Semi-Daily Journal

Nah. If Bush fires Rove or whoever by himself, before a Special Prosecutor gets named - he'll go up in quite a few eyes. I can't remember the last time a President fired someone for unethical behaviour without having his hand forced. Mind you, I fully expect this to take the normal pattern of stonewalling first, so I think there's little chance of that happening.

Nah. If Bush fires Rove or whoever by himself, before a Special Prosecutor gets named - he'll go up in quite a few eyes. I can't remember the last time a President fired someone for unethical behaviour without having his hand forced. Mind you, I fully expect this to take the normal pattern of stonewalling first, so I think there's little chance of that happening.

Nah. If Bush fires Rove or whoever by himself, before a Special Prosecutor gets named - he'll go up in quite a few eyes. I can't remember the last time a President fired someone for unethical behaviour without having his hand forced. Mind you, I fully expect this to take the normal pattern of stonewalling first, so I think there's little chance of that happening.

Nah. If Bush fires Rove or whoever by himself, before a Special Prosecutor gets named - he'll go up in quite a few eyes. I can't remember the last time a President fired someone for unethical behaviour without having his hand forced. Mind you, I fully expect this to take the normal pattern of stonewalling first, so I think there's little chance of that happening.

Nah. If Bush fires Rove or whoever by himself, before a Special Prosecutor gets named - he'll go up in quite a few eyes. I can't remember the last time a President fired someone for unethical behaviour without having his hand forced. Mind you, I fully expect this to take the normal pattern of stonewalling first, so I think there's little chance of that happening.

You're right. if you take the measure of the President and his staff now, as the Times wants, you'll find the measurement equal to the same measure taken in July. A revealing equation.

Charles

Nah. If Bush fires Rove or whoever by himself, before a Special Prosecutor gets named - he'll go up in quite a few eyes. I can't remember the last time a President fired someone for unethical behaviour without having his hand forced. Mind you, I fully expect this to take the normal pattern of stonewalling first, so I think there's little chance of that happening.

Nah. If Bush fires Rove or whoever by himself, before a Special Prosecutor gets named - he'll go up in quite a few eyes. I can't remember the last time a President fired someone for unethical behaviour without having his hand forced. Mind you, I fully expect this to take the normal pattern of stonewalling first, so I think there's little chance of that happening.

Nah. If Bush fires Rove or whoever by himself, before a Special Prosecutor gets named - he'll go up in quite a few eyes. I can't remember the last time a President fired someone for unethical behaviour without having his hand forced. Mind you, I fully expect this to take the normal pattern of stonewalling first, so I think there's little chance of that happening.

Nah. If Bush fires Rove or whoever by himself, before a Special Prosecutor gets named - he'll go up in quite a few eyes. I can't remember the last time a President fired someone for unethical behaviour without having his hand forced. Mind you, I fully expect this to take the normal pattern of stonewalling first, so I think there's little chance of that happening.

Nah. If Bush fires Rove or whoever by himself, before a Special Prosecutor gets named - he'll go up in quite a few eyes. I can't remember the last time a President fired someone for unethical behaviour without having his hand forced. Mind you, I fully expect this to take the normal pattern of stonewalling first, so I think there's little chance of that happening.

How short memories are.

The so-called "Travelgate" scandal involved a president firing staff members before the matter became public. Lost in historical memory is the fact that this all started because an audit of the Travel office showed unmistakable signs of embezzlemens: funds that couldn't be accounted for, funds being held in a private account, and so on. What caused the White House to go nuclear was that Billy Dale was caught with $3,000 cash he couldn't account for.

If the White House had been politically savvy, they would have released the details and let the press build up some froth before firing the Travel Office. Then they could not have been accused of wrongdoing. But in fact the Travel Office was so well-connected in the press, having helped members of the press corps smuggle in forbidden items and avoid the payment of duty, that even that might not have saved them.

I'm sure other examples will occur, but to forget the Travel Office and how it was spun into an anti-Clinton story is to forget some very basic history.

As much as I like it see my name in lights, what do other people do to ensure only one posting? I hit the "Post" only once and then leave? Should I hit "Post" and then kill the Comment box ?

Yes, close the window after 10 seconds (less might work). Then to see if it worked reopen the topic and hit preview, which is up to date.

