"Bush's Top Political Advisor Will Be Indicted Soon"- Joe Conason

Rove's moment of truth?
To believe his various tales about his involvement in the Plame affair requires ignoring some glaring facts.

By Joe Conason

Dec. 16, 2005 | Stripped of deniability in the CIA leak investigation, the Bush White House now must confront the increasing possibility that the president's top political advisor will be indicted sometime soon for testifying falsely about his role in that affair.

Should Fitzgerald accept the Rove version and forgo indictment? There are reasons to think he won't, aside from the fact that he has activated a new grand jury, to which he has reportedly been presenting both old and new evidence. To believe Rove means ignoring certain glaring facts.


It is a felony to make a false statement to the FBI, which Rove very clearly did when he failed to mention his conversation with Cooper. His alibi is that he had forgotten that chat, an excuse that scarcely seems plausible so soon after it occurred, particularly because Cooper had written a cover story about the Plame affair. And Rove apparently testified falsely again in February 2004, when he made his first of four appearances before Fitzgerald's grand jury. He apparently didn't change his story until October 2004 -- between five and 10 months after Luskin was tipped to Cooper's possible testimony by Novak.


Indeed, Luskin's Novak gambit opens additional avenues of inquiry that hardly exculpate Rove. Is it plausible to think that Rove, with all the resources of the White House at his disposal, would have been unable to discover that incriminating e-mail for so many months? Why did he delay for so long in amending his testimony? And why did his attorney wait for an additional 12 months to offer his explanation of what had happened with Novak?

The fate of the man known as the "Boy Genius" rests upon whether Fitzgerald and the new grand jury believe that he merely forgot the Cooper conversation -- and whether they can ignore the questions that his latest tale leaves unanswered.
(Firedoglake has the article - if you scroll down)
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/firedoglake/113470040324920095/
or if you register:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2005/12/16/rove_inquiry/index_np.html

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

Fitzgerald hasn't gotten Rove yet when he clearly could is because he might be using Rove to get other people who were invovled. That's what I think he's doing. Using Rove as a key.

Is it Cheney, Bush himself?
Scotty says that Scotty does not know what he bases that on.
Hmm. Is "he" Novack, or Bush?
Our media needs a working brain.
Will they find one between them?

Why pay 6.95 for a novel when we've got DU.

To stop the prosecutor from getting to Vice President Cheney.

imagine all the really, really bad things that come from being a crime family slug/hitman.

Fitz seems to know how long you have to give people to start remembering that the crime family will let you swing, and you'd better save your own hide. Ok, your party days are behind you, but, you're still not rotting in a minimum security ice box. And there's always the book deal....

By getting Fitzgerald to look into his belated "evidence," Luskin was able to separate Rove from the Grand Jury that personally witnessed Rove telling fibs.

Luskin knew that Fitzgerald would not be able to extend the original Grand Jury, and by his belated offering of evidence forced Fitzgerald to sell his investigation to a grand Jury that neither saw Rove or personally was insulted by his lies.

The new Grand Jury is just able to go by what is told to them by Fitzgerald.

When it comes to lying, it is much easier to indict when you witness the liar in action than when someone tells you that the alleged liar willingly lied, IMO.

Lastly, if you recall, it was the Grand Jurors' questions that resulted in lies by Libby and Rove, I believe.

This is strictly my opinion, and I am not suggesting that I have knowledge of Luskin's Modus Operandi.

no substitutes!~

Fuck all else, its a start, but Cheney is the diabolical, sick mother, who runs this fascist government!

Can't be happy with just Rove.

If we could get rid of him, we could start reclaiming America as a decent, moral country instead of the vile cesspool Torturin' Dick wants us to live in. Talk about a "turning point".

I guess I'm naive, but I would never have believed that someone as foul and evil as Cheney could ever take over and bring down this once-great nation. What a horrible man he is.

by Sidney Blumenthal

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/112505N.shtml

<snip>

The Long March of Dick Cheney
By Sidney Blumenthal

For his entire career, he sought untrammeled power. The Bush presidency and 9/11 finally gave it to him - and he's not about to give it up.

The hallmark of the Dick Cheney administration is its illegitimacy. Its essential method is bypassing established lines of authority; its goal is the concentration of unaccountable presidential power. When it matters, the regular operations of the CIA, Defense Department and State Department have been sidelined.

Richard Nixon is the model, but with modifications. In the Nixon administration, the president was the prime mover, present at the creation of his own options, attentive to detail, and conscious of their consequences. In the Cheney administration, the president is volatile but passive, firm but malleable, presiding but absent. Once his complicity has been arranged, a closely held "cabal" - as Lawrence Wilkerson, once chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, calls it - wields control.

Within the White House, the office of the vice president is the strategic center. The National Security Council has been demoted to enabler and implementer. Systems of off-line operations have been laid to evade professional analysis and a responsible chain of command. Those who attempt to fulfill their duties in the old ways have been humiliated when necessary, fired, retired early or shunted aside. In their place, acolytes and careerists indistinguishable from true believers in their eagerness have been elevated.

<snip>

Hope Joe is right!

One thing. This myth of Rove's "genius" needs to be crushed.

There is no genius needed to cheat. There is no genius needed to lie.

I go nuts when I hear people talk about Rove's "genius", or the "political savvy" of the Republicans, when what we are talking about is skill in lying and cheating. It's easy to have a clear message when you are simply lying.

When you can only win by lying and cheating, how smart can you be?

Genius: yeah, uh huh. :eyes:

However, I do agree with the people who think he's a nasty jackass.

What's truly sickening is how after the Reagan era all those things our parents taught us were wrong are suddenly virtues: unchecked greed, abuse of the weak and raging moral criminality to win at all costs.

Those who admire this little weasel are pathetic, and there are far too many of them. It's like people who root for the bad guys in gangster movies, and they seem to be everywhere. His "art" is nothing short of total unscrupulousness and sociopathic smearing and personal destruction in the cause of tactical advantage. His craft is not genius, it's primitive ugliness of the most simplistic sort.

Gushing about his "genius" is tiresome; he's nothing but a one-note, ham-fisted Martin Bormann who learned his trade from none other than Donald Segretti.

:popcorn:

:)

That's the headline I want to see when Fitzie does his patriotic duty and indicts the NeoCon traitors in the corrupt Bush White House.

The nation might be enjoying ita 5th year of unprecedented peace and prosperity under the 2nd Al Gore term.