HorsesAss.Org

Open thread

by — ,

A little free advice to local politicians: don’t do The Colbert Report unless you are funny.

Comments

  1. Rick Larsen must agree with Tim Eyman to the extent that Larsen, apparently, believes there is no such thing as bad publicity.

    Larsen said of the experience: “Around here, it’s like a badge of honor to be on Colbert,” he said.

    Sort of like eating insects on “Fear Factor”.

  2. The interview was over an Hour, and Larsen knew before doing it the Report editors would cut and paste the footage together.

  4. Oil prices settled at a record above $76 a barrel Thursday in a market agitated by escalating violence in the Middle East and the threat of supply disruptions there and beyond. [……………………………………………………………OK…How to bring oil price down, Democrat style: add another 50 cents a gallon gas tax! No drilling in ANWR! No drilling off any coasts, unless your are Cuba! No nukes! No new refinerers! Tax oil companies more! Tax anyone who invests in oil companies more! Tax everyone more! Add more regulations! Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…. Did i miss any great “ideas” from Democrats????? hehe, JCH]

  6. JCH,

    Did you miss any great “ideas” from Democrats. Fuck yes. The worst Democratic idea is better than the best Republian ideas.

    Nearly six years of giving the conservative model of government a fair chance and, like Global Warming, the facts are in: Conservatism simply does not work.

    What a fuck wad you are, JCH. Grow the fuck up. Gas has shot up more than a $1.50 under Bush and you whine about a few pennies on a gas tax while you’re subsidizing the Big Oil with your tax dollars. You’re such a fucking tratiorus moron.

    Nothing changes with you does it?

    You lying, scumbag idiot.

    How did you do in flight school again? You know, the one you supposedly never attended?

  7. yeah, like ANWR is going to bring down prices soon or solve our energy problems. Dumb Ass. Energy independence through alternative sources is the answer
    JCH is mentally defective. We should return him to Wal-Mart

  10. LeftyRTurn-8 Well we will get some satisfaction in seeing these traitors squirm in a federal court after all!

    It will be nice to see Mr. and Mrs. Plame finally get exposed for the media whores that they are. Between Mr. Plame’s lies and years of hyperventilating by the wacky left over Fitzmas, (nuttin-gate), the truth will again be publicized.

    Has anyone on this board apologized to Karl Rove yet?

    Too funny!!!!

  11. Rick was funny. Have to give him credit for getting in the mix with Colbert. He knew what he was in for and did it anyway. Now, that doesn’t mean that I like the guy – oki?

    Why does anybody respond to RPKKK when he’s just on another trashing mission and ranting the same uninformed crap he rants on every single thread? I’m beginning to think he has an automated posting machine or else he’s got no life outside this blog whatsoever.

  13. LeftyTurn-12 Apologize to Rove because he’s a liar, a traitor, a draft dodger and a coward?

    No, because he did nothing wrong. The liars, traitors and cowards hang out on the left side of this comment section.

    As much as these lefty wackos are wrong you would think they would be used to apologizing. Bend over Rove, the lefties need to deliver a wet kiss to your back side. Actually, they already did!

    Still too funny…..

  14. Rick did just fine, Goldy. I don’t know if you ever see this show or this bit (don’t have cable, right?), but it’s not the job of the congressman to be fine. That’s Colbert’s job.

  15. I apologize to Karl Rove. I was wrong; he’s NOT worse than Michael Jackson, O.J. Simpson, or Oliver North. He’s been exonerated just as they have. I’m sorry.

  16. Rick was the straight man. Just what he was supposed to be. And he handled the part well. AND actually I do like the guy.

  17. 10 -Rove wasn’t exonerated. He just wasn’t indicted. He did it . . . but he got out of it with the help of the improper communication between a Time reporter and his lawyer. That simple.

  18. I’d say he did OK compared to a lot of the politicians who do this segment – at least he knew it was a joke!

  19. Butt-fucking idiot @ 10:

    Media whores?!?!? Realllllllly?

    I guess that’s why the CIA pressed the DOJ to go after the persons responsible for outing an undercover CIA agent who’s primary job was to prevent the transfer of real WMD’s.

    Yeah, real media whores.

    Hey, a big ol’ “FUCK YOU” to you, you traitor.

  20. BOSTON – Gov. Mitt Romney announced Thursday he was filing emergency legislation to seize control over inspections and any decisions on reopening a highway tunnel where 12 tons of falling cement ceiling panels killed a woman. Romney also started legal proceedings to oust the chairman of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, which oversaw the troubled $14.6 billion Big Dig highway project through downtown Boston.

    This is what you get when you mix Kerry, Kennedy, and Tip O’Neil MASS Democrats and Democrat controlled unions together with a 3 billion dollar initial estimate and final costs exceeding 14.6 billion dollars; you have a roof of a tunnel falling on you head; but hey, the liberal Democrat politicians bought plenty of votes and the union hacks and thugs are happy.

  21. GBS, Welcome back from Thailand! How were the little boys?

  22. Ever notice the obvious? No one was indicted for outing an undercover agent. Why? Because there were no undercover agents!

    Valerie Plame engaged in a political act that exploited her ties to the CIA to get her husband a job that her and her buddies assumed would embarrass the administration. She got caught at it. If you are going to wallow in the mud, don’t be surprised when it clogs up your nose.

    It will be great to have Plame and Wilson pursue a civil charge. This will mean they will have to reveal who was behind sending Joe to Africa, as part of discovery. Then the fun will begin.

    They are such publicity hounds they don’t realize that they are stepping in it hugely!

  24. Russia and China are using too much coal and gasoline! You Democrat libs need to stop them! Chain yourselves to their drilling rigs! Show us that you really want to “save the world”! hehe, JCH

  25. JCH @ 22:

    I have no idea how the boys are in Thailand, that was your trip seeing you’re a Bush Republican.

    Why don’t you ask Limp Dickbaugh how the little boys were in the Domincan Republic. Yeah, like a guy needs Viagra for a fishing trip. What a fucking liar, just like you JCH, ol’ Limp Dickbaugh is, huh?

  26. Not that the ethics-impaired righties like Janet S will care about actual facts as opposed to right wing hate radio talking points, but Plame was indeed a covert agent and the reason Rove wasn’t indicted was simple. The prosecutor couldn’t PROVE a criminal violation. Doesn’t mean Plame wasn’t an agent. Doesn’t mean Rove didn’t harm the security of the United States and hopefully, around election time, some of the details of the traitors’ acts will be divulged to the American people.

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200507260005

  27. Janet,

    Valerie Plame had the misfortune not only to be married to Joseph Wilson, but to be in charge herself of an undercover operation connected with gathering data (meaning genuine factual information) on weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. This was evidently in conflict with the Bush administration’s efforts to recast the CIA in the role of the Central Propaganda Agency, with the principal purpose of justifying he playbook of the PNAC, which they’ve followed to the letter since 9/11.

    The reason Rove wasn’t prosecuted is probably that Fitz was “made an offer he couldn’t refuse”.

  28. LeftTurn, when the right, ie Janet, run out of facts they turn to lies, omissions, spin or denial. In this case, she chose denial. There’s no treatment for that kind of ignorance.

  29. The only substantial component of WMD that I can recall being documented after the invasion of Iraq was a stockpile of 680 tons of high explosives which OUR FORCES INEXPLICABLY LOST. Seems 680 tons of anything wouldn’t be all that hard to keep an eye on. Now that stuff is no doubt going into all those IUD’s that continue to kill and maim both Iraquis and Americans.

  30. From now on we’re going to drop the “t” in Janet S’ name and simply refer to her as “Jane, you ignorant Slut!”

    A) We always notice the obvious, Jane you ignorant slut. Like how mentally retarded you are.

    B) We also know why no one has been indicted for outing an undercover, covert CIA agent. Libby fucking lied. Had he told the truth, which conservatives are not capable of — take JCH for instance — we would have discovered who in the Bush admin authorized the leak. Oh, yeah, Bush did it.

    C) Valorie Plame was not “engaged in a political act” she was doing her fucking job of protecting our nation from WMD’s. Dumb ass.

    One thing I’ll agree with you about, it is going to be fun to watch Bush either grant pardons or block any REAL investigation.

  31. Ever notice the obvious? No one was indicted for outing an undercover agent. Why?

    Two reasons. First, the attempted cover-up by Libby has required that that particular aspect of the case be resolved before proceeding to other matters. Second, the law is written (correctly, in my view) so expansively as to make prosecution difficult.

    Because there were no undercover agents!

    Tell that to the CIA and the Republican federal prosecutor. Both have stated exactly the opposite.

    Valerie Plame engaged in a political act that exploited her ties to the CIA to get her husband a job that her and her buddies assumed would embarrass the administration. She got caught at it. If you are going to wallow in the mud, don’t be surprised when it clogs up your nose.

    It will be great to have Plame and Wilson pursue a civil charge. This will mean they will have to reveal who was behind sending Joe to Africa, as part of discovery.

    If you were to be logically consistent, you would have to conclude that if Plame and Wilson were so confident of their positions to knowingly submit to discover they must have nothing to hide.

  32. ArtFart, he wasnt’ indicted because another journalist for Time went to Rove’s attorney, improperly, by the way, and told him that she would be testifying that she was aware of the communicated between Cooper and Rove. So, Rove himself went back to Fitzgerald and covered his ass by suggesting he might have inadvertently leaked himself. Because he had already admitted to another previously forgotten inadvertent slip on his own, Fitzgerald felt that he couldn’t guarantee a strong case with all this on-the-record “forgetting” on Rove’s part so did not indict.

    I don’t know why the Time reporter didn’t get some sort of reprimand for her improper conduct but she didn’t.

  33. 30 – Also, didn’t the WMD thing include Iraq as an imminent threat? Weapons-making materials does not constitute an imminent threat.

  34. The only substantial component of WMD that I can recall being documented after the invasion of Iraq was a stockpile of 680 tons of high explosives which OUR FORCES INEXPLICABLY LOST. Seems 680 tons of anything wouldn’t be all that hard to keep an eye on. Now that stuff is no doubt going into all those IUD’s that continue to kill and maim both Iraquis and Americans.

    Commentby ArtFart

    I do not think that word means what you think it means. ;-)

  35. # 23: Either Janet’s off her meds, or she’s reading right-wing talking points which report things as they would like them to be, rather than as they are.

    The facts:

    (1) Bush publically argues that Wilson’s report proves Iraq is trying to buy uranium in Africa.

    (2) Wilson steps up to the plate, and says his report says no such thing, and it is being misconstrued by the White House.

    (3) The press beings to ask if Bush (a) didn’t know what he was talking about, or (b) Bush was deliverately trying to mislead the public, the Congress, and the U.N.

    (4) At this point there is more or less a war going on, not in Iraq, but between professional intelligence agents and analysts in the C.I.A. and the White House and Rumsfield’s. They are seeing their reports distorted or statements pulled out of thin air, and they are upset. They know that when no WMD are found in Iraq, the White House will point the blame at them, rather than admit that they pushed the analysis to the conclusions they wanted to reach, and ignored evidence to the contrary. That’s why the White House attacked Plame, not Wilson directly, because it served as a “warning shot” across the bow of the C.I.A.

    (5) In response to # 2 and # 3, someone in the White House assumes that this is an attack by the CIA, and fires back. The evidence is still inconclusive whether it was Rove, Cheany, or Rumsfield who initially leaked to Novak that Plame was a C.I.A. agent. (a) Cheaney’s aid, Libby, has been indicted for lying about it to federal prosecutors and the grand jury, so the evidence tends to lean toward Cheany in that regard. (b) Novak won’t disclose his initial source, but says that Rove confirmed the identity of Plame after Novak asked for confirmation. (c) Libby’s lawyers appear to be preparing to defend him on the basis that he believed he had authority to leak the information, but I don’t see how that gets him out of a perjury rap.

    (6) The Novak article appears, using the White House spin that Wilson’s report was politically motivated and his wife is actually a CIA agent. Whatever that has to do with political motivation is unclear in the article.

    (7) The White House is surpised when there is an uproar about the “outing” of a CIA agent. Instead of causing the CIA to be afraid of crossing their paths, the agents are outraged that their safety would be endangered for political milage. Congressmen and Journalists point out that it is illegal to publically identify a covert CIA agent.

    (8) President Bush announces that he will vigorously investigate the leak, fire anyone responsible, and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.

    (9) Other correspondents are jailed because they won’t reveal their sources, but later they are released. Novak isn’t jailed, because he is “cooperating” with the federal authorities, apparantly naming names. But isn’t he just as guilty as the leaker in publishing the identity?

    (10) As Libby’s lawyers fight in court for access to thousands of pages of classified documents, it becomes clear that he isn’t going to settle for being a scapegoat. There are hints that his defense will allege that the release of information was authorized at the “highest levels”, perhaps even by Bush himself.

    11) At that point the White House points out that if Bush ordered the information revealed, it was not a crime because Bush has the authority to declassify any information he wants to. The inconsistency between this statement, and his previous position (# 8), is not explained.

    (12) Now Janet S. claims that subsequent investigations will show that Plame was not a covert CIA agent. The inconsistency between this and the previous White House positions, (See # 8 above), is also not explained.

    Apparantly, Rove is on “plan E” at this point. First his attempts to attack Wilson’s credibility and fire a shot at the CIA backfired. Secondly, his attempts to have Bush feign “outrage” while stonewalling the investigation failed. Third, his attempts to have the blame fall on a scapegoat, Libby, have failed because Libby is refusing to accept that role quietly, and is threatening to name names. Fourth, the rather inept attempt to argue that no crime was committed because Bush could declasify the information on a whim wasn’t accepted by anybody except the truly clueless. Fifth, Rove is trying to resort back to his initial approach, which has always been one of his favorites – when in doubt, attack the critics rather than the substance of the story – which is now where we see this “talking point” faithfully put forth by Janet S. Of course, Rove doesn’t just “attack” the critics, he seeks to destroy them.

    Just like Coulter’s attack on the 9/11 widows, saying they enjoyed being widows, Janet S. is now claiming that Plume “wanted” to be outed, because she wanted the publicity.

    The ridiculousness of this story is rather apparant in that, in this day of terrorism, having someone publically identified as a covert CIA agent will prevent them from ever living a normal life again.

  36. Janet S – you must be really proud of your talking-point transmission-belt abilities – if not proud then at least well-paid.

  37. Fox News:

    The president’s approval rating dropped to 36 percent, down from 41 percent approval two weeks ago and 40 percent in mid-June. Bush lost ground this week among some key constituent groups, such as Republicans, whites and men. Overall, 53 percent of Americans say they disapprove.

    Pretty bad when even the liars that you pay to lie about you rate you at only 36% – Bush is easily on track to be the most hated president ever. Hey all you right wing trolls, how’s it feel to be in the EXTREME minority?

  38. Man, it just keeps getting stranger and stranger.

    Then news today is the Newt Gingrich will visit Washington this Saturday to host fundraisers for Dave Reichart and Roulestone as well as the State GOP. The Reichart event will cost donars at least $1,000 per person (presumably they will be hit up for more during the course of the evening).

    “Gingrich will headline a private fundraiser in Bellevue for Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Wash., Saturday night, and a luncheon event in Everett for businessman Doug Roulstone, the GOP nominee in the 2nd District.

    Gingrich also will conduct a roundtable session in Bellevue for donors to the state GOP, said state party Chairwoman Diane Tebelius.

    Gingrich is considered a possible presidential candidate in 2008, but Tebelius said his primary appeal, for now, is that “he’s an idea man. He has many thoughts on many subjects, and he thinks thoroughly through his responses. That brings a lot of cachet to some people.”

    http://www.king5.com/localnews.....821b2.html

    I guess a Republican who “thinks thoroughly through his responses”, instead of shooting from the hip, is a bit of a rarity these days, and therefore a draw on the speaking circuit.

    But notice that “Gingrich was invited to the state by Reichert, whose chief of staff, Mike Shields, is a former Gingrich aide.” That doesn’t portend well for Reichart.

    Just in case you’ve forgetten, here’s some of the scoop regarding potential 2008 Republican Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich:

    http://www.realchange.org/gingrich.htm

  39. I’m glad you have it all so down pat. Too bad there is lots of expert opinion on the other side.

    At the very beginning of all this, the WSJ said that Plame wasn’t technically covert, because she hadn’t been on assignment out of the country for five years. If she had been covert, Novak would have been told in no uncertain terms not to publish his story.

    Plame openly drove to work every day at CIA headquarters, and had lunch with friends there. If she was worried about maintaining her cover, she wouldn’t have been so open.

    Wilson is the one who originally said he was sent by request of the Vice President. He started the whole ball rolling with that whopper. What did you expect to happen, the WH just roll over?

    Doesn’t it strike you as strange that Wilson was sent by the CIA on a secret mission, but then wrote about it in the NYT? Reports are that his classified report is very different than his newspaper report. This just reeks of the CIA careerists doing whatever they can to undermine the administration.

    BTW, I didn’t say the widows wanted to be such. I said they are hiding behind their status to make political points that no one can respond to, because they are victims. Your comment reinforces this. If they want to criticize the current administration and campaign for dems, fine. But don’t be surprised when someone disagrees with you.

  40. Notice that Gingrich isn’t making pubic appearances, but is appearing only in front of carefully screened Republican donars, just like Cheney and the President in their earlier visits?

    I guess meeting the public isn’t very high on the Republican agenda right now. But fund-raising is. Expect a flurry of last-minute character assasination television and radio adds the last week of October and the first week of November.

    The Republicans are counting on the voters being too dumb to see through their strategy. Don’t let them get away with it. Warn everyone you know that this is coming, so they will be prepared when it happens.

  41. At the very beginning of all this, the WSJ said that Plame wasn’t technically covert, because she hadn’t been on assignment out of the country for five years.

    With all due respect to the fine legal minds at the Wall Street Journal, I trust the assessments of the CIA and the Justice Department regarding what constitutes NOC status just a wee bit more.

  42. GBS, Back for 2 days, and 7 posts on JCH. I STILL own you!!!!! [But you really need to get a life.]

  43. Janet, if Plume wasn’t “covert”, then

    (1) why did Bush go through the steps of appearing outraged at the leak, and promising to fire anyone responsible and to prosecute them?

    (2) Why did someone in the Administration feel it was important that her status with the CIA to become public?

    (3) Do you think the CIA thinks it is a good idea to publicise the names of its non-politically appointed employees just because they drive to work at the Pentagon (I’m not saying she does, just accepting your premise for the sake of discussion)?

    (4) If I set up a website listing their names and addresses, or if it were published in a special issue of the NY Times, do you feel that this would be helpful or hurtful to National Security of the U.S., and to the safety of those employees?

    (5) If the Democrats had revealed the name of a non-political appointee CIA agent in order to gain political benefit of some type or another, do you think the Republicans would just shrug their shoulders and say “No big deal, she wasn’t THAT covert, anyway”?

  44. Janet at 40: “…BTW, I didn’t say the widows wanted to be such. I said they are hiding behind their status to make political points that no one can respond to, because they are victims.”

    I thought they were hiding (not really) behind their status as US citizens. They don’t have a right to an opinion or a criticism or even a protest?

    Also, it has been well-established that Plame is and was a covert agent. When you dispute facts that are no longer disputable, you come off as just plain stubborn. “Expert opinion” – what is that? Opinion is somebody’s interpretation of something. Her status in the CIA has a factual basis – argue it all you want, the facts don’t change.

    Can you conservatives ever admit you are wrong about ANYTHING?

  45. BTW, your contention that the widows can’t be responded to because they are victims is nothing more than “Coulter-ism” and I hope you’re not proud of that. They can be responded to intelligently, If you have to resort to her kind of attacks, then you don’t have much with which to argue.

  46. REP Pat:

    Please reconcile:

    In his syndicated column being published Wednesday, the journalist, Robert D. Novak, confirms that two of his sources were Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, and Bill Harlow, then a spokesman for the Central Intelligence Agency, both of whose roles in the case are already widely known. Mr. Novak does not disclose his primary source, saying this official has not come forward publicly.

    with your post:

    Tuesday, July 11, 2006
    Novak Learned About Plame From … Joe Wilson

    ‘I learned Valerie Plame’s name from Joe Wilson’s entry in ‘Who’s Who in America’…

    Those tiny popping sounds you hear are HORSESASS.ORG dumb ass Democrat libs heads exploding.

    Commentby REP Pat Kennedy [D-Bitchslap the Black Security Guard At LAX]— 7/11/06@ 4:14 pm

    Is your hrad popping?

  48. Hey, K! i already confronted and humiliated him with that one! It was fun!

    JANET: “Bush also told federal prosecutors during his June 24, 2004, interview in the Oval Office that he had directed Cheney, as part of that broader effort, to disclose highly classified intelligence information that would not only defend his administration but also discredit Wilson, the sources said.” (National Journal, Murray Waas, 7-3-06)

    So they set about “disclosing highly classified intelligence information” and that turned out to be Plame. What about this don’t you get?

  49. You guys are dense, or just pretending to be. I have no problem with the widows saying anything they want. But, they can’t then use their status as widows to avoid criticism of their outspoken views. Same with Cindy Sheehan. If they are putting themselves out there, they are fair game. What is your problem with free speech?

    Answer me this: Why didn’t the CIA public information officer strongly discourage Novak from writing his story? Why didn’t he kick it upstairs to pressure the editors not to publish, if revealing her status was covert?

    The WH thought it was relevant for the public to know that Joe Wilson was not hired by the VP, and had no ties to the administration, and that possibly his story was political in nature. So who sent him on his errand? Seems to me to be an important piece of information to put Joe Wilson into context. That was exactly what led Novak to dig up the information.

  50. 50

    Whoa-whoa-whoa Janet! If you express an opinion on a public issue, your ideas are fair game — but that doesn’t make you fair game. This is the whole fucking problem with you Republicans: Instead of honestly debating an issue, you attack the person. Is that because Republicans’ ideas can’t stand on their own merits?

  51. Janet at 40: “Too bad there is lots of expert opinion on the other side.”

    Who are they? Cite ’em, please.

    Also, Roger is right. Do you think Coulter is correct to debate by calling them names? Is that your technique? I know it’s the tactic of much of this blog; but, do you think it’s okay to attack the widows rather than their critiques?

  52. Okay, let’s drop the widows thing. I never called them names, and this whole line is boring. They have free speech, I have free speech, you have free speech, we all have free speech. Doesn’t mean any of us have class.

    The classified info that Bush declassified was not Plame’s status.
    http://news.nationaljournal.co.....406nj1.htm
    It was the national intelligence assessment. This is what Libby was authorized to reveal.

  53. Well, I hope that means you wouldn’t call them names. I also hope it means you disavow Coulter’s tactics.

    FROM YOUR LINK:

    “Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff has testified that President Bush authorized him to disclose the contents of a highly classified intelligence assessment to the media to defend the Bush administration’s decision to go to war with Iraq, according to papers filed in federal court [PDF] on Wednesday by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the CIA leak case.

    “Although not reflected in the court papers, two senior government officials said in interviews with National Journal in recent days that Libby has also asserted that Cheney authorized him to leak classified information to a number of journalists during the run-up to war with Iraq. In some instances, the information leaked was directly discussed with the Vice President, while in other instances Libby believed he had broad authority to release information that would make the case to go to war.

    “Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, was a covert CIA officer at the time, and Cheney, Libby, and other Bush administration officials believed that Wilson’s allegations could be discredited if it could be shown that Plame had suggested that her husband be sent on the CIA-sponsored mission to Niger.

    Two days after Wilson’s op-ed, Libby met with then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller and not only disclosed portions of the NIE, but also Plame’s CIA employment and potential role in her husband’s trip.”

    Regarding that meeting, Libby “testified that he was specifically authorized in advance… to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE to Miller” because Vice President Cheney believed it to be “very important” to do so, . . . ”

    Italics mine. Next time read the whole article.

  56. The part about Plame being covert is not part of what Libby was disclosing, as stated very clearly. In fact, the covert part is added as context by the writer, and he has no evidence backing up the assertion. Her name is not in any of the documents he is referring to, nor is her status. Maybe you need to read more clearly.

    So if I disavow Coulter, will you disavow all the moonbats who regularly threaten death to repubs? Like Roger?

  57. Of course! I’m no sheep . . . are you? I’m surprised your integrity is tit-for-tat.

    Well, how about we try a more recent article:
    http://news.nationaljournal.co.....703nj1.htm

    “Libby’s indictment stated: “On or about June 12, 2003, Libby was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson’s wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division. Libby understood that the Vice President learned this information from the CIA.”

    Now, this is not a conviction but I guess Fitzgerald disagrees with you in that he thinks the evidence is substantial enough to indict Libby. Well just have to wait and see.

    Again, I usually think for myself. That’s the best I can do.

  58. If you have patience and an open mind, read this blog post by Tom MacGuire:
    http://justoneminute.typepad.c....._was_.html

    He has been one of the most thorough of investigators, and doesn’t have an axe to grind one way or the other. He post has lots of sources from WAPO and other non-right wing sources. Dismiss it if you want, but it is at least informative as what has been written in this thread.

    In the end, we have Novak revealing Plame’s identity, and the CIA not caring all that much. He learns of the connection from an admin source who didn’t see anything inadvertent in mentioning her employment. Joe Wilson provides the rest of the details, himself.

    Did you all think that the NYT should have published the SWIFT story? Seems like that was a huge hit to national security, much greater than anything involving Plame. If you think that was okay, then why care about Plame? Doesn’t the public have the right to know?

  59. If Fitz thought that this was a violation of the law, he would have indicted Libby for revealing a covert agent, not for giving perjurious testimony. But just working for the CIA is not a state secret, and being classified is not the same as being covert. The passage here only says she worked at the CIA, and that the VP found out about that from the CIA.

    There is just nothing here. Libby may have lied, or just given conflicting statements. Whatever, it happened outside of the Plame fury, during the Fitz investigation, and has nothing to do with the core issue.

    Don’t count on this to be a campaign issue. Only nerds like you and me have even followed this as far as we have. No one else cares.

  60. 59 – I heard that the Wall Street Journal also published it. Why is all the attention on the Times?

  61. There’s no doubt that under the narrow reading of the law, there’s no violation. That doesn’t mean that what Rove did was right. And IF you’re one to get upset about the NTY and by the way, the right wing Wall Street Journal running the Swift story, then you should be really pissed about Plame. But you’re not Janet because you are not an honest, moral or ethical person. And by the way, once again, you’ve outed yourself. You’re quoting Ann Coulter. You have quoted Lush Flimbaugh before (extensively) and this proves you have no original thoughts on these subjects that you say you want substantive debate on. You’re doing what you always do-spitting out republican talking points, true or not and then dropping the subject when we prove you wrong.

    Fact, what Rove did to Plame was purely political and bad for our country regardless of the law. Fact, the NYT and the WSJ broke no laws by publishing the SWIFT story so you’re trying to have it both ways and it ain’t gonna work.

    Go home now and listen to some more hate radio so you can figure out what you should say next.

  63. Hey, Goldie, Larson was funny enough. I liked the episode. He’s a politican, not a comedian. Don’t be so hard on him.

  64. You know, I’m finding this funny! I haven’t read him before. In fact, until recently, I got very little of my info off the net or blogs. I do a lot of CSpanning and article reading.

    What is funny is that the Plame thing and SWIFT are sort of overlapping. Apparently, Mickey is arguing that it wouldn’t take much time or energy to find out that Plame is Wilson’s wife and works for the CIA – so much for covert. And, that is exactly what the liberals – me – are arguing about SWIFT. In fact, the terrorist network is pretty sophisticated and is currently – since before the article however – actually passing large sums of money by hand. The SWIFT site on the web describes itself and its purpose. Bush has already outed himself that way by discussing in speeches the need to look at international money transactions, etc. This as far back as three-four years ago. So, in other words, both of these little faux pas are twins of each other but on different sides. Maybe . . . if I concede that the Kaus piece has a point . . . both are much ado about nothing! (LOL)

    Both the WSJ and the NYT have defended their positions. I’m neither so stubborn nor someone so indoctrinated into a party that I can’t be open minded or see the funny side. And I’m having a good laugh with this one!

    Time will tell about both!

  65. One more thing: to put a reverse spin on it, I believe – and you may take issue with this – that there’s been more publicity about the efforts the US has made to uncover terrorists and that the SWIFT side might be more public than was Plame’s identity in the context of her work. She was dealing with WMDs and I think it is unlikely terrorists or people who work in the dark corridors of the underworld will necessarily follow her to work. I think her job was a little different than that.

    But, not to argue . . . just to put some differences that I still see on the table.
    But, not major ones!

  66. Did you hear that the news side of WSJ has protested the editorial side? Seems they didn’t like it that the editorial side derided them for publishing the SWIFT story. I think the only reason the NYT got the brunt was because they were first out of the blocks, and that seemed to be where the intense lobbying was aimed not to publish.

    I’m on the fence about the SWIFT. It seems like the terrorists are smart enough to think they can get away with it, or really are just looking for a death sentence. I sometimes think the administration doth protest too much.

  67. No, didn’t know that.

    It is funny. I have a friend who really got into the political thing and thought he could change the world. So he started at the local party level. He’s a financial wiz. When he started talking about ways to bring down deficits and still protect essential social programs, the old hacks didn’t want to hear it. They were polliticizing everything. “We don’t care about the deficit. That’s not important.” He became disallusioned and finally quit.

    I’m for a revolution! It is hard to support any party because they are all looking out for themselves, their turf, and their ideology. Screw the rest of us. I don’t think you are as alienated as I am. :)

  68. The only good conservative is a dead conservative.

    Commentby GBS [………………………………………………………………………….GBS, Who will pay the taxes so libs like RR and you can have a “guvment” job?]

  70. BTW, the answer to that last question is the people who get a raise in their minimum wage. Isn’t that nice?

  71. Eat your hearts out boys, Reagan’s Missle defense that Libs just laughed at, seems to be very close to full working deployment.

    White Sands missile test phenomenal’

    http://www.lcsun-news.com/news/ci_4044160

    Looks like his vision is near ready!

    Don’t bother looking, it would only upset you, because it was successful!

  72. GS @ 72:

    You might notice something buried inside that press release from WSMR:

    …The pre-dawn art show was the result of the third of five tests…

    I don’t begrudge military rocket scientists too much (especially since I’m not paying their salaries anymore), but there were two tests already conducted that didn’t merit a press release.

    So what this is really saying is, they’ve destroyed one missile out of three, under carefully controlled conditions. That is, the test was started knowing the point of origin of the missile, the launch time, and the intendend trajectory.

    One success out of three doesn’t sound like “full deployment” to me.

    Oh, you knew all this already and were just crowing to provide propaganda on a slow news day? Never mind then. Carry on.

  73. The scam known as “The Big Dig,” that is the burying of Interstate I-93 and part of I-90 underneath Boston, continues to be exposed. In light of the tragic accident involving the falling ceiling tiles that crushed and killed a 38-year-old woman on Monday, the spotlight is on the Big Dig. And what a mess it has been. But this is what you get when you put government in charge of something.

    Originally budgeted at $2.5 billion in 1985, the current price tag is more than $15 billion…and rising. Where did the money come from? Yup…you guessed it. More than half of it came from you and me…the federal taxpayer. Labor unions, local politicians, crooked public officials and shady contractors all tapped the Big Dig kitty and ripped off the government. What’s worse…as we are now finding out…they used shoddy building practices. Everything from inferior concrete to now some 240 bad ceiling bolts holding up concrete ceiling panels that weighed tons…and may not have even been necessary. Some reports are saying they were primarily for aesthetics. Nice.

    So who’s fault is all this? Most of the blame lies squarely on the Democratic politicians that were in office throughout the Big Dig. Teddy Kennedy…John Kerry…etc. Every time there was a cost overrun, they were there to squeeze more money out of the American taxpayer. And now somebody has died. Tragic. The worst part? That woman didn’t have to die. Turns out in a 1998 report, the state Office of the Inspector General reported that the system of bolts and glue used were not up to par. The bolts were too short and the epoxy wasn’t strong enough.

    And here’s an interesting fact: guess who vetoed the funding for the Big Dig, way back in 1987. Ronald Reagan. But the Democratic Congress overrode his veto.

  74. #74 – I’ll call your $15 Billion and raise you a couple Trillion for the numerous financial fiascos (Iraq, Katrina, Drug Bill, etc) incompetently managed by your GOP President and your GOP Congress.

  75. So, former CIA officer Valerie Plame, and her former ambassador husband Mark Wilson, and filed a civil lawsuit against Cheney, Rove, Libby, and 10 “John Does” regarding the circumstances of her outing as a CIA covert agent.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13859197/

    A few points of interest from the article:

    1. “Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Rove, said, ‘Without even having had a chance to review the complaint, it is clear that the allegations are absolutely and utterly without merit.'”

    Nothing like shooting from the hip, huh? He’s comfortable with what he believes, no need to bother him with the details, which might otherwise confuse him. Sounds like the Bush Administration in general.

    2. “Justice Department lawyers plan to review the lawsuit to determine how to respond, said Charles Miller, a department spokesman.”

    I’m eager to see a copy of the complaint, I assume it will be posted on TheSmokingGun.com fairly soon, if not elsewhere. The key question: are Cheney and Rove being sued in some official capacity, or as individuals, or both? If they are only being sued as individuals, the Justice Dept. is SUPPOSED to stay out of it. If they intervene on behalf of the administration, what sort of conflict of interest does that pose with regard to the Libby prosecution?

    3. Sounds like this one’s really going to be decided via pre-trial motions. A lot of the complaints appear to be fairly vague, alleging “whispering campaigns”, and may not survive a motion for summary judgement. But the first real question is how much discovery is going to be allowed? The Plaintiff’s lawyers will want access to classified materials, just like the materials recently granted to Libby’s defense team. If Cheney and Rove can block access, it may prevent the Plaintiffs from ever making their case.

    4. Timing – will the discovery take place significantly before the November 2006 elections, or afterwards? Can Rove and Cheney stall discovery or trial until after the 2008 elections? What is the prospect that Rove may find himself in depositions lasting two or three weeks at a time in September/October 2006? (Remember that Katrina occured while Rove was on vacation, and it turned into what they perceived to be a “public-relations” nightmare in his absence).

    5. Public Disclosures – How much of the facts brought out in discovery will be published? You can be sure Cheney and Rove will try to get the judge to impose an order preventing the release of any such information. But a similar order was in place with respect to the deposition of Bill Clinton, yet the contents were made available to the news media within a few hours of the end of the deposition.

    6. Fairness of Judge – “The federal judge assigned to the case, John D. Bates, was appointed in 2001 by President George W. Bush and was a U.S. Attorney who worked for Independent Counsel Ken Starr’s Whitewater investigation from 1995 to mid-1997. When on the Starr team, Bates pushed hard (and successfully) for the release of various White House documents related to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s activities. During his confirmation hearings, Senator Patrick Leahy said of Bates, ‘When that guy was working for Ken Starr, he wanted to go open the dresser drawers of the White House.'”

    So the question is: is Bates a partison judge who only wants to damage the Democrats and protect Republicans, or is he a conscientious jurist who happens to believe that what goes on in the White House should be opoen to public scrutiny, regardless of which party is in office? I guess we’ll find out over the next several months.

    I’m posting this here because of the Plame discussion above, but I think I’ll post it on a more current thread, also, as this one is getting rather stale.

  76. Hmmm. Right aournd 60% of Americans think that the war in Iraq is a mistake, and asbout the same precentage beleive that wqe should withdraw. Are these the “liberals” who are contantly being accused of “aiding the enemy” by expressing their opposition? If we have 60%, the 2006 election should be a breeze!

  77. I loved it! The bit about Kerry was good too. Rick Larson came off rather stiff but appeared to take it in stride.

  78. “Hmmm. Right aournd 60% of Americans think that the war in Iraq is a mistake, and asbout the same precentage beleive that wqe should withdraw. Are these the “liberals” who are contantly being accused of “aiding the enemy” by expressing their opposition? If we have 60%, the 2006 election should be a breeze!” – Daddy Love

    BS! SHow me the evidence of that. Throwing out stats with NOn evidence is the liberal specialty. I am colling you on it.

Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?

Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!

Follow Goldy

I no longer use Twitter or Facebook because Nazis. But until BlueSky is bought and enshittified, you can still follow me at @goldyha.bsky.social

HA Commenting Policy

It may be hard to believe from the vile nature of the threads, but yes, we have a commenting policy. Comments containing libel, copyright violations, spam, blatant sock puppetry, and deliberate off-topic trolling are all strictly prohibited, and may be deleted on an entirely arbitrary, sporadic, and selective basis. And repeat offenders may be banned! This is my blog. Life isn’t fair.