Who the heck asked this question?

From today's White House Press Briefing:

QUESTION: Considering the widespread interest and the absolutely frantic Democrat reaction to Karl Rove's excellent speech to conservatives last month, does the president hope that Karl will give a lot more speeches?

MCCLELLAN: He continues to give speeches.

He was traveling this weekend talking about the importance of strengthening Social Security. And he's continued to go out and give speeches.

Everybody wants to know if Karl is being fired and/or going to prison and someone actually asked the question above?

Is Jeff Gannon back?

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Who the heck asked this question?

From today's White House Press Briefing:

QUESTION: Considering the widespread interest and the absolutely frantic Democrat reaction to Karl Rove's excellent speech to conservatives last month, does the president hope that Karl will give a lot more speeches?

MCCLELLAN: He continues to give speeches.

He was traveling this weekend talking about the importance of strengthening Social Security. And he's continued to go out and give speeches.

Everybody wants to know if Karl is being fired and/or going to prison and someone actually asked the question above?

Is Jeff Gannon back?

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Ed Klein smells a conspiracy?

From the Washington Post:

Despite the enormous hype surrounding Edward Klein's scathing and hearsay-filled book about Hillary Rodham Clinton, the author has been ignored by all but two television talk shows.

This collective cold shoulder hasn't stopped "The Truth About Hillary" from hitting No. 2 yesterday on the coveted New York Times list. "It's the biggest example to date of how major media censorship doesn't stop a book anymore from being a bestseller," Klein declares.

Censorship is clearly the wrong word, since networks have no obligation to interview any author. The refusal to book Klein could just as easily be viewed as the drawing of a line by news organizations over a highly personal attack that has drawn fire from several conservative columnists as well as those on the left.

"It's just been a total blackout," says Klein, adding that talk radio and some Web sites, including the Drudge Report, have driven sales of the book. "I definitely think there's something organized going on here."

Really? Is that really Ed's position? Since when can we Democrats organize anything? Don't get me wrong, the book was crap and that was so easy to prove that even Sean Hannity was going after Ed Klein about the book when Klein was on Hannity and Colmes.

When Sean Hannity thinks the book you wrote about Hillary Clinton is unfair and poorly researched, you have really managed to put together 300 pages of solid gold crap.

Congrats Ed. Your book sucks. But, just like with Coral Calcium, there are enough dumb people in the world that it is selling. Enjoy your money. You earned it by selling your integrity.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Ed Klein smells a conspiracy?

From the Washington Post:

Despite the enormous hype surrounding Edward Klein's scathing and hearsay-filled book about Hillary Rodham Clinton, the author has been ignored by all but two television talk shows.

This collective cold shoulder hasn't stopped "The Truth About Hillary" from hitting No. 2 yesterday on the coveted New York Times list. "It's the biggest example to date of how major media censorship doesn't stop a book anymore from being a bestseller," Klein declares.

Censorship is clearly the wrong word, since networks have no obligation to interview any author. The refusal to book Klein could just as easily be viewed as the drawing of a line by news organizations over a highly personal attack that has drawn fire from several conservative columnists as well as those on the left.

"It's just been a total blackout," says Klein, adding that talk radio and some Web sites, including the Drudge Report, have driven sales of the book. "I definitely think there's something organized going on here."

Really? Is that really Ed's position? Since when can we Democrats organize anything? Don't get me wrong, the book was crap and that was so easy to prove that even Sean Hannity was going after Ed Klein about the book when Klein was on Hannity and Colmes.

When Sean Hannity thinks the book you wrote about Hillary Clinton is unfair and poorly researched, you have really managed to put together 300 pages of solid gold crap.

Congrats Ed. Your book sucks. But, just like with Coral Calcium, there are enough dumb people in the world that it is selling. Enjoy your money. You earned it by selling your integrity.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Cat got your tounge Scott?

From today's gaggle:

The following is a excerpts of a rush transcript of the White House press briefing Monday...

QUESTION: Scott, can I ask you this: Did Karl Rove commit a crime?

MCCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to a ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don't think you should read anything into it other than: We're going to continue not to comment on it while it's ongoing.

QUESTION: Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003, when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliot Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this"?

QUESTION: Do you stand by that statement?

MCCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that, as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation, we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time as well.

QUESTION: Scott, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us, after having commented with that level of detail, and tell people watching this that somehow you've decided not to talk.

You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium or not?

MCCLELLAN: I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said. And I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation...

QUESTION: (inaudible) when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?

MCCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish.

QUESTION: No, you're not finishing. You're not saying anything.

You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation. Was he involved or was he not? Because contrary to what you told the American people, he did indeed talk about his wife, didn't he?

MCCLELLAN: There will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.

QUESTION: Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?

MCCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question.

QUESTION: You're in a bad spot here, Scott...

(LAUGHTER)

... because after the investigation began -- after the criminal investigation was under way -- you said, October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby. As I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this," from that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began.

Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation.

MCCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization. And I think you are well aware of that.

We know each other very well. And it was after that period that the investigators had requested that we not get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation.

And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this. Because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States.

I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I'm just not going to do that.

QUESTION: So you're now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore and since then you haven't.

MCCLELLAN: Again, you're continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation and I'm just not going to respond to them. QUESTION: When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you pin down a date?

MCCLELLAN: Back in that time period.

QUESTION: Well, then the president commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan?

MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response.

QUESTION: Well, we are going to keep asking them.

When did the president learn that Karl Rove had had a conversation with a news reporter about the involvement of Joseph Wilson's wife in the decision to send him to Africa?

MCCLELLAN: I've responded to the questions.

QUESTION: When did the president learn that Karl Rove had been...

MCCLELLAN: I've responded to your questions.

QUESTION: After the investigation is completed, will you then be consistent with your word and the president's word that anybody who was involved will be let go?

MCCLELLAN: Again, after the investigation is complete, I will be glad to talk about it at that point.

QUESTION: Can you walk us through why, given the fact that Rove's lawyer has spoken publicly about this, it is inconsistent with the investigation, that it compromises the investigation to talk about the involvement of Karl Rove, the deputy chief of staff, here?

MCCLELLAN: Well, those overseeing the investigation expressed a preference to us that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it's ongoing. And that was what they requested of the White House. And so I think in order to be helpful to that investigation, we are following their direction.

QUESTION: Scott, there's a difference between commenting on an investigation and taking an action...

MCCLELLAN: (inaudible)

QUESTION: Can I finish, please?

MCCLELLAN: I'll come back to you in a minute.

QUESTION: Scott, (inaudible) president spoke about war on terrorism and, also, according to India Globe report there is bombings in London and also bombings in India. And at both places, Al Qaida was involved.

According to the India Globe and press reports, Pakistani television said that Osama bin Laden is now alive and they had spoken with him. And his group is (inaudible) terrorism around the globe is concerned.

