Rove:
I didn't reveal her name. Just where she lives, who she lives with, what her job is, the colour of her hair, her bra size and what brand of cat food she feeds her pet....but I didn't reveal her name.
Republicans:
Oh, that's ok then. Carry on.

sow and ye shall reap, Karl.

sow and ye shall reap.

Didn't those "statements" [about the yellow cake] turn out to be true after all?

I trust Rove, seriously, he's a good man!

The whole, i didn't say her name part is just bootstrapping for the true believers, it has no legal import.

The real legal issues are going to be whether it is necessary for Rove to have known that she was a covert operative, and if so, whether that can be proved, and whether the CIA "[took] affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States."

Blogland has been spinning the latter all to hell, but I don't think an assertion to the contrary is going to fly in court. As for the former, it seems a pretty weak defense on both issues, which is I suspect why Rove is now speaking through his lawyer.

this is going to get so ugly, so quickly.

not ugly, beautiful!

Yeah!

come on...this is the second time I've wanted to link to a family guy image and no dice...it's starting to tick me off.

edited to say nevermind I suck...that was american dad.

[Edited on Jul 11, 2005 4:38PM]

I have a bad feeling this isn't going to lead anywhere good.
If Rove does get convicted of anything I think the significance will just blow right past the average and indifferent person while being made to look like some kind of liberal plot by the right. Basically, I think that anyone who's paying attention has already decided what they think and a legal decision is just going to make everyone dig in their heels.
That being said: Fry that fucker!


[Edited on Jul 11, 2005 by CoreOfSelf]

This will be nothing. This wont even be a footnote in a few years.

Do not forget who runs this show.

I just though we should have a quick overview of what the Whitehouse had to say:

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.

___

Oct. 10, 2003

Q: Earlier this week you told us that neither Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams nor Lewis Libby disclosed any classified information with regard to the leak. I wondered if you could tell us more specifically whether any of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?

A: I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that's where it stands.

Q: So none of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?

A: They assured me that they were not involved in this.

Q: They were not involved in what?

A: The leaking of classified information.

___

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 ... .

Q: Any remorse?

A: Nor is the White House, because the president wanted us to cooperate fully with the investigation, and that's what we're doing.

I think it's a crime that these reporters get to use terms like "a senior administration official" and such, basically feeding readers bullshit because they're too lazy to go out and get real sources. So instead they have to quote people like Karl Rove, who is obviously pushing his own agenda, and the readers get screwed.

The only purpose such nonsense serves is 1) to advance the goals of "the source," and 2) to bloat the ego of the reporter, because his or her readers think they actually put time and hard work into finding real sources and real scoops.

Contrast that with the press calling Judith Miller "a martyr" and going apeshit over a prison sentence that makes Martha Stewart's incarceration look like Riker's Island. They make themselves sound so noble.

I hate the fact that this is the battle they chose to fought, and I hate the fact that anonymous sourcing looks indefensible because these idiots use it to let people like Karl Rove shoot their mouths off. If Karl Rove wants to say something, let him say it in public. Anonymous sourcing shouldn't be used as a cover for partisan back-and-forth stupidity. Please. Reserve it for actual reporting.

Could someone please clean the needle on that spokesperson? He's skipping.

"I appreciate the question"
Is that washington-speak for "fuck you, I'm not answering"?