« Osama (R-Pakistani Border) Wins | Main | Politics And Elections: All Outrage Is Local »

September 29, 2006


Ol' Karl never gets questioned about anything, thanks to his demand for post-interview control over whether his comments are on the record. I'd love to see him asked questions on any of the news-talk shows, even Faux. If we're lucky we'll see Tony Snow interview him someday.

From Abramoff to Reed, January 18, 2002 2:28 p.m.:

I have an urgent matter for him. The Choctaws [the Mississippi Choctaws were an Abramoff client] -- who have given literally hundreds of thousands to our candidates and groups - are getting screwed at DoJ [The Department of Justice] on a jail funding . . . We really need some serious swat from Karl. I have asked Susan [Ralston] to get me in to see him on this, but if you could mention it, perhaps I could get him the materials and save the need to meet? Thanks Ralph.

Reed to Ambramoff, January 20, 2002 10:57 p.m.:

TIME 10/22/05

In 2002, the Department of Justice released the money to the Mississippi Choctaws.

I wonder if KR figures in Woody's book, now available in NYT sneak preview.
On the construction project, the way I remember, there was a wholesale shift quite a few months ago, a time beyond which a lot of building activity was let lapse, with a redirection of effort to completing the 5,000 occupant mini-city the US is building on the riverbank in the way south part of Baghdad; this is the walled city which is to house the new US embassy, as well.

The committee report said Abramoff and his team were in frequent contact with Ralston, who was once Abramoff's executive assistant and who in February 2001 went to work in the same capacity for Rove.

Ralston passed along information about prospective political appointees and helped Abramoff's team "secure access to the White House and obtain photo opportunities for clients," the report said. It cited 69 e-mails and other contacts between Ralston and the Abramoff lobbyists, and said she was treated to tickets to sporting events on nine occasions.
Susan Schmidt WaPo 9/30/06

meant 9/29/06 WaPo by Schmidt

Apologies for being OT, but from reading the NY Times and WashPost stories about Woodward's new book, it seems as if Andy Card -- who is clearly a major Woodward source -- is anti-Rove and anti-Cheney (and anti-Rummy). OK, that doesn't exactly put him in rarified company, but the extent of Card's criticism is striking. He compares the Iraq debacle to Vietnam. Again, he's not the only one in the country who has ever done that. But he may be the first Bush administration insider to ever utter the comparison, that I'm aware of anyways.

Card has obviously been a long-time candidate for the 1x2x6 (perhaps being edged out in recent weeks by Barlett) thing, but maybe the new Woodward book will enhance the likelihood of his involvment as an anti-Rove, anti-Cheney leaker/testifier.

I'm no expert on the book publishing business, but I wonder if the Woodward book will include the recent Armitage stuff, or if the book was already past the galley stage and sent to he printers at that point. I also wonder if it will include any new nuggets on the Plame front. I'm doubtful, since Woodward has motive to poo-poo the whole thing. But hopefully there will be more Card or Bartlett revelations.

Jim E

Yeah, I saw that about Card. I think it's almost impossible he's 1 in 1X2X6, because he was, at the same time, giving the WH 11 hours to clean out their files before they got the official word about keeping evidence.

But I will raise another coinkydink that is there in the back of my mind--Card (and Scottie) were made to resign at the same time as Fitz was supposedly figuring out how 250 pages of emails got hidden. He would be far and away the most interesting witness on tampering with evidence charges.

And seeing as how I've got 50 hours of plane flights in the next week and a half, I suspect I'll be doing book reviews here.

Any predictions on the chances that any of these latest Abramoff revelations will result in further indictments?

the 250 pages of emails is the story I just read that was reported by Leopold. Does anyone have a court transcript?

does anyone think there is some sort of connection to the abramoff plame stuff? or is it just the grand jury that's the same

robbie c

You will find most of the court filings and transcripts here. That transcipt is probably the 2/24/06 status hearing transcipt, which you will find in the discovery section.

Did Leopold ever publish anything this week?


I haven't seen you around for awhile, nice to see you're back.

Waas has a book out

What Cheney Told Libby: Dispatches from a White House on Trial: A Field Guide to the Trial of Scooter Libby, Former Chief of Staff to the Vice-President

Have you read the previous Woodward books about Bush? I haven't, and from what I'm hearing, this latest book would seem to contradict a decent amount of the last book (in terms of the massive disunity Woodward is now reporting). Anyways, it would be cool to read what you had to say about Woodward's latest.

Novak on Plame again... commenting on Hubris. Novak clearly can't read.

It also reveals the anonymous source of that bogus Post story – falsely described as a "senior administration official" -- as Adam Levine, an obscure mid-level communications aide who soon left the White House.
Novak 9/28/06

wow! thanks Polly. I've been trying to find those court filings. I haven't seen anything from leopold at all. Do you guys think that Waas isn't writing anything now because he's working on a book?

Jim E

I read Plan of Attack. It is actually a very useful book. While he clearly gives the Administration spin on certain things, he does show deliberative process. He does a great job of depicting the clash between Dick and Powell, for example. So in that sense, this seems to be a continuation of that.


Two more interesting bits in that Novak screed.

The book not only fails to use what I have written in my columns as my account of the Valerie Plame case but also distorts my position. I faced a dilemma in December 2003 because, in seeking the identity of my source, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald was going to confront me with waivers from every official who conceivably could have told me about Valerie Wilson. "I did not believe blanket wavers in any way relieved me of my journalistic responsibility to protect [my sources]," I wrote last July 11. But the dilemma was resolved when Fitzgerald showed up to interview me with waivers from only my three sources. The prosecutor had learned their names on his own, so there was no use in not testifying about them. Corn and Isikoff sloppily misrepresent me by saying that my dilemma came after Fitzgerald appeared with the three waivers ("crunch time for Novak") and that I gave up their names under pressure from the special prosecutor.

This is an even worse description of his "dilemma" than the first time. It describes the dilemma in terms of having to testify about others, not his sources. He suggests what he had to protect was anything from anyone else.

Also missing is the July 2004 report by the Senate Intelligence Committee's Republicans, unchallenged by the Democratic minority, which undermined Wilson's conclusions from his African mission and undercut his insistence that his wife did not suggest him to the CIA for that mission.

This is Novak's same lie again--suggesting a conclusion supported by just four Repubilicans was "unchallenged." Not even all the Republicans would put their name on that shit, much less a single Democrat.

Foley's name stays on the ballot

If the name of the new nominee is submitted after the certification of results of the preceding primary election, however, the ballots shall not be changed and the former party nominee's name will appear on the ballot. Any ballots cast for the former party nominee will be counted for the person designated by the political party to replace the former party nominee
Florida statute per TPM Muckraker

I noticed Plames name above.

First time in days or even weeks?

I guess the (f)plame has died.


Ok, I know, but it would look better if I had some kind of character control over here.

yo polly, lieapold currently has an article up on truthout about the condiliar, if that's what you're looking for

he's peddling the "bush did nothing" angle, which makes me think lieapold is shilling for the Clintons

anybody ever seen a shitstorm like the one the repuglicans are in right now ???

Card? speaks.

Whats the point of interviewing Rove? ...nothing he says is true and is probably part of some plan that he has in the future. Hes a total abomination and should sent to a prison where he can be someones bitch.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad