Comments: I find this fascinating

...Or the common assumption that Lawrence O'Donn-ll is a hack will be confirmed.

Seriously though - O'Donn-ll's accusation is based on anonymous sources, so don’t take it too seriously. Especially now that the much-anticipated Newsweek article he spoke of has been released, and it in no way implicates Karl Rove. Chances are O’Donn-ll was misinformed by a – get this – a leak inside Newsweek. Oh the irony!


For some reason I get this error message when trying to post the above comment:

"Your comment could not be submitted due to questionable content: Donn(e)"

No frickin' clue... Hence the - in place of "e".

Posted by Richard at July 2, 2005 09:20 PM


I realize that you don't put much stock in Newsweek, however, I find it interesting that this article implies that the White House is nervous about Rove and the prosecutor's interest in him. Luskin's statement that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information" seems loaded to me. It's one of those very carefully worded phrases lawyers are so fond of.

Posted by ensie at July 2, 2005 09:40 PM

I believe it was Rove. I certainly wouldn't put it past him. I don't care what gets rid of him so long as something does. Besides, I thought it was Time, not Newsweek, being forced to give up the source. Newsweek is just doing an article on it, no?

Posted by eden at July 3, 2005 10:10 AM

Eden, I wouldn't put anything past Rove. He has no ethics and unlimited access to the President, who apparently has no concern about the methods Rove employs to keep him in power.

Posted by ensie at July 3, 2005 05:34 PM

Eden - The leak was in the Chicago Sun-Times piece written by Bob Novak.

Matthew Cooper of Time wrote a follow-up a short time later about the controversy. It was never actually published in the magazine, but did appear online.

Judith Miller of the NYT never wrote a word about it, but apparently knows the source of the leak.

For whatever reason, Miller and Cooper have become the targets of the grand jury investigation. They now face jail time for refusing to give up the source, while Novak has got off scot-free (it is surmised that he cut some sort of deal with the grand jury). Go figure.

So the point is, no one on the outside of the investigation has the slightest clue what’s going on. Even fewer know the actual truth on the matter of the leak. Everybody else should really stop making absolute statements of innocence or guilt (or even if a crime was committed).

Posted by Richard at July 3, 2005 11:12 PM

Richard-It's not that hard to see through the smoke and mirrors. Again, I ask, who would have anything to gain from releasing this information? And shouldn't our concern stem not just from the fact that a crime may have been committed, but that a WRONG has been done?

Posted by ensie at July 4, 2005 09:46 AM

I want $50,000...


Posted by B at September 17, 2005 07:34 AM

Post a comment