Karl Rove, traitor

[tristano's ghost]

Hunter from Kos nails it:

Karl Rove, Traitor
by Hunter
Thu Jun 23rd, 2005 at 15:34:11 PDT


Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. [...]
Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.

-- Karl Rove

"I just got off the phone with Karl Rove, who said your wife was fair game."
-- MSNBC host Chris Matthews, in a phone call to Ambassador Joseph Wilson after the exposure of Wilson's wife as an undercover CIA operative.


If there is one person in America that should shy away from making declarations about the motives of liberals, it is Karl Rove. We still do not know who, in the Plame case, committed the initial crime of "outing" the identity of a CIA agent working undercover on weapons of mass destruction. But we do know who took point on gaining maximum exposure of that information, by "shopping" it to a wide selection of perceived-friendly conservative news figures in an attempt to make the results as widespread and damaging as possible.

That person was Karl Rove, and the goal was to use the criminal exposure of an American agent as Republican political capital for the White House. The exposure was from that point on coordinated as a means of punishment against a political opponent -- and as a very public warning against any other American officials or intelligence agents that might come forward with opinions that conflicted with the Bush Administration statements in the runup to the Iraq War.

The complicity of media figures such as Chris Matthews, Andrea Mitchell, and the execrable Robert Novak (who has shared a long and storied history benefitting from Rove-provided leaks) was reason enough for most media outlets to treat the story delicately, though it did get play (even, hilariously, from some of the media figures that refused to acknowledge their own roles while gamely interviewing others about the leaks.) But there's nothing delicate about the story.

After the catastrophic destruction of 9/11 in New York City and Washington, during a time of war, during ongoing operations in Afghanistan, during fevered investigations into the possibility of al-Qaeda or other terrorist cells gaining access to weapons of mass destruction, members of the Bush Administration chose to "out" a deep-cover agent working against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in retailation for a perceived political slight by her husband. In the process of the outing, the Administration destroyed the cover of the energy company she ostensibly worked for, ended her covert career, and endangered every foreign source and contact that she and her fellow agents had been involved with.

It was, unambiguously, an act of treason in a time of war. And one that Bush Administration officials intentionally inflicted upon her, and upon the country. And one that Karl Rove, White House political director, played a key and unapologetic role in. Whether or not Rove was the original source of the leak to Novak himself, it is astonishing that we live in a political climate where politically piggybacking off such a crime is not considered a fireable offense. Such is the nature of the Bush White House.

We do not know who the original leaker was, in the Plame case, for one simple reason: the White House has chosen to block investigation of the matter. Phone records from the offices in question are easily obtainable; the numbers of individuals with access to the information number perhaps in the half-dozen range; the President himself could, in the interest of national security, demand of his staff that they expose the leaker. Instead, the President has "lawyered up", and presented the country with hollow-eyed, slackjawed silence in the whole affair. With each passing revelation, it becomes more clear that there were a host of senior administration officials tasked with retribution against intelligence analysts and agencies who dared go against the Bush Administration "preferred" analyses of Iraq.

In one of the many ironies of the Plame case, Plame herself was transferred back to Washington D.C. in 1997, where she met Wilson, for fears her cover had been blown by double agent Aldrich Ames. As it turned out, Ames didn't out her.

But members of the Bush Administration, seeking payback against her "Democrat" husband, did.

Karl Rove knows all about putting American troops, and American citizens, in danger. And for that, he deserves a contempt beyond that which it is possible for mere words to describe.

Amazing. Even a traitor to the Russians didn't out her.. but Karl Rove and his minions did.

These clowns aren't only devious--they're incompetent. They can't do anything except save their own skins and win elections by a nose. (Sometimes they don't even win and get into office anyway.)

Rove is an audacious, immoral hypocrite. Michael Fitzgerald, the conservative prosecutor in the Plame investigation, is allegedly a man of principle. I'm still hoping that he nails Rove and co. to the wall for blowing the cover of a WMD operative. And our spineless leader still refuses to do anything about the traitor--or traitors--that he harbors in the White House. Well, hell, they let male prostitute Jeff Gannon run around there even on days when there were no press conferences; what's the big deal about having a traitor on the premises too?

[Monte Smith]

Hahaha.

Hey!!!

You stole my line!

