July 18, 2005
Define "is"
Our President is looking very little like the truth, justice and American way cowboy that his handlers have so deftly promoted…and a lot more like a guy who is reaching for a way to bail out his corrupt buddy.
Earlier today, Bush bactracked on his previous statement to fire anyone on his staff involved in the Plame leak.
Bush said "yes" in June of 2004 when asked if he would fire anyone who leaked the agent's name.
Today Bush moved the goalposts, saying he would fire anyone who committed a crime.
Lie about a bj in the Oval Office...impeachment.
Lie about firing aides/staffers who out CIA agents and undermine national security...defend, defend, defend.
I was certainly no fan of Clinton's behavior and said so. Where are the Republicans decrying the behavior of Karl Rove (and now apparently Lewis Libby from Cheney's office)? Where are the demands for an apology and resignation?
The Republican Party has become a festering, ugly bed of corruption and ethics/legal breaches. Worse however are the rank and file who know this is going on and still continue to support them.
Putting the elephant before the flag is not acceptable. It's terrible for the Republican Party and it's worse for the nation-at-large.
C'mon Republicans. Stand up for what is right. Demand that Bush hold his staff accountable not just for the legal issues, but the moral and ethical ones as well.
Posted by Carla Ryan at July 18, 2005 01:54 PMOddly enough, I waited until an investigation of Clinton’s perjury during a sexual harassment trial to complete and all of the facts known before calling for his impeachment.
Maybe the republicans are doing the same here?
Hard to say about the democracts, since they were calling for Bush’s impeachment on democrats.com before he was ever sworn into office in 2001.
Posted by: Rhinehold at July 18, 2005 02:21 PMIt’s important to note that just because President Bush added that the person needs to have committed a crime, doesn’t mean that he’s covering something up.
He’s clearly distinguishing between an intentional and unintentional act. If it’s found that Karl Rove knowingly compromised the name of the agent, he will be terminated. The investigation has not occurred yet, so stop your judgment.
You claim that Republicans constantly put “the elephant before the flag.” Are you kidding me? Republicans, and a few Democrats, are the only ones committed to setting a course of action that will win the War on Terror. Have you witnessed the obstruction and lunacy of Democratic leaders? From Dick Durbin and Howard Dean to liberal groups like Amnesty International, left wing interests constantly use their hatred of President Bush to undermine the noble efforts of our troops overseas.
Wise up.
Rhinehold, quoting Democrats.com is hardly speaking for the mainstream of the democratic party. One look at their website should tell you that. (The Agressive Progressives? come on)
Carla is correct in the statement that the backpeddling is not attractive or beneficial to Bush’s image.
The characterization of “festering, ugly bed of corruption” is not necessarily how I would put it, but you gotta admit; the republican party surely seemed to advance a righteous attitude towards Clinton during the years of costly investigations into every detail of his life. Now that there have been several (at least) issues that suggest questionable ethics and even criminality, there is no indignation from the republican party.
Where is that lofty post from which they judged others in the past? Where are the cries for investigations?
Instead, we get backpeddling and quibbling. “I didn’t mention her name. I only said it was Wilson’s wife.” Get real. Anyone involved will be let go. oh wait; I meant anyone guilty of a crime will be let go. Apparently their ethics don’t matter.
Bush changing his commitment from firing anyone responsible for leaks, to firing anyone who committed a crime, is so like him. He will say anything, and if having said it, becomes inconvenient, well, he will change it. And guess what folks, The American People accept it without any problem. He’s been doing this since first elected and he was reelected. Says a lot about why America can’t find competent leadership anymore.
Bush ran in 2000 on downsizing government, and against nationa building. The American people saw him for 4 years increase the size of government largely due to nation building. His changing his pledge about leakers is no surprise at all.
Voters will again rationalize such incompetence and elect Republicans back to power in 2006. Mark my words.
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 18, 2005 03:19 PMIt?s important to note that just because President Bush added that the person needs to have committed a crime, doesn?t mean that he?s covering something up.
It means he’s moving the goal posts, at the very least. For a guy who promised “honor and integrity” in the White House, moving the goal posts on ethical and legal issues isn’t exactly what Bush’s buyers bought and paid for.
He?s clearly distinguishing between an intentional and unintentional act. If it?s found that Karl Rove knowingly compromised the name of the agent, he will be terminated. The investigation has not occurred yet, so stop your judgment.
I’m perfectly aware of what Bush is doing. He wasn’t distinguishing before and now he is. That’s called parsing it out. Cowboys aren’t supposed to do that. Cowboys go after the bad guys and string em up. They don’t backpeddle and “distinguish” just because the situation no longer suits them. And it’s exactly what Clinton was doing when he defined “is”.
You claim that Republicans constantly put ?the elephant before the flag.?
No, that’s not what I said. I said that they’re doing it now.
Are you kidding me? Republicans, and a few Democrats, are the only ones committed to setting a course of action that will win the War on Terror.
Yeah I’ve been watching that “course of action”. It isn’t working. If Republicans and those same Democrats would stop running on emotional gut reaction and actually pay attention to why we’re being attacked, then take corrective action, we might get somewhere. But that’s a whole other post for a different time.
Have you witnessed the obstruction and lunacy of Democratic leaders? From Dick Durbin and Howard Dean to liberal groups like Amnesty International, left wing interests constantly use their hatred of President Bush to undermine the noble efforts of our troops overseas.
Wise up.
You can’t be serious. Your guy outs a CIA agent and undermines an entire CIA operation/covert business for political gain and you’re upset at Durbin for noting how the US shouldn’t be torturing people?
Wise up, indeed.
It took me more than 5 months to go from:
“I can’t believe our president would be involved in something like this” to
“It hurts me to believe our president would be involved in something like this.”
Of course, I’m talking about Nixon and Watergate.
Why it’s taking so long for so many people to see the truth about Bush43 is astounding but “Stupid is as Stupid does” is actually starting to make sense.
As a Bush supporter I too agree that anyone found committing a crime should be dismissed immediately. That said, just as we do in the criminal justice system, we often “forgive” a crime at one level to get something better at another level.
Also, if someone commits a crime but, it is perceived (by his superior) that the overall good and/or potential of this person warrants “overlooking” that crime, I would support such an action.
I am not suggesting that it should be done in this case but often the public does not have the overall picture that leads to such actions.
Posted by: steve smith at July 18, 2005 03:39 PMthe republican party surely seemed to advance a righteous attitude towards Clinton during the years of costly investigations into every detail of his life
They used the law he signed into effect himself against him while investigating charges of sexual harassment against him.
Should they have not done so? Why? Is sexual harassment not a serious crime? Was he above being subjected to his own laws?
Posted by: Rhinehold at July 18, 2005 03:41 PMAt the insistence of Democrats, the president appointed a special prosecutor, who is working this case. As far as anyone has said, Rove has been cooperating with the investigation. It is now clear that Rove was not the source of the leak in any way we usually define source. At the very worst, he told journalists that he had heard what they had heard from each other. That is not being a source. It also was not an irrelevant fact that Joe Wilson got the contract to go to Niger because of his wife’s influence. That would be something to mention in a conversation about his credibility, don’t you think? Especially when Wilson was telling people he was chosen by the VP.
There is serious doubt that whoever leaked the identity committed a crime at all. We are talking about a woman riding a desk in northern Virginia under official cover, which means only that we don’t talk about her work. I live in N. Virginia and know dozens of such people. You don’t need official sources to learn these things. They are not carefully guarded secrets. Don’t make more of it than it is.
