’)This is not looking good for the Bush administration, expect a big pushback (terror alert? new supreme court justice?). As for Dems? Time to not get bored and to pound this into the earth. Talk about it, then talk about it some more, and for good measure: talk about it again.
ABC News: Poll: Many Doubt White House Cooperation in CIA Leak Probe
Just a quarter of Americans think the White House is fully cooperating in the federal investigation of the leak of a CIA operative’s identity, a number that’s declined sharply since the investigation began. And three-quarters say that if presidential adviser Karl Rove was responsible for leaking classified information, it should cost him his job.
Skepticism about the administration’s cooperation has jumped. As the initial investigation began in September 2003, nearly half the public, 47 percent, believed the White House was fully cooperating. That fell to 39 percent a few weeks later, and it’s lower still, 25 percent, in this new ABC News poll.
Great news.
Nonetheless, of course this raises the question which is ALWAYS raised by these polls: Who the hell are these people who think The Weasel is remotely credible? (In this case, it would be the “quarter of Americans [who] think the White House is fully cooperating.”) I know, they’re the ones who either (a) don’t stay in touch with the news, (b) rely on dubious sources for their “news,” and/or (c) don’t want to be bothered with facts, their mind is made up.
It’s Nov ‘04 all over again: are there really this many ignorant Americans? Five percent I might could buy. But TWENTY-FIVE percent?!?
You’re right, O: time to make some noise.
Who really cares what the public thinks in this?! Does Steven from Topeka or Susan from San Bernadino have any type of information that the White House is being anything less than forthcoming with the investigation? So far, the only times I have seen people not cooperating with the investigation were Cooper and Miller.
Is that the new strategy now? Now that you know they have no committed a crime, you will just go right on treating it as though they have, ignoring all evidence to the contrary ?
Has anybody on hear read anything about the amicus briefs filed by the media organizations in the Miller/Cooper hearings?
You are correct, Tom Y … I never thought I would type those words, but you are correct. I do not know, nor does anybody else know, whether or not a crime has been committed. I am willing to wait for the prosecutor to make his determination, and proceed accordingly. I can assure you that if Rove is indicted, you will find me offering no defense for his actions. Would those on the other side of the aisle be willing to accept a decision to not indict ?
“Now that you know they have no committed a crime”
WTF? I can’t keep the wingnut talking points straight — is it ‘no crime has been committed’, or is it ‘wait for Fitzgerald to complete his investigation’? And if you have proof exonerating, say, Rove and Fleischer, by all means lay it out.
First it was KR was not involved and noone who is involved in leaking classified information will work at this white house blah, blah blah. Now its KR broke no laws and anyone who has committed a crime will no longer work here blah, blah, blah.
All Mr Rove’s dirty tricks are now coming back on him. By the time this one is over, the republicans will wish they had never heard of Karl Rove!
JD: “I do not know, nor does anybody else know, whether or not a crime has been committed.”
Uhh, first post, JD wrote: “Now that you know they have not committed a crime…”
So which is it, JD?
Uh, yes, I would accept the prosecutor’s decision either way, and I think most liberals would, too. I detest Karl Rove, and hope he gets repudiated somehow, but I certainly don’t claim to know the whole story on the legal issue. Ultimately, the most this Rove thing can do is make the Republicans look bad, something which is already pretty well established among Democrats and Independents. What it can’t do is make Democrats look good, so my hopes for it are fairly limited.
You’re very optimistic, Bushwacked, but politicians on both sides of the aisle hold fast to their own, even when they’re clearly bad news, for much longer than would seem logical.
My guess at this point–Fitzgerald won’t be able to make the “intentional exposure” portion of the indictment, and Republicans everywhere will treat Karl as if he had just been scourged and nailed to a cross for defying the liberal media.
Even if there’s no indictable crime, we shouldn’t forget that somewhere in the chain of command, lies were told. Either Rove and Libby told McClellan a lie when they said they weren’t involved, or they told him the truth and McClellan lied to the public, or they lied to Bush who unknowingly transferred that lie to McClellan (he who “speaks for the President”), or Rove and Libby told Bush the truth…and Bush lied to McClellan.
This is not a situation that smacks of credibility and “straight shooting.” Nobody comes out of this smelling great.
Indictment or not, this whole episode just shows that the Bush Administration cares more for its insiders than it does for truth or for the good of America.
Its all unraveling and apologists like JD above are just wearing out their rhetoric
Sorry, it wasn’t clear to me that you were withdrawing the earlier statement. But anyway, if it’s revealed that Rove did leak Plame’s name, I hope everyone of principle will hold Bush to his statement that leakers have no place in the White House, regardless of legalisms.
Tom Y – I already admitted once that I was wrong in my initial posting, but since you seem to want me to continue to address that, I will, again. I do not know all of the facts and am willing to wait for the prosecutor’s decision.
Binkyboy, how am I an apologist for wanting to know the whole story and the findings of the prosecutor ?
Must give props where due….That headline is a classic!
By stating: “Who really cares what the public thinks in this?!” is a prime example of a Chewbacca defense, since the public doesn’t care about it, its not a crime, therefore look at the pretty hurricane and is that another white girl missing?
Apologist may be an incorrect term, as that would actually require too many proud people to shut up for a moment, remove their foot, and actually do something they’ve never done before, say “I’m sorry, I was wrong”.
But those of you that keep saying that what Rove did is either heroic or isn’t really an issue, that Wilson “lied”, that Plame was a desk jockey, whatever, are only making excuses, and you’re making excuses for a man that feels that smearing an opponent is the best way to win an election. This is the man that is behind every smear/attack campaign out of the White House, whether said campaign is necessary or even called for. This is a man that wants to win at all costs, regardless of anything else, and you are just bouncing on the balls of your feet, ready to thrust your tiny little fist into the air proclaiming how correct you are.
Here’s a news item, whether an indictment is handed down or not, those of you defending Karl’s actions are scum, because you believe that smearing war veterans and anyone else that gets in the way is not only OK, its honorable. By wanting him in the White House, you are smearing the integrity of America with the fecal matter that follows his every action.
Congratulations, I hope you’re happy.
Binky, whenever I engage these people, I always think, what would Bush have to do for the Cons to admit that he was wrong.
How many people have to die so that Bush can be “proven right”? Who was that man who said, at a similar juncture in history- “Have you no shame” to Republican Joe McCarthy. I ask the torture apologists, the CIA leak apologists, the racism understanders, and the war apologists on this board
“Have you no shame?”
[...] ve. Wonkette: Honestly, the only way Democrats can screw this up is by talking about it. Oliver Willis: As for Dems? Time to not get bored and to pound this into the ear [...]