Well, now, the major bombings after 9/11 took place in London and (inaudible) fighting against terrorism is concerned.

Where do we stand now? Really, where do we go from London as far as terrorism is concerned? How far can we go after Osama bin Laden now to catch him, because he's still in Pakistan?

MCCLELLAN: What occurred in London is a grim reminder that we are at war on terrorism. We are waging a comprehensive war on terrorism.

You heard the president talk earlier today to the FBI personnel and others who were at Quantico. And the president talked about our global war on terrorism. He talked about our strategy for taking the fight to the enemy, staying on the offensive, and working to spread freedom and democracy to defeat the ideology of hatred that terrorists espouse.

And the president pointed back to the 20th century. He pointed out that in World War II, freedom prevailed over fascism and Nazism. And in the Cold War, freedom prevailed over communism.

MCCLELLAN: Freedom is a powerful force for defeating an ideology such as the one that the terrorists espouse. And that's why it's so important to continue working to advance freedom and democracy in the broader Middle East. And that's what we will continue to do.

And the president also talked about the great progress we've made at home to protect the home front.

The families and friends of those who lost their lives in London continue to be in our thoughts and prayers. We know what it's like to be attacked on our own soil.

And that's why the president made a decision that we were going to take the fight to the enemy to try to disrupt plots and prevent attacks from happening in the first place. And that's exactly what we are doing.

But we're also going to work with the free world to support the advance of freedom and democracy in a dangerous region of the world. For too long we ignored what was going on in the Middle East. We accepted and tolerated dictatorships in exchange for peace and stability, and we got neither.

As the president said, free nations are peaceful societies. And that's why it's so important that we continue to support the advance of freedom, because that's how you ultimately defeat the ideology of hatred and oppression that terrorists espouse.

QUESTION: Does the president continue to have confidence in Mr. Rove?

MCCLELLAN: Again, these are all questions coming up in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation. And you've heard my response on this.

QUESTION: So you're not going to respond as to whether or not the president has confidence in his deputy chief of staff?

MCCLELLAN: You're asking this question in the context of an ongoing investigation, and I would not read anything into it other then I'm simply going to comment on an ongoing investigation.

QUESTION: Has there been any change, or is there a plan for Mr. Rove's portfolio to be altered in any way?

MCCLELLAN: Again, you have my response to these questions.

Givem' the old Razzle Dazzle....

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Cat got your tounge Scott?

From today's gaggle:

The following is a excerpts of a rush transcript of the White House press briefing Monday...

QUESTION: Scott, can I ask you this: Did Karl Rove commit a crime?

MCCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to a ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don't think you should read anything into it other than: We're going to continue not to comment on it while it's ongoing.

QUESTION: Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003, when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliot Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this"?

QUESTION: Do you stand by that statement?

MCCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that, as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation, we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time as well.

QUESTION: Scott, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us, after having commented with that level of detail, and tell people watching this that somehow you've decided not to talk.

You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium or not?

MCCLELLAN: I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said. And I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation...

QUESTION: (inaudible) when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?

MCCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish.

QUESTION: No, you're not finishing. You're not saying anything.

You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation. Was he involved or was he not? Because contrary to what you told the American people, he did indeed talk about his wife, didn't he?

MCCLELLAN: There will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.

QUESTION: Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?

MCCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question.

QUESTION: You're in a bad spot here, Scott...

(LAUGHTER)

... because after the investigation began -- after the criminal investigation was under way -- you said, October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby. As I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this," from that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began.

Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation.

MCCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization. And I think you are well aware of that.

We know each other very well. And it was after that period that the investigators had requested that we not get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation.

And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this. Because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States.

I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I'm just not going to do that.

QUESTION: So you're now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore and since then you haven't.

MCCLELLAN: Again, you're continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation and I'm just not going to respond to them. QUESTION: When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you pin down a date?

MCCLELLAN: Back in that time period.

QUESTION: Well, then the president commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan?

MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response.

QUESTION: Well, we are going to keep asking them.

When did the president learn that Karl Rove had had a conversation with a news reporter about the involvement of Joseph Wilson's wife in the decision to send him to Africa?

MCCLELLAN: I've responded to the questions.

QUESTION: When did the president learn that Karl Rove had been...

MCCLELLAN: I've responded to your questions.

QUESTION: After the investigation is completed, will you then be consistent with your word and the president's word that anybody who was involved will be let go?

MCCLELLAN: Again, after the investigation is complete, I will be glad to talk about it at that point.

QUESTION: Can you walk us through why, given the fact that Rove's lawyer has spoken publicly about this, it is inconsistent with the investigation, that it compromises the investigation to talk about the involvement of Karl Rove, the deputy chief of staff, here?

MCCLELLAN: Well, those overseeing the investigation expressed a preference to us that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it's ongoing. And that was what they requested of the White House. And so I think in order to be helpful to that investigation, we are following their direction.

QUESTION: Scott, there's a difference between commenting on an investigation and taking an action...

MCCLELLAN: (inaudible)

QUESTION: Can I finish, please?

MCCLELLAN: I'll come back to you in a minute.

QUESTION: Scott, (inaudible) president spoke about war on terrorism and, also, according to India Globe report there is bombings in London and also bombings in India. And at both places, Al Qaida was involved.

According to the India Globe and press reports, Pakistani television said that Osama bin Laden is now alive and they had spoken with him. And his group is (inaudible) terrorism around the globe is concerned.

Well, now, the major bombings after 9/11 took place in London and (inaudible) fighting against terrorism is concerned.

Where do we stand now? Really, where do we go from London as far as terrorism is concerned? How far can we go after Osama bin Laden now to catch him, because he's still in Pakistan?

MCCLELLAN: What occurred in London is a grim reminder that we are at war on terrorism. We are waging a comprehensive war on terrorism.

You heard the president talk earlier today to the FBI personnel and others who were at Quantico. And the president talked about our global war on terrorism. He talked about our strategy for taking the fight to the enemy, staying on the offensive, and working to spread freedom and democracy to defeat the ideology of hatred that terrorists espouse.

And the president pointed back to the 20th century. He pointed out that in World War II, freedom prevailed over fascism and Nazism. And in the Cold War, freedom prevailed over communism.

MCCLELLAN: Freedom is a powerful force for defeating an ideology such as the one that the terrorists espouse. And that's why it's so important to continue working to advance freedom and democracy in the broader Middle East. And that's what we will continue to do.

And the president also talked about the great progress we've made at home to protect the home front.

The families and friends of those who lost their lives in London continue to be in our thoughts and prayers. We know what it's like to be attacked on our own soil.

And that's why the president made a decision that we were going to take the fight to the enemy to try to disrupt plots and prevent attacks from happening in the first place. And that's exactly what we are doing.