If it is indeed a crime, someone will be indicted and we will see what happens then. Right now, you got nothing to go on except hatred for Rove.
I dread this upcoming exchange. You guys are gearing up to fight the battle of nothing, as you did after Ohio. There will be a lot of repetition, gnashing of teeth and heaping of scorn and vitriol, but in the end you know our side will be right.
Carla,
I see you’re taking Reid’s words to heart. I was so happy when he said
I agree with the President when he said he expects the people who work for him to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. The White House promised if anyone was involved in the Valerie Plame affair, they would no longer be in this administration. I trust they will follow through on this pledge. If these allegations are true this rises above politics and is about our national security.
He made this comment last week when the story first broke. I wondered why more democrats weren’t taking this much more subdued (and powerful IMO) tack instead of shrilly calling for Rove’s firing.
Democrats once again out-politicked by the republicans.
Why am I not surprised? :-(
Posted by: Nikita at July 18, 2005 03:42 PMHmmm…”shrill democrats”?
I think I’ve been listening to too much talk radio…
Posted by: Nikita at July 18, 2005 03:44 PMYup, this is really how badly the Democrats are losing this argument. I feel like we’re almost in the stage of a drama where we finally get to enjoy a little needed comic relief.
I ask any fair minded person reading this (and certainly it can’t all be the KOS far left Democratic crowd, can it, whose posts outnumber conservative here by by five to one?) to honestly look at who is actually doing the legalistically narrow hair-splitting of words here.
Look at the behavior of certain Democrat leaders , whose approach, now that it’s clear they won’t get Rove on for actual wrongdoing, is to now go after him with wordgames and chopped logic along the lines demonstrated in this topic. I appeal to your sense of honesty and your capacity for reason.
Imagine the following scenario, and then imagine the Democratic response based on what we’ve seen in the Rove/Plame Nadagate.
What if there was an alleged murder, and Bush said, “That’s terrible. I’ll fire anybody involved in murder.”
Do you really think he meant he’s he’d fire anyone who was asked about this murder in a phone call from a reporter? That he’d fire anyone who was told by another reporter that a murder of some unnamed individual MIGHT have occurred? Do you think that someobody who talks about murder, even one that never happened, is involved in murder? Do you really think that?
What does KOS think, I wonder? Or Michael Moore? I think things could start to get REALLY entertaining now that the case agains Rove has so completely collapsed. Seething rage and frustration may lead the democratic leadership to ever more amusing displays of comic desperation. Pass the popcorn and send in the clowns!
Posted by: sanger at July 18, 2005 03:52 PMleft wing interests constantly use their hatred of President Bush to undermine the noble efforts of our troops overseas.Posted by: SEPARight at July 18, 2005 02:57 PM
Right. Just like right-wing interests constantly used their irrational hatred of President Clinton to undermine the noble efforts of our troops in Kosovo.
Posted by: ElliottBay at July 18, 2005 04:17 PMCarla — nice post and follow up. Welcome to Watchblog.
David:
“Bush changing his commitment from firing anyone responsible for leaks, to firing anyone who committed a crime, is so like him. He will say anything, and if having said it, becomes inconvenient, well, he will change it. And guess what folks, The American People accept it without any problem.”
Yes, I think you’re right.
“Voters will again rationalize such incompetence and elect Republicans back to power in 2006. Mark my words.”
It is for this reason alone that I will undoubtedly go back to voting for the Democratic party in that election, despite my many misgivings about them. I feel this country must restore a balance of power, because these Neocon’s are running amok and destroying everything we once stood for.
Here is yet another reason to frighten us independent thinkers on the Left into voting for the Dem’s, simply to restore some measure of sanity in the federal government:
FBI Says It Has Files on Rights Groups
Dave:
“Why it’s taking so long for so many people to see the truth about Bush43 is astounding but “Stupid is as Stupid does” is actually starting to make sense.”
Yes, I agree. Yet, it feels horrible for me to do so. I never thought I would be agreeing with the idea that one half of the country would need to be simpleminded to vote for one side over the other, but now, I’ve actually changed my mind.
If the majority of people in this country cannot see how much damage these Neocon’s have done while in office, and how they stand for absolutely nothing but wielding their own power in utter and complete contempt of We the People, then I think one would need to be extremely dimwitted and foolish, indeed.
I agree Sanger, watching the implosion of the democratic party is fascinating, I feel guilty, like I should almost be paying for this entertainment, hollywood couldn’t do any better. Remember the outcry over Delay, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Trent Lott, Rove and now Rove again, oh and did you hear Paul Begala’s statement over the weekend; “Reps are out to kill us”, 2006 and 2008 will be easier than we thought. I guess this Rove thing will die quietly at the box office, but don’t worry, another liberal panic session is coming to newscast and blogsite near you, stay tuned.
Posted by: Jay at July 18, 2005 04:18 PMsanger,
Your murder analogy doesn’t really hold up though, because whereas a murder involves a physical act separate from the exchange of information, a leak of classified info is defined entirely by the exchange of words/information and nothing more.
Also, even if Rove manages to weasel out of this, someone is obviously at fault by way of the State Department Memo that Powell requested the same day as Wilson’s NYT article and received the following day. The memo was the first document naming Wilson’s wife as a CIA officer, so the administration had this info well before Novak’s talk with Rove.
And of course we should all just shut up about this until the investigation is over, but it’s hard to sit quietly when the media and pundits are throwing around new rumors and shady facts every day.
Posted by: pete at July 18, 2005 04:20 PMAdrienne, your posing as a one time past conservative is hysterical, do you actually think that anybody will buy that. “I may not be a conservative but I play one at home”. Thanks for the laughs.
Posted by: Jay at July 18, 2005 04:22 PMJay,
I’m sure that Adrienne can speak for herself but I just wanted to say I don’t think that Adrienne actually said she was a conservative.
I’ve been reading Watchblog for a while now, Adrienne is one of my favorite commenters and don’t think Adrienne could ever pass herself off as a conservative. Especially not on WB.
I believe in her last post, she ID’d herself as one of the “independent thinkers on the Left”.
Really, go back and re-read her post.
Posted by: Nikita at July 18, 2005 04:36 PMDid anyone really expect anything different than spin and excuses from this administration?
For those of you who support this administration unconditionally I have this: You can lead a horse to water but you can’t convince the horse it’s water unless you can prove that water exists and that this water is in fact water not just some “Liberal” water planted there to make the horse look bad so that the “Left” can then criticize the horse which puts our troops in jeopardy.
Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at July 18, 2005 04:36 PMAddrienne, a former liberal, I used to spend all my weekend afternoons at Moveon.org and A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition ralleys.
But now I’m so outraged at the unfair treatment of Karl Rove by the left that I’ve joined the John Birch society.
Posted by: sanger at July 18, 2005 04:37 PMNot only is Bush flip-flopping, his new position is almost vacuous. If Rove, Scooter Libby, or someone else were convicted of a crime (and I’m sure Bush would never acknowledge that a crime was committed under any other circumstances), they would either go to jail or be on probation. Not even Bush would want someone plotting his political strategy from the federal pen. Working in the White House on probation would be only slightly less ridiculous. So Bush’s new standard is almost no standard at all.
Remember the outcry over Delay, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Trent Lott, Rove …
Hey, you guys get rid of the scumbags, and we’ll stop complaining!
Posted by: Woody Mena at July 18, 2005 04:46 PMWoody, leaking confidential information = crime. Pretty much the same thing. Much like the Delay incident, this will turn out to be another Democrat red herring (Icould be wrong but I doubt it). Also, Nikita, I have read Adrienne’s previous posts as well and agree that many of them are well thought out, however if she is an independent thinker on the left, I sure would hate to see a “radical thinker on the left”.
Posted by: Jay at July 18, 2005 04:55 PMWoody, I will make you a deal, you get rid of Kennedy, Reid, Pelosi, Schumer and Dean and then we’ll talk.
Posted by: Jay at July 18, 2005 05:00 PMYup, this is really how badly the Democrats are losing this argument. I feel like we’re almost in the stage of a drama where we finally get to enjoy a little needed comic relief.
The only ones losing this argument are Rove and his supporters. No objective observer of this situation sees anything but what Rove did: out a CIA agent to a reporter and undermine national security for political gain.
In the end of course, the big loser is the US.
Bush moves the goal posts. Rove and his supporters split hairs with the “I didn’t say her name” jargon. There’s your “narrow hair-splitting”.
Look at the behavior of certain Democrat leaders , whose approach, now that it’s clear they won’t get Rove on for actual wrongdoing, is to now go after him with wordgames and chopped logic along the lines demonstrated in this topic. I appeal to your sense of honesty and your capacity for reason.
Are you really so far gone that you think outing a CIA agent, blowing an undercover CIA business operation and lying about it..all for political gain, is perfectly within the bounds of ethical and moral appropriateness? No “wrongdoing”?
Sad.
What does KOS think, I wonder? Or Michael Moore? I think things could start to get REALLY entertaining now that the case agains Rove has so completely collapsed. Seething rage and frustration may lead the democratic leadership to ever more amusing displays of comic desperation. Pass the popcorn and send in the clowns!
Defend what Rove did. Tell me exactly how it’s good for the US and our national security.
And then tell me why McClellan is sweating so much at his press briefings.
Carla, A Senate Intelligence Committee and the Grand Jury so far disagree with you, It’s not just the conservative pundits. What part of that don’t you understand?
Posted by: Jay at July 18, 2005 05:08 PMCarla, A Senate Intelligence Committee and the Grand Jury so far disagree with you, It’s not just the conservative pundits. What part of that don’t you understand?
Jay—
I have seen no comments or reports from the SIC in regard to Rove and the link. Please provide those.
Further, please provide information that the Grand Jury has no plans to indict Rove or any administration official. Further, please explain why you think that what Rove/Libby have done isn’t at ethical/moral breach.
Thanks.
Posted by: carla at July 18, 2005 05:12 PMACK—typo city. That comment above by me should read:
Jay—
I have seen no comments or reports from the SIC in regard to Rove and the leak. Please provide those.
Further, please provide information that the Grand Jury has no plans to indict Rove or any administration official. Further, please explain why you think that what Rove/Libby have done isn’t an ethical/moral breach.
Thanks.
Posted by: carla at July 18, 2005 05:14 PMso you hear what rove did, and have the facts about it readily available to you. However, instead of acknowledging what happened, you say well the senate committee might not criminally prosecute him so its all good, and he is a wonderful person?
you dont care that he compromised national security unless someone tells you to care?
Honestly?
Sanger:
“I’ve joined the John Birch society.”
I’m not at all surprised.
And yet, I have no idea how you’re going to reconcile yourself with their motto: “Less Government, More Responsibility, and With God’s Help, A Better World” when the only one of those you’ve gotten with Bushco is a whole bunch of lip-service to God.
Sanger,
So the Democrats are losing this argument? Really? Could’ve fooled me, seeing as how Bush is being backed into parsing his words, McClellan is resorting to stonewalling while he sweats out his press briefings, and the headlines of every major media outlet for the past week have been about Rove. You think the coverage is about the fact that Rove “deserves a medal?” Please…
To the rest of GOP America,
This issue is really very simple. Based on what we currently know:
(1) Rove at worst vindictively outed an undercover CIA agent for political reasons.
(2) At best, he “unknowingly” (but does anyone honestly believe that Rove could do anything “unknowingly”?) and carelessly breached security protocols in the protection of an undercover agent.
Please someone tell me, why shouldn’t the latter necessitate his dismissal? Especially considering Bush explicitly stated in 2003 anyone “involved” in the leaking would be fired.
This public debate is being obfuscated by the character assassination of Joe Wilson, but at the end of the day HE WAS 100% RIGHT. Republicans are trying to damage his credibility, but as hard as you try it’s tough to hurt his credibility when HE WAS 100% RIGHT about Niger. Bush and Condi and others have admitted as much by agreeing the Niger claims were overstated.
It’s the same old bag of tricks. When Republicans are criticized they resort to character assassination. They’ve done it to so many people who simply don’t deserve it — Michael Schiavo, Scott Ritter, Joe Wilson, etc. They make out people who merely have viewpoints they disagree with to be morally repugnant people. The amazingly sad and pathetic thing is how many Republicans drink the Talking Points Kool-Aid and believe that these people are actually how they’re portrayed by the Right. At the end of the day, every single one of the people that have incurred the wrath of the administration HAVE BEEN 100% RIGHT. Think about that! Now tell me where the credibility gap lies.
Posted by: Andrew L. at July 18, 2005 05:20 PMCarla, you make three (arguably four) wildly innacurate accusations in one sentence.
“Are you really so far gone that you think outing a CIA agent, blowing an undercover CIA business operation and lying about it…” etcetra.
Nobody’s said that it’s okay to “out” a CIA agent. It’s wrong to do so, but it’s also wrong to accuse people of wrongdoing without proof just to satisfty a partisan grudge. Without knowing the facts, you simply take for granted that Rove did what you WANT him to be guilty of even though the prevailing weight of the evidence (including statements by the prosecuter) shows that he’s probably (though not yet conclusively) innocent.
As for “blowing an undercover operation,”—that is just nonsense. What undercover operation? You’re even off the Democrat’s talking points here, I’m afraid, because even they haven’t accused a “blown operation.”
“…and then lying about it..” Since you don’t even know the truth, how in god’s name can you say that Rove lied about it? How do you know he didn’t tell the truth? You simply have no idea, and you obviously haven’t kept up with this story if you’re not even aware that prosecuter Fitgerald has already said, after more than a year investigating, that Rove is NOT his target. It’s all over the media and you need to do your homework.
Posted by: sanger at July 18, 2005 05:30 PM[Comment deleted for violating our policy - Burt, observe our policy of lose the privilege of commenting here. WatchBlog Managing Editor]
You constantly make reference to Fitzgerald’s statements which you claim are “all over the media”. But of course they aren’t. To my knowledge, Fitzgerald has not made one single public statement regarding this case. If you have links that prove otherwise, please provide them.
What has been widely reported are claims about what Fitzgerald said from Rove’s lawyer. Well, we can certainly trust Rove’s lawyer with the truth can’t we? He wouldn’t try and defend his client by uttering an untruth would he? I mean, he’s a lawyer! He must be telling the truth.
Of course, we have this article out today on Bloomberg that seems to refute those claims, and that’s a little inconvenient for you, but I’m sure you’ll come up with another twist that deflects the truth.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation of the leaking of a Central Intelligence Agency agent’s name is now focused on how Rove, one of President George W. Bush’s closest advisers, and other administration officials dealt with a key fact in an equally key memo.Posted by: Burt at July 18, 2005 05:45 PM
Nikita:
“I’m sure that Adrienne can speak for herself but I just wanted to say I don’t think that Adrienne actually said she was a conservative.”
You’re right, I didn’t. I wouldn’t. I couldn’t. EVER.
“I’ve been reading Watchblog for a while now, Adrienne is one of my favorite commenters”
:^) Thank you! What a very nice thing to say!
“and don’t think Adrienne could ever pass herself off as a conservative. Especially not on WB. “
Honey, I couldn’t even do it for Holloween — far too scary a thought! :^)
“I believe in her last post, she ID’d herself as one of the “independent thinkers on the Left”.”
That’s right. For a long time I’ve been unhappy with the way the Dem’s have been moving toward the right. Then, after the last election I became very angry with the Dem’s for not standing together on the need for election reform — I figured if they didn’t care whether Democratic votes are counted, I might as well vote for a party standing further to the left. At that time, I changed my affiliation to the Green Party. Only problem there is that the Green’s are often too far left on many issues to truly suit me, so it’s a bit of an awkward fit. Truth is, I’m an old-school Democrat, and there really isn’t any party that stands dead center on the left side of the political spectrum anymore.
“Really, go back and re-read her post.”
Nikita, I must tell you, lately I’ve ceased caring what anyone on the right might think of me, but I do thank you for watching my back — and especially for your very kind words!
Best Regards,
Adrienne
Burt, if Fitzgerald isn’t making any details of this case known, as you suggest, then how can Bloomburg say what the investigation is focusing on?
Oh yeah! The media is writing what they THINK (which they’ve been doing for years) instead of what they know, because right now no one KNOWS anything. Just like all of the media outlets and pundits saying that Gonzales was going to be the surpreme court nominee when in fact that decision hasn’t been made by Bush yet.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story, I always say.
Posted by: Rhinehold at July 18, 2005 05:58 PMJust a thought…various postings have mentioned the notion of “winning” this argument. But what would it really mean to “win” this argument? I would doubt that individuals on the left or right really believe they will convince the other side. So back again to this idea of “winning.” Does “winning” mean that the facts will bear them out? That one side or the other will somehow be proven wrong?
Sadly, I think the “victory” being sought is that of political gain — or (on the Republican side right now, IMO) political damage control. In other words, the idea here is to win the battle of public opinion.
That is not, of course, to downplay the serious national security issues involved. These are important, and I would hope that due diligence is given to addressing them. But the amount of attention being given to this issue leaves little doubt in my mind that the major battle here is one of political spin.
Actually, I don’t think that’s necessarily all bad. I mean, if it’s true that a major political figure knowingly “outed” a CIA agent for political revenge, then I would hope their political party WOULD suffer. Justice would demand it.
But my real point here is, again, what does victory look like? If my theory is right that political gain is what is being sought — then, sorry Reps, you’ve already lost. Whether it’s a minor loss or a major one is yet to be determined. But Rove has mud on his face in the court of public opinion. Almost no matter what happens from here, this issue will haunt him, will haunt any political campaign with which he is involved. Whether you feel it’s justified or not fails to change the likely outcome — this issue is likely to “stick” in the court of public opinion. I daresay that’s why there’s so much attention to the issue on the Rep side.
Of course, the extent of the political loss will depend greatly on events from here on out. Obviously a criminal charge (which seems unlikely) would be the worst case scenario. But a constant stream of information that damages Rove’s image or credibility could be almost as bad.
Posted by: Steve Westby at July 18, 2005 06:04 PMSorry to “double post”…but if I may, I was going to add that the likely reason this issue will “stick” in the court of public opinion is that the allegation fits with what seems to be Rove’s persona — smart, shrewd political operative. People are willing to believe unethical things about people with that image. In some ways, its the same reason that the “weak on defense” label worked for the Reps in their effort to defeat Kerry.
Posted by: Steve Westby at July 18, 2005 06:11 PMBurt, nice. It’s always interesting to me to compare the time stamps between when something is first posted or linked on the Daily Kos and when it first gets posted by a Democrat in one of these forums. One hour and twelve seconds in your case.
This article discusses the matter you’re looking into. And to point out the obvious, the writer of that article you’ve been sent to from the Daily KOS doesn’t cite known or anonymous sources in claiming to know what the investigation is centering on. It’s completely unsourced, leading one you think that the media is starting to mistake it’s own obsessions with an judicial investigation.
I am perplexed at the constant cry of constitutional rights for the terrorists held by the military, the cry of innocent until proven guilty for the terrorists. Yet, Carl Rove has been tried & convicted in the court of public opinion & is ready for lynching. I’m glad the left & the liberal news media don’t set as judges in our courts. There would be no need for a jury.
Perplexed
Perplexed wrote:
I am perplexed at the constant cry of constitutional rights for the terrorists held by the military, the cry of innocent until proven guilty for the terrorists. Yet, Carl Rove has been tried & convicted in the court of public opinion & is ready for lynching. I’m glad the left & the liberal news media don’t set as judges in our courts. There would be no need for a jury.
I’m not sure I follow your logic. You seem to say that the Dems (or liberals) place too much trust in the court system on the one hand (e.g., when it comes to putting terrorists on trial) — and too little trust in that same system on the other hand (e.g., in the Rove matter).
If what you’re saying is that we shouldn’t jump to conclusions, shouldn’t make decisions before all the facts are out, I would agree. But I would point out that the Reps have been flagrant violators of such a notion as well in the past. Again, the goal of the parties here doesn’t seem to be “justice” (in my opinion). If that were the goal, people would be willing to sit back and let the judicial system work. No, the goal here is political gain. Both sides have shown that they will leap at almost any opportunity to get it — or to prevent the other side from getting it.
Posted by: Steve Westby at July 18, 2005 06:38 PMWow, I think there are far too many posts on the left column about the Rove leak. Honestly, I agree with those individuals who have posted that we need to wait for the end of the investigation (which is less than three months away), before we make too many judgements.
That being said, Rove has admitted, at the very minimum, to having unkowningly provided classified information to a reporter. And the publishing of that information would have an impact on our national security.
The outstanding issues as they pertain to Rove are, 1) Is he lying about not knowing that the information was classified 2) Were his intentions somehow “honorable” when he passed this information on to Cooper. 3) Was it his responsibility to make sure that the information was not classified before he gave the information to a reporter?
The answers are 1) Not enough information to make an informed decision. 2) Past behaviour can provide a guideline to his intentions. 3) Are there examples of what one should do before telling someone that a person is working at the CIA?
As for the “victory” that I would like to see, my feelings center on the GOP smear campaign that started after Rove was outed. I’d like to see the outright lies on the GOP talking points exposed, ridiculed, and as a result, an elevation of national dialogue that focuses on arguments based on facts, not innuendo and mud-slinging. Consistently, I have seen the GOP run out their talking points on TV, and each time, the newscaster doesn’t call them on their lies. If someone would just point it out and embarass these individuals, maybe we could start getting some real news, instead of this silly nonsense.
Will this be the issue that wakes up the American public into how far the political dialogue has fallen? That people can get on TV and just make up things in order to further their agenda, without fearing someone calling them on their falsehoods?
Maybe, maybe not. It sure would be nice though.
Posted by: Julia at July 18, 2005 06:42 PMAdrienne,
No problem. I’m aware that you can stick up for yourself much better than I could. I’ve been reading WB for a while and OK, this is going to sound like I have no life, but I think that I actually remember exactly when you switched parties. Isn’t that wierd?
Anyway, when Jay wrote what he did about you, I knew it was unnecessary but I really couldn’t check the impulse to jump to your defense. Especially when it was such an easy one ie: read what she wrote dammit!
Back on topic, I think that Steve Westby is correct that this will boil down to political loss/gain. Like I said before, the republicans are out-politicking the democrats and I still don’t see dems winning on this unless Rove’s indicted. Hell, probably not even then. Democrats may have solid facts but the republicans have one hell of a spin machine. Then again, you never know. We’ll see…
Posted by: Nikita at July 18, 2005 06:47 PMJulia wrote:
Will this be the issue that wakes up the American public into how far the political dialogue has fallen? That people can get on TV and just make up things in order to further their agenda, without fearing someone calling them on their falsehoods?Maybe, maybe not. It sure would be nice though.
Hear, hear! Nicely put. I like your image of “victory.” Let us hope we can learn to treat those with opposing views with the kind of respect necessary to accomplish the goal of elevating political discourse in this country.
Posted by: Steve Westby at July 18, 2005 06:49 PMCarla, you make three (arguably four) wildly innacurate accusations in one sentence.
“Are you really so far gone that you think outing a CIA agent, blowing an undercover CIA business operation and lying about it…” etcetra.
Nobody’s said that it’s okay to “out” a CIA agent. It’s wrong to do so, but it’s also wrong to accuse people of wrongdoing without proof just to satisfty a partisan grudge.
And if only that were the case, this point would make sense. It isn’t.
Rove outed Wilson’s wife as a CIA agent. That is fact. There’s nothing wildly accusatory about this whatsoever.
Without knowing the facts, you simply take for granted that Rove did what you WANT him to be guilty of even though the prevailing weight of the evidence (including statements by the prosecuter) shows that he’s probably (though not yet conclusively) innocent.
What part of Cooper’s GJ testimony and subsequent Time article and press interviews are you unable to understand? Rove outed Wilson’s wife as a CIA agent to Cooper. If you’re defending Rove..you’re defending what he did. Plain and simple. Therefore you’re defending the outing of a CIA agent to the press.
As for “blowing an undercover operation,”—that is just nonsense. What undercover operation? You’re even off the Democrat’s talking points here, I’m afraid, because even they haven’t accused a “blown operation.”
You’ve been caught shockingly unaware, I see. This undercover operation (See known background)
“…and then lying about it..” Since you don’t even know the truth, how in god’s name can you say that Rove lied about it?
Let me clarify. I didn’t mean to infer that Rove lied about his role…yet. I was saying that the administration lied about Rove’s involvement in the link. See also Scott McClellan.
You simply have no idea, and you obviously haven’t kept up with this story if you’re not even aware that prosecuter Fitgerald has already said, after more than a year investigating, that Rove is NOT his target. It’s all over the media and you need to do your homework.
Whether or not Rove is actually Fitzgerald’s target is irrelevant. Rove leaked the story to Cooper and probably to Novak, Miller and a host of other newspeople.
And frankly, I don’t know where you’re getting your claim that Fitzgerald isn’t focusing on Rove. I’ve checked the AP and other news services and see nothing about that. Please post a link.
Nikita wrote:
Like I said before, the republicans are out-politicking the democrats and I still don’t see dems winning on this unless Rove’s indicted. Hell, probably not even then. Democrats may have solid facts but the republicans have one hell of a spin machine. Then again, you never know. We’ll see…
It will indeed be interesting to see. My hope for my party is that we will not seek to make up ground against the Republicans by engaging in the same kind of tactics they’ve been using. But to get back to the point…I actually think there’s several reasons to have some optimism about the Dems winning the war of public opinion. For one thing, all of the focus is on the Reps. There’s no democratic challenger for them to counter-attack — it’s just not an election year. Second, like I said before, this allegation fits (in my opinion) with the public perception of Rove. Third, Bush is no longer the wildly popular president he once was. He’s getting blamed for the status of the war in Iraq, his wildly unpopular vision for the future of social security, etc. This matter just piles on even more bad news, PR-wise, for the current administration.
Of course, that’s just increasing the Reps negative polling right now — not necessarily helping to elevate the discourse. Which brings me back to something I was saying earlier. The Dems have an opportunity to do something with this opportunity — I hope that they use it for more than merely bashing the Reps. I hope they use it for demonstrating a new kind of leadership.
Posted by: Steve Westby at July 18, 2005 07:01 PMRheinhold and Sanger,
I’m still waiting for quotes from Fitzgerald that you have been holding up as proof to exonerate Rove. I’ll continue to wait but won’t hold my breath.
Secondly, just because Fitzgerald isn’t talking doesn’t mean that there aren’t facts that we KNOW to be true. We know that Rove was Cooper’s source of Valerie Plame’s identity. Cooper has said it and Rove’s attorney has admitted that it is true.
We also know that Scott McClellan has said that Rove and Libby had nothing to do with the Plame leak even though that is in direct contrast to the fact above that we KNOW to be true.
Also, we know that Bush and McClellan have both said that anyone involved in the Plame leak would be fired. I’ll be happy to provide links if you need them. We also know that Bush has now changed his tune and has indicated that someone would need to have violated the letter of the law in order to be fired.
These are things we know.
Regarding the Bloomberg article I posted, I didn’t get it from DailyKos. In fact, I posted a link to the same article in another thread here first thing this morning. I guess you weren’t paying attention.
And finally, that article does indeed have sources:
according to lawyers familiar with the case and a witness who has testified before the grand jury
So now I have to admit that there are indeed leaks coming out of the grand jury that implicate Rove in addition to leaks that attempt to clear him.
Posted by: Burt at July 18, 2005 07:25 PMI find that I say this a lot with the liberal side of the blog. Let’s wait and see what happens. Right now you got nothing. The best indications are that Rove was not the leak at least the way that we define leak. Ms. Wilson’s status was not a well-kept secret. Rove found out from journalists.
I know you all want to expand the discussion, but you can’t. You have no basis. This too will pass. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
Don’t take our word for it. Read what the liberal media said about the ">http://www.bakerlaw.com/files/tbl_s10News/FileUpload44/10159/Amici%20Brief%20032305%20(Final).PDF”> Plame case
not long ago.
I know some of you are sincere in your beliefs, but think about it for more than a short time and you will find you have nothing.
Beyond that, you are treading were you don’t want to be. Hear me! If we enhance the inviolability of government secrets, lefties will suffer a lot more in the future than the people they are trying to punish today.
Rove is in trouble because none of the Repuglicans have gone out to defend him. Where is DeLay, Frist, Bush, McCain with their cries of “He’s innocent?”.
Republicans are hiding. Just like they hide from the Recruitment Officer. Tie a “Support the Troops” Ribbon in their SUV and stay away from their kids.
Aldous
We have defended Rove, but he requires little defense since you guys got nothing and leading liberals are starting to figure that out. This is just the Dems sound and fury. How can we respond?
Posted by: jack at July 18, 2005 10:05 PMJack-
Your advice may prove wise, but we’ve waited a long time for some progress on this issues, so forgive our impatience.
Rheinhold and Sanger,I’m still waiting for quotes from Fitzgerald that you have been holding up as proof to exonerate Rove. I’ll continue to wait but won’t hold my breath.
And you won’t get them from me because I never said there were any.
You did.