Andrew

I simply hit post once. Whether I close the wondow or not makes no difference, the post comes through once. Of course, advertising pays and I might try posting dozens of times for effect in future.... Oh well.

What has seemed evident for months, more so each day, is that there was no sufficient debate on the possible reasons for a war. We were told in many ways by the Blair and Bush Administrations that we were to wage a war of self-defense. When the rationale became more and more shaky after the war, there was no attempt to re-address the rationale rather to sweep the questions aside.

Well, soldiers are in harms way and the economic costs are quite large. We have a considerable problem and attempting to intimidate critics in this terrible way will not do.

Fatalities

American soldiers 174
British soldiers 18
Coalition soldiers 3
---
195 Since May 2

American 314
British 53
---
367 Since March 20

Wounded

American soldiers ~1695

Note: American forces have fallen to 130,000
British forces have risen to 11,000

Actually, I only hit the post button once, but I've always let the window stay open, with the catastrophic results that you see. Now I'll close it after ten seconds.

I'm not sure I'd count the Travel Office, because as I remember it, the guys who got fired weren't hired by the guy who fired them. Is there a case where a President pro-actively fired someone whom he himself brought on board?

Andrew

I pay no attention to the window. It does not seem to matter as long as I post only once. Odd. Sort of a twilight zone effect.

Lise

Brad,

You're right that the "moral and ethical measure" has already been taken, but the Washington Times editorial is remarkable in that it was such a clear and honest (not to mention pleasantly surprising) departure from the approved right wing version (such as at NRO). For once, I say slap them on the back and say "Well done!", and leave it at that.

George wants the truth? He could have had it at any time. My suspicion is that he knows the truth, and thinks he'll get away with this bull another time.

Unfortunately, he's right. He will get away with it.

Can somebody please explain something to me?

What EXACTLY are people up in arms about?

a) A CIA name was leaked.
b) A CIA name was leaked and it was done intentionally (for whatever anti-Wilson reason).
c) That a CIA name was leaked, it was done intentionally, and nothing was done about it until three months later.

If Robert Novak can get on townhall.com and say that it definitely wasn't intentional, then I don't see why anyone would want to think option b.

Robert Novak can go on TV and talk about what he now thinks was intentional and what wasn't all day, but the fact is, he wrote the column, he tried to clear the source with the CIA, he ran it anyway, and now he's got to live with the consequences. I think people like Novak have gotten away with slinging bullshit and running away from it with sleight of hand for so long, they think they can get away with it forever. It just might not work this time.

MBR, I'm up in arms about (a), (b), and (c). If it was only (a) (which seems unlikely) than someone is sloppy as hell and should be fired. It's probably both (b) and (c). If it just just (b) then whoever leaked it should go to jail. But if it's (b) and not (c), then either the president is so clueless and incompetent that he should be impeached for dereliction of duty, or he sat around for two months and did nothing while there was a known traitor working for him and should be impeached for high crimes. If you're asking why "us blog reading folks" weren't outraged at the time, well, we were.

Robert Novak can go on TV and talk about what he now thinks was intentional and what wasn't all day, but the fact is, he wrote the column, he tried to clear the source with the CIA, he ran it anyway, and now he's got to live with the consequences. I think people like Novak have gotten away with slinging bullshit and running away from it with sleight of hand for so long, they think they can get away with it forever. It just might not work this time.

MBR, I'm up in arms about (a), (b), and (c). If it was only (a) (which seems unlikely) than someone is sloppy as hell and should be fired. It's probably both (b) and (c). If it just just (b) then whoever leaked it should go to jail. But if it's (b) and not (c), then either the president is so clueless and incompetent that he should be impeached for dereliction of duty, or he sat around for two months and did nothing while there was a known traitor working for him and should be impeached for high crimes. If you're asking why "us blog reading folks" weren't outraged at the time, well, we were.

MBR, Novak's tales are becoming so tangled and self-contradictory that there is no reason to credit his claim that it was an unintentional leak.

But even if we were to credit his latest lie, why then has a senior Administration official told the Washington Post that two White House officials called six journalists? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A11208-2003Sep27?language=printer)

Six accidents by two people?

I suppose it's more plausible than the Administration's economic policy....

Brad did you miss type

would be contemptuous... not to say felonious

or does the Washington Times have contemtuous grammer which makes me feel indignant and contemptible ? I mean I know they are right wing loonies financed by moonies, but don't they have copy editors ?