But we're also going to work with the free world to support the advance of freedom and democracy in a dangerous region of the world. For too long we ignored what was going on in the Middle East. We accepted and tolerated dictatorships in exchange for peace and stability, and we got neither.

As the president said, free nations are peaceful societies. And that's why it's so important that we continue to support the advance of freedom, because that's how you ultimately defeat the ideology of hatred and oppression that terrorists espouse.

QUESTION: Does the president continue to have confidence in Mr. Rove?

MCCLELLAN: Again, these are all questions coming up in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation. And you've heard my response on this.

QUESTION: So you're not going to respond as to whether or not the president has confidence in his deputy chief of staff?

MCCLELLAN: You're asking this question in the context of an ongoing investigation, and I would not read anything into it other then I'm simply going to comment on an ongoing investigation.

QUESTION: Has there been any change, or is there a plan for Mr. Rove's portfolio to be altered in any way?

MCCLELLAN: Again, you have my response to these questions.

Givem' the old Razzle Dazzle....

-The Oklahoma Hippy

And now a moment of levity...

I just wanted to give a shout out to whomever is reading my blog over at the Tulsa World. Keep on reading.

And, I also wanted to say something to the media in general...

Being fair doesn't mean letting both sides dictate their talking points to you and then giving them equal column space.

Fair means that the amount of grief that anyone is given by the media should be directly proportional to the amount of bullshit that person or entity is shoveling.

Think about that for a second.

Anyway, thanks to everyone who takes the time to read this, keep doing what you all can to make a difference.

Peace.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

And now a moment of levity...

I just wanted to give a shout out to whomever is reading my blog over at the Tulsa World. Keep on reading.

And, I also wanted to say something to the media in general...

Being fair doesn't mean letting both sides dictate their talking points to you and then giving them equal column space.

Fair means that the amount of grief that anyone is given by the media should be directly proportional to the amount of bullshit that person or entity is shoveling.

Think about that for a second.

Anyway, thanks to everyone who takes the time to read this, keep doing what you all can to make a difference.

Peace.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

What is this REALLY about?

I'm not sure if anyone has a full appreciation for what might be going on here.

From over at The Blogging of the President, I found the following:

It is my belief that Plame was first made as "chickenfeed" - trading of off the record information between reporters and sources - and not for the purpose of vengence, but before, when the White House was trying to establish a "Niger connection" for the "yellowcake" story. It is likely that the WH planned a sting operation - Niger offers Saddam some illegal Uranium, and that would be used to prove that Saddam had nuclear weapons ambitions. In this line of reasoning, the scam would need a credible channel - the front company which Plame worked for would be that credible channel. When the scam fell through, Plame's name was floating around, and there was a story for the first person who was willing to go public with it.

Could what we're talking about be a White House attempt to manipulate the WMD intelligence. Is that why so many judges agree this is such a major crime and have no problem jailing reporters for refusing to testify?

I don't have any idea, but I often tell people that conspiracy theories aren't real, because people like to tell their secrets. We didn't fake the Apollo moon landing, because someone would have admitted it by now, just as a for instance.

But, would a conspiracy theory become more plausible if the conspirators weren't able to keep control of who's talking to whom?

Alas, I'm not sure I buy it, but I will continue to watch and see how this all breaks down.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

What is this REALLY about?

I'm not sure if anyone has a full appreciation for what might be going on here.

From over at The Blogging of the President, I found the following:

It is my belief that Plame was first made as "chickenfeed" - trading of off the record information between reporters and sources - and not for the purpose of vengence, but before, when the White House was trying to establish a "Niger connection" for the "yellowcake" story. It is likely that the WH planned a sting operation - Niger offers Saddam some illegal Uranium, and that would be used to prove that Saddam had nuclear weapons ambitions. In this line of reasoning, the scam would need a credible channel - the front company which Plame worked for would be that credible channel. When the scam fell through, Plame's name was floating around, and there was a story for the first person who was willing to go public with it.

Could what we're talking about be a White House attempt to manipulate the WMD intelligence. Is that why so many judges agree this is such a major crime and have no problem jailing reporters for refusing to testify?

I don't have any idea, but I often tell people that conspiracy theories aren't real, because people like to tell their secrets. We didn't fake the Apollo moon landing, because someone would have admitted it by now, just as a for instance.

But, would a conspiracy theory become more plausible if the conspirators weren't able to keep control of who's talking to whom?

Alas, I'm not sure I buy it, but I will continue to watch and see how this all breaks down.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

It was Karl...

Wow...

From Newsweek*:

Matt Cooper's Source
What Karl Rove told Time magazine's reporter.

By Michael Isikoff

Newsweek

July 18 issue - It was 11:07 on a Friday morning, July 11, 2003, and Time magazine correspondent Matt Cooper was tapping out an e-mail to his bureau chief, Michael Duffy. "Subject: Rove/P&C," (for personal and confidential), Cooper began. "Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation ..." Cooper proceeded to spell out some guidance on a story that was beginning to roil Washington. He finished, "please don't source this to rove or even WH [White House]" and suggested another reporter check with the CIA.

Last week, after Time turned over that e-mail, among other notes and e-mails, Cooper agreed to testify before a grand jury in the Valerie Plame case. Explaining that he had obtained last-minute "personal consent" from his source, Cooper was able to avoid a jail sentence for contempt of court. Another reporter, Judith Miller of The New York Times, refused to identify her source and chose to go to jail instead.

For two years, a federal prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, has been investigating the leak of Plame's identity as an undercover CIA agent. The leak was first reported by columnist Robert Novak on July 14, 2003. Novak apparently made some arrangement with the prosecutor, but Fitzgerald continued to press other reporters for their sources, possibly to show a pattern (to prove intent) or to make a perjury case. (It is illegal to knowingly identify an undercover CIA officer.) Rove's words on the Plame case have always been carefully chosen. "I didn't know her name. I didn't leak her name," Rove told CNN last year when asked if he had anything to do with the Plame leak. Rove has never publicly acknowledged talking to any reporter about former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife. But last week, his lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed to NEWSWEEK that Rove did—and that Rove was the secret source who, at the request of both Cooper's lawyer and the prosecutor, gave Cooper permission to testify.

The controversy arose when Wilson wrote an op-ed column in The New York Times saying that he had been sent by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate charges that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from the African country of Niger. Wilson said he had found no evidence to support the claim. Wilson's column was an early attack on the evidence used by the Bush administration to justify going to war in Iraq. The White House wished to discredit Wilson and his attacks. The question for the prosecutor is whether someone in the administration, in an effort to undermine Wilson's credibility, intentionally revealed the covert identity of his wife.

In a brief conversation with Rove, Cooper asked what to make of the flap over Wilson's criticisms. NEWSWEEK obtained a copy of the e-mail that Cooper sent his bureau chief after speaking to Rove. (The e-mail was authenticated by a source intimately familiar with Time's editorial handling of the Wilson story, but who has asked not to be identified because of the magazine's corporate decision not to disclose its contents.) Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." Wilson's wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA's Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division. (Cooper later included the essence of what Rove told him in an online story.) The e-mail characterizing the conversation continues: "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger ... "

Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative. Nonetheless, it is significant that Rove was speaking to Cooper before Novak's column appeared; in other words, before Plame's identity had been published. Fitzgerald has been looking for evidence that Rove spoke to other reporters as well. "Karl Rove has shared with Fitzgerald all the information he has about any potentially relevant contacts he has had with any reporters, including Matt Cooper," Luskin told NEWSWEEK.

A source close to Rove, who declined to be identified because he did not wish to run afoul of the prosecutor or government investigators, added that there was "absolutely no inconsistency" between Cooper's e-mail and what Rove has testified to during his three grand-jury appearances in the case. "A fair reading of the e-mail makes clear that the information conveyed was not part of an organized effort to disclose Plame's identity, but was an effort to discourage Time from publishing things that turned out to be false," the source said, referring to claims in circulation at the time that Cheney and high-level CIA officials arranged for Wilson's trip to Africa.

Fitzgerald is known as a tenacious, thorough prosecutor. He refused to comment, and it is not clear whether he is pursuing evidence that will result in indictments, or just tying up loose ends in a messy case. But the Cooper e-mail offers one new clue to the mystery of what Fitzgerald is probing—and provides a glimpse of what was unfolding at the highest levels as the administration defended a part of its case for going to war in Iraq.

© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.

A friend once told me that we wouldn't be talking about this leak after a week or two. He said it was an "inside the beltway" story that no one cares about. Maybe that's true, but I bet the President cares as he's looking Senate Confirmation hearings as he tries to fill the Supreme Court's vacancies.

I also bet that Karl Rove cares as he faces prison.

Another little scuttlebutt is that several people have pointed in Cheney's direction once they were in front of the Grand Jury.

So, just like in the Watergate matter, the questions are easy. What did the president know, and when did he know it?

Did he know it was Rove? Why is Rove still working there? Is Rove going to be fired? Is Rove going to tell the President who else was involved in this violation of our National Security?

Remember what we were being told about Bill Clinton's impeachment. The Republicans were giving us the same message over and over about the impeachment, saying, "It's not the sex, it's the lying."

So, who's been telling the truth?

Another important aspect remains the serious crime which started it all. There seems to be a consensus among people who have seen the prosecutor's full case that this is a very serious crime that we are talking about.

From Lawrence O'Donnell via Huffington Post:

In February, Circuit Judge David Tatel joined his colleagues’ order to Cooper and Miller despite his own, very lonely finding that indeed there is a federal privilege for reporters that can shield them from being compelled to testify to grand juries and give up sources. He based his finding on Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which authorizes federal courts to develop new privileges “in the light of reason and experience.” Tatel actually found that reason and experience “support recognition of a privilege for reporters’ confidential sources.” But Tatel still ordered Cooper and Miller to testify because he found that the privilege had to give way to “the gravity of the suspected crime.”

Judge Tatel’s opinion has eight blank pages in the middle of it where he discusses the secret information the prosecutor has supplied only to the judges to convince them that the testimony he is demanding is worth sending reporters to jail to get. The gravity of the suspected crime is presumably very well developed in those redacted pages. Later, Tatel refers to “[h]aving carefully scrutinized [the prosecutor’s] voluminous classified filings.”

Some of us have theorized that the prosecutor may have given up the leak case in favor of a perjury case, but Tatel still refers to it simply as a case “which involves the alleged exposure of a covert agent.” Tatel wrote a 41-page opinion in which he seemed eager to make new law -- a federal reporters’ shield law -- but in the end, he couldn’t bring himself to do it in this particular case. In his final paragraph, he says he “might have” let Cooper and Miller off the hook “[w]ere the leak at issue in this case less harmful to national security.”

Tatel’s colleagues are at least as impressed with the prosecutor’s secret filings as he is. One simply said “Special Counsel’s showing decides the case.”

All the judges who have seen the prosecutor’s secret evidence firmly believe he is pursuing a very serious crime, and they have done everything they can to help him get an indictment.

This administration, and the Republican Party has become mired in a culture of corruption.

So, it's time to start a cleanup. And we need to start with the head of this fraternity, Karl Rove.

It's frog marching time.

*********
Who else is linking to the story?

David Corn
Capitol Buzz
Miraclo Miles
Running Scared
The Blogging of the President

The list goes on and on... Click here to have Tecnorati tell you who is linking to the story.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

*I'm running the risk of getting sued by Newsweek for putting up the entire Isikoff article here, but honestly this is one of those stories that will be so utterly ubiquitous within 2 days, that I just don't think that there's anything to worry about. That being said, if they ask, I will take it down.

It was Karl...

Wow...

From Newsweek*:

Matt Cooper's Source
What Karl Rove told Time magazine's reporter.

By Michael Isikoff

Newsweek

July 18 issue - It was 11:07 on a Friday morning, July 11, 2003, and Time magazine correspondent Matt Cooper was tapping out an e-mail to his bureau chief, Michael Duffy. "Subject: Rove/P&C," (for personal and confidential), Cooper began. "Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation ..." Cooper proceeded to spell out some guidance on a story that was beginning to roil Washington. He finished, "please don't source this to rove or even WH [White House]" and suggested another reporter check with the CIA.

Last week, after Time turned over that e-mail, among other notes and e-mails, Cooper agreed to testify before a grand jury in the Valerie Plame case. Explaining that he had obtained last-minute "personal consent" from his source, Cooper was able to avoid a jail sentence for contempt of court. Another reporter, Judith Miller of The New York Times, refused to identify her source and chose to go to jail instead.

For two years, a federal prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, has been investigating the leak of Plame's identity as an undercover CIA agent. The leak was first reported by columnist Robert Novak on July 14, 2003. Novak apparently made some arrangement with the prosecutor, but Fitzgerald continued to press other reporters for their sources, possibly to show a pattern (to prove intent) or to make a perjury case. (It is illegal to knowingly identify an undercover CIA officer.) Rove's words on the Plame case have always been carefully chosen. "I didn't know her name. I didn't leak her name," Rove told CNN last year when asked if he had anything to do with the Plame leak. Rove has never publicly acknowledged talking to any reporter about former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife. But last week, his lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed to NEWSWEEK that Rove did—and that Rove was the secret source who, at the request of both Cooper's lawyer and the prosecutor, gave Cooper permission to testify.