I’ve been the one wanting people to let the investigation go through, just as some of us allowed the Clinton investigation to continue without making any rash decisions, before we hang someone and call for his firing, something the liberals are really good at lately…
You hold Bloomburg up as your source that Fitzgerald’s investigation is focused on Rove. It is HIGHLY ironic that you on one hand claim that we don’t know what Fitzgerald is investigating (which I agree with, we don’t) and then go on to quote a media source saying exactly that they DO know what is going on. They don’t. You don’t. Nobody does, as I stated before.
So, wait all you like, you’ll not get me to try to prove anything I’ve never stated as truth in any way. Please feel free to use it as some vindication that you are right in your straw man fallacies, if it gets you through the night.
Posted by: Rhinehold at July 18, 2005 10:53 PMThe Special Prosecutor is a Republican. Hence, if he finds no wrong doing by any in the Whitehouse, half or more the people in this country will view such an outcome as political whitewash. If on the other hand, he finds insufficient evidence that a crime was committed but admits ethics violations occurred, about 45% of the people will believe it was a political whitewash. If he finds a crime was committed but there was insufficient evidence to prosecute, half or more of the nation will view this as political protection.
Then again, if he finds a crime was committed and he successfully prosecutes one or more Whitehouse staff who are pardoned, fired, or reprimanded, half the country will view the result as politcal protectionism. And finally, if he finds the crime was committed and the guilty parties go to jail, then the opposite 40% of the country will scream the prosecutor is RINO (Republican In Name Only).
None of the above has any real meaning in the long run. For any of this to have meaning, the proceedings would have to result in a process in which swift and sure justice for anyone abusing the power of office for political gain is implemented. That hasn’t a snowball’s chance in hell of coming to pass. The Republican and Democratic Parties would both insure such a process never came to pass. Now that is meaningful.
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 18, 2005 11:39 PMRheinhold,
That particular quote of mine regarding Fitzgerald was directed at Sanger. I apologize if you took it to be directed at you.
However, I noticed that you didn’t respond to any of the rest of my post, which was directed at you, which detailed exactly what we DO know.
To respond to you directly, I never claimed that we didn’t know what Fitzgerald was investigating. I said that Fitzgerald himself has never publicly made any comment.
What I did claim, was that we DO know quite a bit about what is going on despite the fact that Fitzgerald isn’t talking. And what we do know doesn’t look good for Mr. Rove.
You can claim that the Bloomberg article has no basis in fact, but you have absolutely no reason to state that other than the fact that you would rather not believe what it has to say. Bloomberg is a reputable news source, not a liberal sounding board that you can dismiss out of hand.
Posted by: Burt at July 19, 2005 12:24 AMJack:
“The best indications are that Rove was not the leak at least the way that we define leak.”
Maybe the way you Bush apologist’s want to define it, but many more people in this country simply aren’t buying that crap for a second, Jack. Cooper didn’t know that Valerie Plame was CIA until he talked to Rove, so that should definitely be considered a leak. To say otherwise I feel is to be completely dishonest and full of sh*t.
According to an ABC news poll that was released today, only a fourth of American’s believe the White House is fully cooperating with the investigation — that is down from half in 2003 when this whole probe began.
“We have defended Rove, but he requires little defense since you guys got nothing and leading liberals are starting to figure that out.”
I think it would be completely ridiculous to believe that Rove’s involvement in this case isn’t seriously worrying the Republican faithful right now — who’ve already been anxious about Bush’s sharp decline in all of the public opinion polls.
“Ms. Wilson�s status was not a well-kept secret.”
This is a LIE — nothing but a GOP talking point.
“Rove found out from journalists.”
Sure, and if we are to actually take that seriously, we’d believe anything, I guess. Personally I’m curious about that memo with Plame/Wilson’s name on it that went aboard Air Force One to Africa, and the phone records that were collected during that flight…
“It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.”
So you like Auld Will, do you? I happen to be very fond of him myself. Let’s try another quote from the great man, shall we?
“How oft the sight of means to do ill deeds, makes ill deeds done!”
or perhaps:
“Lawless are they that make their wills their law.”
Do you suppose those might be appropriate here, as well?
I think so, and yet, a few lines from Robert Burns may be even better still:
“Here’s freedom to them that would read.
Here’s freedom to them that would write,
There’s nane ever fear’d that the truth should be heard,
But they whom the truth would indite!”
;^)
You can claim that the Bloomberg article has no basis in fact, but you have absolutely no reason to state that other than the fact that you would rather not believe what it has to say. Bloomberg is a reputable news source, not a liberal sounding board that you can dismiss out of hand.
Again with the Straw Man.
You assume that I care if Rove is guilty or not. I don’t particularly one way or the other. But I’m not willing to say he is guilty until it is proven so. Just as I was unwilling to do the same for Clinton until it was proven in that case.
So please erect your straw men somewhere else.
Posted by: Rhinehold at July 19, 2005 01:00 AM IMHO
Just like A “Modern Era” politician, you Talk out OF both sides of your Mouth(s).
PRESIDENT BUSH:
You promised the American People and the entire world that the person(s) responsible who leaked the information on Valerie Plame, would be dealt with Swiftly and harshly. NO MATTER WHO IT WAS, NO QUALIFIERS. Now it turns out that just because all the EVIDENCE POINTS TO A PERSON HIGH IN YOUR CABINET, YOU ALL OF A SUDDEN CHANGE YOUR STANCE “MID STREAM”. I urge this of you “MR PRESIDENT, STEP UP, PUT ASIDE YOUR PETTY DIFFERENCES AND LEAD THIS COUNTRY IN THE DIRECTION WE NEED TO GO IN,..FORWARD.
Why the Qualifiers now? LEAD THIS COUNTRY NOW, DECISIVELY, WITH FULL HEART WE NEED YOU TO STAND UP FOR your statements, Sometimes admitting that you are wrong can lead to whole new found respect. Are you a man of your word or not?
Pretty Harsh Words, I know. But you have all heard the promises from day one.
As Always,
Wayne
Just FYI Rhinehold: Technically, Clinton never committed perjury about having “sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court.”
I’ll bet Rove and Libby will be cleared of high treason on some legal technicality.
Posted by: American Pundit at July 19, 2005 03:38 AMIn all honesty, I don’t think this is going to be swept under the rug. You don’t jail Journalists for minor legalities. Wonder what the Prosecutor found out reading the White House Mail?
Posted by: Aldous at July 19, 2005 04:42 AMAldous, she is in jail on contenpt charges for failing to reveal her source, which many journalists do when facing this situation in court, it’s minor and pretty common (unlike when Susan McDougal was in jail). I like the line “Bush apologists” as an attempt to put us back on our heels. There is NOTHING to apologize for, there is nothing here, move on.org (sorry couldn’t resist). At the very least, let the GJ finish their job before you finish forming the lynch mob. However, I do find it fascinating that so much time and energy has been spent on this (by the way nice link Jack), whatever happened to all of the other hot issues that so enraged you the War, Guantanamo, the economy, SS, Delay, it’s so hard to get traction in quick sand. The left has become mental over GW and it will cost them another election for they have yet to tell the American public what they would do if in power, and doing the opposite of whatever GW does is not a platform.
Posted by: Jay at July 19, 2005 08:33 AMWe have defended Rove, but he requires little defense since you guys got nothing and leading liberals are starting to figure that out. This is just the Dems sound and fury. How can we respond?
Jack, you are rather confident that there is nothing here, but you have no firsthand knowledge of the matter (I assume). Of course that presumably applies to all of us here, but the people who do know are in the White House. They’ve already contradicted themselves, and now they’ve clammed up. I’ll put more stock in their reaction than yours.
Posted by: Woody Mena at July 19, 2005 08:44 AMFirst of all, most americans do noy even know who the participants are in the tangled web.
Secondly, they don’t care.
This is another “inside the beltway” crisis.
Thirdly, 52% of the american people support president Bush, 35-40% hate hime no matter what he does, & 10-13% are undecided.
Perplexed
Posted by: Perplexed at July 19, 2005 09:04 AMRheinhold,
I guess you’re just simply impossible to have a discussion with. Fair enough.
You claim no one knows enough about the case to make any judgement of any kind. I point out plenty of facts we know that are not debatable that allow us to reach a number of conclusions. You refuse to acknowledge them. Like I said, fair enough.
For me, I don’t need to “proof” that the bus will hit me before I decide to step out of the way. I’m able to make a rational judgment based on facts that I know and make assumptions based on those facts. You’re different.
Posted by: Burt at July 19, 2005 09:30 AMPerplexed, make that 42% who think he is doing a good job as President, overall. Latest polls.
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 19, 2005 09:36 AMPerplexed,
Where do you get the 52%? That was the % of voters. The last polls I read had Bush43 in the low 40’s for job approval.
Jay,
Lots of people on the right like to say how the Democrats “lost” the election. I think it’s more like the Republicans were willing to do “what it took” to win. That includes every disgusting dirty trick thought up by Atwater et. al. and honed by Rove et. al. The right feels better when they don’t have to admit how abominable their politics have become.
Jack,
When it looks like crap, smells like crap, and tastes like crap, it’s crap. And that is what Rove did to Wilson, just more of his same old crap. Too bad Bush43 thinks loyalty to staff is more important than loyalty to the country.
Posted by: Dave at July 19, 2005 09:37 AMYou just proved my point Dave. That statement, by it’s very nature, accuses the Amercian voting public of being too stupid to realize what there voting for and therein lies the Dem problem. The average Amercian is much more informed and intelligent than you realize and they act on that information when they go to the polls. The democrats have offered nothing positive or constructive for the future of the country, merely we hear the mantra “I hate Republicans and everything they stand for”, which is not a real good way of connecting with the public, but hey just my opinion. I guarantee that if Dean, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer and Kennedy continue to lead this party, it will be a long time before they occupy the WH. And this is coming from a conservative who voted for Clinton, who had the smarts enough to stay above the fray and connect with the average American. The party is light years away from that now.
Posted by: Jay at July 19, 2005 09:49 AMJay,
I never said the American public was stupid. It’s a fact that half the people are smarter than average. Evidenced, by example, that as we continue to see Bush43’s true colors he has lost 20% of his support (52% to 42% & 20% of 52% = 10%).
That is of course, not to say how brainwashed and/or misguided his core is. For example, the “have offered nothing positive or constructive for the future of the country” mantra. Did you read any of the Democratic literature during the campaign? If you had you would have known what their proposals were. There were alot, by the way. (Too much for most people to read actually, another failed tactic. Inform doesn’t work against platitude.)
Kerry lost because we were at war and BushRove was not afraid to divide our nation further in order to win. As I said, the Bush politic is abominable. I saw much much much more of “I hate Democrats” and “Kill all traitorous Liberals” than I saw of “I hate the Religious zealots” and “I hate NeoCons.” More and more people see the tacticts of hate and division by BushRove and are sick and tired of it. The remaining 40% are the ones too stubborn to admit the mistake and move on.
AP,
Just FYI Rhinehold: Technically, Clinton never committed perjury about having “sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court.”
So, tell me again technically why he wasn’t able to practice law in Arkansas after he was found guilty of perjury?
Burt,
I guess you’re just simply impossible to have a discussion with. Fair enough.
You’re not having a discussion with me, you’re having one with a straw man. You keep making up what my opinion is and then arguing that.
You claim no one knows enough about the case to make any judgement of any kind. I point out plenty of facts we know that are not debatable that allow us to reach a number of conclusions. You refuse to acknowledge them. Like I said, fair enough.
No, you claimed that and then went on and did exactly that. As for the facts that are not debatable, I’ve seen any number of those things that specifically are debatable debated here. I’m not as sure about some of them as obviously you are. And to me there seems to be still many things we aren’t sure about that I want to know for sure before I assume is guilty.
For example, it is stated that Rove told the reporter that Wilson’s wife was a CIA agent. From what I’ve seen, he did not. He did say that Wilson was asked to go to Niger through his wife who was involved in investigating WMD. Technicality? Yes, no, maybe. I want to know more of the facts that are being investigated and are NOT released yet to view this in it’s proper context. For me, the smoking gun has not been handed over yet. If and when it does, you’ll find me asking for him to be fired and I would expect he would be.
For me, I don’t need to “proof” that the bus will hit me before I decide to step out of the way. I’m able to make a rational judgment based on facts that I know and make assumptions based on those facts. You’re different.
You say two things here that caught my attention. You don’t need ‘proof’. Good for you, I would like to have some of that though. Just my personality I suppose.
You also say you are able to make rational judgements… Again, I would like more proof before I agree to that statement.
I do agree that we are different though.
Posted by: Rhinehold at July 19, 2005 10:29 AMRhinehold, Clinton wasn’t found guilty. Arkansas temporarily suspended his law license based only on the allegations. Clinton just decided to give up law after that.
You talk about wanting to know the facts in the Rove case, but you don’t seem particularly interested in facts when they can’t be spun your way.
Dave, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but the last election refutes your assumptions (and the voters did know what they were voting for). Also, the Republican party is comprised of a lot more than “religious zealots” and “neocons”, that is another fatal misconception of the Dems. I consider myself neither of those yet can find nothing in the current Democratic platform that appeals to me. The Dems will just not acknowledge that their message is not resonating with enough people, deluding themselves into thinking that the public is either too stupid or just not enough people voted, or that the right kind of people have not voted. Try looking internally, not externally.
Posted by: Jay at July 19, 2005 10:51 AMArkansas temporarily suspended his law license based only on the allegations. Clinton just decided to give up law after that.
Interesting spin… let’s look at it in a more non-partisan light.
“The perjury allegations provoked the Arkansas Supreme Court to suspend Clinton’s law license in April 2000. Clinton agreed to the 5-year suspension and to pay a $25,000 fine on January 19, 2001. The following October, the Supreme Court once again suspended Clinton’s law license and gave him 40 days to convince them that he should not be disbarred permanently. Clinton surrendered his law license in response to these actions”
Posted by: Rhinehold at July 19, 2005 11:02 AMRhinehold/AP
Clinton accepted loss of license rather than go through disbarment proceedings after a Judge fined him $90k for lying in a disposition. I don’t remember what the specifics were of that finding.
Posted by: Dave at July 19, 2005 11:08 AMI consider myself neither of those yet can find nothing in the current Democratic platform that appeals to me.
Wow. Really? You don’t like fiscal responsibility? A strong military? How about reducing the cost of health care? Or homeland defense? Or better intelligence to stop the next terrorist attack before it occurs? What about quality education?
You must be really hard to please… Or you’ve never bothered to look at the Democratic Party platform and you’re just talking out your rear. Take another look. And here’s the Democrat’s ten key pieces of legislation for 2005.
Posted by: American Pundit at July 19, 2005 11:09 AMRhinehold, you crack me up. That’s the wikipedia article I was summarizing. Exactly how did I spin it? Was his license not suspended? Was it not a temporary suspension? Did he not decide to give up law? You’re really reaching, buddy. :)
Jay,
There’s a big difference between:
The democrats have offered nothing positive or constructive for the future of the country, merely we hear the mantra “I hate Republicans and everything they stand for”and
I (…) find nothing in the current Democratic platform that appeals to me. The Dems will just not acknowledge that their message is not resonating with enough people,
But neither of those statements disprove my post and in fact prove mine. It’s obvious that if the Democratic platform had resonated more with the public then Keery would have won. Duh. More people would have voted for Kerry than Bush. The problem I’m higlighting is that the KarlBush politiking was purely negative and divisive and what they were willing to do to get votes went way over the boundries of what I consider acceptable. RoveWilson is just a tip of the iceburg. The Swift Boat Liars for Bush and that asshole who went to churches and got priests to preach “A vote for Kerry will send you to hell you murderous abortionist” are other examples. Message and platform became secondary to the “Hate the babykiller commie Liberal traitor enemy” approach. Your first post is proof of the residual effect from that. You started with “I hate Republicans” not “nothing appealed to me”
Enough of my soapboxing… Do you think the Bush is protecting Rove more than he should? Or do you hold to the “well it isn’t proved illegal yet so there should be no repercussions yet”?
The evidence is there he outed Wilson. It might not have been illegal but it was intended to shut the door on the Niger memo, i.e. it was politics not an accident.
Rhienhold,
My apologies again. I see now that you are just incredibily uninformed about the matter.
You say:
For example, it is stated that Rove told the reporter that Wilson’s wife was a CIA agent. From what I’ve seen, he did not. He did say that Wilson was asked to go to Niger through his wife who was involved in investigating WMD.
From Cooper’s notes of his discussion with Rove:
“it was, KR said, wilson’s wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip.”
So can we now admit that Rove DID in fact say that she worked at the CIA? Unless you’d like to dispute the fact that “agency” means “CIA”. That’s an argument you can make, but virtually no one will back you up on it.
Additionally, in Cooper’s notes, he states that the above conversation was on “double super secret background”. Now, I wonder why something that Rove didn’t know was a secret would only be dished out under “double super secret background”?
And finally, just to make things absolutely clear to you, Rove’s attorney has confirmed that the above conversation took place and has not disputed any of Cooper’s notes or statements on the situtation.
That’s enough for me to conclude that the above discussion did in fact take place and that a CIA agent was outed by Karl Rove.
I don’t know whether that constitutes a crime or not. I will certainly wait for the prosecutor to determine the status on that. But what I don’t think can be disputed at this point is that Karl Rove leaked the identity of a CIA agent. I don’t need any more proof than what is already available to me.
Again, you may be different. Maybe you need to be told what is true and what is not. Maybe you are unable to think critically and come to your own conclusions when presented with enough evidence.
Posted by: Burt at July 19, 2005 11:41 AMDave, I have nothing left to say to someone who uses the rhetoric you do. “a vote for Kerry will send you to hell”, “hate the babykiller commie liberal traitor”, jeez man lighten up. This is EXACTLY why you and Dean will continue to lose every election. Ciao.
Posted by: Jay at July 19, 2005 11:42 AMBurt, again for you and Stephen, the Grand Jury determines guilt, not you or any other left wing pundit. Get a grip and move on.org (sorry, I love that reference).
Posted by: Jay at July 19, 2005 11:44 AMJay,
Of course I’m exagerating the language but that is the gist of how many conservatives spoke in October and November 2004, and some still do. Do you remember how popular Ann Coulter was and her books like “Treason: Liberal Treachery” and “How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)”? What about the O’neill book? Or, perhaps it’s selective memory loss?
In the end, it’s how KarlBush won in 2000 and 2004. It’s just a shame that that’s how Hillary might win in 2008.
Posted by: Dave at July 19, 2005 12:33 PMThere you go again…
Bush has flip-flopped! This is “changing the rules after the game has been started,” as the neocons screamed about in defending BushCo in ‘00 after the first “election”.
You neocons are so predictable. Every time you’re nailed to the wall on some screwup by your beloved leader or his chronies, you attack the messenger. This thread is a classic example. Another tactic: Jump on one minor word or phrase that has little to do with THE POINT and argue it. This is repeated again and again. Why do you liberals and democrats take this bait? They can’t argue the facts, so they attack, deflect, and blab.
I would bet that had we had blogs during Watergate you neocons would have backed Nixon even after the smoking gun! (“Haldeman, Dean, they all conspired against him!”)
Posted by: Sleemoth at July 19, 2005 03:18 PMIt’s a good thing Rove didn’t lie about his sex life. Then he’d really be in trouble.
Posted by: ElliottBay at July 19, 2005 04:00 PMElliotBay,
With that pudgy Himmler face, maybe screwing the American people is Karl’s sex life?
Posted by: Dave at July 19, 2005 09:33 PMHere is a grand idea. Why not wait and allow the process to work before calling for Rove to be fired. The old innocent until proven (not by media) guilty thing…
Posted by: Curmudgeon-at-large at July 21, 2005 04:16 PMCurmu,
Rove already admitted he told reporters about Wilson’s wife. Illegal or not, the WH lied about it or was lied to by Rove about it for the next 2 years.
Either KKKarl or BBBush need to go. EOS.
Posted by: Dave at July 21, 2005 09:23 PMDave,
More speculation from the media as to what Rove said or did not say. Even Dick Morris has chimed in by stating that Rove really did not break any laws. Personally, I believe many only want Rove to go down based on their hate for Bush. Let the system work and hold the man to the same standard our nation gives a murderer. That really is not asking too much is it?
Posted by: Curmudgeon-at-large at July 22, 2005 04:30 PMIt is too much to ask.
We need to hold our elected officials to the highest possible standard. Remember Bush’es campaign pledge “I will Restore Honor and Integrity to the White House”???
Rove leaked the name of an NOC agent. Proveably illegal or not, he should resign or be fired if he won’t.
I re-read your post. Do you believe Rove did not leak the name? He already admitted he did, they’re just arguing it wasn’t illegal.
Posted by: Dave at July 22, 2005 09:41 PMDave,
I was not there and I, being a curmudgeon, do not trust the media when it comes to matters of the Bush administration. There is a trmendous amount of hate and animosity that leads to the exageration of facts. TIME magazine and Dan Rather are great examples of this bias. That being said, when a Dem like Dick Morris comes out and states that Rove did not break any law, well then that is a compelling statement. My belief is let Rove do his job, let the investigation run the course, and lets move on to more important matters. If he did not break a law then he should stay regardless of what Bush might of said. Politicians state a lot of things, not ONE has done everything promised. Stop holding Bush to a HIGHER standard than you would a Dem. Its dishonest.
If Clinton can survive perjury, than Rove can most certainly survive this unscathed, and should.
Posted by: Curmudgeon-at-large at July 23, 2005 06:06 PMCurmu,
Rove gave explicit permission to let the reporter reveal that he, Rove, let Plame’s name slip. Rove’s defense, now, is that it wasn’t illegal. The White House no longer denies Rove did this.
So, it’s OK to you that Rove revealed the name of a covert CIA operative. Nice.
Posted by: Dave at July 23, 2005 10:17 PM
