When does Miller’s book come out, and how much of an advance will she get for it? I think that will explain a lot of her behavior.
I kinda got the sense that Miller was looking to make herself into a martyr.
Oh, yeah… Why does anyone think this might get Rove off the hook? Didn’t the other reporter already name Rove as his source? I think this just means it might be both Rove and Libby. No?
Beats me. But yeah, you’d think this means Rove and Libby, or that the focus is on however they found out.
Was it Novak who sort of almost said that Rove almost sort of kinda told him something? Something along the lines of “that Commie rat bastard CIA guy is fair game”, to take extreme poetic license and embellish a lot.
Me, I still hold to what I said in a thread a while back. This whole deal has the modus operandi and the “feel” of Rove all over it. Another thing to consider is, there has always been an underlying claim that this administration was disciplined, controlled and “on message” in political matters. If so, then Libby is no loose cannon - someone told him to start leaking to the press. My guess and suspicion is Rove himself. It’s just his style. Don’t ask for cites or proof, I don’t have any. It’s must my speculation.
B-b-b-b-ut, they never named her. They only said ‘Wilson’s wife’, and that could have been almost anyone.
By Wilson, they meant Tim The Tool Man Taylor’s neighbor who’s face you never saw. See. The whole thing was a joke. Damn liberals can’t take a joke.
Before a winger comes in and says it, I did not have sexual relations with that woman.
Hmm. And if we turn the edge of the puzzle piece around this way, the President’s note that was photographed was not about taking a leak, but about making a leak…Or fixing a leak. It’s coming to me…They. Need. Plumbers. White House PLUMBERS!
I’m no authority on this, but President Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon kept him from being charged with any crimes that were associated with his presidency. I don’t know specifically how it was worded.
Does anyone know how much time elapsed between Rove’s leak and Libby’s leak? When did Novak know and publish? And when did all of this happen in relation to Wilson’s report?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_scandal_timeline
Libby and Miller spoke on July 8, two days after Wilson’s article was published and the same day that Karl Rove spoke to Bob Novak. According to Novak, Rove confirmed what someone else had told him, and according to Rove, he heard about it from some other source he can’t recall. Novak’s column was published three days later.
I would think this prevented Nixon from being in a position where he could be held in contempt of court. Bush could probably do the same thing you’re suggesting and pardon Rove, Libby and whoever in advance. But I suspect that would be very unpopular and harder to justify.
Why should Bush care? He’s on his second term. Short of impeachment, nothing can stop him from doing what he wants.
It wouldn’t matter to him personally, but if he cares about things like his image, or his ability to carry out his agenda for the next 3+ years, or the success of his party and their the ability to further that agenda after he leaves office… I don’t think he’d do it.
[hijack] Apropos of nothing, I suppose, but somehow Google has decided that this thread is a good place to hawk Halliburton briefcases. :dubious:
Cheney did it.
And it matters to the party…if Clinton could have kept his zipper up around interns, I’d bet dollars to donuts there would have been a President Gore. The actions of high party officials end up sticking to other people in the party - at least until it shifts again.
Who was talking about Clinton? Aren’t we all getting a little tired of “but Clinton…” all the time?
It’s idiotic.
“Cheney eats kittens. Film at 11”
“Secret Service arrests Bush for shooting tourists at the White House”
“Rove caught on film burning babies”
“But but but Clinton picks his nose!”
It’s irrelevant and it’s horse shit. One has not a damn thing to do with the other.
The point I’m making is that a sitting president can mess it up for his party. Don’t like Clinton as an example - Ford didn’t stand a chance of getting reelected because he was the party of Nixon. Scandal can stick to the party, not the person - for at least an election cycle. Bush - or at least Rove and the people who want the GOP in power - should care about scandal regardless of if its Bush’s second term or his first - they don’t give a damn about GWB in the White House - they care about “their guy” being in the White House.
Clinton/Gore is a perfectly good example of why Karl Rove gives a damn (or should) about scandal.
That’s another example, although I don’t think it’s quite as good…