Can you tell us if the Armitage-hurts-Rove stuff is coming from more than a single source? It's hard to tell (maybe on purpose?) whether that particular speculation is coming from just one person, or whether that has multiple sources.

Jim E -- that claim comes from multiple sources. I don't have any idea how Armitage's grand jury testimony conflicts with Rove, but one of my sources speculates that Armitage's testimony compelled Robert Luskin to initiate the process of getting Rove to adjust testimony he previously provided. Note that this is speculation -- and not confirmed. But to your answer -- multiple sources.

best, Steve Clemons

Don't you mean Bob Luskin?

Thank you very much Steve. It's good to hear that someone with great credibility like yourself is finally reporting some truth on this matter. This is an extremely important issue with great ramifications on how the Dems will do in November. If there is anything more that you can report as it develops, please do so. We are all ears.

Armitage always struck me as a not-very-evil guy. I mean by comparison to the Bush/Cheney/Rummy people.

I would be thrilled if he had the goods on the BCRs and spilled his guts to Fitzgerald. That would be just about the best news in the case to date.

Did Jason tell you this?

Steve,

Glad to see a follow-up to this from your previous post. I was very skeptical about the likelihood of an Armitage indictment. Partly based on my reading of other accounts regarding the Plame Affair, and partly based on my impressions of Armitage reported here (and elsewhere).

He may have been initially involved in some capacity; but given his personality (and reputation), it doesn't surprise me that he did the right thing and fess up.

You know the administration is doing badly if I don't even feel they're enough of a threat to care whether or not Rove gets indicted any more. I don't think he helps them.

Well, this is obviously a strong set of pushbacks you got, and you seem to have confidence in what they're saying, so we'll see. The most intriguing bit is the claim that

the information provided by Richard Armitage is -- more than any other information -- what has put Karl Rove at major risk of indictment.

I wonder whether Armitage has knowledge of the cover up, or of what was covered up. The most interesting possibility is that Armitage and Rove intersected over Plame back in June-July 2003. But we've heard nothing along those lines so far.

The thing that strains credulity, however, is this:

Two sources have reported that Richard Armitage has testified three times before the grand jury and has completely cooperated and has been, as one source reported, "a complete straight-shooter" and "honest about his role and mistakes".

That doesn't fit with what we know. Armitage was Woodward's source on Plame in mid-June 2003. Fitzgerald did not know that fact when he indicted Libby in October 2005, although Armitage had previously been questioned in the investigation (how many times? two? or has Armitage been before the grand jury twice since Libby's indictment?). What's more, it seems to be the case that Woodward talked to Armitage about the issue twice between those times, once in 2004 and once in 2005. Here's what Woodward said on Larry King Live back in November:

I made efforts to get the source, this year, earlier, and last year, to give me some information about this so I could put something in the newspaper or a book. So, I could get information out, and totally failed.

That's a little vague (and I think there's another, less vague, source on this point, which I can't find at the moment). But it seems likely to me that Woodward is indicating that the fact that Armitage had mentioned Plame was involved here, and if that's so, it's impossible to imagine that Armitage forgot about mentioning Plame to Woodward.

And that's the basic problem. If Armitage had not forgotten about blowing Plame's cover with Woodward in mid-June 2003, then why didn't he acknowledge it to the investigation until October-November 2005? That doesn't sound like being a straight shooter and being honest about his role and mistakes to me.

Finally, I know it's journalistic convention, and I understand the reasons for it, but it would be really nice to know how many sources total you have for what you're reporting here, Steve. That number seems obscured here. Is it two? Is it five?

Have you been able to confirm/refute what Jason Leopold reported last week about Rove being indicted? If so, can you tell us when the Rove indictment will come down?

Here's what I think Armatage told Fitzgerald:

That there was a affirmative decision made in the White House to reach out to reporters and affirmatively spread the news that Plame worked for the CIA (they thought it would discredit Wilson somehow).

Armitage knows because was he personally involved in carrying out the plan and he was present when it was being discussed. And Rove was involved in those discussions. And that all happened before Rove's contact with Cooper or anyone else in the media.

So when Rove intially said he couldn't remember where he heard about Plame and it might have been a reporter, that was an absolute lie and a cover story. Which he coordinated with Libby.

sylvia -- i have not been able to confirm jason leopold's story. all that i have been able to find is that there was quite a lot of activity at patton boggs -- but i don't know whether fitzgerald was there -- or whether this implied rove indictment -- or whether it was about luskin's own role. but the highly specific points offered by jason are things i have been unable to get at.

steve clemons

That doesn't fit with what we know. Armitage was Woodward's source on Plame in mid-June 2003.

uh, Jeff, we don't know who Woodward's source was.....

Two other points. This post does make pretty clear that Armitage was both Woodward's source and Novak's. But those of us outside the beltway who have been actually paying attention to the case have known that for quite a while, and if that's all Inman was saying, we don't need him for that.

Second, what about Powell. You tell us:

According to several insiders, as soon as Armitage realized mistakes he had made, he marched into Colin Powell and laid out "everything" in full detail.

Well, again, Powell testified relatively early in the inquiry, and evidently did not reveal that Armitage was Woodward's source. Did he not know? So does that mean that Armitage didn't realize he had made that mistake then? When did he realize he'd made that mistake? And when did he tell Powell?

The key question, then, is: did Armitage forget about blowing Plame's cover with Woodward? If not, then either your "several insiders" aren't being honest, or Powell knew about the Armitage-Woodward conversastion and didn't reveal it to Fitzgerald and the grand jury.

Steve

I'm thrilled you have now followed up on what was a very unfounded rumor yesterday. I'd invite you to consider how you present (and think about) your sources. Yesterday, you said Inman had credibility "because of who [he] is." I can think of no lamer justification for a source's credibility; and the irrelevance of Inman's identity to his knowledge of his case has been born out. Yet today, you're back establishing your sources' credibility because they're "very prominent Washington insider[s]." Um, that doesn't mean they know squat about this case either!! From your description, these sources, at least, do seem to have a direct relation with people who know. But you ought to tell your readers that.

It may be news to you, but often very prominent Washington insiders know less than (or are less honest than) those who aren't caught up in the breathlessness of the beltway.

Jeff:

I don't think it unreasonable at all to assume Armitage testified three times. If I were a cautious Special Prosecutor dealing with a bunch of "very prominent Washington insiders" telling conflicting stories, what I would do is first interview their associates (like Matalin, Levine, and so on). And then, in March of 2004, I'd interview all of the ones most directly involved twice. Ari, Armitage, Rove, Libby, and then again, Ari, Armitage, Rove, Libby. It's the best way to be able to compare stories. So twice in March 2004 and once again in November 2005.

Also I'll reiterate a speculation I made earlier. It is possible (though I have no evidence for it) that either Fitz didn't ask Armitage about earlier leaks or that Armitage made such broad comments about how he was leaking, "Oh I told several people that Plame was involved--but not that she was a NOC--before the actual leak."

Richard Armitage is not a subject in my investigation.

http://patrickjfitzgerald.blogspot.com

I need for Rove to be indicted. I wake up in the morning wondering if he's been indicted, I go to sleep at night pondering why he hasn't. I truly have no life. I don't care what he's indicted for, I just want him to be indicted.

He can't be going around saying that Ms. Wilson is "fair game" and getting away with it. His indictment would be the final nail for the coffin of the Bush Administration.

I'll echo emptywheel's sentiments above. Most major news organizations now have a policy of explaining why they feel it was necessary to grant anonymity when quoting "anonymous sources," and alerting the reader to the potential bias of these sources ("a source symathetic to Rove..." etc.) While someone may vouch for them, letting us know they are "well placed" or have "deep knowledge about this investigation" tells us nothing about what they are bringing to the table in terms of agenda. Considering the hits that bloggers are taking in the traditional media these days for sloppy, poorly sourced reporting I think it's one of the traditional media standards that should be embraced; if a story turns out to be wrong, at least we'll have some idea of who's playing who.

Herman - You.and.me.both.

emptywheel - I've got no beef with the idea that Armitage might have testified twice before doing so in November 2005. But that just means that Armitage failed to disclose the fact that he blew Plame's cover with Woodward in two grand jury appearances, not just one. It's possible that 1)Armitage forgot; or 2)after learning that Armitage was Novak's first source, Fitzgerald neither asked Armitage a question about other disclosures, nor gave Armitage an opportunity to disclose his conversation with Woodward. But I don't think either is the case. It is utterly inconceivable to me that Armitage would have said, "Oh yeah, I told lots of people," and Fitzgerald didn't follow up by asking him which people he told. It's more conceivable that Fitzgerald might have limited his questioning to a time period that excluded mid-June. Then Armitage merely failed to disclose information he must have known was relevant, instead of outright lying.

Either way, on the assumption that Armitage had not forgotten the fact that outed Plame to Woodward, Armitage was not in fact a straight shooter honest about his role and mistakes. And if he told Powell everything, neither was Powell.

I agree with you Jane, but I'm a little uncomfortable with reports ascribing bias (or motive) to their sources. This forces reporters to state their feelings about their sources in their articles rather than just report what their sources say. This is difficult under ordinary circumstances, but damn near impossible when dealing with sources who are clever, possibly nefarious, and self-serving. Karl Rove and their ilk didn't become prominent political operatives for nothing.

Once again lots of folks here believing they know stuff that actually is only slightly informed guesses

It is a rule when dealing with security matters to not believe anything anyone says unless there is much cross correlated data which is NOT the case here

House of mirrors w/smoke folks so remember that if it ain`t on the public record, it ain`t TRUE (and if it is on the record it might still be a lie)

"America is great because she is good. If America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." - Alexis de Tocqueville

Could you please tell us if you were actually using Inman's own words in your previous article? You did not actually quote Inman, but rather stated that he "shared" his info/knowledge/understanding (?) that the person in Patrick Fitzgerald's bull's eye is Richard Armitage, and later say he "stated" that Richard Armitage is the target of indictment. Are "bull's eye" and "target of indictment" Inman's own formulations? Were these two separate comments, or two awfully different ways to describe a single remark? In this piece it has become "Inman's claim that Richard Armitage would be indicted," which seems much starker, and considerably more substantial, than the language you originally used. Could you clarify?

Also, for future reference, would info from a person "with deep knowledge of the investigation" be more reliable than info another who "has direct knowledge of the direction of Fitzgerald's investigation"? If your two sources on the Armitage testimany both got their info from Armitage himself, would they still count as two sources? Of course, that's obviously a hypothetical, since only one of them apparently thinks Armitage was "honest about his mistakes," right? If they got their info elsewhere, would that mean they're leaking secret grand jury info and are, by definition engaged in crimminal behaviour? Does that matter?

What else might someone who "interacted directly with many of the key personalities involved in the investigation" (pretty big pool!) have to do to qualify as a "well placed" insider too? Would he/she be more credible than, say, a "very prominent Washington insider"? Does saying you "completely trust the veracity of this comment" differ from saying you completely trust the veracity of the source who made it, or are you just saying it makes sense to you?

If I were to quote you saying, "However, unlike what Admiral Inman asserted, Richard Armitage is in no legal jeopardy -- none," would I characterize you as an "informed source" or a "Washington insider" or would this more accurately be described as "blogger opinion"?

As Jason Leopold appears to have demonstrated, again, "sources close to the case" and "high level sources" are decidedly untrustworthy. Insider credibility isn't looking too healthy either. What's a reader to do? Hard to believe I used to complain about the profligate use of anonymous sourcing in the MSM.

The Rove spin is now anti-Armitage. Expect more on this. Congratulations! You were spun.

Your really really smart guy knew exactly who he was talking to and what you and the other blogger would do with the information...blog!

What's missing in this push-back is any attempt to pin the leak to Novak and Woodward on Stephen Hadley - should we take for granted that Armitage did in fact deliver those two leaks?

As to Armitage providing the key evidence against Rove - there is cryptic comment in a recent transcript (May 5) suggesting that Novak told Rove his source, so maybe Rove did call Armitage, thank him for starting the fire, and promising that he, Rove, would fan the flames.

But seeing as how Armitage was not part of the White House Iraq Group and not (I wouldn't have thought) viewed as being firmly on board with the White House on this issue, I doubt it.

My guess - the idea that Armitage delivered Rove is an attempt at hagiography by his backers - "OK, Armitage may have leaked to Novak and messed up the "Evil White House Conspiracy" meme, but focus on the Good Deed he did by nailing Rove!".

That is clearly pure speculation on my part, however.

May I offer my idea of Fitzgerald's mission. Initially, I believe he was chaged with investigating the outing of an undercover CIA Agent by Acting AG Comey. I'm guessing Comey. It may have been someone else acting because Ashcroft recused himself. Then Fitz went back and requested to expand the mission to include obstruction, lying and mis-leading,and perjury. It was granted just before Gonzales was confirmed. In fact, I think it was expanded to "where ever it takes you." If there is evidence Armitage is responsible he could get a bye because of the language of the statute requiring knowledge of what you are doing at the time of the exposure and other caveats. If he, Armitage is co-operating as is being reported he is probably home free. It's obvious by this posting I have absolutely no legal experience just my musings.

Oh Tom, you didn't read my Armitage as Mr. X post closely enough. Consider:

If Armitage can prove what he said to Novak, then it suggests strongly that anything else Novak knows either came from Rove or from an unnamed third leaker. And in fact, Armitage might be able to prove it, based on the documents floating around State (though I think Armitage learned from the INR analyst's notes, not the memo itself). We can be fairly sure Fleitz/Bolton didn't give Armitage the other dirt, since they kept everything interesting out of his hands, even stuff he was supposed to have.

So if Armitage can prove what he said to Novak, it puts Novak under some pressure to side wiht Armitage. And either means Rove lied his ass off about how substantive his (Rove's) conversation with Novak was, or maybe Libby is in trouble.

I think we can safely say the Libby is in trouble! Are you saying IIPA trouble? Not that it matters since he's up for 30 years as is, and a pardon could apply to any and all crimes.

obsessed

My developing theory is that Libby spoke with Novak on July 2, leaked the NIE to him, smeared Frances Fragos Townsend, and seeded the Plame leak. Did he tell him Plame was a NOC? I don't know. But I strongly suspect Libby met with Novak and that, thus far, at least, Fitz doesn't have evidence that Libby leaked about Plame.

Lee -- if the New York Times, Washington Post and Knight Ridder can do it (and we would have an even more difficult time trying to detangle the whole thing if they DIDN'T do it) I do not see how it is too much to expect in this case. There aren't many ways to put attempts at irresponsible spin in context and this is a standard that the traditional media have wisely established for themselves. I don't think the blogosphere will be well-served by becoming the repository for leaks that were too shady for traditional media to report.

Well, I'm surprised and disappointed Armitage was involved in the effort to discredit Wilson and leak Plame's identity in the first place. I guess it is a good thing that "as soon as Armitage realized mistakes he had made, he marched into Colin Powell and laid out 'everything' in full detail." But how on earth could he have not realized it was wrong to take such steps before he did so. If, in the end, it takes down Rove, I guess I won't complain.

Wayne Madsen says the indictement of Rove will be today May 19th, following the same scenario as Libby, with the posting of the indictment on the Special Prosecutors web site followed by a press conference at Main Justice. I sure hope so...

Steve,
There is a comment by a Patrick J. Fitzgerald making a statement as the Special Council.
I checked out the blog. It is not the Council.
This guy needs to identify himself as a blogger.
Your site has great credibility and this type of deception is better left for other blogs.
Maude

If Armitage can prove what he said to Novak, then it suggests strongly that anything else Novak knows either came from Rove or from an unnamed third leaker.

Or a named one - Bill Harlow, CIA press flack, certainly confirmed her CIA affiliation.

And I think Novak easily docule have filled in some details without a specific source - her name, for example, was on the internet and Who's Who; on July 8 Andrea Mitchell said that CIA sources told her that Wilson was sent by low-level CIA operatives; so who knows?

I second Jane's point, BTW - rating the tilt of the sources is not that hard, I would not think. Not most of the time, anyway.

And if any of them are Larry Johnson, please don't tell us.

her name, for example, was on the internet and Who's Who

Oh please, I thought we killed that one a long time ago. Aside from the fact that Novak completely changed his story once it looked like there was trouble, after having initially said they wanted him to have it; and aside from the fact that he has assiduously avoided actually asserting that he got it from the internet or from Who's Who, which he would have done were it true - both of the sources you identify would have made Novak think her name was Valerie Wilson, with a maiden name of Plame, as was in fact the case. Then there's the fact that Miller says she'd heard her referred to as Valerie Plame.

For me, the issue is not whether administration sources knew that Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA Agent. If they really cared about national security, THEY HAD A DUTY to inquired about the nature of her work at the CIA before blabbing their crooked face holes. But you see, they didn't care one wit about our security, just their own dastardly plan for Wall to Wall War and anyone in the way be damned.

both of the sources you identify would have made Novak think her name was Valerie Wilson, with a maiden name of Plame, as was in fact the case. Then there's the fact that Miller says she'd heard her referred to as Valerie Plame.

Woodward's source gave him the name Plame and CiA WMD analyst...why wouldn't he give the same info to Novak?

Posted by: Rae at May 19, 2006 03:30 PM

: : Wayne Madsen says the indictement of Rove will be today May 19th,
: : following the same scenario as Libby, with the posting of the indictment
: : on the Special Prosecutors web site followed by a press conference at
: : Main Justice. I sure hope so...

It's 4:39 PM EDT ... Do you know where our Special Prosecutor is?

Then there's the fact that Miller says she'd heard her referred to as Valerie Plame.

I have no idea what Novak said to Fitzgerald or what a Rove indictment might include, but... as to reasonable doubt for a jury, the fact that the "Plame" name was publicly available and floating around with other reporters ought to make it harder to insist that anything that didn't come to Novak from Armitage came from Rove.

I reckon Armitage is a red herring. As Carville would say, "It's the Cheney, stupid!" If Fitzgerald wants to turn somebody to snare Cheney (or even Woodward's source, GWB), Rove would be the one. Cheney was pissed off. Cheney asked the questions. Cheney's the one that wanted Wilson slimed. And, lest we fear that Cheney's too smart to shoot off his mouth and get in trouble for it, take comfort in his gunnery skill--he wasn't so good at shooting that he didn't 'shoot himself in the foot' and his friend in the face one evening after a few brewskies. There's hope there. Still, if we can't get Cheney, at least we'll neutralize Bush's brain.

If Karl Rove is taken down, the GOP will quickly replace him with another attack dog. Ken Mehlman, Ed Gillespie, Brit Hume... there's no shortage of scheming necromancers.

My apologies for a second post here today. I am also concerned Fitzgerald could have folded up his tent and went home. It is 5:30 EDT and no Fitz. I don't think he has to come to any conclusion regarding anyone else. Libby may be the only one to go down for this. It's unlikely but it is a possibility.

DON'T ever give up on PATRICK FITZGERALD ! Have faith that he is the the BEST HOPE we have for saving our country. The indictment is coming, it will be here when it's time. Think of all the hours we've spent thinking and hoping about this case. We should all be thankful for Patrick Fitzgerald, Joe Wilson, for having the courage to hold this corrupt gov't to account, and to Valerie Plame Wilson for serving our country

This is great, the traveling Plame debate circus! Currently performing at the WashingtonNote.

Looking forward to many years together!

