« Carnival of the Trackbacks XXXVIII | Main | The Grass Is Always Greener over the Septic Tank »

Woodward says: It wasn't Rove

We have another known about a known unknown. We don't know who the first administration official was to spread gossip about Plame, but we do know -with a fair degree of certainty- that it wasn't Libby or Rove. Interestingly that facts seemed unimportant to TIME Magazine editors who buried this tidbit from Woodward's interview with the mag:

Asked if this was the first time his source had spoken with Fitzgerald in the investigation, Woodward said "I'm not sure. It's quite possibly not the first time."

That sort of lets the air out the raving left's "Rove Did It" theory. Certainly Woodward knows Rove has spoken to Fitzgerald multiple times.

So we don't know who did it but it wasn't Rove.

Also in the story another very interesting bit of information.

In his press conference announcing Libby's indictment, Fitzgerald noted that, "Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson." Woodward realized, given that the indictment stated Libby disclosed the information to New York Times reporter Miller on June 23, that Libby was not the first official to talk about Wilson's wife to a reporter. Woodward himself had received the information earlier.

According to Woodward, that triggered a call to his source. "I said it was clear to me that the source had told me [about Wilson's wife] in mid-June," says Woodward, "and this person could check his or her records and see that it was mid-June. My source said he or she had no alternative but to go to the prosecutor. I said, 'If you do, am I released?'", referring to the confidentiality agreement between the two. The source said yes, but only for purposes of discussing it with Fitzgerald, not for publication.

So the source has already gone to Fitzgerald. Talk about a blind squirrel finding a nut.

Fitzgerald spends 2 years on this and gets nowhere. Then when he goofs the name of who did it first, apparently that spurred the real gossip to come clean. So it was not Fitzgerald's skills as an investigator that cracked the case but the lack thereof.

No matter which side of the aisle you are on, you must admit that it is ironic that it was Fitzgerald's incompetence that saved him.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Woodward says: It wasn't Rove:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Aide: Rice was not Woodward's source

» Macmind - Conservative Commentary and Common Sense linked with Plame Game - Crumbling from Within

» Conservative Outpost linked with Saturday round-up

» Kerfuffles linked with Liars Come to Grief

Comments (42)

I dunno. There is no evide... (Below threshold)

I dunno. There is no evidence from his prior work that Fitzgerald is eithere incompetent or partisan. Quite the opposite. We still don't know everything.

I think your first observation, though, that Woodward certainly knows that Karl Rove has been to the grand jury more than once is spot on, Maguire-esque in its parsing of the words. There are, however, two other explanations. First, Woodward could well be throwing up smoke and mirrors. It won't be the first time. Second, Time could have blown the quote.

Still, on balance I think you're right.

>There is no evidence from ... (Below threshold)

>There is no evidence from his prior work that Fitzgerald is eithere incompetent or partisan.

I don't know the man's past and frankly, I'm not interested enough to look. But if I were interviewing investigators, I don't know he'd get a second interview from what I've seen on this job.

You have to admit the irony that the most productive thing he's done yet is make a massive public blunder.

Hey Tigerhawk after reading... (Below threshold)

Hey Tigerhawk after reading it like 3 times maybe you like this better:

No matter which side of the aisle you are on, you must admit that it is ironic that it was Fitzgerald's incompetence [at solving this case] that saved him.

(In spanish I'd be using estar vs ser)

He might not be AN incompetent but he's BEEN incompetent in this case. Fair enough?

I suggest Paul and others r... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

I suggest Paul and others reread the transcript of Fitzgerald's press conference.on Friday October 28. For those who don't have the time or inclination, FITZGERALD was quite careful to say: "Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson. This is probably parsing words but Woodward still a journalist, is more of awriter than a reporter..The giveaway is in sworn a la Hillary Clinton repetitous "I have no recollection."..Then to continue, FITZGERALD said "And as you sit back, you want to learn: Why was this information going out? Why were people taking this information about Valerie Wilson and giving it to reporters? Why did Mr. Libby say what he did? Why did he tell Judith Miller three times? Why did he tell the press secretary on Monday? Why did he tell Mr. Cooper? And was this something where he intended to cause whatever damage was caused?
FITZGERALD: Or did they intend to do something else and where are the shades of gray?"

Fitzgerald was careful to p... (Below threshold)
Rich Gantner:

Fitzgerald was careful to point out that the "umpire" cannot make an accurate call when he gets sand thrown in his eyes. There should be no surprise to anyone that inconsitent facts will come out.

Paul, Don't be too quick t... (Below threshold)
Bat One:

Paul, Don't be too quick to talk about someone, anyone, "cracking the case." Woodward's source apparently establishes that Libby was not "the first official to mention" Valerie. But it does not necessarily follow that Woodward's source was the first either. Fitzgerald, despite his rather lofty reputation prior to all this foolishness, is looking more like Wile E. Cyote chasing after the Roadrunner with each passing day.

After all, two years later there is nothing to indicate that Wilson was "targeted in retribution" other than Wilson's indignant insistence that this was the case. Now, Joe Wilson may think that he is that important, and that what he has to say is worthy of that level of official attention. But the fact of the matter is that virtually everything alleged by Wilson can be easily refuted without ever leaving the NYT archives.

That Fitzgerald has been so focused on the links between administration personnel and journalists is understandable, but until someone can show that Plame/Wilson actually was covert, actually was covered, and actually was "outed" in an act of political retribution that actually violates the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, this whole cartoon is but one more amusing exercise in futility.

Here's to you, Clara Pellar!

Am I the only one who sees ... (Below threshold)

Am I the only one who sees the significance in Woodward saying "he or she"?

Can someone explain to me w... (Below threshold)

Can someone explain to me why it would take 2 years to do nothing. How long does it take to ask maybe 50 people a few questions? How much was Friz payed? Longer it took the more he got payed? Wonder what it would be like if these clods in D.C. was running a business.

It is a business, they are ... (Below threshold)

It is a business, they are running it and continuing their salaries and making connections (and friends and enemies) and spending out tax dollars on it as well. The point of this business is not to sustain selling a product as much as sustaining your job for as long as possible. Hey, when you're paid by the hour, do you get your job done quick or slowly?

I think that this is all go... (Below threshold)

I think that this is all going to be eventually linked to Kevin Bacon.

jhow66 and epador -- nice j... (Below threshold)

jhow66 and epador -- nice job ripping him apart. Now, take a look at the actual numbers. In the first 15 months of the investigation, the investigation cost $723,000 (source: GAO). Compare to Starr's investigation, which cost the taxpayers $40M. (Add another $6M to include Fiske's investigation.)

Starr had to deal with an u... (Below threshold)

Starr had to deal with an uncooperative administration.

If Fitzgerald's budget tells us anything it's that he isn't being stonewalled at every turn by those he regards as his targets.

I wonder what that could possibly mean?

Starr had to deal with a... (Below threshold)

Starr had to deal with an uncooperative administration.

Right, and the two counts of perjury, two counts of making false statements, and one count of obstruction of justice Fitzgerald has handed down so far (with more possibly on the way) suggest that he's received nothing but truthful cooperation from this administration?

If Fitzgerald's budget tells us anything it's that he isn't being stonewalled at every turn by those he regards as his targets.

Wow. That is some impressive spin. So I take it you disagree with Paul, jhow66, and epador about the cost and inefficiency of this ivestigation? This is something you should discuss amongst yourselves; let me know when you have your talking points sorted out.

God, I love the Clinton-Sta... (Below threshold)

God, I love the Clinton-Starr comparisons.

This whole investigation is a giant game of he said/she said. It's almost funny.

So, when do we start blaming the evil Zionists?

EarlUnderstand tha... (Below threshold)


Understand that for a prosecuter with Fitzie's street creds, to have spent 2 years investigating he could NOT come out at the end and say "Well, no crime, we can all go home." That's why he went to a grand jury where HE is fully in charge.

The oft quoted line about being able to indict a ham sandwish is not the hyperbole some would have.

Talking about NON-covert Mrs Wilson may have been gossip, but it was no crime. Fitzie was very careful NOT to use the word "covert" in his press conference.

Indeed, if one wants to look at the Libby indictment and screech "deliberate coverup", then I would expect in short order an indictment of Walter Pincus -- Woodward claiming he told Walter of Plame in mid-June and Pincus saying he "doesn't remember" the conversation.

Will it happen? Will the usual suspects that smacked their lips and kept a "Rove indictment watch" pay as much attention to Pincus and Woodward?

Suuurrrre, they will.

And when is Fitzie going to investigate Joe Wilson himself for gossiping about his "CIA analyst" wife several times in the greenroom of FNC in 2002?

Plame says it was'nt MI5!!!... (Below threshold)

Plame says it was'nt MI5!!!

Paul: "I don't know the ... (Below threshold)

Paul: "I don't know the man's past and frankly, I'm not interested enough to look."

Why does that statement remind me of Incurious George?

Does anyone remember bin Laden? He might be dead, he might be alive - we don't hear about him much nowadays. But just a few years ago I seem to remember he was big news - or did I just imagine that? So if Fitzgerald had some connection to bin Laden, wouldn't a normal person be a bit curious? Obviously not, because Paul isn't interested.

If anyone is interested, Google can lend a helpful hand. Did Fitzgerald do a good job on that one? Or did he do a bad job? I can't answer that, but shouldn't we be interested enough to look?

As for the issue of whether... (Below threshold)

As for the issue of whether or not Fitzgerald has made a complete mess of all of this, I defer to those who actually understand the law and really know what is going on in Fitzgerald's investigation and have the slightest idea of what is provable and what is not. I don't qualify for any of these. Neither does anyone else I've read here. But some people seem very happy to delude themselves that they they know the answers to everything. Presumably the same people who still insist on things that even Cheney now pretends he never said.

I will give Fitzgerald some... (Below threshold)

I will give Fitzgerald some slack in that for this case, he really did not understand how information/gossip flows in Washington with the press and officials. He was too trusting of most journalists giving out too many concessions to get them to talk. Now its coming back to bite him.

Hmmm.Frankly I'm s... (Below threshold)


Frankly I'm still rather uncertain whether or not it was against the law to reveal Plame's employment at the CIA headquarters. Perhaps I missed it, but nothing I've read so far has made a definitive statement on this.

And the reason why I think it's important is that Fitz should have made that determination first and, if it wasn't against the law, then he should have ended the investigation right then and there.

From my point of view this whole indictment really looks like a prosecutor fishing around until he found something to indict someone over to justify his investigation.

Right, and the two count... (Below threshold)

Right, and the two counts of perjury, two counts of making false statements, and one count of obstruction of justice Fitzgerald has handed down so far (with more possibly on the way) suggest that he's received nothing but truthful cooperation from this administration?

That's exactly right. Libby and all of the other White House officials turned over all of their notes, memoranda, etc., everything, when asked to do so, and on time. They didn't pull a Clinton by lying, obfuscating, and stonewalling, which dragged things out for an eternity and which ran up the bill something fierce, and they didn't send out the GOP equivalents of Paul Begala and James Carville to conduct a non-stop smear campaign against the special prosecutor with the help of all their sympathizers in the MSM.

OM, I was asking a rhetoric... (Below threshold)

OM, I was asking a rhetorical question. Put more simply, my question was "So, a count of perjury implies truthfulness?" And somehow your answer was "yes". Amazing.

Sorry, but "cooperation" which includes lying is not cooperation. Maybe Libby was efficient in his lying (relative to Clinton), and didn't do any stonewalling first before his lies -- fine, I'll give you that. But to commend him for it? That's pretty messed up.

Uh, not so fast, Earl. Just... (Below threshold)

Uh, not so fast, Earl. Just because Fitzgerald claims that Libby's a perjurer means that Libby is a perjurer. That's for Fitz to prove in a court of law. As you may recall, Libby has entered a plea of innocent.

The fact of the matter is that the Clinton administration stonewalled and smeared the special prosecutor, while GWB's administration cooperated. That's a world of difference.

Not to barge into this deba... (Below threshold)
PETN Sandwich:

Not to barge into this debate but, OK I will, when I heard Fitzgerald make his press announcement (live) I could only think that this guy is a pathological lier.

Liar as in knowingly making a false or misleading statement(s) - making repeated statements about a "CIA Officer" being outed, misleading that it in itself is a criminal offense, that her own neighbors and friends did not even know that she was a "CIA Officer" - what if he had asked her friends and neighbors if they knew that she "worked for the CIA"?

Is there a real difference between working for the CIA as a civil servent and being a "CIA Officer"? Surely Fitzgerald knows this and that most people don't, which is why he mislead with the term "CIA Officer"again and again...

.. but wait, the laws regarding knowingly making a false or misleading statement do not apply to prosecutors nor defending attorneys.

The law can declare that a pig's ear is a silk purse or that the moon is cheese. Fitzgerald will sleep comfortably knowing that he is legally not pigskin nor stinky cheese according to the law.

Follow-UpPretty su... (Below threshold)
PETN Sandwich:


Pretty sure that anyone taking the "Oath of Office" is an "Officer" - http://www.opm.gov/constitution_initiative/oath.asp

An open letter to Bob Woodw... (Below threshold)

An open letter to Bob Woodward:

Dear Mr. Woodward,

Your belated revelations concerning your Plame source only serves to undermine the honesty and integrity of the journalistic profession. Once upon a time, journalists actually were interested in pursuing the truth. Now it appears, however, that they serve the truth only when it is convenient or opportunistic.

The American people deserve to know the truth about the Bush Administrations’ outing of Valerie Plame, just as they deserved the truth about Watergate. Yet you decided to play a game with the truth, and with the American people. To what end, sir, to what purpose; did you think there was another "book deal" in the offing?

The truth is only the truth when it sees the light of day. You have intentionally hid it from us and should be ashamed. You have only added to the disillusionment and mistrust of our public and private institutions, and in the long run perhaps the downfall of our very democracy. The truth it seems is indeed the first casualty of war, and you have done your part to kill it.


Robert M. Thacker

Atlanta, GA

OM: Where did I say Libby w... (Below threshold)

OM: Where did I say Libby was a perjurer? I simply said there was a count of perjury. I agree with you that perjury is to be decided by the courts (and by this definition, Clinton was not a perjurer). If you're instead saying that I can't say he's a liar because it hasn't been proven in the courts, go back to your previous post...where you call Clinton a liar.

(Also, PETN Sandwich -- OM has been busy implying that no one on the right has tried smearing Fitzgerald. Thanks for the well-timed post.)

Earl,I am not on "... (Below threshold)
PETN Sandwich:


I am not on "the right" nor am I trying to smear Fitzgerald.

Personally I see a disturbing trend of prosecutor's using their immunity to making false statements while accusing others of doing the same very disturbing - especially where neither the accusor's nor the defendant's statements have anything to do with the original accusation. Clinton, Stewert, Plame, etc...

Calling a pig's ear a pig's ear, despite the law, is not smearing. Did I not make that clear?

Well, you did call him a pa... (Below threshold)

Well, you did call him a pathological liar, which is a bit harsh. But yeah, sorry for overgeneralizing. I actually think Fitzgerald is a genuinely good person, my impressions were very different from yours when watching the press conference -- I was very impressed with him.

No matter how much you guys... (Below threshold)

No matter how much you guys try to make your wackjob suppositions part of the conventional wisdom, it doesn't seem to stick. It's more than a little curious that the only people who claim Wilson told them about his wife in the Fox News green room are right wingers.

And what exactly is Fitzgerald's "massive public blunder?" Saying that Libby was "the first official known to have told a reporter?" Until Hadley or whomever came forward, Libby was the first known. And you may recall, one way to prevent being charged for perjury is to return to the Grand Jury and say "I misspoke before, now I'm here to tell the truth." I don't know any more than anyone else about it, but the possibility certainly exists that the reason Fitzgerald didn't know about Woodward sooner is because his source was lying to him. What a lack of respect so many of you have for this country and our legal process, that you think sdomeone who successfully lies to a prosecutor is the winner, and the prosecutor is incompetenmt.

All that has really changed is when someone says that the administration started outing a covert agent when Libby spilled the beans, administration apologists can triumphantly proclaim "Shows what you know! They were outing a covert agent a full month before that!" Well, hooray for your side.

And Bat One, "After all, two years later there is nothing to indicate that Wilson was "targeted in retribution" other than Wilson's indignant insistence that this was the case." You mean nothing to indicate because Fitzgerald hasn't come to your house and laid out his whole case? Woodward is claiming that he learned about Plame from an administration source. How does this get the administration off the hook? Because Libby wasn't the only one leaking her name, that somehow makes it better? Woodward didn't say he heard it at a cocktail party, or in a Fox News green room, he heard it from the same administration that's accused of leaking her name. I'd say that's even more damning evidence that this went beyond Libby.

And for those of you who don't seem to know the first thing about how this process works (I'm looking at you, jhow66 and epador) Fitzgerald is a US attorney. He's not a special prosecutor. His paycheck doesn't end when this case is over. Get a clue, willya?

It's really getting kind of sad, watching you guys trying to rally as the ship sinks. Do you think every time Custer killed an Indian at Little Big Horn he yelled "Now we've got 'em on the run?"

Ah Chris, you know so littl... (Below threshold)

Ah Chris, you know so little about how government careers work. Damn right he isn't "paid by the hour" but his career is measured by his efforts, and he needs to drag this baby out to get the bullets in his resume to make the next rung.

Shame you have no ear for metaphor. Perhaps you skipped a Mellaril dose or two?

I cannot follow as to Fitzg... (Below threshold)

I cannot follow as to Fitzgerald being the failure here. Obviously, a prosecutor cannot reveal what he knows, how it is he knows it, along with sources, etc., until long after whatever the case issue is is over, concluded.

Libby got caught up in the investigative process and isn't being charged with "leaking" anything, but of lying to the Grand Jury, as per his own testimony conflicts. About that, I have always thought Libby is probably as confused as anyone, given the subtleties of just what his "lies" are allged to be, at this point (I don't think he'll be convicted but he had to be charged, is the point).

About Fitzgerald, however, to state the obvious here, he's not talking about much of anything that has to deal with the specifics of what's being and has been investigated. And I also don't see any failures so far, since there's not a complete picture, a full availability, of information to be had by us public persons and that includes the press, for what they're worth.

I THINK -- all told here -- Wilson's the guy and his wife's the, um, guy also, as to responsible parties and that Woodward is also. They've done as much damage as possible to anyone and everyone affiliated with and in the Bush Administration (which has undoubtedly been the point) and in Woodward's case, to avoid being answerable, being identified, for lack of a better term here. The Wilsons have been just far too sloppy to be respectable as to any sense of privacy about either of them, what they do, who they do it for, and in that, because of that, I think they've very well called FIRE in a movie theater just to see who they can say did it when the police show up and try to arrest someone responsible.

Fitzgerald seems to be a stand up guy and he certainly makes for a great press conference. I think this is, if anything ever was/is, a case where it can be said, is: "developing."

IS there even "a leak"? All that's looking solid about that is that Woodward has been talking to someone. That could be Mrs. Wilson herself, it could be Mary Matalin, it could be Hillary Clinton. I'd lay money on the latter. Because Mr. Wilson was going to find the Bush Administration (specifically, Karl Rove) responsible for Wilson's dirty socks, one way or another. At this point, I can't imagine a more smarmy, untrustworthy person than Joe Wilson. So blame him, and give Fitzgerald the benefit of the doubt.

One thing I thing some of u... (Below threshold)

One thing I thing some of us CAN count on at this stage is that the liberal media will never, NEVER, apologize or clarify about Karl Rove. They just cannot do it. So, they won't.

Chris: even high profile li... (Below threshold)

Chris: even high profile liberal media now writes with assurity that there was no exposure of Mrs. Wilson's (Plame's) "secret agent" status because her condition of employment with the CIA do not qualify under the law as to any violation of any status of secrecy.

People simply referred and still do to her employment with The Agency but, again, she wasn't of the status and within the time-frame stipulated by law, to even qualify as being revealed as anything secret that is punishable by law. Thus, regardless of anyone, ANYone, in the Bush Administration or elsewhere, referring to her as being employed by The Agency, have broken no laws by doing so.

And, thus, no one "leaked" anything in the legal context about her and everything Joe Wilson has been boombahhing about to anyone who would listen is complete nonsense. Wilson is the person who should be cross examined as to competency as to his public and/or private employment. It only emphasises to me how crazy he is, that he's continually sticking to his "leak" story when it's already been established clearly that the laws that address and define such an incident don't apply to the conditions of his wife's employment.

I hope Joe Wilson gets sued by those he's railed against for civil damages.

Woodward has gone to a.lot.... (Below threshold)

Woodward has gone to a.lot.of.effort to protect his so-called book project. Now that we know that Deep Throat (Woodward's earlier "source" for his earlier book project) was a giant let down, an embittered, passed-over employee (common among publicly employed persons, in my experience), has anyone gone back over time and literature (and history) and even tried to revise assumptions, allegations, suggestions, wrongful conclusions that were established, also wrongly, from Woodward's work? No.

I'd say that Woodward is very well aware of the spell he can create and has been going about doing same with the expectation that he'll be able to recreate the same -- Wilson certainly seems to have been hoping for that. Not that literature with references to the real is wrong but that the REAL cloak and dagger efforts just may be by Woodward and his "references" and for quite archane but intentionally destructive reasons. However nice he may be to speak with, however talented he may be. He's beginning to suggest to me the sweet, elderly person who puts arsenic in the tea and asks if you'd like a second cookie with it.

I don't know, but, all told, people are just too eager to "get" (impune) Karl Rove and President Bush and seem blinded by what just may be quite accomplished "assassins" of character. You know what they say about those silent types.

And, as if by reincarnation... (Below threshold)

And, as if by reincarnation of Deep Throat, comes Armitage Woodward (via Drudge): another upper-middle-upper management public employee playing looser and bigger than he should. I'm thinking that this is the likliest fit, all things considered, all leads taken into account. And just the personality type who would be commisserating with the other Woodward, just as did the earlier guy, earlier book.

This DOES call into question just whytheheck the investigation has gone on so long...

-S, I'm confused by your de... (Below threshold)

-S, I'm confused by your defense of Fitzgerald. Have you read the indictment? If you go to page 3, you will find the words:

"At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson's affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community."

Fitzgerald has not yet proved this in a court of law, but he clearly believes it to be true. If you are right and he is wrong, he is clearly monumentally incompetent. Either Plame's employment status was classified or it wasn't. Right-wing bloggers with no legal training decided a year ago that it wasn't. Fitzgerald, with all his legal experience and two years of investigation clearly doesn't know this.

So far, I've got quite a lot of faith in Fitzgerald - both to prosecute any crime he believes to be provable, and to keep quiet about anything he can't take into court. But given your insistence that no crime took place, you should be demanding his head on a platter.

cat: I am, honestly speaki... (Below threshold)

cat: I am, honestly speaking here, relieved to read that you are confused. Because you are and you've admitted it. And that's refreshing.

Fitzpatrick -- nor anyone else -- has not even yet gone to trial, and thus, there has been no venue by which he can "prove" anything. Thus, by referring to Fitzpatrick as (I paraphrase) 'not yet proven' anything is, well, it's an indication of a confused perception.

Nothing can be proven or disproven in relationship to Fitzgerald's legal skills until there's the process and completion of a legal process. He's still in pre-trial stage.

And, I've not "defended" Fitzpatrick nor maligned Fitzpatrick. I've made no opinions along those lines as to Fitzpatrick the man. Please just reread what I've already written because I don't have plans to rewrite this nor squabble about opinions one way or the other about Fitzpatrick, particularly until he's completed his process. I anticipate him calling a few more people before the Grand Jury and all that will precede a trial, also. So, the process will take more time because that's what these type of trials do: they take time, are drawn out and complex and make everyone easily confused. However, I don't get from Fitzpatrick that he is a confused person or professional talent, and I don't get from him much of anything other than he's intense and doing his job and we'll not reasonably be able to evaluate that until the trial and particularly afterward. Everything up to that point is speculative for us laypersons.

You may have a difficult time understanding these last remarks of mine, too, but it's anticipated. You have to be reasonable to avoid premature prejudicial opinions.

I'm even more confused now.... (Below threshold)

I'm even more confused now. Who's Fitzpatrick?

Fitzpatrick is the man for ... (Below threshold)

Fitzpatrick is the man for whom "Fitzmas" is named. "Fitzmas" is the celebration of much ado about nothing.

Fitgerald.... (Below threshold)


Fitzgerald. Typo.... (Below threshold)

Fitzgerald. Typo.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy