If the Washington Post's report on Rove is frothy, the New York Times's is seemingly coldly specific. "Some lawyers in the case said they were persuaded that Mr. Fitzgerald had all but made up his mind to seek indictments." But whose lawyers? "Lawyers involved in the case," the story says at an earlier point. But apparently these aren't Rove's and Scooter Libby's lawyers, because, the story says, "Lawyers for the two men declined to comment on their legal status." The Times's sources couldn't be lawyers working under Fitzgerald, could they? Presumably leaks from Fitzgerald would be highly improper, if not illegal. What about lawyers for other possible targets? Their motivation presumably would be to shift attention away from their own clients. But it's unlikely they'd be in a position to know as much as Fitzgerald's own team does. And who but Fitzgerald's team would be on the same page?
The Spectacle Blog
Nobody knows anything, yet according to disinterested outside observers such as the Washington Post, Karl Rove has already been frog-marched to Sing-Sing. It's home page headline reads: "Post-Rove Deliberations Begin: White House is now confronting the looming prospect of a Bush presidency without Karl Rove." Nice Freudian slip, by the way, that bit about "Post-Rove" -- Does it mean after Rove? Or is it a reference to deliberations inside the Post's newsroom about how to spin against Rove? For all the reader can find out from the story itself, everyone is supposedly spooked, but no one knows anything. "In a capital consumed by scandal speculation, most White House senior officials are no more privy than outsiders to the prosecutor's intentions." So why run a page one story rooted in no substance anyone can divine? If Rove isn't indicted, won't such stories become the equivalent of Jayson Blair's and Stephen Glass's finest work?
Look for some more damaging stories that will have conservatives pulling their hair out. Word is the Washington Post may be dropping something on Miers as early as Friday.
The apparent depth of anger Sen. Arlen Specter feels toward the way the White House and Miers have approached the nomination process has apparently not been portrayed accurately by the mainstream press. "It wouldn't be possible to describe how angry he is," says a Judiciary Committee source. "Livid, murderously mad, nothing does it justice, pardon the pun."
Specter is not only angry about the questionaire that Miers and her handlers submitted. He is angry at the reports he is getting back from his fellow Senators coming out of their private meetings with Miers. "They are universally negative," says Republican staffer for a Senator who has met with the nominee. The bad reports are making Specter feel put upon.
For fresh insight into the Miers mess, take a look at something I've just received:
One beyond the Beltway friend has sent a tortured but hopeful explanation of the recent nomination events.
He contends that after John Roberts, any nominee was going to be portrayed as "under qualified" by comparison. Accordingly, perhaps the White House felt it was necessary to run someone through the process to "lower the bar" again. Of course, the goal of nominating this person was NOT actually to get the person confirmed; in fact, it was just the opposite -- have this person NOT be confirmed but simply make things easier for the NEXT nominee to be confirmed (by comparison with THIS person, not with John Roberts).
For several weeks now -- ever since President Bush's latest "big, stay the course" anti-terrorism speech -- there has been heightened interest in what may or may not be happening between the U.S. and Syria.
Word this morning about this takedown, which will give Saddam yet another distant relative to hunker down with in prison, will further raise questions about just what is going on behind the scenes over at State and DOD.
We were at a dinner party several days ago where several European ambassadors or senior counselors to said embassies were in attendance, and each expressed separately a certainty that the U.S. was going to invade Syria sooner rather than later. On the face of it, such a plan seems absurd given the current political and strategic problems the Bush Administration is facing right now.
Today's Hugh Hewitt show will start with a bang. Our first guest is Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Ok) whose amendment to take the money from the Alaska bridge to nowhere (about $220 million) and use it to rebuild a bridge destroyed by hurricane Katrina is being considered in the Senate this afternoon.
Coburn's amendment is being fought tooth and nail by all the pork addicts. We all should be weighing in to support Coburn. Listen in. This is gonna be hot. 6 pm on the Salem Radio Network.
George, yes, a certain silence pervades columns such as Cohen's today. But it's a very loud silence, the sort you hear whenever anyone is carrying huge guilt (in his opening paragraph Cohen openly confesses to having callously arranged an abortion for a friend). I don't think it was mere rethinking that drove Cohen to write, "I no longer see abortion as directly related to sexual freedom or feminism, and I no longer see it strictly as a matter of personal privacy, either. It entails questions about life..." Put two and two together and you know he also meant that it entails questions about death.
It is becoming almost commonplace for liberals who writeÂ aboutÂ abortion to offer a personal story, often told rather breezily,Â about procuring/cooperating in/undergoing an abortion.Â These op-eds have become a form of confession.Â New York Times editor Bill Keller, some time back,Â wrote a second-thoughts column about abortionÂ similar to Cohen's.Â But what jumps out inÂ these columns, which invariably stress that the author is still "pro-choice,"Â is the absence of any direct mention of the victim of the injustice, the unborn child. Hillary Clinton, orÂ Cohen,Â or any other liberalÂ reworking their position,Â will speak of abortion as a tragedy. But for whom?Â The child? No, they can't quite say that, otherwise their pro-choice position crumbles. TheÂ victim, normally so prominentÂ when liberalsÂ allow people to feel their moralÂ agony,Â is left hidden.
It was the prominently-placed "George Clooney on Keeping America Free" on the masthead of a glossy magazine that arrived in my mailbox recently which drove me to sigh and promptly insert said glossy into the wastebasket. For Keeping America Free is not a subject that I have any interest in hearing from George Clooney about.
But it is refreshing to come across a celebrity who uses his position responsibly and takes the time to study and think about issues that matter. Someone who uses his immense platform not to throw random, knee-jerk barbs and insults at world leaders and institutions or to demand policies that are completely untenable (sometimes outright asinine).