Emphasis Added

Tuesday, September 30, 2003

"Several of the journalists are saying privately, 'yes, it was Karl Rove that I talked to.'"

Listen for yourself, from the Guardian (audio) via Atrios, courtesy of Andrew Bayer.

2:10:10 PM

Frog-Walk: Bush Speaks

Earlier today, the President was asked about the Plame Affair in one of his impromptu press "availabilities." The gist of his comments was that leaking is bad, the investigation is underway by career Justice Department people (as opposed to political appointees), and if anyone has any solid, credible information, they should come forward. Message here: Bush doesn't like leaks. This really isn't news.

Interesting in the President's certainly-scripted response was the absence of outrage at the nature of this particular leak, which was not just bad manners, but against the law and potentially harmful to national security. The strategy here is clearly to blunt the really nasty edge to this specific story and make it just another one of those snarky Washington things. We'll get to the bottom of it - regular Americans shouldn't worry their pretty little heads about it.

Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic minority leader, has joined the call for an Independent Prosecutor. This is being madly spun as injecting partisanship into the investigatory process (horrors! Who does she think she is? Newt Gingritch? Bob Barr?). Why not trust the pros at the DOJ, who are, after all, career Justice Department investigators. One wonders how much of a career they are likely to have if they come back with information unpleasant to their boss Ashcroft or his old chum and former campaign advisor Karl Rove.

12:51:06 PM

Emphasize This! []

Justice is Might

Since I don't have much time, I'll post my latest reply to the thread of comments under yesterday's "Project Frog March" thread as my main item of the day. Commenter Matthew De Luca, who has been forthright from the start about the disturbing nature of the Plame affair despite (or perhaps because of) his principled conservatism, made a remark that it was unusual to see folks on the Left be so eager for instant justice against a President, considering their reticence on the whole gamut of Clinton "scandals." A dirt-clot fight ensued, as will happen whenever the name of Clinton appears. Here are my latest thoughts on the subject:

I am aware of the allegations made against Clinton, and many of them were troubling. But after a lengthy and highly expensive process, most of them turned out not to have any merit. "Filegate," Kathleen Willey, Whitewater, "Travelgate"... all of these have passed into legend as though they were of some signficance, when the Right's own Grand Inquisitor himself closed the cases without finding any wrongdoing.

As I began my first post on the Plame subject, I found the state trooper story to be the most problematic (although the Chinese campaign contributions, since you mention it, was also a problem - funny how that one never made it to the top of the hit-list) because it was a clear-cut abuse of power. But the point is, every wild charge against Clinton got a full, serious airing and an official investigation, up to and including the extremely unusual and drastic process of impeachment.

Simple justice can look a lot like payback if the other side has something to hide, but really, simple justice is all that's wanting here. It's not a new discovery on the part of either the right or the left, but you'd be amazed how many Ken Starr Republicans are just now discovering this idea of "benefit of the doubt" when it's their guy under the broiler.

Discuss among yourselves. I'm off to see the Borg.

7:35:34 AM

Emphasize This! []