People who are so lacking in basic knowlege of History who think that the actions and policies of a president preceding(any president)-Carter before Reagan--Truman before Eisenhower--Clinton before Bush do not influence the actions of the new president are almost cretinous.
First of all, let us take the commentary of Kuvasz. He says the left DID NOT approve of Clinton. He is correct and he is wrong. The far left, Mrs. Edelman, screamed bloody murder when Clinton signed the welfare bill but the more moderate leftists viewed it as a necessity for the retention of power in the future.
Patricia Ireland, who is so far left if she takes another step to the left she'll fall off the platform. said that:
" With a stroke of his pen Bill Clinton dismantled the New Deal and replaced it with a raw deal of poor women and children"
Is President Bush unaware of this feeling from the left about Clinton's welfare reform? Of course not. Does it inform his actions? Of course it does.
Did President Reagan take the Misery Index of 20.76( the highest ever) given to us by Jimmy Carter and shape some of his policies around it?
Of course.
If I go to my first baseball game knowing nothing about the sport and am told that the batter- Alex Rodriguez is one of the game's greats because of his BATTING AVERAGE AND NUMBERS, I would ask- What's good about them?
I would be told, WHY, C O M P A R E his stats with the old times like Ruth and DiMaggio. He is just as good.
Those who think that a president cannot and should not be compared with past presidents are unaware that there is a subgroup among Historians called PRESIDENTIAL SCHOLARS who do PRECISELY THAT ALL THE TIME.
Comparing apples and oranges are so useful in politics. Bush vs baseball? ROFLMAO
I am puzzled by Kuvasz' response. Perhaps I have not read as much in good sources but I still think that even on the left wing, as on the right wing, there is a continuum.
I have read, many times, the description of a political worthy--"slightly to the left" or "a touch to the right"
What does this mean?
Could it possibly mean, usually a moderate but sometimes to the left?
Could it possibly mean, usually a moderate but sometimes to the right?
And what about those who are dubbed "Fiscal Conservatives but Social Liberals" or "Social Conservatives but Fiscal Liberals"?
I am very sorry but I will continue to view politicians as being on a continuum with regards to their policies and I will continue to judge them with regard to their locations on that continuum.
Jesse Jackson, for example, is so far on the left, he is almost outside the assemply hall----As is Bill Kristol on the right.
Mortkat wrote:And what about those who are dubbed "Fiscal Conservatives but Social Liberals" or "Social Conservatives but Fiscal Liberals"?
considering the past five years of budget busting under a completely Republican federal government, the former are referred to as Democrats, while the latter, considering their lack of support for social progress are referred to as Republicans.
PDiddie wrote:So where does that put our bet, timber? If the above scenario plays out today?
Does anyone know if timber settled this up?
I'm not going to spend any more time here looking for it.
You've been missed, P. Please stuff this friendly 'hello' in a pocket and transport it to your wife.
Not sure on the bet though.
Hi bern. Hope you and yours are well this holiday season.
You can always find me at the www button at the bottom of my posts.
Goll dang it. Didn't even see ya sittin thar.
Another Novak: Second 'Time' Scribe to Testify on Plame
Another Novak: Second 'Time' Scribe to Testify on Plame
AP
Published: November 27, 2005 4:45 PM ET
WASHINGTON
A second Time magazine reporter has been asked to testify in the CIA leak case, this time about her discussions with Karl Rove's attorney, a sign that prosecutors are still exploring charges against the White House aide.
Viveca Novak, a reporter in Time's Washington bureau, is cooperating with Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, who is investigating the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity in 2003, the magazine reported in its Dec. 5 issue.
Novak specifically has been asked to testify under oath about conversations she had with Rove attorney Robert Luskin starting in May the magazine reported.
Novak, part of a team tracking the CIA case for Time, has written or contributed to articles quoting Luskin that characterized the nature of what was said between Rove and Matthew Cooper, the first Time reporter who testified in the case in July.
Rove has remained under investigation for his involvement in leaking the identity of Plame, whose husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, is a critic of the Bush administration.
Plame's CIA status was exposed by conservative columnist Robert Novak in July 2003, eight days after her husband accused the U.S. government of manipulating prewar intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat. Time's Novak is not related to Robert Novak.
UPDATE from E&P:
Novak is co-author (with Erik Saar) of the book "Inside the Wire: A Military Intelligence Soldier's Eyewitness Account of Life at Guantanamo" (Penguin).
A bio of Novak at the Penguin site reads:
"Viveca Novak is a Washington correspondent for Time, covering legal affairs, terrorism, and civil liberties, among other issues. A recipient of Harvard University's Goldsmith Prize for investigative reporting, the Clarion Award for investigative reporting, and the Investigative Reporters and Editors Award, she is a frequent guest on the national broadcast media, including CNN, NBC, PBS, Fox, and MSNBC. She has a B.A. in foreign affairs from the University of Virginia, an M.S. from Columbia University School of Journalism, and an M.S.L. from Yale Law School."
Fitzgerald Targets Rove Again
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Investigative Report
Monday 28 November 2005
Continuing his two-year-old investigation into the leak of Valerie Plame Wilson's identity as a covert CIA agent, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald will present evidence to a second grand jury this week that could lead to a criminal indictment being handed up against Karl Rove, President Bush's deputy chief of staff, sources inside the investigation said over the weekend.
For the past month, Rove has remained under intense scrutiny by Fitzgerald's office. During that time Fitzgerald, according to these sources, has acquired evidence that Rove tried to cover up his role in the leak by withholding crucial facts from investigators and the grand jury on three separate occasions, beginning in October 2003, about a conversation he had with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, as well as not being truthful about the reasons that call was not logged by his office.
Rove's conversation with Cooper took place a week or so before Plame Wilson's identity was first revealed, in a July 14, 2003, column published by conservative journalist Robert Novak. Cooper had written his own story about Plame Wilson a few days later.
During previous testimony before the grand jury, Rove said he first learned Plame Wilson's name from reporters - specifically, from Novak's column - and only after her name was published did he discuss Plame Wilson's CIA status with other journalists. That sequence of events, however, as described by Rove during his grand jury testimony, has turned out not to be true, and his reasons for not being forthcoming have not convinced Fitzgerald that Rove had a momentary lapse, according to sources.
Still, Robert Luskin, Rove's lawyer, maintains that his client has not intentionally withheld facts from the prosecutor or the grand jury but had simply forgotten about his conversations with Cooper, the sources said.
Luskin would not return calls for comment.
Fitzgerald will present evidence to the grand jury later this week, obtained from other witnesses who were interviewed by the Special Prosecutor or who testified, showing that Rove lied during the three times he testified under oath and that he made misleading statements to Justice Department and FBI investigators in an attempt to cover up his role in the leak when he was first interviewed about it in October 2003, the sources said.
The most serious charges Rove faces are making false statements to investigators and obstruction of justice, the sources said. He does not appear to be in jeopardy of violating the law making it a crime to leak the name of a covert CIA agent, because it's unlikely that Rove was aware that Plame Wilson was undercover, the sources said.
However, according to the sources, two things are very clear: either Rove will agree to enter into a plea deal with Fitzgerald or he will be charged with a crime, but he will not be exonerated for the role he played in the leak, based on numerous internal conversations Fitzgerald has had with his staff. If Rove does agree to enter into a plea, Fitzgerald is not expected to discuss any aspect of his probe into Rove, because Rove may be called to testify as a prosecution witness against Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Libby was indicted last month on five counts of lying to investigators, perjury, and obstruction of justice related to his role in the leak.
Moreover, a second high-ranking official in the Bush administration also faces the possibility of indictment for making false statements to investigators about his role in the leak: National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley.
Hadley had been interviewed in 2004 about his role in the leak and had vehemently denied speaking to reporters about Plame Wilson, the sources said. However, these sources have identified Hadley as sharing information about Plame Wilson with Washington Post editor Bob Woodward, whose stunning revelation two weeks ago - that he was the first journalist to learn of Plame Wilson's identity in mid-June 2003 and had kept that fact secret for two years - led Fitzgerald to return to a second grand jury. A spokeswoman at the National Security Council denied that Hadley was Woodward's source. Hadley, on the other hand, would neither confirm nor deny that he was Woodward's source when he was questioned by reporters two weeks ago. Woodward testified two weeks ago about what he knew and when he knew it. Woodward would not publicly reveal the identity of his source.
Rove had emailed Hadley following the conversation he had with Cooper in July 2003 regarding former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's trip to Niger to investigate allegations Iraq had tried to purchase uranium from the African country, which President Bush had referred to in his January 2003 State of the Union address, and which many critics believe was the silver bullet that convinced the American public and Congress to support a pre-emptive strike against Iraq.
Wilson, who is married to Plame Wilson, was a critic of the administration's pre-war Iraq intelligence. It was during Rove's conversation with Cooper that Wilson's CIA agent wife was discussed with the reporter, in an attempt to discredit Wilson and dissuade him from continuing to criticize the administration's rationale for war.
Earlier this month, the sources said, Fitzgerald received additional testimony from Rove's former personal assistant, Susan B. Ralston, who was also a special assistant to President Bush. Ralston said that Rove instructed her not to log a phone call Rove had with Cooper about Plame Wilson in July 2003.
Ralston previously worked as a personal secretary to Jack Abramoff, the Republican power lobbyist being investigated for allegations of defrauding Indian tribes and who was recently indicted on conspiracy and wire fraud charges. While working with Abramoff, Ralston arranged fundraisers and events at Washington MCI Center skyboxes for members of Congress. Ralston communicated with Rove on Abramoff's behalf on tribal affairs, though she is not accused of wrongdoing.
Ralston provided Fitzgerald with more information and some "clarification" about several telephone calls Rove allegedly made to a few reporters, including syndicated columnist Robert Novak, lawyers close to the investigation say.
Ralston testified in August that Cooper's name was not noted in the call logs from Rove's office, those familiar with the case say, testifying that because Cooper's call was transferred to Rove's office from the White House switchboard it was not logged. If Cooper had called Rove's office directly, the call would have been logged, Ralston testified.
But sources say that Fitzgerald has obtained documentary evidence proving that that scenario does not jibe with other unrelated calls to Rove's office that were also transferred to his office by the switchboard but were logged.
As Rove's senior adviser, Ralston screened Rove's calls. Her additional testimony may help Fitzgerald prove that there were inconsistencies in Rove's account of his role in the leak and assess why he withheld a crucial fact from the prosecutor: that Rove had spoken with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper as well as Novak about Plame and confirmed that she was an undercover CIA agent.
On Sunday, Time magazine reported that another one of its reporters, Viveca Novak, who bears no relation to Robert Novak, is cooperating with Fitzgerald's probe and will give a deposition to Fitzgerald about a conversation she had with Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, in May 2004.
However, Viveca Novak did not write a single story about the Plame Wilson leak under her byline between May and December 2004. The first time she authored or co-authored a story about the leak following the May 2004 meeting with Luskin was in July 2005, so it's unclear why Fitzgerald is suddenly interested in questioning her. But her upcoming testimony proves that Fitzgerald is keeping the pressure on Rove.
The interesting thing about Novak's testimony is it was about conversations she had with Rove's lawyer. It appears to me that Fitzgerald is trying to find out the reason why Rove may have changed his story.
Did Luskin make the mistake of telling reporters that Rove may have tried to hide what he knew when he first testified? Or did Luskin give different versions of the conversations then what Rove told the prosecutor?
It is looking like Rove told one story to the FBI and his lawyer ended up telling a different one to reporters about what Rove told him. If Rove later changed his story to the GJ this could be about when he changed it for his lawyer vs when he changed it to the investigation and what the motives for changing it were.
Quote:
Time Reporter Called a Key to Rove's Defense In Leak Probe
By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 29, 2005; Page A01
The reporter for Time magazine who recently agreed to testify in the CIA leak case is central to White House senior adviser Karl Rove's effort to fend off an indictment in the two-year-old investigation, according to two people familiar with the situation.
Viveca Novak, who has written intermittently about the leak case for Time, has been asked to provide sworn testimony to Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald in the next few weeks after Rove attorney Robert Luskin told Fitzgerald about a conversation he had with her, the two sources said.
It's not clear why Luskin believes Novak's deposition could help Rove, President Bush's deputy chief of staff, who remains under investigation into whether he provided false statements in the case. But a person familiar with the matter said Luskin cited his conversations with Novak in persuading Fitzgerald not to indict Rove in late October, when the prosecutor brought perjury and obstruction-of-justice charges against Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
"This is what caused [Fitzgerald] to hold off on charging" Rove, the source said. But another person familiar with the conversations said they did not appear to significantly alter the case.
Luskin presented evidence, including details of his own conversations with Novak, to Fitzgerald at a secret meeting at a downtown law office shortly before Libby was indicted on Oct. 28, according to a source familiar with the case.
It could not be learned what Luskin and Novak, who are friends, discussed that could help prove Rove did nothing illegal in the leaking of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity to reporters and the subsequent investigation of it.
Novak is not related to Robert D. Novak, the columnist who first disclosed Plame's identity in July 2003. Viveca Novak is expected to write a firsthand account after she is deposed.
The disclosure of Novak's impending testimony is the latest indication that Fitzgerald is still considering charges against Rove and that the investigation of Bush's top aide continues, even as the prosecutor prepares for Libby's trial. It also shows that Rove, who, like Libby, was dragged into the case for talking to reporters, is now hoping that a reporter will help pull him out.
Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward told Fitzgerald earlier this month that he had discussed Plame with a senior administration official -- and that the official was someone other than Libby -- before Libby's first conversation with another reporter about Plame. The Libby legal team cheered Woodward's testimony, calling it "a bombshell" and contending that it undercut Fitzgerald's case that Libby was the first official known to have talked about Plame and her CIA status with a reporter.
Libby's legal team plans to rely on testimony from Woodward and other reporters to show that the former Cheney aide is not guilty of lying, providing misleading statements and obstructing justice in the course of the investigation, a person familiar with the legal strategy said.
Luskin, Viveca Novak and Fitzgerald spokesman Randall Samborn declined to comment. The two sources, both of whom are familiar with the Luskin-Novak conversations, spoke on the condition of anonymity because the prosecutor has warned everyone involved in the case not to discuss it publicly.
Fitzgerald has spent the past two years investigating whether any Bush administration officials disclosed Plame's name and employment at the CIA as part of an effort to discredit allegations by her husband, former diplomat Joseph C. Wilson IV, that President Bush had twisted intelligence to justify the Iraq war. Fitzgerald has not charged anyone with the crime he originally set out to prove: the illegal disclosure of a covert CIA operative's identity. Instead, he has focused on alleged wrongdoing in the course of the investigation.
Fitzgerald recently disclosed that he plans to present new evidence to a second grand jury. People close to the case said the first area Fitzgerald wants to address is Woodward's testimony and his source, who has not been publicly identified.
Woodward's source could face legal troubles because the source testified earlier in the case and apparently did not mention a conversation with Woodward about Plame, according to lawyers in the case. If the source provided inaccurate or incomplete information, Fitzgerald could seek to bring charges, they said.
Rove's fate remains uncertain. He has testified that he talked to columnist Robert D. Novak and Time magazine's Matthew Cooper about Plame's CIA employment. But in his initial conversations with federal investigators and testimony, Rove did not mention the conversation with Cooper, later telling the grand jury he forgot about it and did not intend to mislead anyone, according to lawyers in the case. Luskin has worked behind the scenes to convince Fitzgerald that Rove is guilty of nothing more than a faulty memory.
Time has not disclosed what information Viveca Novak might have that is relevant to the case and Rove's defense. In a brief article Sunday, the magazine reported that she has been asked to discuss conversations with Luskin starting in May 2004, when she first began to report on the leak case.
Time has not objected to Fitzgerald's questioning Novak. The magazine waged a lengthy legal battle to keep Fitzgerald's grand jury from questioning Cooper before acquiescing earlier this year. Unlike Cooper, Viveca Novak is not seeking to protect a confidential source and was not subpoenaed to testify.
Luskin is full of sh*t. I have no idea why reporters take what he says as having any truth behind it whatsoever....
Fitz is no fool, either; I hardly expect Luskin's gambit to work. There are dark days ahead, Republicans...
Cycloptichorn
Cyclo, Luskin is, from everything I heard, a brilliant attorney. But he has to deal with the hand he has been given. He has done a marvlous job in keeping Rove from being indicted thus far. But he can only do so much and his spin is not going to help his client with Fitz or the GJ.
Diversion tactics do not work. Luskin may be a brilliant attorney, but he can't correct the mistakes of his client.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Luskin is full of sh*t. I have no idea why reporters take what he says as having any truth behind it whatsoever....
What did Luskin say that you think is false?
Pretty much nothing that he says can be trusted. After all, he is being paid to lie in order to protect his client, if neccessary; there is no reason to believe that he would speak the truth on anything having to do with his client's indictment...
But in specific, the idea that V. Novak's conversation with Luskin is key to Rove's defense is a lie, I would bet.
We're getting closer to seeing how our little wager will turn out, Tico; Fitz has a second grand jury all lined up and ready to go...
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:Pretty much nothing that he says can be trusted. After all, he is being paid to lie in order to protect his client, if neccessary; there is no reason to believe that he would speak the truth on anything having to do with his client's indictment...
But in specific, the idea that V. Novak's conversation with Luskin is key to Rove's defense is a lie, I would bet.
We're getting closer to seeing how our little wager will turn out, Tico; Fitz has a second grand jury all lined up and ready to go...
Cycloptichorn
He is not being paid to lie. Lawyers are not paid to lie ... they get disbarred if they lie (well, except for you know who). Luskin is being paid to zealously defend his client. You are apparently unable to see the difference. .... Or more likely you just think anyone
associated with the present administration is a liar.
I don't know what "lie" you are referring to, but it appears you are referring to something "two people familiar with the situation" told a reporter was the reason for Novak's testimony to Fitzgerald. How exactly did you extrapolate that to be a Luskin lie?
I understand that you lawyers have 7 shades of truth. I don't. And as long as Luskin isn't in court, he can lie about anything that he wants and not get disbarred. We aren't talking about testimony, we're talking about a leak to the media about the case.
It's a luskin lie because Luskin is undoubtedly one of the people 'close the situation.' He's been using that same angle for months now. Just using a little lie, sorry, 'zealous defense' of his client in order to make some political hay.
Cycloptichorn