My favorite part is reading the stuff from all the dopes who believe that the indictment of Rove will make any difference at all. Actually, that's wrong: my favorite part is the detailed Leopold account about how he was indicted a week ago. (I guess he must have been granted some additional time to get his affairs in order. Or maybe it was 24 days. Or 24 business days.) George Bush has almost as much time remaining in office as JFK served in total, and you're just going to have to learn to live with it.

I think we in the blogosphere have to be very careful how we report stories using unamed sources since the traditional media is trying to marginalize us.

stop peddling gossip aka judy miller but focus on analytical comment on known facts - heavens, i dont give a damn about gossips from you know who - i can judge the way the foulness gets to play out - or is this is a gossip column?

I am so glad emptywheel and jane hamsher showed up. Steve, think I.F. Stone instead of Bob Woodward. The blogosphere, and we count more and more every day, simply is not going to trust anonymous sources or close personal contacts anymore. You lose credibility everytime you do it.

Remember one very important fact. Fitzgerald has not told Rove he is off the hook. He has not said he is in the clear. If he was "not" going to indict, why then, doesn't he say to Rove "ok you are released from the investigation. The Washington Post article written by Jim Vandehide said Rove's fate would be know very soon, within the next few weeks. That article was written in early May. I believe we will know something, one way or another, within the next week. Fitzgerald needs to let the public know something. One way or the other. It's the only right thing to do!

Underneath the 5 1/2 years of Bu$h appears a decades old GOP ideology of mainly helping the wealthy and a hostility to regulate companies and using the government to help the poor and anyone else who needs help from the government.

The Bu$h pResidency appears in trouble and the Ayn Rand wing has had a dispute with the Tomas de Torquemada wing of the RepubliKKKlan party.

The independents have abandoned Bu$h and the Grand Old Pococurantes.

Who needs impeachment? get me some popcorn and let the implosion continue.

The campaign for progressive legislation

political forums, links, products

http://www.zazzle.com/maximus7*

As a private (non-blogging) "guesser," I'd like to support the requests by the other guessers above for more "source" profile information from those who rely on sources.

It's not so much the biases involved as the beltway reality warp that can make certain people entirely useless as sources or oracles.

An example here would be those who base their (otherwise reliable) speculation/inference on the "fact" that Fitzgerald cannot or will not prosecute "the leak itself." I would note that the status of that question has not changed since we heard from the "umpire" himself reporting that he has "sand in his eyes."

This is sand that could well be swept away by any of several players, at any time, for any reason.

(It could even be that the "every man for himself" fever, currently raging through the GOP, might lead to the conclusion -- perhaps delusional -- that the legacy-obsessed bushkid might not agree to defecate on his place in history by pardoning co-conspirators like Poppy did.)

I'm not so sure you "lose credibility" using blind sources, but you would do well to have a go at a description other than one that "tells us nothing."

Well, I am disappointed Armitage isn't in Fitz's sights...any old Iran Contra thugs that get taken down would be fine with me.

However in defense of Steve, he is relaying what he hears...you would rather he pass on nothing.. except what has already happened?

Leave this soap opera folks, Fitz will do everything he can do and then you can talk about the outcome..meanwhile there are new outrages taking place that you could spend your speculating talents on.

I bet that sometime after Rove gets indicted, after the prosecutor puts the screws on him to roll over, that Rove will finger his wife.

Free! I'm still... Free!!

Dear Adam Spencer! I am only two weeks old ,but my mum say your voice the sexiest at 702 Sydney abc ,you should get a pay rise and a contract for seven years like sally loane...and my mum said you guys so great keeping howard in office and ignoring david hicks in gbay cage ...and the iraq war just fantastic....killing people for oil so refressing and so just....and i am a lucky precious baby in sydney ....not a rugheads worthless child.... but you guys getting your salary and life is so perfect under howards fascist stars....and life is goes on....because 702 abc presenters are so happy and they would not change anything....

"Leave this soap opera folks, Fitz will do everything he can do and then you can talk about the outcome..meanwhile there are new outrages taking place that you could spend your speculating talents on."

Posted by Carroll

DAILY new outrages. How about these evil devils dropping the lawsuit from that poor bastard we kidnapped, rendered, tortured, then dumped in the woods in Albania???? Gee, can't look into THAT, it might reveal "secret intelligence". Yeah, undoubtedly so......it might reveal the "secret" that WE have become what we used to loathe. Idi Amin has NOTHING on these guys, Cheney, Rummie, Gonzales and Bush. I can honestly say I am ASHAMED of the actions of my government. ASHAMED. Is there any way we can write a letter to the world community, as AMERICANS, and implore them to believe that we DO NOT and WILL not support the actions of what has become little more than a DICTATORSHIP masquerading as a democracy?

Good God, folks, wake up! If we do not unite beyond our partisan biases, and run these lying traitorous pricks out of Washington, then our kids and our grandchildren will NEVER experience the PRIDE that we once felt to be Americans, or the freedoms and security we once cherished. We are standling idly by as these criminals, (on BOTH sides of the party fence), DISMANTLE all that once made this nation great.

I wonder, America, will you finally wake up when the mid-terms result in returns that are inexplicably and impossibly polar to the attitude of our nation's citizens?

ROFLMAO!!!!......How about we run all the lyin' pukes out of Washington and replace them with New School's student body?????.......

McCain at New School: Honeymoon is Over
Ari Berman

Co-written by Sam Graham-Felsen

"I haven't heard anyone aroused about me speaking at the New School," John McCain said in April, defending his decision to address Jerry Falwell's Liberty University.

Nobody at all, except for virtually the entire crowd at the New School's Madison Square Garden graduation ceremony in New York City. At the beginning of the event, New School President, and former Senator, Bob Kerrey predicted a raucous affair. "Our founding purpose is proudly liberal," he said. "We began as an act of protest."

The school's tradition of dissent carried on today. Scores of New School students held orange signs, and a few banners, reading "McCain Does Not Speak For Me," and "Our Commencement Is Not Your Platform." What began as mild rumblings of disapproval before McCain's speech soon exploded into boos, catcalls and turned backs.

The spark was provided by undergraduate keynote speaker Jean Sara Rohe, a composed, seemingly innocuous jazz musician and singer. After beginning with a short folk song (true to classic graduation speech form) Rohe quickly tossed aside her prepared remarks to directly address McCain.

"This ceremony has become something other than the celebratory gathering it should be," Rohe said. "The Senator does not reflect the ideals on which this school was founded. This was a top-down decision in which the students played no part." The crowd erupted.

"I consider this a time of crisis and I feel compelled to speak," Rohe continued, referencing McCain's speech at Falwell's Liberty University last Saturday.

She paraphrased McCain's words on the folly of youthful stubbornness and ignorance.

"I am young, but I do know that pre-emptive war is dangerous and wrong," she said. "Osama bin Laden has not been found, nor those weapons of mass destruction." The vast majority of the crowd gave her a standing ovation.

"Well, we're having fun now, aren't we?" Kerrey cracked before introducing McCain.

The Senator spoke in a dull monotone, without his usual charisma or charm. He was noticeably deflated by the crowd's harsh reception towards him. Remarks such as "I supported the decision to go to war in Iraq," were met with loud boos.

"I stand that ground because I believed, rightly or wrongly, that my country's interests and values required it."

"Wrongly!" one student boomed from the back. Sitting directly behind us, Maureen Dowd and Adam Nagourney of the New York Times, chuckled.

As McCain droned on, students became increasingly restless. One cried, "This speech sucks!" Several students walked out early.

Summing up the mood of the day, another shouted, "We're graduating, not voting."

BTW, anyone seen the list of who gets to bid the erection of a fence on our southern border??? Its quite eye-opening. Another few billion into the purses of Bush's pimps. Suprise, suprise.....

(Yeah Steve, its off topic. But frankly, this bullshit of speculating about this and that is getting quite tedious. There are REAL CRIMES being committed, that ARE NOT speculation. There are REAL EVENTS, past and present, that PROVE that these sons of bitches in the White House are not acting in our best interests. Why dwell on gossip and speculation when we could be actually ACTING on the irrefutable FACTS, such as the act of TREASON that is entailed when a president IRREFUTABLY and UNDENIABLY decieved a nation into war. Or BOUGHT journalists to LIE to the Ammerican public? It is time to STOP diagnosing the possibilities, and to actually ACT on the facts.)

Hey Pissed Off..

About this..
"Is there any way we can write a letter to the world community, as AMERICANS, and implore them to believe that we DO NOT and WILL not support the actions of what has become little more than a DICTATORSHIP masquerading as a democracy?
Posted by Pissed off American

Write to the UN Security Council, cc it to every member's UN office and then call every one of their embassies... that's what I did prior to the Iraq invasion. The most fun I had was talking to the French embassy after my idiot congressman renamed french fries, freedom fries..oddly enough the rep at the French embassy said quite a few Americans had called to apologize for that insult..evidently a few of us remember that France gave us Lady Liberty and financied our revolution against the King.
Of course none of this will stop Neo's& Co., but when your own goverment isn't listening to you you might as well try talking to someone else...and keep a copy of your letters so that when we get liberated you will have something to show the liberating troops to prove you wern't cooperating with the Reich.

Carroll, Indeed, contacting the UN Security Council directly is a great move. Before they considered the resolution to use force on Iraq a CT. Peace Activist group sent us all the e-addresses and phone numbers of EVERY single member of the UNSC. We all contacted them to urge them NOT to support that resolution. People Power.

When Bolton was recess appointed, I wanted Steve to run an e-petiton to the UN General Assembly to reject Bolton's credentials on the grounds that he was not duly appointed to represent our country and did not support the UN Charter. It was technically possible to refuse to seat him and I think world sentiment would have supported the idea.

Bloggers/reporters really need to take a self-imposed hiatus on any Rove rumors. They've all been wrong multiple times. The only ones making money on all this are the companies selling blood pressure and depression medications.

Fitz'll do what he can. If there's no indictment, it just means Rove was good at the cover-up. One lawyer can only do so much.

So Fitzgerald can't get the goods on outing Plame. As any good liberal has to take someone down. Therefore he is going beyond the mandate of his "Special Prosecutor" status and attempt take someone down for a cover-up. How politically malicious is that?

windansea

Woodward's source gave him the name Plame and CiA WMD analyst...why wouldn't he give the same info to Novak?

I don't know of any source that says Woodward's source gave him the name Plame. In his account of his testimony Woodward refers to her as Mrs. Wilson and Wilson's wife.

Jeff and EW

here are two conflicting accounts regarding the testimony of Woodward's source.

A lawyer in the case said Woodward's source had not previously testified before a grand jury in the leak case.
Reuters 11/18/05

Woodward, who was questioned by Fitzgerald on Monday, has refused to reveal the source's name publicly, but a person familiar with the investigation said the source had testified earlier in the case.

WaPo 11/19/05

Crazy link for the WaPo...all I could find.

Kathleen .....good!

I don't know that we have any impact, but it has to get someone's attention when they see Americans having to resort to appealing to authority outside their own country to be heard...

Maybe we should write to France and ask if they would be willing to finance another revolution for us...? Maybe we could give them a 100 year lease on New Orleans and any casino operations in return, they could probably put it back together better than we are doing.

Meant to add... Powell had this to say about the State department and the investigation

POWELL: I only know right now what I read in the paper. I appeared before the grand jury, the State Department. And some of us in the State Department had some knowledge of this matter. And we all immediately made ourselves available to the Justice Department and the FBI even before the prosecutor was...
CNN 10/17/05

OINK! OINK!!! I'm still free!

Steve:

Recently discovered your blog ... despite its occasional imperfect reporting, it's a valuable resource. It's even more valuable outside the beltway. What kind of active marketing strategy do you have for it in key states? Please tell us it's not a passive one.

Carroll,
For some time I've been trying to convince Dems, to no avail, that we should call a cease fire and bring in UN Special Advisory Services to help the Iraqi's build a new infrastructure, establish legislation, hold fair and open elections with UN observers.

When the African continent was decolonized, emerging nations were placed into UN Trusteeship for 25 years and were helped to develope their governments. I don't see how anyone can form a new gov't at gun point, not a stable and fair one. Instead of spending $2 billion a month and spilling God knows how much blood, we could make a contribution to UN Special Advisory Services and earmark it for Iraq. I'm sure other nations would contribute also. Last Dec. the Iraqi provisional gov't itself was asking for more UN involvement as well as the Arab League. But NOOOOO. Just more shock and awe and killing women and children. I'm sick at heart over the wholesale slaughtering that is going on in our name.

Kathleen...I agree....and while the UN may be imperfect, as any large org is, they would have been better than what we have done...

When the UN group was bombed in Iraq you had to wonder who really did it and why the US hadn't provided better security for them...

As far as I can see..from 911 to Iraq there are only two things a reasonable person can chose to believe...either the ENTIRE US GOVERMENT is INCOMPETENT AND TOTALLY FAILED in it's two most important duties/undertakings, 911 and Iraq......or someone(s) PLANNED FOR FAILURE for the success of their own purposes or agenda. Not very good choices for a good night's sleep.

......."or someone(s) PLANNED FOR FAILURE for the success of their own purposes or agenda."

Bingo. But I think it is a mistake to call them "failures". 9/11 accomplished EXACTLY what it was designed to do, and as such was a glaring SUCCESS for the criminals that organized the calamity. And that is true even if you believe, foolishly, that 9/11 was actually something other than an act perpetrated by the powers behind this monkey puppet Bush. If 9/11 was an act of terrorism, as presented, Bush has danced perfectly to their tune. An Islamic radical could not have scripted a scenario that so perfectly alienated the United States from the Muslim community, and the sane members of the world community. Bush has done an exemplary job of of turning us into everything they hate about us. Only a God damned fool can fail to see that. And if 9/11 was the criminal act that many of us believe it was, planned and committed by the TRAITORS that are currently squatting in the White House wings, than that too was a success for them, for they have committed us to an action that can only continue to escalate the hostilities, turmoil, and destabilization of the middle east. It is my personal belief that the dying has just begun, and Bush will be remembered in history as the instrument of MILLIONS of deaths, if not billions. Does anyone REALLY imagine or foresee a peaceful and positive avenue of escape from this clusterfuck Bush has unleashed in Iraq?? Pull out??? Damned if we do, damned if we don't. Iran??? Does anyone REALLY believe the world community will endorse military action against Iran after watching the CRIMINAL and IMMORAL manner in which we invaded Iraq, tortured prisoners in our custody, and thumbed our noses at every international inquiry and protestation that was waged about our conduct??? This mess has just began, and by the time it is over these bastards behind Bush are going to make Adolph Hitler look like a back alley thug.

(We will be lucky if China doesn't pull the plug on us, economically. We are now in the position that they can bring us to our knees without them firing a single nuke. But hey, Bush seems to be capable of performing the same feat, so maybe all China has to do is kick back and watch.)

I've been monitoring blogs on this knotty subject for many years now and I have yet to find anything as lucid and to the point (of the US Constitution) than the following URL:-

http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/2005_07_24_citizenspook_archive.html

Why are NONE of you addressing the statutes 18 USC 793, 794 and 641 - are you so very afraid of crying "TREASON" even when its so blatantly obvious in law?

To quote St.Augustine:-
"Only Justice prevents kingdoms becoming the playthings of criminals"

Wake up, please and reclaim your country before it's too late. You're already the worlds' laughing stock (for those not already utterly disgusted) so what do you have to lose by showing a little more courage and a little less ignorance?

We might then come to love you again...especially if you can get your banana republic style voting systems back in order before 2008 despite Diebold, Sequoia etc etc

Phoenix6 -- The issue with Leopold's reporting is not whether there is a shred of truth to it -- OBVIOUSLY there is SOMETHING going on with Rove and Fitzgerald. Most reporters covering this thing could have thrown in all the loose facts, added a good dose of speculation and conjecture, and come up with the story that Leopold wrote. The difference is that Leopold is not a professional or ethical journalist and his "editors" are not professional or ethical journalists and they put out something to their readers that real journalists would not.

"The difference is that Leopold is not a professional or ethical journalist and his "editors" are not professional or ethical journalists and they put out something to their readers that real journalists would not."

You mean like real journalists and editors telling us Iraq has massive stores of WMD and Al Gore claims to have invented the internet?

Phoenix6 - I agree that the news media stinks, but there is a huge difference between not questioning the credability of the U.S. government (wmd stories) or taking something out of context (Gore internet invention story) and reporting speculation as sourced fact, which is what Leopold did and does... it's the umpteenth time this has happened and it is why Murray Waas called him the "poor man's Jayson Blair."

Pissed Off...

Yea...our treason definition isn't nearly broad enough. It needs to be expanded. I believe it says only that treason is aiding and abetting an enemy in a time of war. That is hardly adaquate for modern times. The last third of George Washington's 1797 farewell speech to the nation contains the right guidelines for treason.

I am not one that thinks 911 was a "goverment" conspiracy. But I do believe in the possibility that there were people in various positions and agencies that saw a "event" as something that could turn America to their way of thinking. So all they had to do was "nothing". Like removing a support pillar or failing to repair a weak spot in a bridge. You wouldn't have to know exactly when the bridge would fail or exactly which car or truck's weight would be too much for the bridge. But you could be certain that sooner or later some traffic crossing that bridge would fall through.

"...there is a huge difference between not questioning the credability of the U.S. government (wmd stories) or taking something out of context (Gore internet invention story) and reporting speculation as sourced fact, which is what Leopold did and does"

Reporting WMD "speculation as sourced fact" is exactly what the NYT, WaPo, and the networks all did. Lies that have now cost tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. None of us know yet whether Leopold got his story essentially correct or not. This story is still playing out and may have a good ways to go before we even begin to understand what happened here.

"... it's the umpteenth time this has happened and it is why Murray Waas called him the "poor man's Jayson Blair.""
Well now you are wandering off into the freeper spin zone. Wass said that in 2003, not in regards to Leopold's latest stories. Waas was complaining about Leopold's tell-all book and how discredited journalists were making money off of their notoriety. The NYT discredited Leopold at the same time they were duping this nation into war. I've read theirs, Salon's, and Leopold's accounts of the event and Leopold's response is as credible as theirs are, particularly in light of the timing and the NYT's craven march then to war. Krugman has said everything Leopold brought to him checked out but the missing email.

"Treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so defined.

Article Three defines treason as only levying war against the United States or "in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort," and requires the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court for conviction.

This safeguard may not be foolproof since Congress has, at times passed statutes creating treasonlike offences with different names (such as sedition in the 1789 Alien and Sedition Acts, or espionage and sabotage in the 1917 Espionage Act) which do not require the testimony of two witnesses, and have a much broader definition than Article Three treason. For example, some well-known spies have been convicted of espionage rather than treason"

It's pretty obvious that treason definition is outdated because it refers only to "OVERT" acts in helping an "enemy".

If we had a modern day version of treason half of congress would be hanged, or jailed or whatever.

And particulary dangerous is how our own democratic tools are being turned on their head...as in the AIPAC case where "freedom of speech" is being used as the main defense against espionage charges.

Any jury of 12 average Americans could discern in 10 minutes the difference between reporters privilage, whistle blowers and espionage and the "intent' behind each act. As far as I am concerned every case of this type should go straight to a jury.

Truthout has another update posted about the Leopold story, but their servers are getting slammed and it is near impossible to connect. You can read their response, part one here, and part two here. Jeralyn of TalkLeft has a discussion and a recap here.

From Marc Ash of truthout:

We know that we have now three independent sources confirming that attorneys for Karl Rove were handed an indictment either late in the night of May 12 or early in the morning of May 13. We know that each source was in a position to know what they were talking about. We know that the office of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald will not confirm, will not deny, will not comment on its investigation or on our report. We know that both Rove's attorney Robert Luskin and Rove's spokesman Mark Corallo have categorically denied all key facts we have set forth. We know we have information that directly contradicts Luskin and Corallo's denials. We know that there were two network news crews outside of the building in Washington, DC that houses the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm that represents Karl Rove. We know that the 4th floor of that building (where the Patton Boggs offices are located) was locked down all day Friday and into Saturday night. We know that we have not received a request for a retraction from anyone. And we know that White House spokesman Tony Snow now refuses to discuss Karl Rove - at all.
Further - and again this is "What We Believe" - Rove may be turning state's evidence. We suspect that the scope of Fitzgerald's investigation may have broadened - clearly to Cheney - and according to one "off the record source" to individuals and events not directly related to the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. We believe that the indictment which does exist against Karl Rove is sealed. Finally, we believe that there is currently a great deal of activity in the Plame investigation.

Jeralyn also called Mr. Carallo for a response:

1. Truthout's claims remain demonstrably false. They are "utter lies. There is not a shred of truth to them."
2. Neither Rove, his lawyer Bob Luskin or Patrick Fitzgerald were at Patton Boggs on Friday or Saturday. There was no meeting and no communication of any kind.
3. Karl Rove has not been indicted. He has not been told he has been indicted. He has not been told he is a target. His status remains unchanged.
[...read more...]

Sorry about the last post. I meant to post it to Steve Clemon's TWN site and posted it here accidently. Too many windows open.

Damn! Did it again!

Carroll,

I DOOOO think 9/11 was planned. We paid Bin Laden and his 40 theives to go to Aghanistan to fight the Soviets, then paid him to fight the so called War on Drugs there, and, according to Imperial Hubris, were negotiating with him and the Taliban as late os July, 2001. so when exactly did he get off the US payroll? How is that the 20 highjackers entered out country through our own Embassy inb Riyahd?

W stands for Wall to Wall War, and we best not forget it. I say we have to make our views known to the UN directly as often and as loudly as we can to encourage them not to be cowed by Busholini and his NeoNutzis.

There is a tide in the affairs of men
Which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.

Julius Cæsar. Act iv. Sc. 3.

Talk about cojones! Preach sister!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jean-rohe/why-i-spoke-up_b_21358.html

I think the conspiracy theory talk on 9/11 has gotten far, far out of hand---and I'm speaking as someone who is skeptical of the official version of events.
The various claims of complicity or foreknowledge by the Bush administration are not grounded in fact.
The only change to the official narrative that I would suggest is that Bush's catastrophic failure to pay attention to terrorist threats in his first 8 months in office is completely inexcusable, even at this late date.

someone mentioned rebuilding iraq with help from the international community - the international community would willingly chip in to share the burden but monies looted by US corporations must pay - these monies easily dwarf may countries' annual GDPs - yes this is pie in the sky as US sure as hell would strongarm all attempts in that direction but it would gain no respect, if any is left to be had.

Regarding the mentions above of Luskin becoming a new target and the case expanding beyond the leak players.

These may well just be redundant, no? Luskin himself would be the expansion.

The notion makes me recall my first thought upon hearing about the Viveca shadowplay that "gave pause" to Fitz. I wondered if Luskin knew what he was doing - becoming an alibi witness - for someone as dishonest, manipulative and thug-minded as Rove.

He could well have made representations to Fitzgerald about the Viveca saga that made him a party to defrauding the prosecutor and/or suborning (more) perjury.

---

"I think the conspiracy theory talk on 9/11 has gotten far, far out of hand---and I'm speaking as someone who is skeptical of the official version of events."

When you can explain why William Rodriguez experienced what he did, I will pose another question for you. But you will be UNABLE to explain Rodriquez's experience, so we will never get to the questions about Sibel Edmonds' experiences, will we?? There are just FAR too many happenings on 9/11 that do not add up. And you can forget the propagandized airing of the far out bullshit that is cast to paint the questioners in a "looney" light, such as the pod crap and the "no plane hit the Pentagon" bullshit. There are VERY REAL and VERY CREDIBLE scientists and engineers that insist that the WTC collapse had to be assisted with demolitions experts and techniques. And if you think it is just a coincidence that Chertoff's relative was tasked to write pieces such as the Popular Mechanics bit of fluff, than you are on cloud nine. Too much doesn't add up about this thing, and the manner in which the Bush Adminstration resisted investigations, coupled with the policies they pursued immediately on the heels of 9/11 points to the whole God damned thing being the greatest CRIME ever committed by a Presidential Administration. Even if you accept the premise that 9/11 occurred as presented, the gross malfeasance and ineptitude exhibited by this administration both before and after 9/11 in its failure to provide security to our nation amounts to an act of treason, if not in it's legal sense, AT LEAST in it's moral sense. It is time to stop saying "it can't happen here". It CAN happen here, and IS happening here. And if we do not unseat these criminal sons of bitches, and derail their evil and nefarious global plans, this so called "democracy" is going to cease to exist.

WaPo has an article today by Walter Pincus, discussing the issue of whether or not Libby knew Plame was undercover. Again I say, that is not relevant. They knew she was CIA, therefore THEY HAD A DUTY TO INQUIRE before they blabbed their crooked face holes, period. They didn't bother to ask if she was undercover BEFORE they blabbed because they wanted her out of commission, especially in Iran. "I didn't know" is not an acceptable excuse. If you are on the taxpayers' pay roll, you have a duty to know what the hell you are doing. End of story.

Jane Hampsher --- Stop the finger waiving. Who the hell are YOU to scold somebody of Steve's stature?!? Unlike you, Steve actually has contacts and does real reporting. It seems like all you do is slink around the blogosphere and offer immaterial criticisms. GO AWAY! We don't want to listen to your arrogant, psuedo-intellectual ramblings here!

What Kathleen said . . . !

and, yup, If you are on the taxpayers' pay roll, you have a duty to know what the hell you are doing. End of story.

There is no escape from responsibility for this (or any of the other odious examples), whether it was deliberate or incompetence . . . and I'm not buying the notion of incompetence. Every damned thing these criminals do is on purpose.

POA,
The statements I have read about the anomalies in the fall of the WTC towers and similar questions are NOT written by structural engineers, and do not even have well-credential structural engineers as signees. If a renowned professor of Classical studies signs such a statement, for example, it adds nothing to the credibility.

Well marky..there are some far out tales about 911, but I think people can recongize loony and deliberately loony from possible,impossible or probable.

However people should be encourage to think outside the box and use their imagination....if someone hadn't been curious and lightening hadn't struck a kite we wouldn't be communicating today....and people would still be imprisoned for saying the earth is round..

If Kerry had won the election in 2004, none of this stuff would amount to a hill of beans. It's alive because the donks aren't. The other thing that's pretty obvious, is that this plan was cooked up among MSM "friendlies." Just like the Mapes story that sank Dan Rather. And, this one comes from a combination at State. And, the CIA. Now that so much time has passed, most of the public, at least those that search for their news on the Internet, have a different picture of things than what the MSM presents. Who tapped Wilson in the first place? AND, WHY DOESN'T FOLEY's name show up more? He's the dude who prepared the "complaint" that went to Justice. It wasn't TENET. Foley signed this. So at least Fitzgerald's been given all the information necessary to track an obscene and treasonous attempt to damage our White House. The story's not going away. And, some day, down the line, it will be discussed in law schools. Because there's so much prosecutorial ERROR. Whether Judge Walton spots it or not.

In another vein, Nagin, winning his Mayorship in New Orleans, is finally very angry at the donks. If Drudge's headline, yesterday, saying Dean backed Landreiu. (Though there is back-peddling now) ... It seems Walton may discover he's being treated for the role of buffoon. Where are the rulings from the judge on some of the issues still on his desk? What's holding him up?

Well marky..there are some far out tales about 911, but I think people can recongize loony and deliberately loony from possible,impossible or probable.

However people should be encourage to think outside the box and use their imagination....if someone hadn't been curious and lightening hadn't struck a kite we wouldn't be communicating today....and people would still be imprisoned for saying the earth is round..

Posted by Carroll

Oh Carroll, crap. The fact is people like Marky want to totally discount possibilities, while IGNORING facts that support the possibilities. What the hell DID cause the explosion IN THE GOD DAMNED BASEMENT of the WTC nearly simultaneously to the impact of the jet ??? Rodriquez's experiences are not CONSPIRACY, they are documented FACT. As are the radio reports from firemen that were reporting being thwarted in their rescue efforts by EXPLOSIONS many stories BELOW the impact. Sibel Edmond's tales, and her travails, are not CONSPIRACY THEORY either. People are in DENIAL, they REFUSE to believe that anyone inside our government could be EVIL enough to hatch such a scheme as the CRIME that was committed against us on 9/11. But one thing is just as sure as the sun rising tommorrow, there are FAR TOO MANY unanswered questions about 9/11, and this administration has done EVERYTHING IN THEIR POWER to see that those questions remain unanswered. Why?

Zogby Poll: Over 70 Million American Adults Support New 9/11 Investigation Mon May 22, 8:00 AM ET

(PRWEB) - Utica, NY (PRWEB) May 22, 2006 -- Although the Bush administration continues to exploit September 11 to justify domestic spying, unprecedented spending and a permanent state of war, a new Zogby poll reveals that less than half of the American public trusts the official 9/11 story or believes the attacks were adequately investigated.

The poll is the first scientific survey of Americans' belief in a 9/11 cover up or the need to investigate possible US government complicity, and was commissioned to inform deliberations at the June 2~4 "9/11: Revealing the Truth, Reclaiming Our Future" conference in Chicago. Poll results indicate 42% believe there has indeed been a cover up (with 10% unsure) and 45% think "Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success" (with 8% unsure). The poll of American residents was conducted from Friday, May 12 through Tuesday, May 16, 2004. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of +/- 2.9. All inquiries about questions, responses and demographics should be directed to Zogby International.

According to Janice Matthews, executive director of 911truth.org, "To those who have followed the mounting evidence for US government involvement in 9/11, these results are both heartening and frankly quite amazing, given the mainstream media's ongoing refusal to cover the most critical questions of that day. Our August 2004 Zogby poll of New Yorkers showed nearly half believe certain US officials 'consciously' allowed the attacks to happen and 66% want a fresh investigation, but these were people closest to the tragedy and most familiar with facts refuting the official account. This revelation that so many millions nationwide now also recognize a 9/11 cover up and the need for a new inquiry should be a wake up call for all 2006 political candidates hoping to turn this country around. We think it also indicates Americans are awakening to the larger pattern of deceit that led us into Constitutional twilight and endless war, and that our independent media may have finally come of age."

continues at.......

http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20060522/bs_prweb/prweb388743_4

Haw,haw...hey Pissed...

Don't laugh but I was trying to be kind, ......some people are comfortable with their heads buried in sand.

POA,
Get your head out of your ass.
You're so fucking rude I've skipped over most of your points for months.
What I said about the lack of credible expert testimony about WTC is correct. You may not like this, but it's a fact.
Do I support another 9/11 investigation?
Absolutely.
We are in agreement on that point.

So why did Busholini oppose an investigation of 9/11? Why did he refuse to testify, especially under oath? Shouldn't he have been the first to call for an investigation?

And Karl, oink, oink, you still stink.

"POA,
Get your head out of your ass."

Not yet, I still haven't located the crescent wrench I misplaced last night.....

You know there is something that everyone seems to miss because they are all wound up about crimes and conspriracy. A basic defense which the "right" is using is that no crime could have been committed because Rove didnt KNOW her secrecy status, Libby didnt KNOW her secrecy status, Armitage didnt KNOW her secrecy status when they each talked to reporters. (on two occassions each.) WHY DIDNT THEY KNOW? BECAUSE THEY NEVER BOTHERED TO ASK CIA FIRST. Now they knew the topic about which they were commenting. This is not like they gave away what seemed to be a cake recipe and it turned out to be a secret fuel formula. They were knowing revealing information which might very well have been very sensitive. These are three men who were right hand men for Bush and Cheney and Bush's appointee as #2 at State Department. How many people do you know who would be that careless with such potentially sensitive information about the CIA during a intelligence sensitive War? Wouldnt the village idiot have checked this first?
take the defense at face value and it proves the WAr on Terror is a joke to the Administration. I dont buy the fairy tale myself. We usually presume that intelligent adults intend the consequences of their repeated conduct. But take it at face value and we should be laughing whenever this Pres. talks about the need for star chamber powers because of the War on Terror. This is like someone firing a gun through a door and killing someone on the other side. "Hey Im innocent because I fired the gun without looking first. But you'd be foolish to give the gun to someone else who might not take the responsibilty as serious as I do."