The controversy arose when Wilson wrote an op-ed column in The New York Times saying that he had been sent by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate charges that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from the African country of Niger. Wilson said he had found no evidence to support the claim. Wilson's column was an early attack on the evidence used by the Bush administration to justify going to war in Iraq. The White House wished to discredit Wilson and his attacks. The question for the prosecutor is whether someone in the administration, in an effort to undermine Wilson's credibility, intentionally revealed the covert identity of his wife.

In a brief conversation with Rove, Cooper asked what to make of the flap over Wilson's criticisms. NEWSWEEK obtained a copy of the e-mail that Cooper sent his bureau chief after speaking to Rove. (The e-mail was authenticated by a source intimately familiar with Time's editorial handling of the Wilson story, but who has asked not to be identified because of the magazine's corporate decision not to disclose its contents.) Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." Wilson's wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA's Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division. (Cooper later included the essence of what Rove told him in an online story.) The e-mail characterizing the conversation continues: "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger ... "

Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative. Nonetheless, it is significant that Rove was speaking to Cooper before Novak's column appeared; in other words, before Plame's identity had been published. Fitzgerald has been looking for evidence that Rove spoke to other reporters as well. "Karl Rove has shared with Fitzgerald all the information he has about any potentially relevant contacts he has had with any reporters, including Matt Cooper," Luskin told NEWSWEEK.

A source close to Rove, who declined to be identified because he did not wish to run afoul of the prosecutor or government investigators, added that there was "absolutely no inconsistency" between Cooper's e-mail and what Rove has testified to during his three grand-jury appearances in the case. "A fair reading of the e-mail makes clear that the information conveyed was not part of an organized effort to disclose Plame's identity, but was an effort to discourage Time from publishing things that turned out to be false," the source said, referring to claims in circulation at the time that Cheney and high-level CIA officials arranged for Wilson's trip to Africa.

Fitzgerald is known as a tenacious, thorough prosecutor. He refused to comment, and it is not clear whether he is pursuing evidence that will result in indictments, or just tying up loose ends in a messy case. But the Cooper e-mail offers one new clue to the mystery of what Fitzgerald is probing—and provides a glimpse of what was unfolding at the highest levels as the administration defended a part of its case for going to war in Iraq.

© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.

A friend once told me that we wouldn't be talking about this leak after a week or two. He said it was an "inside the beltway" story that no one cares about. Maybe that's true, but I bet the President cares as he's looking Senate Confirmation hearings as he tries to fill the Supreme Court's vacancies.

I also bet that Karl Rove cares as he faces prison.

Another little scuttlebutt is that several people have pointed in Cheney's direction once they were in front of the Grand Jury.

So, just like in the Watergate matter, the questions are easy. What did the president know, and when did he know it?

Did he know it was Rove? Why is Rove still working there? Is Rove going to be fired? Is Rove going to tell the President who else was involved in this violation of our National Security?

Remember what we were being told about Bill Clinton's impeachment. The Republicans were giving us the same message over and over about the impeachment, saying, "It's not the sex, it's the lying."

So, who's been telling the truth?

Another important aspect remains the serious crime which started it all. There seems to be a consensus among people who have seen the prosecutor's full case that this is a very serious crime that we are talking about.

From Lawrence O'Donnell via Huffington Post:

In February, Circuit Judge David Tatel joined his colleagues’ order to Cooper and Miller despite his own, very lonely finding that indeed there is a federal privilege for reporters that can shield them from being compelled to testify to grand juries and give up sources. He based his finding on Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which authorizes federal courts to develop new privileges “in the light of reason and experience.” Tatel actually found that reason and experience “support recognition of a privilege for reporters’ confidential sources.” But Tatel still ordered Cooper and Miller to testify because he found that the privilege had to give way to “the gravity of the suspected crime.”

Judge Tatel’s opinion has eight blank pages in the middle of it where he discusses the secret information the prosecutor has supplied only to the judges to convince them that the testimony he is demanding is worth sending reporters to jail to get. The gravity of the suspected crime is presumably very well developed in those redacted pages. Later, Tatel refers to “[h]aving carefully scrutinized [the prosecutor’s] voluminous classified filings.”

Some of us have theorized that the prosecutor may have given up the leak case in favor of a perjury case, but Tatel still refers to it simply as a case “which involves the alleged exposure of a covert agent.” Tatel wrote a 41-page opinion in which he seemed eager to make new law -- a federal reporters’ shield law -- but in the end, he couldn’t bring himself to do it in this particular case. In his final paragraph, he says he “might have” let Cooper and Miller off the hook “[w]ere the leak at issue in this case less harmful to national security.”

Tatel’s colleagues are at least as impressed with the prosecutor’s secret filings as he is. One simply said “Special Counsel’s showing decides the case.”

All the judges who have seen the prosecutor’s secret evidence firmly believe he is pursuing a very serious crime, and they have done everything they can to help him get an indictment.

This administration, and the Republican Party has become mired in a culture of corruption.

So, it's time to start a cleanup. And we need to start with the head of this fraternity, Karl Rove.

It's frog marching time.

*********
Who else is linking to the story?

David Corn
Capitol Buzz
Miraclo Miles
Running Scared
The Blogging of the President

The list goes on and on... Click here to have Tecnorati tell you who is linking to the story.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

*I'm running the risk of getting sued by Newsweek for putting up the entire Isikoff article here, but honestly this is one of those stories that will be so utterly ubiquitous within 2 days, that I just don't think that there's anything to worry about. That being said, if they ask, I will take it down.

Who said this?

"Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached."

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Who said this?

"Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached."

-The Oklahoma Hippy

London saw the face of terrorism today...

Ok people, it’s simple.

Our little misadventure in Iraq has kept us from fighting the real terrorists. The people who made the decision to pivot our attention to Iraq without taking on the REAL threat of terrorism share some responsibility in what happened in London today.

This is going to be used as a reason why the American public should continue to be afraid, and it will be used by the Bush administration to illustrate why it’s important to “stay the course.”

This is all Bulls**t. The fact of the matter is that we should have been working for the last two years to prevent exactly what went on in London today. The fact of the matter is that we haven’t. Our leaders have chosen to pursue a personal vendetta against Iraq rather than dealing with the real problem of Global Terrorism.

We took our eye off the threat and now at least 40 people in London paid the price of that arrogance this morning with their lives.

All of our resources are tied up in fighting a war with Iraq that had nothing to do with global terrorism. Osama Bin Laden was once wanted “Dead or Alive,” and yet we allowed the Bush Administration to pull a bait-and-switch on us and tell us the world’s biggest threat was Saddam Hussein.

Nonsense. The biggest threat is terrorism from this loosely affiliated shadow group to which we gave the name Al-Qaeda. The men in this group share little except ideology. Rather than working to prevent these attacks, we only inflamed the very parts of their ideology and paranoia their desire to do harm to innocents.

Iraq has become the best recruiting tool for Islamic jihadists in history. They are going to use it for all it’s worth, now and for years to come.

2 years, 4 months in Iraq. 1780 American Soldier’s lives. 300 billion dollars. What has that bought us? We are now less safe in this world. To allow this cowardly act to become another moment to rally around the President will only serve to make us look like fools.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

London saw the face of terrorism today...

Ok people, it’s simple.

Our little misadventure in Iraq has kept us from fighting the real terrorists. The people who made the decision to pivot our attention to Iraq without taking on the REAL threat of terrorism share some responsibility in what happened in London today.

This is going to be used as a reason why the American public should continue to be afraid, and it will be used by the Bush administration to illustrate why it’s important to “stay the course.”

This is all Bulls**t. The fact of the matter is that we should have been working for the last two years to prevent exactly what went on in London today. The fact of the matter is that we haven’t. Our leaders have chosen to pursue a personal vendetta against Iraq rather than dealing with the real problem of Global Terrorism.

We took our eye off the threat and now at least 40 people in London paid the price of that arrogance this morning with their lives.

All of our resources are tied up in fighting a war with Iraq that had nothing to do with global terrorism. Osama Bin Laden was once wanted “Dead or Alive,” and yet we allowed the Bush Administration to pull a bait-and-switch on us and tell us the world’s biggest threat was Saddam Hussein.

Nonsense. The biggest threat is terrorism from this loosely affiliated shadow group to which we gave the name Al-Qaeda. The men in this group share little except ideology. Rather than working to prevent these attacks, we only inflamed the very parts of their ideology and paranoia their desire to do harm to innocents.

Iraq has become the best recruiting tool for Islamic jihadists in history. They are going to use it for all it’s worth, now and for years to come.

2 years, 4 months in Iraq. 1780 American Soldier’s lives. 300 billion dollars. What has that bought us? We are now less safe in this world. To allow this cowardly act to become another moment to rally around the President will only serve to make us look like fools.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

How a Democrat got Elected Governor in Oklahoma...

First some background.

The State of Oklahoma has a much higher number of registered Democrats than registered Republicans. This is going all the way back to the 60's.

Generally, people vote democrat for local candidates and republican for Congressional races or above.

That's because most democrats running for state office tend to run on a strict pro-gun, pro-God, anti-gay agenda.

Outside of that, they tend to stick to Democratic meat and potatoes issues of fair-wages and good education.

Brad Henry was something of a lucky sum'bitch, and I say that really liking the guy.

Here's how it went down...

Brad Henry was a State Senator from Shawnee, which is about 20 miles east of Oklahoma City.

He was a nice enough guy, but no one really knew who he was.

He was running to replace Frank Keating, who had really overstayed his welcome in the governor's mansion.

The heir apparent to Frank Keating was Congressman Steve Largent. Everyone accepted that he was going to win, so everyone turned their eyes to the senate race which pitted former governor David Walters against James Inhofe.

Well, during this time when no one was paying attention, Gary Richardson entered the governor's race as an Independent. Richardson's platform was simple. The Oklahoma State Turnpike system should be free to Oklahomans and we should charge out of state trucks to use them.

Now, around this same time (stay with me here) Subway was playing commercials all over the country that gave prominence to other people who had lost weight on Jared Fogle's Subway diet. One of the people featured was a firefighter named Clay Henry.

Now this jingle was quite ubiquitous for a while, and everybody found themselves humming it at one time or another. This will be important.

Early in 2002, there had been a petition drive to get a Ban on Cockfighting. (Rooster boxing you sickos!)

This drive was successful, and it made it on to the ballot statewide for the General Election.

This will also be important.

Now, back to Gary Richardson. Gary Richardson was short on funds, mostly because he was nuts, so he was spending quite a bit of his own money on the race.

Not wanting to overextend himself, he put his sights on who he felt would be his main competition in a Red State like Oklahoma.

Steve Largent was going through some campaign doldrums, because like everyone else in the state, he believed the Governor's mansion was his for the taking, so he pretty much just didn't bother to campaign.

And really, who could blame him? He was the only name in the race. He had the support of the RNC. He was a football hero in a state where football comes in just short of Christianity as the state religion.

Yet all of these factors were going to add up to one nasty surprise.

Now we go to Sept 11, 2001. The nation is attacked and congressmen everywhere were showing their patriotism.

Steve Largent was on a hunting trip in Idaho on this day, and it understandably took him several days to get back to Washington D.C.

Well, the local fox affiliate, (KOKH-25) had scored an interview with him, and the reporter asked him where he was when the rest of congress was showing what Uber-patriots they were.

Largent responded to this with a rant at the reporter that was quite hostile and involved some 4 letter words. Here is a post about the incident by Kos from way back in 2002.

Suddenly old ladies and good Christians felt a little uneasy about ole Steve Largent.

Gary Richardson then used this news clip to make an attack ad that was played more often that the Dean Scream or the Swift Boat ads.

Additionally, someone came up with the idea of co-opting the Clay Henry Subway Jingle to a Brad Henry Jingle that was on local radio more than Largent's rant was on TV.

So, Henry's name is now an ear-worm.

Even better, the Largent as Football Hero issue was negated when Barry Switzer and Toby Keith endorsed Brad Henry.

I'm sure Toby Keith goes without explanation, though I am sure that most of you are surprised to learn that he is a Democrat. He really is. He donates time and money to the Democratic candidates and causes around the state.

Barry Switzer, for the uninitiated, was the head coach of the University of Oklahoma Sooners. He won three National Championships at OU and a Super Bowl with the Dallas Cowboys.

Oklahoma determines its worth as a state largely by how the Sooners are doing in any given year. Among the sooner elite, Barry is a god.

Then along comes cockfighting. The cockfighting ban initiative angered a lot of rural farmer types who made a good bit of money raising these roosters, and those who weren't raising them didn't like that people from the city were telling people from the country how to live.

So, there was a record turn out amongst rural voters. No one saw this coming, because a lot of these people had not voted since Reagan first got elected.

The showed up to vote against Cockfighting, and since they had been registered democrats all their life, most of them voted straight party line just because they hadn't been paying attention and felt bad leaving it blank.

All of these planets aligned at just the right time to allow Henry to squeak out a victory over Largent.

On election night, the look on Largent's face was classic. He looked like he had been tricked into throwing the Super Bowl. He was in a state of incredulous shock and it was sooooo sweet.

So, that's how Brad Henry became the Governor of Oklahoma.

He's going to get re-elected because he was serious about bi-partisanship. He was serious about working with both parties to find compromise. He delivered on his promise to get a Lottery to fund Oklahoma's education, and he stayed out of the partisan bickering that consumes this state.

Brad Henry is a good man, and though we couldn't ever recreate the set of circumstances that got him elected, he still serves as the perfect model of how a Democrat could govern in a red state.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

How a Democrat got Elected Governor in Oklahoma...

First some background.

The State of Oklahoma has a much higher number of registered Democrats than registered Republicans. This is going all the way back to the 60's.

Generally, people vote democrat for local candidates and republican for Congressional races or above.

That's because most democrats running for state office tend to run on a strict pro-gun, pro-God, anti-gay agenda.

Outside of that, they tend to stick to Democratic meat and potatoes issues of fair-wages and good education.

Brad Henry was something of a lucky sum'bitch, and I say that really liking the guy.

Here's how it went down...

Brad Henry was a State Senator from Shawnee, which is about 20 miles east of Oklahoma City.

He was a nice enough guy, but no one really knew who he was.

He was running to replace Frank Keating, who had really overstayed his welcome in the governor's mansion.

The heir apparent to Frank Keating was Congressman Steve Largent. Everyone accepted that he was going to win, so everyone turned their eyes to the senate race which pitted former governor David Walters against James Inhofe.

Well, during this time when no one was paying attention, Gary Richardson entered the governor's race as an Independent. Richardson's platform was simple. The Oklahoma State Turnpike system should be free to Oklahomans and we should charge out of state trucks to use them.

Now, around this same time (stay with me here) Subway was playing commercials all over the country that gave prominence to other people who had lost weight on Jared Fogle's Subway diet. One of the people featured was a firefighter named Clay Henry.

Now this jingle was quite ubiquitous for a while, and everybody found themselves humming it at one time or another. This will be important.

Early in 2002, there had been a petition drive to get a Ban on Cockfighting. (Rooster boxing you sickos!)

This drive was successful, and it made it on to the ballot statewide for the General Election.

This will also be important.

Now, back to Gary Richardson. Gary Richardson was short on funds, mostly because he was nuts, so he was spending quite a bit of his own money on the race.

Not wanting to overextend himself, he put his sights on who he felt would be his main competition in a Red State like Oklahoma.

Steve Largent was going through some campaign doldrums, because like everyone else in the state, he believed the Governor's mansion was his for the taking, so he pretty much just didn't bother to campaign.

And really, who could blame him? He was the only name in the race. He had the support of the RNC. He was a football hero in a state where football comes in just short of Christianity as the state religion.

Yet all of these factors were going to add up to one nasty surprise.

Now we go to Sept 11, 2001. The nation is attacked and congressmen everywhere were showing their patriotism.

Steve Largent was on a hunting trip in Idaho on this day, and it understandably took him several days to get back to Washington D.C.

Well, the local fox affiliate, (KOKH-25) had scored an interview with him, and the reporter asked him where he was when the rest of congress was showing what Uber-patriots they were.

Largent responded to this with a rant at the reporter that was quite hostile and involved some 4 letter words. Here is a post about the incident by Kos from way back in 2002.

Suddenly old ladies and good Christians felt a little uneasy about ole Steve Largent.

Gary Richardson then used this news clip to make an attack ad that was played more often that the Dean Scream or the Swift Boat ads.

Additionally, someone came up with the idea of co-opting the Clay Henry Subway Jingle to a Brad Henry Jingle that was on local radio more than Largent's rant was on TV.

So, Henry's name is now an ear-worm.

Even better, the Largent as Football Hero issue was negated when Barry Switzer and Toby Keith endorsed Brad Henry.

I'm sure Toby Keith goes without explanation, though I am sure that most of you are surprised to learn that he is a Democrat. He really is. He donates time and money to the Democratic candidates and causes around the state.

Barry Switzer, for the uninitiated, was the head coach of the University of Oklahoma Sooners. He won three National Championships at OU and a Super Bowl with the Dallas Cowboys.

Oklahoma determines its worth as a state largely by how the Sooners are doing in any given year. Among the sooner elite, Barry is a god.

Then along comes cockfighting. The cockfighting ban initiative angered a lot of rural farmer types who made a good bit of money raising these roosters, and those who weren't raising them didn't like that people from the city were telling people from the country how to live.

So, there was a record turn out amongst rural voters. No one saw this coming, because a lot of these people had not voted since Reagan first got elected.

The showed up to vote against Cockfighting, and since they had been registered democrats all their life, most of them voted straight party line just because they hadn't been paying attention and felt bad leaving it blank.

All of these planets aligned at just the right time to allow Henry to squeak out a victory over Largent.

On election night, the look on Largent's face was classic. He looked like he had been tricked into throwing the Super Bowl. He was in a state of incredulous shock and it was sooooo sweet.

So, that's how Brad Henry became the Governor of Oklahoma.

He's going to get re-elected because he was serious about bi-partisanship. He was serious about working with both parties to find compromise. He delivered on his promise to get a Lottery to fund Oklahoma's education, and he stayed out of the partisan bickering that consumes this state.

Brad Henry is a good man, and though we couldn't ever recreate the set of circumstances that got him elected, he still serves as the perfect model of how a Democrat could govern in a red state.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

John Aravosis feels a draft...

The following is an excerpt of John Aravosis' newest piece at RADAR:

The Pentagon is desperately trying to stop the hemorrhaging. The army lowered its academic standards last fall, and, just last month, the Wall Street Journal wrote that “To keep more soldiers in the service, the Army has told battalion commanders, who typically command 800-soldier units, that they can no longer bounce soldiers from the service for poor fitness, pregnancy, alcohol and drug abuse or generally unsatisfactory performance.”

Just what we need: an army of Federlines.

The military’s recruiting problems shouldn’t come as a surprise. The mayhem in Iraq continues to grow while Afghanistan is playing catch-up, fast. According to the nonpartisan factcheck.org, “By most measures the violence [in Iraq] is getting worse. Both April and May were record months in Iraq for car bombings…with more than 135 of them being set off each month.” In Afghanistan, the Taliban-orchestrated violence has gotten so bad that it has left “much of Afghanistan off-limits to aid workers and has reinforced concerns that the war here is escalating into a conflict on the scale of that in Iraq,” according to the Associated Press. Potential recruits may be young, but they’re not stupid.

Adding to the crisis, there are rumblings that more U.S. troops are needed. Democratic senator Joe Biden recently returned from Iraq, where, he says, American generals told him they need more troops. Republican senator John McCain agrees. But where will we get more troops when recruitment is down, our current supply of soldiers is getting killed or wounded, and Donald Rumsfeld now admits that we could be in Iraq for 10 to 15 years?

Does anybody else feel a draft coming on?

He is exactly right. Now we have the Pentagon talking about taking us away from our two war rediness doctrine. If the times are as dangerous as we keep being told, is that really what we want to do?



Read the full text of John's piece here.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

John Aravosis feels a draft...

The following is an excerpt of John Aravosis' newest piece at RADAR:

The Pentagon is desperately trying to stop the hemorrhaging. The army lowered its academic standards last fall, and, just last month, the Wall Street Journal wrote that “To keep more soldiers in the service, the Army has told battalion commanders, who typically command 800-soldier units, that they can no longer bounce soldiers from the service for poor fitness, pregnancy, alcohol and drug abuse or generally unsatisfactory performance.”

Just what we need: an army of Federlines.

The military’s recruiting problems shouldn’t come as a surprise. The mayhem in Iraq continues to grow while Afghanistan is playing catch-up, fast. According to the nonpartisan factcheck.org, “By most measures the violence [in Iraq] is getting worse. Both April and May were record months in Iraq for car bombings…with more than 135 of them being set off each month.” In Afghanistan, the Taliban-orchestrated violence has gotten so bad that it has left “much of Afghanistan off-limits to aid workers and has reinforced concerns that the war here is escalating into a conflict on the scale of that in Iraq,” according to the Associated Press. Potential recruits may be young, but they’re not stupid.

Adding to the crisis, there are rumblings that more U.S. troops are needed. Democratic senator Joe Biden recently returned from Iraq, where, he says, American generals told him they need more troops. Republican senator John McCain agrees. But where will we get more troops when recruitment is down, our current supply of soldiers is getting killed or wounded, and Donald Rumsfeld now admits that we could be in Iraq for 10 to 15 years?

Does anybody else feel a draft coming on?

He is exactly right. Now we have the Pentagon talking about taking us away from our two war rediness doctrine. If the times are as dangerous as we keep being told, is that really what we want to do?



Read the full text of John's piece here.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Valerie Plame, meet Karl Rove...

Ah, the sweetness. I'm with Joe Wilson. I hope to see Karl Rove frog marched right out of the White House in handcuffs. It won't happen that way, but a Hippy can dream, can't he?

MSNBC Analyst Says Cooper Documents Reveal Karl Rove as Source in Plame Case

By E&P Staff

Published: July 01, 2005 11:30 PM ET

NEW YORK Now that Time Inc. has turned over documents to federal court, presumably revealing who its reporter, Matt Cooper, identified as his source in the Valerie Plame/CIA case, speculation runs rampant on the name of that source, and what might happen to him or her. Tonight, on the syndicated McLaughlin Group political talk show, Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, claimed to know that name--and it is, according to him, top White House mastermind Karl Rove.

Here is the transcript of O'Donnell's remarks:

"What we're going to go to now in the next stage, when Matt Cooper's e-mails, within Time Magazine, are handed over to the grand jury, the ultimate revelation, probably within the week of who his source is.

"And I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of...for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time magazine's going to do with the grand jury."

Other panelists then joined in discussing whether, if true, this would suggest a perjury rap for Rove, if he told the grand jury he did not leak to Cooper.

Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller, held in contempt for refusing to name sources, tried Friday to stay out of jail by arguing for home detention instead after Time Inc. surrendered its reporter's notes to a prosecutor.

Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said Friday that several unidentified Senate Republicans had placed a hold on a proposed resolution declaring support for Miller and Cooper.

Read the full article here.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Valerie Plame, meet Karl Rove...

Ah, the sweetness. I'm with Joe Wilson. I hope to see Karl Rove frog marched right out of the White House in handcuffs. It won't happen that way, but a Hippy can dream, can't he?

MSNBC Analyst Says Cooper Documents Reveal Karl Rove as Source in Plame Case

By E&P Staff

Published: July 01, 2005 11:30 PM ET

NEW YORK Now that Time Inc. has turned over documents to federal court, presumably revealing who its reporter, Matt Cooper, identified as his source in the Valerie Plame/CIA case, speculation runs rampant on the name of that source, and what might happen to him or her. Tonight, on the syndicated McLaughlin Group political talk show, Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, claimed to know that name--and it is, according to him, top White House mastermind Karl Rove.

Here is the transcript of O'Donnell's remarks:

"What we're going to go to now in the next stage, when Matt Cooper's e-mails, within Time Magazine, are handed over to the grand jury, the ultimate revelation, probably within the week of who his source is.

"And I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of...for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time magazine's going to do with the grand jury."

Other panelists then joined in discussing whether, if true, this would suggest a perjury rap for Rove, if he told the grand jury he did not leak to Cooper.

Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller, held in contempt for refusing to name sources, tried Friday to stay out of jail by arguing for home detention instead after Time Inc. surrendered its reporter's notes to a prosecutor.

Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said Friday that several unidentified Senate Republicans had placed a hold on a proposed resolution declaring support for Miller and Cooper.

Read the full article here.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

O'Connor Retires...

Whatever happens with the Supreme Court nomination battle that is about to ensue, it's going to happen fast. Here are some things you can do right now:

• If you have a cell phone, sign up for People at the American Way's Mass Immediate Response site. This way, you'll be able to receive text message action items instantly as events break. (If you signed up during the nuclear option fight, you'll need to re-sign up.)

  
  

• Also sign up with the Save the Court, another PFAW website devoted specifically to this issue.

  
  

• Recruit friends and family members to the cause.

  
  

• Write to the President, telling him he should choose a consensus candidate to replace O'Connor.

  
  

• Contact your Senators to tell them the same thing.

  
  
  

If you have a blog, please post these action items on your site. If you don't, e-mail them to your like-minded buddies and relatives.

O'Connor Retires...

Whatever happens with the Supreme Court nomination battle that is about to ensue, it's going to happen fast. Here are some things you can do right now:

• If you have a cell phone, sign up for People at the American Way's Mass Immediate Response site. This way, you'll be able to receive text message action items instantly as events break. (If you signed up during the nuclear option fight, you'll need to re-sign up.)

  
  

• Also sign up with the Save the Court, another PFAW website devoted specifically to this issue.

  
  

• Recruit friends and family members to the cause.

  
  

• Write to the President, telling him he should choose a consensus candidate to replace O'Connor.

  
  

• Contact your Senators to tell them the same thing.

  
  
  

If you have a blog, please post these action items on your site. If you don't, e-mail them to your like-minded buddies and relatives.

What he said...

Bob Herbert spreads the gospel in Thursday's New York Times:

"We have a finite number of troops," said Maj. Chris Kennedy of the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment. "But if you pull out of an area and don't leave security forces in it, all you're going to do is leave the door open for them to come back. This is what our lack of combat power has done to us throughout the country."

The latest fantasy out of Washington is that American-trained Iraqi forces will ultimately be able to do what the American forces have not: defeat the insurgency and pacify Iraq.

"We've learned that Iraqis are courageous and that they need additional skills," said Mr. Bush in his television address. "And that is why a major part of our mission is to train them so they can do the fighting, and then our troops can come home."

Don't hold your breath. This is another example of the administration's inability to distinguish between a strategy and a wish.

Exactly.

-The Oklahoma Hippy