I just hope TG yelled Geronimo!!! on the way down.

I'm gonna miss 'im.

[Captain Hate]

Originally Posted by tristano's ghost

These clowns aren't only devious--they're incompetent.

Rove must've really hit close to home to get the Kostards this agitated. So what is it: Eeeeeeeeeeevil genius or incompetent? Incompetent like Bob Shrum??

[Monte Smith]

Karl Rove should be indicted and given therapy for suggesting that in response to the savage attacks on 9/11, liberals wanted to issue indictments and give therapy.

[Paul B]

Anyone who could be a member of a party that endorses (and employs) Karl Rove is, frankly, immoral. That guy is a foul stain--not that most of his colleagues in the White House aren't--be he's the worst. Pure scum, and anyone who supports him is scum too.

My favorite blogger, the Rude Pundit, offers another take:

Karl Rove To America: Suck It:
Let’s dispose of this quickly, shall we? When Howard Dean speaks, he’s speaking as the chair of the Democratic Party. The Democrats pay him. If Democrats around the nation don’t like what Dean says, then they can cease donating to the party. When Dick Durbin speaks, he’s representing the people of Illinois, to whom he will be answerable when he’s up for re-election. When Karl Rove speaks, he’s talking as an official with the White House. The only person he’s accountable to is the President, who, as Scott McClellan so dismissingly pointed out, won’t ask Rove to apologize. Rove’s paid by each and every tax-paying American. He represents all of us.

So when that cock gobbler wants to get his rocks off by jackin’ it in front of "hundreds" of slavering lap dogs, ready to lick his scrotum at a moment’s notice, and he wants to use that moment of yankin’ his crank to declare that liberals are pussies who want American soldiers to die, he may as well add, "Oh, and any of you who disagree with me can suck it. And, hey, thanks for the paycheck." (Which is, more or less, what he said last night on Scarborough Country.)

Somewhere, deep in the basement of the White House, Karl Rove’s leather slave is weeping. Rove keeps his leather slave chained to the radiator, right next to one of FDR’s soiled wheelchairs and Taft’s slop trough. The leather slave is weeping and frightened because he knows his tears will only cause Rove to put on the spiked glove to smack his ass into a bloody pulp. And the thought of this causes him to weep more – it’s a vicious cycle. Karl Rove’s leather slave started weeping because whenever Rove comes back to the White House after giving a hate-filled screed to an audience that loves him, like a fresh antelope carcass tossed into the lion’s den, Rove will want to take out his great glee and orgasmic power on the supple ass cheeks and elastic mouth of his slave.

Karl Rove’s leather slave hears the door to the basement open. "Honey, I’m home," he hears Rove announce. And it’s true. And, oh, sweet Jesus, he’s wearing the chaps, a raging hard-on, and nothing else. Sadly, Karl Rove’s leather slave puts away the K-Y. He knows he’s about to get fucked hard and rough, a cock thrust so far up his asshole that, as Rove likes to say, "I’ll come out of your mouth."

Rove approaches, taking down Teddy Roosevelt’s riding crop, and says, "Oh, you know you love the sting."

[clinthopson]

You gotta give it to Rove for hooking up with the great unwashed masses.

[lynn]

I think when history is writen, it will finally acknowlege the 30+ year footprint that Karl Rove has planted on the Republican Party and it won't look very pretty.

Those guys better wake up and smell the heap.

[Coda]

I wrecked my nostrils under the Clinton administration. It was like 8 years of living next to the corpse lilly. Rove smells like a rose in comparison.

[groover]

Originally Posted by Coda

I wrecked my nostrils under the Clinton administration. It was like 8 years of living next to the corpse lilly. Rove smells like a rose in comparison.

I guess that's why Dubya's nickname for him is "Turd Blossom". Breathe deeply!

[groover]

Joel Achenbach of the Washington Post has explained Rove's comments.

http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/achenblog/2005/06/stalinist_repub.html

--------------------------------------------------------

Karl, Go Say Something Dumb

Karl Rove reportedly said the other night, "Al Jazeera now broadcasts to the region the words of Senator Durbin, certainly putting America's men and women in uniform in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals." This comment and more many like it have set off another round of demands for an apology, followed by demands that those who are demanding an apology apologize -- and so on. We live in an apology culture; unless you say something that later will require an apology you won't be heard to begin with. [A personal note: I would like to apologize for comparing Guantanamo Bay to Chesapeake Bay. That was a huge exaggeration.]

I will give Rove the benefit of the doubt and assume his words had some kind of broader, less ridiculous context. Rove knows as well as anyone that liberals are not firing IEDs at our soldiers. He also is enough of a student of history to know that any attempt to muzzle your political opponents for national security reasons (the comfort-to-the-enemy argument) is the first step toward ... wait, let me think of a moderate term that won't get me in trouble like Durbin...okay, toward Stalinism.

My guess is that, as part of some double-secret triple-backloop political strategy, Rove realized he needed to cause a distraction. He informed the president that the poll numbers were looking bad, or that Social Security privatization is about as likely as the resurgence of alchemy. The president said, "Karl, go out there and say something really dumb." By now you should know that nothing happens in the White House political shop except for very calculated reasons. Rove is a red herring. Keep your eye on the big fish.

[sonic1]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Karl Rove should be indicted and given therapy for suggesting that in response to the savage attacks on 9/11, liberals wanted to issue indictments and give therapy.

Yeah, jesus. I would rather say that the liberals in response to 9/11 became a bunch of lapdogs and gave way for conservatives to do anything they want in the whitehouse. Liberals became afraid to be liberals.

Al Jazeera now broadcasts to the region the words of Senator Durbin, certainly putting America's men and women in uniform in greater danger.

So let me ask you this. Would you have been outraged if he had left off here?

By the way, love the URL.

[Paul B]

Liberals became afraid to be liberals.

You got that right....

[sonic1]

Karl Rove reportedly said the other night, "Al Jazeera now broadcasts to the region the words of Senator Durbin, certainly putting America's men and women in uniform in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."

No more needs to be said about the motives of Karl Rove's camp. The message here is: be afraid to be American.

And how are liberals speaking as liberals more dangerous for soldiers than starting a bogus war and throwing your weight around the middle east like you own it? To me it seems like that is much more reckless.

[groover]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

So let me ask you this. Would you have been outraged if he had left off here?

I might not have been, but then, I'm not really a liberal, especially by Rove's definition. I was glad to see a military response to 9/11, though I think it's also critical for us to understand why they hate us so much and make sure our own house is in order. The world is not as simply black-and-white as Rove seems to see it; reality is far more nuanced with shades of grey. He's smart enough to know that, but, as Achenbach pointed out, these comments were tossed out more as partisan political theatre than insightful analysis.

[Slurpy]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Mr. B,

Any chance you can explain the morals of the Rude Pundit for writing such a piece? And yours for so gleefully posting it here?

Oh, c'mon Scott. The rude dude sounds like a somewhat amateurish cross between Hunter Thompson and Zappa. I know you know about the Cock
Sucker's Ball "for all you Republican's out there".

Personally, I think he went easy on Karl but who cares? As long as Bush's numbers continue to drop, distractions like patriotic flag burning amendments and sleazy partisan rhetoric will be used to incite in order to keep Goober Nation's eyes averted from reality.

[patricia]

I take umbrage to the modern interpretation of the term "LIBERAL.
My understanding of being politically liberal has always been one who is not narrow in one's ideas, who is open to all ideas, not locked into traditional thought, simply because it is traditional.
It would seem to me that being open to all input, from all citizens, would be a good thing.
The self-described conservatives have hijacked a perfectly good description of a modern thinker and turned it into an insult. Shame on them!!!

[jeff54]

Al Jazeera now broadcasts to the region the words of Senator Durbin, certainly putting America's men and women in uniform in greater danger.

They wouldn't be in any danger if Bush hadn't sent them to Iraq in the first place, to fight in a war that doesn't serve the national interest.

[sonic1]

Rove doesn't care. He is speaking to a constituency. Most everyone will either not hear, or ignore these comments. They serve their purpose by keeping the hatred of the liberals strong-and casting liberals as a threat to national security.

This kind of talk takes away the ammunition from those that have valid arguments that our current foreign policy is dangerous to americans. That they are stirring up bee hives (and taking the honey).

Originally Posted by Slurpz

Oh, c'mon Scott. The rude dude sounds like a somewhat amateurish cross between Hunter Thompson and Zappa. I know you know about the Cock
Sucker's Ball "for all you Republican's out there".

Of course I do. But what does any of that have to do with the meaning of my question?

It was more about the hypocritical nature of B's statement about being immoral, and then following it with the piece he did.

[Paul B]

Scott, surely even you can tell the difference between immoral (Rove) and dirty (the Rude Pundit). Then again, you're a guy who (if I recall correctly) considers John Coltrane to be immoral. Not sure how you can square that with the absolutely below-the-belt nastiness of Rove and his ilk--but you'll do anything to "win" an argument, so fair's fair. I'd refer you to an Atlantic article of about six months ago if you need a refresher course on Rove's foul self. But you probably don't care.

I agree that the Rude Pundit (http://rudepundit.blogspot.com) is often over-the-top. But he's also on the mark. A top-notch blogger.

Bye-ya

I'll do anything to win an argument? I probably apologize for being wrong more than anybody else here.

Then again, you're a guy who (if I recall correctly) considers John Coltrane to be immoral.

Yes, I consider cheating on ones spouse as being immoral. And the most despicable form of betrayal that could ever be perpetrated on someone.

[Paul B]

More despicable than waging war?

Anyway, Joe Conason chimes in on the Rove sitch. Lucid, as always (and not dirty, so you'll be able to read it, Scott).

****

une 24, 2005 | Karl Rove is a liar and a scoundrel. He is not a patriot but a pure partisan, as his own record proved long before now.

The other night Rove lied about the liberal reaction to the Sept. 11 attacks and again exploited patriotism for narrow partisan advantage in a time of war. He seeks to divert public opinion from the failures of the Bush administration by suppressing dissent, stigmatizing "liberals" and returning to the same old tactics that the Republican far right has used ever since the McCarthy era.

His unhinged rhetoric is a sign of deep worry within the White House, of course, as polls continue to show deepening public alienation from the president and growing skepticism about the war in Iraq. Most Americans now understand that they have been deceived about the war from the beginning, and most doubt the Bush administration's strategy for extricating our troops. Moreover, Rove must cope with Republicans as well as Democrats who are openly dissenting from the administration line, not only regarding Iraq but on the Bolton nomination and Social Security privatization.

Evidently Rove believes that demonizing Democrats and liberals will distract the nation from the Bush administration's failures. That tactic has certainly served him well in the past, when he managed to divert attention from the failure to deal with the terrorist threat before 9/11, the failure to speak honestly about the alleged threat from Iraq and the failure to plan intelligently for the Iraq invasion and its aftermath. We have paid an enormous price for those failures, yet cynical Rove still thinks he can convince us that this is all the fault of "liberals."

As a New Yorker who stood on my street and watched the Twin Towers fall, I take strong personal exception to Rove's ugly slander against "liberals." According to him, liberals "saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." That broad-brush smear is false, and Rove knows it.

The truth is that liberal New York -- and the vast majority of American liberals and progressives -- stood with the president in his decision to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban. On the day of the attacks, I wrote a column that endorsed "hunting down and punishing" those responsible because the dead deserved justice -- and noted that when the culpability of Osama bin Laden and the Taliban was established, the United States "is fully capable of dealing with them."

Six weeks after 9/11 and two weeks after the United States started bombing the terrorist camps in Afghanistan, I appeared on CBS's "Early Show" to support the Bush administration's actions. Correspondent Lisa Birnbach made the point that liberals and Democrats who had once opposed the war in Vietnam were standing shoulder to shoulder with a president they didn't much like (and, although she didn't mention it, whose legitimacy they continued to doubt).

Noting the ubiquitous presence of American flags as we walked around the very liberal neighborhood where I live, Birnbach said, "This old lefty [Conason] is suddenly siding with the White House."

Responding to her question about the U.S. war against al-Qaida and the Taliban, I told Birnbach: "I'm not going to say I agree with every policy this administration will pursue, but so far, so good." Although she sounded surprised, the fact is that I was scarcely alone on the liberal left in expressing those sentiments.

In the aftermath of 9/11, liberal Democrats on Capitol Hill stood proudly with conservative Republicans to pledge their support for military action against al-Qaida and the Taliban. The wobbly weakness of George W. Bush's initial response to the terror strikes went unmentioned, as did anything else that might hint at dissension at a moment of crisis. When Bush delivered his powerful speech to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, 2001, he won standing applause across the bitter divide left by the 2000 election. For the first time in memory, Democratic congressional leaders declined free airtime to answer a Republican presidential address.

