The Bush Watch - Chapter 2

[Miulang]

Karl Rove: Son of "Deep Throat"?

If this story is corroborated by the reporter's notes that Time Magazine turned over to investigators, Karl Rove, the evil puppeteer who controls George Bush, may be getting his just reward.

According to Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, the person who provided the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame to reporter Matt Cooper was Karl Rove.

"...According to published reports, Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the case, has interviewed President Bush and Vice President Cheney and called Karl Rove, among others, to testify before the grand jury.

"The breadth of Fitzgerald's inquiry has led to speculation that it has evolved into an investigation of a conspiracy to leak Plame's identity," the Chicago Tribune observed on Friday, "or of an attempt to cover up White House involvement in the leak."

Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller, held in contempt for refusing to name sources, tried Friday to stay out of jail by arguing for home detention instead after Time Inc. surrendered its reporter's notes to a prosecutor...."

And since Karl Rove already appeared before Patrick Fitzgerald and denied that he or anyone in the White House had knowledge of who the mole was, if the story is true, then Karl Rove would be guilty of perjury and could be thrown in the slammer. Ah, poetic justice! And if Karl Rove is found to be the mole who outted Ms. Plame, what would his motive be? To set Time Magazine up? To get back at the President?

Although it is alarming that Time Magazine tiptoed around the First Amendment by turning the documents over to the special prosecutor, maybe in this case, it was a good thing they did...or maybe they were pissed off at the Republicans for hogtying the media and this is their way of getting back at them.

Miulang

[waioli kai]

re: Karl Rove, Creep Throat D'evil

re: Karl Rove, Creep Throat D'evil

Who runs the United States? Meet the architects of Bushism :

Neocons dance a Strauss waltz
By Jim Lobe, Asia Times

WASHINGTON - Is United States foreign policy being run by followers of an obscure German Jewish political philosopher whose views were elitist, amoral and hostile to democratic government? Suddenly, political Washington is abuzz about Leo Strauss, who arrived in the US in 1938 and taught at several major universities before his death in 1973.

Following recent articles in the US press, and as reported in Asia Times Online This war is brought to you by ... in March, the cognoscenti are becoming aware that key neoconservative strategists behind the Bush administration's aggressive foreign and military policy consider themselves to be followers of Strauss, although the philosopher - an expert on Plato and Aristotle - rarely addressed current events in his writings.

The most prominent is Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, now widely known as "Wolfowitz of Arabia" for his obsession with ousting Iraq's Saddam Hussein as the first step in transforming the entire Arab Middle East. Wolfowitz is also seen as the chief architect of Washington's post-September 11 global strategy, including its controversial preemption policy.

[Miulang]

Re: The Bush Watch - Chapter 2

In case you had doubts that the current White House Administration is the most secretive in the history of this country, doubt no more. The White House minions are classifying documents at the rate of 125 a minute, and the total number of classified pages in 2004 was more than double that of 2001, while the number of declassified pages has gone down from 204 million pages in 1997 to just 28 million in 2004.

It cost taxpayers $7.2 billion last year to store the classified documents, which range from the top secret to the trivial (some of the trivial pieces of information protected now are the 1950s and '60s budgets of the CIA, and the fact that Chilean ex-dictator Augosto Pinochet enjoyed horseback riding, fencing and boxing).

This paranoiac Administration believes classifying all documents will ensure that some of their "mistakes" will remain hidden for generations to come. The White House is slowly but surely dismantling the Freedom of Information Act and the right of Americans to know what's going on. When a citizen or entity requests documents under the FOIA, more often than not, the request gets delayed somewhere; if a document actually is presented, most of it is redacted, so it's hard to really know what the true content was.

Miulang

[Miulang]

Rove sweating bullets over loose lips?

Larry O'Donnell of MSNBC--bless his little pointed head--made Karl Rove's attorney work overtime this weekend, according to this update from O'Donnell.

Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, admits now that Rove DID talk to Time Mag reporter Matt Cooper, but he won't divulge whether or not the conversation included the outing (whether unintentional or not) of CIA undercover agent Valerie Plame. Identifying our spooks is a big no-no and against our national security policies, and even though Rove might still be able to get away with admitting that he "unknowingly" outted Plame, he and his lawyers are stonewalling and don't want to talk about that conversation. If he has nothing to hide, why are he and his attorney not speaking the truth? And he's way more smart than Dubya (after all, Rove and Cheney are controlling Dubya's strings) so the stupidity defense isn't going to cut it, I'm afraid, not like it would with the Prez. Liar, liar, pants on fire!

Miulang

[Miulang]

Would you be willing to put your life on the line?

Since the 229th birthday of this country was just yesterday, here's another thinkpiece to consider. Would you be willing to die for America like the Founding Fathers were? Or are you just mouthing the word "patriotic"? Some people would argue that it's not practical to be willing to die for your ideals. If it's not practical, why isn't it practical to stand up and put your life on the line to defend the Constitution? Why isn't it possible to be like Patrick Henry who said, "Give me liberty or give me death"? As makule as I may be , if an enemy ever directly invaded this country, you bet I would fight that enemy to the death because I still believe in the Constitution as it was drafted and the freedoms that were outlined in that document. But I don't count myself as one of the people who thinks that by engaging an enemy on their "home turf" that that's going to prevent an attack on this country. We would do ourselves and the rest of the world a big favor by bringing our guys back to the US and letting them defend THIS country, not some other place in the world.

Miulang

[Miulang]

Suppressing the media

It's not bad enough that the White House has every single national media outlet eating out of its hands, but now comes another attempt to stifle those reporters who are bold enough to report the truth.

Today, the American free press and the First Amendment suffered a major blow when a US District judge ordered New York Times reporter Judith Miller to jail for refusing to disclose her source in the investigation of the leak of an undercover CIA officer's name.

Ms. Miller is upholding a ethical standard that has been practiced by all journalists in this country since its inception: the right not to disclose their sources without retribution. When I was in journalism school, this is one of the first things I learned: confirm your facts, but never disclose your sources.

And until this White House, which has its own skeletons in its closet, forced the issue when the Chief Prosecutor earlier this week stated that no one was immune from disclosing the sources of information, the Courts pretty much left the media alone.

Time Magazine released documents to the special prosecutor last week only because the publisher believed that by presenting the documents to the investigators, that would preclude the need for Matt Cooper, its reporter, from actually testifying. But that wasn't good enough for the prosecutor, and now Matt Cooper will also have to go to jail for refusing to divulge his sources of information.

What I don't get is how Robert Novak, the guy who outed Valerie Plame in the first place, is immune from prosecution? Is it because he's looked upon more favorably by the White House than reporters from Time Magazine and the NYT? Novak says he'll come clean once the investigation is over...um, that will be a little too late.

I have a feeling that the opening salvo on a war between the press and the White House has just been fired. One thing the media will not tolerate is to be stifled by threats of incarceration. Maybe now, after snoozing for 5 years, the media will wake up and start reporting the truth. Because truthfully, how many special prosecutors can put how many reporters in jail for withholding sources because there is an outright rebellion?

Miulang

[Miulang]

Karl Rove better 'fess up or else...

Too bad this letter to the White House that will be sent tomorrow will be misconstrued by the Republicans and conservatives as the Democrats whining again.

There is a fundamental truth that needs to be established that has nothing to do with partisanship. And that is, should high officials of the government be granted immunity from repercussions if they knowingly or unknowingly jeopardize national security?

Miulang

[Miulang]

Re: Karl Rove: Son of "Deep Throat"?

If this story is corroborated by the reporter's notes that Time Magazine turned over to investigators, Karl Rove, the evil puppeteer who controls George Bush, may be getting his just reward.
Miulang

If the unfolding Rove brouhaha wasn't so pathetic, it might be funny. Two years ago, when Valerie Plame was first outed as a covert CIA operative, the White House said that anyone in the White House who could be tracked as the source of the leak would be fired.

Skip forward now to July, 2005. Now that the cat is out of the bag and Karl Rove and Scooter Libby (one of Cheney's boys) both admit to being "official sources" of information, what does Dubya do? Today he issues a statement saying anyone in his Administration who committed a crime in leaking the CIA operative's name would be fired, instead of his original statement that he would fire anyone who leaked information. The definition of "leaking" apparently now means that confirming a fact (without actually offering a name) is not "leaking".

I don 't like the Democrats (Kerry, Clinton et al) muddying the waters with their stupid calls for firing Rove because all of that will be discounted anyway as a partisan act. But has anyone noticed a pattern in this White House of stating something and then down the road when the opinion appears to be going against them, that they recraft their original statement to soften the blow?

So now, even if Libby and Rove can be proven to be the leaks, so long as it can be proven that they didn't actually utter the name of the operative to Matthew Cooper it means they can't be indicted or fired? Hmm...

And as for Rove's contention that the operative's name came from "someone in the media", maybe that's why the special prosecutor is taking his sweet time in adjudicating the case. I think Fitzgerald really is trying to get to the bottom of things.

Today's word for the White House is obfuscate: obfuscate
verb obfuscated, obfuscating

1. To darken or obscure something.
2. To obscure something or make it difficult to understand.

Thesaurus: muddle, confuse, obscure, camouflage, whitewash.
3. To bewilder or confuse someone.



Miulang

[Miulang]

Re: The Bush Watch - Chapter 2

Smoke and mirrors. Yup, that's what it's all about.

Miulang

[Miulang]

John WHO????

Somebody leaked the name of the person the Prez wants to nominate to succeed Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., now serving on US Court of Appeals for the DC circuit. He also was a member of both George HW's and Ronald Reagan's administrations. He also clerked for Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist.

A quick scanning of his CV indicates that he's against Roe v. Wade and he's against governmental regulation of the environment.

Of course, the Democrats will have lots to say about this nominee and this will probably require envoking the nuclear option which will bring the government to a screeching halt.

My own hypothesis is the Prez picked him in order to distract Congress' attention from the Rove debacle. The Dems will now have to decide which is more important: nailing Rove or protecting moderate interests on the Supreme Court.

I think the media is finally getting back at the White House: AP reported the name of the nominee a full 73 minutes before the Prez was supposed to address the press with the name. (heh heh)

Miulang

P.S. Turns out Judge Roberts has a Hawaii connection. He represented the State in the Rice v. Cayetano case a few years ago.

[Miulang]

Re: Karl Rove: Son of "Deep Throat"?

If the unfolding Rove brouhaha wasn't so pathetic, it might be funny. Two years ago, when Valerie Plame was first outed as a covert CIA operative, the White House said that anyone in the White House who could be tracked as the source of the leak would be fired.

Skip forward now to July, 2005. Now that the cat is out of the bag and Karl Rove and Scooter Libby (one of Cheney's boys) both admit to being "official sources" of information, what does Dubya do? Today he issues a statement saying anyone in his Administration who committed a crime in leaking the CIA operative's name would be fired, instead of his original statement that he would fire anyone who leaked information. The definition of "leaking" apparently now means that confirming a fact (without actually offering a name) is not "leaking".

I don 't like the Democrats (Kerry, Clinton et al) muddying the waters with their stupid calls for firing Rove because all of that will be discounted anyway as a partisan act. But has anyone noticed a pattern in this White House of stating something and then down the road when the opinion appears to be going against them, that they recraft their original statement to soften the blow?

So now, even if Libby and Rove can be proven to be the leaks, so long as it can be proven that they didn't actually utter the name of the operative to Matthew Cooper it means they can't be indicted or fired? Hmm...

And as for Rove's contention that the operative's name came from "someone in the media", maybe that's why the special prosecutor is taking his sweet time in adjudicating the case. I think Fitzgerald really is trying to get to the bottom of things.

Today's word for the White House is obfuscate: obfuscate
verb obfuscated, obfuscating

1. To darken or obscure something.
2. To obscure something or make it difficult to understand.

Thesaurus: muddle, confuse, obscure, camouflage, whitewash.
3. To bewilder or confuse someone.



Miulang

I believe the American public now has the "smoking gun" that is needed to convict Karl Rove and Scooter Libby of treason. There is a memo that was issued by a State Dept analyst in which Valerie Plame was noted to be working for the CIA and that her status was a secret.

"... A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials...."

Is Rove's attorney going to try to deflect what is patently obvious (that Rove leaked the information to Matt Cooper) by saying that the name in the document is Valerie Wilson (her married name) and not Valerie Plame? What kind of idiots do they think we are? If we can track down the owner of a website, what makes them think we can't do a search and figure out what Mrs. Wilson's maiden name was?

Miulang

[Miulang]

Re: John WHO????

My own hypothesis is the Prez picked him in order to distract Congress' attention from the Rove debacle. The Dems will now have to decide which is more important: nailing Rove or protecting moderate interests on the Supreme Court.

Here's another little tidbit, originally reported by the Washington Post and picked up by the Moscow Times:

"...last Friday, a panel of federal judges -- including John Roberts, nominated for the Supreme Court this week -- upheld Bush's claim to dispose of "enemy combatants" any way he pleases, The Washington Post reports. In a chilling decision, the judges ruled that the Commander's arbitrarily designated "enemies" are nonpersons: Neither the Geneva Conventions nor American military and domestic law apply to such garbage. Bush is now free to subject anyone he likes to his self-concocted "military tribunal" system, a brutal sham that retired top U.S. military officials have denounced as a "kangaroo court" that tyrants around the world will cite in order to hide their oppression under U.S. precedent...."

Can you say, political payback? Of course, that's usually how Ambassadorships are doled out, too. But to have someone who can possibly undermine and obstruct our Constitutional rights for 20 years or more (and screw all of us) is way too obvious.

Miulang

[Miulang]

He's not running for any public office...

and yet the Republican Party is paying for TV commercials, sending out emails and doing other advertising encouraging people to write to their Senators and Congressmen to demand that John Roberts be confirmed as the next U.S. Supreme Court Justice.

I NEVER in my life can remember ever seeing a political party pay for ads to support a person who's not running for public office! My immediate reaction is, "OK, what in his past could come up and bite him in the butt which is why the Republicans are spending all this money?" Why else would the Republicans take so much interest in having him confirmed, when the Democrats haven't officially said they wouldn't confirm him?

Miulang

[Miulang]

Re: The Bush Watch - Chapter 2

Oops! Spoke too soon. Here comes the dirt on John Roberts now, and it might be hard for the Republicans to refute most of this because everything is in the public record.

Miulang

[Miulang]

Karl Rove: The New Machiavelli?

The Guardian UK is a liberal media outlet, no doubt about it. But this story about Karl Rove, although slanted, does provide some interesting insights to how this high school graduate managed to control the mind of the most powerful man in the world.

P.S. I think the reason he's so vindictive might be traced back to the fact that he didn't find out until he was 19 that the father he thought was his biological father wasn't.

Miulang