1. William Ockham says:

    Well, it probably sounded like a crudely delivered, thinly veiled threat, but I think the more worrisome time for Fitzgerald was when Comey left. Then, as Fitzgerald’s term was almost up, a source close to Karl Rove used Michael Isikoff (what a surprise his name turns up) to deliver a less crude, but more open threat.

  2. Anonymous says:

    I have great respect for Fitzgerald. He seems to be an independent and upright prosecutor.

    However, nobody in the blogosphere seems to want to ask this question: Did Fitzgerald not indict Karl Rove because he was afraid he would lose his job?

    The sequence of events in the US attorney scandal, as well as this revelation from McKay about this meeting, puts this issue front and center.

    My personal belief is no, but how can anybody be sure?

    I think that this is the great tragedy of this scandal. It is very difficult to look at anything that the Justice Department did during the Bush Administration without thinking that politics dictated the action. Very depressing.

  3. zhiv says:

    Very curious to see the actual speech now, which is probably a very interesting read in hindsight. Do we think it’s out there somewhere?

  4. freepatriot says:

    Imagine I’m Fitz, and gonzo has just given his speech ???

    Okay, I got gonzo by the throat, I’m beating the shit out of him, and 92 USAs are cheering me on (the Secret Service guys abandoned gonzo about 5 seconds back) what now ???

    come to think of it, Fitz and I are very different people …

    he probably ain’t as blunt as me

    wanna bet he got as pissed off as I would if some hack threatend me like that ???

  5. obsessed says:

    nobody in the blogosphere seems to want to ask this question: Did Fitzgerald not indict Karl Rove because he was afraid he would lose his job?

    Not that I’m â€in the blogosphereâ€, but I’ve been asking questions like that ever since Rove didn’t get indicted. As we’ve now learned from the post-trial juror comments, even Libby’s half-hearted defense team, with no help from Fitz, was able to convince a jury of Rove’s guilt. I find it hard to believe that Fitzgerald let Rove walk to save his Chicago USA job, but something is very wrong and rotten with the way that whole thing turned out. Rotten to the core.

  6. albert fall says:

    Fitz is showered with money by the private bar the day he walks from DOJ.

    Losing the job would be a lesser threat to a dedicated professional than compromising the job.

    My view: He wanted a bulletproof case against Rove before he indicted, he didn’t have it then, and they concealed evidence and he might get another shot.

  7. Sojourner says:

    I was fascinated with some of Jason Leopold’s reporting at Truthout about Rove’s involvement in the Plame case. At one point, Leopold reported that Rove had actually been indicted, and he had a couple of different sources for the story that his editors validated. But, it never came down — although there is a remaining sealed indictment for some unnamed person. The speculation is that it is for Rove. I just never understood why Pat Fitz did not carry through, if that is the case.

    Money talks? I hope not — Fitzgerald has become a symbol of integrity for many of us, but like anything else, I suppose it can be bought.

    Does anyone here remember the Leopold story and the resulting denials, etc?

  8. Dee Loralei says:

    OT here and sorry, EW, I wanted to make sure you saw this link over in the comments at TPM http://tomflocco.com/fs/Deaths…..stions.htm
    I don’t know how accurate this account is, but it would be easy to check.
    I read this and raced over here to tell you. I know in your inimitable research you’d be able to figure out how this story ties in with the firings of MOUSA and Lam and the murder of the AUSU in Wash State that was never fully resolved. I need time to clarify my thoughts and feelings on this better, synthesize if you will, but my initial reaction was Holy F*%#! And Did they learn a lesson from the first AUSA murder?
    Could this be why they ignored Kit Bond in putting in the new USA? And also, can we find out who hired the AUSA’s to replace the ones who â€died†and the ones who quit or were fired? Or have they just left that entire fraud division barren?
    There’s something about this that stinks to high hell and has Rove written all over. And there’s a tie to Abu thrown in as well.
    We need a serious de-bushification in 09 at every level and in every department of the federal government. I know many career employees are in the Union, but we can’t allow this to stand, and we certainly can’t allow any Christianist sleeper cells to keep their jobs, moving up the ladder, waiting hopefully 50 years, for another Rep President.
    See, it’s got me sooooo flabbergasted and discumbobulated that I can’t even type a coherent sentence Can’t wait to see what you and the regular commentors make of this.

    You and the regular research bloggers are a godsend and imho will be the true 4th estate and why take our country and constitution back! Thanks you.


  9. hauksdottir says:

    Remember that there is a â€sealed vs sealed†indictment in some safe place. Because it is sealed on both sides, we don’t know if it is of concern to us, or not.

    I think that Fitzgerald is more concerned with getting at the truth of the matter, AND working within the legal processes, than with preserving his job. Knowing something and being able to prove it decisively are different. Given this administration and its media enablers, he’d have to have not only a smoking gun but the ballistics report and film from the security camera. Of course, people who delete documents or allow 12 hours for such deletion aren’t helping the course of Justice much!

    Rove is playing a game, and he thinks he is clever. But even chessmasters can be beaten by the computer, or by a silly mistake such as taking a finger off a piece. With all of these pieces in motion across various departments, a mistake is inevitable.

    If they had gone through with the original plan to fire all 93 USAs at once, they’d have removed Fitzgerald and any other â€pesky nuisance†(Lam, Iglesias, etc.) in a manner which wouldn’t really have reeked of political ass-covering. It would have been brutal and controversial, but harder to prove malfeasance. By discriminating, the White House has made its concerns and its methods obvious. Even to the media. Maybe.

    I know what it is like to work for a boss who is weak and untrustworthy. For someone in the DoJ, this must be especially galling.

  10. obsessed says:

    The Leopold thing was a scandal within a scandal. But, like the Dan Rather/Bush draft-dodging mess, discrediting one reporter doesn’t change the fact that Rove & Bush are guilty as sin.

  11. obsessed says:

    It would certainly be poetic justice if Rove’s machinations to avoid indictment in AbuGate put him back in Plame jeopardy, but I doubt it.

    What if Congress re-subpoenas Rove and Harriet AFTER 2009? Can Bush still claim executive privilege when he’s not longer the executive?

    â€when he’s no longer the executive†– damn, that sounds good!

  12. obsessed says:


    WTF? Is Tom Flocco another Wayne Madsen or is this for real?

    Maybee: It wasn’t Armitage that the Libby jurors were grousing about after the trial. You can indict a ham sandwich, but you can convict Karl Rove … if he doesn’t have you killed first.

  13. ab initio says:

    Its apparent as the PurgeGate story has evolved that AbuG was just a water carrier for the Rovians. That he was so explicit is rather amazing.

    What’s holding up a special counsel criminal investigation? Why does not Congress freeze all appropriations to the DoJ until there is a complete investigation of all the machinations between the Rovians and the DoJ and until all the Rovians are purged from DoJ?

    What we have had now know is a completely compromised DoJ that cannot carry out its mission of charging and prosecuting on the basis of facts. Every action will now have to scrutinized for its politcial implications.

  14. Anonymous says:

    Tom Flocco is more Wayne Madsen than Wayne Madsen. Pour a shaker of salt down your throat and read it.

  15. irene says:

    Indict Armitage for what? He didn’t lie to investigators or anyone else about what he said and did regarding Plame. Unlike Libby, he didn’t perjure himself or obstruct justice.

  16. Anonymous says:

    I was comparing Armitage to Rove, not Libby. Surely Armitage knows some people that can kill you, too? Maybe he knows whoever it was that killed Vince Foster.
    Neither Armitage nor Rove seems to have been indicted, though we have equal proof of their lying and obstruction.

  17. Jim E. says:

    EW wrote: â€To McKay’s ears, it surely sounded like an attack on precisely that tradition of independent prosecutors–and of indefinite terms.â€

    McKay is passing along all sorts of interesting anecdotes. But the dude went quietly into the night. It was only when his own personal reputation was question that he, or any of these guys, started raising a fuss. The politicization of the department has been going on for years, and they did nada. I’m happy for their help now (as well as Iglesias’s) and I’m glad they weren’t super-hacktakular at their jobs, but these guys were enablers. It was only when their professional integrity on a personal level was questioned that they piped-up.

