Monday, July 25, 2005

A joke

Here:

"Knock-knock.

Who's there?

Under the Patriot Act, we don't have to tell you that."

When the Emperor has no clothes

Short but pointed column worth a look today, a reminder of America's folly in Iraq while the rest of the world is being blown up on a now pretty regular basis.

Sunday, July 24, 2005

Someone wants Karl Rove to manage his campaign

See McCain waffling here. Oh, how the mighty straight talker has fallen.

Looks like the "Straight Talk Express" bus from 2000 will have to be re-named.

Saturday, July 23, 2005

For Bush, Effect of Investigation of C.I.A. Leak Case Is Uncertain - New York Times

www.nytimes.com/2005/07/24/politics/And the hits just keep on coming. Lots of interesting questions raised by this article....

Asked by a reporter on Oct. 6, 2003, whether the leak was retaliation for Mr. Wilson's criticism, Mr. Bush replied: "I don't know who leaked the information, for starters. So it's hard for me to answer that question until I find out the truth."


So Bush was not informed that Rove and Libby were involved, between the leaking in July of 2003 and this statement in October, 2003? Yeah, OK.

Wonder if he was informed by Karl by the time he was interviewed by the Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald in June, 2004.

But Mr. Bush's political opponents say the president is in a box. In their view, either Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby kept the president in the dark about their actions, making them appear evasive at a time when Mr. Bush was demanding that his staff cooperate fully with the investigation, or Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby had told the president and he was not forthcoming in his public statements about his knowledge of their roles.

"We know that Karl Rove, through Scott McClellan, did not tell Americans the truth," said Representative Rahm Emanuel, Democrat of Illinois and a former top aide in the Clinton White House. "What's important now is what Karl Rove told the president. Was it the truth, or was it what he told Scott McClellan?"

You've got to be kidding

Harper as the next Trudeau? I think the title of the article should provoke peals of laughter across the country. Oh yeah, Stephen Harper has great judgment, as the column reads, how about his judgment on taking Canada into the war on Iraq? Care to discuss that one?

Friday, July 22, 2005

CIA vs. the White House, better than Tyson-Holyfield

Ex-CIA officers testified before Senate and House Democrats today, reported here: Ex-CIA Officers Rip Bush Over Rove Leak. Republicans who have control over the House and the Senate refuse to hold any oversight hearings on this breach of national security. Guess what could come back and bite them in the you-know-what in the 2006 House elections?

This is pretty incredible stuff. These CIA agents are furious about Valerie Plame's outing and the lack of accountability from the White House over it. See this site for an excerpt of one of the agent's testimony today.

There is a real battle that has gone on and is continuing between the White House and the CIA. The outrage of these CIA officers is telling. I wonder what the CIA Damage Assessment report on Plame's outing says?

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Hillary scores on "Grand Theft Auto"

Score one for Hillary in '08, burnishing those red state credentials.

The Supreme Court nomination

On Bush's pick of Justice John Roberts, this www.nytimes.com/2005/07/20/national/piece suggests that he might have moderate instincts. Time will tell.

My take: Bush was re-elected and Sandra Day O'Connor probably waited to see if he would be before stepping down. A President has the right to choose a justice in line with his or her own judicial philosophy and ideology, despite how conservative he is and how despised he is by half the nation. Clinton appointed Ginsburg & Breyer and I'm sure if the Democrats win back the White House in '08, that President will want the same freedom.

So Americans, unfortunately, are reaping what they sowed in re-electing Bush. Perhaps there will be some controversial decisions emanating from the Court as a result, in advance of the next Presidential election and this may inadvertently help Democrats for '08.

DC Circuit Court of Appeals decision on Miller & Cooper, worth a look

For all of those out there who have been defending Rove and professing that he is owed an apology, read the DC Circuit Court of Appeals decision that held Miller & Cooper in contempt:

Applying this standard to the facts of this case, and
considering first only the public record, I have no doubt that the
leak at issue was a serious matter. Authorized “to investigate
and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to
the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as
federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to
interfere with, [his] investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of
justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses,”

see Letter from James B. Comey, Acting Attorney General, to
Patrick J. Fitzgerald, United States Attorney, Northern District
of Illinois (Feb. 6, 2004), the special counsel is attempting to
discover the origins of press reports describing Valerie Plame as
a CIA operative monitoring weapons of mass destruction. See
majority op. at 3-5. These reports appeared after Plame’s
husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, wrote in a New
York Times op-ed column that his findings on an official mission
to Niger in 2002 cast doubt on President Bush’s assertion in his
January 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq “recently
sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” See id. at
3.

An alleged covert agent, Plame evidently traveled overseas
on clandestine missions beginning nearly two decades ago.
See,
e.g., Richard Leiby & Dana Priest, The Spy Next Door; Valerie
Wilson, Ideal Mom, Was Also the Ideal Cover, Wash. Post, Oct.
8, 2003, at A1. Her exposure, therefore, not only may have
jeopardized any covert activities of her own, but also may have
endangered friends and associates from whom she might have
gathered information in the past.
Acting to criminalize such
exposure of secret agents, see 50 U.S.C. § 421, Congress has
identified that behavior’s “intolerable” consequences: “[t]he
loss of vital human intelligence which our policymakers need,
the great cost to the American taxpayer of replacing intelligence
resources lost due to such disclosures, and the greatly increased
risk of harm which continuing disclosures force intelligence
officers and sources to endure.” S. Rep. No. 97-201, at 10-11
(1981), reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. 145, 154-55.


Excerpt can be found at pp. 71-72 of Circuit Judge Tatel's opinion.

Interesting that the judge made note of how all of Plame's past contacts could now be in danger yet we heard very little of that in the mainstream media.

Also interesting to see references to destruction of evidence and intimidation of witnesses as facets of the investigation. That I also had not heard of until reading this.

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

And now for something completely different

Something that caught my eye today. Anyone who goes through a tonne of fruit will appreciate this story and get a chuckle from the money quote, www.nytimes.com/2005/07/19/dining/ Tattooed Fruit Is on the Way - New York Times:

Sticker-removal duty took Jean Lemeaux of Clarksville, Tex., half an hour one day last week.

"I was picking all the little stickers from the Piggly Wiggly off my plums and my avocado pears and my peaches," said Ms. Lemeaux, 76. "Then I had to make fruit salad out of the ones that got hurt when I took the stickers off, and then I had to wash the glue off the other ones before I put them in the fruit bowl."

"One time," she said, "I got up the next morning and looked in the mirror and there were two of them up in my hair."

Monday, July 18, 2005

Colin Powell, quietly doing the right thing?

This Bloomberg.com article, linked to by kosis a great example of the battle being played out in the media. At the end of last week, Rove's attorney, it is widely believed, provided details about Rove's side of the story to the New York Times, referenced here. Those efforts appeared to be aimed at saving Rove's skin, portraying him as having been a passive player, hearing about Valerie Wilson from the media.

Now others appear to be fighting back...and perhaps it is Colin Powell. Read the Bloomberg story. Powell has testified to the grand jury in this investigation, and he may be trying to shine the light on the Bush White House's inappropriate partisanship in the Valerie Wilson affair. You wanna bet how Powell feels about her outing?

"Honour and Integrity back to the White House": run it in ads

So it's clear that Karl Rove was the only source for Matthew Cooper, providing him with a CIA undercover operative's identity. But unless Rove has "Committed a Crime", he's staying.

George W. Bush will never fire Karl Rove. That's it. Short of Rove being indicted, he's staying.

And this looks good on him. Rove has been publicly outed as a smear artist, something that he's gotten away with doing in the shadowy backrooms for too long. Now that a bright light is shining on his modus operandi, what's being exposed is rather ugly. I, for one, will continue to enjoy the outing and its tainting of the Bush administration's every move.

Remember the sanctimonious and opportunistic pledge made by W during the 2000 campaign? Where he continuously would raise his right hand and say that he would bring honour and integrity back to the White House?

That footage should be run in ads in a split screen with Bush's changing standards on the ethics of those who work for him. Bush thinks leaking national security matters is OK. Hit him on his "perceived" strength.

"I've already said too much."

In this article in Monday's New York Times, Matthew Cooper of Time Magazine indicates that Karl Rove ended their infamous phone call (in which Rove informed Cooper that Wilson's wife worked at the "agency" on "WMD") by saying, "I've already said too much." Cooper says that Rove's sign-off has been in his memory for two years.

Isn't it funny how the most telling things can stick in one's brain.

Most of us don't work in Washington's world of high intrigue and rough and tumble politics. But I'm sure we've all had that experience. The off-hand remark that sticks in your memory like a little puzzle for you to figure out.

