I'm including two links:
First, the Byron York piece, which is based on interview material with Rove's lawyer.
Second, Rich Galen's short essay (link should work for about a week, then check Galen's archive for 7-15-05) for his inside baseball politics list. Galen's essay captures my own feelings of how things will likely go. I think the White House hangs tough and the tempest is over by August.
John Podhoretz has an interesting followup to the York piece on Counselor Luskin:
ReplyDeletehttp://corner.nationalreview.com/05_07_10_corner-archive.asp#069334
And am I correct in surmising, per my earlier blunder, that Blogger does not support clickable links in comments? If that's right, it's a real drag.
"Does that mean that you think despite the president's assurances that he'd fire anyone in his administration who had leaked her cover that Rove shouldn't be fired?"
ReplyDeleteUm, I hate to confess I heard it on Limbaugh, since he's anathema to our friends on the left, but I must credit the source.
Mr. Tlatoc's indirect quote is not of Bush's but of Harry Reid's misrepresentation of it. Bush said that an illegal leaker would be taken care of, as in exposed to and not shielded from the legal process.
Dang them partisan talking points. Sloppy and unreliable.
Nihil desperandum, my righty friends. Rove broke no law, he stood up for his guy ala Lanny Davis (whom I admire) against an unscrupulous attack from a guy who would spout off/exaggerate because needed a job. He sold a few books, and oh, yeah, got yet another unpaid gig for a few months.
(I figger if I'm going to break my own rules, I'll quote Coulter, too. Disprove her if you can, my BDS friends.)
If Ms. Plame had reason to be concerned about repercussions for her CIA contacts, she wouldn't have done a photo spread for Vanity Fair. Her photo distributed worldwide would be far more harmful than Rove's oblique reference. But as noted elsewhere on TRC, she didn't exactly drive an Aston Martin with rear mounted dual water cannons.
If she were as hot as our press is making her out to be, she should be shot along with Rove. But she wasn't, and it'll come out. She wasn't a spook, she was a well-known functionary, and her husband used her access to try to get himself back in the game.
(To Miz H---I believe this post illustrates that Blogger Comments accepts copious HTML links. Shoot a note if you need a leg up. You are obviously a thorough person, and only a heel would doubt your provenances. Still, that's the world in which we live.)
Tlaloc, the stories I've read don't demonstrate the kind of airtight case you've been pushing. It looks, dare I say it, much more nuanced.
ReplyDeleteIt also doesn't seem clear that Rove has ever not "fessed up" as you say. According to his lawyer he has been completely open throughout the process.
Drudge Report
ReplyDeleteNo, there's nothing pertinent at Drudge Report. (Although McCain Stars in Boob Raunch Fest reminds one of the glory days of Matt, before he got all serious and wonky). I'm just testing the theory that I can overcome my disability and code html by hand.
It's distressing that so many Nixon-era kids, like Rich Galen, fall back so easily on Nixonian denials for crimes committed on their side.
ReplyDelete