• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

This must be what justice looks like, not vengeful, just peaceful exuberance.

You passed on an opportunity to be offended? What are you even doing here?

Perhaps you mistook them for somebody who gives a damn.

You come for women, you’re gonna get your ass kicked.

Celebrate the fucking wins.

A thin legal pretext to veneer over their personal religious and political desires.

Republicans choose power over democracy, every day.

We cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation.

“Everybody’s entitled to be an idiot.”

One way or another, he’s a liar.

Make the republican party small enough to drown in a bathtub.

America is going up in flames. The NYTimes fawns over MAGA celebrities. No longer a real newspaper.

If you can’t control your emotions, someone else will.

White supremacy is terrorism.

rich, arrogant assholes who equate luck with genius

Someone should tell Republicans that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, or possibly the first.

“The defense has a certain level of trust in defendant that the government does not.”

Prediction: the gop will rethink its strategy of boycotting future committees.

If senate republicans had any shame, they’d die of it.

Usually wrong but never in doubt

They were going to turn on one another at some point. It was inevitable.

Insiders who complain to politico: please report to the white house office of shut the fuck up.

One lie, alone, tears the fabric of reality.

JFC, are there no editors left at that goddamn rag?

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / z-Retired Categories / Previous Site Maintenance / Daily Plame Flame Thread

Daily Plame Flame Thread

by John Cole|  August 11, 20059:58 am| 48 Comments

This post is in: Previous Site Maintenance

FacebookTweetEmail

Walter Pincus delivers the goods:

The origin of Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV’s trip to Niger in 2002 to check out intelligence reports that Saddam Hussein was attempting to purchase uranium has become a contentious side issue to the inquiry by special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald, who is looking into whether a crime was committed with the exposure of Valerie Plame, Wilson’s wife, as a covert CIA employee.

After he went public in 2003 about the trip, senior Bush administration officials, trying to discredit Wilson’s findings, told reporters that Wilson’s wife, who worked at the CIA, was the one who suggested the Niger mission for her husband. Days later, Plame was named as an “agency operative” by syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak, who has said he did not realize he was, in effect, exposing a covert officer. A Senate committee report would later say evidence indicated Plame suggested Wilson for the trip…

The full Senate committee report says that CPD officials “could not recall how the office decided to contact” Wilson but that “interviews and documents indicate his wife suggested his name for the trip.” The three Republican senators wrote that they were more certain: “The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested by the former ambassador’s wife, a CIA employee.”

Just do it in the comments.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Another Insurgent Down
Next Post: Why Does Drug Reporting Suck? »

Reader Interactions

48Comments

  1. 1.

    Davebo

    August 11, 2005 at 10:12 am

    How the decision was reached seems rather irrelevant doesn’t it?

    I mean, it’s the discussion of the month but only because we dare not discuss the trip itself, it’s findings, the findings of the US ambassador in Niger, or the findings of General Fulford.

    Nevermind the conclusion reached by the CIA.

    But with all of that in our laps, and being unable to handle reality, we really must figure out how the hell Wilson came to be sent to Niger.

    It’s our only hope if we choose to continue the self delusion.

  2. 2.

    ppGaz

    August 11, 2005 at 10:21 am

    Plame was named as an “agency operative” by syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak, who has said he did not realize he was, in effect, exposing a covert officer. A Senate committee report would later say evidence indicated Plame suggested Wilson for the trip…

    Novak is a self-declared seasoned veteran; he didn’t check the covert status of Plame before writing his story?

    Nobody cares who suggested Wilson for the trip. What matters is who made the decision to send him. The “Plame suggested” story is obviously a smokescreen intended to obfuscate the actual nature of that decision.

  3. 3.

    rilkefan

    August 11, 2005 at 10:31 am

    Funny that those attacking Wilson and his selection never mention he’d been on a CIA mission to the country before.

  4. 4.

    Mark

    August 11, 2005 at 10:32 am

    Here’s the next paragraph from the story John links to:

    Over the past months, however, the CIA has maintained that Wilson was chosen for the trip by senior officials in the Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division (CPD) — not by his wife

  5. 5.

    ppGaz

    August 11, 2005 at 10:40 am

    Over the past months, however, the CIA has maintained that Wilson was chosen for the trip by senior officials in the Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division (CPD)—not by his wife

    So it is relevant to ask, who floated the “Plame suggested” smokescreen, and why?

    All part of the orchestrated scheme to discredit Wilson.

  6. 6.

    Slartibartfast

    August 11, 2005 at 10:48 am

    I’d just like to note that there is in fact a difference between “suggested” and “selected”.

  7. 7.

    Dennis

    August 11, 2005 at 10:59 am

    Well, we’ve seen this tactic before. Pick an irrelevant side issue and wear everybody out by beating it to death. Thus hoipefully boring everybody before the important matters are discussed.

    Why don’t we investigate what kind of shoes Joe Wilson was wearing? He’s NEVER admitted to wearing shoes; talking to people in the Uranium mining business, yes, he’s even admitted to drinking sweet mint tea! Why hasn’t he discussed footwear? What does he have to hide?

    What a tiresome load of BS. Did his record of service and the region and personal skills make him a highly suitable contact for the assignment? Yes, yes they did. End of discussion. Next topic please.

  8. 8.

    Geek, Esq.

    August 11, 2005 at 11:00 am

    Here’s why this story really matters:

    One way of tracing how information about Plame got to Rove and Libby is to trace what version they were providing.

    To wit:

    The only document or source known to exist at the time of the leaks that indicated that Plame helped get her husband the gig was that State Dep’t Memo.

    Therefore, the strong inference is that Rove and Libby got their info from that memo.

  9. 9.

    p.lukasiak

    August 11, 2005 at 11:06 am

    Here’s the next paragraph from the story John links to:

    yeah, I was rather surprised at John’s highly selective editing of his text….

    you’d almost think he was trying to hide the fact that the SSCI report was part of the anti-Wilson smear campaign itself, wouldn’t you?

  10. 10.

    John Cole

    August 11, 2005 at 11:11 am

    For Christ’s sake- My highly selective editing had to do with sheer laziness, as the the third paragraph makes me include the picture and the caption, thus having to do a bunch of editing with my cut and paste of the text.

    Cripes, you people.

    I will go back and add the damned third paragraph later. Any others you want in, lest I be accused of selective editing?

  11. 11.

    neil

    August 11, 2005 at 11:49 am

    Sheesh. Are there any big conservative bloggers who are -less- deserving of accusations of trying to bury L’Affaire Plame than John? If so, I should be reading them too.

  12. 12.

    DougJ

    August 11, 2005 at 12:07 pm

    Bottom line: if Valerie Plame suggested her husband for the trip, then her identity is fair game. Karl Rove did the decent and HONEST thing in revealing her identity. As usual, the libruls are whining about something that doesn’t even rise to the level of a minor infraction. As far I’m concerned Karl Rove deserves a medal for all of this. You’re all going to owe him a big apology when he is fully and completely exonerated.

  13. 13.

    Another Jeff

    August 11, 2005 at 12:13 pm

    Real DougJ or fake DougJ?

  14. 14.

    Veeshir

    August 11, 2005 at 12:21 pm

    ppGaz says:Novak is a self-declared seasoned veteran; he didn’t check the covert status of Plame before writing his story?

    I thought you were following the story much better than that. Novak did call the CIA. I won’t characterize the answer except to note that they did say that she worked there.
    So in other words, they admitted she worked there to someone over the telephone.
    Hardly deep cover.

  15. 15.

    gratefulcub

    August 11, 2005 at 12:25 pm

    So in other words, they admitted she worked there to someone over the telephone.
    Hardly deep cover.

    They said as much to Novak as they could without revealing her ‘deep cover’ because that would have been illegal. Are we really going to discuss if she was covert or not? Again? It has been going on for a year and the very last thing they are going to check before going to trial is if she was or was not covert?

  16. 16.

    capelza

    August 11, 2005 at 12:38 pm

    Why does it even matter (she asks rhetorically) who suggested Wilson for the trip? Of course the fact that he might actually know where Niger actually is would have been a salient point;that and the fact that he had actually served in the region in the past. I haven’t seen so much dancing away from an central issue in a very long time, well except from my teenagers. All this crap is exactly that…teenage behaviour.

    And I for one, do want to know about Wilson’s shoes! And why he would consider going to Niger for a fun vacation (sarcasm).

  17. 17.

    neil

    August 11, 2005 at 12:40 pm

    Veeshir, you are mischaracterizing the CIA’s answer to Novak.

    Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson’s wife had not authorized the mission [to Niger] and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

    Harlow said that after Novak’s call, he checked Plame’s status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame’s name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.

  18. 18.

    ppGaz

    August 11, 2005 at 12:47 pm

    I thought you were following the story much better than that. Novak did call the CIA. I won’t characterize the answer except to note that they did say that she worked there.
    So in other words, they admitted she worked there to someone over the telephone.
    Hardly deep cover.

    That’s completely nonsensical.

    Novak is a seasoned reporter and seasoned in the cast iron skillet of DC. He knows the difference between an “employee” and a covert agent. He knows that he can’t call the 1-800-SPYS number and ask them, is she a covert agent? He knows plenty of people in DC who can advise him on the proper course of action.

    So let’s see … his conclusion was, well, nobody TOLD ME that she was a covert agent, but I was advised not to use her name ….. uh, duh, okay, I’ll write the story and I’ll be fine. [ insert laugh of Goofy here ]

    I ain’t buyin it.

  19. 19.

    Mr Furious

    August 11, 2005 at 1:20 pm

    John Cole delivers the crap.

    Oprah could have sent Wilson to Niger for all I care (or Fitzpatrick, I suspect). That whole storyline is a diversion from the real issue and an attempt to rationalize acts that will still be every bit as illegal.

    I know it’s hard coming up with something for a Daily Plame Flame Thread every day, but come on, John. I expect better, you’re just throwing chum out there now…

  20. 20.

    skip

    August 11, 2005 at 1:20 pm

    Let’s keep our eyes on the prize. Wilson’s bon fides were in order, so it doesn’t really matter if his wife suggested him. And in any case, she was in no position to “authorize” him.

    His assessment proved correct, but the attempts to discredit Wilson were really never intended to refute him, but only to buy time and get the US so far in that it would be compelled to “stay the course” and “finish the job.” And now, we find that is more or less the only argument left for the war.

    The problem is, we may be unable to win, or even plausibly “declare victory and leave.” Accordingly, critics of the war should be preparing for the “stab in the back” charges they will doubtless face in the aftermath. For as “Nietzsche” observed on the “Sage & Iron Prophet” blog, when does a nation EVER simply lose a war? The answer is never. The weak-kneed are invariably in league with outright traitors to sabotage our peerless military. To argue otherwise is treasonous and a “failure to support our troops.”

    It is difficult to prevail against such insidious arguments.

    Skip

  21. 21.

    Mr Furious

    August 11, 2005 at 1:22 pm

    Oh, and the DougJ comment upthread is so stupid, I’m hoping, for all of our sake, it’s the fake Doug.

  22. 22.

    Geek, Esq.

    August 11, 2005 at 1:24 pm

    I don’t see how this story helps the Rove side. It pretty much draws a line between Rove and the state Dep’t memo.

  23. 23.

    Rome Again

    August 11, 2005 at 1:28 pm

    Nobody cares who suggested Wilson for the trip.

    Actually, the only people who do care are Pro-Bush Republican supporters, because it is the only way they can deflect from this story and bury it as if it never happened.

  24. 24.

    John Cole

    August 11, 2005 at 1:32 pm

    I know it’s hard coming up with something for a Daily Plame Flame Thread every day, but come on, John. I expect better, you’re just throwing chum out there now…

    For the love of everything holy, this is the DAILY PLAME FLAME THREAD.

    It is even filed under SITE MAINTENANCE because I don’t have a category for flame warfare.

  25. 25.

    Rome Again

    August 11, 2005 at 1:34 pm

    As far I’m concerned Karl Rove deserves a medal for all of this. You’re all going to owe him a big apology when he is fully and completely exonerated.

    Dream on DougJ!

  26. 26.

    jg

    August 11, 2005 at 1:38 pm

    I figure the Plame thread is just a ‘Coffee Talk, talk amongst yourselves, here’s a topic’ thread.

    This is an issue because Wilson shows that Bush knew that the Niger/Iraq/yellowcake connection was bullshit before the SOTU right? They’re attacking the one guy with solid evidence that Bush lied at least on this occasion, about the reasons for war.

    If he was wearing shoes, was he also wearing socks?

  27. 27.

    Rome Again

    August 11, 2005 at 1:42 pm

    For the love of everything holy, this is the DAILY PLAME FLAME THREAD.

    It is even filed under SITE MAINTENANCE because I don’t have a category for flame warfare.

    John, your reply to Mr. Furious’ comment about the crappy link didn’t address the crappy link. I realize that for you to continue to be “a moderate” you have to continue to make some points for the conservatives, but by leaving this link out there with no comment about its validity, you seem to be saying you agree with it. Do you agree with it? What exactly is your position on the importance of who “suggested” Joe Wilson for the job? Do you think Valerie Plame “suggested” Joe Wilson for the job, and do you think she had the final say in the matter?

    It seems you want to use rhetoric but not place your own opinion on the line, why? Because to do so would make you seem even LESS like a REPUBLICAN? Come clean John, give us at least some opinion of what you think, as you do with most other thread posts.

  28. 28.

    Rome Again

    August 11, 2005 at 1:44 pm

    This is an issue because Wilson shows that Bush knew that the Niger/Iraq/yellowcake connection was bullshit before the SOTU right? They’re attacking the one guy with solid evidence that Bush lied at least on this occasion, about the reasons for war.

    Correct jg.

  29. 29.

    Mr Furious

    August 11, 2005 at 1:47 pm

    For the love of everything holy, this is the DAILY PLAME FLAME THREAD.

    Fair enough. I guess Flame Threads need chum in the water… I suppose I was thrown by the “Walter Pincus delvers the goods:” Fooled me into thinking there was actually something of substance to follow. If you had said, “Walter Pincus supplies today’s chum” or “Walter Pincus baits the hook” I would have known better…

  30. 30.

    John Cole

    August 11, 2005 at 1:51 pm

    John, your reply to Mr. Furious’ comment about the crappy link didn’t address the crappy link. I realize that for you to continue to be “a moderate” you have to continue to make some points for the conservatives, but by leaving this link out there with no comment about its validity, you seem to be saying you agree with it. Do you agree with it? What exactly is your position on the importance of who “suggested” Joe Wilson for the job? Do you think Valerie Plame “suggested” Joe Wilson for the job, and do you think she had the final say in the matter?

    This is a joke, right? I am waiting until the Fitzgerald report before I commit to a position other than the bland statement that ‘outing CIA agents for revenge is bad.’

    Mr Furious Says:

    For the love of everything holy, this is the DAILY PLAME FLAME THREAD.

    Fair enough. I guess Flame Threads need chum in the water… I suppose I was thrown by the “Walter Pincus delvers the goods:” Fooled me into thinking there was actually something of substance to follow. If you had said, “Walter Pincus supplies today’s chum” or “Walter Pincus baits the hook” I would have known better…

    It meant exactly what it meant- Walter Pincus delivers the goods- let the flame war begin.

    This reading into things has now reached a meta-level of farce.

  31. 31.

    Andrei

    August 11, 2005 at 1:58 pm

    “For the love of everything holy, this is the DAILY PLAME FLAME THREAD.”

    LMAO. That’s priceless.

    “Gentleman! There’ll be no fighting IN THE WAR ROOM!”

  32. 32.

    Rome Again

    August 11, 2005 at 2:01 pm

    This is a joke, right? I am waiting until the Fitzgerald report before I commit to a position other than the bland statement that ‘outing CIA agents for revenge is bad.’

    …

    It meant exactly what it meant- Walter Pincus delivers the goods- let the flame war begin.

    But it’s not “goods”, it’s CRAP. The reason WHY it is crap is because while it “delivers the goods” it delivers them in such a fashion that the truth is set up as a strawman to be blown down by the official White House position, which is presented LASTLY as if that places the cork on the bottle. And you link only to positions that also point to the placing of that cork on the bottle.

    Fair and Balanced? Usually (although I might disagree with your positions sometimes) I say yes, John Cole is Fair and Balanced… but not this time!

  33. 33.

    jg

    August 11, 2005 at 2:07 pm

    By ‘delivers the goods’ I think he means something for us to argue over. I could be wrong.

  34. 34.

    Rome Again

    August 11, 2005 at 2:14 pm

    I am waiting until the Fitzgerald report before I commit to a position

    And if when Mr. Fitzgerald’s overseer (Mr. Comey) is gone (look for it soon, he’s moving on to a Lockheed Martin management position; see this Salon article) and his replacement pulls the plug (highly likely considering that the last time our President was placed in a position like this (look up Mr. Abramoff in Guam), he pulled the plug)… will you still make your position known then?

    It seems you want to make sure you’re on the winning side, without venturing your own opinion (we’re only human, its okay to state your opinion and be wrong later); or should I take this as a “well I might be persuaded to believe our President and Vice President may have broken the law if…”; a sign that you might acknowledge it at some point, but for now it would only make your head explode?

  35. 35.

    John Cole

    August 11, 2005 at 2:20 pm

    By ‘delivers the goods’ I think he means something for us to argue over.

    DING-DING-DING-DING!!

    We have a winner.

    But it’s not “goods”, it’s CRAP. The reason WHY it is crap is because while it “delivers the goods” it delivers them in such a fashion that the truth is set up as a strawman to be blown down by the official White House position, which is presented LASTLY as if that places the cork on the bottle. And you link only to positions that also point to the placing of that cork on the bottle.

    Lighten up or get your own god damned website. It was meant precisely as jg interpreted it- here is your daily plame story, go argue.

    And if when Mr. Fitzgerald’s overseer (Mr. Comey) is gone (look for it soon, he’s moving on to a Lockheed Martin management position; see this Salon article) and his replacement pulls the plug (highly likely considering that the last time our President was placed in a position like this (look up Mr. Abramoff in Guam), he pulled the plug)… will you still make your position known then?

    Could we at least wait for the report before we get hysterical? Apparently not.

    It seems you want to make sure you’re on the winning side, without venturing your own opinion (we’re only human, its okay to state your opinion and be wrong later); or should I take this as a “well I might be persuaded to believe our President and Vice President may have broken the law if…”; a sign that you might acknowledge it at some point, but for now it would only make your head explode?

    WTF do I care what the ‘winning side’ is or isn’t? That statement says more about your approach to this issue than anything I have written. If someone in the administration is intentionally outing CIA agents for retribution, no one is a ‘winner.’

    Again, I am going to wait and see what happens. There is sooo much bullshit out there I don’t know what is going on. And that bullshit is as much from the Josh Marshall’s as it is from the administration apologists.

  36. 36.

    Rome Again

    August 11, 2005 at 2:23 pm

    By ‘delivers the goods’ I think he means something for us to argue over. I could be wrong.

    If delivering the goods was giving us something to argue over, he should have included the paragraph that he said he was too “lazy” to include [Hey John, you maintain this blog because you enjoy it, right? So is laziness really a legitimate excuse? Copying/Pasting/editing out pictures is NOT THAT hard]. That would have at least given fodder for both positions to start from without having to go the article to find that other position buried within the article. Why do I think including both sides is important? Because there are some who will only look at what John states on his page and not bother to click the link, and in that case, it seems pretty one-sided.

  37. 37.

    Another Jeff

    August 11, 2005 at 2:35 pm

    “Because there are some who will only look at what John states on his page and not bother to click the link, and in that case, it seems pretty one-sided.”

    Well then that’s their problem, not John’s. It’s his blog and he’s not required to present both sides of anything. Do you make the same request of Atrios and Kos?

  38. 38.

    Rome Again

    August 11, 2005 at 2:40 pm

    WTF do I care what the ‘winning side’ is or isn’t? That statement says more about your approach to this issue than anything I have written. If someone in the administration is intentionally outing CIA agents for retribution, no one is a ‘winner.’

    Exactly my point, by waiting to make your opinion known, you have the advantage of waiting to see IF any crime was actually committed… and if not true, you can claim your Republicans won. It’s actually a wimpy position though, because you, as a political blogger, make your opinion known on most things, but you refuse to venture a guess in this case. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. So if this administration finds a way to tamp this down (such as I suggested above), don’t claim any trophies, okay?

    Actually, there is a great deal for you to care about, it has to do with how your audience sees you, Is John really a Republican or not? Your opinion on this case could draw an even deeper conclusion that maybe you’re NOT “one of them” even more… or to go the other way, maybe John IS eating the neocon cake again. Some people have wondered that lately, I saw statements of as much yesterday on this blog.

    So you save face, and your audience is none the wiser because you refused to take a position on this… but your blog suffers because you didn’t take a position on this. Taking positions is what you do John.

    I’m sorry if I have riled you, it was not my intention to rile you, just to make you think about the way I see your actions in not taking a position is wimping out. I like you John, I really do, even if I don’t agree with everything you say.

  39. 39.

    Rome Again

    August 11, 2005 at 2:45 pm

    Well then that’s their problem, not John’s. It’s his blog and he’s not required to present both sides of anything. Do you make the same request of Atrios and Kos?

    Yes it is a problem, but many people are faced with oodles of links on blogs like this, and they don’t always click every one. Presenting the article fairly (which means initially including the paragraph that John said he was too lazy to include) would inform the readers better of what the true gist of the article was, which was actually presenting both sides, although John didn’t seem to allude to that.

