Fitzgerald may be looking at Novak and White House staff conspiracy and obstruction of justice charges

Oh what a beautiful morning... Read the rest of this post...

Specter is now saying that Bork wasn't borked?

I mean, I'm glad that Senator Specter thinks that Bork's own record took him down, but to suggest that "activists" had nothing to do with it, well, that's just loony. Read the rest of this post...

I Saw President Bush's Wife Dancing Wildly In A Biker Bar

What? It's not like I identified her by NAME or anything. Read the rest of this post...

I kind of stole this from Congressman Conyers...

UPDATE: Our friend David Sirota sends a few more Bush quotes not to be forgotten:

"If you betray the trust, there will be a consequence. We will hold you responsible for not telling the truth."
- George W. Bush, 11/3/03

"If you don't tell the truth, there is going to be serious consequences."
- Bush, 10/30/03

Now here is Conyers' stuff.

Vice Presidential Nominee Dick Cheney, August 2, 2000:

“They will offer more lectures, and legalisms, and carefully worded denials. We offer another way -- a better way -- and a stiff dose of truth.”

White House Press Spokesman Scott McClellan, July 11, 2005:

"Q: Do you want to retract your statement that Rove, Karl Rove, was not involved in the Valerie Plame expose?

A: I appreciate the question. This is an ongoing investigation at this point. The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, that means we're not going to be commenting on it while it is ongoing.

Q: But Rove has apparently commented, through his lawyer, that he was definitely involved.

A: You're asking me to comment on an ongoing investigation.

Q: I'm saying, why did you stand there and say he was not involved?

A: Again, while there is an ongoing investigation, I'm not going to be commenting on it nor is ... ."

Read the rest of this post...

CNN asks if Rove scandal is "worse than Watergate"

Jesus.

From their Web site, announcing Lou Dobb's coverage of the scandal tonight.

Read the rest of this post...

MSNBC Poll: Should Bush fire Rove?

Vote Read the rest of this post...

AP: "Some White House officials and Bush advisers are privately expressing doubts about whether Rove can survive the latest flap."

Updated story from AP. Still not good for Rove. Read the rest of this post...

Rove's lawyer now won't say if Rove knew Plame was a covert agent

I just assumed all along that it was a given they were claiming Rove didn't know. I had no idea his lawyer was refusing to say. That's bad, as it suggests Rove did know, otherwise why wouldn't he at least let that leak. This is big, as that's one of the bases for the criminal action, Rove knowing Plame was covert. Read the rest of this post...

LA Times BOTCHES Karl Rove Story

Here's how NOT to cover a brewing scandal in the White House. We've linked below to numerous articles from major media outlets who've framed this serious issue fairly and with the proper weight. Heck, even Fox News asked some tough questions at yesterday's press conference.

So with all that to draw on, how does the LA Times cover this breach of national security? Very poorly. It uses this headline:

DEMOCRATS TAKE AIM AT ROVE IN LEAK CASE

(See, it's those mean old Dems playing politics.)

And this is some of the copy:

The ongoing controversy about who might have leaked the name of a covert CIA operative to journalists heated up Monday as reports about the possible involvement of President's Bush's chief political strategist, Karl Rove, dominated the daily White House news briefing and Democrats began to ratchet up their criticism of Rove....

Still, the new information about Rove's role was emerging as a potential embarrassment for a White House that had scrupulously sought to avoid the kinds of investigations that plagued the Clinton administration....

It has also given Democrats a political issue....

The sharpest criticisms came from some of the most partisan Democrats in Congress....

The only Republican to issue a statement on the matter Monday was Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee. "It's disappointing that once again, so many Democrat leaders are taking their political cues from the far-left, MoveOn wing of the party," he said, referring to the online advocacy group MoveOn.org. "The bottom line is the Democrats are engaged in blatant partisan political attacks...."