"We want America to speak with one voice tonight and we want enemies and the whole world and all of our citizens to know that America speaks tonight with one voice," said Rep. Richard Gephardt, then the House Democratic leader. "We have faith in [Bush] and his colleagues in the executive branch to do this in the right way."

Tom Daschle, then the Senate Democratic leader, stood with his Republican counterpart, Trent Lott, to show bipartisan support for the president. "Tonight there is no opposition party," said Lott. "We stand here united, not as Republicans and Democrats, not as Southerners or Westerners or Midwesterners or Easterners, but as Americans." Daschle echoed Lott: "We want President Bush to know -- we want the world to know -- that he can depend on us."

Even Rep. Maxine Waters, the liberal Los Angeles Democrat who at the time was among Bush's toughest critics on the left, praised him without reservation. "He hit a home run," she said. "We may disagree later, but now is not the time."

Among the other liberal journalists who backed Bush was Jacob Weisberg, now editor of Slate magazine, who has published several volumes mocking Bush's difficulties with the English language.

Weisberg said then, "He was very shaky at first, but I resisted the urge to write a piece saying that, because I didn't think it was appropriate ... Bush deserves the benefit of the doubt to an enormous degree. He needs to rally the nation. I want to contribute to that effort to the extent that I can."

But we now know that even then, at the peak of national unity, Rove was planning to make suckers of the Democrats and liberals who had spoken out in support of the president. He didn't care about bipartisan cooperation, or about the benefit of the doubt that Democrats had given Bush. He behaved as a partisan, not a patriot.

Rove would soon discard the inspiring presidential rhetoric that had joined Americans across race, religion and ideology. The slogan of a nation at war that blossomed on billboards, bumper stickers and storefronts -- "United We Stand" -- was no longer operative.

Or so Rove explained to his fellow "patriots" at a closed meeting of the Republican National Committee during their winter conference in Austin, Texas. Less than four months after Bush's Sept. 20 address to the joint session of Congress, he was scheming to win the midterm elections by transforming the "war on terror" into a war on Democrats.

"We can go to the country on this issue, because they trust the Republican Party to do a better job of protecting and strengthening America's military might and thereby protecting America," he said. Provocative as those remarks were, they were mild compared with the kind of slanders that ensued against Daschle -- who was paired with Saddam and bin Laden -- and many other Democratic candidates.

So when vicious little Ken Mehlman, the RNC chairman, claims that Rove was referring only to Michael Moore, he's lying too. I expect no apologies from either of them or their bullying supporters. They should expect none when those they have insulted and betrayed tell them what they are.

More despicable than waging war?

Yes.

What personal betrayal is there in waging war? I mean, ok, if we suddenly waged war against England, that would be a betrayal.

And are you telling me that cheating on your spouse is not immoral?

Karl Rove is a liar and a scoundrel.

This opening sentence made it perfectly clear that this was going to be a thouhgtful and balanced piece.

Lucid?

Ummm...........

No.

This could have been written by al-Bertson in his sleep.

[Paul B]

The piece is quite balanced. Conason goes to great lengths to point out the he and other liberals have not always been against Bush. Can you show me a comparable statement from your side of the fence? I doubt it. It's cool for Fox "News" and Ann Coulter to blather on, but when I guy like Conason writes a measured piece, you still think it's biased?

Hard to take you seriously sometimes.

Bye-ya.

You didn't answer my other question.

[Paul B]

Fair enough.

Yes, I think cheating is immoral. But I also think it's a complex issue that would have to be judged on a case-by-case basis. I never met John Coltrane, so I don't know what made him tick, or why he had affairs. So I'm willing to withold judgement--both on him and on anyone else, frankly. I don't think cheating is like murder, rape or other heinous crimes, so I'm willing to be a bit forgiving.

Bye-ya

[sonic1]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Yes.

What personal betrayal is there in waging war? I mean, ok, if we suddenly waged war against England, that would be a betrayal.

And are you telling me that cheating on your spouse is not immoral?

And thus the problem with conservative sentiment. They are much more worried about face than lives.