See excerpts after the jump....
According to the stories on Libby and Rove, they have both responded with "I have heard that" when the issue of Valerie Plame came up. Additionally, both seem to suggest that they heard this from journalists.
But, if one thinks about this for a minute, Judith didn't write a story. For purposes of her legal dilemna, that detail is irrelevant. But, that fact may have another meaning. Maybe Judith Miller knew that Plame was a NOC or was covert and decided not to write a story because of that fact. It is hard for me to suggest and may be harder for others here to believe knowing Judith...but, then again, there has to be a reason she didn't write a story.
I am unsure if she has ever testified under oath before, so she probably need not worry about possible perjury issues arising from the difference between her congressional committee vs. 9/11 Commission testimony.
BUT, cleary she would be worried about having to testify under oath about public things that she has said regarding everything surrounding 9/11. Could that be because she would not repeat under oath what she has already said in public?
"Mr. Bush was remarkably acquiescent, they added, during the two to three hours of camera work it took to get his lead campaign commercial ready to broadcast; the 60-second spot, shot about three weeks ago, features Mr. Bush talking about his presidency as he sits next to his wife, Laura, at the White House."
His "offer" to spend an hour with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the committee investigating the worst attack on the US in our history.
Lovely contrast: "Acquiescent" for two to three hours during a commercial vs. comabtiveness in dealing with the 9/11 commission. Is there any end to their shamelessness?
Think about it. Draw out the criticism now in order to address it instead of waiting to address it in late August or early September.
Surely they knew that there would be criticism of the ads. And surely they are not that stupid. This has been a horrendous few months for the administration, but maybe this wasn't a mistake.
They will address those who criticize the ads by saying that this election is about 9/11 and the effect on the nation. Couple that with criticism of those who criticize the ads by saying that they themselves are politicizing 9/11 by attempting to muzzle the President.
I think the ads are in bad taste and that there are plenty of other ways to highlight the President's "leadership" after the attacks. But, maybe there is a reason that they chose to do this.
If criticism of the ads boomerangs back against us, it will make it that much harder for us to crticize the convention.
Is there a coincidence of timing between the discussions, and public rejection of Bush giving a speech on the WTC site, and these ads?
I would love to see every Democrat in a position to vote on this come out and condemn and oppose this amendment. But, I am not about to cast out those who do not, with the exception of Zell Miller. I want to storm the gates on this issue just like everyone else in here. But, we do not need everyone with us in order to that.
I'm not prepared to watch the Republicans possibly get up to a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. If we demand ideological consistency from every candidate on this issue, we can kiss seats goodbye in NC,SC,FLA,OK,Alaska, etc.
This amendment is an utter abomination. It is disgusting and thorougly condemnable. I only wish the rest of the public agreed with us. Until they do, we need to give our candidates flexibilty to respond to their own constituents. If I were Stephanie Herseth's only constituent, it would be an easy call for her on how to vote. Unfortunately for her, I am not.
Have some patience. Everything will work it self out and we will win.
See more rantings like this at Babounakis.com.
Here is the text of the post. Pay attention to the quotes at the end.
2/25 President Bush's Version of the 3/5's Compromise
On February 24th, in a spirit befitting of the 3/5's compromise, the President of the United States announced his support for a constitutional amendment that would not only ban "gay marriage" but would also preclude any court from enforcing state law's with respect to civil unions, if any state decided to enact such a law.
Last night on Larry King, Ms. Musgrave said that she opposes civil unions, though she believed that the language of her amendment would allow a legislature to create a civil unions law, but prevent a court from creating it by judicial order.
Here is the amendment:
"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."