuing assertions that everything in iraq is just peachy have taken on a... well, disconnected, if not desperate, tone -- especially when its increasingly clear that the insurgency there is free to kill virtually anyone they see fit to, and chooses to kill more and more people every passing month.

i can hardly know your situation, and i appreciate a need for you to be perhaps gung-ho in defiance of reality, but are you entirely sure you're not too close to see the picture?

gaius marius | July 13, 2005, 2:17pm | #

Wilson's report about the 'yellowcake' was thoroughly discredited. He was a fool, caught trying to make the Bush admin appear to be liars; in the end he was the one who got caught lying.

i agree about novak, mr slainte, but are you here saing that the yellowcake documents were not forgeries? or that the fraudulent "intelligence" was not stovepiped directly to the white house? i'm unsure of what your approach here is.

scott | July 13, 2005, 2:36pm | #

I don't think it is accurate to say that Wilson's "report" discredited. It's just that his report (which consisted of nothing more than an oral report to someone at the CIA) wasn't really very illuminating at all. Bush's yellowcake claims in this State of the Union address concerened British Intelligence. Wilson didn't even have access to the US intelligence, let alone the British evidence Bush was citing. So for him to be claiming his research "proved" Bush was lying was way over the top. He does lie and exaggerate in his book, all in the name of making himself seem more important than he really is. All in all the guy seems like a self importatn ass.

thoreau | July 13, 2005, 2:41pm | #

This story is about as important as John Kerry's alleged Holiday in Cambodia.

I hear it's tough there, but that's life.

Shem | July 13, 2005, 3:07pm | #

Xmas- He can't be reelected, but by taking this tack he forces the loyal Republicans to toe the line and stand up with him, a sure strategy to disenchant the people who vote R for the abovementioned reasons. It won't be as direct, but it still has the potential to be very harmful.

theCoach | July 13, 2005, 3:14pm | #

thoreau,
Unclear on what you mean by that -- my take was that the story itself (what Kerry did 30+ years ago) was unimportant, but that the story about the story, that it may have influenced people's perception of Kerry in a very close Presidential race, is actually a pretty big story.
I can't square that with this story, occuring during this Presidnet's term, and closely related to the adminstration's case for going into the Iraq war, which has to be the biggest story since at least September 11, 2001.
An interesting tidbit, (from memory so it could be off) Zogby reports that 43% polled think Bush should be impeached if it is shown that he lied about the reasons getting us into the war.
I realize that with this congress it would have to be a lot more than 43%, but still, that is a pretty big number.

Stevo Darkly | July 13, 2005, 3:14pm | #

"Actually, Wilson was right about the bogus Niger uranium tale

I've been waiting for months for this to come back into a topic of conversation, just so I could dismiss it with a hand-wave and a curt, "Oh, Niger, please."

Eric the .5b | July 13, 2005, 3:16pm | #

Thoreau, I'll have that song stuck in my head all afternoon.

You suck! :)

theCoach | July 13, 2005, 3:16pm | #

...and thoreau isn't it:
it's tough kid, but that's life?
Perhaps it is time for a "Texas Uber Alles" remix.

joe | July 13, 2005, 3:37pm | #

"This, while no one outside the Beltway could give a blue goose about Valerie Plame and her hubby."

Then it's a good thing for Bush that Valerie Plame and her husband are the topics of the story.

Because if the story involved the ongoing war, the case that was dishonestly made to get us into the war, weapons of mass destruction, misbehavior by high level political figures, covert CIA activities, partisan politics, or discredited intelligence, there might be a surge in public interest.

But since it's just about a boring married couple, there's no way that will happen.

La la la, Iraq's becoming Freedomland, and everyone loves Karl Rove.

Homer Simpson | July 13, 2005, 3:43pm | #

mmmmmmm... yellow cake...

ptr | July 13, 2005, 3:52pm | #

theCoach,

Can you answer this.

From the Post article you refer to:
"Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife."

How do resolve that it was Cooper who called Rove?

jack | July 13, 2005, 4:40pm | #

Kwais is a meathead who doesn't know Iraq from his ass crack.

bigbigslacker | July 13, 2005, 7:31pm | #

Edith, don't stifle yourself.

(sorry, couldn't help it, the "meathead" brought me back to the golden era of television. I now have an uncontrollable urge to watch Sanford and Son followed up by the Courtship of Eddie's Father and maybe some Fat Albert. Sick, sick, sick)

David W. | July 13, 2005, 8:19pm | #

On the Deaf Club CD: "It's tough, kid, but it's life."

Douglas Fletcher | July 13, 2005, 9:38pm | #

zzzzzzzzzzz

Stevo Darkly | July 14, 2005, 12:00am | #

Jack --

Kwais is in Iraq and has been for some time, you Nike-gnawer.

hadayn | July 14, 2005, 12:54am | #

"Rove was not 'out to get' Joe Wilson or his wife"

That would be a reasonable assumption if all we had was that one remark by Rove to Cooper. But news reports have said that at least 2 senior WH officials spoke to at least 6 reporters about Wilson's wife. If they were not out to get him, it's hard to understand what the apparent concerted campaign was about. Were they just trying really hard to advertise the fact that they don't listen to outsiders?

I, the evil conquerer | July 14, 2005, 4:53am | #

gaius --

especially when its increasingly clear that the insurgency there is free to kill virtually anyone they see fit to, and chooses to kill more and more people every passing month.

It's increasingly clear that the insurgency is also free to kill virtually anyone they see fit to, in London. And New York. And anywhere else in the whole Western world that whim takes them.

Nobody knows how to stop terrorists who are willing to kill themselves while attacking innocent civilians. [if the terrorists were just a tad smarter, they wouldn't have to kill themselves.....but they aren't that technically savvy :) ]

The terrorists could choose to kill more and more people every month in the Western world too, if they wanted. In fact they decided to, just last week.

If you think Iraq is a lost cause, you haven't made a convincing case yet. The terrorists in Iraq -- and they are terrorists, not "insurgents" -- are beginning to turn public opinion against them, from my reading of the news.

The terrorists in Iraq haven't impressed me as being all that swift, so far. They may be over playing their hand, first with too many beheadings and now with too many bombings of innocent civilians.

My hope is that all the suicide bombers are going to piss off the Iraqis enough to make them actually pull together. This could be the stimulus.

There's some evidence that this may be just what's happening. If it does, that's the best ticket out we could get.

I'm rooting for our ticket out, so people like kwais can come home again.....

I, the evil conquerer | July 14, 2005, 5:00am | #

Geez, and to think this all started with Rove.....

In today's world I can't believe anyone could land in Rove's position without being part monster. It's just a question of how well he can hide it, and he wouldn't be there if he wasn't good at hiding.

He said-she said. Point fingers. Shout a lot.

I don't trust Rove, but I don't trust the people who'd like to take him down either.

Given that all the available info comes out of the MSM -- and given that, from my reading of the MSM, you could convince yourself of anything you want to believe about Iraq -- I profess not to know what the hell is going on with Rove.

But I'm not real sure about Bush's real reasons for charging into Iraq, either. I just know we're there, like it or not.

kwais | July 14, 2005, 6:55am | #

"Kwais is a meathead who doesn't know Iraq from his ass crack."

Jack there are times when telling the two apart isn't that easy.

Well said evil conquerer.

Gaius, I could be too close to the problem, but then again you could be to far away, and using sensationalist headlines to reinforce your paradigm of a flailing western civilization.

sulla | July 14, 2005, 8:31am | #

theCoach:
Thanks, I hadn't seen that quote. Looks like the only way out for Rove to wiggle out now if he wasn't also the source of Novak's story.

gaius:
"free to kill virtually anyone they see fit", uh, hyperbole? possibly?

joe:
If people are serious about opposing the war and getting Bush fired for playing fast and loose with the facts on Iraq; how about we impeach his ass for violating the Constitution by going to war without a declaration by Congress. That ought to have something in it for everyone.

I never said the underlying facts weren't important. I said nobody will ever care as long as it's about Plame, Wilson, and Rove. Normal people don't give a fuck about them. Only wackos who would post on a blog like H&R.

joe | July 14, 2005, 11:18am | #

Sulla,

Even without a Use of Force resolutin, I don't that charge would result in impeachment. Since he got one, I'm certain it wouldn't.

You, the Conquerer Who's Really Just Misunderstood,

There seem to be BOTH terrorists and insurgents in Iraq. The "ticket" you seek - Iraqis united in the effort to bring about order and security - requires us to recognize this difference and exploit it, not immediately reject it in an attempt to seize the rhetorical highground in domestic political debate.

blammo | July 14, 2005, 1:32pm | #

If as reported that Rove released his sources to testify, why did Miller still withold and get held in contempt? There's another person she's protecting. And I wouldn't be surprised if it was the President.

theCoach | July 14, 2005, 2:13pm | #

ptr,
"How do resolve that it was Cooper who called Rove?"

I am not entirely sure I understand your question, but if I do, it is easily resolvable. My personal guess would be that during a coordinated smear campaign to trusted and suggestable journalist, Karl Rove got a call from Matt Cooper, and as it was on his mind, he tried to spread some of that operative burning goodness.