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

Friday, June 16, 2006

Standing Down on the Rove Matter

"Because, you know.... at some point, we just start to look stoooopid". At least, that's my translation of this post from Marc Ash at the soon to be defunct "". (How long can a blog go on when it refuses to admit that it was wrong and/or lied to and won't correct the record?)

Standing Down on the Rove Matter
By Marc Ash,
Thu Jun 15th, 2006 at 02:05:52 PM EDT

Yesterday, most Mainstream Media organizations published reports about a letter supposedly received by Karl Rove's attorney Robert Luskin. As an example of the supposed letter's contents, TIME Magazine stated that, "Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald said or wrote, 'Absent any unexpected developments, he does not anticipate seeking any criminal charges against Rove.'"

Truthout of course published an article on May 13 which reported that Karl Rove had in fact already been indicted. Obviously there is a major contradiction between our version of the story and what was reported yesterday. As such, we are going to stand down on the Rove matter at this time. We defer instead to the nation's leading publications.
But, we are so intellectual that we can hold these same contradictions in our head at the same time. And, hey... since we're just a bunch of idiot bloggers with pure partisan political motives, we're going to hand this over to the MSM to do the heavy lifting - even though our story (which proved to be total b.s.) was already being treated as fact by the MSM.

Mainstream Media (or the "corporate media to the moonbats"), PLEASE SAVE US FROM OURSELVES!!!

In that Mr. Luskin has chosen the commercial press as his oracle - and they have accepted - we call upon those publications to make known the contents of the communiqué which Luskin holds at the center of his assertions. Quoting only those snippets that Mr. Luskin chooses to characterize in his statements is not enough. If Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has chosen to exonerate Mr. Rove, let his words - in their entirety - be made public.
Luskin's cojones are so huge that he's lying about a communication he received from the Special Prosecutor, the very person who holds in his hands the fate of his client.

And, since we're a bunch of putzes that no one trusts anymore, we're asking the MSM to adopt our moonbat position and demand, DEMAND!!!, that Fitzgerald tell us who he isn't going to indict each week.

Reporter Jason Leopold

Mr. Leopold did not act alone in his reporting of this matter. His work, sources and conclusions were reviewed carefully at each step of the process. There is no indication that Mr. Leopold acted unethically.

Please keep in mind that over the years we have reported on many examples of individuals being scapegoated in crisis situations by superiors seeking cover from controversy. Truthout, however, does not do scapegoats. And we stand firmly behind Jason Leopold.
Not only was this a failure of Leopold, but the entire TruthOut Organization. And we're proud of it!

This ship is sinking and we're all going to go down with it! Hey, where's the band? I could use some entertainment one last time! Someone tell Dan Rather & Mary Mapes that we'll be joining them shortly!

The Confidentiality of Our Sources

As journalists, nothing is more critical to being able to report guarded facts than the guarantee of confidentiality we provide to our sources. Truthout has never compromised the identy of a confidential source. We will protect our sources on this story, as we have on every other story we have ever published.

Expect a more comprehensive accounting of this matter on Monday, June 19.

Marc Ash
Executive Director - Truthout
We won't be revealing our sources, nevermind whether it ruins our reputations and our careers!

Well, perhaps in 24 "business" hours... we'll get back to you! But don't hold your breath and you can go ahead and uncork that booze.


Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Thursday, June 15, 2006

Cynical Democrats and the Talk of Amnesty for Iraqis Who Killed American Soldiers

Just when I thought I was done writing op eds for a few days, Senator Chuckie Schumer and the the Usual Suspects jumped on the news that the Iraqi government was considering amnesty for insurgents who killed American soldiers.

What incredible cynicism. The Senator should know, and probably does know, that amnesty is routine at the end of a war or revolution. If it were not so, Robert E. Lee would have danced at the end of rope. The good Virginian who is held in nearly universal high esteem was responsible for the deaths of more than a few American soldiers, to the tune of several hundred thousand. Without it, peace is nearly impossible.

