This Just In...
There I was, sitting on the couch in my little tinfoil cap, trying to figure out if the Karl Rove scandal is a decoy, to keep the public's attention off of all the administration's more flagrant crimes, the ones that could help us realize our dream of seeing Dick Cheney and Dick Rumsfeld on trial for war crimes at the Hague. So I turned on "Inside Politics" which is the best show on CNN, although mostly, you really have to go to the blogs you trust now, for real information and truth.
I had a couple of other questions I thought CNN might help me with, besides the decoy/red herring issue. One, to whom can Bush turn for advise and illumination on how to proceed with the growing scandal, besides Karl Rove? Because that's like talking to your alcoholism ABOUT your alcoholism, which doesn't make a lot of sense, since your alcoholism does not think of you as an alcoholic, but rather, as a social drinker, and bon vivant. Your alcoholism doesn't even think you have a problem: it's all those over-reactive, whiney babies you used to call your family and friends.
And two, who was prepared to come forward from the right to defend Mr. Rove?
I never did get an answer to the red herring question, or the one about Bush's lack of a confidante now. But in terms of the second question, by 12:30 Pacific time today, there was Republican strategist Rich Galen, who, if you ask me, seemed very tense, definitely an ulcerative colitis type of guy. He shouted at least twice, "This is an August story, three weeks early! It's going nowhere!" And once, just as loudly, "The Democrats are taking their cues from Move-On.Org!" There was also Uncle Dave, aka David Gergen, who said in a pre-recorded clip--and this is almost an exact quote--"Karl Rove has stood by him [Bush] for twenty years. Bush will stand by Karl Rove through this storm." And finally, Arlen Specter, who said dismissively that this was a matter under investigation and so he did not even have one tiny opinion at all.
And that was it. Now, I sort of like both Gergen and Specter, but they reminded me of the old joke told by U. Utah Phillips--the Golden Voice of the Great Southwest--about the cowboys who were not allowed to complain about their dinners, because if they did, they had to be the chuck wagon cook until the next cowboy slipped up and complained. So one night a cowboy started gagging as he tried to eat his dessert and asked the cook what on earth it was.
"It's moose turd pie," said the cook, watching hopefully for a negative reaction.
"Moose turd pie!" exclaimed the cowboy, swallowing with some effort. "But GOOD!"
So my sense is that for now, not many people will stand up publically for Karl Rove, even as they have to take nice nibbly bites of this dessert, until the cable stations can apprehend some Southern senators.
But the big news--the reason I am posting this--was that during the segment of the show called "Inside the Blogs," tpmcafe.com was mentioned prominently, and got full frontal coverage--the camera was on our site for at least twenty seconds--while the commentators discussed Marshall Wittmann's calm and brilliant comments today.
It was so cool: I think all of us should get together and give Josh a huge raise. The internet is how the plates of the earth shift now, and it's good to be a part of the shift. Whenever I say anything in public about how our job is to take care of one another, and to try and save the Earth, I get attacked for being naive and sentimental, but I just want to say pre-emptively, I still think that is why we are here. It's been SO hard to do during the current reign; and besides, I can't hear you through my tin foil cap.
Comments (19)
The alcoholic analogy is a superb one, they are living in denial of their problem. Right now repugs from McClellan to the TV talking heads seem tense. And Bush went out of his way to give Rove a "vote of confidence. If it wasn't an issue why would the president go out of his way to defend Rove? This story and scandal is much worse then Watergate and should be treated as such.
July 12, 2005 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The conventional wisdom, of course, is that the moment the president is said to "express confidence" in a particular person, that individual is toast and might just as well start packing their bags. But with Karl Rove, I don't know whether the conventional wisdom has any validity. George W. Bush, politician, is so much the creation of Rove that it's all but unthinkable to imagine them apart.
I would thus expect it to play out somewhat like this: At some point, internal polling shows that Bush's approval rating is suffering badly as a direct result of his continued public association with Rove. Bush initially remains steadfast in sticking with Rove. Ultimately, though, Rove goes to Bush and offers to resign and take a vicious (but short-lived) beating in the public eye, knowing that his criminal exposure is minimal at best. After some degree of initial hesitation, Bush grudgingly accepts the offer.
So Rove retreats back to Texas, no longer Deputy Chief of Staff. But out of public view, he can of course continue to advise Bush on virtually every conceivable issue, only he now does so by telephone and videoconference. The public's (and media's) bloodlust has been sated, and the Administration is able to get back to business as usual. By the time the voters really begin paying attention to the 2006 Congressional elections, almost no one outside the media elites and political activists in the blogosphere remembers exactly what had happened way back in the summer of 2005. Mission accomplished!
July 12, 2005 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mehlman jumped to his defense today; as usual, it's the RNC talking points. That's his job, I guess...
July 12, 2005 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Annie, good post. Who knows? Maybe the answer to your first question is that they are pulling a fast one on us to distract us from bigger and worse stuff.
And two, who was prepared to come forward from the right to defend Mr. Rove?
That is a very important question, too, and not too many are jumping in to do this, which is quite significant. For my money it is Scottie's lawyer who is telling him to clam up. All the folks in the White House have to be careful of what they say. As they keep telling us, "There is an investigation going on," and Fitzgerald seems to be taking his job seriously.
That's great news about the Cafe, too.
July 12, 2005 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really believe all of this debate over whether Karl Rove broke the law when he disclosed Valerie Plame's connection to the CIA is almost besides the point. I work for a defense contractor and have a clearance. From the first day my clearance came through, I've been very thoroughly trained in how much care I must take to protect the information that is entrusted to me. If I even accidently expose classified information, say if I left a document out on my desk and someone not cleared reads it, my company has to report this incident to the government, I would receive a serious reprimand, and could possiibly even be reassigned. If the information I put at risk ended up appearing in a newspaper, I would probably be fired. It would not matter if any law had been violated. I would simply be viewed by my management and the government as not being worthy of the trust required to handle classified information, and therefore incapable of performing the duties for which I was hired.
Karl Rove's conversations with the press caused a CIA employee working in the critical area of WMD, and by association the shell company which helped make up her cover, to be exposed to the public. It does not matter if he meant to do it or not. The fact that he apparently had similar conversations with multiple reporters makes it clear that this was not simply an accidental slip of the tongue that he would later reqret, but rather a deliberate communication with little or no regard for the possible consequences. No individual with this little regard for his responsibilities should be allowed to continue in such a highly sensitive position in our government.
I've listened to several Republicans attempting to defend Mr. Rove this evening by labeled Joe Wilson as a partisan. In my mind, this does not excuse his actions but rather exposes his motives. This was not an act of government service. it was a purely political response to what the Bush administration viewed as a political attack from their perceived enemies. That the CIA's ability to protect our country from the proliferation of WMD's may have been harmed in the process is all the more inexcusable for the motives that led to the exposure.
July 12, 2005 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the most interesting angle here is that the defense of Rove comes at the expense of an effective GOP push-back. We see that both in the chaotic flailing from "he did nothing wrong" to "he was screwed" to "everyone does it" to "the Democrats are liberal." Trying to make the issue Joe Wilson or Valerie Plame or Matt Cooper does nothing at all to distance the WH from the one topic it never, ever wants to discuss -- the decision to go to war in Iraq.
Above all, the "on-going investigation" line is almost taylor-made to let the story spread from Rove to elsewhere in the WH. And if thats the strategy Rove takes, I can only imagine that someone like Specter, who seems to see this moment as his opening to charge out of the pack, is very comforable with a story that weakens the entire WH.
So we see an odd confluence of interests between the Rovians within the WH, including McClellan, and the few vestiges of life that remain amogn GOP moderates.
And standing back and letting it happen is the Cheney/Libby/Bolton group, which would be happy to see Rove, or for that matter Bush, take the fall for their ridiculous failure to come up with a rationale for the war that they can convince anyone of.
July 12, 2005 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
for Bush to admit he is helpless before Karl Rove. Then, he must admit that only a power greater than himself can shed his dependence on Karl.
I predict Step Two is where he'll blow it.
July 12, 2005 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know why I started watching the "factor" today but I did...
His Talking Points, amazingly, were as balanced as they could be considering the source; most amazingly was his call that if it is Rove, he ought to step up and then step down...
... and he was pretty good about questioning Gingrich's (Mehlman) Talking Points defense...
...I guess we will hear shortly that O'Reilly "burned" Rove as well.
But one thing I noticed quickly on the show during Gingrich's and O'Reilly's excange: a picture showing Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame's face was flashed for a second, then quickly removed. Up to this point, I have always seen Plame's face blurred out. So was this a mistake on Fox's part or has the other media been extremely cautious about blowing Plame's cover now?
July 12, 2005 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
In order to keep my security clearance, I have to take yearly refresher courses in security and ethics. If I violate our ethics policy without violating security policy, it is grounds for revoking my clearance and could lead to termination. I work for a government contractor, so I don't know if WH security policy includes some type of ethics protocols. (I would suspect so.)
In addition to a security application, what other type of agreements do (direct) government workers sign? I perfectly understand the statements made above by jsinclair. If I was even suspected of leaking classified information, that would greatly diminish my ability to work, much less seek career growth. How was Rove able to get a promotion (and high security clearance) if he was caught up in this investigation?
July 12, 2005 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of Rove's nickname, I just checked and the domain name Turd-Blossom.com isn't taken yet (someone has parked it sans the hyphen) -- so if anyone can think of a creative use for it -- register away!
July 12, 2005 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
My thoughts are that the ultimate irony in all this is that what we need most is a good old fashioned deep throat source that some hard nosed journalist can use. Unfortunately, the risk of becoming a source far outweighs the benefits as you can now be "found out". A real paradox if you think about it We also dont have any hard nosed journalists left in this world.
One thing is certain, if this were the Clinton administration, they would be drafting articles of impeachment by now!
July 12, 2005 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
First the Kerry victory and now Rove tried for treason...bloggers can be proud...hehe.
A few points on this latest "story":
1. Bush isn't up for reelection...he isn't under any real pressure to dump Rove
2. I told a well-educated, successful frien of mine that karl Rove might be in trouble over the weekend and his reply was: "Who is Karl Rove?"
3. My local paper ran the press conference/Rove lawyer etc. story on page A6, 2 small columns wide.
Don't confuse the echo chamber of left-leaning blogs with the rest of America. Bush & Co know that few Americans even know who Rove, much less who Plame and Wilson are...
July 12, 2005 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush & Co know that few Americans even know who Rove, much less who Plame and Wilson are
Yes, that is probably true today. However, if Fitzgerald indicts Rove for anything at all, Rove will be just about as famous as Monica Lewinsky in within days of the indictment being handed out.
Bottom line, there is still a reasonably good chance that this could develop into something much more significant than just entertainment for us blogophiles. Meantime, I'm grabbing the popcorn and hoping this builds steam every day.
July 12, 2005 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of prominent Republicans who are not jumping to the defense of Mr. Rove, has anybody checked with Daddy Bush (former CIA Director) to get his take?
July 12, 2005 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Classic....I am doing some late-night video testing, and Faux News is on the TV. SO I decided to turn up the audio and see what BS was spewing there now.
Very predictably, Bill O'Lielly and Newt Gingrich are leading themselves through the entire list of lies (about the details of the WIlson/Plame/Rove/Cooper affair) that are being perpitrated throughout the mainstream media topday by Mehlman (RNC CHair), Luskin (Rove's attorney), and other neo-con apologists.
No wonder all independent studies have shown that people who primarily get their world/US info from Faux News are completely wrong about the facts (e.g., Saddam had something to do with 9/11/01)....and thus are full-on dupes.
July 12, 2005 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please correct me if I am wrong. The defense of Rove's statment about Wilson's wife to Cooper is that Rove was doing Cooper a favor: "Don't waste your time on that story young man..." After all DCIA Tenet was about to make an announcement about Wilson's trip that would discredit the whole thing. Kind Karl just didn't want Cooper to waste his valuable investigative time on a story that wasn't going anywhere. But this defense reverses cause and effect. Tenet's statment was part of the same attack on Wilson, not an indepdendent assessment.
I am assuming that the content of Tenet's statment was similar to that of the Vice President: 'Wilson is not important because I didn't authorize his trip'. It is clear that Wilson's trip was not 'authorized' by DCIA and equally clear that this does not diminish its importance in the slightest. In other words, Tenet was just putting up a smoke screen in defense of the intelligence that had been fixed around the ultimate goal of invasion.
Am I wrong? Did Tenet have anything else of interest to add to the story?
July 12, 2005 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
But to Bush, the only greater power than himself is his "Heavenly Father." The one who advised him to invade Iraq.
July 13, 2005 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just because your friends are ignorant of the fact that a trator is working in the white house and for purely political reasons decides to trash a NOC with lies and outing, only shows that you are in the same catagory. So rather than streach your small brain, go on back to your play pen little boy. and let the real people talk
July 13, 2005 5:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I fought against the bottle,
But I had to do it drunk."
 
; -Leonard Cohen
July 13, 2005 6:31 AM | Reply | Permalink