« Nowhere to Run | Main | The Next Open Thread - Scandal Edition »

July 18, 2005


Damn, I just posted these numbers on a reply a couple of threads down, after hearing them on CNN.

The funniest thing is that the numbers came out right as Bill Schneider was in the middle of explaining how this story was too complicated for people to understand.

You could hear him laying down rubber as he changed his spin.

-- Rick Robinson

Rick, even his own side knows he's a sleaze. Like DeLay, he's seen as a necessary evil.

To be clear, only 15% say don't fire Karl; 10% don't know pr have no opinion.

There is a link on Billmon at http://www.billmon.org/ to a Bloomberg story that has a new take on the INR memo--Fleischer was seen perusing it on Air Force 1; it was prepared on 7/7/03; on that date Novak called Fleischer; and on 7/8/03, the next day, Rove spoke to Novak.

yes, i linked in a comment on emptywheel's post today. The Note was impressed with Bloomberg's sources. Powell, presumably.

Josh Marshall has a good discussion of Bloomberg's report on the memo - apparently there were two of them, around June 10-12 and July 7.

Trying to riddle out the implications makes my head explode, but Marshall's implication seems to be that the source within State of the second memo is unknown, whereas the first evidently came from Carl Ford of INR.

I'm not sure where this all may point, but the prosecutors may have a better idea.

-- Rick Robinson

I just figured out why Rehnquist changed his mind about retirement.

Wouldn't you want to cap your career with an impeachment trial too?

I'm watching hardball, which, by the way, is all Rove all the time all this week.

Ann Kornbluth of the NY Times restores my faith that at least at the Times, you have to be a complete moron to get a job. This 'all feeds in to Dem and liberal fantasies about Karl Rove'. That's about her only observation. The Times must feel under seige.

John Fund is, of course, convinced Rove is completely innocent and uses the 'tempest in a teapot dome' line that's so highly thought of at NRO. All Rove is guilty of is perjury, so what's the big deal?

Unfortunately, I think at some point we will enter a quiet time. After that, no new significant news on this scandal happens until the grand jury convenes. I wonder how long we will have to wait for the grand jury to finish and hopefully indict, at least Rove.

SCOTUS is next, prolly be end of week. Indictments, if any, over the next three months.

Hopefully there are indictments in the next 3 months. This investigation has gone on for over two years. Yeah, the appeals, out of the way, so maybe it’s close to wrapping up. When things quiet down due to no new leaks, the Rethugs will claim they won. That will back fire on them though, if indictments follow soon enough after they declare victory. Please let at least Rove be indicted, preferably more, which may happen. I expect the Rethugs to declare victory soon. I think we are past the half way point of non Luskin leaks.

Actually a delay may not be bad. As time goes on, the American public seems to be slowly coming to its senses and seems to be starting to realize how STUPID the Iraq war was/is. If the indictments are delayed, public opinion may be much lower about the incredibly stupid Iraq war. Maybe, after Rove is indicted, they will ask, WHY was Rove doing this, which is a bigger scandal than even the outing of a CIA agent. I am at a total loss as to why the Bushies ever thought invading Iraq was a good idea, but it’s obvious that they were willing to lie and deceive and manipulate and slander and expose CIA agents to do it.

"Delay might not be bad." I agree. It would be nice if things quieted down until, say, the summer of 2006. Indictments announced in fall of this year with a trial to start sometime in, say, August of 2006. That would suit me fine.

On the other hand, I've been wondering how much of a trial (or even Fitzgerald's report) the Administration will classify. Given their past performance we may have an entire trial conducted in secret.

If the media (and the public) are shut out of a trial, will the media fight back or will it be relieved at not having to cover such "unpleasantness"?

After watching Bob Woodward on the Daily Show tonight, I think probably the latter.

Ms. Kornblut,

Reference your recent Newsweek article about Hilary's campaign Iowa

The buzz phrase "out there" adds no information to most sentences. It's annoying to read out there.

Richard Owen

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad