1. Anonymous says:

    Have you seen the latest Vandehei?

    And do you have any speculation as to what new info the Dow/Fitz ruling might cause to be released and what Fitz might gain from its release?

  2. Anonymous says:

    this makes me want to see Rove’s lawyer Luskin before this guy

    Joke, right? I mean, if not for Luskin, we wouldn’t have been 100% certain that Rove is still under investigation. Or that he was a target in the first place. Etc. That man’s glorious ineptitude has provided more and better information than almost any reporter out there.

    Speaking of which, am I reading too much into the sentence in today’s Washington Post article that says:

    Two sources close to Karl Rove, the top Bush aide still under investigation in the case, said they have reason to believe Fitzgerald does not anticipate presenting additional evidence against the White House deputy chief of staff (emphasis mine)

  3. Anonymous says:

    On the other hand, since Rove is still out there causing damage, Luskin may turn out to be not so inept.

  4. Anonymous says:


    No, I’m not joking. I said four months ago that Luskin was leaking so profusely because Rove knows no other way to respond. This would tie Rove’s hands and likely make him explode out of frustration.

    And I’m fairly sure those two Rove associates are lying. Rove’s clinging to his job with tenterhooks, and anything they can do to suggest he’s in a status quo right now, the safer his job is.


    I think we’ll see more details from journalist’s notes than we’ve seen. Perhaps direct quotes from notes. And whatever underlying sources are not classified may also get released.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Looking at Woodward’s sources (which he always hides carefully) today. In a 4/19/04 WaPo article titled “With CIA Push, Movement to War Accelerated; Agency’s Estimate of Saddam Hussein’s Arsenal Became the White House’s Rationale for Invasion†Woodward recounts his version of the genesis of the SOTU claims. At one point, the unconvincing case made by John McLaughlin is handed over, on Bush’s suggestion, to two lawyers who are charged with revising it as they would “put together a case for a jury.â€

    “The president was determined to hand the evidence over to experienced lawyers who could use it to make the best possible case. The document was given to Rice’s deputy, Stephen J. Hadley (Yale Law ’72) and Cheney’s chief aide, I. Lewis â€Scooter†Libby (Columbia Law ’75). They visited the CIA and posed a series of questions that the agency answered in writing.â€

    I think it is interesting that these two are credited with the SOTU revision. In an earlier article (January 28, 2003) Woodward identifies Hadley as the person in charge of “trying to sort through the intelligence and recommend what to declassifyâ€. That article, written three days after what he later (in the 2004 piece) identifies as Libby’s decisive presentation, doesn’t mention Libby.

    So, writing in real time, Hadley is the focus, but then writing 15 months later, Libby begins to hog the spotlight. Another aspect is that Woodward’s sources identify Libby and Hadley with “ownership†of the SOTU claims. The same was likely true in June and July of 2003, when those claims were being called into question. Presumably, then, Rove’s call to Hadley shows they werestill in charge of defending those claims.

  6. Anonymous says:

    When Wells introduced himself to the media as Libby’s new attorney, he emphatically made a point of saying â€We’re going to try this case in the courtroom, we’re not going to try this case in the press.â€