Like it or not, we are in a war. The men on the other side are doing exactly what we are doing, killing the enemy. That is what combatants do in war. War crimes are a separate issue, for instance the beheading of hostages. The placing IEDs or sniping at Americans is the only way they can fight their war given our overwhelming technical superiority. They will be deemed soldiers Geneva nothwithstanding. When the war ends, in the name of peace, amnesty universally follows. Even the South Africans found it in their hearts to give amnesty and reconcile when their conflict came to an end.

Finally, amnesty is also a carrot. It is used to encourage the end of hostilities. It gives the enemy fighters hope and a reason to lay down their arms. It is a tactic. In the end it can help bring an end to further killing.

When Senator Schumer and his fellow dwarves took to the camera and microphone this afternoon I erupted. I apologize for my passion and lack of artful writing in this post. But Good God and Sweet Sonny Jesus (Full Metal Jacket), I have had it with these phony Democrats who will say anything, ANYTHING, if they think it will give them a momentary political advantage.

They should be run out of town on a rail.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: MontereyJohn

Update: The Iraquis have said they will NOT be giving amnesty. This obviously is in response to the dustup initiated by the Senate Dems. All this has done is delay what is going to happen sooner or later. At some point if the killing is to stop, there will have to be an amnesty for non-war criminals. Nice job Schumer, how many deaths will result from your political opportunism?

Casualties of War and Other Concerns

With Zarqawi dispatched to the Brothel Eternal and the president safely back from Iraq, it seemed a good time to take a sober look at a serious subject, what we have paid in Iraq in human terms and where we might be going.

For months I have thought about a post on the subject of casualties we have sustained in Iraq. It is not an easy subject upon which to post. Afterall, one death or maiming is awful. Any attempt to put casualties in historical perspective has an apparent element of calousness. But without such perspective it is difficult to ascertain where we are. Casualties are one of the standards by which we measure success and failure in warfare. With the approaching 3,000th death of an American soldier, and knowing full well what the MSM and their allies on the Left will do when we reach that number, I felt compelled to say something to try to bring a bit of perspective.

Let us pick some incidents or engagements at random, say September 11, 2001. How many Americans were killed that day? 3,000 or so? How about June 6, 1944 (D-Day), roughly 4,000 killed on the first day. Battle of Gettysburg, approximately 25,000 casualties of all kinds over three days. Battle of Fredericksburg, 15,000 in one day. Antietam? Shiloh? Anzio? Ardennes?

Truth be known, the casualties suffered in Iraq in over three years of fighting, less than 20,000 of all kinds, less than 3,000 killed, are incredibly light. One can find fault with much about what has been done militarily in Iraq, but casualties is not one of them.

Would Patton, MacArthur, Grant ot Sherman have fought this war as we have? I do not think so. Those were generals who knew the way to keep the total number casualties as low as possible was to crush the enemy and to do so as quickly as possible. "War is hell," in the immortal words of Sherman. While the upfront casualties would certainly be high, by ending the war quickly, the total casualties over time would be significantly lower. This was the theory advanced by Colin Powell before we went to Iraq. His advice was not followed.

And it is here that I find fault with what we have done. We have not applied the force necessary to bring this war to an end. I was opposed to this war from the outset in part as I thought we might end up exactly where we are, fighting a battle of attrition in a place where we are hugely outnumbered. This is not a formula for success. We are depending on our Iraqi allies to pick up the slack. I hope we are right, but I am not convinced. We should have done it ourselves if we were going to do it at all, as we did in The South, Germany and Japan.

Be that as it may, we are where we are. The moonbats are wrong in their cut and run thinking. The Peace (Copperhead) Democrats are wrong in their calls for a "timetable" for withdrawl. (Can you imagine if we had set a timetable for the conquest of Nazi Germany?) The job will be over when it is over.

While casualties are not an issue at this point, they could well become one if we do not do what is necessary to obtain victory. Perhaps the president and Rumsfeld are right and the Iraqis will "standup" for themselves. I do hope so. But what if they do not? We seem be be betting the ranch on a questionable hand.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: MontereyJohn


Flipped over to Drudge, and apparently Reuters (who else?) could not wait for the deaths in Iraq to get to 3,000.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Thu Jun 15, 8:29 AM ET
The number of U.S. military deaths in the Iraq war has reached 2,500, the Pentagon said on Thursday, more than three years into a conflict that finds U.S. and allied foreign forces locked in a struggle with a resilient insurgency.