    If the Justice Department was smoother in its lies, none of this would have been known. And DOJ is supposed to be one of the least partisan places. One can only imagine the unprecented scandals that are unknown in other corners of the government that have been ongoing for half a decade.

  18. Anonymous says:

    Does anyone know the satus of Simon Dodge’s testimony? I read on some blog it has been postponed.

  19. John Lopresti says:

    I wonder if the prospect of a lameDuck FEC was accident or a planned weakening of one more watchdog. KR needed US attys who would hassle voters; but back then VRA was still in prerenewal flux, as well. That was also the year Gonzales decreed that no longer would the DoJ civil rights section be allowed to write career specialist reports on gerrymanders like the TX imbroglio. Natural resources, energy development, voting impediments. Maybe the speech touched on all those topics; but I think the 2006 election torqued the schema a lot.

  20. Jodi says:


    According to Rove’s lawyer, Fitzgerald has every email and an image of every computer disk that Karl Rove has.

    There is nothing that congress can get from Rove on Plame in 2009 except probably a lot of â€not sure on that.†And the additional lapse of time will make it more reasonable.

    As for Prosecutors and Law Enforcement having to charge and arrest their bosses, it happens all the time in our country. From tiny townships and districts to giant cities, and states.
    Fitzgerald is not unique in that.

    Perhaps one day a lot of people can just let go of Wilson-Plame-Rove. I hope so. I am tired of hearing about it, though I originally came here just for that.

  21. bmaz says:

    Have not yet had a chance to read the previous comments; but can immediately say that if I were any USA at said meeting I would be pretty alarmed. If I were Fitzgerald, I would, just out of curiosity and general tactics, lay some type of protective record in the background of the discovery made of every Government witness in the Plame investigation and prosecution. Chain of evidence and chain of command questions made of all, especially thos in the White House.

  22. Rayne says:

    John Forde — I do wonder, though, what the truth is…has there been a disproportionate death rate among AUSA’s during the last 6 years? The details of the cold-blooded assassination of McKay’s AUSA is enough to make me wonder, without even having read the Tom Flocco bit. This administration’s scruples or lack thereof persuaded them to out a NOC for political and economic expediency; what’s an AUSA to them?

    Jim E. — Yes, these USA’s were political appointees. Yes, they could have said something more immediately about their situation when the problem became apparent. Some of them did, but it didn’t saturate the national media; is that their fault, or the fault of the public that has for too long tolerated the systematic squelching of important stories to cover this week’s iteration #407 of Missing White Girl? These USA’s were also trying to do their jobs while simultaneously being pressured to stay silent or risk their future careers. Chiara made a major announcement about a key prosecution within 24 hours of her announced departure, if memory serves, and Lam did the same (fact check me, working off memory). They’d all been told that they weren’t being dismissed for performance, so why would they question it until McNulty’s public testimony indicated otherwise? That’s when all the pieces began to fall into place and they began to emerge from their blackout.

  23. Rayne says:

    Perhaps one day a lot of people can just let go of Wilson-Plame-Rove.

    Um, no. A lot of people are not going to let go of this deliberate breach of national security until justice is served. Justice will be served when the source(s) and authorizations are completely disclosed and responsible parties prosecuted — and that can’t happen as long as members of the OVP and EO continue to obstruct justice.

    In the mean time, if you’re tired of it, employ the X in the upper right.

  24. Anonymous says:

    Right Jodi, just let the black hearted sado-masochist who thrive in the theater of violence have their way.

  25. rukus says:

    However, nobody in the blogosphere seems to want to ask this question: Did Fitzgerald not indict Karl Rove because he was afraid he would lose his job?

    I’ve thought that the answer is â€yes†since Rove’s non-indictment. Sorry, but Fitzgerald blinked.