  40. 40.

    Rome Again

    August 11, 2005 at 2:52 pm

    Again, I am going to wait and see what happens. There is sooo much bullshit out there I don’t know what is going on. And that bullshit is as much from the Josh Marshall’s as it is from the administration apologists.

    So why don’t you present what you think is BS coming from both camps? That is a viable solution to the situation. I want to know what you think, because, believe it or not, your opinion matters to me. That’s why I’m spending my time here, instead of over at Kos or Eschaton.

  41. 41.

    Mr Furious

    August 11, 2005 at 3:18 pm

    I gotcha, John. Just a Flame Thread. That’s fine. I’ve been avoiding them lately because I (like you) think there is nothing much to talk about until Fitzgerald wraps up his case—”Delivers the goods” you might say.

    The only reason I didn’t scroll right on by, was that your intro made it seem like there was a development. From the looks of it, I’m not the only one who read it wrong (ie: literally). So stop being all pissy that you had to elaborate something to your readers.

    ‘Til the indictments are dealt, I’ll just stick to the “real” threads…

  42. 42.

    Rome Again

    August 11, 2005 at 3:32 pm

    The only reason I didn’t scroll right on by, was that your intro made it seem like there was a development. From the looks of it

    I agree. And by the way, there IS a development that John’s not talking about, even though I’ve spoken of this development on two different occasions on Plame Flame threads in the last few days. Now, I realize that Newsweek broke the story that Comey is leaving his position as overseer of Fitzgerald and will be going to to a new position for Lockheed Martin, and lately Republicans don’t trust Newsweek as a source (because of the Koran story), but it IS news, shouldn’t it be presented as a development, even just as “Newsweek states… more on this when the smoke clears”?

  43. 43.

    RobbinsTX

    August 11, 2005 at 5:02 pm

    As a former Texas Republican I know people who worked with Rove, I can tell you that I have no doubt that he knew he was outing Plame. He was the king of dirty tricks here. During one campaign he was caught trying to use an intern to steal documents from an opposing campaign. No one respected in the Rep. party at the time would have him in a campaign until the Right to Lifers took over the party in ’92. He was a sociopath then and sociopaths don’t change.

  44. 44.

    jg

    August 11, 2005 at 5:33 pm

    If Rove is soooo smart why hasn’t he advised Bush to call his old ball team and remind them that the last two teams to fire Buck Showalter won the World Series the next year?

    Can’t answer that can ya?

  45. 45.

    Stormy70

    August 11, 2005 at 7:23 pm

    If Rove is soooo smart why hasn’t he advised Bush to call his old ball team and remind them that the last two teams to fire Buck Showalter won the World Series the next year?

    No kidding.

    Plame Topic – Sarah leaves BB6 tonight because Jenn and April are hags, and Howie and Rachel are comepletely dumb. Kayser will have to come back and deliver the goods.

  46. 46.

    Stormy70

    August 11, 2005 at 8:13 pm

    Sydney Blumenthal caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

    He’s just not a credible journalist.

  47. 47.

    ppGaz

    August 11, 2005 at 9:21 pm

    Stormy70 Says:

    Sydney Blumenthal caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

    He’s just not a credible journalist.

    Rodney Dangerfield: My doctor gave me sleeping pills. I said, when do I take ’em? He said, whenever you wake up.

    Go back to sleep, Stormsie.

  48. 48.

    Stormy70

    August 11, 2005 at 9:42 pm

    Follow the swiveling chair, LOL.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - PaulB - Olympic Peninsula: Lake Quinault Loop Drive 5
Image by PaulB (5/19/25)

Recent Comments

  • Dorothy A. Winsor on Squishable Tuesday Morning Open Thread (May 20, 2025 @ 8:28am)
  • Dorothy A. Winsor on Squishable Tuesday Morning Open Thread (May 20, 2025 @ 8:26am)
  • Matt McIrvin on Squishable Tuesday Morning Open Thread (May 20, 2025 @ 8:21am)
  • Baud on Squishable Tuesday Morning Open Thread (May 20, 2025 @ 8:19am)
  • Matt McIrvin on Squishable Tuesday Morning Open Thread (May 20, 2025 @ 8:19am)

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
War in Ukraine
Donate to Razom for Ukraine

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Meetups

Upcoming Ohio Meetup May 17
5/11 Post about the May 17 Ohio Meetup

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Hands Off! – Denver, San Diego & Austin

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!