Really, leaking national security secrets at a time of war is a "potential embarrassment" rather than a crime that could be punishable by jail? And it's really just an excuse by the Dems to gang up on Bush? Well, if Ken Mehlman said it and every other Republican is too afraid to say anything (and off the record they've been quoted by other newspapers that this is very serious indeed), why I guess it must be true. Nothing to see here, keep moving.

Let the LA Times know what you think of their coverage. Ask them why every other media outlet seems to think breaking national security is a serious matter, not just an excuse for politics.

Email them at letters@latimes.com Read the rest of this post...

Why does CNN's Kyra Phillips hate America?

From MediaMatters. Read the rest of this post...

"Arming Our Enemy"

CNN's graphic leading into the Rove piece they're about to do on Lou Dobbs. And they're interviewing John Dean about it! LOL Read the rest of this post...

Mehlman speaks on CNN about Rove

I'm paraphrasing Mehlman live...

Mehlman: Has stated that he's not the leaker.

What?! Mehlman just said Rove wasn't the leaker?!!!

I know he's fully cooperated with this investigation.... So unfortunate, Hillary, Kerry, Dean would follow the angry left... Looking at those emails what I saw was Karl Rove discouraging Matthew Cooper from filing a story that was wrong.

Wolf: Is there any evidence Niger was sending enriched uranium to Iraq?

Wolf: Were there meetings on what to do involving Joe Wilson, how to deal with this problem after he wrote that op ed?

Mehlman: I don't recall those meetings occuring.

Wolf: Were you called before a grand jury?

Mehlman: I'm not going to comment. A political smear has occured.

Wolf: Why can't you tell us if you were asked to testify?

Mehlman: I don't think it's appropriate.... We know that Karl Rove said a year ago that any reporter he's talk to should cooperate with the prosecutor.

Wolf: Did you give a waiver to any reporters you've talked to?

Mehlman: I don't recall.... The issue here is that there's been full compliance by Karl Rove and the White House... Karl did not leak classified information, he did not leak the name of anybody.

I'm not going to prejudge. I think it's unfortunate... partisan smear campaign.

Huh, well, here's a question: If Karl Rove is fully complying then why does the president have to wait for the investigation to be over for him to know if Karl was the leaker? Can't he just ask him? Why did we spend all this money on an investigation while Karl Rove and Scott McClellan lied? The White House calls THAT full cooperation?

And where does Mehlman get off saying Rove wasn't the leaker? That's just an outright lie, per Rove's own lawyer.

More from CNN with Mehlman:

Wolf: (Plays tape of McClellan saying leaker would be fired.) Does that statement still hold?

Have you had any conversations with the White House about Karl Rove?

I'm not going to comment on a pending investigation.

Gee, is that why you issued a press release commenting about the investigation today, Ken?

Now Mehlman is talking about pre-judging the situation. Funny, was Rove's lawyer pre-judging the situation by admitting Rove's guilt? What about when McClellan pre-judged the situation by denying that Rove had any involvement, I believe the word was "ridiculous." Read the rest of this post...

Open Thread - Mehlman about to talk on CNN

The latest? Read the rest of this post...

Why doesn't the President Just ask Karl Rove?

Over and over and over, for the past couple days, Scott McClellan has refused to answer questions about the Rove scandal. Today, the President also refused to answer.

Scott kept saying, we are waiting for the investigation to finish. Why? Why does the President of the United States have to wait for a special prosecutor to tell him whether or not one of his staffers outed a CIA agent. Can't the President just ask Rove? Bush told us all he wants to get to the bottom of it. So here's how he can.

Walk two doors down the hall to Karl Rove's office. The Washington Post recently published a handy map of the West Wing. Bush and Rove are pretty close to each other.

So, give the President a copy of the map, and just send the President over to Rove's office. When he gets there, Bush should simply ask Rove if he did it. There are many ways Bush can ask Rove for the truth. He can ask him if his lawyer was telling the truth. Or Bush can ask him if Matt Cooper's email was accurate. And, as a heads up to the Prez, Rove plays a lot of word games with this, so be persistent.

Karl Rove serves at the pleasure of the President. Surely, our commander in chief wants to know if there is a security leak -- during the time of war -- in the West Wing.

There is NO reason that George Bush has to wait for the special prosecutor to finish the investigation before he knows the truth. That is so weak and just adds to the White House credibility problem. Bush prides himself on "straight talk" and his determination. If he can't get a simple answer from his top aide, he looks pathetic. Read the rest of this post...

New York Times: Day Two Of White House Stonewalling

Here's the latest hit from the MSM. The New York Times paints a White House under siege (my wording), with this nifty byplay between Bush and reporters.

President Bush was asked today if he planned to fire Karl Rove, a senior aide at the center of an investigation over the unmasking of an undercover C.I.A. officer, and he offered only a stony silence in reply.... "Are you going to fire him?" the president was asked twice in a brief Oval Office appearance with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong of Singapore. Both times, the president ignored the questions.

I love that this happened during a cozy meeting with the autocratic ruler of Singapore, just his kind of guy when Bush forgets he's supposed to be spreading democracy, not propping up the bad guys.

And please, counting down the days of silence by the White House is a great idea. Day Two.... Read the rest of this post...

Head of GOP puts out press release about Rove, so why can't Republicans talk about it?

Well guys, do you or don't you agree with the chair of your entire party, Ken Mehlman, who tried to make light of the entire scandal today in a press release? If the head of your party can opine about it, certainly the rest of you can. Time to ask any and all Republican politicians, national, state or local, do you agree with the head of the Republican party that Karl Rove apparently did nothing wrong, and do you agree with Mehlman now attacking Ambassador Wilson to get the story off of Rove?

You can't have the head of your party weigh in and defend Rove, then say you won't give a comment. Read the rest of this post...

Bush's Failure To Protect and Defend America Part III

Here's the latest example of how Bush has failed to take the obvious, common sense steps any reasonable person could agree on to make America safer.

The problem? Our mass transit system. If you think London's attack in the subway and bus system should wake us up, you're forgetting that Spain's mass transit system was ALSO attacked by terrorists. That didn't shake Bush out of his lethargy. Why should this?

USA Today has a good story about how our nation's mass transit system has been seriously underfunded.

U.S. transit authorities say the nation's ground-transportation network requires an immediate $6 billion security upgrade, yet it is budgeted to receive just $100 million from the federal government next year.

$100 million? That's the amount of tomorrow's MegaMillions Lottery jackpot. And Bush thinks that's enough to ensure the safety of our mass transit system in the entire country? And this after the attacks in Spain? Feel safer? Here in NYC -- where you think we'd be more concerned with safety against terrorism than any other place in the nation -- Republican Mayor Bloomberg and Republican Governor Pataki are also dragging their feet.

The NY Post reports on numerous safety gaps, plans to tighten crucial weak spots that have been rejected and more in a story called "MTA Safety Gap."

More than two years ago, the MTA announced it would spend $591 million in federal and state funds to make the transit system more secure.

But as of March, it had only spent $30 million of the money to hire four politically connected consultants — Jacobs Engineering Group, SAIC, URS and Parsons Brinckerhoff — to come up with ideas about security projects.

Just throwing a bunch of money around and spending it poorly would deserve criticism as well. But what's shocking here is not that Bush and his buddies aren't proving incompetent in making America safer and stronger during the war on terror. What's shocking is that they aren't even trying. Read the rest of this post...

USA Today Poll: Should Rove Be Fired?

Vote now. (Thanks to threader Jesusland Joe for pointing us to this.) Read the rest of this post...

Did Bush Leave Wiggle Room On Firing Any Leaker?

Just got around to watching Good Morning America's take on the brewing Rove scandal. (Can we say Rovegate yet?). It aired a clip of Bush from Sept. 30 2003 in which Bush seemed to leave himself some wiggle room. Bush said:

If there's a leak out of my administration, I wanna know who it is. Uh...and...if the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.

So if Rove isn't tried and found guilty of breaking a highly technical statute, he could get away with revealing national secrets and Bush could still stand by him. Did Bush always leave himself this wiggle room? Stay tuned as we track down his other statements. Read the rest of this post...

Oh my, that was fun

So the White House's new talking points are that they're not going to comment on news reports. Problem is, as one journalist pointed out, these aren't news reports, they're the words of Karl Rove's own attorney. Worse yet, why are Republican surrogates like the RNC issuing talking points defending Rove if it's inappropriate to talk about the case? What is the White House's role in crafting those talking points? And does their role, if any, constitute obstruction of justice (just ask Ken Starr)? Read the rest of this post...

White House briefing on CSpan 2, now

It's also on the White House Web site, live - go to the home page and click the top link.

Excerpts - this my very rough paraphrasing, typing as they speak.

Q: Some Democrats are calling for the revocation of Karl Rove's security clearance.

A: I don't think it's helpful for me to get into discussing what is an ongoing investigation. I don't think we should be prejudging the outcome.

Q: Does the president see any need to revoke Karl Rove's security clearance in the interim?

A: Let me back up, a number of you have asked if the president has continuing confidence in Karl Rove. Any individual who works here at the White House has the confidence of the president. They wouldn't be working here at the White House if they didn't have the president's confidence. In terms of security clearance... I'm confident those individuals have the appropriate security clearances.

Q: The president has spoken about this when asked. He's spoken about these questions. Does he retain confidence in Karl Rove specifically.

A: Yes.

Q: But you said to the public affirmatively that Karl Rove is not involved. Yet now we have evidence to the contrary. How do you reconcile the two things.

A: I'm not going to prejudge the outcome.... I'm not going to respond to every individual news story.

Q: We know what the facts are. We know he spoke about Wilson's wife. You've heard Democrats say today that alone is inappropriate conduct. What was Karl Rove trying to accomplish, and does the president think it was fair game for him to do that?

A: Ongoing investigation, if I were to start commenting on news reports, I'd be prejudging the investigation.

(John's note: Rove's own attorney admitted it, what news story?)

Q: There's a difference between what's legal and what's right, is what Karl Rove did right?

A: The best way to help the investigation is for me not to get into discussing it from this podium.

Q: You say you won't discuss it, but the Republican National Committee put out talking points, and other Republican surrogates are putting out talking points and talking. So someone is providing this information, are you behind the scenes directing a response to this story?

A: You can talk to the RNC.

Q: Republican surrogates are getting their information from here, from Karl Rove.

Q: At the very least, can you say whether you stand by your statement that it is simply not true that Karl Rove disclosed the identity of a CIA agent?

A: It's not the appropriate time.

Q: Yes or no. Scott, this is a statement you made on the record, you very confidently asserted to us and the American people. Can you stand by that statement now?

A: I answered that question yesterday.

Q: Does Karl Rove become a liability to the president, pushing his agenda?

A: You're asking all these questions in context to news reports... (John says: again, no, it's in response to Rove's own attorney)

Q: Did he apologize to you for telling you he was not involved? I mean, he put your credibility on the line (this is Helen Thomas).

A: Two years ago I did draw a line, we're just not going to get into commenting on an investigation that continues. I do want to talk about this, and we will once the investigation is complete.

Q: Do you regret putting yourself so far out on a limb? Do you think you went too far?

Now Scottie is picking on an Indian or Pakistani journalist to change the topic (where is Jeffy when you need him?)

Q: Does the White House have a credibility problem?

A: It's clear this is in the context of news reports...

Q: News reports that have been confirmed by Karl Rove's attorney...

A: I'm going to keep going to other people in the room, this isn't the way to have a constructive dialogue...

Q: Why can't you answer the qeuestion about whether the administration has a credibility problem?

A: I think all of you in this room know me very well, you know the type of person that I am. The president is a very straight forward and plain spoken person. And I believe in being straight forward with you all.

Q: How long has the president known that Karl Rove spoke to at least one reporter...

Q: Did it surprise him this week when the story broke?

Q: Scott, would you be willing to allow your attorney to speak to reporters?

A. Next question

Q: You've totally changed some of your statements, what has the president said to karl Rove in relation to the situation?

A: I appreciate you asking, but it's in the context of the investigation.

Q: You were continuously saying it's an ongoing investigation, but also an ongoing news story. Do you not sense that perhaps you, the president or Karl need to say something more to close the credibility gap?

A: I might harm the investigation by talking. I'm not going to comment on news reports. We want to know what the facts are, the way to do that is let the investigators do their work (John says: No, the way to do that is to talk to Karl yourselves - why do we have to have an investigator?) Read the rest of this post...

AP still hitting hard -- Bush Silent on Rove

AP is being very aggressive in reporting about the Rove Scandal. Read the first sentence of the latest article, then read it again:

The White House is suddenly facing damaging evidence that it misled the public by insisting for two years that presidential adviser Karl Rove wasn't involved in leaking the identity of a female CIA officer. President Bush, at an Oval Office photo opportunity Tuesday, was asked directly whether he would fire Rove - in keeping with a pledge in June, 2004, to dismiss any leakers in the case. The president did not respond.

For the second day, White House press secretary Scott McClellan refused to answer questions about Rove.

Where are Rove's GOP defenders? Even George Bush can't defend him? Read the rest of this post...

Vote On Karl Rove's Fate In MSNBC Poll

What should happen to Karl Rove? Nothing? Revoke security clearance? Or he should resign? Vote for his resignation right now on the MSNBC poll. (Thanks to threader realitybites for pointing us to it.) Read the rest of this post...

Tim Russert gets it. Uh oh...

Russert was on the Today Show today and did great. Video from C&L;.

Russert's best line: "As one Republican said to me last night, if this was a Democratic White House we'd have congressional hearings in a second." Read the rest of this post...

Another day, another t-shirt :-)

On sale now at the AMERICAblog shop here!

Read the rest of this post...

Keep quoting these sentences from AP's story today

AP

For two years, the White House has insisted that presidential adviser Karl Rove had nothing to do with the leak of a CIA officer's identity. And President Bush said the leaker would be fired.

But Bush's spokesman wouldn't repeat any of those assertions Monday in the face of Rove's own lawyer saying his client spoke with at least one reporter about Valerie Plame's role at the CIA before she was identified in a newspaper column.

Read the rest of this post...

US military lifts travel ban to London

Ah yes, nothing like sending a clear message on terrorism. Read the rest of this post...

Karl Rove For Supreme Court?

Hey, it makes sense. Bush loves to reward incompetence -- remember the Medals of Freedom for the people who bungled the aftermath of the Iraqi invasion? So why doesn't Bush kill two birds with one stone -- get Rove out of his hair and get a real bareknuckled brawler into the Supreme Court at the same time? Just a thought. Read the rest of this post...

Can't think of a better way to start the day, today especially

Click to listen to the MP3

There's a bright golden haze on the meadow,
There's a bright golden haze on the meadow,
The corn is as high as an elephant's eye,
An' it looks like it's climbin' clear up to the sky.

Oh, what a beautiful mornin',
Oh, what a beautiful day.
I got a beautiful feelin'
Ev'rything's goin' my way.

All the cattle are standin' like statues,
All the cattle are standin' like statues,
They don't turn their heads as they see me ride by,
But a little brown mav'rick is winkin' her eye.

Oh, what a beautiful mornin',
Oh, what a beautiful day.
I got a beautiful feelin'
Ev'rything's goin' my way.

All the sounds of the earth are like music,
All the sounds of the earth are like music,
The breeze is so busy it don't miss a tree,
And a ol' weepin' willer is laughin' at me!

Oh, what a beautiful mornin',
Oh, what a beautiful day,
I got a beautiful feelin'
Ev'rything's goin' my way.
Oh, what a beautiful day.