  26. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    I live in a region of the country where the social networks tend to be pretty small. As near as I can tell, the legal community isn’t all that big; you know one attorney (or law librarian, or law school prof) you hear about many more.

    I happen to know several people — some liberal, some conservative — who hold John McKay in the highest regard. I’ve heard from several people that there was a collective, â€â€¦Huh??!†when the news went around of McKay leaving the USAG spot in W. Wa. It simply didn’t make sense to people, and in that regard it is a classic case of karma — if you fire someone who is highly respected, people ARE going to start asking questions and being suspicious.

    My sources tell me that McKay ’went quietly,’ and they had no clue what was up, other than the fact that there was a general mystification. IIRC, he’s now teaching at Seattle Univ, a Jesuit school — where the atty who won the Hamdan decision at US Supreme Court also now teaches. (The Jesuits are certainly snapping up some good legal talent for their law school these days.)

    It’s not a big stretch to suppose that McKay was so busy reeling in shock and trying to figure out what to do next that he didn’t initially put the pieces together. (Mere speculation on my part, FWIW.) Rayne has probably nailed it — these USAGs didn’t start to connect the dots until this winter/spring. And IMHO, if not for Josh Marshall and the other blogs, this would have sunk out of sight and Bu$hCo would have gotten away with it.

    Good to see some of these USAGs pushing back. I hope they are giving hope to FBI and law enforcement people everywhere. At this point, being fired by Bu$hCo is a badge of honor.

    However, I am concerned that Congress won’t ask good technical questions about the web servers and email setups used to communicate about the decisions over firing specific USAGs — if RNC and WH emails were ’lost’, that’s obstruction. It stands to reason that Rove would prefer to be charged with ’obstruction’ rather than have the contents of those emails revealed.

    Kind of OT:

    It’s a near-miracle that the story of the fired USAGs ever surfaced, and in lieu of Rosen’s comments on a different thread at EW, I think this is a good example of the fact that blogs and press are working TOGETHER.

    Note the number of links to the Kansas City Star, the Seattle Times, and other regional papers (and national pubs) that are starting to turn up in this story. Good to see. The coverage on this story is beginning to be collaborative, perhaps in part b/c blogs are figuring out the narrative — but also, because the regional papers now have blogs for many of their own reporters. I have a hunch that the tips have been coming in for weeks now, and the media has more to run with — and with a better understanding of what’s at stake, they are also asking better questions… which makes for better information… which makes for better reporting… it’s quite likely that this case has set in motion a ’dispersed media dynamic’ that we’ve not seen before.

    In addition, look how many regional papers now have a clear investment in covering the LOCAL ramifications of this story for their readers. And these attorneys are certainly articulate, bright people who make outstanding interview subjects — on a topic that local media is now increasingly interested in covering. It’s really a bit like watching water run uphill — if one or more of the attorneys had approached a local reporter last January, I’ll bet their stories would never have seen print. But as it ’hits home’ AND ALSO fits into a larger national narrative, it’s power is definitely building. People that I’d never dream would take an interest are showing genuine curiosity. Interesting phenomenon.

    Ultimately, all of this is really, really encouraging to see.

    Per Jodi — if a nuclear attack occurs, and I survive to hear about it, I’m going to be asking whether the nuclear materials were obtained by terrorists b/c the Plame network was blinded by OVP/WH. I will never, ever forgive the blood-curdling evil of the people who outed a CIA agent. Nor will any of my 12 cousins who are US military vets, nor their kids who are vets. That will be handed down in family memory as one of the most reprehensible acts ever conducted by any citizen, in any nation, at any time. Not. Forgetting. About. It. Ever.

  27. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    Oh, and Jodi — one of those cousins volunteers 20 hours a week at a US Vet hospital, and informs me that the Neurology Dept was de-funded last year. One of his sons is career Army, now injured. Some of us are not going to forget about Plame. Ever. I’d sooner spit on my grandmother’s grave than forget that my cousin’s kid was blown up for some headcase’s lies.

    Please don’t be so insulting.

  28. obsessed says:

    According to Rove’s lawyer, Fitzgerald has every email and an image of every computer disk that Karl Rove has.

    If this is true, why isn’t Leahy subpoenaing Fitzgerald?

  29. John Lopresti says:

    This* article is by one of the principal attorneys from the TX redistrict case, JGHebert; it appears on Campaign Legal Center’s site; Hebert pretty much follows Charlie Savage’s article in the Globe, adding some historical information to the electoral part of the US atty purges, but timeslicing back from the time when DoJ put the TX appeal on fast-processing and quick denial. NB, one of the officials at DoJ civil rights section JGHebert mentions is in receipt of a Leahy+Specter letter this week requesting an appearance at Senate Judiciary committee, a letter which mentions the likelihood of a subpoena if there is no compliance; the other person JGH discusses also was in the DoJ civil rights section, though now is at FEC; see my post above for the DiFi link about how FEC prospectively could become all interim people.

  30. John Lopresti says:

    Obse’d: The way I remember Luskin’s comment, he was parsing to refer to only one portable machine belonging to his client.

  31. obsessed says:

    JLop: Thanks – and thanks for all your great posts here and elsewhere.

    Any predictions on the AG testimony tomorrow?

  32. Jodi says:


    earlier in this same blog, there was a discussion about where Leathy was trying to get the infomation on Rove, etc, that Fitzgerald had, and Fitzgerald wrote a letter with a lot of that legal jargon stuff, but essentially saying no..

    I think that there are legal problems trying to suponea the info from Fitzgerald.

    Get the real lawyers to explain it to you.

  33. Jodi says:


    First I think Bush should be impeached for this botched war, this travesty that is now a cancer eating on America’s heart and soul.

    On the other hand, I lay the first blame for Valerie Plame losing her job on her husband, (and I assume with her knowledge), deciding to do a Op Ed against the Administration in the NYt. When that happened her husband became a political target, and as they say the rest is history.

  34. jodi is a piece of shit says:

    you are one stupid piece of shit, jodi.

    please go away.

    you make me want to vomit.

  35. kim says:

    I’m just trying to be patient until someone somewhere finally asks Tenet some good questions about Plame. 60 Minutes did get in one or two I’ll admit, but I’ll probably have to wait until the Plame civil trial before the question arises in a journalist’s head.

  36. rex applegate says:

    IF YOU AND TOTO NEED A HOME; point your browser to http://www.justoneminute.typepad.com
    your sceptisism and naivite will be well reeived!
    ABOVE ALL-GO AWAY NOW FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  37. Albert Fall says:

    Jodi does not share the conclusions that most of us here have about Plame/et. al.

    Jodi’s view is one that is held by some segment of the public at large.

    Many of us here believe that the WH concealment of emails and testimonial evidence is circumstantial evidence that confirms our analysis and conclusion that Rove and Cheney deliberately and knowingly outed an undercover CIA agent (you know, treason, like the Rosenbergs were executed for).

    Circumstantial evidence is evidence (think OJ trial).

    Like OJ, the case now against Cheney and Rove is a circumstantial evidence case, and Jodi would like them to walk, like the OJ jury thought OJ should walk.

    If Jodi and others with Jodi’s attitude truly want to judge the role of Cheney and Rove in light of the full facts, they should join us in demanding that the direct evidence (emails and testimony) be delivered.

  38. Liam says:

    Once again I marvel at the amazing work you do Marcy.It is always a pleasure to read and truly heartwarming. But more importantly you shine a light on the petty facist rodents who are trying to undo the constitution. The standard of your comment contributors make them a ’must read’ every day. It must be a source of joy for you, to know that you attract such insightful commentators,except of course, for the dispicable paid troll jodi.

    Here in Australia my wife and I recently acquired a little mini dashound dog, called Oscar. In honour of the troll we have named his little turds jodies, as in †sweetheart there is a new jodi on the verandah. Will you put it in the bin please.â€

  39. Katie Jensen says:

    I enjoy these articles every day. I am waiting for the truth to come out. It will come out eventually. I believe that there is a form of coercion going on, and that the level of cover up must be infuriating for someone like Fitz. But the push must continue and we must all recognize that the power we are dealing with is bigger than elections and bigger than our democracy. In the end it will take the world to pull it into check.

    I know that people on these blogs were motivated by the facts that were slipping out, and how they didn’t jive with the official reports. We have all known that this administration was involved in something very illegal and wrong. We have all been aware for many years what it really means to be part of the elite republican machinery, and why they profess to be the moral authority.

    It’s like the mob boss with the perfectly manicured lawn. They have been playing this card since Reagan. Reagan’s acting job made the whole scene totally plausible to most ignorant americans who vote republican and therefore vote against themselves.

    This administration has been unbelievably arrogant and my hope and prayer is that the thread has been pulled and the unraveling begun. Thanks to E.W and others who keep the facts before us. Keep shining the light.

  40. Jane S. says:

    JK–I was profoundly disappointed when Rove was not indicted and it is perfectly reasonable that the Libby jury had questions about Rove’s role. But Rove, unlike Libby, in his multiple grand jury appearances, ommitted and didn’t recall. Whereas, Scooter just made stuff up. And even after Fitz paraded 9 witnesses who contradicted Libby’s version of events, the jury took more than 2 weeks to sort through it all and find him guilty. Fitz didn’t bring the case against Rove not because he feared for his job but because he feared he didn’t have enough to sway a jury. I think his experience in the Libby trial bears this out. And I will also say, under the category of wild ass speculation, that as frustrated as we all were about Rove’s non-indictment, I suspect Fitzgerald was the most frustrated of all. He knew that he’d have a tough case to prove against Rove but he also knew Rove lied and obstructed over and over again.

  41. Jodi says:

    Albert Fall

    thanks for your fairness. Yes there are actually doubts about all this in a lot of places. As for some of the other people on this blog, I am always surprised when people can’t argue the facts, and just call names. Then I reason that they are unable to argue the facts and only able to call names like kids in a sandbox.

    You are right, circumstantial evidence is evidence that can be used in a trial, but as I understand it there has to be more. But I am not a lawyer, so that is all I will say there.

    This I will say.
    1) Fitzgerald who is normally praised to the heavens here on TNH, and FDL deliberately chose not to charge the exposing of a covert agent crime under the appropriate statue in the Wilson-Plame-Rove case though there seemed (from testimony) to be plenty of exposers.
    2) He only pursued some conflicting testimony, and indeed he has the right to do that.
    3) Fitzgerald has all the emails, and disk images that Mr Rove has. (This is according to Mr Rove’s lawyer’s public statement, of just a week or two ago.) Mr Leathy has actually tried to get this information. Why he couldn’t, again I leave to the lawyers here to explain Mr Fitzgerald’s letter to the Senator.

    With those 3 pieces of circumstantial evidence I conclude that either Ms Plame didn’t fall under the exact statute, or those naming her didn’t because of some of the requirements of the law. Other people all through the country have concluded the same.

    On Rove and the USAs, I think that the case is mainly a way to go fishing in Rove’s emails trying to find anything that can be used against him, not only criminally but politically.
    I think that it is a dream of many on this blog, and some others to have Mr Rove before some committee where the Democrats can somehow exorcise their demons.
    There was a lot of hope that the committee hearings that have already been held would expose all sorts of stuff, but they haven’t.

    I wouldn’t expect that Mr Rove appearing before every committee that the Democrats can muster will show any wrong doing either.

    … and finally when all these things fail, then comes the bitterness and plaintive excuses, that the culprits didn’t tell us the truth. I think it is more likely that they didn’t tell you what you wanted to hear. I don’t see that necessarily being a case of not telling the truth.

    And finally, I am amused that the same groups that normally scream about privacy, harassement, etc. don’t seem to think that Mr Rove has some rights too. Ok, maybe some would allow him the right to choose the type rope that he is hannged with.

    There is a reason why the Inquisition never failed to find a wrong doer. The Questioning was worse than the Penalty.

  42. bmaz says:

    Jodi – Regarding Plame, there is another reason, and the most likely one, that you have conveniently omitted; namely that engaging in an IIPA prosecution of Rove would either be impossible because the necessary evidence would not be declassified or, if it were to be declassified, would geometrically exacerbate the harm already done by the improper outing of Plame/Brewster-Jennings. I would assume that even you do not think it was appropriate to out them. Secondly, there is a big difference between the privacy interest of a normal citizen and any interest a public servant, such as Rove, would have in the actions he has taken in his public capacity.

  43. Jodi says:


    then you are saying that the prosecution was a charade!!

    I have heard some use that excuse before, and I don’t believe it. All the prosecutor had to do was to present the official from the CIA who would answer each of the points about Plame without exposing covers etc. Surely no more would be done than the Vanity Fair cover had already achieved.

    Then the question would wheel about and ask about the â€exposers†knowledge about her status.

    Essentially you would have a chinese laundry list of items to check off.

    The excuse of â€well it would have done more harm†doesn’t fly. If it somehow did, then the CIA shouldn’t have brought the charges, the prosecutor shouldn’t have pursued them when he couldn’t actually do anything, and it turns out to be a charade.

    I don’t know? Maybe I don’t understand. Are you really trying to tell me it was a charade?

    No bmaz, I don’t think she should have been exposed. It appeared to me that there was carelessness all around. With the State Department, with the CIA, with the White House, with the reporters, and
    finally with the Wisons themselves.

    There is a lot of blame to go around. But I don’t think that particular law was broken.

    I won’t tackle the comment about Rove.

  44. Neil says:

    Jodi: â€As for some of the other people on this blog, I am always surprised when people can’t argue the facts, and just call names. Then I reason that they are unable to argue the facts and only able to call names like kids in a sandbox.â€

    Pot meet kettle… Jodi, you are no different. You argue opinion and facts and you call names. When someone addresses you with an uncharitable description, you demonstrate your thin skin and use it as an excuse to drop the discussion. Yet, you’re back here again the next day arguing opinion, some facts, and on occasion, name-calling.

    I wonder about comment contributors who regularly post dismissive opinions. Why do they spend their time visiting frequently and posting if they find so little effective analysis or meritorious conclusions here? Seriously, why? I wonder why you come and whether you are who you say you are. As rex applegate inquired, why you don’t point your browser to http://www.justoneminute.typepad.com? I wonder why too. The Plamegate topic is covered and you may find the analysis and conclusions closer to your standards.

    I’m not encouraging you to leave; I’m just saying you might consider the nature of your own comments before critcizing others and drop the “it’s everyone else†act.

  45. Jodi says:


    a reasonable question. Why am I here, â€a voice crying in the wilderness?â€

    First I learn a lot.
    Second, I am able to test my thoughts. If I am off base then someone here will point it out. If they can’t then I must have logic and truth on my side.

    Call it a litmus test, to use a current vernacular.

  46. Neil says:


    Thanks for your response. I think you have two good reasons – not that it matters what I think – but the reasons are not apparent from your comments, and I don’t have to point out to you that your comments draw a lot of fire. Perhaps, there is something unintentionally inflamatory about your comments… or perhaps its intentional. The responses your comments elicit certainly seem consistent with one or the other.

    It’s not clear you learn a lot. Perhaps you would be well served to comment on what you learn and agree with, as well as what you disagee with.

    Testing yourself is another good reason. I will point out that a lack of response does not necessarily verify the truth or the logic of your comment but certainly posting a comment and drawing feedback is a good way to test yourself.

    In the vernacular, a litmus test means a person holds an opinion that qualifies them as suitable. In our soundbite world, I find litmus tests anti-intellectual – they do not consider the quality of the reasoning on which a person’s opinion is based. See you around.

  47. pseudonymous in nc says:

    My view: He wanted a bulletproof case against Rove before he indicted, he didn’t have it then, and they concealed evidence and he might get another sh

    My view is the same as that of bmaz: he knew that any indictment of Rove wouldn’t have made it to trial, given the tiptoeing over evidence required in the Libby case.