This sentence:

As Novak recently explained, she had indicated to Luskin, in a meeting over drinks sometime between January and May 2004, that Cooper was saying he had spoken with Rove about Plame.

...tells you all you need to know about how this whole Iraq War con went down. A TON of the American media was in on it.

The time has come to wonder how many members of the press are on the take from the CIA. Don't think this is crazy conspiracy talk--it's happened before.

It would explain a lot.

A lot of Bush-apologists and psychotic pro-war advocates seem aghast (fetch the swooning chair!) that ANY decent American would EVER accuse some as noble, as stainless and as pure as a politican of ever lying.

Please.

Politicans lie to get what they want.

Bush and his ignorant pro-war buddies had convinced themselves that Iraq would be a cake walk, that they would be greeted as heroes, get tons of free oil, and change the whole Middle East into a friendly democratic region within a few years.

They spent more time planning what Bush would say in his Noble Peace Prize acceptance speech then in actually planning the war and its aftermatch (just like Katrina).

Convinced they'd magically transform the world instantly if only they could just invade Iraq --- they lied to get what they wanted, which was public support ("Saddam will kill us all if we don't invade NOW! Everyone will die if we don't invade this 3rd world sand trap NOW!").

They were't "mislead" about WMD's because of some "slightly faulty" intelligence --- they lied. Because they believed no one would care if there were no WMD's after Iraq (and the entire Middle East) had been transformed into a democratic paradise.

Did Karl Rove do the old character assasination on war critics?

Is that really so hard to believe?

Remember the weeks after 9/11 in Bush personally told everyone in New York that there were absolutely no harmful levels of toxins in the air? Remember how it later turned out he lied about that according to the EPA's own reports? C'mon. Lying to get their way is what they do. All day. Every day.

Those aren't sick citizens or dead soilders. Those are just speed bumps.

Joe Conason ended his essay with a series of, what I would consider, rhetorical questions regarding Karl Rove's responses and testimony before the grand jury about his involvement, knowledge, and possible outing of Valerie Plame to the new media. For a brief moment I would like to pretend that these were not rhetorical questions.

Mr. Conason, Carl Rove is a man who clearly operates from a position of power and arrogance. He began to learn how to manipulate the systems decades ago when he began to whittle his political career under the glare of Watergate. The tactics of this group to win at any cost are easy to identify: divide and conquer. Anyone or anything that attacks their position or tries to undermine their credibility, their immdeiate and swift response is simply to discredit by lies or innuendo. This man and his ilk are masters of intimidation.

To think that Americans have lost the ability to freely express themselves about any issue in this country is a travesty. If anyone expresses a deep feeling of not wanting this country to beinvolved in the war in Iraq...then they suddenly become heinous because they're not supporting the troops or our fight against terrorism. Our freedoms are being subverted while the constant drumbeat to defeat terrorism blares a mantra so loud that far too many Americans are responding to the threat of terrorism rather than the actuality of real terrorism within our shores.

How is it possible for this great nation not to recognize that we all have been compromised by a group of people who claim to be fighting for democracy in Iraq while passing laws to limit the freedoms of Americans in this country under the guise of fighting terrorism?

Sorry, I ended this piece with a question, and yet my question is truly not rhetorical!

is a Rove indictment.

Please, Santa, please.

Joe Conason refers to Karl Rove as the man known as “Boy Genius.” The phrasing and quotation marks seem to imply that he believes Rove is something less than his nickname. It would be a mistake to underestimate either Rove’s talent or his influence on George Bush. In “Bush’s Brain” by James Moore and Wayne Slater, Rove is characterized as unethical, vindictive, and an abuser of power. He is also, by almost any measurement, a genius at political strategy. His success is the basis for our antipathy. Moore and Slater suggested that Rove bugged his own office in a Texas governor’s race in 1986 when he was Bill Clements's campaign strategist. The ploy successfully focused suspicion on his opponent. That modus operandi was apparent when Dan Rather was duped by a planted forgery relating to Bush’s National Guard service (or lack thereof). The focus shifted from the truth of the allegation to the veracity of the messenger. This brings us to the forged Niger document that was relied upon by Bush is his State of the Union speech specifically and to his push for war generally. It also led indirectly to former Ambassador Joe Wilson’s CIA sponsored fact-finding mission to Africa and eventually to his editorial debunking Bush’s claim of a nuclear threat from Iraq. Unnamed sources in the administration leaked that Joe Wilson’s wife, Valerie Wilson (Plame) was a CIA operative and was somehow responsible for her husband’s “boondoggle.”

George Bush refers to Karl Rove as “Turd Blossom.” I always thought this was a fiction created by Doonesbury’s Gary Trudeau, but a quick web search confirms that Bush indeed bestowed this nickname on his most trusted advisor based on flowers growing out of cow pies. The allusion is apt. Rove somehow thrives in odorous situations. It is difficult to believe that a master tactician of deceit, deception and misdirection could be caught in his craft. Our hope for optimism is rooted in Rove’s arrogance and as Conason pointed out, that the investigation began with Ashcroft in charge.

The beauty of this investigation is more than the potential indictment of the right’s greatest asset. The backdrop for the story is the exposure of the administration’s orchestrated deception to lead us to war. The story cannot be told without a paragraph reminding us that Bush falsely claimed a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, that Bush and his staff lied about biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and that Bush and his allies would stoop to any level to attack anyone who challenged their agenda.