more hypocrital white house crap

[Elphaba]

Posted: 7/12/05 at 6:07pm

oh please..

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050712/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_iranian_journalist

"Mr. Ganji, please know that as you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you," the statement said.


but it's ok to jail American reporters who refuse to reveal their sources, right GW? and it's ok to deny same sex partners equal rights in ALL areas.......and it's ok to
"fill in the blank."

Updated On: 7/12/05 at 06:07 PM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 7/12/05 at 6:12pm

hmmm, wonder why a journalist who didn't publish an article is protecting a source who's already out? i mean everybody knows it was rove right? so i wonder why she's holding out. and don't make me gag with your protestations of principle because none of the parties in this case haave that in spades.

btw, did i miss the history class where the president intervenes in federal investigations?

[Elphaba]

Posted: 7/12/05 at 6:21pm

now Beav, you know that's the Evil from Lord of the Rings......I doubt Hillary has been that hot in years....

Posted: 7/12/05 at 6:23pm

Not since Bill started paying attention to other females.

[Elphaba]

Posted: 7/12/05 at 6:26pm

hehehehe, yikes that would certainly scare them away

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 7/12/05 at 6:30pm

i want to know who her source is. i got no love for judy, nor do i think that a journalist who might be protecting a person guilty of a crime should be able to shield that person. sorry, they're not lawyers nor priests or rabbis, imams, etc. journalists are trying to gain information that will profit their news organization and themselves as well as possibly serve the public good. whistleblowing is one thing and should be protected, but if a crime has been committed and a journalist has evidence that is of worth to the case, they should be compelled to testify.

let's take an extreme example:

a journalist has been communicating with a serial killer who is leading that journalist to bodies. should that journalist protect the identity of the killer if he or she knows it and further, should that journalist be protected from being compelled to share their knowledge under the idea of journalistic freedom?

i know, it's extreme and not quite what's going on here, but if you're going to have the rule of law, then while you must have some essential protection for whistleblowers and the journalists who work with them, you cannot allow that umbrella of protection to extend to shielding criminals or possible criminals from identification.

it's a tough call, aand while i respect judy for standing up for principle (*cough* bl*wj*b *cough*), i wonder what she's going to eventually say when she talks, because she will. they all do. she's a journalist. what do they do? talk (or in her case write).

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 7/12/05 at 6:35pm

well, here's an interesting take on what it might be...didn't know that fitz and judy had a history.
pod on judy

Updated On: 7/12/05 at 06:35 PM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 7/12/05 at 6:52pm

that's the sketchy thing on this. with the word around that it was common knowledge in the press that wilson's wife worked for the cia, it's going to be yough to make it stick to anyone that this was a direct breach of national security. doubly so to make it stick that a civilian (judy) could have known all of that and revealed the identity with the intention of doing harm to the nation's security. but she had to find it out somewhere and that's the key: who told judy and who did judy tell?

i don't think they can make the case that rove went out and delibrately set about to "out" val. i think if it turns out that cooper indeed called him and brought up the story, that it's perfectly acceptable to point out that joe's trip (unlike what he was claiming) was not authorized by the vp or potus, but rather set-up by his wife who worked at cia. especially if he'd already read novak's story (again, while it was published on the 14th it was released on the 11th, but at what time?).

a lot also turns on the definition of covert and did she qualify as a "noc." it's splitting hairs to some degree, but if people already knew, then she wasn't really outed. it could be that this whole thing was a witchhunt by fitz to get back at judy and it's had a happy result for the democrats.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 7/12/05 at 7:41pm

Seems like Karl is about to do the old "it depends on what your definition of 'is' is" defense.

I heard his lawyer is saying that Karl is saying, "I didn't NAME her, I just said Joe Wilson's wife!"

And what right wing guy, as Randi Rhodes points out, EVER bothers to learn women's names?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/12/05 at 10:11pm

If I go to a hit man and say, "Kill Mr So-and-So's wife," and the hit man kills her, I guess I could say, "WELL, I DIDN'T MENTION HER NAME, NOW, DID I? I JUST SAID MR. SO-AND-SO'S WIFE!"

Thing is, Rove may not be guilty under this particularly stringent statute, but he may be guilty of lying to a prosecutor / investigator (big crime), lying to a grand jury (bigger crime) and obstruction of justice (really big crime). And then there is that wonderful Espionage Act of 1917...

My (worried conservative) sources in Washington are saying the indictment comes down by early next week. They've given up on Rove. They're scrambling to protect "the big guy."

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 7/12/05 at 10:18pm

look scooby, i apologized for forgetting, ok. and excuse me for not realizing that when you said your name sounded like that of a battlestar galactica character that you were not talking about starbuck. it was lorne greene's character, man, i repressed it like the memory of the theme song from bonanaza, dammit!

indictments may come down, but i doubt one will have karl's name on it.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/12/05 at 10:20pm

Whispers from Washington (again: Republican and worried) are that the indictment is for Rove.

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 7/12/05 at 10:25pm

Papa - this will not be a legal issue at all. It will be a political issue. When and how many times did the White House through their various spokes people lie to the American public??? You will find out that it was many and often!

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 7/12/05 at 10:27pm

well, if it comes it comes, but i don't think we'll see one for karl.

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 7/12/05 at 10:28pm

Yes, Papa that may be true, but this will be a real ethical and political issue.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 7/12/05 at 10:29pm

to answer that, bwy, will it be able to sustain the public's attention through a scotus nomineation without indictments?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/12/05 at 10:29pm

And can't the Republicans get their talking points straight? Some say "it was common knowledge that Wilson's wife worked for the agency," but Bush and Rove and other administration officials claim they did NOT even know Plame was a covert CIA officer!

Get it straight, boys! It's not nice to lie to Special Investigators and grand juries--and the press!

Not to mention the American people...

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 7/12/05 at 10:31pm

Yes, this current problem will definately have an effect on the nomination.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/12/05 at 11:25pm

Oh and by the way--if you're entering an office pool on who Judy Miller went to jail for, Whispers from Washington say don't put your money on Rove.

Take out a home equity and bet it on Cheney.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/13/05 at 10:52am

Did anyone remember Rove was once FIRED by George Bush SENIOR for leaking to ... Robert Novak?!?
Rove was caught for leaking to Novak in '92 and was fired by Bush Sr.

[WindyCityActor]

Posted: 7/13/05 at 11:09am

Great Wasington Post Editorial:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/12/AR2005071201367.html


"And becoming Karl Rove's fair game means you're in for a bumpy ride. Rove did not become George W. Bush's indispensable op only because of his strategic smarts. He's also the kind of ethically unconstrained guy Bush has wanted around when the going gets tough -- when the case Bush is making is unconvincing on its own merits, when he needs to divert attention from himself with a stunning attack on somebody else."

"That's been the hallmark of Rove's career -- and Bush's. After Bush lost the 2000 New Hampshire primary to John McCain, Rove directed a slanderous campaign in South Carolina that knocked McCain virtually out of the race with a barrage of fabrications about the personal lives of the senator and his family. Once Bush decided to invade Iraq, and particularly after the weapons of mass destruction failed to materialize, Rove orchestrated the campaign to depict the war's critics as terrorist sympathizers. Just a few weeks ago Rove told a right-wing audience that "liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Get in Bush's way and Rove turns you or your loved ones into the scum of the earth."

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/13/05 at 11:12am

Let's not forget that Rove loves to make homosexuals the scapegoats--he used homophobia to win the campaign against Ann Richards--and then of course he used it again to win the 2004 presidential election.

Updated On: 7/13/05 at 11:12 AM

[WindyCityActor]

Posted: 7/13/05 at 11:15am

Posted: 7/13/05 at 12:59pm

There are (and have always been) at least two leakers; Rove is one of them, we can assume. Miller, presumably, is the reporter who had the "second Leaker" as she is still "Protecting" her source. Three reporters were the recipients of this info. The only reporter who published it (Robert Novak) has been absented from the "Reveal your source" drama.

My theory is that Rove told Novak and Novak cooperated from day one, naming Rove long long ago. Rove also told the WSJ reporter; He's confirmed as much and that would explain his convoluted "I don't have to protect my source any longer" speech. That leaves Miller. She must have another source; But who? My guess? It has to be a bigger fish than Rove-- it makes no sense to keep persuing someone in Rove's office when they already have the boss. But who is bigger than Rove? Only Cheney, Bush or a cabinet member. Interesting to consider.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/13/05 at 1:32pm

Miller refused to divulge because she thought the blanket waiver her source had given had been "coerced." Now we're not talking arm-twisting here. All White House officals had to sign waivers so that White House could be seen as "cooperating" with Fitzgerald.

So what did Judy mean by "coerced"? The only thing it could mean is that she felt that her source signed the waiver but never really wished her to divulge.

Whispers from Washington say her source was Cheney.