On Critical Thinking

Today's announcement by Karl Rove's lawyer that Rove will not be charged in the CIA leak investigation is a real David St. Hubbins moment for the blogosphere.

"I believe virtually everything I read, and I think that makes me a more selective person."

Jason Leopold was either burned by sources or wished something were so, and his printing of an imminent indictment story harmed the blogs. Only it really didn't. Truthout has been around longer than the blogs, it's more of a straight news operation the likes of Zmag or Indymedia or other leftist alternative media sites that have little connection to the people-powered movement on the left that began four years ago. As Markos says:

I hope this serves a lesson to all of you who link to crap internet sources like Jason Leopold merely because they write what you want to hear...

This is the reality based community, not the "make up your own reality" community. Conservatives already own the trademark to that name.

Be properly skeptical of everything you read. Even on this site. And if I use blind sources, which I'm apt to do every once in a while, be particularly skeptical. I won't be offended.

Most were properly skeptical about the Leopold story. Some were not.

A few are properly skeptical about this being the dead-solid end of the Karl Rove story. If we can't accept one biased source in Leopold, we shouldn't close the book with another biased source in Luskin. Pat Fitzgerald has not released a statement and may not. Still, those who have followed the case the closest have some interesting things to say. Like Christy Hardin Smith at Firedoglake:

I’ve said this before, and I will say it again: unless and until I hear it from Patrick Fitzgerald, the investigation continues to be ongoing. Which means that there are still potential developments down the road, should the evidence (like handwritten marching orders on the Wilson op-ed in Dick Cheney’s handwriting) lead there.

And I’ve also said this, and it is worth a reminder: Patrick Fitzgerald and his team are career professionals. You do not charge someone with a criminal indictment merely because they are scum. You have to have the evidence to back up any charges — not just that may indicate that something may have happened, but you must have evidence that criminal conduct occurred and that you can prove it. You charge the evidence you have, you try the case you can make, and you don’t go down a road that will ultimately be a waste of the public’s money and time once you have ascertained that the case is simply not there. It doesn’t mean that you don’t think the SOB that you can’t charge isn’t a weasel or guilty as hell, it just means that you can’t prove it. (And, fwiw, those times are the worst of your career, because you truly hate to let someone go when you know in your gut they’ve done something wrong.)

Jeralyn has been saying all along that she thinks that Rove cut some sort of cooperation deal. I really want to see whatever wording was in (Luskin’s words) the letter from Fitzgerald before I get too far down this road on the what’s going on speculation. And I’m hoping that some enterprising reporter…cough…Murray…cough…will get the scoop on just what IS going on with all of this.

The evidence in the case has been leading down a hallway to the Vice President's office lately, particularly the appearance of the New York Times op-ed. Emptywheel, who knows more than God about this case and is a really sweet person to boot, had this speculation (which you notice she calls speculation):

When those of us on the Plame panel got to know each other over the weekend, sitting at the pool so Joe Wilson and Larry Johnson could smoke their stogies, someone (it was probably me, but my sleep-deprived memories of this weekend are hazy) asked who thought Karl Rove was cooperating with the investigation. Two and two halves of us raised our hands. (And I'm not sure whether the last member of the panel had shown up yet, so that may well have been half of us.)

I was one of those who raised her hand halfway. My logic is this:

Dick Cheney is dragging down the White House. He is largely responsible for the mess in Iraq. He is trying to sabotage any attempts to negotiate honestly with Iran. And he is exposing everyone in the Administration to some serious legal jeopardy, in the event they ever lose control of courts. At some point, Dick Cheney's authoritarianism will doom Bush's legacy.

But you can't make him quit. His is a Constitutional office, he was elected along with Bush, so you can't make him resign like you can with your Treasury Secretary or your Environmental Secretary. What better way to get rid of him, then, than to expose him to legal proceedings? It gives you the ability (farcical, but no matter) to say that you have severed all ties with his policies and legacies.

You should read the whole thing if you want to understand her thought process. This is a teachable moment for the blogosphere. We have a duty to contextualize and analyze rather than simply report the press release. There's a responsibility that comes with visibility.

Fitzgerald hasn't said a peep, and this is not over until he does. Until then, critical thinkers must continue to think critically.