White House Press Briefing Drama

David Gregory and Terry Moran are acting more like mean girls than journalists.

Today, they ganged up on Scott McClellan with a cruelty that was personal, like a group of mean junior high school girls tearing the unpopular girl to shreds.

They were rude and disruptive, to the point where McClellan could barely respond to their questions.

Gregory and Moran seemed positively bent on discrediting Scott McClellan. Their mission may not have been orchestrated, but they acted as a tag team.

It appears that the combative Gregory and Moran are not satisfied with attacking Bush and Cheney and administration policy. Instead, they stuck to their "culture of corruption" theme and tried to chip away at the administration by going after the Press Secretary.

Rather than attempt to kill the snake by cutting off its head, Gregory and Moran chose to go after the tail by coming down on McClellan.

They got really nasty, like mean girls.

Transcript

Gregory posed the first question to McClellan. It turned into a lengthy dialogue. Gregory monopolized the beginning of the briefing with his self-serving, overly dramatic game of gotcha.

As in past exchanges, the transcript really doesn't do Gregory's snippy delivery justice. To get a better understanding of just how annoyingly he acted, you should watch the video, available at the White House site.

Q = David Gregory

Q Some Democrats say that the President should apologize for the role of some administration officials in the unmasking of the name of a CIA undercover operative. What's the White House reaction to that?

MR. McCLELLAN: First of all, there is a legal proceeding that continues right now, and under our legal system, there is a presumption of innocence. We need to let that legal process continue. If people want to try and politicize this process, that's their business.

Q Well, I think that the role of some administration officials in this, in the leaking of the person's name has been established.

MR. McCLELLAN: I think you're presuming things in that question, and I don't think while this investigation and this legal proceeding is ongoing, that we should make such presumptions. We should let that process continue.

Q Another part of that is, some of the same Democrats are saying that the President should fire Karl Rove. What's your reaction to that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, there is an ongoing investigation; we need to let that investigation continue. We need to let the legal process work. As I indicated to you all on Friday, our Counsel's Office has directed us not to discuss this matter while it continues, and that means me not responding to questions about it from this podium. This is a process that we need to let continue. There is, as I said, a presumption of innocence in our legal system, and we don't want to do anything from here that could prejudice the opportunity for there to be a fair and impartial trial. I think that's the basis of our legal system.

And in terms of comments that people are making, again, I think they're presuming things and trying to politicize the process. But that's their business. We're going to let the legal process work.

Q Let me just follow up on an aspect of this and try it again here. On October 7, 2003, you were asked about a couple of the key players here, Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, as well as another administration official who has not figured in the investigation, so far as we know. And you said the following, "There are unsubstantiated accusations that are made, and that's exactly what happened in the case of these three individuals," including Rove and Libby. "They're good individuals, they're important members of our White House team, and that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved." You were wrong then, weren't you?

I object! Leading the witness...

MR. McCLELLAN: David, it's not a question of whether or not I'd like to talk more about this. I think I've indicated to you all that I'd be glad to talk about this once this process is complete, and I look forward to that opportunity. But, again, we have been directed by the White House Counsel's Office not to discuss this matter or respond to questions about it.

Q That was a public representation that was made to the American people.

MR. McCLELLAN: Hang on. We can have this conversation, but let me respond.

Q No, no, no, because it's such an artful dodge. Whether there's a question of legality --

"Artful dodge"?

Good grief.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I disagree with you.

Q Whether there's a question of legality, we know for a fact that there was involvement. We know that Karl Rove, based on what he and his lawyer have said, did have a conversation about somebody who Patrick Fitzgerald said was a covert officer of the Central Intelligence Agency. We know that Scooter Libby also had conversations.

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't think that's accurate.

Q So aside from the question of legality here, you were wrong, weren't you?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, David, if I were to get into commenting from this podium while this legal proceeding continues, I might be prejudicing the opportunity for there to be a fair and impartial trial. And I'm just not going to do that. I know very --

Q You speak for the President. Your credibility and his credibility is not on criminal trial. But it may very well be on trial with the American public, don't you agree?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm very confident in the relationship that we have in this room, and the trust that has been established between us. This relationship --

Q See those cameras? It's not about us. It's about what the American people --

MR. McCLELLAN: This relationship is built on trust, and you know very well that I have worked hard to earn the trust of the people in this room, and I think I've earned it --

Q Is the President -- let me just follow up on one more thing.

This guy doesn't deserve the courtesy of a follow up. He should be given a time out until he learns how to behave like a big boy and play nice.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and I think I've earned it with the American people.

Q Does the President think that Karl Rove did anything wrong?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think it would be good for you to allow me the opportunity to respond to your questions without jumping in. I'm glad to do that. I look forward to the opportunity --

Q I haven't heard a response.

Maybe Gregory needs some Ritalin to help him with his attention problems.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, no, I have been responding to you, David, and there's no need -- you're a good reporter, there's no need to be rude or disrespectful. We can have a conversation and respond to these questions, if you'll just give me the opportunity to respond. I'm glad to do that.

We need to let this legal process continue. The special counsel indicated the other day that it is ongoing. And that's what we're going to do from this White House. That's the policy that we have set for quite some time now.

Q In the year 2000, the President said the following: "In my administration, we will ask not only what is legal, but what is right; not just what the lawyers allow, but what the public deserves." Doesn't the American public deserve some answers from this President about the role of his Vice President in this story and what he knew and when he knew it, and how he feels about the conduct of his administration?

"What he knew and when he knew it."

Shades of Watergate once again.

When will the libs stop interpreting the happenings of 2005 as if it were 1973?

MR. McCLELLAN: The American people deserve a White House that is committed to doing their work. We are focused on the priorities of the American people. As the President indicated Friday, we've got a job to do, and we're going to do it. We're going to continue to focus on our efforts to protect the American people and to spread prosperity here at home. We're going to move forward on the Supreme Court nomination.

People in this White House fully understand what's expected of them. We are expected to focus on the people's business, first and foremost, and that's what we always do. We're also expected to adhere to the highest ethical standards. People understand that in this White House. That's what the President expects, and that's what the American people expect. And we've got a great team here, and we'll continue to adhere to those standards.

Do you get the feeling that Gregory has been watching tapes of Dan Rather at Watergate era press conferences? I think he's emulating the disrespectful, uncivilized style of Rather.

Gregory's hissy fit, arming himself with those quotes in hopes of proving McClellan to be a liar and demanding that McClellan admit that he was wrong, was an embarrassment to NBC.

His dramatic gesturing and emoting, "See those cameras? It's not about us. It's about what the American people --" belonged on Days of our Lives, not at the White House press briefing. NBC's chief White House correspondent is quite the drama queen.

A somewhat shorter exchange with John Roberts of CBS followed the Gregory audition for The West Wing. Roberts began by issuing an apology to McClellan.

He said, "Scott, on the subject of rude, my apologies for my unfortunate choice of words this morning to you."

Roberts has been stumbling around trying to undo the damage from his vulgar, unprofessional behavior in a press gaggle that took place in the morning. Perhaps Roberts was sincere. Perhaps he was playing to the cameras. Who knows?

Drudge reported:

John Roberts: "So, Scott, you said that -- or the President said, repeatedly, that Harriet Miers was the best person for the job. So does that mean that Alito is sloppy seconds, or what?"

Scott McClellan: "Not at all, John."

"Sloppy seconds" is described in the United Kingdom’s A Dictionary of Slang as:

Noun: "A subsequent indulgence in an activity by a second person involving an exchange of bodily fluids. This may involve the sharing of drink, or more often it applies to a sexual nature. E.g. 'I’m not having sloppy seconds, I want to shag her first.'"

In addition to sounding vulgar, Roberts sounded stupid. He revisited his morning question without the "unfortunate" choice of words.

Roberts: ...I think the question bears asking again, and that is that the President said repeatedly when he nominated Harriet Miers that she is the best person for the job. Does that in any way indicate that while Sam Alito may be well-qualified for the Supreme Court, he is not, as was described of Harriet Miers, the best person?

What a stupid, stupid question!

Roberts needs to take remedial classes in logic and English.

Then, it was Terry Moran's turn to pick up where Gregory left off, pounding away on the "McClellan is untrustworthy" message.

Q = Terry Moran

Q Scott, let me follow up on what David was asking. You say we know you -- and we do -- but we can't vouch for you; that's not our job. And I wonder, do you really think after --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, wait a second. Let me just interject there. I think there are many people in this room I see expressing their own commentary on TV all the time -- not just reporting. You do a job to report the news, as well, but many people in this room also go on the air and express their views and their commentary. And I've worked with many of you for quite some time now.

Q I didn't follow that. I can't go on TV and say, "America believes Scott McClellan." That's not my role.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, you go on TV, though, and engage in commentary about views and things that are expressed here at the White House.

Q Right. But what I can't do is carry your water for you. And I wonder --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not asking you to.

Q Well, there -- yes you are.

What is Moran talking about?

Are you aware of Americans demanding that Moran stop carrying water for McClellan?

I guess I'm out of the loop.

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm just asking you to speak to who I am. And you know who I am.

Q There's been a wound to your credibility here. A falsehood, wittingly or unwittingly, was told from this podium. And do you really believe that the American people should wait until the conclusion of all of this process and just take on trust everything that comes from that podium now, without the explanation and the answer that you say you want to get --

Why should the American people trust everything that comes out of Moran's mouth? Why take anything he says on trust?

If Moran wants to get into the issue of trust, maybe he should begin with a little personal reflection.

MR. McCLELLAN: There are a lot of facts that still are not known in this investigation and in this legal proceeding that is ongoing. We also have to work under the presumption of innocence in our legal system. And, again, the reason I can't comment further is because if we were to get into that, we could be prejudicing the opportunity for there to be a fair and impartial hearing.

Q I understand that.

MR. McCLELLAN: And we don't want to do that from this podium. No matter how much I may want to talk about this issue -- and I think you know that I would like to talk further about it -- but I have enough confidence in my relationship with you all, and you all report the news to the American people, to know that we have a good relationship that is built on a foundation of trust. And I have worked hard to earn that trust and I think I've earned that trust with you all. And it's your job to duly report to the American people, and I'm confident that you all will when you look at the facts and look at everything that's been said and where we are today. And at some point, I look forward to talking more about it.

But let me step back for a second, too, because part of my job is to be an advocate for the President, and I'm going to vigorously defend his decisions and his policies, and help him to advance his agenda. But I've another important responsibility, as well -- it's something that we all, I think and hope, share in this room -- that is to make sure that the American people get an accurate account of what's going on here in Washington, D.C. And I work hard to meet both those responsibilities.

Q But don't you think, Scott, that that second part of your job has been damaged, your credibility has been damaged by this?

MR. McCLELLAN: For me to even respond to that question would force me to talk about an ongoing investigation and legal proceeding, and we've been directed not to do that. Whether or not that puts me in a difficult position is another matter. But I have enough confidence in the relationship that we've built over the last few years to be able to move forward, and for you all to know that what I'm saying from this podium is based on the facts and based on me working to provide an accurate account of what's going on here in Washington, D.C.

Q Is Karl Rove back at work --

MR. McCLELLAN: And -- let me finish -- in other words, Terry, you can't answer that question without it being viewed in the context of an ongoing investigation, an ongoing legal proceeding, and that's why I can't go further than that at this point.

Q But doesn't, then, that make it impossible for you to do your job with as much credibility as that podium demands?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, not at all, because of the relationship that we've built between me and the press corps, and I think I've earned with the American people, too. I've tried hard to earn that trust and I think I've done my part to maintain that trust.

Overall, it was an ugly briefing.

I think it's really ironic that Gregory and Moran, partisan hacks, have the nerve to attack McClellan's credibility.

One does not have to look too far to find serious credibility problems at NBC, ABC, and the ultra-dishonest CBS.

Whatever McClellan is getting paid to be White House Press Secretary, it's not enough.

Bush Fulfills Campaign Promise

President Bush shakes hands with judge Samuel Alito after he announced him as his Supreme Court nominee in the Cross Hall of the White House Monday, Oct. 31, 2005 in Washington.

In his remarks at the 2004 Republican National Convention, President Bush said that he would "continue to appoint federal judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law."

Today, President Bush made good on his campaign promise.

This morning, Bush nominated Samuel A. Alito to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court.

Transcript

After the announcement, with the President at his side, Alito said:

Every time that I have entered the courtroom during the past 15 years, I have been mindful of the solemn responsibility that goes with service as a federal judge. Federal judges have the duty to interpret the Constitution and the laws faithfully and fairly, to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans, and to do these things with care and with restraint, always keeping in mind the limited role that the courts play in our constitutional system. And I pledge that if confirmed I will do everything within my power to fulfill that responsibility.


On the stump throughout the 2004 campaign, Bush pledged to fill Supreme Court vacancies with someone sharing the originalist judicial philosophy of Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas.

This morning, he did exactly that.

Alito is no stealth nominee. He has a long track record to satisfy conservatives and to cause liberals to panic.

Describing Alito, the President said:

He served in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel providing constitutional advice for the President and the executive branch. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan named him the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, the top prosecutor in one of the nation's largest federal districts, and he was confirmed by unanimous consent by the Senate. He moved aggressively against white-collar and environmental crimes, and drug trafficking, and organized crime, and violation of civil rights.

In his role, Sam Alito showed a passionate commitment to the rule of law, and he gained a reputation for being both tough and fair. In 1990, President Bush nominated Sam Alito, at the age of 39, for the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. Judge Alito's nomination received bipartisan support and he was again confirmed by unanimous consent by the United States Senate. Judge Alito has served with distinction on that court for 15 years and now has more prior judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in more than 70 years.

Judge Alito's reputation has only grown over the span of his service. He has participated in thousands of appeals and authored hundreds of opinions. This record reveals a thoughtful judge who considers the legal matter -- merits carefully and applies the law in a principled fashion. He has a deep understanding of the proper role of judges in our society. He understands that judges are to interpret the laws, not to impose their preferences or priorities on the people.

It's clear that President Bush has delivered on one of his campaign promises, one of the promises that won him the support of the majority of voters in the 2004 election, giving him four more years as President of the United States.

Nominating Alito is exactly what Bush needed to do.

There is no glimmer of appeasement in his choice, only commitment to the principles that Bush promised to adhere to as President.

He picked the most qualified individual. In Alito's nomination, Bush showed that he was no longer hung up on X and Y chromosomes, nor was he concerned with race. Instead of playing politics, he went back to the fundamental principles of judicial philosophy that he promised would guide him when choosing nominees for the courts.

Naturally, the Dems and their mouthpieces in the liberal media are aghast.

They've spent a full week pointing out that the Bush presidency was on life support. The White House was steeped in a thick malaise. The administration was paralyzed. Bush was a limp, lame duck.

Guess not.

I'm going to follow the lead of Patrick Fitzgerald, look to baseball, and use a few of his words from his Friday press conference to help me explain what the Alito nomination means.

"I've been trying to think about how to explain this, so let me try. I know baseball analogies are the fad these days. Let me try something.

"If you saw a baseball game and you saw a pitcher wind up and throw a fastball and hit a batter right smack in the head, and it really, really hurt them, you'd want to know why the pitcher did that. And you'd wonder whether or not the person just reared back and decided, 'I've got bad blood with this batter. He hit two home runs off me. I'm just going to hit him in the head as hard as I can.'

"You also might wonder whether or not the pitcher just let go of the ball or his foot slipped, and he had no idea to throw the ball anywhere near the batter's head. And there's lots of shades of gray in between."

The Dems may feel like they've been hit smack in the head with this nomination because of bad blood. That's not the case.

Bush didn't intend to hurt them. He was simply fulfilling an obligation to the American people. Unfortunately, the Dems and their special interests got beaned; but that's the way elections work. Kerry lost. The people wanted Bush to have the power to make judicial nominations, the type of nominations he vowed to make.

It is Bush's responsibility to carry out the will of the people. He did.

Of course, those on the Left are livid. They thought they had Bush weakened and all but defeated.

Some reaction from the Left:

"It is sad that the president felt he had to pick a nominee likely to divide America instead of choosing a nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor, who would unify us. This controversial nominee, who would make the court less diverse and far more conservative, will get very careful scrutiny from the Senate and from the American people."
--Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

"President Bush put the demands of his far-right political base above Americans' constitutional rights and legal protections by nominating federal appeals court Judge Samuel Alito to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor."
--Ralph Neas, president of the liberal People For the American Way.

"The nomination of Judge Alito requires an especially long, hard look by the Senate because of what happened last week to Harriet Miers. Conservative activists forced Miers to withdraw from consideration for this same Supreme Court seat because she was not radical enough for them. Now the Senate needs to find out if the man replacing Miers is too radical for the American people."
--Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

"Rather than selecting a nominee for the good of the nation and the court, President Bush has picked a nominee whom he hopes will stop the massive hemorrhaging of support on his right wing. This is a nomination based on weakness, not strength."
--Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.

Today, Bush reminded Leftists that they are out of power. Conservatives are in control because the American people want it that way.
____________________________



The family of Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr., look on Monday, Oct. 31, 2005, as their father is nominated by President George W. Bush for Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. From left: daughter Laura, wife, Martha, and son, Phil.

I had to laugh when I saw this photo. As Judge Alito's family looks on, the image of Bill Clinton's portrait acts as a backdrop, like a family's departed patriarch. Spooky!

In a way, it further emphasizes the fact that the Dems are history and the future is in the hands of conservatives.

HAPPY HALLOWEEN!

60 MINUTES EXCLUSIVE!

Ed Bradley had an EXCLUSIVE interview with Joe Wilson Sunday night on 60 Minutes. Interestingly, Campbell Brown had an EXCLUSIVE interview on Sunday with Joe Wilson, too.

I guess the news divisions at CBS and NBC don't know the meaning of the word "exclusive."

Perhaps they do know its meaning, and they knowingly made false statements, an indictable offense.

I think the 60 Minutes segment on Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson surpassed the NBC EXCLUSIVE on the truth distortion meter.

The story was based on the notion that the White House revealed Plame's identity in retaliation for Joe Wilson speaking out against the war.

This is the myth that has driven this non-scandal scandal from the beginning.

Plame was NOT a covert agent. Therefore, she could NOT have been outed by the White House.

It's been an investigation about nothing. If there's nothing to leak, why investigate how information was leaked?

In Fitzgerald's performance for the cameras, or press conference, he made it clear that Scooter Libby was NOT indicted for outing a CIA agent.

NO ONE WAS.

Transcript

(Excerpts)

QUESTION: Can you say whether or not you know whether Mr. Libby knew that Valerie Wilson's identity was covert and whether or not that was pivotal at all in your inability or your decision not to charge under the Intelligence Identity Protection Act?

FITZGERALD: Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward.

I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent.

FITZGERALD: We have not charged that. And so I'm not making that assertion.

So, even though Fitzgerald said he wasn't speaking about Plame's undercover status and made no allegation that Libby or anyone else outed her, 60 Minutes framed their story as if the charges brought against Libby deal with precisely that.

Bradley's segment amounted to fantasy.

He began:

For 18 years as an undercover agent for the CIA, Valerie Plame Wilson kept her occupation and her identity a secret, even to her own friends and family, to avoid compromising her work as a spy.

When she was exposed two years ago, it led to a federal investigation and raised questions about what would motivate such a betrayal. Would someone in the government go that far, leak her name to the press, in retaliation for her husband’s public criticism of the war in Iraq?

The special prosecutor in the case, Patrick Fitzgerald, did not answer that question on Friday when he charged the vice president’s Chief of Staff Lewis Libby with lying to the investigators who were trying to find out how it could have happened.

But 60 Minutes wanted to know how serious was the damage done by the leak.

This is ridiculous!

The story and the claims that Wilson makes are as phony as the National Guard documents that Dan Rather and 60 Minutes used about a year ago to derail Bush's reelection.

CBS dug up Jim Marcinkowski, a former covert CIA agent during the late 80s, to propel its story.

"It's a spy agency. And you don't expose people working for a spy agency. And no one knew that she was working for a spy agency until she was exposed," said Marcinkowski.

Marcinkowski apparently didn't get the memo that Plame wasn't covert in 2003.

Naturally, Wilson misrepresented his wife's CIA status in this EXCLUSIVE interview just as he did in the NBC EXCLUSIVE interview.

Bradley said:

When she saw Novak’s column, he says, it came as a complete shock. Eighteen years of a meticulously-crafted cover, exposed in an instant.

HER STATUS WASN'T EXPOSED IN NOVAK'S COLUMN. PLAME WAS NO LONGER COVERT.

"She felt like she had been hit in the stomach. It took her breath away. She recovered quickly because, of course, you don't do what she did for a living without understanding stress. And she became very matter of fact right afterwards. And started making lists of what she had to do to ensure that her assets, her projects, her programs and her operations were protected," Wilson said.

How dramatic! False, but dramatic.

"Did she realize then that her career as an undercover agent for the CIA was over?" Bradley asked.

"Absolutely. Sure. There was no doubt about it in her mind. And she wondered for what," Wilson said.

"Novak also published the name of the front company that your wife used for cover, Brewster-Jennings & Associates. How would you characterize that disclosure?" Bradley asked.

Her career as an undercover agent ended BEFORE Novak printed anything.

"I think it was abominable. But when he published her name, it was very easy to unravel everything about her, her entire cover. You live your cover. And so you live Brewster-Jennings. So, she would have had business cards that said Brewster-Jennings on them. So, that was just insult to injury. And it was just Mr. Novak taking a second bite of the apple," says Wilson.

How does 60 Minutes get away with this stuff? Didn't they learn anything from the phony documents fiasco?

Wilson is constructing a false reality. Bradley doesn't debunk what Wilson says. He reinforces it.

Fitzgerald knows the truth. He said it.

NO ONE, INCLUDING LIBBY, WAS INDICTED FOR OUTING VALERIE PLAME.

As Wilson makes more EXCLUSIVE appearances, taking his fabrications to any lib media outlet that will air them, remember what Fitzgerald said:

"And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent.

"We have not charged that. And so I'm not making that assertion."

Note:

In addition to his LIVE interview on Today, Joseph Wilson talks about the CIA leak investigation, on CNN's The Situation Room, Monday, 7 PM ET.

Poor Joe. It must be rough doing all these EXCLUSIVES.

Campbell Brown Shills for Wilson

Campbell Brown's interview with Joe Wilson could be characterized as a love letter to him rather than a tough interrogation.

It was embarrassing.

Brown not only let Wilson lie without challenge, she asked him leading questions, enabling him to distort the truth.

She highlighted his stellar credentials as a diplomat in Africa. Therefore, she said, it made sense that the CIA would send Wilson to Niger.

Interesting.

In July of 2004, The Washington Post gave a much different account than Wilson did.

More recently, last Tuesday, the Post ran a piece showing Wilson in a light far harsher than the soft glow of the lens used by NBC.

Most important to remember:

VALERIE PLAME WAS OUTED BY JOE WILSON.

From FOX, July 15, 2005:

In Wilson's book, The Politics of Truth, he writes that he and his future wife both returned from overseas assignments in June 1997. Neither spouse was again stationed outside the United States, according to the book; they appear to have remained in Washington, D.C., where they married and became parents of twins.

Six years later, in July 2003, Plame's name was revealed by columnist Robert Novak.

The column's date is important because the law against unmasking the identities of U.S. spies says a "covert agent" must have been on an overseas assignment "within the last five years." The assignment also must be long-term, not a short trip or temporary post, two experts on the law say. Wilson's book makes numerous references to the couple's life in Washington over the six years up to July 2003.

Victoria Toensing, former counsel for the Senate Intelligence Committee who helped write the law protecting the identities of intelligence agents, told FOX News on Thursday that "no, in a nutshell," Rove did not commit a crime. Plame's status at the time of the revelation is key to that conclusion, she said.

"That's a very big question," Toensing said, referring to exactly what status Plame had within the CIA at the time of the alleged "leak." "When did she leave her foreign assignment?"

If it was in 1997, as noted in Wilson's book, Toensing said, "she would not have even have to come to the definition of a 'covert agent' under the law how we wrote it."

Brown almost grudingly acknowledged that Wilson has come under attack. However, she gave scant air time to the charges of Wilson's "critics."

Stone Phillips ended the segment with a reminder to watch an exclusive LIVE interview with Joe Wilson tomorrow morning on Today.

When I add all of this up, I come to the conclusion that a special prosecutor should investigate NBC's role in trying to undermine the U.S. government

"SOMEBODY NEEDS TO HOSE YOU DOWN"

That's the quote of the morning: "Somebody needs to hose you down."

Brit Hume said that to Juan Williams during a discussion regarding the indictment of Scooter Libby.

His quote could have been directed to each of the libs appearing on the Sunday talk shows that were gleefully characterizing the Bush presidency as dead.

On FOX News Sunday, Chris Dodd was giggling with excitement.

Harry Reid, on ABC's This Week, pulled off a better performance than Dodd. He managed to put on a sad face. Reid grimly stated what a mess the country is in, running through a litany of "disasters" embroiling the nation.

Referring to the Bush administration, Reid said, "I've been in public life a long time. I've never been so disappointed...dejected."

I'd like to ask Reid if he felt a tiny bit of disappointment when PRESIDENT Bill Clinton was forced to admit that he lied under oath, lied to his cabinet, lied to members of the Democrat Party, and lied to the American people about perjuring himself and obstructing justice.

Behind the grave expression, Reid was reveling in the opportunity that Stephanapolous gave him to bash Republicans.

Also on ABC's This Week was Time reporter Matt Cooper. He was a participant during the roundtable segment. As a witness in the case, Cooper is not bound to secrecy. He can say whatever he wants. However, Cooper can't claim to have anything resembling journalistic objectivity when discussing the matter.

The same goes for Tim Russert. He's in the middle of the case against Libby. Due to that fact, I believe Russert should recuse himself as host of Meet the Press until the case is resolved.



Wishful thinking, I know.

Transcript

Russert displayed that he was incapable of acting as a fair moderator when the subject is Scooter Libby. His choice of quotes, his highlighting of certain sections of the indictment, not to mention his creepy grin and equally creepy twinkling eyes, showed that he should not be allowed to be part of any debate on the case.

Sure, William Safire and David Brooks brought some balance to the discussion, but not enough in my opinion.

NBC looks terribly biased by having Russert in charge of a program dealing with a matter that involves him intimately. I suppose that's precisely why NBC could not care less that there is a conflict of interest when Russert participates in reports on Libby.

All the shows touched on Miers withdrawing her nomination for Supreme Court justice.

On Meet the Press, Russert pulled up a quote from former Senator John Danforth.

Senator Danforth said this the other day. "I think that the Republican Party fairly recently has been taken over by the Christian conservatives, by the Christian right ... I don't think this is a permanent condition, but I this has happened and that it's divisive for the country."

How does President Bush embrace that base, provide a Supreme Court nominee acceptable to that base, and still appeal to swing independent voters and moderate Democrats?

Russert singled out the "Christian" Right as forcing Miers to step aside, as well as controlling the Bush administration's agenda.

If I recall correctly, and I do, the Christian Right did not oppose Miers. Among the very loud opposition voices were Bill Kristol, Mark Levin, the Wall Street Journal, George Will, Robert Bork, and Ann Coulter, to name a few.

When did these people become members of the Christian Right? Apparently, some converted to Christianity while I wasn't paying attention.

FOX ran a funny string of clips showing Dems echoing the same talking point last week. They all made reference to the radical, far Right.

When will the Dems learn that they just can't repeat the talking points that are circulated? They have to vary them at least a little bit or they come off as suffering from the Parrot Flu.

Watching Meet the Press, I caught two commercials promoting upcoming NBC shows. One was for tonight's Dateline. NBC has decided to give the distinguished, credible Joe Wilson a forum.

If this interview is anything like Jamie Gangel's EXCLUSIVE back in July, it will be a disgrace. In Gangel's interview, I got the feeling that she was Wilson's PR agent. She provided a forum for him to perpetuate his lies and spin without a single challenge to his "inconsistencies."



I can only imagine what tonight's interview will be like.

The other promo was for the low-rated Hardball with Chris Matthews. The bit teased, "Is this the tip of the iceberg?"

Despite Patrick Fitzgerald's caution to not exaggerate Libby's indictment and read meaning into it that is not there, Matthews and NBC are trying to turn the charges against Libby into Watergate.

The libs need to get a grip.

As Brit Hume suggested:

HOSE THEM DOWN.

The Unbearable Relativity of Eleanor Clift's Rage

Eleanor Clift has lost her mind.

If she hasn't, she is being incredibly disingenuous in her statements about the intelligence that the WORLD had about Saddam Hussein's regime.

On The McLaughlin Group, Clift was screeching about the Bush administration lying us into war.

Clift and all those reiterating that claim are truly embarrassing themselves. They've done so from the first time they began chanting that mantra and it appears that they intend to continue, with no end in sight.

The reality is Clift and her fellow libs cannot insist that Bush lied the U.S. into war without insisting that Clinton and the Dems lied about Iraq as well.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Clift fell back on that tired old Dem talking point about the administration cherry-picking intelligence to build a case for war.

Apparently, Clift is content to do some cherry-picking of her own.

FACT:

WHAT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION SAID ABOUT SADDAM HUSSEIN'S REGIME WAS NOT QUALITATIVELY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION AND THE DEMOCRATS SAID.

Divided and Demoralized?

Once again, the New York Times reveals how detached the liberal elitists are from reality.

Drudge reports on what the Times has in store for readers on Sunday.

BUSH HOPES FOR FRESH START
Sat Oct 29 2005 12:08:08 ET

More than nine troubled months after taking the oath of office and in the wake of the indictment of a senior administration official, President Bush will try to give his second term a fresh start by naming a new nominee to the Supreme Court, intensifying his drive to cut government spending and continuing to speak more bluntly about the threat from Islamic fundamentalism, the NEW YORK TIMES reports on Sunday.

The administration's goal was to reassure its divided and demoralized conservative base, chalk up a few victories on Capitol Hill and set the stage for a more robust comeback next year after months that have seen one misstep and setback after another.

I do not sense that conservatives are divided or demoralized, not at all.

I understand why lib propaganda outlets like the Times want to believe that's the case. They worked tirelessly to divide and demoralize conservatives ever since Americans elected Bush. They have sought to undermine the Bush administration by twisting the truth and manipulating facts. They don't care about the impact their misinformation has on our country or our troops. They are driven solely by their anti-Bush agenda, hoping to rip the conservative power base apart.

I think the Times confuses the Bush administration with the conservative movement.

Problems for Bush don't necessarily translate into problems that would divide or demoralize conservatives. I thought these libs are supposed to be so intelligent. Why are they incapable of making that distinction? It's probably just wishful thinking on their part that conservatives are disintegrating.

The libs hoped this week would be the final nail in the conservative movement's coffin. Miers withdrawing her nomination, 2000 dead in Iraq, and the indictment of Libby were to be the cue to sound the death knell for conservatives.

WRONG!

I think conservatives are more energized than ever as a result of the lib media being in full drool mode for weeks, months. There is great optimism that Bush's next choice for the Supreme Court will be a better reflection of the principles that conservatives have fought so hard for.

Moreover, forcing Scooter Libby to resign in no way alters the power of the conservative movement. Even forcing Cheney or Bush to resign would not impact the movement because the movement is not about individuals. Its strength is derived from the shared principles of conservatives. That philosophy is what propelled individuals into office, giving Republicans control of the House, Senate, and Presidency.

In other words, Bush, the House, and the Senate don't give conservatives power. Conservatives give them power.

The Miers nomination and her eventual withdrawal certainly should have clarified that for the libs.

Furthermore, if Libby is found guilty of committing a crime, which I doubt, that would be a reflection on Libby's character alone, not the state of the conservative moment.

No division or demoralization here.

The libs just don't get it.

Shared principles and ideals drive the conservative moment. It's bigger than any one individual. Taking out a White House aide doesn't touch the millions of people in the ranks of the movement. Their commitment is to a philosophy, not a person.

Elsewhere in the Old Gray Lady, the dueling columnists: Frank Rick, who claims, special counsel Fitzgerald fills in a piece of the puzzle; while David Brooks maintains: Democrats make the facts fit the conspiracy theory.

It's hard to comment on this little blurb from Drudge, but generally speaking:

David Brooks makes sense.

Frank Rich is clinically delusional.

The Old Gray Lady is senile.

What If...

What if Patrick Fitzgerald had been the independent counsel investigating Bill Clinton's scandals instead of Ken Starr?


President Clinton is sworn in for his videotaped grand jury testimony Monday, Aug. 17, 1998.


Clinton begins his videotaped grand jury testimony Monday, Aug. 17, 1998.


Clinton makes an opening statement in his videotaped grand jury testimony.


Clinton responds to a question about his interpretation of sexual relations.

Do you think the Lewinsky matter would have played out any differently?

Would Fitzgerald have indicted Bill Clinton?

Based on the indictment of Scooter Libby, one can only conclude that Fitzgerald most definitely would have indicted Clinton on obstruction of justice, false statement and perjury charges.


Consider what Clinton did, from the Starr Report:

1. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil case when he denied a sexual affair, a sexual relationship, or sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.

2. President Clinton lied under oath to the grand jury about his sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

3. In his civil deposition, to support his false statement about the sexual relationship, President Clinton also lied under oath about being alone with Ms. Lewinsky and about the many gifts exchanged between Ms. Lewinsky and him.

4. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Ms. Lewinsky concerning her involvement in the Jones case.

5. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth about their relationship by concealing gifts subpoenaed by Ms. Jones's attorneys.

6. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth of their relationship from the judicial process by a scheme that included the following means: (i) Both the President and Ms. Lewinsky understood that they would lie under oath in the Jones case about their sexual relationship; (ii) the President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she prepare an affidavit that, for the President's purposes, would memorialize her testimony under oath and could be used to prevent questioning of both of them about their relationship; (iii) Ms. Lewinsky signed and filed the false affidavit; (iv) the President used Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit at his deposition in an attempt to head off questions about Ms. Lewinsky; and (v) when that failed, the President lied under oath at his civil deposition about the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

7. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by helping Ms. Lewinsky obtain a job in New York at a time when she would have been a witness harmful to him were she to tell the truth in the Jones case.

8. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Vernon Jordan concerning Ms. Lewinsky's involvement in the Jones case.

9. The President improperly tampered with a potential witness by attempting to corruptly influence the testimony of his personal secretary, Betty Currie, in the days after his civil deposition.

10. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice during the grand jury investigation by refusing to testify for seven months and lying to senior White House aides with knowledge that they would relay the President's false statements to the grand jury -- and did thereby deceive, obstruct, and impede the grand jury.

11. President Clinton abused his constitutional authority by (i) lying to the public and the Congress in January 1998 about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; (ii) promising at that time to cooperate fully with the grand jury investigation; (iii) later refusing six invitations to testify voluntarily to the grand jury; (iv) invoking Executive Privilege; (v) lying to the grand jury in August 1998; and (vi) lying again to the public and Congress on August 17, 1998 -- all as part of an effort to hinder, impede, and deflect possible inquiry by the Congress of the United States.

Obviously, Starr concluded that Clinton lied, a lot.

Nonetheless, Starr was satisfied with the deal that Clinton cut with Robert Ray to avoid being prosecuted in court.

Newsmax, January 23, 2001:

In a CNN interview, the former independent counsel said:

The last-minute "accommodation" Clinton reached with Starr's successor, Robert Ray, was "a very reasonable and sensible solution" in which the departing president "did acknowledge his responsibility and his shortcoming as a witness in the system.

...Starr called Clinton's deal last week a fitting end to an "unfortunate era."

In his final full day in office, Clinton wriggled out of any possible indictment in the Monica Lewinsky case by acknowledging for the first time that he had made false statements under oath about his relationship with the former White House intern.

And to wipe out the disbarment proceedings against him in his home state of Arkansas, Clinton agreed to let his law license be suspended for five years and to pay a $25,000 fine.

Starr said Clinton could have ended his predicament years ago by admitting his wrongdoing.

"It obviously would have been far better, less expensive, less divisive, if this acknowledgment would have come much earlier – say, in January of 1998," Starr said.

"But better late than never, and that's what I think helps bring, properly and reasonably, closure."

Considering how aggressively Fitzgerald went after Scooter Libby, I seriously doubt that he would have let Clinton get off without an indictment.

I guess the Dems should be thankful that Patrick Fitzgerald wasn't at the helm of the investigations into Clinton's many offenses.

I can't imagine Fitzgerald the Zealous giving Clinton a pass.

The End of the Holy Month

Rallies are held as part of annual al-Quds Day protests.



Iranian school boys shoot toy guns at an Israeli flag during an anti-Israeli rally.


This is how some Muslims celebrated the end of the holy month of Ramadan. Millions of the faithful spilled into the streets, united by their hate for Israel.

TEHRAN, Iran -- Iran's ultraconservative president — spurning international outrage over his remarks about Israel — joined more than a million demonstrators who flooded the streets of the capital and other major cities Friday to back his call for the destruction of the Jewish state.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stood fast behind his assertion that Israel should be wiped off the map and repeated the call during the nationwide protests Friday, the Muslim day of prayer.

...Marching alongside the protesters, the 47-year-old former mayor of Tehran and one-time Republican Guard commander renewed his criticism of the West.

"They become upset when they hear any voice of truth-seeking. They think they are the absolute rulers of the world," he said during the al-Quds — or Jerusalem — Day protest, which was among the largest since they were first held in 1979 after Shiite Muslim clerics took power in Iran.

His fellow marchers carried placards reading "Death to Israel, death to America."

...Some demonstrators chanted "Israel is approaching its death" and wore white shrouds in a symbolic gesture expressing readiness to die for their cause.

A resolution was read at the end of the rallies backing "the position declared by the president that the Zionist regime must be wiped out."

...Protests attracted at least 100,000 in each of Iran's eight largest cities, according to AP reporters. State television said millions of people assembled throughout the country. Major rallies also were held in other Middle Eastern countries.

...Iran's seven state-run TV stations devoted coverage Friday to programs condemning the Jewish state and praising the Palestinian resistance since the 1948 creation of Israel.

...After Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini toppled the pro-Western Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi in 1979, he declared the last Friday of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan as an international day of struggle against Israel and for the liberation of Jerusalem. The founder of the Islamic regime had also called for Israel's destruction.

The last day of the "holy" month of Ramadan is devoted to rallies calling for the annihilation of Israel.

How holy!

What a message!

Love and Peace!

Hundreds of thousands gathered with placards saying "Death to Israel, death to America."

Very nice.

From the BBC:

Tens of thousands of Iranians took part in the rally in Tehran which Iran organises every year on the last Friday of the fasting month of Ramadan to show solidarity with the Palestinian struggle.

Shouting "Death to Israel, death to the Zionists", the protesters dragged Israeli flags along the ground and then set them on fire.

Many carried posters and placards sporting the slogan "Israel should be wiped off the map".

Joining the protest, Mr Ahmadinejad said: "My words were the Iranian nation's words.

"Westerners are free to comment, but their reactions are invalid," Mr Ahmadinejad told the official Irna news agency.

..."Ahmadinejad talks on behalf of all Iranians. We are ready to die for Palestine," Mohammad Mirzayi, a member of a volunteer Shia militia group, told the Reuters news agency.

So, Ahmadinejad is the voice of Iran; and Iran wants to crush Israel and the United States.

This guy is talking right out of his axis of evil.

He disregards the admonishment he has received from around the world by saying Western condemnation is invalid.

How should world leaders deal with someone like Ahmadinejad?

FIRST, there should be unconditional denouncement of Ahmadinejad's remarks. No wishy-washy, Dr. Phil-type analysis. None of that "Let's understand what makes them hate Israel and the U.S." stuff.

Ahmadinejad is a thug. Those buying into his philosophy are thugs. There should be zero-tolerance for Ahmadinejad's comments.

ZERO.

SECOND, any world leader or group who sympathizes with Ahmadinejad is as dangerous as he is.

The civilized world cannot look the other way while the ideology of hate and war that Ahmadinejad and like-minded thugs promote gains momentum.

They are evil. There should be no hesitation to designate them as such.

THIRD, absolutely no nukes can be allowed to get in the hands of unstable warmongers like Ahmadinejad.

The photo of the little Iranian boys pointing guns at the Israeli flag breaks my heart.

Children have to be taught to hate. Ahmadinejad, with his intolerance for Israel, is blackening the hearts of the children of Iran.

What a horrible lesson they are learning!

Peace-loving Muslims must be outraged by these displays from the radical fundamentalist groups. If I were a Muslim, I would be telling anyone willing to listen that these thugs do not represent me or my beliefs.

I don't understand the Iranians. I would never go along with a religion that concludes its holiest month with rallies calling for murder.

But hey, that's just me.

The Party of Racists

The BBC reports:

The body of civil rights icon Rosa Parks is set to lie in honour in the US Capitol Rotunda - the first time that a woman has received the tribute.

The US Senate voted on Thursday to allow the move and Congress is set to approve the decision on Friday.

The text of the Senate resolution said that the honour should allow US citizens "to pay their last respects to this great American."

...Lying in honour is a tribute usually reserved for presidents and soldiers.

Presidents Ronald Reagan, Abraham Lincoln, John F Kennedy are among the US leaders to have received the honour.

World War II General Douglas MacArthur and the bodies of several unknown soldiers have also been given the tribute.

"Rosa Parks' brave and simple act ignited a movement that rewove America's social fabric," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said.

"Allowing Mrs Parks to lie in honour here is a testament to the impact of her life on both our nation's history and future."

Her remains will lie in the Capitol Rotunda on Sunday and Monday.

Ms Parks was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1996, and the Congressional Gold Medal, the nation's highest civilian honour, three years later.

S.CON.RES.61

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That, in recognition of the historic contributions of Rosa Parks, her remains be permitted to lie in honor in the rotunda of the Capitol from October 30 to October 31, 2005, so that the citizens of the United States may pay their last respects to this great American. The Architect of the Capitol, under the direction and supervision of the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall take all necessary steps for the accomplishment of that purpose.


Press Release

(Excerpts)

The Resolution passed the Senate unanimously with a companion Resolution expected to pass the House of Representatives tomorrow.

The remains of Rosa Parks will lie in honor from October 30, 2005 to October 31, 2005. It will be the first time a woman will lie in honor in the Capitol Rotunda.

"Rosa Parks' brave and simple act ignited a movement that rewove America's social fabric," said Frist. "Her actions spoke volumes about the importance of principle and the capacity of the individual to change the world. The Capitol Rotunda is one of America's most powerful illustrations of the values of freedom and equality upon which our republic was founded, and allowing Mrs. Parks to lie in honor here is a testament to the impact of her life on both our nation's history and future."

In addition, the Federal building in Detroit was renamed the "Rosa Parks Federal Building."

S.1285.ES


Does this make sense?

It doesn't according to what Dems and their liberal media mouthpieces would have us believe.

The Republican-controlled Senate and House have designated that the Federal building in Detroit will bear the name of Rosa Parks. More significantly, they will give Rosa Parks a tribute usually reserved for presidents and soldiers, by permitting her remains to lie in honor in the rotunda of the Capitol .

Why would the Party of racists bestow such honors on Parks?

They don't care about black people, right?

I suppose the Republicans grudgingly agreed to go along with this. It must be a political move. They couldn't possibly sincerely wish to recognize the pivotal role that Rosa Parks played in sparking the civil rights movement, could they?

Certainly, if one believes what the Dems say, this is just another "illusion of inclusion."

Back in February, while addressing the Congressional Black Caucus, DNC Chairman Howard Dean joked:

"You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here."

In Dean's lame attempt at humor, he displays his embarrassing unfamiliarity with the Democrat Party's history. If he does know his Party's past, he conveniently ignores it. In other words, Dean is either ignorant or a liar or both.

The documented examples of Dem racism are many, too many to mention.

Just a few:

1) On June 11, 1963, George Wallace stood in front of a schoolhouse door at the University of Alabama in an attempt to stop desegregation of that institution by the enrollment of two black students, Vivian Malone and James Hood.

2) Senator Al Gore, Sr., voted against some major civil rights legislation including the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

3) Senator Robert Byrd, former Ku Klux Klan member, has the distinction of being the only senator to vote against both black Supreme Court justices, Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas. Former Klansman Byrd, at one time holding the titles "Kleagle", which indicated a Klan recruiter, and "Exalted Cyclops," joined with other southern Democrats to oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Byrd filibustered the bill for more than 14 hours, saying it abrogated principles of federalism.

I'm sure the likes of Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan and assorted partisan nuts could conjure up theories to distort the reasons why the Republican-controlled Congress is honoring Rosa Parks with such respect and distinction. Without question, Parks deserves the accolades; but it doesn't fit the Left's template of Republicans as racists for them to acknowledge the accomplishments of a black woman.

Like all the other mean-spirited, false accusations that characterize Republicans as racists, in the end, none of that matters.

Actions speak louder than words.

Think of the volumes that Rosa Parks spoke in December of 1955, when she refused to give up her bus seat.

Fitzgerald Meets the Press

Text of Fitzgerald's press release

Why was Patrick Fitzgerald sweating so much during his press conference?

I haven't seen someone sweat that much since John Kerry gave his acceptance speech at the Dem National Convention in 2004.

Repeatedly during his comments, Fitz kept saying everyone needs to "take a deep breath." It seemed like he needed to take a deep breath.

The press, particularly the rabid types like Terry Moran and Michael Isikoff, were hoping Fitz would give answers that would implicate Bush and Cheney in wrong-doing.

Fitz wouldn't bite.

I wasn't counting how many times he responded this way, but most of his answers could be paraphrased as, "Let me say this, I can't answer that."

Fitz seemed to be hyperventilating during the press conference, as were the members of the press.

The Special Prosecutor did make clear that Libby was NOT indicted for outing a covert CIA agent and that he is presumed innocent until found guilty.

I doubt that the media picked up on that.

More fun stuff!

Libby Indicted

Oct. 28: Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby walks from the White House to the Eisenhower Executive Building.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Vice presidential adviser I. Lewis "Scooter' Libby Jr. was indicted Friday on charges of obstruction of justice, making a false statement and perjury in the CIA leak case.

Karl Rove, President Bush's closest adviser, escaped indictment Friday but remained under investigation, his legal status a looming political problem for the White House.

The indictments stem from a two-year investigation by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald into whether Rove, Libby or any other administration officials knowingly revealed the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame or lied about their involvement to investigators.

The five-count indictment accuses Libby of lying about how and when he learned about CIA official Valerie Plane's identity in 2003 and then told reporters about it. The information was classified.

Any trial would shine a spotlight on the secret deliberations of Bush and his team as they built the case for war against Iraq.

Indictment Text


John Solomon and Pete Yost, the reporters who filed this piece, are obviously in a state of extreme arousal. The same goes for the lib pundits on the cable channels. (Thank God most of the camera shots don't go below the waist.)

Tim Russert was smiling as broadly as if the Buffalo Bills had just won the Super Bowl.

I hate to think of how they'd all be acting if Rove had been indicted today. That would have had the potential to be truly embarrassing for the lib media, not to mention messy.

Dems were quick to react to the news. Of course, they had responses at the ready. They no doubt spent weeks preparing their remarks, kind of like an Oscar nominee practicing an acceptance speech.

Nancy Pelosi said:

"The criminal indictments of a top White House official mark a sad day for America and another chapter in the Republicans' culture of corruption. At the heart of these indictments was the effort by the Bush Administration to discredit critics of its Iraq policy with reckless disregard for national security and the public trust."

She really hits on all the Dem talking points, doesn't she?

"Sad day"? The Dems have been eagerly awaiting this moment. I detect no sadness, only unbridled ecstasy.

I'm sure Pelosi hasn't been this happy since her plastic surgeon told her that she could get a discount on services, based on the volume of the procedures she's had.

TGIIF!

Patrick Fitzgerald is really milking this investigation for all it's worth.

The New York Times has more leaks to report today. What a surprise!

Of course, the sources must remain anonymous, since the grand jury probe is secret.

Yeah, secret. Right.

The Times writes:

Lawyers in the C.I.A. leak case said Thursday that they expected I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, to be indicted on Friday, charged with making false statements to the grand jury.

Karl Rove, President Bush's senior adviser and deputy chief of staff, will not be charged on Friday, but will remain under investigation, people briefed officially about the case said. As a result, they said, the special counsel in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, was likely to extend the term of the federal grand jury beyond its scheduled expiration on Friday.

As rumors coursed through the capital, Mr. Fitzgerald gave no public signal of how he intended to proceed, further intensifying the anxiety that has gripped the White House and left partisans on both sides of the political aisle holding their breath.

Mr. Fitzgerald's preparations for a Friday announcement were shrouded in secrecy, but advanced amid a flurry of behind-the-scenes discussions that left open the possibility of last-minute surprises. As the clock ticked down on the grand jury, people involved in the investigation did not rule out the disclosure of previously unknown aspects of the case.

White House officials said their presumption was that Mr. Libby would resign if indicted, and he and Mr. Rove took steps to expand their legal teams in preparation for a possible court battle.

Among the many unresolved mysteries is whether anyone in addition to Mr. Libby and Mr. Rove might be charged and in particular whether Mr. Fitzgerald would name the source who first provided the identity of a covert C.I.A. officer to Robert D. Novak, the syndicated columnist. Mr. Novak identified the officer in a column published July 14, 2003.

The investigation seemed to be taking an unexpectedly extended path after nearly two years in which Mr. Fitzgerald brought more than a dozen current and former administration officials before the grand jury and interviewed Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney to determine how the identity of the officer, Valerie Plame Wilson, became public.

Mr. Fitzgerald is expected to hold a news conference at the Justice Department in Washington on Friday. His spokesman, Randall Samborn, declined to comment.

...The apparent delay in a decision about whether to charge Mr. Rove, and the continuation of the criminal inquiry, is a mixed outcome for the administration. It leaves open the possibility that Mr. Rove, Mr. Bush's closest and most trusted adviser, could avoid indictment altogether, an outcome that would be not just a legal victory but also the best political outcome the White House could hope for under the circumstances.

Yet, in apparently leaving Mr. Rove in legal limbo for now, Mr. Fitzgerald has left him and Mr. Bush to twist in the uncertainty of a case that has delved deep into the innermost workings of the White House and provided Democrats an opportunity to attack the administration's honesty and the way it justified the war to the American people.

Mr. Rove has had to step back from many of his public duties, including appearing at fund-raisers, and he is likely to have to keep a low profile as long as the investigation continues. It could also leave him distracted, depriving the White House of his full attention at a time when Mr. Bush is struggling to regain his political footing after months in which the bloody insurgency in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina and the failed Supreme Court nomination of Harriet E. Miers have left the administration stumbling.

Can you feel the excitement?

Isn't it great that the administration is stumbling? At a time of war, while American service men and women are in harm's way, what could be better?

Good Lord.

Personally, I can't wait for Fitzgerald's news conference later today. I am so sick of all of this ridiculous speculative reporting.

I want to learn the names of these big-mouthed lawyers. I want to know which people close to the case keep blabbing to the Times.

All these leaks, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of the grand jury probe, are driving me crazy.

The idea that the investigation is being conducted under a veil of secrecy is a joke.

Why bother maintaining that facade? Why pretend? Why not conduct the business of the grand jury on Court TV?

I can't stand it anymore.

TGIIF!

Thank God it's Indictment Friday!!!

Leftists Don't Care About (Conservative) Black People

THE QUESTION: In America, 2005, when is it socially acceptable to be racist?

One would think that the answer would be that it's never socially acceptable to be racist.

That's not true.

THE ANSWER: It is socially acceptable for Leftists to employ racist comments and use derogatory racial imagery when referring to black conservatives.

Two recent examples illustrating this rule deal with doctored photos.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE

As reported by Michelle Malkin, and originally discovered by From The Pen, USA Today ran a doctored photo of Rice on October 19, 2005, with the article, "Rice won't rule out U.S. troops in Iraq in 10 years."



Her eyes look rather piercing, don't they?

Yesterday, after receiving complaints, USA Today pulled the doctored picture of the demonized Condi, replaced it with the original, and printed an explanation for the altered photo.

Editor's note: The photo of Condoleezza Rice that originally accompanied this story was altered in a manner that did not meet USA TODAY's editorial standards. The photo has been replaced by a properly adjusted copy. Photos published online are routinely cropped for size and adjusted for brightness and sharpness to optimize their appearance. In this case, after sharpening the photo for clarity, the editor brightened a portion of Rice's face, giving her eyes an unnatural appearance. This resulted in a distortion of the original not in keeping with our editorial standards.



Editorial standards? What editorial standards? Does USA Today operate under standards set by Michael Moore?

Clearly, that photo was not altered in order to "optimize its appearance." The editor has an agenda and it's not pro-Condi.

If a liberal African-American woman were given that sort of treatment to "optimize" her appearance, there would be an outcry. Shouts of racism would be echoing across the country. It would be the lead story on news broadcasts and plastered on the front pages of publications.

The fact is there is a sinister acceptance of racism when it's directed at conservatives.

I suppose Rice got off relatively easy this time. Only her eyes were photoshopped to make her look possessed by a demon. The USA Today editor managed to exercise enough control to stop before going any further and dressing her like Aunt Jemima.

If you recall, it was about a year ago when John Sylvester, the program director and morning personality on WTDY-AM in Madison, WI, called Rice an "Aunt Jemima," saying that she had only a subservient role in the Bush administration.

Of course, Sylvester is an idiot. He claimed, "[T]hey’re using her for an illusion of inclusion."

How did the Madison branch of the NAACP respond to this outrageousness? Linda Hoskins said she could not comment on Sylvester’s remarks until she had heard them in their entirety.

Right. Hoskins thought that he might have used the term in a flattering way. Sure.

For his part, Sylvester refused to apologize for his racist remarks. Instead, he planned a giveaway of Aunt Jemima pancake mix and syrup, adding, "I will apologize to Aunt Jemima."

MARYLAND LT. GOV. MICHAEL S. STEELE

This example is breathtaking in its racial insensitivity.

The News Blog has the following photo and story about Michael Steele:


I's Simple Sambo and I's running for the Big House

Steele Vows to Link Democrats, GOP
Lt. Governor Makes Senate Race Official

By Matthew Mosk
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 26, 2005; Page B09

Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele formally launched his bid for U.S. Senate yesterday, standing on his own for the first time since a successful political partnership with Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. catapulted him to statewide office.

With Gov. Ehrlich (R) sitting in the front row and a crowd of supporters cheering in a Prince George's Community College field house, Steele kicked off what promises to be a bruising 2006 campaign for the seat being vacated by five-term Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes (D).

Steele delivered a rousing populist speech that never mentioned his Republican Party affiliation and appeared to take swipes at both parties, including the same Washington insiders who urged him to enter the race and financed his exploratory committee.

The first black to win statewide office in Maryland, Steele, 47, promised that he would make history again by being a bridge -- "a bridge of steel" -- between Democrats and Republicans, between Capitol Hill and Main Street.

"A bridge that not only brings both parties together but, more importantly, brings all of us closer to one another," he said.
...................

Instead, Steele gave the first glimpse of the delicate line he will attempt to tread as he seeks to marshal support in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans on voter rolls by a margin of nearly 2 to 1 and where a new poll shows President Bush's support among blacks at just 3 percent.

Republicans are seeing Steele as their best hope in years for a Senate seat. But even among Ehrlich loyalists, there were mixed views about Steele's ability to pull it off.

"He would need a perfect storm," said Richard E. Vatz, a professor at Towson University.

"An uphill battle," said Richard Hug, Ehrlich's chief fundraiser.

Ehrlich's people are already abandoning Simple Sambo.

And if he thinks he can win Baltimore and the DC suburbs, he's on crack. Black people will not only not vote for him, but regard him with contempt. When he said it was no big deal that Ehrlich held an event in a restricted country club, he showed himself to be Simple Sambo, untrustworthy and unreliable. Now, his bossman's people look like they're gonna let him sink, not swim.

When your boss's money people are laughing at you in print, well, Simple Sambo has a long way to go.

Wait? The 2 percent poll wasn't an outlier like so many people said? Wow. It would really suck to be facing a DC jury and working for the White House, wouldn't it?

I get the feeling the grand jury would have charged them with unicorn theft if they could.

This blog entry is one of the most despicable things I've read. It belongs on a Neo-Nazi site.

The blogger behind this entry is Steve Gilliard, an African-American. Apparently, because of his skin color, he believes that he has immunity to racially slur Steele. Because he is slurring a black conservative, liberals and African-American groups don't object.



Bill Bennett was called a racist and criticized for saying things that he didn't say. Dems rushed to the Senate floor to condemn him.

Louis Farrakhan gets to plant theories about the U.S. government bombing levees in New Orleans to flood black neighborhoods, with no loud complaints from the Dems or African-American leaders.

Kanye West spews anti-Bush, race-baiting comments on a live NBC telethon for Hurricane Katrina relief and the Leftist media praise him for speaking the truth.

Where is the condemnation for the racist attack on Steele?

Where is the condemnation for the repeated racial attacks on Rice?

Cue the crickets.

I guess it would be valid to say that Leftists don't care about black people. Make that CONSERVATIVE black people.

It sickens me that liberals are willing to accept the most disgusting racist attacks as long as conservatives are in the crosshairs. They'll rationalize anything if it furthers their agenda.

The depth of the hypocrisy of Leftists is truly jaw-dropping.

A Godsend

MIERS IS OUT.

WASHINGTON -- Under withering attack from conservatives, President Bush abandoned his push to put loyalist Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court and promised a quick replacement Thursday. Democrats accused him of bowing to the "radical right wing of the Republican Party."

The White House said Miers had withdrawn because of senators' demands to see internal documents related to her role as counsel to the president. But politics played a larger role: Bush's conservative backers had doubts about her ideological purity, and Democrats had little incentive to help the nominee or the embattled GOP president.

"Let's move on," said Republican Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi. "In a month, who will remember the name Harriet Miers?"

The withdrawal stunned Washington on a day when the capital was awaiting potential bad news for the administration on another front _ the possible indictments of senior White House aides in the CIA leak case. Earlier in the week, the U.S. military death toll in Iraq hit 2,000.

Much to the dismay of the Dems, the Harriet Miers era has ended.

Miers' Letter to the President

President Bush's Statement

Her fate is sealed. She will be a footnote in American history rather than a Supreme Court justice.

I never bought the theory that her nomination was all part of a grand scheme, that Bush threw Harriet Miers out there as a sacrificial lamb, that he never thought she would be confirmed, that it was all a set-up to get a more hard-line conservative on the Court.

However, as it turns out, Miers served that purpose. The Right's rejection of Miers does give Bush an opportunity he would not have had if conservatives had fallen in lockstep behind his choice, kool-aid drinking Dem-style.

Bush, the uniter, gets to say to Dems that he tried to offer a consensus nominee. (That's Dem-speak for someone likely to be a Sandra Day O'Connor waffler, or a woman in Souter's clothing.)

The President now can truthfully say that in spite of his best efforts, Republican senators were not going to confirm Miers.

So, he's been forced to offer his Party a nominee more to their liking, someone more likely to rile the Dems.

The Dems have been hacking away at Bush for so long now, doing all they can to weaken him. It looks like their relentless pounding has had an impact. They wanted a weakened Bush; they got it. Ironically, their success in that effort, their joy at the embattled Bush, will come back to bite them--hard.

Now, there is guaranteed to be a bitter fight for O’Connor’s Supreme Court seat.

From the Dems’ perspective, this falls in the category of "Be careful what you wish for."

Actually, I find the timing of the Miers withdrawal to be quite opportune for Republicans.

The fact that Bush will soon be announcing another nominee has to derail, to some extent, the salivating liberal mainstream media's frenzied coverage of the Fitzgerald investigation. Miers stepping aside demands attention from the media. They have to take resources off the Nadagate story. Miers has pushed all that indictment speculation to the back burner, at least temporarily.

It also forces the Dems to scatter in order to start preparing to attack an unknown target.

I think the Miers withdrawal can be seen as a welcomed deflection for the White House.

It gives Bush an opportunity to regroup. The conservative base is definitely charged up and now he can get that energized herd back on the ranch.

All in all, I think that the Miers nomination may have been a godsend for the conservative movement.

EIGHT OUT OF TEN GUESSES

The Washington Post has yet another article SPECULATING on the Patrick Fitzgerald investigation. Like all the others, it's based on information from unidentified sources, such as "people close to the case."

I see no point in analyzing the media's analysis of the probe since it's all a guessing game.

However, this part of the Post's article was so amusing that I just had to comment.

A new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup poll reminded the White House of the damage the CIA leak case has already inflicted: Eight in ten people surveyed said that aides had either broken the law or acted unethically.

That is so lame!

FIRST, eight in ten people don't have a clue what the facts of this "scandal" are. I would be surprised if that many people could name any White House aide.

SECOND, it's a ridiculous poll question. I know that I couldn't answer it because I haven't heard the testimony. I haven't had access to the materials that members of the grand jury are sifting through.

How can one possibly determine that aides broke the law or acted unethically? One cannot even give an educated guess.

In sum, eight in ten people pulled an answer to that question out of...thin air. It is a totally uninformed judgment, rendering it meaningless.

MEANINGLESS.

It's as meaningless as the foaming at the mouth mainstream media coverage of the investigation. Most of the "news" being circulated is rumors, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

I don't know why Fitzgerald is dragging this out. Supposedly, indictments were going to be handed down last week.

Who knows? Maybe he has a film crew following him around, like Ronnie Earle. Maybe Fitzgerald thinks he needs a few more close-ups before he concludes his investigation.