Friday, July 15, 2005


I agree, Frank. Besides, to prosecute would require information the government can withhold indefinitely. It would need a direct admission of guilt from Rove. And I'll bet many who voted for Bush haven't even heard of Rove; those who have think this scandal is a partisan setup. Rove will survive because he's not an elected figure and has no ambition to elected office. He should win the Kissinger medal for freedom, democracy blah-blah.

Here's how captainsquartersblog.com, one of the most read conservative blogs, spins the story:

"That flies in the face of any notion that Rove set out to damage Wilson or Plame. Unless Rove wanted to set records for the laziest but most efficient character assassination in political history, waiting around for two different journalists to call him on unrelated matters and hoping that they mentioned Wilson doesn't sound like a very effective way to wreak revenge on a political opponent.

"However, the ability of the New York Times to publish this story tonight demonstrates the irony of their stance on the entire Rive [sic] story. In order to get this information, the Times has to have a source either on the grand jury or in the office of the Special Prosecutor. Either way, this leak violates the law; grand jury testimony in special investigations are supposed to remain secret. Given that the Gray Lady has led the charge against Rove and his supposedly illegal leak, doesn't this seem a wee bit ... hypocritical?"

Prosecute the NY Times instead


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?