Oh What A Beautiful Morning (from Oklahoma)
Lyrics by Oscar Hammerstein II
Music by Richard Rodgers

(Hat tip to the comments for suggesting this) Read the rest of this post...

Round up of the morning Rove coverage

He is such toast. Seriously, the coverage is bad. Real bad. I'm going to post the leads of the stories, to give you a sense of how bad.

NYT (via SF Chronicle):

Nearly two years after stating that any administration official found to have been involved in leaking the name of an undercover CIA officer would be fired, and assuring that Karl Rove and other senior aides to President Bush had nothing to do with the disclosure, the White House refused on Monday to answer any questions about new evidence of Rove's role in the matter.

Detroit Free Press:

The White House refused Monday to repeat earlier assertions that any administration official who leaked classified information would be fired. The refusal comes days after Karl Rove, one of President George W. Bush's top aides, was revealed as the source of a news leak that exposed a CIA undercover officer in 2003.

Houston Chronicle:

The White House scrambled Monday to reconcile President Bush's vow to fire anyone who leaked information about an undercover CIA operative with revelations that top political aide Karl Rove spoke to a reporter about the agent.

AP:

The White House is suddenly facing damaging evidence that it misled the public by insisting for two years that presidential adviser Karl Rove wasn't involved in leaking the identity of a female
CIA officer.

SF Chronicle editorial:

THE OFFICIAL silence from the White House on Monday was quite disturbing.

Not so good first paragraphs, but other articles/columns of note today:

- Robert Scheer (I haven't even read this yet and I know it's gonna be good, love this man).

- LA Times.

- Washington Post, lead story.

- NY Newsday.

Read the rest of this post...

In other GOP corruption news...

Then there's Kentucky Read the rest of this post...

Day Two: Repubs. won't talk about Rove

Oh sure, a couple weeks ago, they were clamoring to support Rove when he trashed Durbin....but where are they now? On the Today Show this morning, Tim Russert said he spoke to a Republican last night who said something along the lines of "If this was a Democratic White House, we'd be holding hearings in a second." But, of course, nothing like that for Karl. They won't even talk about him now.

It's worth looking again at the article John posted last night from The NY Times. They couldn't find any GOPers to go on the record.

Because of the powerful role Mr. Rove plays in shaping policy and deploying Mr. Bush's political support and machinery throughout the party, few Republicans were willing to discuss his situation on the record. Asked for comment, several Republican senators said on Monday that they did not know enough or did not want to venture an opinion.

But in private, several prominent Republicans said they were concerned about the possible effects on Mr. Bush and his agenda, in part because Mr. Rove's stature makes him such a tempting target for Democrats.

"Knowing Rove, he's still having eight different policy meetings and sticking to his game plan," said one veteran Republican strategist in Washington who often works with the White House. "But this issue now is looming, and as they peel away another layer of the onion, there's a lot of consternation. Rove needs to be on his A game now, not huddled with lawyers and press people."

A senior Congressional Republican aide said most members of Congress were still waiting to learn more about Mr. Rove's involvement and to assess whether more disclosures about his role were likely.

"The only fear here is where does this go," the aide said. "We can't know."

If they Republicans are this worried, then this scandal IS as bad as we think. Read the rest of this post...

Al-Qaeda Suspects Break Out Of Our Military Prison in Afghanistan

I can't decide which is worse: keeping people the military KNOWS are innocent locked up indefinitely in Guantanamo Bay or failing to keep the people the military believes are guilty locked up in Afghanistan. Any way you slice it, it's incompetence after what the Times of London describes as the worst military losses in Afghanistan in four years. Read the rest of this post...

London Bombers Used Military Explosives

It's sad, but my first thought on hearing the bombs used military explosives was, "Damnit, that better not be some of the explosives Bush didn't bother to secure in Iraq and which the terrorists spirited away." Read the rest of this post...

National Guard misses recruiting goal for 9th consecutive month

Hmm, I can't figure out why people are not rushing out to sign up for a part time job. Read the rest of this post...