Tourist walk hand-in-hand towards the White House, around a mock coffin representing a dead U.S. soldier left there by anti-war protesters in Washington, June 14, 2006. (Jason Reed/Reuters)"

The Long Knives come out for Lieberman - and the DSCC

If only the "progressives" hated Al Qaeda & terrorists more than they hate Joe Lieberman. If only they transferred their passion for defeating Joe Lieberman to defeating our sworn enemies... perhaps then we could win this war in a shorter timeframe.

The progressives are alarmed, ALARMED!!!, that Sen. Chuck Schumer would dare, DARE!, include Joe Lieberman on his Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) website and promise to continue supporting Joe as an independent.

OliverWillis sums it up this way:

Think, Then Think Again

If Sen. Schumer and the DSCC endorse and support an independent Joe Lieberman in the event that Ned Lamont wins the Democratic primary they are going to have hell on their hands. I don’t expect the DC establishment to be big boosters of Lamont’s candidacy (and I’ve made clear I wish progressive activists would bring the energy from that race to, you know, the rest of the progressive infrastructure) but for the DSCC to not support the Democratic candidate for Senate in a state?

That’s the sign of a party who actively wants to destroy itself.

And Firedoglake - new entry to the Lefty Moonbat Blogroll (well deserved and much too late, folks!) - provides this "analysis":
The Democratic Incumbency Protection Racket
By Jane Hamsher @ 4:30 pm

DSCC Mission.jpg

So Chuck Schumer, head of the Democratic Incumbent Senatorial Campaign Committee sees no problem in supporting a Holy Joe "Cut-and-Run 2006" independent candidacy over dedicated Democrat Ned Lamont.
Now we’ll skip over the irony of Chuck Schumer boasting about the Tester win. (I myself am rather happy that the Mavericks are doing well against the Heat , but I’m also aware that I had about as much to do with that as Schumer had to do with Tester’s victory.) No, we’ll go straight to the main course — this is all about incumbency protection. The preservation of entrenched power and maintaining the status quo. The big, fat bird that most Democrats flipped the netroots during the Alito confirmation? Multiply it times ten, they’re flipping it to every registered Democrat in the nation now. It’s All About Them.
[... the rant continues on...]
Of course, this is all moot since Joe-mentum Lieberman is going to kill Ned Lamont. 0-21 Kossacks & Moonbats!

Why is Chuckie doing and saying these crazy things? Well, it's in the tea leaves:
Lieberman's support from Republicans and unaffiliated voters changes little whether he runs as a Democrat or an Independent.

The impact among Democrats is quite different. Running as the party's standard bearer, Lieberman attracts 68% of the vote from the party faithful. However, if Lamont is the Democratic nominee, Lieberman earns just 43% of the vote from Democrats in the state. Lamont gets 32%.
Even if Lamont wins the nomination, Lieberman still beats his patootie among Democrats if he runs as an independent. I've often said that the "progressives" are out of touch with mainstream America, but it appears that they're even out of touch with their Democratic base.

Chuckie isn't interested in who wins the primary - but who will vote for party leaderhsip. And he knows that Joe, even if there's an "I" after his name, will cast the vote in line with the Democratic Party. And, should Lamont win the primary, I wouldn't be surprised if the DSCC supports both candidates - buttering both sides of the bread (which can be messy).

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

An Inconvenient Truth - Algore Gets a Smackdown

Before we all worship at the altar of Algore, since his film Inconvenient Truth about his quest to stop Global Warming has about the same "truthiness" as his quest to stop Manbearpig on an episode of South Park (cereally).

Here's the smackdown, excerpted in full:

Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient - to alarmists

By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

So we have a smaller fraction.

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Hmmm, perhaps this isn't about CO2 and more about what's causing the CO2 - ie, economic activity?
Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karlén concludes.

The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."
I think he just called Algore a liar!!! Oh no he din't!
Karlén explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karlén

Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."

Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."

Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.

It's also important to note that Global Warming researchers have consistently lied about the Medieval Warming Period, in order to increase the fear about a huge uptick in temperatures. See here and here for more info on the "hockey-stick".

