Opinions, Context & Ideas from the TPM Editors TPM Editor's Blog

Theres a point thats

There's a point that's probably worth raising with our scofflaw Republican friends. All of their arguments now amount to excuses, like those of a small child caught stealing cookies: Joe Wilson's a liar. Plame's covert status wasn't protected well by the CIA. It was just a short phone call. Rove really wanted to speak about welfare reform. Wilson said Cheney sent him to Africa. Plame sent Wilson to Africa. Rove leaked Plame's identity in the interests of good journalism. Wilson went on too many TV shows. On and on and on.

The salient point is not that each of these claims is false. The point is that they're irrelevant. It's the mid-life version of 'He hit me first!' or 'He called me a name!' or other such foolery.

No presidential advisor should ever disclose the identity of a covert agent at the CIA. That doesn't require elaboration.

If it's done knowingly, it's a felony. Joe Wilson could be the biggest hack in the world. Plame could have cooked the whole trip idea up to damage the president -- as some GOP loopsters are now claiming -- and it wouldn't matter.

Rove (and, though we're not supposed to say it yet, several of his colleagues) did something obviously wrong and reckless. And they probably broke several laws by the time it was all done.

Pretty much every Republican in Washington today works for Karl Rove. So they can't deal with that fact. But fact it is.

And nothing was done amiss? If Rove et al. didn't do anything wrong, why have they spent two years lying about what they did? No law was broken? Then what is Fitzgerald looking at? Why is a grand jury investigating Rove? A prosecutor like Fitzgerald, a Republican appointee, wouldn't be throwing journalists in jail unless he thought he was investigating a serious crime.

What's their answer to that? They have none. Rove runs the Washington Republican party, owns it. So it's anything but hold him accountable.

I havent been able

I haven't been able to get a copy of the exact text yet. But the Republican counter-amendment on the floor is truly amazing. It would strip of his or her security access any senator who repeated a statement by an FBI agent which was subsequently used as "propaganda" by America's enemies. In other words, the law is targeted at Sen. Durbin, making it against the law to say what he said a month ago.

De-democratization ...

(ed.note: If anyone can send me a copy of the text, I'd appreciate it.)

Late Update: Here is the text of the so-called 'Frist Amendment': "Any federal officeholder who makes reference to a classified Federal Bureau of Investigation report on the floor of the United States Senate, or any federal officeholder that makes a statement based on a FBI agent's comments which is used as propaganda by terrorist organizations thereby putting our servicemen and women at risk, shall not be permitted access to such information or to hold a security clearance for access to such information."

Sen. Roberts R just

Sen. Roberts (R) just said that Fitzgerald's investigation had "a lot of leaks." Is he kidding?

From another TPM Reader

From another TPM Reader ...

Harry Reid just introduced an amendment to the homeland security appropriations that would prevent anyone who discloses the identity of a covert CIA operative from having a security clearance. There will be 90 minutes of debate, and then a vote.


It's on C-SPAN2.

Late Update: You've got to watch this. They've got Sen. Coleman (R-WH) as Rove's designate water-carrier ... Now other Republican senators are standing up with cries of fealty. Duce! Duce! Think of Sen. Geary's impromptu speech at Michael's hearing in Godfather II.

Duke to hold press

Duke to hold press conference at 3PM Pacific at Cal State San Marcos.

Resigns?

To spend more time with family?

Won't run again?

More time devoted to sailing?

New home for sale at rock-bottom prices?

Many readers are writing

Many readers are writing in to tell us that David Brooks just went on NPR's All Things Considered and repeated the bogus charge that Joe Wilson claimed that Dick Cheney had sent him to Niger. Did you hear him? Doesn't he write for the New York Times? Let us know at this thread.

Another TPM Reader ads

Another TPM Reader ads his two-cents ...

The parallel between the White House's attack on Clarke and the defense of Rove is spot on, but I think most people misunderestimate the effectiveness of this strategy.

By being scattershot and offensive, they accomplish three things:

1) they shift the focus off their own misdeeds

2) they create a level of confusing noise that makes the passive public stop trying to understand

3) they knock the subjects of the attacks off message

Let's not forget that Clarke did not win.


Yep.

Late Update: Another reader responds thus: "That is exactly why all the defense on this issue should not focus on defending each specific issue, but rather on continuing to repeat what happened. The administration put the nation’s security in jeopardy for purely partisan means, they revealed the identity of CIA covert agent and put at risk hundreds of people and years of work and they continue to lie about it. Repeat that everytime one of these people try to come up with an excuse. Don’t focus on rebutting the outrageous charges, that’s what they want us to do. Be on the offensive, it’s worked for them for years."

LiveWire

Clinton Postpones Trip To Charlotte

In a statement released Friday evening, Hillary Clinton's campaign announced that the Democratic nominee…