From Jim Gilliam's blog archives
"Remind me, how long is he going to stay on staff?"

July 14, 2005 5:00 PM

Raw Story has the transcript from today's gaggle w/McClellan. Some fantastic questions on Rove. I love it when the press smells blood.

"Does the President believe it's appropriate for the RNC to continue to weigh in on this matter? They put out another memo today, with a top-10 Joseph Wilson lies. If indeed it's an ongoing investigation and it's improper for the White House to discuss it, does he think it's proper for the Republican Party to weigh in on it?"

"Did the President get his news yesterday about Justice Rehnquist's health from media reports?" blah blah blah McClellan.. "So why is it acceptable for him to base his information about the Chief Justice's health on news reports, but not about an investigation within the West Wing? What's the distinction there?"

And the best... "Remind me, how long is he going to stay on the staff?"

More from the archive in Corruption, Karl Rove Scandal, Valerie Plame.

"Remind me, how long is he going to stay on staff?" (07.14.2005)

Next Entry: Wal-Mart corporate goes to Washington (07.18.2005)
Previous Entry: John Gibson Hates America (07.14.2005)

Read the 19 comments.

Jason Golod:

My question is, why hasn't he just up and quit? Who the hell would want his job?

Fri Jul 15 2005 1:04 AM


Tom from Madison:

How about a little truth in job titles?

Bush's press secretary would better be known as the "Obfuscator General".

I agree, it definitely takes a special breed to repeatedly stand between the People and the truth.

Fri Jul 15 2005 3:51 PM


Right Wing Robby:

This story is just starting to come out now. This weekend the Dems will be moving away from Wilson as the facts begin to arise. And thus will end another failed attempt to take down the Administration.

Who's next?

Fri Jul 15 2005 7:15 PM


Tom from Madison:

RWR:

YOU ARE SPINNING BIG TIME!!!

I hope you caught Face the Nation yesterday. Wilson himself was on and very persuasive that we need to find out who is blowing the cover of CIA agents and for what purpose. REAL PATRIOTS want to know because it's in the best interest of America. I'm sure Neo-cons wouldn't tolerate James Carville doing the same thing in Clinton's Whitehouse.

Progressives and Liberals need to stay on message. We told you these guys were corrupt. Now we're proving the particulars. Corroboration already exists. Remember Paul O'Neill? Richard Clarke?

The press in general have started doing their jobs again. Bob Schieffer has suddenly found his voice and is asking tough questions.

Contrary to your hopes, this issue won't go away. This administration is playing politics with national security. Whether anything criminal has occurred will be determined by the investigation and possibly by the courts. Impeachment is a very real possiblity.

This is yet another example of the Administration putting LOYALTY BEFORE TRUTH. We need public servants, not law-less rogues!

Mon Jul 18 2005 10:34 AM


Sponge Bob:

Today’s New York Times reports that Novak testified that he called Rove—just as Cooper had—and that Rove did not give any indication that Plame was undercover. The Times further reports that Novak testified Bush’s right-hand man was merely his second source. If true, this explodes the Left’s theory that Rove was shopping the story for any willing taker. It also adds credence to the likelihood that he had no clue Plame’s status at the CIA.

Given that Cooper didn't talk to Rove until Novak's story was on the wire - Plame was hardly "outed" by Rove.

Mon Jul 18 2005 1:00 PM


Anonymous:

Bob:

I didn't realize you read the NY Times or valued what they printed.

Are you talking about online or print version?. Please cite the specific article. I'd be interested in reading the WHOLE thing myself.

I'd like to be able to take your word for it, but journalistic integrity demands documentation of sources!

Mon Jul 18 2005 3:00 PM


Tom from Madison:

The last post is mine.

Mon Jul 18 2005 3:01 PM


Anonymous:

Witty for a dim.

Mon Jul 18 2005 3:04 PM


Sponge Bob:


"I'd like to be able to take your word for it, but journalistic integrity demands documentation of sources!"


Perhaps you should send that gem to Chris Matthews or Dan Rather.

Mon Jul 18 2005 3:05 PM


Anonymous:

Novak may be a focus of the investigation as well. It's possible he colluded after the fact, in order to protect Rove. Novak has been a staunch Republican for decades.

Mon Jul 18 2005 6:41 PM


Dave E.:

While the wingnuts here desperatly labor to polish this massive, stinking Rove turd (also known as holding party above country), the rest of America sees this as pretty simple:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=949950

25% of Americans believe the Mayberry Machiavelli's are cooperating with the investigation.

75% believe Rove should be poop-canned if found he leaked classified info (and for anyone that watched MTP Sunday, leak also means CONFIRMING classified information).

71% OF REPUBLICANS POLLED ARE INCLUSIVE IN THE ABOVE

But alas, we see the wingnuts who frequent this here site hold steady with party, even when that means bona fide treason is suspected. Treason. Stripping the CIA of its DO deep cover agents and front companies. "The most insidious of traitors..." George H.W. Bush

At least it's comforting to know the cute little wingers here aren't indicative of the Republican party as a whole in this case. That glaring stat just emphasizes that the wingers we argue with here are definitely the lunatic fringe of the chaff of the wingnuts. Not quite freepers, but close.

Mon Jul 18 2005 10:41 PM


Dave E.:

Correction. It's definitely not "bona fide treason" as I stated above. What I should have said was traitor. Treason is when somebody is in collusion with an enemy.