No doubt these researchers will be declared blasphemers by the disciples in the Church of Algore. You know, the kind of people who would leap into the fiery pit of hell with Algore because the love him so much.

Also see this column by Jonah Goldberg at NRO regarding Algore's inconvenient use of the Holocaust as a metaphor for global warming. (Oh, and Cars was a good movie - go see it!)

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Rove - On the Offensive

It appears that given the news from the past few days, Rove is going on the offensive (and surely making moonbats across the country have a conniption).

This video from New Hampshire on Monday night shows Rove stating the obvious.
(H/T to Ankle Biting Pundits)

Which, when tied with this new information about Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda & the Taliban in Afghanistan must totally make the moonbats furious.

heh... the reality based community indeed.

Your Co-Conspirator,
St Wendeler

Luskin speaks

Karl Rove's lawyer Robert Luskin gave an interview to Anna Schneider-Mayerson of the New York Observer where he gives some interesting comments (emphasis mine).

Actually, it’s the media—not the prosecutor’s office—that he’s angry at, and especially the bloggers. Mr. Luskin was eager to portray the suffering of his client as a function of media attention and speculation, rather than real danger of a conviction.

“It seems to me that there are lots of constituencies who have treated this as the story too good not to be true,” he said. “And people have all had their own reasons—whether they’re political, whether they have to do with opportunities to put themselves forward personally, whether or not they are motivated by efforts to show up the mainstream media.”
Jason, methinks he means you, specifically. How's that retraction going by the way?
He recalled an episode from last month, when a report on the liberal Web site, written by Jason Leopold and citing “high-level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting,” claimed Mr. Rove would be indicted on charges of perjury and lying to investigators, the results of a marathon session of negotiations in Mr. Luskin’s office that he claims never occurred.
(Mr. Leopold and his editor have stood by his report.)

Yep, I think that makes it pretty clear cut. He is talking about you, Jason. Just let your readers know how you were duped by the sources that lied to you. When are we going to let us judge their credibility ourselves?

And how about this little tidbit into the modern operations of the mainstream media?

The weekend Mr. Leopold’s story went online, Mr. Luskin said he had “mainstream-media reporters calling me saying, ‘I’m embarrassed to make this call, because I know this can’t be true—I’ve covered this story, I understand the process, I’ve got my sources—but my editors tell me I need to call and ask, “Is there any truth in this?”’

Right. Embarassed. Uh-huh. Got it.


Tom Maguire of JustOneMinute is as usual already covering the issue.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: Brian

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

Alert - Jason Leopold Still in Denial!!!

Jason Leopold and Marc Ash are continuing to peddle their "story" that Rove has already been indicted - and that it's under a double-super-secret seal, to the point that the indictment is Sealed v. Sealed. Apparently, Fitzy is so concerned about keeping it sealed that he couldn't even put "US" as one of the parties.

Anyway, Leopold is going to take to the airways and take some tough questions from Ed Schultz... wait, well... he's going to take questions, but I doubt they'll be "tough."

Reporter who published indictment report to make radio appearance
Published: Tuesday June 13, 2006

Jason Leopold, the reporter who asserted May 13 that Karl Rove had been indicted in the CIA leak case, has scheduled an appearance on the nationally syndicated Ed Schultz talk radio show at 3:30 PM ET, RAW STORY can reveal.

Truthout editor Mark Ash continues to stand by the indictment report, and a second piece yesterday in which Leopold asserted that Rove's indictment might be sealed.

"We are stunned by the magnitude of the reaction to the article we published yesterday morning," Ash said. "We have put our cards on the table. We invite Mr. Luskin to do the same."

"To clarify: The entire basis for the information that 'Rove has been cleared' comes from a verbal statement by Karl Rove's attorney. No one else confirms that. As Karl Rove's attorney Robert Luskin is bound to act - in all regards - in Rove's best interest. We question his motives."

No indication has been given of the nature of Leopold's appearance. He has said previously that he would out his sources if he believed he had been misled.

And sure, it's a great strategy for Luskin to go to press and make false assertions about what Fitzy's going to do - the very guy that could indict his client. What's the probability that Luskin would say Rove's in the clear without having Fitzy first communicated that to him? ZERO. However, in the "reality based community" hope springs eternal, apparently.

For some reason, I don't think Jason will be outing his sources today. But I will be listening.

Visit Ed Schultz's site to listen online.

*** UPDATE ***
Here is a link to the mp3 of the audio of Jason Leopold's discussion with Ed Schultz. It's quite amazing how wild-eyed and nutty Jason is... And it's clear in this interview and in Ed's subsequent discussions with "progressive" callers that Ed is frustrated as I am about Leopold's unwillingness to disclose the sources that lied to him.

It's also important to note that this isn't just Leopold, but the entire TruthOut "organization" that is going to go down the tubes. During the interview, Leopold said that the decision to stay by the story that Rove has already been indicted was a decision by the organization - not just Leopold. Well, it was a good run, TruthOut. You're toast.

Leopold's basic defense was this:
  1. Rove has been indicted and I'm sticking by that b/c I believe it
  2. Luskin's a liar and until Fitzy confirms Luskin's statement I'm sticking by my story.

Unfortunately for Leopold, Special Prosecutors don't go around each week telling everyone who they're not going to indict.

So, it appears that Leopold will be the next wild-eyed conspiracy theorist making the rounds on the talk shows and being made fun of.

They do kinda look like they're related, huh?

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Bush in Iraq to Meet New Government

What a marvelous gesture this is. There are days when I am very proud of W, and this is one of them. Well done Mr. President.

This ought to send the moonbats into orbit. I can not wait to hear what they have to say.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: MontereyJohn

Update: Welllll, that didn't take long! I flipped over to see what the DUers had to say. It's the usual crap, and if you want to see it, go there yourself I'm not going to link.

Today is about the USA and the president's show of solidarity with a people who greatly need our help.

The "Reality Based Community" goes through the 5 stages

Welcome Best Of The Web readers! Be sure to check out these other related posts:

Reading the firedoglake synopsis of the news of Karl Rove being cleared today, brings into mind a certain Simpson's episode. In the episode, Homer is told by Dr. Hibbert that he's got a terminal disease and will die soon and goes through the Five Stages of Grieving:
Dr. Hibbert: Now, a little death anxiety is normal. You can expect to go through five stages. The first is denial.
Homer: No way! Because I'm not dying!

Dr. Hibbert: The second is anger.
Homer: Why you little!

Dr. Hibbert: After that comes fear.
Homer: What's after fear? What's after fear?

Dr. Hibbert: Bargaining.
Homer: Doc, you gotta get me out of this! I'll make it worth your while!

Dr. Hibbert: Finally, acceptance.
Homer: Well, we all gotta go sometime.

In this single post at Firedoglake the reality based community as a whole is in different stages, but they are all there.

Let's tick them off as we go, shall we?

First a lot of DENIAL, such as this excerpt from Christy Hardin Smith at
I’ve said this before, and I will say it again: unless and until I hear it from Patrick Fitzgerald, the investigation continues to be ongoing. Which means that there are still potential developments down the road, should the evidence (like handwritten marching orders on the Wilson op-ed in Dick Cheney’s handwriting) lead there.


Phoenix Woman says:
June 13th, 2006 at 5:27 am
Exactly. How many times has Gold Bars lied to the press in the past? Gazillions. And as Jeralyn and you note, all this probably means is that in the war between Rove and Cheney to see who can throw the other under Fitz’ bus, Rove most likely has the upper hand.

immanentize says:
June 13th, 2006 at 5:36 am

It is as expected — Rove has cut a deal. I am very surprised Luskin used the “will not seek charges” against rather than the “will not seek any conviction/indictment” against. My guess is that there is some charge (maybe a misdemeanor?) already hanging over Rove. OR, there is a threat of serious indictment if he does not continue to cooperate. It is the only way to keep him on the leash. Unless, of course he is utterly innocent :~)

Zergle says:
June 13th, 2006 at 5:37 am

Thank you Phoenix Woman @ #8. You took the letters right out of my fingers.

We have no information from any source other than Luskin. None. Are you willing to believe him outright? With no supporting evidence? None whatsoever?

Sure the statements may be true, but they could also be VERY selective about what facts are being revealed. Until the letter is provided (yeah right) or we can get confirmation of the specifics of this letter from someone other than Luskin, we’re basing everything on the statements of a lawyer for a spin-master.

Steve Clark says:
June 13th, 2006 at 5:55 am

The New York Times lost any credibility it had during Judy Millers “era’. This strikes me as a rovian reverse Leopold manuever.A phoney headline. I’ll believe it when I hear it from Fitz.

Jason Leopold is certainly still in denial

Second step - ANGER:
Jane S. says:
June 13th, 2006 at 5:28 am

I guess David Shuster’s “tea leaves” were wrong and I won’t even bother to mention Leopold.

Mike says:
June 13th, 2006 at 5:56 am

Beyond a reasonable doubt, we can now say Jason Leopold and Truthout are liars and can be banished forever to Wayne Madsen-land.

There is no greater crime than giving false hope to a liberal.

Mr. Leopold, I renounce thee.

Third, we have FEAR too:
GrandmaJ says:
June 13th, 2006 at 5:30 am

Trying not to lose hope, but so far not working. I know that the work done at YearlyKos will be invaluable to all of us ‘down the road.’ And that the work, despite what happens this November, MUST continue. And I hope Busby runs again in November. We must keep after them.

but what this does do is allow Rove full freedom to campaign in his most nasty fullsomeness. And we should be watching the ’silver forks and spoons’ (votes) very carefully.

Jane S. says:
June 13th, 2006 at 5:32 am

I agree with GrandmaJ–I worry that escaping this indictment will give Rove a feeling of invincibility and make him bolder still…

Fourth, BARGAINING (negotiating and hoping that this really will lead to an indictment of Cheney):
Phoenix Woman says:
June 13th, 2006 at 5:55 am


Has the grand jury been dismissed? No.

As Redd says, let’s wait for Fitz to actually do something before we take Gold Bars’ word at face value. And again, I suspect that what this really means is that Rove saved himself by offering up Cheney.

Zergle says:
June 13th, 2006 at 5:43 am

Mrs. K8. I was thinking the same thing without the wire part. Though the wire makes sense. Dunno. Sounds good, but could be completely out of left field. Man, would I want to hear those tapes though. Wow.

Not knowing what’s really going on is just torture. Ultimately though, the point is that the investigation is ongoing. From what we DO know, it seems Cheney is in Fitz’s crosshairs. Though Rove going down would be sweet, it’s more important for Cheney to be dealt with.

Phoenix Woman says:
June 13th, 2006 at 5:51 am

Hey, I’ve been saying all along that this is now, and has been for the last year and a half or so, a battle between Rove’s camp and Cheney’s camp.

Here’s what I think has happened so far:

Cheney’s guy Libby fell, tried to take down Rove as a means of plea-bargaining his way out of an otherwise-assured prison sentence — and came damned near doing so (why else would Rove need to make five GJ appearances?). But Rove has at the last minute, to secure HIS freedom, promised Fitz to serve up Cheney.

Rove’s evil, but he’s not PNAC. Cheney is PNAC up to his eyeballs. I’ll gladly trade Rove to get Cheney.

And finally, the fifth step - ACCEPTANCE:
Agoraphobos says:
June 13th, 2006 at 6:16 am

In the indictments/convictions game, you win some, you lose some. Just think about Libby, Abramoff, Delay, Lay, and Skilling. Big conservative fish. They’re crooks. And the Plame affair isn’t over.

We just have to watch the Republican spin on this, because it’ll become the media’s take on it too. Their spin will be, Rove didn’t get indicted, he’s clean, the whole affair is over, we’re not corrupt, now we’re the ones who can be entrusted with power in this country because we’re clean. And Rove will definitely have the chutzpah to be out on the campaign circuit talking about how Republicans are virtuous and clean and the Democrats are a bunch of lying crooks.

You've got to love it... I knew that the rabid community at Fire Dog Lake wouldn't let us down.

Or, ala Homer: DOH!!!!!

**** UPDATE ***
Brainster (another of Jamie Allman's featured bloggers) pens the Night Before Fitzmas.

Your Co-Conspirators,
ARC: Brian & St Wendeler

Strike Three for Leopold & TruthOut

*** update ***
Firedog Lake posters/commenters react and go through the 5 stages of grieving right before our eyes!

And TalkLeft echoes my call for Jason Leopold to disclose his sources. Perhaps he will? (won't hold my breath.)


After I called out Jason Leopold on Saturday (link also contains chronology of coverage here), asking him to identify the sources that totally ruined his credibility, he decided instead to stand in the batters box and face the pitcher yet again, writing this post about Sealed v. Sealed. Here are the pertinent bits:
Sealed vs. Sealed
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report

Monday 12 June 2006

Four weeks ago, during the time when we reported that White House political adviser Karl Rove was indicted for crimes related to his role in the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson, the grand jury empanelled in the case returned an indictment that was filed under seal in US District Court for the District of Columbia under the curious heading of Sealed vs. Sealed.

As of Friday afternoon that indictment, returned by the grand jury the week of May 10th, remains under seal - more than a month after it was handed up by the grand jury.

The case number is "06 cr 128." On the federal court's electronic database, "06 cr 128" is listed along with a succinct summary: "No further information is available."

We have not seen the contents of the indictment "06 cr 128". But the fact that this indictment was returned by the grand jury hearing evidence in the CIA leak case on a day that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald met with the grand jury raised a number of questions about the identity of the defendant named in the indictment, whether it relates to the leak case, and why it has been under seal for a month under the heading Sealed vs. Sealed.

True, the grand jury in the CIA leak case also meets to hear evidence on other federal criminal cases, including at least one other high-profile case - crimes related to the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal.

So, since the grand jury has a Sealed v. Sealed indictment, IT MUST BE ROVE! HALLIBURTON!!! (Nevermind that the same grand jury is hearing the Abramoff case...)

Read the whole post as it's quite entertaining, especially in light of this article in today's NY Times. (I don't quote the NYTimes often, but I'll make an exception in this case.)
June 13, 2006
Rove Won't Be Charged in C.I.A. Leak Case

WASHINGTON, June 13 — The prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case on Monday advised Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, that he would not be charged with any wrongdoing, effectively ending the nearly three-year criminal investigation that had at times focused intensely on Mr. Rove.

The decision by the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, announced in a letter to Mr. Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, lifted a pall that had hung over Mr. Rove who testified on five occasions to a federal grand jury about his involvement in the disclosure of an intelligence officer's identity.

In a statement, Mr. Luskin said, "On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."

So, Jason... Once again. Who were your sources that fed you a line of b.s. in order to ruin your credibility. Sure, you got some traffic and noteriety - but it was the wrong kind of noteriety. Your name is mud in the blogosphere now - unless you take the one step that the MSM is loathe to do and that the blogosphere demands of itself and of the MSM: reveal your sources and correct the record.

We'll be waiting. It's strike three and what you do now will determine whether the coach will send you back up to the plate.

Oh, and just for the record, it's great that this Rovian Conspiracy to insert rumors into the wild-eyed and tin-foil-hatted community has produced such outstanding results.

*** Note to Kossacks and the other Moonbats ***

Moonbats react to the news

Note that this hasn't been posted on DailyKos, but we will provide their reaction when it comes in. Perhaps the "reality based community" won't even post on the topic or instead spin it as a "moral victory" since they tied up Rove for the last couple of years dealing with Fitgerald. Unfortunately for them, it didn't have an impact on the 2004 election and it's unlikely that it'll have an impact on the 2006 midterms. But it still was a moral victory, damnit!! HALLIBURTON!!!!!

*** Other Bloggers Covering ***
Sister Toldjah
The Commissar at Politburo Diktat
Move On & Shut Up (If only they would, my friend... if only they would)
Brian at Iowa Voice
AllahPundit at Hot Air
Stop the ACLU
ScrappleFace has some fun
Just One Minute - Your one stop shop
Gateway Pundit - No Frog March!!!
HotAir - Let the gloating begin

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Monday, June 12, 2006

From the Left Coast: Zarqawi Beaten to Death and Journalistic Standards

From the Left Coast:

I do not have the time this morning to load up a bunch of links here, but by this time most folks know that much of the MSM, including the breathless ABC and AP followed word of Zarqawi's departure to the Brothel Eternal with stories of an unnamed Iraqi who claimed that American troops beat the SOB to death after they found him alive in the rubble of his bombed out not-so-safe-house.

Fortunately when I went to turn on Russert and Depress the Press yesterday, it had been bumped by tennis. So I was not treated to him berating some administration representative and someone like John Mertha pointing out how Zarqawi's death was yet another indicator of how we are losing this war. The day was somehow sunnier without Russert.

I keep thinking that just maybe this one time the MSM will be seen to have just gone too far in slanting the news. Perhaps the story of the un-named Iraqi claiming to have seen American troops beat the beheader to death would be seen to be a total collapse of journalistic standards. Who knows, maybe this will yet come to pass.

But I suspect the Drive-by Media, as Limbaugh likes to call them, will just move on to the next distortion and play like this particular episode never happened.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: MontereyJohn

Sunday, June 11, 2006

The Progressive Goal for November

It's good to see that somebody finds Harry Reid engaging and charismatic. From this weekend's YearlyKos (which is reviewed by the JawaReport here and Allah here)

I point to YearlyKos because as The Jawa Report points out, the fact that the Democratic establish is embracing the tin-foil-hat-wearing Kossacks, who regularly engage in some of the most asinine political arguments, should give us some sense of where the Democratic party is heading. And it's also important to understand what the establishment feels it should say to this crowd... Reid finished off with this tidbit (according to this DUer):

"During the Clinton years, the House Government Reforms Committee issued 1,052 subpoenas to the Clinton administration and more than that to the Democratic National Committee," said the Nevada Senator. "That's a lot of subpoenas. How many do you think they've issued regarding Abu Ghraib or Haditha? Zero. How about the war in Iraq? How many subpoenas? Zero!"

By this time, it was obviously that Reid had won over the room and he parted with a rallying cry that reminded all of what to expect in the coming months.

"We know the Republicans are going to attack us with everything they have. They do it every election -- but this time it's going to be different," said Reid in closing. "Because of you, no attack will go unanswered. You tell the truth one day at a time. You tell the truth one round at a time and, come November 7, the rounds will be over and we will declare victory."

As you can see, this apparently garnered great applause from the assembled Kossacks and this fits well with the true aims of the Dems come November. This DUer post ties things up nicely:
SavetheUSA (17 posts)
Sun Jun-11-06 11:26 PM
Original message

To Impeach or not to Impeach-That shouldn’t even be a question!

To anyone who has read the Constitution and and has any sort of need for justice, it has become blatatly obvious that the only way to uphold our Constitution and stop these criminals with sinister intentions is to Impeach Bush and Cheney immediately to stop them from committing any more atrocities, looting the treasury and prevent them from being in charge during any more national emergencies. We have been given a line of excuses as to why this hasn’t happened which goes something like this 1.We cannot impeach unless there is an investigation. 2. We cannot have an investigation unless we have a democratic majority.

First of all, Do we really need an investigation to impeach Bush over illegal wiretapping? We all know that even Bush knows what he has been doing is illegal when he stated “a wiretap requires a court order”. After this he went on national TV and declared that he had the authority to break the law and will continue to do so. Is an investigation really needed when Bush has openly admitted to breaking the law? If articles of impeachment were brought forth right now, an investigation would take place as part of the proceedings and the only logical conclusion would be to impeach Bush and Cheney. This would be the perfect opportuninty to see who is a patriot and who is a traitor before the next ‘election’.

[Link to blog post]

Vogt (11 posts)
Sun Jun-11-06 11:35 PM
Response to Original message

1. All we need

Is the House. If we get it, we can launch investigation after investigation after investigation. If so done, more than enough information warranting impeachment will surely come out. These bastards have operated with impunity for six years now. There is a treasure trove just waiting to be accessed. God deliver the House to us for the sake of justice. I can't wait to bring these fucks down.

jaxx Donating Member (798 posts)
Sun Jun-11-06 11:39 PM
Response to Original message

2. We better hurry because they're busy changing the laws

about the wiretaps. And shielding the bushies for what has happened. The whole republican party needs to be busted out of offices and sent home in shame. They have shit on America for the good of sucking up to gw. Rapture in DC.

What's the first item on the agenda should the GOP lose the House in November?


Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler