Karl Rove's generalization was completely accurate. Two to four years ago, before the opposition became totally obsessed with Bush-hating to the exclusion of everything else, they actually used to put some ideas for dealing with Arab problem on the table- and indictments, therapy, and understanding was exactly (and predictably) what they came up with. (Some of the therapy proposals still aren't such bad ideas if used in proper conjunction with force). Conservatives, meanwhile, tend to see war and economics as the answer to everything, as they always have.
Karl Rove is a bas***d
- Thread starter TOVisitor
- Start date
Truncador said:
The left was right there supporting Bush all the way in the pursuit of Bin Laden. To suggest anything else has no basis in fact, and suggests instead an overreliance on Rush, Sean, et al., for information.
From: http://driftglass.blogspot.com/
driftglass is talking about Truncador!!!!!
You know, I was reading driftglass quite intently ... and then as I read the last paragraph quoted above -- a laser beam of recognition hit me.driftglass said:
driftglass is talking about Truncador!!!!!
<snip>
And they took the Neocon Masturbatory Fantasy Outcome of the War seriously. Ripped to the tits on the Ouroborean narcotic effects of eating the lotuses that were growing out their own asses, the PNAC Daisy Chain saw a Brave New World of unfettered capitalism. One where they ruled the Earth by fiat and fancy. Where star chambers, unelected Directorates and contract-mercenary armies completely replaced courts, representative governments and a military that was answerable to civilian authority and was obedient to a legal chain-of-command. All paid for by oil revenues looted from conquered nations.
Don't forget to add otb, in with Truncador, they both sing the same tune and share the same slavish obsequiousness to all the Shrub does. It is strange bot has been AWOL from the board lately but then Truncador appears out of nowhere spouting off the same slick clever flawed shrub neocon defenses, along with a pandering to the Almighty MIC they both so love & adore...........
And they took the Neocon Masturbatory Fantasy Outcome of the War seriously. Ripped to the tits on the Ouroborean narcotic effects of eating the lotuses that were growing out their own asses, the PNAC Daisy Chain saw a Brave New World of unfettered capitalism. One where they ruled the Earth by fiat and fancy. Where star chambers, unelected Directorates and contract-mercenary armies completely replaced courts, representative governments and a military that was answerable to civilian authority and was obedient to a legal chain-of-command. All paid for by oil revenues looted from conquered nations.
Think you are on to something.TOVisitor said:
Don't forget to add otb, in with Truncador, they both sing the same tune and share the same slavish obsequiousness to all the Shrub does. It is strange bot has been AWOL from the board lately but then Truncador appears out of nowhere spouting off the same slick clever flawed shrub neocon defenses, along with a pandering to the Almighty MIC they both so love & adore...........
This is just demented. It reads like it was written by a paranoid schizophrenic. Then again, the line between the more aggressive Bush-haters and victims of schizophrenia and other organic brain disorders is becoming difficult to draw as the former sink deeper and deeper into an episode of mass psychosis.
Definition of Dubya as our Chief Hegemon
And they took the Neocon Masturbatory Fantasy Outcome of the War seriously. Ripped to the tits on the Ouroborean narcotic effects of eating the lotuses that were growing out their own asses, the PNAC Daisy Chain saw a Brave New World of unfettered capitalism. One where they ruled the Earth by fiat and fancy. Where star chambers, unelected Directorates and contract-mercenary armies completely replaced courts, representative governments and a military that was answerable to civilian authority and was obedient to a legal chain-of-command. All paid for by oil revenues looted from conquered nations.
It all ties together quite nicely in the USA, the MIC, the drift towards Plutocracy, New World Order, et al.
In fact it appears to be an apt description of that 'natural ideal hegemon' led/dictated by the Shrub administration, that you alluded to in the Nuremberg Files thread recently........
And they took the Neocon Masturbatory Fantasy Outcome of the War seriously. Ripped to the tits on the Ouroborean narcotic effects of eating the lotuses that were growing out their own asses, the PNAC Daisy Chain saw a Brave New World of unfettered capitalism. One where they ruled the Earth by fiat and fancy. Where star chambers, unelected Directorates and contract-mercenary armies completely replaced courts, representative governments and a military that was answerable to civilian authority and was obedient to a legal chain-of-command. All paid for by oil revenues looted from conquered nations.
Not demented at all.Truncador said:
It all ties together quite nicely in the USA, the MIC, the drift towards Plutocracy, New World Order, et al.
In fact it appears to be an apt description of that 'natural ideal hegemon' led/dictated by the Shrub administration, that you alluded to in the Nuremberg Files thread recently........
Here you go, CoolDude. The latest on the McCain front. And it's only gonna get worse.
http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tall...20.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
War of words between GOP and Democrats only getting nastier
BY ALLEN PUSEY
The Dallas Morning News
WASHINGTON - (KRT) - Continuing a summer of political discontent, Republican leaders had harsh words for the Democrats Friday, and a few took swings at some of their own.
Speaking before a group of college-aged Republicans, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay decried recent attacks by prominent Democrats as "jaw-dropping and unprecedented in my lifetime."
Speaking to the same group a few hours later, party strategist Grover Norquist lambasted three Republicans who broke party ranks over the issue of judicial filibusters. He referred to them as "the two girls from Maine and the nut-job from Arizona" - Sens. Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and John McCain.
<snip>
But it was the broadside by Norquist - who is president of Americans for Tax Reform and ran the College Republicans when Abramoff was its chairman - that raised eyebrows among the students, particularly the reference to McCain.
McCain is chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, which is investigating Abramoff's lobbying on behalf of tribal casino interests. Tension between the two intensified last month, when the committee subpoenaed the financial records of Norquist's nonprofit group, including the organization's donor list. Testimony and records showed some tribal funds were directed to Norquist's organization. But there has been no allegation of wrongdoing by Norquist.
McCain has a snowball's chance in hell of ever seeing the White House. He should have signed up with Kerry.
http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tall...20.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
War of words between GOP and Democrats only getting nastier
BY ALLEN PUSEY
The Dallas Morning News
WASHINGTON - (KRT) - Continuing a summer of political discontent, Republican leaders had harsh words for the Democrats Friday, and a few took swings at some of their own.
Speaking before a group of college-aged Republicans, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay decried recent attacks by prominent Democrats as "jaw-dropping and unprecedented in my lifetime."
Speaking to the same group a few hours later, party strategist Grover Norquist lambasted three Republicans who broke party ranks over the issue of judicial filibusters. He referred to them as "the two girls from Maine and the nut-job from Arizona" - Sens. Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and John McCain.
<snip>
But it was the broadside by Norquist - who is president of Americans for Tax Reform and ran the College Republicans when Abramoff was its chairman - that raised eyebrows among the students, particularly the reference to McCain.
McCain is chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, which is investigating Abramoff's lobbying on behalf of tribal casino interests. Tension between the two intensified last month, when the committee subpoenaed the financial records of Norquist's nonprofit group, including the organization's donor list. Testimony and records showed some tribal funds were directed to Norquist's organization. But there has been no allegation of wrongdoing by Norquist.
McCain has a snowball's chance in hell of ever seeing the White House. He should have signed up with Kerry.
That is a very good thing. It means Rove or some other can bring this kind of crap to the front lines with almost no effort, where Billary won't resist in feeding on it. Time to fire up some PAC's already.
Truncador said:
Asterix:Asterix said:
I will link to The National Review for you:
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200506241146.asp
If you read this, you will find the text of the offending petition that the progenitor to moveon had written.
The problems are two:
1. Rove wanted to smear all Dems, not "liberals" as his defenders have maintained. I seem to recall all Democrats being smeared as liberals during the election season. Any other explanation is BS.
2. If you look at this petition, you will see that what the US is doing with Saddam is entirely consistent with it: "...use, wherever possible, international judicial institutions and international human rights law to bring to justice..." I am quite certain that if the US ever captures bin Laden, unless they take the "head on a platter" route, he too will have the protections of international judiciial institutions and human rights law.
Rove's outburst was not that, but rather a calculated attempt to paint all opponents as traitors. This is clearly an attempt to shore up the Repub base, whose opinions are about to fall off a cliff with the rest of the US. When more in the US think that the war in Iraq was Bush's fault than Saddam's, you KNOW things are bad.
For all those cons who condemned Howard Dean's over the top remarks, now would be a good time to condemn Rove's remarks. I know, I'll have a long wait.
Ah yes, another of those equivalency arguments. You wil have to wait until Hell freezes over, for sure.irlandais9000 said:
Problem is, my friend, that Howard Dean was elected by the Democrats to run their party. If he pisses them off, the Dems can boot him out. They pay his salary.
Rove? He works for the government as an appointeee, serving as a representative of ALL the people. Everyone of both parties pays his salary. He serves at the whim of the body that houses his brain -- namely the Shrub.
He pissed off AT LEAST 49+% of the country with his remarks. Bad move.
EJ Dionne on Rove & the New McCarthyism
From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062701317.html
The New McCarthyism
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005; Page A15
In the 1950s the right wing attacked liberals as being communists. In 2005 Karl Rove has attacked liberals as being therapists. Thus is born a kinder and gentler form of McCarthyism.
Named after the late Sen. Joe McCarthy, who never let the facts get in the way of his lust to charge liberals with sedition, McCarthyism has come to mean "guilt by association." What gave McCarthyism its power was the fact that the senator from Wisconsin did not invent the danger posed to the United States by Soviet communism. The Soviet Union was a real threat, and there were real communist spies working in America.
What made McCarthy and his allies so insidious was their eagerness to level the "soft on communism" charge against even staunchly anticommunist liberals. One of them was Secretary of State Dean Acheson, an architect of Harry Truman's tough policy of containing Soviet power. In the 1952 presidential campaign, Richard Nixon pounded Democratic nominee Adlai Stevenson for earning a "PhD from Dean Acheson's College of Cowardly Communist Containment."
The McCarthyites' real enemies were not communists but the New Deal liberals who had dominated U.S. politics for 20 years. The McCarthy crowd was willing to divide the nation at a time of grave international peril if that's what it took to beat the liberals.
Rove's instantly famous speech last week to the New York State Conservative Party should be read in light of this history and not be written off as a cheap, one-time partisan attack. On the contrary, the address by Rove, President Bush's most important adviser, provides the outlines of a sophisticated strategy aimed at making liberals and Democrats all look soft on terrorism.
Here are the key passages:
But Rove knows how to play this game. The only evidence he adduces for his therapy charge is a petition in which the current executive director of MoveOn.org called for "moderation and restraint" in the wake of Sept. 11. Rove then slides smoothly from the attack on MoveOn to attacks on Michael Moore and Howard Dean. Finally, Rove tosses in an assault on Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) for his statement that an FBI report on the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, might remind Americans of the practices of Nazi and communist dictatorships.
In the ensuing controversy, Rove's defenders cleverly sought to pretend that there was nothing partisan about Rove's speech. "Karl didn't say 'the Democratic Party,' " insisted Ken Mehlman, the Republican national chairman. "He said 'liberals.' " It must have been purely accidental that one of the "liberals" mentioned was the Democratic national chairman and another was the Senate Democratic whip. It must also have been accidental that both of them, like most other liberals, supported the war in Afghanistan, not therapy. At the time, Durbin called the war "essential."
snip~
That's how guilt by association works. Make a charge and then -- once your attack is out there -- pretend that your words have been misinterpreted. Split your opponents. Put them on the defensive. Force them to say things like: "No, we're not soft on terrorism," or, "I'm not that kind of liberal." Once this happens, the attacker has already won.
Respectable opinion treats Rove's speech as just another partisan flap. It's much more. It's the reincarnation of a style of politics that turns political opponents into traitors or dupes who are soft on the nation's enemies. Welcome back to the '50s.
TOV says: The difference THIS TIME is that we are not taking their BS any more. Republicans are the "party of ideas"? Yeah, let's recycle stuff from the '50s.
From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062701317.html
The New McCarthyism
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005; Page A15
In the 1950s the right wing attacked liberals as being communists. In 2005 Karl Rove has attacked liberals as being therapists. Thus is born a kinder and gentler form of McCarthyism.
Named after the late Sen. Joe McCarthy, who never let the facts get in the way of his lust to charge liberals with sedition, McCarthyism has come to mean "guilt by association." What gave McCarthyism its power was the fact that the senator from Wisconsin did not invent the danger posed to the United States by Soviet communism. The Soviet Union was a real threat, and there were real communist spies working in America.
What made McCarthy and his allies so insidious was their eagerness to level the "soft on communism" charge against even staunchly anticommunist liberals. One of them was Secretary of State Dean Acheson, an architect of Harry Truman's tough policy of containing Soviet power. In the 1952 presidential campaign, Richard Nixon pounded Democratic nominee Adlai Stevenson for earning a "PhD from Dean Acheson's College of Cowardly Communist Containment."
The McCarthyites' real enemies were not communists but the New Deal liberals who had dominated U.S. politics for 20 years. The McCarthy crowd was willing to divide the nation at a time of grave international peril if that's what it took to beat the liberals.
Rove's instantly famous speech last week to the New York State Conservative Party should be read in light of this history and not be written off as a cheap, one-time partisan attack. On the contrary, the address by Rove, President Bush's most important adviser, provides the outlines of a sophisticated strategy aimed at making liberals and Democrats all look soft on terrorism.
Here are the key passages:
Liberals and Democrats were enraged by Rove because virtually every officeholding liberal and Democrat closed ranks behind President Bush on Sept. 11. They endorsed the use of force against the terrorists and, when the time came, strongly backed the war in Afghanistan.
But Rove knows how to play this game. The only evidence he adduces for his therapy charge is a petition in which the current executive director of MoveOn.org called for "moderation and restraint" in the wake of Sept. 11. Rove then slides smoothly from the attack on MoveOn to attacks on Michael Moore and Howard Dean. Finally, Rove tosses in an assault on Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) for his statement that an FBI report on the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, might remind Americans of the practices of Nazi and communist dictatorships.
In the ensuing controversy, Rove's defenders cleverly sought to pretend that there was nothing partisan about Rove's speech. "Karl didn't say 'the Democratic Party,' " insisted Ken Mehlman, the Republican national chairman. "He said 'liberals.' " It must have been purely accidental that one of the "liberals" mentioned was the Democratic national chairman and another was the Senate Democratic whip. It must also have been accidental that both of them, like most other liberals, supported the war in Afghanistan, not therapy. At the time, Durbin called the war "essential."
snip~
That's how guilt by association works. Make a charge and then -- once your attack is out there -- pretend that your words have been misinterpreted. Split your opponents. Put them on the defensive. Force them to say things like: "No, we're not soft on terrorism," or, "I'm not that kind of liberal." Once this happens, the attacker has already won.
Respectable opinion treats Rove's speech as just another partisan flap. It's much more. It's the reincarnation of a style of politics that turns political opponents into traitors or dupes who are soft on the nation's enemies. Welcome back to the '50s.
TOV says: The difference THIS TIME is that we are not taking their BS any more. Republicans are the "party of ideas"? Yeah, let's recycle stuff from the '50s.
TOVisitor said:
I would like to think that it was a bad move, and that Bush/Rove will pay a price for it. But so far, sleazy politics has worked just fine for them.
KKKarl Rove's vision for AmeriKKKa.....
Why the Betrayal of Our National Security by the Bush White House Matters
A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL - July 5, 2005
It is two years since PlameGate broke open as a national story, but its implications have long been underplayed by the White House and the Press.
In essence, whatever the legal outcome (which has been driven by political considerations -- that is why it has taken two years to move the "investigation" forward, if it is moving forward), this fact remains clear: In order to send a message to anyone who would expose that the White House lied America into war, the White House -- in an action that could have only been authorized by Karl Rove, perhaps with a nod and a wink from Bush -- deliberately endangered the national security of the United States.
As a warning to those who would expose Bush lies about WMDs -- or any of the daily Bush deceptions -- in July of 2003 the White House revealed to their newspaper water boy, Bob Novak, that Valerie Plame, the wife of Ambassador Joe Wilson, was a CIA operative, and she specialized in the illicit trafficking of Weapons of Mass Destruction. It is befitting the morally corrupt Bush Administration that they would neutralize an American asset in the war against the proliferation of WMDs, while fighting a war allegedly launched against WMDs, in order to make an example of a man, Joe Wilson, who had written a commentary in the New York Times arguing that the Bush Administration evidence claiming WMD evidence regarding a transaction between Niger and Saddam Hussein was false.
In short, the Bush Administration doesn't care if it endangers our national security by undercutting our efforts to curtail the very weapons that they claim they were saving us from. That is how dangerous the Bush Administration is to our national security -- and it is has been before us in plain sight for two years. But the mainstream media has focused on periodic reports that emerge about the "investigation" of the Chicago U.S. Attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, who was appointed by John Ashcroft, then Attorney General, to see if any laws were broken.
Fitzgerald, who works now for AG and highly possible Supreme Court nominee Gonzales, must be under enormous pressure to find a way to avoid legally charging any senior Bush Administration officials, particularly Karl Rove. Most speculation is that he doesn't have enough "evidence" to charge Rove or others with violating the law in regards to exposing a CIA operative. The conventional wisdom is that Fitzgerald is now focussing on the possibility of perjury. But that is only speculation. And it's not over until the bald Benedict Arnold (Rove) sings.
Rove is our acting president on domestic policy, and if he can get Gonzales to sit on Fitzgerald (who -- for other reasons unrelated to PlameGate -- both political parties in Illinois want "promoted" to Washington), the endgame of PlameGate will be politically motivated, not legally accountable. If there are no indictments against Rove or other senior White House officials, Bush will declare that his staff got a clean bill of health and the mainstream media will consider the case closed.
Or Rove may have Gonzales, through Fitzgerald, indict a "little fish" to take the heat off, and Godfather style, the victim will be promised to have his family taken care of and a job waiting for him when he gets out of a federal "country club" prison.
Of course, there is another possibility, that Fitzgerald is the rare bird in the Bush Administration, a man who actually upholds the rule of law. In that case he would indeed be unique as he forges ahead despite withering pressure to find legal reasons NOT to indict Rove or any senior Bush/Cheney officials. But, although Fitzgerald has a reputation for relative integrity, we aren't holding our breath.
But here is what we know even without legal indictments and what is getting lost in the latest round of speculation about a two-year old act of betrayal against the citizens of the United States by the Bush Administration: the Bush White House committed brazen treason by deliberately undercutting our national efforts to keep WMDs out of the hands of "bad guys." Why did they do this? Because Karl Rove wanted to prevent future whistleblowers from coming forward to expose Bush lies, in this case the courageous proof by Joe Wilson that another lie had been used to bolster the false claim that Iraq had WMDs.
The PlameGate affair is symbolic of how the Bush Administration puts its own interests of preserving power before the interests of the American people -- and in unbelievable irony, on the one issue that they have trumpeted their "expertise" at: national security.
http://www.buzzflash.com/index.php?story=Story3
Why the Betrayal of Our National Security by the Bush White House Matters
A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL - July 5, 2005
It is two years since PlameGate broke open as a national story, but its implications have long been underplayed by the White House and the Press.
In essence, whatever the legal outcome (which has been driven by political considerations -- that is why it has taken two years to move the "investigation" forward, if it is moving forward), this fact remains clear: In order to send a message to anyone who would expose that the White House lied America into war, the White House -- in an action that could have only been authorized by Karl Rove, perhaps with a nod and a wink from Bush -- deliberately endangered the national security of the United States.
As a warning to those who would expose Bush lies about WMDs -- or any of the daily Bush deceptions -- in July of 2003 the White House revealed to their newspaper water boy, Bob Novak, that Valerie Plame, the wife of Ambassador Joe Wilson, was a CIA operative, and she specialized in the illicit trafficking of Weapons of Mass Destruction. It is befitting the morally corrupt Bush Administration that they would neutralize an American asset in the war against the proliferation of WMDs, while fighting a war allegedly launched against WMDs, in order to make an example of a man, Joe Wilson, who had written a commentary in the New York Times arguing that the Bush Administration evidence claiming WMD evidence regarding a transaction between Niger and Saddam Hussein was false.
In short, the Bush Administration doesn't care if it endangers our national security by undercutting our efforts to curtail the very weapons that they claim they were saving us from. That is how dangerous the Bush Administration is to our national security -- and it is has been before us in plain sight for two years. But the mainstream media has focused on periodic reports that emerge about the "investigation" of the Chicago U.S. Attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, who was appointed by John Ashcroft, then Attorney General, to see if any laws were broken.
Fitzgerald, who works now for AG and highly possible Supreme Court nominee Gonzales, must be under enormous pressure to find a way to avoid legally charging any senior Bush Administration officials, particularly Karl Rove. Most speculation is that he doesn't have enough "evidence" to charge Rove or others with violating the law in regards to exposing a CIA operative. The conventional wisdom is that Fitzgerald is now focussing on the possibility of perjury. But that is only speculation. And it's not over until the bald Benedict Arnold (Rove) sings.
Rove is our acting president on domestic policy, and if he can get Gonzales to sit on Fitzgerald (who -- for other reasons unrelated to PlameGate -- both political parties in Illinois want "promoted" to Washington), the endgame of PlameGate will be politically motivated, not legally accountable. If there are no indictments against Rove or other senior White House officials, Bush will declare that his staff got a clean bill of health and the mainstream media will consider the case closed.
Or Rove may have Gonzales, through Fitzgerald, indict a "little fish" to take the heat off, and Godfather style, the victim will be promised to have his family taken care of and a job waiting for him when he gets out of a federal "country club" prison.
Of course, there is another possibility, that Fitzgerald is the rare bird in the Bush Administration, a man who actually upholds the rule of law. In that case he would indeed be unique as he forges ahead despite withering pressure to find legal reasons NOT to indict Rove or any senior Bush/Cheney officials. But, although Fitzgerald has a reputation for relative integrity, we aren't holding our breath.
But here is what we know even without legal indictments and what is getting lost in the latest round of speculation about a two-year old act of betrayal against the citizens of the United States by the Bush Administration: the Bush White House committed brazen treason by deliberately undercutting our national efforts to keep WMDs out of the hands of "bad guys." Why did they do this? Because Karl Rove wanted to prevent future whistleblowers from coming forward to expose Bush lies, in this case the courageous proof by Joe Wilson that another lie had been used to bolster the false claim that Iraq had WMDs.
The PlameGate affair is symbolic of how the Bush Administration puts its own interests of preserving power before the interests of the American people -- and in unbelievable irony, on the one issue that they have trumpeted their "expertise" at: national security.
http://www.buzzflash.com/index.php?story=Story3
KKKarl Rove, the end justify the means for him
Looks like Rove will take the hit here.
Curious though is Rove really the one guilty, or is Rove just being told to fall on the sword for Cheney the real culprit in this case?
Washington, DC -- July 2, 2005 -- Karl Rove named as source of Plame leak.
Speaking on the The McLaughlin Group, taped July 1 and to be aired nationwide July 2, MSNBC political commentator Lawrence O'Donnell said that the documents Time magazine turned over to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald names White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove as the person who leaked the name of CIA covert agent Valerie Plame to Time's Matt Cooper. (Here in Washington, DC, The McLaughlin Group with O'Donnell's revelation was pre-empted twice by NBC's WRC-TV Channel 4, on the evening of July 2 by NASCAR's Pepsi 400 and on the morning of July 3 by Wimbledon tennis). Since the story broke, O'Donnell has confirmed a second source claiming the Time documents finger Rove as the leaker. My own very reliable Washington source, a senior news editor, has also confirmed that Rove is the leaker of Plame's identity. That leak rolled up Valerie Plame's intelligence assets and informants as well as other non-official cover Brewster Jennings & Associates agents, causing irreparable harm to our national security. At a minimum, Rove faces a perjury indictment. At most, he can also be charged with making a false statement and violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. CIA sources report that at least one anonymous star placed on the CIA's Wall of Honor at its Langley, Virginia headquarters is a clandestine agent who was executed in a hostile foreign nation as a direct result of the White House leak. Rove could be looking at a lengthy prison term. Many Nixon officials spent years in prison for doing much less.
Larry O'Donnell says Rove is leaker of Plame's name
Rove testified under oath before a federal grand jury that he only talked to the press about Plame after her name appeared in columnist Robert Novak's column. Time's documents would mean that Rove lied under oath, which is perjury. Even Novak, who cannot speak on advice of his counsel, said people will be "surprised" when the name of the source is revealed. John McLaughlin, a former Nixon aide and consummate Washington insider, likely knew of O'Donnell's revelations before the show aired, another indication that the Rove-as-leaker story has legs.
What Rove faces if found guilty of making a false statement and/or perjury
Looks like Rove will take the hit here.
Curious though is Rove really the one guilty, or is Rove just being told to fall on the sword for Cheney the real culprit in this case?
Washington, DC -- July 2, 2005 -- Karl Rove named as source of Plame leak.
Speaking on the The McLaughlin Group, taped July 1 and to be aired nationwide July 2, MSNBC political commentator Lawrence O'Donnell said that the documents Time magazine turned over to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald names White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove as the person who leaked the name of CIA covert agent Valerie Plame to Time's Matt Cooper. (Here in Washington, DC, The McLaughlin Group with O'Donnell's revelation was pre-empted twice by NBC's WRC-TV Channel 4, on the evening of July 2 by NASCAR's Pepsi 400 and on the morning of July 3 by Wimbledon tennis). Since the story broke, O'Donnell has confirmed a second source claiming the Time documents finger Rove as the leaker. My own very reliable Washington source, a senior news editor, has also confirmed that Rove is the leaker of Plame's identity. That leak rolled up Valerie Plame's intelligence assets and informants as well as other non-official cover Brewster Jennings & Associates agents, causing irreparable harm to our national security. At a minimum, Rove faces a perjury indictment. At most, he can also be charged with making a false statement and violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. CIA sources report that at least one anonymous star placed on the CIA's Wall of Honor at its Langley, Virginia headquarters is a clandestine agent who was executed in a hostile foreign nation as a direct result of the White House leak. Rove could be looking at a lengthy prison term. Many Nixon officials spent years in prison for doing much less.
Larry O'Donnell says Rove is leaker of Plame's name
Rove testified under oath before a federal grand jury that he only talked to the press about Plame after her name appeared in columnist Robert Novak's column. Time's documents would mean that Rove lied under oath, which is perjury. Even Novak, who cannot speak on advice of his counsel, said people will be "surprised" when the name of the source is revealed. John McLaughlin, a former Nixon aide and consummate Washington insider, likely knew of O'Donnell's revelations before the show aired, another indication that the Rove-as-leaker story has legs.
What Rove faces if found guilty of making a false statement and/or perjury
