Originally Posted By DlandDug You do understand there is no personal animus? Even if Karl Rove was frog marched out of the White House in chains, it wouldn't be the end of the world. (Well, to me, anyway.) I tend to view the GOP as something bigger than Karl Rove. But the way tis indictment has been given almost mystical power strikes me as, well, funny. And that there is (apparently) not going to be a Rove indictment today is funnier still. Not funny in the sense that Rove may be getting away with something, but funny in the sense that the indictment, which doesn't yet exist, has been cited again and again as if it were a tangible reality.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer As I said in another thread, if Fitzgerald doesn't find reason to indict Rove, then there's not an indictable charge or it's more valuable to Fitzgerald that Rove is not indicted as he continues the investigation. I trust Fitzgerald - he's by all accounts a good and fair prosecutor.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Not funny in the sense that Rove may be getting away with something, but funny in the sense that the indictment, which doesn't yet exist, has been cited again and again as if it were a tangible reality." Here's the way I've been viewing it. I've never said for a certainty that there will be indictments. What I look at though is who's doing the investigation and how is it being conducted. Patrick Fitzgerald did not seek this, was appointed, and is known for his no-nonsense, professional approach to his work. What has turned this into such a feeding frenzy is that because so little "hard" information has been confirmed, people on the fringes of both parties, who need this type of thing to justify their existence, have thus reacted accordingly based on their own speculatory version of things. Since Fitzgerald can't keep secret who he brings before the grand juries, the fringe assumes each person summoned is guilty, while the fringe right fires back that it is indeed laughable and a travesty that anyone could think such a thing. And that's just for starters. What does fuel any speculation on my part is how many times someone goes before a grand jury. The more they do, the adage "where there's smoke, there's fire" comes into play. Since Rove and Libby made more appearances than others, it is not unreasonable to think that they're in trouble. However, it could also be that one or both is simply a good source of information. Rove comes in, Person A comes in, then they want Rove again because he's said something that suggests he could add to what Person A said. It could be something that simple. last but not least though, I also think that the extreme right's tendency to loudly proclaim nothng will result and boy won't the left look stupid adds the the confusion. The left, for one, didn't start this. Second, neither right or left knows any more than anyone else about this so it's all false bravado. Third, the extreme right assumes everyone wants to see them go down. My response to that is twofold. One, don't think so much of yourself, and two, speaking for only me, I don't really want anyone to "go down" because it means yet again we have a group of leaders who thought they were bigger than the whole and above reproach. Once, just once, I'd like to see an Adminstration, Republican or Democrat, that doesn't have these types of problems. One of the simplest, yet very true homilies espoused by Harry Truman, among many others, is that those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it. All the controversy we have now bears this out yet again.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <See? When the preosecutor's staff shares a private joke, it's because they're "relaxed." When Bush smiles and jokes, it's because he's "putting on a brave face." These mind reading reporters are just amazing...> Oh I don't know - it could be because the prosecutor's staff and the Bush people were in comletely different positions. One bracing for possible bad news, the others knowing what the news was. One doesn't HAVE to put on a "brave face" if one isn't facing anything bad oneself. Doesn't take Kreskin in this instance.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 Wow - Kreskin - now there's a name I haven't heard for years! Someone should really start a "What happened to Kreskin" thread.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Gosh... how will this all turn out? I'm on tenterhooks waiting for the resolution...
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Whatsamatter Dug, no action tonight? You're really reaching here.
Originally Posted By DlandDug You know, if any of the usual suspects had been willing to offer even the slightest mea culpa about the Armitage revelation, it wouldn't have been necessary to take these measures. Frankly, I could care less about Karl Rove, or Joe Wilson, or even Mr. Oops-I'm-The-One-Who-Said-It Armitage. The truth, on the other hand, remains a source of great, great interest to me. Too bad it doesn't seem to matter all that much to some here.
Originally Posted By Shooba >>Gosh... how will this all turn out? I'm on tenterhooks waiting for the resolution...<< Gosh, could Dug come across as any more petty or infantile? Maybe another dozen posts identical to this would do it.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<It's going to be fun watching you spin the news in the next week or two, Beau.>> <<The NY Daily News is reporting that Rove may be looking for a plea bargain. They are reporting that the White House staffers are tense, but Fitzgerald team seems relaxed and "cheery".>> Just wanted to post what our old friend Tom Sawyer said in this thread last year. We tried to tell him he was being a fool.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy The real crime here is that Fitzgerald could have ended all of this in a few weeks instead of a few years. I knew it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Serious question: does this really "resolve" anything except the question of who was Novak's source? Though Armitage may have been Novak's source, weren't there simultaneously other sources talking to other reporters, such as Judith Miller and Michael Cooper? I don't think either of them claimed Armitage as a source, did they? Novak may have been the first to publish, but AFAIK, was not the only reporter who was being leaked this information about Plame at roughly the same time. No?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Serious question: does this really "resolve" anything except the question of who was Novak's source?> Sure. It resolves lots of things. For one thing, it shows that there was no conspiracy to "out" Ms Plame. <Though Armitage may have been Novak's source, weren't there simultaneously other sources talking to other reporters, such as Judith Miller and Michael Cooper?> Doesn't sound like it. Sounds like Armitage probably told Judith Miller, and that some reports called Rove and Libby to confirm the gossip. I don't think it's ever been shown that anyone from the White House called any reporters to pass on this information.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Well, that's how it sounds to you, but not everyone. (I'm not sure how it sounds to me - there's still too much unknown I think). Anyway, the other Dug posted this on one of the countless other threads: <Liberals are still suspicious, and some doubt Armitage was the only leaker. Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly's Political Animal writes: "Whether his gossiping was innocent or not — about which I remain agnostic — the fact remains that several other people were also aggressively talking to multiple reporters about Plame's role at the same time. If Armitage really didn't have any malicious intent, it's a helluva coincidence that he happened to be gossiping about the exact same thing as a bunch of other people who did have malicious intent," he writes.>
