ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Saturday, May 20, 2006

OW Looks to 2008

Saw this post over at site.

Oliver Willis, Kingmaker
by Oliver Willis | May 19th, 2006 | 11:05 pm

Actually more like campaign ender - I hope.

I’m pretty open to the Democratic field in 2008. I’m no longer interested in who looks good on paper, but instead I want a Democratic candidate who isn’t afraid to say he or she is a Democrat. Someone who clearly understands the Republican noise machine and is capable of fighting it is a plus.

I’m on the fence and will probably remain so for some time to come, with Al Gore being the only possible candidate who I’d line up behind and run into the fires of hell with right now. I’ve been a Gore fan since 1988, when I first watched the Democratic convention at the tender age of 10.
I believe that is when Fred Phelps was a big Gore supporter as well, right?

And, what percentage of the Dem base would follw Algore into the fires of hell? They know he's become a joke, right? Or are they just insane?
That said, there are two possible candidates who are quite simply a no-go from now: John Kerry and Tom Daschle. They are both good men, but they’ve hit as high as they’re going to go electorally. Kerry lost the important 2004 race, while Daschle presided over a Democratic majority that rolled over for Bush and sent us off for war. They’re both great party loyalists, but are simply no-go.
Great to know that he's got some sense about him.... but I'm frankly surprised that he even has to bring their names up. I mean, does anyone in the Democratic Party (besides Kerry & Daschle, I suppose) think that these two have a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination, much less winning the Presidency?
My current rankings for 2008:
  1. Al Gore - right on Iraq, right on global warming, right, right, right
  2. John Edwards - owned up on Iraq, his time is now
  3. Mark Warner (tie) - being a governor is a plus, but he’s gotta “show me something”
  4. Hillary Clinton (tie) - the juggernaut with no definition
  5. Russ Feingold - right on the issues, but too many roadblocks
  6. Evan Bayh - probably too conservative for my tastes, but could make a splash somehow
  7. Bill Richardson - Wildcard. He’s a governor, riverboat gambler, and part of the New West
Barack Obama is the only other person than Al Gore who I’d line up with right now, but he isn’t running until 2012 or 2016 (hopefully 2016, taking the handoff from the Democratic president). Barack will win when he runs.

Look at that list... unbelievable. Their return to Algore might as well be a return to Carter. Been there, done that.... thank you very much.

Edwards is charismatic, but there's only so much that a nice hair can do for you, you know what I mean?

Mark Warner & HRC... yawn, wake me up when they get a personality, will you?

Russ Feingold - Ahh, the Kossacks cheer... Unfortunately, their support for Feingold hurts his chances.

Evan Bayh - This is the nominee I'm afraid of.... fortunately, none of the Moonbats (see OW above) in the Dem Party recognize his skills and they would kill his nomination before he says "Today, I announce my candidacy..."

Richardson - He's definitely a wildcard, but he probably has the best shot, given his border security position, ability to pull in the southwest, etc.

Obama - Well, I'm certainly afraid of him... not because of his skills per se (although he certainly is adept at the game), but because of the slobbering by the MSM anytime his name is mentioned for anything.

Now, the GOP has problems of its own when it comes to 2008... but don't you worry, the Karlmeister is cooking up some plans. It'll be like Twinkies to Oliver Willis.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Friday, May 19, 2006

Its 4pm, do you know where your indictments are?

So, its almost 4pm EDT, still nothing on any indictments on Karl Rove. The left side of the blogosphere must be in despair by now.

TalkLeft today started with a commenter detailing how this must mean that Karl took the deal! There is no indictment because Karl flipped on Cheney and Bush [and probably Hyde too], and impeachment is just around the corner!

Posted by phi x174
May 19, 2006 04:51 AM

if no indictment is forthcoming this week, there may be a simple explanation: Fitzgerald, through Rove, is after Cheney--and is willing to wait for it.

Why not have Rove sweat it out?

Rove's repeated requests(?) to appear before the grand jury would be sufficient evidence that his quarry is not handling the pressure--despite what what Big Media is selling us these days.

How about next Friday, May 26th, along with Cheney in the frog march?

I think it would be well worth the wait.

Keep hope alive! As they say, Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

The update from TalkLeft at the top of the post details a response from Mark Corallo (Rove's spokesman):

Bump and Update: This just in from Mark Corallo [via e-mail in response to a question I e-mailed him]:

Nothing going on. I was told by several journalists who were down at the courthouse that the Grand Jury was not meeting today. Of course, the GJ may be meeting at the undisclosed location (as VP Cheney is out of town and not using it today...)

Why do I get the feeling Mark is enjoying his job a little too much today.

Maybe Jason Leopold wants to come up with a new formulation for the indictment hand down instead of 24 "business" hours? How about 24 days?

Interesting thread on this subject over at DU (sent to me by Brian, but for soime reason he didn't think it was hilarious enough to include in this post!)
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts)
Wed May-17-06 05:01 PM
Original message

On a personal note...

It would probably be a good thing for the health and welfare of this community for everyone to stop beating the shit out of each other over this Rove story. This goes for me, too. I just got into a snipe-fest in another thread, and immediately felt stupid about it.

Those who have stood with truthout are owed a massive river of thanks. Your faith will be rewarded.

Those who have expressed doubts, and await further confirmation, are totally above reproach. If I didn't know what I know, if I was a DUer out of the fact loop truthout has been in, I'd be doing and saying exactly the same things.

Those who have made this personal - with me, with each other - should stop.

truthout was right on Saturday, Sunday, Monday, yesterday and today. We will still be right tomorrow and Friday, no matter what the goddam unbelievable lapdog mainstream media has to say (or more to the point, doesn't have to say) about it.

I understand your frustrations at the way this has played out; in fact, I call your frustration and raise it a billionfold. There are good reasons for this, and those reasons will be made clear when everything comes out. Those good reasons haven't made the process easier.

That's it for now. If I sound like a hypocrite for saying this, so be it. I'll take that beating standing up.

They were right then... they'll be right next year about a pending indictment of Rove!


Calipendence sees, you guessed it, a Rovian Conspiracy!
202. Interesting how Garland looks a lot like Natalie Portman in this pic?

The same Portman who was in two big films last year that has had themes against this administration! Just one more reason for us to identify with this pic!

This whole story is so frustrating to me too. I have to believe that William Pitt and Jason Leopold have been trying to do their job as responsible journalists, and either those on the other side giving them info have had their circumstances change drastically, or there is a massive plot to "out" folks like them trying to give us this important news.

If it is the latter, perhaps it is yet another warning shot from Karl Rove that they can even control sources to the point that journalists trying to do legitimate stories have to be paranoid about being outed in the same way, and that responsible journalism will be a rare commodity for us all except for those journalists that put their courage of doing the right thing in front of their fears of losing their careers.
That to me is what sucks about this more than anything else.

I can wait another week for Rove to get indicted. I DON'T want to see journalists feel more reason to cower to this administration and other powermongers in influential places, without the ability to do their job effectively. Which is one more reason I stand by these guys until we hear the whole story of what is going on!

As does OldtimeDFLer...

As does WiseButAngrySara (who's certainly angry, but not so sure about the Wise tag).

As does TwoSparkles...

ad infinitum...

*** END UPDATE ***

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: Brian

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

Preparing for Fitzmas - 6 Months Worth of Booze?

Well, just to remind everyone - each and every breathless Fitzmas post from the Left has been completely and totally off the mark. And in order to give everyone a good laugh, here is a Fitzmas Preparation post over at DailyKos from Tuesday, October 18th!!!. Yes, 6 months ago tomorrow!

Dealing With Fitzmas
by georgia10
Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 12:46:48 PM PDT
Hey, did you hear how USNews is reporting on rumors that Cheney will be resigning?

And, did ya hear about John Hannah??? No, not that one.

And, hey, did you know RawStory is such a tease? And Judy is a whore?

And, did you know that we're just hours (all right,maybe a couple days) away from FITZMAS???? Doesn't it feel like the hap-happiest time of the year??

And...and...don't 'cha just feel like you're going to exploooooooooooode?

10. Put down the caffeine: For the next 48 hours, cleanse your body of java, aspartame, splenda, and whatever other shit you've been putting in your system. Your body will be producing more adrenaline during Fitzmas than it did when you were a hormone-crazed teenager, so don't fuel the fire.
Man... being on that adrenaline high for 6 months must be a trip!

9. "Refresh" is the AntiChrist: Resist the urge to press "refresh" every TWO SECONDS. Checking into Drudge every minute won't make any indictments come any'll just give him hits and make Drudge's head swell even more. Eww. I put "Drudge" and "swell" and "head" in the same sentence. I just grossed myself out.
No wonder they're still waiting for Fitzmas... they haven't been looking at any new information!

8. Gossip Folks: Don't believe anything in the next 24-48 hours. Guess what!! I can report on my blog that Condi will be VP when Dick resigns...and because it's on a blog, it must be true! And my scoop will fly through the internets at twice the speed of sound and I'll be so convincing, Condi herself will hear my scoop and think "Shit. I need new shoes!" and next thing you know New York Daily News will be reporting that Condi was in NY shopping for Jimmy Choo shoes that look "Vice-Presidential" and Teresa Heinz passed her by and called her a "bitch." Get my point?
Oh, I get the point... Perhaps it should be shared with Jason Leopold?

7. Turn off the TV: Why submit yourself to the torture of watching The Situation Room and listening to Wolf's "I'm-reading-a-script-but-I'm-trying-to-make-it-sound-live" voice in the hopes that some pundit will throw out something like "Rove will be indicted"? You all KNOW that the talking heads don't know shit, and that their dirty little secret is that they really get their info from the, gasp!, blogs, so why waste your time? So, Kristol says Rove and Libby will be indicted. Um...99% of the pajamajadeen have said the same thing for the last couple months. Give your blood pressure a break and turn off the TV.
Fear information!

6. Don't listen to Tip #7: Well, do turn off the TV, but turn it on for Scotty's press conferences. Nothing eases the nerves and apprehension of indictments than watching Puffy McMoonface squirm as he fends off a resuccitated press corps. With Scotty spinning so fast, you KNOW there's some serious shit going down.
Embrace information!

5. Don't take off of work tomorrow: Yes, there are some of you who would actually skip work or school to stay home and catch the indictments breaking live. I've confessed to being a Plamegate junkie, but please. Those of you who view CSPAN as political porn need to put things into perspective. The indictments may not break tomorrow...and then what? You spent a whole day, one hand repeatedly refreshing dkos and drudge, the other hand holding a remote and flipping channels between CNN and MSNBC and, gulp, FOX, flipping and flipping and flipping and it'll all be for naught. So treat tomorrow just like any other day, use school and work as a distraction...and, um, did you hear blogging more than once a day can make you go blind?
Why do I have a feeling that some in Kossackville have indeed been taking off work, waiting for Fitzmas to break. Perhaps some of the folks that like hotdogs by the lake? Or this perpetually unemployed dork?

4. Visit Freeperville: Watch the tension melt away as you read about how Wilson was the leaker, how Fitzgerald is really a closet Dem f*&$ing Hillary at the Watergate hotel, and how Plame orchestrated all this just to get name recognition for 2008. You'll laugh, you'll cry, you might even throw up in your mouth a little bit. But it'll be a great distraction from the anticipation of Fitzmas.
Why do lefties always have to be so vulgar? This is what passes for intellectual and enlightened thought on the left...

3. Lower Your Expectations: Hey, it worked for Laura Bush. Don't expect too much from this. We don't know what was said in that grand jury room; about all we know definitively is that Karl Rove has a "typical" garage. Fantasies of Cheney being indicted and Bush as unindicted coconspirator are just that at this point--fantasies. Trust the Fitz to do what's right based on the evidence, and trust that the result will be as far as he was legally able to go.
Yes, trust the Fitz you must. Unless he doesn't indict Rove -then that mutha-@#%@%ing @$$h!LE is a plant by Rove to distract us from the no-bid contracts in Iraq - HALLIBURTON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2. Stockpile the Booze: Ok, you've lowered your expectations, but sheesh, don't be downer. No matter what comes down, these next couple of days will be explosive. So chill the Cristal (or the Guinness) and get ready. Also, compile a list of all the emails of your most die-hard GOP friends. Plan on sending them emails after the indictments, perferably after you've depleted your liquor reserves.
No wonder the Left has seemed to go completely off their rockers in the past 6 months: they're all piss drunk!

1. Enjoy the moment: Take a DEEP breath, and savor the fact that you're witnessing history being made. The outing of Plame was a vicious act, but nothing will be as sweet as watching justice being served.
History being made indeed.... they've got no clue...

I just hope they stockpiled enough ice to keep the Cristal & Guinness cold for these past 6 months. God knows that there's nothing worse than liquor that's been chilled, warmed, chilled, etc.

Will Rove get indicted? Perhaps. But, you can indict a ham sandwich and Fitz has shown over these past 9 months that he's on shaky legal grounds. So, if he does get indicted, it's unlikely that it would amount to much.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

I heard that too.....

Truthout has a new post on the "impending" indictment of Karl Rove defending their story from Friday that has the left all atwitter for the past 5 days. This new post comes exactly 4 days, 15 hours, 7 minutes and 7 seconds after they first reported that Karl had been given 24 hours (since revised to 24 "business" hours) to turn tail, after already having been indicted (on a double secret sealed indictment).

Guess that hasn't happened...

So what new news do they have for us?

For the past few days, we have endured non-stop attacks on our credibility, and we have fought hard to defend our reputation. In addition, we have worked around the clock to provide additional information to our readership. People want to know more about this, and our job is to keep them informed. We take that responsibility seriously.

Translation: "Man, we thought we'd be hailed as the next Woodward and Bernstein, but everybody wanted more details to our facts, especially when things didn't pan out like we said they would."

Here's what we now know: I spoke personally yesterday with both Rove's spokesman Mark Corallo and Rove's attorney Robert Luskin. Both men categorically denied all key points of our recent reporting on this issue. Both said, "Rove is not a target," "Rove did not inform the White House late last week that he would be indicted," and "Rove has not been indicted." Further, both Corallo and Luskin denied Leopold's account of events at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm that represents Karl Rove. They specifically stated again that no such meeting ever occurred, that Fitzgerald was not there, that Rove was not there, and that a major meeting did not take place. Both men were unequivocal on that point.
Translation: Those lying liars!
We can now report, however, that we have additional, independent sources that refute those denials by Corallo and Luskin. While we had only our own sources to work with in the beginning, additional sources have now come forward and offered corroboration to us.
Translation: See! We told you they are lying liars! We've gotten corroboration! From multiple sources! Super secret, smart, unbiased, factual sources. Sources that know where Jimmy Hoffa is buried! Where the missing socks from the dryer go! Sources that know where Kerry's magic hat is! Honest!

We have been contacted by at least three reporters from mainstream media - network level organizations - who shared with us off-the-record confirmation and moral support. When we asked why they were not going public with this information, in each case they expressed frustration with superiors who would not allow it.
Wow.. Mary Mapes (of CBS Rathergate fame) was a "reporter" for a "network level organization wasn't she? Pardon me, if I hold out for some more concrete evidence than "I heard that too" (that phrase seems familiar) and a "Go get em Tiger".

So other than some other liberals in the media perhaps holding a grudge against the administration what else did you learn?
We also learned the following: The events at the office building that houses the law firm of Patton Boggs were not in fact a very well-guarded secret. Despite denials by Corallo and Luskin, there was intense activity at the office building. In fact, the building was staked out by at least two major network news crews. Further, although Corallo and Luskin are not prepared to talk about what happened in the offices of Patton Boggs, others emerging from the building were, both on background and off-the-record. There were a lot of talkers, and they confirmed our accounts. We do have more information, but want additional confirmation before going public with it.
So the news media was staking out the building, but I don't see a tape on the CBS evening news with Fitz walking out of the office of Patton Boggs do I? And no mention if the others emerging from the building were attorneys involved in the 14 hour negotiation or just the cleaning staff.

The additional information is probably how the Secret Service was there to protect Karl from the Bush Family Evil Empire. You know people have died for less than flipping on the Bush or Cheny. Or the number of cute brown puppies that were electrocuted for entertainment purposes around the board room table during lulls in the negotiation.

So what about the 24 hour timelimit? Its way past 24 hours, 24 business hours, the last episode of 24, etc.


We reported that Patrick Fitzgerald had, "instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order...." That does not mean that at the end of that 24-hour period, Fitzgerald is obliged to hold a press conference and make an announcement. It just means that he has given Rove a 24-hour formal notification. Fitzgerald is not obliged to make an announcement at any point; he does so at his own discretion, and not if it compromises his case. So we're all stuck waiting here. Grab some coffee.

So basically, we'll maintain our story was correct (or fake but accurate) until we turn blue in the face, since we all know we may never know if Rove has been secretly indicted....

Talk about moving the goal posts.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: Brian

Why Are We Still Talking?

What's the point? The EU is putting their powerpoints together, making sure every "i" is dotted and every "t" is crossed. Unfortunately, before they can even make the pitch, the nutjob who is the figurehead of Iran keeps telling them that he doesn't give a damn....

Iran scorns EU atomic incentives
By Christian Oliver

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday ruled out any idea of halting nuclear fuel work in return for EU incentives, saying the Europeans were offering "candy for gold."

Britain, France and Germany, the European Union's three biggest powers, plan to offer Iran a light-water reactor as part of a package to induce Tehran to freeze a uranium enrichment program that the West suspects has military dimensions.

"They say we want to give Iranians incentives but they think they are dealing with a four-year-old, telling him they will give him candies or walnuts and take gold from him in return," Ahmadinejad told a crowd in the central city of Arak.

Arak is the site of a heavy-water nuclear reactor that Iran is building despite opposition from Western countries concerned that the plant's plutonium by-product could be used in warheads.

"Iran will not accept any suspension or freeze (of nuclear work)," Ahmadinejad said in a speech that was televised live.

The EU seeks an end to Iran's nuclear fuel activities as the only credible guarantee that it is not making atomic weapons. Tehran insists it needs the fuel only for power stations.

"We trusted you three years ago and accepted suspension but unfortunately this proved to be a bitter experience in Iranian history. We will not be bitten by the same snake twice," Ahmadinejad said of European diplomacy.

Iran suspended uranium enrichment work in 2003 as a goodwill gesture while it tried to forge a diplomatic solution to the stand-off in talks with France, Germany and Britain.

But the diplomacy failed and Iran resumed work on atomic fuel in August last year.


Ahmadinejad warned that pressure on Iran over its nuclear program could produce adverse reactions. "Don't force governments and nations which are signatories to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to pull out of it," he said.

The permanent five members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany have delayed a meeting on Iran scheduled for this week to allow more time to prepare the EU proposal, a British Foreign Office spokesman said.

The United States has taken a wary approach.

"The package has not yet been agreed," UnderSecretary of State Nicholas Burns told Reuters. "It is under development and we'll be meeting probably next week in Europe to look at it. I'll be going over to London for conversations."

An EU diplomat familiar with the negotiations on Iran said on Tuesday the EU3 and Solana were planning to offer Tehran a European light-water reactor if it suspended enrichment.

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said he hoped the incentives would pay dividends when diplomacy kicks off again.

"I hope it does resume and that all parties will go to the table with an open mind," he told reporters in Tokyo.

Nuclear experts say light-water reactors are harder to use for weapons purposes than heavy-water plants such as the one under construction in Arak.

The EU trio first proposed offering Iran light-water technology in 2005, after two years of negotiations. At the time, the Iranians said the offer lacked specific incentives.

EU diplomats said the new offer would be more specific, partly because they were confident of U.S. support.

But they made clear they saw little prospect that Iran would accept, and were aiming above all to demonstrate to sceptics such as Russia and China that the West was not trying to deprive Iran of civilian nuclear energy.

Or, to paraphrase:

Civilized World:

Nutter Running Iran: "Perhaps you're not listening to the words that are coming out of my mouth. Perhaps I should speak slower: 'We... are... going... to... develop... nuclear... weapons... (and crush the Zionists in the holy land and around the world, securing my place in history as the 12th imam! Allah willing). Man, what is with you people?!

Anyone want to bet that China & Russia won't do diddly when Iran demonstrates what they've been demonstrating to the world since the Islamic revolution, namely that they're completely off their rocker and don't respect international law?

This is the problem of allowing your national security policies to be governed by the interests of those outside of your nation.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Another 24 hours.....

Still no indictment. Will Fitzmas never come?
Tom Maguire at Just One Minute has a update to his post yesterday detailing comments from Walter Pincus of the Washington Post:

Pincus believes that the Bush administration acted obnoxiously when it leaked Valerie Plame’s identity, but he has never been convinced by the argument that the leaks violated the law. “I don’t think it was a crime,” he says. “I think it got turned into a crime by the press, by Joe” — Wilson — “by the Democrats. The New York Times kept running editorials saying that it’s got to be investigated — never thinking that it was going to turn around and bite them.” The entire Plame investigation, he says, has been a distraction from a more fundamental conversation about how the White House handled evidence before the war.
Got that, fellow conspirators? The whole Plame kerfuffle is just Another Rovian ConspiracyTM designed to take the heat off Bush for lying us into war! That Rove, he's such a Genius!

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: Brian

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

Still waiting for Fitzmas...

To go with the earlier post on the possible Rove indictment from the Saint yesterday, here is the denial from Luskin (Rove's attorney) helpfully provided by Jeralyn Merrit from TalkLeft.

1. Luskin stands by his April 26 statement in its entirety.

2. Karl Rove's status has not changed. They remain confident Fitzgerald will decline to bring any charges.

3. There is "no truth whatsoever" to any of Jason Leopold's recent stories about Karl Rove's resignation, the alleged meeting in his office or the Indictment. The denial he gave me Saturday night was and was intended to be "all purpose."

4. As far as he knows, Patrick Fitzgerald was in Chicago on Friday.

5. People should not interpret their "unwillingness to comment on every wild and malicious rumor as a change in position."

Translation? Don't get all excited all you netrooters out there. It ain't going to happen in the next 24 hours, the next 24 business hours, or until after the next episode of 24. Jason Leopold's sources were full of it, and he breathlessly reported it.

Luskin sent an email to Jeralyn with the above denial, but also adds the following:

Update: Some verbatim quotes from Bob Luskin, reprinted with permission:

The cat's fine, thanks. Her stool sample shows no evidence of harmful parasites, which is one of the big differences between my cat's stools and this case. i do, occasionally, take a day (or, if i can, an evening) off.

On his belief that Fitzgerald was in Chicago Friday,

To paraphrase 'my cousin vinnie,' even in this investigation, the laws of physics apply.

Any time you can work in a quote from My Cousin Vinny is probably a good day for a lawyer.

Jason Leopold also provided quotes to TalkLeft:

5. Jason said he is sure of his sources and he has multiple sources for his article. He continues to maintain there was a meeting at Luskin's office Friday with Fitzgerald that began around 11:30 am and that Fitzgerald gave Luskin a copy of the charges and said Rove had 24 hours (which everyone present understood to be business hours since the courts are closed on the weekend) to get his affairs in order. Jason's sources said the Indictment was already voted on by the grand jury.

6. Jason says he was told the meeting lasted 14 1/2 hours and Rove was present with Secret Service detail. Jason did not ask the sources whether Fitzgerald or Rove was there the whole time. In other words, Rove and his lawyers may have met for hours after Fitzgerald left to discuss an offer from Fitzgerald. Jason believes the offer was ultimately rejected by Rove.

7. Jason does not believe his sources are setting him up. He thinks Corallo is not being truthful with York and Gerstein.

8. Jason thinks the announcement of Rove's indictment will come any time after Tuesday of this week.

14 and a half hours? 870 minutes? It ended at 3am Saturday? Pardon me, but if it took that long for negotiations of an already voted on indictment, then Fitz's case is in deeper trouble than I thought. Or his skills as a prosecutor are worse than we've been led to believe by the MSM.

We've all seen the cop shows. You present the offer, you present a limited timeframe to respond, and you leave. What would take 14 hours?

Why does Karl Rove have Secret Service detail? Other than the left wing nuts after him, he doesn't hold a cabinet position, etc. This little bit, makes the story seem "sexier" than it is. Brings to mind the Secret Service testifying against Clinton.

Come on Jason, saying after Tuesday is ok (although why if he already is indicted it takes till Tuesday to announce it is beyond me), but whats the outer limit? Just saying "after Tuesday" could mean years right? If Rove isn't indicted Wednesday are you going to write a correction? Thursday? Friday? What about next Tuesday?

Inquiring minds want to know....

See Michelle Malkin & this Hot Air vent for more. (Note that Michelle mentions a Rovian Conspiracy... sssssssshhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!)

Also, check out this blog (Move On and Shut Up), which is liveblogging the indictment, minute by minute.

***Update II***
Dwilkers over at Just One Minute had the following description of how the Cheney "notes in the margin" probably looked in the Office of the Vice President (emphasis mine).
Heh. That guy has the same reaction to the notes in the margin I had. I've been imagining the conversation that morning in the VP's office for a while now.
Cheney: Scooter! Get in here and close the door!
Libby: Yes sir.
Cheney: What the f&*% is this?
Libby: (pauses to read) I don't know sir.
Cheney: Who the h%^& is this guy?
Libby: I've never heard of him sir.
Cheney: (glares)
Libby: We could ask Tenet sir.
Cheney: Tenet? George Tenet? The Director of the CIA? The one that sent this guy? Pro Bono?
Libby: If that's true, yes sir.
Cheney: (presses intercom) Mary? Get me Tenet on the line please.
Response: Yes sir.
Cheney: So let me get this straight. This guy....Wilson?....yeah. The CIA asks this guy to go to Niger to see if he can get anything on the uranium thing. He's not an employee of the agency and never has been, he spends a week sitting by the %&^$ing pool and now he's calling me a liar in the NYTimes. That about it?
Libby: seems like it may be sir.
Cheney: Is it true his wife works at the agency? Is that correct
Libby: It seems as if I may be hearing that for the first time sir.
Cheney: Is this the way the CIA does things nowadays Scooter? The C %^&king IA of the USA?
Libby: I don't know sir.
Cheney: (sweetly) Well do you think you could find out what's going on here then?
Libby: On it sir.


Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: Brian

Something's Gotta Give

This is why India has better long-term prospects over China. At some point, something's got to give and, as history has proven time and again, when those in power have guns and don't recognize the rule of law or dissent, it's probably not going to come out in the people's favor. (I hear the snickers in the heads of the Moonbats as they read the last sentence... But keep in mind that you're idiots. When Kos is thrown in jail for 12 years, we'll talk.)

Chinese Internet writer sentenced to 12 years
Tue May 16, 2006 8:28 AM ET

BEIJING (Reuters) - A Chinese Internet writer was jailed for 12 years on Tuesday for "subversion of state power" after backing a movement by exiled dissidents to hold free elections, his lawyer said.

Yang Tianshui, 45, who has been in custody since last December, did not plan to appeal, a protest against a trial he felt was illegal, his lawyer, Li Jianqiang, said.

"We expected the result, but we are still dissatisfied because he is innocent," Li told Reuters.

It was one of the heaviest prison terms meted out in recent years to an Internet writer. Writer Shi Tao was sentenced last April to 10 years in prison for leaking state secrets abroad.

Yang is one of several Internet writers and journalists being tried this month, amid what analysts say is a tightening of controls on media and freedom of expression.

Yang was charged after posting essays on the Internet in support of the "Velvet Action of China", a movement named for the "Velvet Revolution" that peacefully overthrew communist rule in the former Czechoslovakia.

He was also accused of illegally receiving overseas financial assistance and plotting to form provincial chapters of the outlawed China Democracy Party.

Yang, who was tried in the coastal province of Jiangsu, refused to answer questions from the prosecutor or judge, his lawyer said.

A member of the China chapter of International PEN, the movement founded to defend freedom of expression, Yang has a history of coming up against China's communist rulers.

He previously served 10 years on "counter-revolution" charges for condemning the military crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators on Tiananmen Square, the Committee to Protect Journalists said. He was released in 2000.

The tough sentence comes a day after the lawyer for New York Times researcher Zhao Yan said the case against him had been revived, dashing hopes for his imminent release. He has been held since September 2004.

Zhao's lawyer, Mo Shaoping, said he did not know what charges were on the new bill of indictment or whether a date had been set for trial.

China was the leading jailer of journalists in 2005 for the seventh consecutive year, the Committee to Protect Journalists says.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

The Blogswarm That Wasn't

The Left-side of the blogosphere is all atwitter over the announcement that our Chief Conspirator, Karl Rove, has been indicted by Fitzgerald. Karl Rove is the number two search on Technorati this hour and it was the number one search for several days.

As with much of the commentariat on the Left, there's little evidence other than breathless speculation about their desire to see Rove "frog-marched out of the White House."

Well, at some point Rove will march out of the White House, but it'll be closer to 2008 and I doubt that it would resemble anything frog-like. Although Tom Magquire says the indictment will be handed down in the month of May. Keep in mind however that you can, indeed, indict a ham sandwich.

See this post by Tom Maguire over at Just One Minute. Here's some of the highlights:

TruthOut helpfully provides a compendium of Mr. Leopold's earlier work on this investigation, so we can see for ourselves how often Rove has been near indictment before.

Let's note that the latest story has already evolved slightly - here is the current lead:
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent more than half a day Friday at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm representing Karl Rove.

During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.

The original report gave Rove "24 hours"; the correction to "24 business hours" was inserted after, well, nothing had happened in 24 hours. Personally, I have heard folks speak in terms of business days, but never "business hours" - if Federal guidelines require clerical overtime after an eight hour day, does this really mean that Rove has Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday to get ready? Maybe that will be the next clarification.

And no worries - if nothing happens, no less a reporter than Steven Leser has already stepped up to explain that Mr. Leopold was the innocent dupe of a subtle yet vicious BushCo disinformation campaign.

Why is it that our best disinfo campaigns are always uncovered?

*** UPDATE ***
Here's the blog post that started it all... a post by Jason Leopold of TruthOut which the Left has seized on.
Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report

Saturday 13 May 2006

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent more than half a day Friday at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm representing Karl Rove.

During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.

Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, did not return a call for comment. Sources said Fitzgerald was in Washington, DC, Friday and met with Luskin for about 15 hours to go over the charges against Rove, which include perjury and lying to investigators about how and when Rove discovered that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA operative and whether he shared that information with reporters, sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said.

It was still unknown Saturday whether Fitzgerald charged Rove with a more serious obstruction of justice charge. Sources close to the case said Friday that it appeared very likely that an obstruction charge against Rove would be included with charges of perjury and lying to investigators.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Monday, May 15, 2006

Phone Numbers being tracked!!!!

by the NSA, you ask?

Well, no... an organization more nefarious than No Such Agency.


it's Radio Shack.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

St. Louis Post-Dispatch Piece of Trash

Haven't had one of these posts on the St Louis newspaper, but had to post on this editorial about health care insurance:

Insured, but not covered


People buy health insurance so they can get expensive medical tests and treatment if and when they need it. That may be obvious to most of us, but it seems to have eluded some Republicans in Congress.

Actually, people buy health insurance so someone else pays for their healthcare, regardless of whether it's expensive or not. If they need a $25 prescription, they ask "What's my copay?" If they need a $100 prescription, they ask "What's my copay?" If their doctor recommends that they have an elective procedure they ask, "What's my copay?"

I'd like health insurance to cover lasik eye surgery... and once they do cover it, I'll be first in line to get my eyes zapped. It's called economics... it's a lot more painful for me to pay for the procedure than to rely on everyone else to pay for it.

Sen. Jim Talent, R-Mo., is among those pushing a bill that would transform perhaps 600,000 of the nation's 46 million uninsured into under-insured. It's an attempt to confront the political but not the social problems caused by our dysfunctional health care financing system.

Sponsored by Sen. Michael Enzi, R-Wyo., the bill is similar to others Mr. Talent has introduced in the past. Mr. Enzi's measure stalled in the Senate last week, but he's threatening to resurrect it later. His idea is to allow small businesses to band together to buy insurance across state lines. They could then offer more affordable health insurance to their employees. Sounds like a good idea.

But in order to make insurance affordable, the bill would remove state minimum coverage requirements for policies purchased by these so-called "association health plans." The notion is that premiums would drop if insurance companies didn't have to cover things like cancer screenings and annual exams for diabetics, as most states now require.

Meanwhile, this study by a well respected actuarial firm seems to have some positive news regarding the bill.

I have a strange feeling that cancer screenings and annual diabetes exams are not specifically eliminated by the bill, but rather are items which the Democrats and the MSM are using to kill the possibility of something other than socialized medicine from making headway. Why yes, these two procedures seem to be mentioned prominently in every Dem press release (and editorial on the subject)!
The bill is part of a wave of Republican-sponsored "reforms" like Medical Savings Accounts premised on the demonstrably false assumption that health spending is out of control because Americans get too much care. That, the theory goes, is because we don't pay for it directly. In fact, individual Americans already pay a larger share of their health care costs than people in any other developed nation, and their share has grown rapidly in recent years.

love the scare quotes. It's almost as if the Post-Dispatch has "journalists" on its editorial board.


Actually, yes.... we do receive a lot of care. Especially when you compare to all of those "developed nations" where people wait months for simple procedures (and where some end up dying on the waiting list).

As I've always pointed out, ask someone what a visit to their doctor costs. They'll tell you the co-pay, but won't have a clue as to the actual charge that's going to the insurance company. If they had to pay that out of pocket and then fight to get the insurance company to reimburse them (and not even pay for the expense out of their HSA), people would be much more sensitive to the actual costs of healthcare. Heck, just asking their doctor what the fee is would be a start.

Healthcare Savings Accounts and the Association Pooling plans are ways to make sure that people get coverage that they cannot get today. Despite the fawning press of Romney's Massachussetts plan, when faced with the choice of paying an annual fine of $250 per employee per year for not providing healthcare benefits or of paying $1500 per employee per year to actually provide the healthcare benefits, which do you think the employer will choose? The HSAs attempt to get you to save for your own healthcare in the future, while covering you for preventative (yes, preventative!!!) care and high-cost emergency services.

But hey - let's not let the economic considerations of scarcity and human nature get in the way. Wouldn't want to let those small issues get in the way of moving towards our socialist utopia. The editorial continues, but it's really not worth reading...

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Liveblogging the Presidential Address

Thought it'd be a good idea for the conspiracy to liveblog the Presidential address.

Here are my initial thoughts:
It'll be interesting to see how Bush navigates his way through the competing interests of the anti-immigration GOP/Dem base and the pro-immigration GOP/Dem elites.

Regardless of what he says, the MSM will portray Bush as throwing "red-meat" to the "anti-Hispanic" base of his party. In reality his position will be a middle-of-the-road proposal that likely will garner support from the rank & file of both parties.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

The Border

Bush's speech tonight will apparently include a proposal to send thousands of National Guard troops to the border. In total, this is a good thing, as it is absolutely necessary that the US be able to protect its border. I assume that the troops will also be sent to the porous Canadian border, especially since there's been at least one attempted terrorist infiltration from up north.

Here's a WaPo story on the matter:

Bush Set To Send Guard to Border
Assignment Would Be Temporary; Critics Cite Strain on Troops

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 15, 2006; A01

President Bush tried to ease the worries of his Mexican counterpart yesterday as he prepared for a nationally televised address tonight unveiling a plan to send thousands of National Guard troops to help seal the nation's southern border against illegal immigrants.

Mexican President Vicente Fox called to express concern over the prospect of militarization of the border, and Bush reassured him that it would be only a temporary measure to bolster overwhelmed Border Patrol agents, the White House said.

"The president made clear that the United States considers Mexico a friend and that what is being considered is not militarization of the border but support of Border Patrol capabilities on a temporary basis by National Guard personnel," said White House spokeswoman Maria Tamburri.

Yet the idea has further stirred an already volatile debate about immigration on both sides of the border even before the president makes his prime-time speech from the Oval Office at 8 p.m. A number of Democrats and even a few key Republicans voiced skepticism or outright opposition to the reported plan yesterday, calling it a politically motivated move that will only further strain units already stretched by duty in Iraq without solving the underlying problem of illegal immigration.

"We have to be very careful here," Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) said yesterday on ABC's "This Week." "That's not the role of our military. That's not the role of our National Guard. . . . That's a short-term fix, and I'm not sure that's a very wise fix."

The White House formally insisted that no decision has been made and that Bush was still considering options yesterday. But aides left little doubt that the president intends to call for an expanded Guard deployment at the border involving several thousand troops, a significant increase from the 200 or so now there.

Officials suggested their mission would be to play a supporting role by providing intelligence, training, transportation, construction and other functions, while leaving the actual guarding of the 2,000-mile line separating the United States and Mexico to the Border Patrol. The National Guard would be a stopgap force until the federal government could hire civilian contractors to take over administrative and support functions from the Border Patrol, freeing more agents to actually hunt for immigrants slipping into the country.

"This is not about militarizing the border," national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley said on CBS's "Face the Nation." "The president is looking to do everything he can to secure the border. It's what the American people want, it's what he wants to do."

The plan won support from several powerful Republicans. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) dismissed the "whining and moaning" of critics and said the National Guard was the only option in the short term.

"We've got to secure our borders," Frist said on CNN's "Late Edition." "We hear from the American people. We've got millions of people coming across that border. First and foremost, secure the border, whatever it takes. Everything else we've done has failed, we've got to face that."

If this is purely about providing support services to the Border Patrol and making them more effective, I'm all for it. But if we're moving the National Guard in with humvees armed with .50 cals, I've got serious concerns about the potential problems.

Ultimately, the borders need to be sealed. But we also have to improve the efficiency of processing would-be legal immigrants so they don't resort to illegal means. We need to increase the caps, improve background checks (in terms of efficiency and effectiveness) on immigrants, and improve the process of assimilation for them once they are here (ie formalize the path to fluency in English and citizenship). It's good that early indications show that Bush will discuss these items as well.

Without these steps, sealing off the border with troops is a Quixotic dream. We need to recognize the economic realities of our immigration situation...

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

The Progressive Democrat Atheist - And Holocaust Denier

Just an anomaly, I'm sure...

Candidate: Holocaust didn't happen
By Jay Reeves
The Associated Press

BIRMINGHAM -- A Democratic candidate for attorney general denies the Holocaust occurred and said Friday he will speak this weekend to a "pro-white" organization that is widely viewed as being racist.

Larry Darby concedes his views are radical, but he said they should help him win wide support among Alabama voters as he tries to "reawaken white racial awareness" with his campaign against Mobile County District Attorney John Tyson.

The state Democratic chairman, Joe Turnham, said the party became aware of some of Darby's views only days ago and was considering what to do about his candidacy.

"Any type of hatred toward groups of people, especially for political gain, is completely unacceptable in the Alabama Democratic Party," said Turnham.

Speaking in an interview with The Associated Press, Darby said he believes no more than 140,000 Jewish people died in Europe during World War II, and most of them succumbed to ty phus.

Historians say about 6 mil lion Jews were slaughtered by the Nazis, but Darby said the figure is a false claim of the "Holocaust industry."

"I am what the propagandists call a Holocaust denier, but I do not deny mass deaths that included some Jews," Darby said. "There was no systematic extermination of Jews. There's no evidence of that at all."

Darby said he will speak today near Newark, N.J., at a meeting of National Vanguard, which bills itself as an advocate for the white race. Some of his campaign materials are posted on the group's Internet site.

"It's time to stop pushing down the white man. We've been discriminated against too long," Darby said in the interview.

A poll published last month indicated the Democratic race for attorney general was up for grabs. The survey showed 21 percent favored Tyson to 12 percent for Darby, but 68 percent of respondents were undecided.

Darby, founder of the Atheist Law Center and a longtime supporter of separation of church and state, said he has no money for campaign advertising and has made only a few campaign speeches.

So, if this Dem wins the nomination, would Kos/OW/et all be forced to support *gasp* a Republican?

We'll wait with baited breath.

Oh, and sure... this guy is some right-wing mouth breather who is just running as a Dem to embarrass the party, right? Well, from the positions he promotes at the Atheist Law Center, it becomes quite clear that he at least shares the goals of the secular progressives in the Democratic Party:
The Atheist Law Center is a non-member, not-for-profit corporation (see our IRS certification) advocating globally the enlightened concept of absolute separation between religion and governments. The Center's legal existence was recognized by the government on September 11, 2002, the first anniversary following the faith-based terrorist attacks in New York City, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C.

The Center is the only legal advocacy firm in the United States dedicated to attaining complete government neutrality in matters of religion, which includes ending government acts of "ceremonial deism" and other accommodations of religion encroachments against all citizens.

The Center is the only legal advocacy firm in the United States dedicated to advancing the civil rights of citizens who are atheists, per se, by challenging religion encroachments against government and defending atheists who are victims of workplace or other discrimination.

He's a kook, yes.... but he's a Democrat kook.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler