Reply #25: Except . . . [View All]

First, there's no downside for Republicans to lie. For example, every word out of their mouths since the alleged trashing of the White House by the departing Clinton administration. No lie is too big, too preposterous, too outrageous not to be tried (at least).

Second, what did Luskin actually say? That Fitzgerald has advised him that he "does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove." Well, now there's a ringingly tepid endorsement if I've ever heard one. Are there any conditions on that? Like, Rove won't be charged as long as he cooperates with a plea deal? Or a time frame? Like, Fitzgerald does not anticipate seeking charges against Rove . . . today? This week? This month?

Carefully worded weaselly statements like Luskin's are the main reason the GOP gets away with so many lies. "We never said Saddam was an 'imminent' threat!" So you go back to the actual quotes, and sure enough, they didn't use the word "imminent" but a couple of times. Then the excuse becomes that Bush didn't say Saddam was an imminent threat. Okay, Bush didn't say that imminent because his advisers didn't trust him to be able to say imminent, but their point remains that Bush himself never used the word "imminent" in relation to Saddam. By this time, of course, the story has become so bollixed up in the public mind (ably assisted by the media, which can't follow anything more complicated than "Monica touched Bill's wee-wee") that you just sort of give up.

Whatever is the final outcome of the Rove Affair, I'd prefer to wait for someone other than his attorney to give the last word.