Rove hasn't been accused of treason yet, but if there was political gain to be had I doubt he'd be above that either.

Tue Jul 19 2005 3:48 PM


NJGuardsman:

Have you even read the statute?

I want to see how you prove Karl Rove: wittingly, knowingly, deliberately tried to expose a CIA office worker.

Nevermind the fact her husband outed her on his resume on his website, or the she got him the job and trip to Niger.

Tue Jul 19 2005 4:16 PM


NJGuardsman:

Read it and worry:

The law only criminalizes disclosures by a person who knows the operative is a "covert agent" and who "intentionally" reveals the information to someone unauthorized to receive it. It also requires that intelligence agencies be actively trying to hide the identity of the agent and that the person revealing the agent's identity be aware of those efforts.


http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/showcase/la-na-rove15jul15.story

Tue Jul 19 2005 4:30 PM


Dave E.:

Clearly it's not me that should be worried. The CIA is pushing this, not partisans. Apparently its legit enough to have a special prosecutor appointed to ramrod the investigation. Special prosecutors don't come around that often, and when they do, it's a Big Deal.

This is what leads me to believe there is real substance to this. Yes, I was aware of the ambiguities of this particular law and it was something that was admittedly puzzling. If this law seems so explicitly hard to break, what's all this hullabaloo about?

Well, I think you find the answer to that question in this hullabaloo even existing. This simply would not be happening, or have grown to the size it has, without both the CIA and special prosecutor Fitzgerald being damn sure national security has been compromised severely.

In other words, I'll believe their institutional expertise and access to the facts over your amateur partisan hackery and pure speculation anytime.

This is also not to mention its become serious enough to render the White House totally mute. That doesn't happen - almost ever. When the type of hubris typically displayed by BushCo gets silenced, this humble citizen takes notice.

Remember what Bush said about this initially, back when the White House didn't mind commenting on this "ongoing investigation"? He said if he finds out the source of this LEAK he would "take care of them". When asked later to specify if that meant firing them, he said "yes". Man of his word? Once again, doesn't look like it.

And Bush's little toadie McClellan also said that any notion of Rove being involved was "totally ridiculous". Now that I think of it, Totally Ridiculous is a pretty good characterization of this administration.

Tue Jul 19 2005 8:55 PM


Anonymous:


Liberals no realizing Rove committed no crime will begin to focus their hate on Roberts.

Wed Jul 20 2005 3:06 PM


Sponge Bob:

"Clearly it's not me that should be worried. The CIA is pushing this, not partisans. Apparently its legit enough to have a special prosecutor appointed to ramrod the investigation. Special prosecutors don't come around that often, and when they do, it's a Big Deal."


Senator Chuck Schumer who wrote the letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller demanding the investigation. Schumer isn't a a partison - another round of KoolAid for Dave.

Here is a copy of Schumer's letter:

http://schumer.senate.gov/Schu...releases/PR01888.html


Wonder why Schumer didn't write a letter demanding an investigation in to CIA "agents" that give their reports to the NY Times?

Wed Jul 20 2005 3:42 PM


Dave E.:

You're right Spongey. Not only would it be disingenuous to claim Schumer didn't have partisan leanings, but it'd be foolish. That's why I didn't claim that. To imply that Democrats would not encourage and support this investigation would be foolish. That's why I never implied that. Once you brush up on your reading comprehension, you'll discover that what I DID claim was that the legal beginnings of this whole affair began at the behest of the CIA. Not Schumer's stupid letter.

How far does this need to be dumbed down before the average wingnut understands? I swear, this is what it must feel like teaching a monkey sign language.

A.G. Ashcroft news conference Sept. 30 2004:
"The Department of Justice received from the Central Intelligence Agency a request for a criminal investigation concerning a possible violation of federal law regarding an alleged unauthorized disclosure of classified information. After a prompt review of this request, the criminal division of the Department of Justice, with the assistance of the FBI as the lead investigative agency, opened a full investigation."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/2003/intell-031001-rferl-144906.htm

Spongey, put down your little wingnut prism and get with the program.

Senators of all stripes write letters demanding stuff all the time. Anybody with any sense knows this. These letters are eyewash and only penned to make them look good for their constituents; they carry no teeth. If you think Schumer's letter is solely responsible for beginning this investigation...there is no hope for you. Ever. You didn't think that...did you? Yikes.

This all began with the CIA. Not some vast liberal conspiracy, much to your chagrin (or ignorance).

Consider your little "a-HA!" balloon deflated.

Wed Jul 20 2005 9:55 PM


Tom from Madison:

Dave E is correct.

No matter how the Bush loyalists try to spin this, Rove and company deliberately and with pre-meditation decided to play politics with the national security.

This speaks volumes. Rove, Bush, and company put their political power above everything else--including the safety of the country AND the war on terror.

The message for the 2006 election should be clear. Let's vote people of integrity into office. Too many Republican lemmings are following Bush & Company off the edge of the cliff.

Republican rule was supposed to be values-based. The values turned out to be power and greed. This message needs to be taken to all 50 states, especially the red ones.

Fri Jul 22 2005 10:05 AM


Jim Gilliam
Jim Gilliam

Email:







Add to My Yahoo!

Last week's soundtrack:

jgilliam's Last.fm Weekly Artists Chart