The beginning of the end? It would be sad to have another President taken down by a relatively minor bit of stupidity. At least this one actually has to do with his job, not some personal indiscretion that was inconsequential to the rest of us. Though, even here the cover up could end up being more costly than the original crime. Of course, Fitzgerald could just go home and not bring any indictments. We’ll have to see. I just wish this President would go down for the bullshit leading up to the war, but if these charges are legit, I’ll take ‘em.

Even more interesting revelations from AG Gonzales that bring up even more interesting questions. Frank Rich also brings up some oddities about the timeline at the start of the investigation. Atrios reports:

Return of Heads Up Gate

I’m glad Frank Rich reminded the world of the absolutely unjustifiable delay the White House was granted allowing them to hold off on officially being required to maintain documents. It’s one tidbit of this case that I’d forgotten. NPR reported at the time:

The White house asked for and got permission earlier this week to wait a day before issuing a directive to preserve all documents and logs which led one seasoned federal prosecutor to wonder why they wanted to wait a day, and who at the justice department told them they could do that, and why?

It’s another part of this scandal which should’ve raised more than a few eyebrows among the beltway kool kids, but they weren’t too concerned about it at the time.

APJ lets us know that we’ve learned something new - that Gonzales told Andy Card that night.

While we’re walking down memory lane, we must also remember that the documents were also vetted by Gonzales before they even got to the Justice Department.

All of this is building up a circumstantial case against the White House, at least as far as a cover up is concerned.

On a personal note, I’m reluctant to get to “rah-rah” about this case. It’s serious, I think, and the accusations are just as serious. If a White House staffer leaked a name of a CIA employee in an act of petty revenge, well, that goes to the heart of our government, doesn’t it? We’ve built a system (or believe we have, at least) that strives to keep personal favor out of government. Do your job to according to the law and to the best of your ability and our system succeeds, that’s the idea, right?

Cynicism mutes my default idealism, though. First, these people are senior enough that the law works weirdly. It’s like the laws of physics as you approach the speed of light… things get a little odd, and maybe you can outrun the law. So, even if there is something here, the chances of us knowing before 20 years go by is small. Second, the political aspect of this story makes me uncomfortable. I remember the Clinton years and I remember being deeply frustrated and annoyed that a partisan witch hunt got a President impeached. That millions of dollars were spent investigating a real estate deal that turned up nothing. That rather than shut down the investigation when it didn’t turn up anything, the special prosecutor decided to investigate a blowjob.

I also remember that it all seemed at least plausible at the time, especially to those inclined to distrust the President.

Well, I distrust Karl Rove and I distrust the White House. I don’t want to be sucked into an investigation that might be built up on the same false pretenses as the Clinton scandal. So, I’m being cautious and watching the news with interest.

It does seem that this investigation has proceeded with less partisan furor moving it along. The Democrats are surely fanning the flames, but they’re not pushing very hard. Also, the investigation seems a lot more focused and, quite frankly, a lot less like a witch hunt due to the relative silence from the prosecutor. Ken Starr’s investigation was a constant leak factory, as much a made-for-TV event as a real investigation. Fitzgerald’s investigation has been relatively quiet by any standard. So, I hold out some hope of it being clean.

So, I’m waiting and seeing. And hoping that does make a difference in 2006.

Atrios highlights Larry Johnson’s testimony to Congress about the Valerie Plame affair. He is a career CIA officer and was a classmate of Valerie Plame’s in the CIA training program. He discusses how the CIA classifies their agents and how they work. Plame was most definitely a CIA agent even though her story might not be as sexy as James Bond. More troubling, the White House knew this according to an article in the Washington Post. Maybe I’m a weak-kneed liberal or whatever, but screwing over a covert agent and putting intelligence assets at risk is a big deal. Maybe even a bigger deal that a guy lying about a blowjob.

I hope the press and Congress don’t drop this. Whoever leaked the name should get fired at the very least.

If you want a funny but solid overview of the whole Plame/Rove leak situation, you can check out this video from the Daily Show. You need to have windows media player installed for that link to work.

I’ve been watching the various calls for Rove to resign and keep thinking that this is not what Democrats want. Of course, it would be great if he resigns, but calling for that resignation isn’t the only thing Democrats need to have happen. They should be getting up in front of the media in every statement reminding the American people that this is part of a pattern of behavior. If the Clinton White House was characterized (or “typed”) as a dishonest White House, this White House is characterized by cronyism. No one faces any negative consequences for any failure, rule breaking, or anything except, perhaps, not being a “Yes” man (e.g. see O’Neill or Christine Todd Whitman). That’s the central theme of this case and it’s the way to begin to undo the damage this White House has done to our country.

Repeat after me: It’s not about Rove. It’s about the disease of cronyism that infects this White House and prevents it from doing what’s best for America. No one gets fired for any mistakes. Heck, the President can’t acknowledge any mistakes except not hiring enough Yes men. Serious people on both sides of the aisle have raised questions about the these leaks now and in the past. Too bad the Administration feels like it doesn’t need to answer questions from the American people about this.

That’s how you build a talking point and repetition is how you get it to stick. Don’t you guys watch the Daily Show???

You can see the official White House version of the video and transcript at the White House site. The video contains the whole thing and you can see the whole thing and complete level of consternation. It’s also a reminder that this press secretary rarely answers questions directly.

He’s no CJ Cregg, that’s for sure.

Update: AP is actually being a news source and is reporting the original quotes from 2003 where McClellan addressed Rove and this quote.

Is the White House Press Corp finally getting a spine? With the revelation that Rove was one of the sources that leaked information about Amb. Joe Wilson’s wife being a CIA agent, reporters questions White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan about his and Bush’s statements in 2003 that the White House would fire anyone who divulged this information. Then, they got annoyed (finally!) when Mr. McClellan reverted to the equivalent of “no comment.”. I’m not holding my breath, but maybe they’re getting fed up with the lies and bullshit.

On a separate note, Atrios points out a post at Democrats.org (the DNC web site) that pretty much summarizes why I think people of any party should vote out the Republicans in 2006:

The revelation that Karl Rove was the source who leaked Valerie Plame’s identity as a CIA agent to Time’s Matt Cooper probably comes as a surprise to exactly nobody. After all, dirty tricks have been the hallmark of Rove’s political career since he was a teenager.

As this story continues to unfold over the next few weeks, Republicans are going to try to parse every word Rove ever uttered about the case. They’re going to dissect every letter of relevant law trying to find a loophole to prove that Karl Rove is innocent.

But let’s make one thing perfectly clear: Rove’s secret outing of Valerie Plame put partisan politics above the security of our nation. He chose to reveal Plame’s identity as a CIA agent, with no thought to the consequences to American national security, simply because it provided an opportunity to smear her husband.

And this is part of a pattern. When Democrats proposed creating the Department of Homeland Security, Republicans fought it until they saw a partisan advantage to exploit in the 2002 elections. When the September 11 Commission was trying to get the facts about the terrorist attacks on our soil, the administration fought them every step of the way. [emphasis added]

This is the bottom line and it’s been going on since 2001. Lying to you, the American public, and putting their own political interests above those of the nation at large has been their MO from the first week they were in office. It’s not about politics or an ideology of conservatism or Christianity… it’s about winning the next election and raising money. It’s about instilling in the minds of government workers that the White House will come down on dissenters like a ton of bricks, truth and regulations be damned. It’s about showing lobbyists that they should keep funding the Republicans because they will do whatever it takes to get their legislation passed.

But, I guess Roe vs. Wade or having a Ten Commandments monument or gay marriage is more important than having a healthy, functioning Democracy… Sometimes I’m so very sad about the place this country is at.

PS. If you’re having trouble watching the video at the link above, I have mirrored it here at FatMixx.

Thanks to Atrios for the links.

Further proof that Karl Rove is a jackass:

Rove Was Wrong

In the wake of Karl Rove’s divisive comments about liberals and conservatives and their response to the 9/11 attacks, Mystery Pollster looks back at polling data and finds “overwhelming majorities of both Democrats and Republicans believed America was ‘at war’ and favored some sort of ‘military action.’”

In addition, CBS News pollsters released their cross tabulations of a poll done two weeks after 9/11 to break out response by ideology. The result: “84% of self-described liberals supported ‘military action’ against the terrorists and 75% supported ‘going to war with a nation that is harboring those responsible.’”

[from Taegan Goddard's Political Wire]

Look, I’m all for explaining political differences and defending your opinions by explaining how the other side gets it wrong. I do have trouble believing that Rove, however, didn’t know this polling data. So, either he was lying to make a point or he’s really bad at his job. Which do you think?

Karl Rove is a jackass.

I think at some point it becomes a question of why people want to win elections. To win? Or to do something?

For some, it’s about some level of patriotism or idealism that starts the ball rolling. For others it’s about dealing with a particular issue, whether it be high taxes, an environmental disaster, or dealing with a foreign threat. Then, I think, there is the craven lot that simply craves power and craves winning for it’s own sake. It is this lot that believes that winning divisively is no worse than winning on ideas. It’s a member of this lot that would denigrate the patriotism or loyalty of half of our country simply because they disagree with his policy. It’s a selfish, short-sighted politician who just wants to win with no concern about how his actions affect the nation at large.

Karl Rove, in my opinion is one of those selfish, craven, short-sighted politicians who could care less about the long tern health of our nation in order to win the next election. His recent comments were beyond the pale for a person in government. On top of that, they were hateful and ignorant. Numerous bloggers have pointed out that New York City is a relatively liberal town. It’s a Democratic city. To claim that a majority of the residents of that city wanted to “offer therapy and understanding for our attackers” after 9/11 insults all Americans.

But the sad thing is that this isn’t about “different philosophies and our different approaches” to the war on terror. There’s nothing illustrative about Rove’s comments or his candidates’ tactics. They don’t inform you. They don’t enlighten you. They aren’t about actually convincing anyone of anything. Instead, it’s simply about winning the election just to win. Not because they actually think they have a better plan for the problems of the day, but simply because winning is fun.

It makes me sad that this is all modern politics is about. It saddens me more that Rove and the Republicans have perfected this to the point that they can get away with claiming that 48% of the country hates America. That people that opposed going to war in Iraq are sympathizers with the terrorists that attacked our nation. There has to be line, right? I mean, at what point is the cost of winning by dividing America not worth paying? I wish we had a government that actually tried to improve voter approval by improving their policies or their execution. Instead, we get these idiots who simply fan the flames of division in order to distract people from their mistakes.

In a weird twist, but one that fits the pattern I’m describing here, it looks like the RNC and the White House may have planned this little firestorm knowing the controversy it would kick up. It’s sketchy, but it’s interesting to see the Republicans responding to this.

This was probably incoherent because I’m tired and annoyed. So, I’ll finish with some thoughts from the folks that are better writers than me.

From the Daou Report:

I’m devoting much of today’s report to Karl Rove’s vile comments denigrating half of the American public. My office overlooks Ground Zero, and I’m looking at the gaping footprint as I write this. My wife and I were in New York that day, on our way to the WTC for a morning meeting. A chance phone call dragged on a few minutes too long and most likely saved our lives. I lost friends in the towers, and when I walk past the site, as I do almost every evening, the pain is as real as it was on September 11th, 2001.

I spent my youth in Beirut during the height of Lebanon’s civil war, and I fought the Syrian presence in Lebanon long before the “Cedar Revolution.” I watched young boys give their lives and mothers cradle their dying children in blood-soaked arms. I’ve seen more bloodshed, war, and violence, and shot more guns than most of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists combined. I wouldn’t presume to question the strength or dignity of a stranger, and I pity those who blithely push the right=strong, left=weak rhetoric. It says far more about their inadequacies than it does about the target of their scorn. Today, Karl Rove took that rhetoric to a new, filthy low.

and, appropriately snarky from Atrios:

For the record, my motives aren’t to get more troops killed. If those were my motives I’d ship them off to a war on false pretenses without sufficient equipment to keep them safe.

(thx to Atrios and AmericaBlog for most of the links above)