Tell me this doesn't sound like Watergate

From tomorrow's NYT:

Nearly two years after stating that any administration official found to have been involved in leaking the name of an undercover C.I.A. 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 Mr. Rove's role in the matter.

And Republicans are getting worried:

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."

Read the rest of this post...

More bad Rove stories for the White House

Tomorrow's Washington Post, p4:

The 32-minute pummeling was perhaps the worst McClellan received since he got the job two years ago. His eyes were red and tired. He wiggled his foot nervously behind the lectern and robotically refused to answer no fewer than 35 questions about Rove and the outing of the CIA's Valerie Plame. Twenty-two times McClellan repeated that an "ongoing" investigation prevented him from explaining the gap between his past statements and the facts....

The spokesman gave a substantive answer to only one question, saying prosecutors asked the White House in 2003 to stop making public comments on the case. But that only made matters worse, because Bush himself continued to talk about the leaks in 2004. When this inconsistency was pointed out, McClellan clammed up, saying: "You can keep asking [questions], but you have my response."

This incited the normally mild-mannered Richard Stevenson of the New York Times, who retorted: "We are going to keep asking them."....

McClellan tried for relief from Fox News, but Carl Cameron hit him with a tough one. "Does the president continue to have confidence in Mr. Rove?"

McClellan wouldn't say, so a mischievous April Ryan of American Urban Radio Networks tried to get McClellan to say something -- anything -- about Rove. "Who is Karl Rove as it relates to this administration?" she asked.

"I think I've responded," McClellan answered.

Good story up on USA Today too, about the Democrats demanding something be done (then concludes with someone from the Clinton administration who clearly doesn't know when to shut up). Read the rest of this post...

The newest addition to AMERICAblog's Karl Rove collection

Only at the AMERICAblog online store (seriously):

Read the rest of this post...

The Rove Challenge

As Atrios points out, both the Democrats and the media face challenges with the Rove scandal:

The fact is the Democrats really are, on their own, unable to create a sustained political shitstorm (though they of course could be better at it if they tried a bit harder). Absent the center-right mainstream media deciding to sustain an issue on its own, it just won't happen. This story, in so many ways, is about them - about how their confidential sourcing was abused to smear political opponents, how they've been carrying water for the lies of Scotty and Karl, and their overall gullibility.

Democrats do need to try harder. We need to use this scandal to grow our echo chamber. This can't be a one press release campaign from the Hill. There needs to be an on-going noise machine. We have to uncover Rove as the toxic, treasonous traitor that he is. Karl Rove has to become untouchable in American politics...no role in the Supreme Court nomination, no role in the 06 elections, no role in 08. But that only happens when with a sustained, hard ball effort. This time, we need to play to win.

For the press, they have to decide if they are the patsies Rove thinks they are. Today, was a good first step. But they have to remember...they have been lied to by the White House. And, everyone knows it. Now is the time to change the dynamic. Let's see if they can rise to the occasion. Read the rest of this post...

"The president would bring credit to himself and his administration by firing Rove immediately."

Ouch.

Tomorrow's Seattle Post-Intelligencer editorial:

The president would bring credit to himself and his administration by firing Rove immediately. Whether or not Rove violated the law, his actions on behalf of the administration broke trust with the American people and with the president's own stated view of the matter. Minimally, enough is known that the president must suspend Rove and cease all contacts with Rove until the investigation is complete. Rove, it appears, cannot be trusted with the United States' secrets.

Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

Damn good news day. Read the rest of this post...

Salon.com: Karl Rove must go

Things just keep getting better. Read the rest of this post...

A quick break from Rove news: Zell Miller is in trouble

How can you not love that? Read the rest of this post...

Another GREAT story on the Rove debacle

This time from Reuters. The story has everything. How often do we get to say that? Read the rest of this post...

See Scottie sweat. Sweat Scottie, sweat.

A quick video snippet of NBC's David Gregory eviscerating Scott McClellan today. I love how the camera zooms in on Scottie for dramatic effect as he's shitting bricks. Read the rest of this post...

Oh man. AP has another story out, and it is not good for Chimpy

Via Atrios, it's a collection of quotes made by White House Spokesman Scott McClellan about Rove and Plame.

So the question for McClellan: Scott, are you a liar, or simply totally out of the loop as to what the facts are in this White House, and if so, who should we turn to for these daily briefings who is actually in the loop?

Oh, and one more question, how are your demonstrably false statements below NOT obstruction of justice, using the Ken Starr logic that intentionally false statements by public officials with the intent of misleading a probe are per se obstruction of justice? And if Karl Rove misled you, the how is he now not guilty of such obstrution?:

Sept. 29, 2003

Q: You said this morning, quote, "The president knows that Karl Rove wasn't involved." How does he know that?

A: Well, I've made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place. ... I've said that it's not true. ... And I have spoken with Karl Rove.

Q: It doesn't take much for the president to ask a senior official working for him, to just lay the question out for a few people and end this controversy today.

A: Do you have specific information to bring to our attention? ... Are we supposed to chase down every anonymous report in the newspaper? We'd spend all our time doing that."

Q: When you talked to Mr. Rove, did you discuss, "Did you ever have this information?"

A: I've made it very clear, he was not involved, that there's no truth to the suggestion that he was.

-----

Oct. 7, 2003

Q: You have said that you personally went to Scooter Libby (Vice President
Dick Cheney's chief of staff), Karl Rove and Elliott Abrams (National Security Council official) to ask them if they were the leakers. Is that what happened? Why did you do that? And can you describe the conversations you had with them? What was the question you asked?

A: Unfortunately, in Washington, D.C., at a time like this there are a lot of rumors and innuendo. There are unsubstantiated accusations that are made. And that's exactly what happened in the case of these three individuals. They are good individuals. They are important members of our White House team. And that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt with that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you, and that's exactly what I did.

Read the rest of this post...

Where are Rove's GOP defenders?

So the White House is being silent on Rove today...where's the rest of the GOP? What does Ken Mehlman have to say about his mentor? What about John McCain? Chuck Hagel? Bill Frist? Even Tom Delay?

C'mon, Republicans...Karl is your guy. You loved what he said about liberals and Dick Durbin a couple weeks ago.

Defend Karl Rove now. Defend his actions.

Explain how blowing the cover of an undercover CIA operative is okay if its for political payback.

Explain how national security benefitted from Karl Rove's actions.

Explain why George Bush shouldn't keep his word about firing whoever leaked Plame's name.

The GOP is never silent on national security issues. Until now. Read the rest of this post...

NY Times weighs in on Rove White House Scandal

The NY Times provides their take on the Rove scandal. Their piece lays it out very clearly. Rove outed a CIA agent as political payback and the White House backed themselves in to a corner:

The White House went on the defensive today amid a barrage of questions from Democrats and reporters about the presidential adviser Karl Rove and whether he had disclosed the name of a covert intelligence operative in retaliation for criticism of the administration's Iraq policy.

President Bush's chief spokesman, Scott McClellan, declined to repeat his earlier assertions that Mr. Rove, the deputy White House chief of staff, had nothing to do with leaking the name of the operative, Valerie Plame of the Central Intelligence Agency, to get back at her husband, a former United States ambassador who had publicly challenged Bush administration policy.

Nor would Mr. McClellan repeat his earlier statements that any White House staff person who had leaked the name should be fired.

"The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, we made a decision that we weren't going to comment on it while it is ongoing," Mr. McClellan said at a news briefing.

His comments came as Democrats began to intensify the pressure on the White House.

Today's press briefing may be the day that the White House Press Corps found their spines. Looks like Karl and the White House counted on them being patsies.

Now, they need to keep up the pressure and realize that Rove and McClellan have been lying to them about this for scandal for years. Payback is a bitch...and it's time for payback. If the White House wants national security to be an issue, and they do, then people like Rove who endanger national security need to be held responsible. Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

It all depends what your definition of "treason" is... Read the rest of this post...

Bay Buchanan said Rove was "Clintonian"

Okay, you have to know this is a big deal when ultra-conservative Bay Buchanan is on CNN describing Rove's answers as Clintonian. Read the rest of this post...

Harry Reid: Bush promised to fire the leaker, we hope he keeps his promise

This just in from Democratic leader Senator Harry Reid (NV)

Washington, DC – “I agree with the President when he said he expects the people who work for him to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. The White House promised if anyone was involved in the Valerie Plame affair, they would no longer be in this administration. I trust they will follow through on this pledge. If these allegations are true this rises above politics and is about our national security.”

Read the rest of this post...

Even AP has a tough Rove story

AP has an article up today that very clearly and simply spells out the issues in the Rove affair. In essence, AP has thrown down the gauntlet. Bush said he'd fire the leaker, now we know the leaker is Rove, and the White House is backing off. That AP story proves that the MSM finally gets it.

Make sure you go to the bottom of the story and RECOMMEND IT 5 stars to raise it higher on Yahoo's listings:

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.

Rove described the woman to a reporter as someone who "apparently works" at the CIA, according to an e-mail obtained by Newsweek magazine.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan refused to discuss the matter at two news briefings Monday. He said he would not comment because the leak is the focus of a federal criminal investigation.

Re-read that first paragraph. In light of what we all know now, it is a classic:

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.

Read the rest of this post...

Holy crap, again. I think the MSM smells obstruction of justice, involving Scott

From today's WH transcript:

Q: Scott, can I ask you this: Did Karl Rove commit a crime?

MCCLELLAN: Again, David [Gregory of NBC], this is a question relating to a ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don't think you should read anything into it other than: We're going to continue not to comment on it while it's ongoing.

Q: Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003, when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliot Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this"?

MCCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that, as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation, we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time as well.

Q: Scott, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us, after having commented with that level of detail, and tell people watching this that somehow you've decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium or not?

MCCLELLAN: I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said. And I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation...

Q: (inaudible) when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?

MCCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish.

Q: No, you're not finishing. You're not saying anything.
You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation. Was he involved or was he not? Because contrary to what you told the American people, he did indeed talk about his wife, didn't he?

MCCLELLAN: There will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.

Q: Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?

MCCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question.

QUESTION: You're in a bad spot here, Scott... because after the investigation began -- after the criminal investigation was under way -- you said, October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby. As I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this," from that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began.

Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation?

Read the rest of this post...

Bush and McClellan both promised that the leaker would be fired

We now know that Rove is the leaker. He's still on staff. Is Bush a liar?

Q: I actually wasn’t talking about any investigation. But in June of 2004, the president said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak to the press about information. I just wanted to know: Is that still his position?

MCCLELLAN: Yes, but this question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation, and that’s why I said that our policy continues to be that we’re not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation from this podium.

The prosecutors overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference to us that one way to help the investigation is not to be commenting on it from this podium....

QUESTION: Scott, if I could point out: Contradictory to that statement, on September 29th of 2003, while the investigation was ongoing, you clearly commented on it. You were the first one to have said that if anybody from the White House was involved, they would be fired. And then, on June 10th of 2004, at Sea Island Plantation, in the midst of this investigation, when the president made his comments that, yes, he would fire anybody from the White House who was involved, so why have you commented on this during the process of the investigation in the past, but now you’ve suddenly drawn a curtain around it under the statement of, We’re not going to comment on an ongoing investigation?

Read the rest of this post...

Dear MSM, here's a quick question for you...

If Karl Rove is not the subject of the investigation, then why can't the White House comment on him, even to say the president has confidence in him? Can the White House comment on their confidence in OTHER staffers who aren't subjects of the investigation? Why are they playing cagey with Karl is Karl supposedly is innocent and isn't even the subject of the investigation? Put another way, how is expressing confidence in Karl Rove "commenting on an ongoing investigation" if Karl Rove supposedly isn't a target fo the investigation? Read the rest of this post...

Full transcript of White House briefing on Rove is now live

At E&P.; Read the rest of this post...

We got to the bottom of this....now what?

Washington Post, June 25, 2004:

"The leaking of classified information is a very serious matter," said White House press secretary Scott McClellan, adding that Bush was "pleased to do his part" to aid the probe.

"No one wants to get to the bottom of this matter more than the president of the United States, and he has said on more than one occasion that if anyone -- inside or outside the government -- has information that can help the investigators get to the bottom of this, they should provide that information to the officials in charge."

Well, W., we got to the bottom of this, no thanks to you or your staff. What are you going to do about Karl Rove? Read the rest of this post...

Why did Scott McClellan lie to the press, and who told him to?

White House Web site, September 16 2003:

Q On the Robert Novak-Joseph Wilson situation, Novak reported earlier this year -- quoting -- "anonymous government sources" telling him that Wilson's wife was a CIA operative. Now, this is apparently a federal offense, to burn the cover a CIA operative. Wilson now believes that the person who did this was Karl Rove. He's quoted from a speech last month as saying, "At the end of the day, it's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs." Did Karl Rove tell that --

MR. McCLELLAN: I haven't heard that. That's just totally ridiculous. But we've already addressed this issue. If I could find out who anonymous people were, I would. I just said, it's totally ridiculous.

Q But did Karl Rove do it?

MR. McCLELLAN: I said, it's totally ridiculous.

Where did McClellan get his information that it was "ridiculous" that Rove had any role in the leak? Did McClellan have no information and was therefore simply lying to the press and the public and obstructing an ongoing investigation, or did someone tell McClellan that Rove was innocent, and if so who? - as that person is now possibly guilty of obstructing justice.

More quotes from Scottie here. Read the rest of this post...

Rush transcript of a portion of today's WH press briefing and Rove

This is only a partial transcript, there were move questions about Rove than this. Read the rest of this post...

CREW, Lautenberg: No Security Clearance for Rove

The pressure is building. Today, both Citizens for Ethics in Washington (CREW) and Senator Lautenberg (D-NJ) demanded that President Bush pull Karl Rove's security clearance.

CREW wrote to the President:

“Considering that it is a federal crime to identify covert agents, and that President Bush signed executive orders identifying the vital role the President plays in protecting national security secrets from unauthorized disclosure, it is appropriate for the President to suspend Mr. Rove’s clearance pending the investigation’s outcome,” Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW, said today.

“The evidence uncovered so far raises serious questions about Mr. Rove’s conduct and his ability to safeguard highly sensitive classified information. Until those questions are resolved, CREW believes it is not appropriate for Mr. Rove to have continued access to classified information. Anything short of suspension raises an unacceptable risk to our nation’s security,” Sloan wrote to the President today.

Raw Story has the Lautenberg statement:

“Karl Rove has accused liberals of not understanding the consequences of 9-11, but he’s the one who blew the cover of a covert CIA agent. The President should immediately suspend Karl Rove’s security clearances and shut him down by shutting him out of classified meetings or discussions.

The excuses offered by Karl Rove’s lawyer don’t pass the laugh test. Naming someone’s spouse is the same as naming them. And as a 31-year veteran of politics, Karl Rove should know that if you want to keep a secret, you don’t tell a reporter.”

Remember, George Bush, we are at war. National security is your top priority, you tell us. Looks like you have a big ole security risk in the West Wing. Read the rest of this post...

Watch the MS beat the bejeesus out of the White House over Karl Rove

Watch the video here. Read the rest of this post...

GOP going hard on the "security" issue again

Hillary referred to Bush again as Alfred E. Neuman (the MAD magazine "What, me worry?" guy) and the GOP jumped all over her, playing the security card. This is coming from the same GOP who cut 1/3 of the Homeland Security budget for transit systems in the US just in May and are now backpeddling to try and slip that money back before the MSM realizes just how much the Republicans actually hate urban dwellars in America and are fine with them being cannon fodder, just like Iraqis.

"At a time when President Bush and most elected officials are focused on the security of our nation, Mrs. Clinton seems focused on taking partisan jabs and promoting her presidential campaign," added New York's GOP chairman, Stephen Minarik.

The GOP response is incredible in light of both the massive security funds that were stripped out of the budget as well as Karl Rove's outing of a CIA operative and let's not even get into the disastor in Iraq which is making the world less safe.

Why does the GOP hate America? Read the rest of this post...

Holy crap, MSM beating up on Karl Rove at the WH daily briefing today

I've had numerous reports that the WH press corps is grilling Scottie at today's WH press briefing. I just turned it on, I know Editor & Publisher will have the transcript shortly, because they're that good.

Anybody see the good parts? Please report in the comments.

A few tidbits I'm hearing - these are my best transcribing, not perfect.

Q: "So you're not going to respond to a question about whether the president has confidence in Karl Rove?"

David Corn: Newsweek put out a story that Karl Roves passed natl security info outing a CIA agent. Are you saying the president isn't taking any action? The president is free to respond. So are you saying he's not going to do anything about this until the investigation is fully over and done with?

Scottie: This continues to be an ongoing criminal investigation...

David Corn: You acknowledge that he is free as president of the US to take whatever action he wants to, in response to a credible report?

Q: Did the president discuss Karl Rove's current situation with him today?

A: Same question relating to reports about an ongoing investigation.

Q" Who is Karl Rove as it relates to this current adminiswtration?

Scottie refused to answer and went to someone else. He's now refusing to answer anything about Karl.

Q: You said something on this podium months ago that was demonstrably false. Does that concern you now?

A: I will be glad to talk about this at the appropriate time, and that's once the investigation is complete.

Q: Scott, at this point, are we to consider what you said previously, are you still standing by what you said previously?

A: You've heard my response

Q: when the leak investigation is concluded, will the president release all the information as to what tranpsired?

A: This is being overseen by a special prosecutor, those are questions best put to the special prosecutor.

Q: Who in the investigation made the request that the WH not comment?

A: You can ask the special prosecutor. A number of individuals have asked.

Q: Have you consulted a personal attorney?

A: I've expressed all I'm going to say.

Interesting that the president has no problem having an alleged security risk on his staff. And interesting that Rove says he's not a subject of the investigation yet the White House won't comment about Rove, when he's not even the subject of the investigation. Isn't it wiser to put Rove on leave NOW, pending the result of an investigation as to whether he's a traitor? Or is this the kind of slap-jack war President Bush runs. Someone is a possible security risk and you continue to give them all access for a year and a half? Read the rest of this post...

Why does Karl Rove still have a security clearance?

More from DOD's own regs regarding who does and doesn't get a security clearance:

C2.1. STANDARDS FOR ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED INFORMATION OR ASSIGNMENT TO SENSITIVE DUTIES

C2.1.2. Clearance and Sensitive Position Standard. The personnel security standard that must be applied to determine whether a person is eligible for access to classified information or assignment to sensitive duties is whether, based on all available information, the person's loyalty, reliability, and trustworthiness are such that entrusting the person with classified information or assigning the person to sensitive duties is clearly consistent with the interests of national security.

C2.2. CRITERIA FOR APPLICATION OF SECURITY STANDARDS

C2.2.1. Criteria for Application of Security Standards. The ultimate decision in applying either of the security standards set forth in paragraph C2.1.2. and C2.1.3., above, must be an overall common sense determination based upon all available facts.

The criteria for determining eligibility for a clearance under the security standard shall include, but not be limited to the following:

C2.2.1.1. Commission of any act of sabotage, espionage, treason....

C2.2.1.5. Unauthorized disclosure to any person of classified information, or
of other information, disclosure of which is prohibited by Statute, Executive Order or Regulation.

C2.2.1.7. Disregard of public law, Statutes, Executive Orders or Regulations including violation of security regulations or practices.

C2.2.1.8. Criminal or dishonest conduct.

C2.2.1.9. Acts of omission or commission that indicate poor judgment, unreliability or untrustworthiness.

C2.2.1.11.2. Any other circumstances that could cause the applicant to be vulnerable.

C2.2.1.15. Any knowing and willful falsification, cover up, concealment,
misrepresentation, or omission of a material fact from any written or oral statement, document, form or other representation or device used by the Department of Defense or any other Federal Agency.

C2.2.1.16. Failing or refusing to answer or-to-authorize others to answer questions or provide information required by a congressional committee, court, or agency in the course of an official inquiry whenever such answers or information concern relevant and material matters pertinent to an evaluation of the individual's trustworthiness, reliability, and judgment.

"C3.7.9..2. Generally, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy will only approve periodic reinvestigations of persons having access to Secret information if the unauthorized disclosure of the information in question could reasonably be expected to: C3.7.9.2.1. Jeopardize human life or safety. C3.7.9.2.2. Result in the loss of unique or uniquely productive intelligence sources or methods vital to the United States security."

More on security clearance guidelines from About.com Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

News? Read the rest of this post...

Anybody got time to read through this

It might give us some more info on what standards might be used for revoking a security clearance - even though it's a DOD document, I want to know the general standards involved. Read the rest of this post...

God Bless The Onion

Paul Krugman launches a preemptive strike on Bush's coming attempt to spin a massive $300 billion+ budget deficit as good economic news.

In doing so, he quotes a story printed in the satirical publication The Onion on January 18, 2001.

"We must squander our nation's hard-won budget surplus on tax breaks for the wealthiest 15 percent," the magazine's spoof had the president-elect declare. "And, on the foreign front, we must find an enemy and defeat it."

Scarily funny. Or is that just scary? Read the rest of this post...

Someone who deals with security clearances, please contact me privately

I want the answer to whether divulging the name of a covert CIA operative (whether or not you had foreknowledge that she was covert), as an act of revenge/malice, would in any way influence the granting or maintenance of a high-level (such as codeword) security clearance. We can chat off the record, whatever you want, I just want the facts as to whether it's not a bit odd that Rove still has his high-level clearances after committing what appears to be a major breach of CIA security. What SHOULD the process have been after a leak like that occurs and the leaker is identified? What happens to his clearance? Read the rest of this post...

The odd tale of Karl Rove's lawyer

Josh Marshall has the scoop Read the rest of this post...

Some advice about contacting reporters

Be it about Karl Rove, or any other topic, simply posting the email addresses of hundreds of reporters (as has been happening in the comments, of late) is well-intended, but not that effective.

As a journalist myself, and someone on the receiving end of lots of emails, AND someone who has spoken to a lot of top reporters via email (and about email), here are some suggestions if you really want to contact reporters about Karl Rove or any other topic.

1. Don't email them all at once with one big blast email. Totally worthless, makes you sound crazy. I hit the delete button right away. They do too.

2. Rather, pick a reporter and write to that reporter. Write a personal note. Explain your concern about the coverage of the issue. Even better, if you follow that reporter's work and if there's something that's been lacking in THEIR coverage, THAT'S what gets their attention. If their paper hasn't covered X issue, then write that fact specifically, ask why, and explain why YOU think it's an issue worthy of coverage for THEIR papaer. Talk to them logically, and nicely, and with details, and they might just respond. They have for me on numerous occasions.

3. If you can't say it in one or two quick paragraphs, don't say it. Long emails from strangers come off crazy, and those of us who receive hundreds of emails a day don't have time to read more than 2 quick, and I mean quick, paragraphs from a stranger. It's irrelevant if you don't like that fact, no one reads long emails from strangers (do you?).

4. Realize that, other than some of the FOX News crowd, most reporters are people who probably aren't out to screw us. They have their honest legitimate take on a story. We may disagree, and we may be right. But they're generally smart people who respect logic, so use that logic in proving to them why you're right. Again, you might just get the story changed.

5. Don't be a dick. Nothing says "crazy" to me more than some stranger writing some nasty email to me when we've never conversed before, and when that person had the perfect chance to write me something nice, but critical.

Read the rest of this post...

I sense a healthy competition here...

From James Poling Read the rest of this post...

Open Thread

Rove, Rove, Rove Read the rest of this post...

How strong or weak is the economy?

The jobs report that came out on Friday fell well short of the analysts expectations of 195,000 and instead came in just under the minimum number needed each month needed to keep pace with new entrants. Naturally the administration and their cheerleaders were telling us how impressive the 146,000 new jobs were but then again, failure seems to be cheered on everywhere within the Bush team. With the auto industry falling apart and M&A; activity racing along, I think that we will be in for a choppy second half with plenty of good and bad out there. If the housing market bubble bursts while we are in this period, expect a lot more bad than good. Read the rest of this post...

Bush's Failure To Protect and Defend America Part II

We've already talked about some of the many, many ways Bush has weakened our military, left our borders vulnerable and simply refused to take the common sense, essential steps needed to make America safer and more secure.

Here's another infuriating way Bush has let our troops -- and therefore our country -- down. Our crumbling, delapidated Veterans Administration hospitals.

The Washington Post focuses on one hospital to tell the story of Bush's incompetence on the care of veterans. That hospital just happens to contain one of the best PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) Units in the country, one ideal for helping veterans cope with their injuries and a return to civilian life. 250,000 new veterans entered the VA system in 2004, with almost half of them coming from Iraq. Bush couldn't have guessed this would happen? Here's the result of his negligience.

According to documents released at recent meetings of the House and Senate Veterans Affairs committees, the VA hospital in White River Junction, Vt., was forced to shut its operating rooms temporarily because of a lack of maintenance funds to repair a broken heating, ventilation and air conditioning system. Hospitals in Arkansas, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Louisiana and eastern Texas stopped scheduling appointments for many veterans. The VA medical center in San Diego, with a waiting list of 750 veterans, diverted $3.5 million in maintenance funds to partially cover operating expenses and delayed filling 131 vacancies for three months to cover operating expenses. The Portland, Ore., hospital delayed non-emergency surgery for at least six months, and 7,000 veterans who use the VA facility in Bay Pines, Fla., are waiting longer than 30 days for a primary care appointment.

He's not just screwing over soldiers who fought in Iraq. He's screwing over the veterans of Vietnam, Korea and World War II to boot. Bush tries to cut hazardous pay to soldiers fighting overseas, plays games with the VA budget by pretending there won't be a massive influx of wounded kids that will need intensive care, and abuses the National Guard and Reserves. How can he even pretend to support the troops? Read the rest of this post...

Bush's Failure To Protect and Defend America Part I

Quick, someone tell Bush we're at war. It's been almost four years since 9-11 and Bush has failed repeatedly to take the obvious, common sense steps needed to improve security here at home.

We posted a few days ago on the Coast Guard, which is responsible for guarding our coastlines and protecting our ports -- two areas the 9-11 Commission have singled out as especially vulnerable. It is dramatically underfunded, with aging vessels, most of whch have been around for more than three decades. Bush looked at old plans made BEFORE 9-11, plans to upgrade the Coast Guard by 2025...and decided to delay them even further to 2030. That's mind-boggling.

But that's just one of many, many areas where any reasonable person can see Bush has utterly failed to protect and defend America.

Another area? His abuse of the National Guard and Army Reserve. Even its own military leaders have described those areas as "broken," thanks to Bush's abuse of those troops with a back-door draft. Here's the latest report, a front page New York Times story that highlights the dramatic decline in available Guard and Reserve forces that are going to be available for overseas duty soon. It also points out that many states have half their forces and vital equipment like helicopters in Iraq when they're desperately needed here at home for their traditional roles of providing public safety in emergencies like Hurricane Dennis and the forest fires that rage annually (that season for fires is about to begin).

That rumour about the British and US planning to pull many troops out in 2006? This story makes clear it might very well happen for the simple reason that WE'LL HAVE NO CHOICE. We are running out of troops. Read the rest of this post...