Wonder what Karl meant by that remark? That he was trusting Cooper, due to the "double super secret background" that Cooper writes of in his own e-mail to his superiors, not to write up this aspect of their conversation? And that perhaps he may have said something that he was now having second thoughts about. That familiar twinge of doubt that creeps into your mind after you've perhaps said one thing too many to someone. Perhaps it was this aspect of human nature at work.

Or perhaps "I've already said too much" was said in an attempt to ingratiate Cooper the reporter. "Rove is trusting me with such significant information on background, maybe I'm getting some information here that others aren't if he's telling me he's said too much. So maybe I'll keep it close, use it for background, and re-consider my story in its light." Maybe Rove said it with this object in mind. This is what I think is more likely. Rove is a master at playing and keeping reporters at bay. Just look at the Washington press corps over the last few years.

Who knows? We're left to work out the daily unravellings as they're slowly doled out by sources. The fact remains that the sensitive information was shared with Cooper by Rove, and it was Cooper's first knowledge of it. At the very least, this is Rove displaying a very bad sense of judgment, with a CIA agent's fortunes in the balance. "I've already said too much," indeed.

Saturday, July 16, 2005

Friday, July 15, 2005

Bottom line on Rove by Josh Marshall

Read this.

Karl Rove's America

Krugman's www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/opinion/column today on the Rove affair.

The kicker:

But what we're getting, instead, is yet another impressive demonstration that these days, truth is political. One after another, prominent Republicans and conservative pundits have declared their allegiance to the party line. They haven't just gone along with the diversionary tactics, like the irrelevant questions about whether Mr. Rove used Valerie Wilson's name in identifying her (Robert Novak later identified her by her maiden name, Valerie Plame), or the false, easily refuted claim that Mr. Wilson lied about who sent him to Niger. They're now a chorus, praising Mr. Rove as a patriotic whistle-blower.

Ultimately, this isn't just about Mr. Rove. It's also about Mr. Bush, who has always known that his trusted political adviser - a disciple of the late Lee Atwater, whose smear tactics helped President Bush's father win the 1988 election - is a thug, and obviously made no attempt to find out if he was the leaker.

Most of all, it's about what has happened to America. How did our political system get to this point?

Worth a look today

Another possibly huge story of the Bush administration choosing to play politics with national security and the possible consequences. AmericaBlog cites ABC news and a number of other sources who suggest that the Bush administration, in invoking pre-election terror alerts in the run up to the 2004 national election, may have "botched the effort to thwart the London subway attacks" that occurred last week. Pretty stunning stuff.

Rove reportedly was the second source for Novak's famous column outing Valerie Wilson: New York Times today

This www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/politics/story in today's NYTimes states that was the second source for Robert Novak's July 2003 column identifying Valerie Wilson, the undercover CIA operative. Apparently Novak called Rove looking for confirmation that Joe Wilson's wife had initiated Joe Wilson's trip to Niger. Rove apparently said something to the effect of, "I heard that, too."

There are a lot of questions raised by this article. I guess the first question here is, obviously, who told Novak this information in the first place? That is still a big unanswered question.

Secondly, who is the "someone who has been officially briefed on the matter," the source for today's article and why are they coming forward today? The person appears to have first hand knowledge of the conversations between Rove and Novak. And the information in the article is presented in such a way that it could be viewed as an attempt by someone to come forward as Rove is being slammed, in order to help him. "The person discussed the matter in the belief that Mr. Rove was truthful in saying that he had not disclosed Ms. Wilson's identity." And indeed, the information the person provides does its best to put Rove in a better light. I don't believe it will succeed though.

Thirdly, what kind of judgment does Karl Rove have? Should Rove have commented at all in response to Novak's request for confirmation? Isn't it better to respond, "No comment" if a CIA operative's identity is involved in something you are being questioned about? Especially if it is something you may have only "heard" about? Shouldn't a top aide to the President be careful with such matters and exercise better judgment? Rove instead apparently chose to say, "I heard that, too", suggesting he is hardwired as a political partisan to make the political score, to try to bring Joe Wilson down a peg rather than pay attention to a matter such as a CIA employee's identity.

Fourthly, what does "I heard that, too" signify? That is the phrase employed by the person who is the source of this article. If I said that to someone, it means I know of the information already. I have heard it somewhere or gained knowledge of it somehow, and perhaps I am unsure about it. "I heard that, too" is not confirmation of anything and this may be what Rove's pal wants to get out there. The idea that Rove wasn't confirming anything with Novak, he was just gossiping and his "I heard that, too" is just an ambiguous affirmation that he has heard something, it doesn't mean Rove thinks or knows it is true. So he was just gossiping about a CIA agent's identity, right? Does this make him look better?

So do Novak and Rove's versions of the facts differ? Is there a word game going on here as well? The article says that "Mr. Novak wrote that when he called a second official for confirmation, the source said, "Oh, you know about it."" That to me means confirmation. And if I were Novak, that is what I would be looking to hear from my source. So it may be that Novak's recollection is that Rove definitely confirmed the information. Rove's "I heard that, too" is not a confirmation. Perhaps this discrepancy might be the cause of some problems for Rove at this time.

This does not change the developing story line of the week in which Rove has been implicated in these discussions or the Rove-Cooper story in that Rove was clearly the source there and identified Wilson's wife to Cooper as a CIA wmd official.

More grist for the mill...!

Thursday, July 14, 2005

Brewster Jennings, the story the MSM is not covering: see Daily Kos

The Brewster Jennings firm that Wilson's wife was associated with, the CIA front company, was exposed to the world in the wake of Rove and his cohorts unmasking of Valerie Plame, thereby rendering it useless as a covert asset. Perhaps this is part of the sealed record before the judges that has been referred to during Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller's contempt proceedings.

So, once again, it is possible that this investigation has progressed beyond the intentional outing of this operative by Rove et al. to the exposure of CIA assets and perhaps other undercover agents also linked to this firm. And so, Matthew Cooper's e-mail and testimony to the grand jury might confirm that Rove was at least negligent in this regard and may be exposed to some liability.

Karl Rove: Live by the sword, die by the sword

Looks like this little problem isn't going away, Karl, www.nytimes.com/2005/07/14/politics/Rove Would Lose Security Clearance Under Democrats' Plan - New York Times!

Wonder what "ju-jitsu" move the political genius is contemplating to extricate himself from this one? Maybe he might harken back to his Texas days in the early going of his relationship with W and bug his own office perhaps, in order to deflect attention!

What joy it is to watch the Bush administration squirm for once. After all of the media manipulation (paying off journalists - Armstrong Williams, et al.) and truth-shading, including the blatantly negligent claim by Bush in his State of the Union about Saddam Hussein pursuing uranium in Africa, it's so heartening to see the media and the Democrats, more significantly, focus the public's attention on this disgraceful episode.

Playing partisan politics is Karl Rove's forte but maybe the master went a little too far on this one and didn't know when enough is enough. You live by this kind of ethic where the political ends are all that is important and who gets hurt in the process is of little consequence.

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Well said

A Talking Points Memo reader nails it on why Karl Rove's actions in targeting Joe Wilson's wife were over the line.

Monday, July 11, 2005

Must read blog by Keith Olbermann today

Keith Olbermann once again comes through with an outstanding piece, Karl Rove -- soft on terror - Bloggermann - MSNBC.com. Direct and heartfelt assessment on why Bush cannot keep Rove in the White House.

Rove questions begin for White House

So the White House press corps are actually asking questions about Rove, www.nytimes.com/White House Won't Comment on Rove and Leak - New York Times. Scott McClellan sounds a little peeved:

'I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said,'' McClellan said. ''And I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time.'


As followers of this story will recall, McClellan had previously said in an official White House briefing that he had spoken to Rove and that Rove "was not involved" in the leak of the CIA operative's identity. Hmmm...now that Rove's been identified as having been the source for one of the reporters, Matthew Cooper, it doesn't sound so clear cut now, does it?!!! Sure doesn't sound like Rove was "not involved." Scottie sounds a little miffed at having been put in this position. This is getting interesting.

And Bush had said he'd fire the leaker. How does he possibly keep Rove in place if this situation develops into an indictment. And you can be sure Bush is nervous about this. If Bush were to lose Rove, who would do the thinking in the oval office? Rove is the "architect" of every policy, strategy, choice that the Bush administration makes. The advisor who influences every utterance that comes out of Bush's mouth. They don't call him "Bush's brain" for nothing.

The things this White House gets away with are outrageous, glad to see the heat finally turned up on them by the lackadaisical White House press gang.

Sunday, July 10, 2005

It's the Espionage Act, stupid

Very interesting diary today,Daily Kos: Fitzgerald preparing indictments under the Espionage Act?, pulling together a variety of sources (MSNBC, Lawrence O'Donnell, John Dean, UPI, USA Today) and excerpting the U.S. Espionage Act.

The suggestion is that it is not perjury or the intentional outing of the undercover operative that are the objects of Fitzgerald's probe, but violations of this act. If this is the case, there is no requirement that leaking of classified information be "intentional" in the statute and indictments would be more likely. Wonder if the more mainstream media will start picking up this aspect of the story....

Saturday, July 09, 2005

The No Facts Zone courtesy of Bill O'Reilly

So I'm watching Bill O'Reilly on the Faux channel last night (well, actually, it is never a voluntary choice, my husband controls the flicker - a surprise no doubt to all you women out there - and he frequently ends up there...all the better for me to see what Mr. Current Affair is up to, right? And by the way, Faux is free on our digital cable package until September, and we won't be subscribing to it once the free preview is over)...and so, typically, he has some guest on that he's browbeating over immigration policies.

Quite cleverly, he somehow manages to get in a gratuitous shot at Canada, completely irrelevant to the London attacks and any rational discussion of issues that the attacks raise. He casually slips in at one point, something to the effect of, "Well, Canada, you know, they'll let anyone in, and then they'll just cross the border because the border is so porous..."...and then he proceeds to slam other countries like Germany for, I guess, the audacity to actually let Muslim people enter or live in their countries. And the guest doesn't even challenge him on any of this because of course he can't, he's unprepared for the over the top, anything-goes and gratuitous yahooism that is presented in such a bullying, time-compressed format.

Do you think O'Reilly actually knows anything about Canadian immigration policy or anything we've done since 9/11? Guess that wouldn't make good TV now would it, to discuss inconvenient facts, right? How about looking in the mirror Bill and trying real hard to figure out why terrorists would want to enter your country in the first place? And if I recall correctly, and I think I might here, the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were living and working and taking flight lessons in the U.S., not Canada. Let's try to stop throwing stones if we happen to live in glass houses.

Thankfully there are millions who disagree with such O'Reilly blather. I empathize with those well-intentioned Americans who have such bullies representing the face of America to the world.

Friday, July 08, 2005

Washington Post today on Rove as possible subject of Fitzgerald investigation - are there other more damaging allegations to come?

This article, here,continues the mainstream media story line on Rove and what he may have disclosed or discussed with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine. Did he disclose the identity of the undercover CIA operative to Matthew Cooper in his conversation with Cooper? As I wrote earlier this week, I believe that is unlikely. What is more likely is that Rove waited until her name was made public by Robert Novak in his own column, then went to town on trashing the CIA operative's husband, Joe Wilson. There may be some issue as to what Rove testified to the grand jury about, i.e., there may be some discrepancy between what he says he told Cooper versus what Cooper's notes read and what Cooper himself testifies to before the grand jury. There may therefore be a perjury rap facing Rove, if anything.

One thing that the mainstream media has failed to pick up though, is that the name of the "front firm" that this CIA undercover operative had worked for, with agents around the world, may have been exposed through the backroom "political combat" the Bush administration and its chief of political combat, Karl Rove, engaged in. If that is the case, there may be an issue of the Bushies having exposed a valuable covert government property, namely the front firm. This prospect was raised by John Dean this past week in an interview and has appeared in this highly recommended diary on Daily Kos as well. So there may be an aspect to this investigation having to do with defrauding the government, albeit in a very unique way. The front firm apparently operated around the world, investigating the proliferation of WMD. Having this "front firm" exposed by the Bushies for what appears to be solely political gain in their games of political combat is a highly damaging allegation.

Looking forward to more on this investigation as it is uncovered.

Thursday, July 07, 2005

The London bombings

Some thoughts on the bombings in London today:

Tony Blair's statements and his conduct at times such as these make me wish he was President of the United States. He is inspirational and reassuring in the wake of such terror. I would imagine he would have led the U.S. in a much different manner in the wake of 9/11, focussing on Al Qaeda and rooting out terrorists worldwide, fully utilizing allies and likely staying away from a policy that led the U.S. into Iraq (as Prime Minister of the main ally of the U.S., he had a difficult choice). Now, some are criticizing the Iraq "flypaper" strategy - the fight them over there so we don't have to over here - as clearly a failure in light of today's events.

Secondly, I agree with the sentiments expressed today on the internet and elsewhere that Londoners are steadfast and will endure such challenges with dignity and resolve. It has been striking to see the real contrast between the sensationalistic tendencies of the American networks and the relative discipline and calm of the British, for e.g., the pleas not to jump to conclusions by British officials such as the head of the police who made quick rounds on the networks this morning, and the injured subway passenger who during an interview on ITN said he would wait to see the evidence.

While recognizing the terror and destruction wrought by the tragedy, it is nonetheless heartening that biological, chemical or nuclear agents were not employed. Perhaps this means terrorists are not achieving access to such weapons. There is no way to tell. But this day reinforces the need to remain vigilant against such possibilities.

Worth reading today

Editorial of the NYTimes on www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/Judith Miller going to jail.

Monday, July 04, 2005

Predictable Drudge

Anarticle is being highlighted on the Drudge report today, meant no doubt to increase the hysteria and yahooism about the danger Canada poses to the U.S. "50 Terror Groups Believed to Be in Canada" is the title...well read down to the last line in the article:

The U.S. State Department has estimated there are 40 terrorist organizations with sympathizers or supporters in the United States.


Now does the title of the article frighten you as much? Yeah, it's Canada, we're the problem, it's not in your own backyard is it? Just like Ben Johnson was the only one on steroids in '88.

Funny pic making its way around....

arrestedRove.jpg (JPEG Image, 500x442 pixels)

Sunday, July 03, 2005

Karl Rove might have a tough week ahead of him

So it is now coming to light in the U.S. mediathat Karl Rove, one of Bush's top aides and sometimes described as "Bush's brain," was a source to Time reporter Matthew Cooper in the Valerie Plame matter. Valerie Plame, as you recall, was an undercover CIA official involved in tracking WMD, etc., and her identity as a CIA operative was secret. It is illegal in the U.S. to knowingly identify an undercover operative such as Valerie Plame.

A special investigation was launched by a special prosecutor after her identity was outed by conservative columnist Robert Novak. His sources have heretofore remained anonymous but he has described them in the past as two senior administration officials. But 2 other reporters, Matthew Cooper of Time and Judith Miller of the NYT, have been targeted by the special prosecutor for confirmation of their sources on the same matter. Last week Time decided to comply with the court order compelling them to disclose Cooper's notes and the link above discloses that Cooper's notes show Rove to be one of Cooper's sources.

So is Karl Rove, by all accounts a highly shrewd political operative, dumb enough to knowingly out an undercover operative? I for one don't buy this. I am more inclined to buy into the theory that he is more likely a potential subject in a perjury claim involving the grand jury investigating the issue, discussed here. After all, it is de rigueur these days in the U.S. that if you can't nail somebody for the actual crime, you scrutinize thier statements to law enforcement and the grand jury to catch them in a lie about some aspect of it. See Martha Stewart, Bill Clinton, et al. as recent high profile examples of this modus operandi. Now that's fine with me, for if others are held to this standard, Rove should also be subjected to the same standards. And a grand jury investigation of a leak of a CIA operative's identity is serious business, arguably more serious than anything for which Martha Stewart or Bill Clinton were targeted.

I think the bigger picture here is a question of ethics and the conduct of the Bush White House. What Rove may have done was to say to Cooper and other journalists (including Chris Matthews of MSNBC's Hardball, as noted in the link above), now that Valerie Plame's identity is out there, she and her family are fair game to be discussed for political reasons. To repeat that, he may have decided that because a CIA undercover operative has been outed by someone other than me, albeit likely someone in my own administration, I believe it's fair game to discuss her and her husband for political advantage. Continuing on in our hypothetical (as these are just allegations at this point), because her husband wrote a NYTimes op-ed highly critical of the Bush administation's claims about uranium in Africa, it is OK to go after him politically, to tar him as having gotten the job of going to Africa to investigate only due to his wife's position, which I can now talk about since someone else has made it public.

This is the unethical aspect of all of this that is important...it may be that Rove is not the one who initially leaked the CIA operative's identity and therefore did not break the law in that sense. But if the disclosures to date about his role in this matter are true, then it certainly seems he didn't hesitate to take full political advantage of a delicate national security situation.

Honour and integrity restored to the White House, you say?

Friday, July 01, 2005

Happy Canada Day!




Summertime fluff

Brooke Shields takes on Mr. Wacko, www.nytimes.com/2005/07/01/opinion/here. Good for her for speaking out on her personal bout with postpartum depression. I like the way she sums up her piece, "So, there you have it. It's not the history of psychiatry, but it is my history, personal and real."