Monday, July 11, 2005

Rove: It's What's For Dinner

The DNC is hungry, starving really, and they want Rove on a skewer.
Now that we know that Rove told Cooper about "Wilson's wife," who told Rove? Rove had to find out about Plame and her job from someone. Where did this information come from?


Who in the Bush Administration told Judith Miller about Plame? The information cannot have come from Rove, since Rove has "released" Cooper from confidentiality. If Rove were Miller's source, wouldn't he do the same for her? So who was Miller-a reporter working on WMDs-talking to?


Did Rove commit perjury in front of the grand jury? We know his initial public statements and his statements to Scott McClellan were false. And we know that after testifying once, they called him back. Did Rove change his answers to the grand jury the same way he changed his answers to the press?

Yummy yum. Red meat. Like Vincent in Pulp Fiction, I like mine bloody as hell.


At 8:15 PM, Blogger Drunken Proletariat said...

I'm sceptical. Even if it is proven that someone in the Bush Administration ratted out Plame, how many other Bush and Co. lies have already been exposed, and to what effect? For example, Bush's lies about going to war have been fully exposed, and fewer and fewer people doubt this. The American right know they are lied to with impunity, they just don't give a fucking shit. They simply dismiss that fact as irrelevant, as with the Downing Street memo. They justify the lying and the President, descending into the perverse. So fucking what if Karl what's-his-Rove lied his squirrely, weasley, little rat ass off? He's "Doing it for the good of Americans;" or, "He HAS to do that, or the "Left" will undermine The War," and so on. It could well come out that Rove is a lyin'-ass, taitorous pedophile. Fifty per cent of Americans would have no fucking clue what that means, and I think it would only increase their Denial.

It could drive one to drink...

At 7:26 AM, Blogger Musmanno said...

Therein lies the rub, Drunken Proletariat. Back in the 2004 elections, people were predicting Bush was going to get demolished, and they had a perfectly reasonable series of rationales behind the prediction, including things said by the admin that weren't true. I made the point at the time that it wouldn't matter because people didn't give a shit about any of that. I was right then, and you are right now. The vast majority of the loudest voices in U.S. politics are partisans - it wouldn't matter what their guy did, they'll still support him and vilify the other guy along nothing but party lines. The voters are becoming more and more like this, which is why the elections turn out the way they do. For 90% of Democrats, the democratic nominee could be a child molester and serial killer, and they'd vote for him over Mother Teresa if she were on the GOP ticket. For 90% of Republicans, who gives a damn what Rove and Bush do? They'll vote for those guys or whoever else the GOP throws up there no matter who the Dems run and what they stand for. People who think that way are small-minded, but then that's the U.S. pubilc for you.

At 8:14 AM, Blogger Jeff Huber said...

I think the result of all this will depend on two things: what exactly Fitzgerald is after and how hard the press will, ahem, continue to press the White House for answers.

I still think Fitz's aim is a lot bigger than getting Karl on a perjury rap.


At 9:18 AM, Blogger Musmanno said...

His aim may well be very high (prosecutors tend to be zealous. Overly so in many cases), but if they can nail him on perjury maybe they'll settle for that. Kind of like getting Capone on tax charges, eh?


Post a Comment

<< Home