Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Location: on the run from johnny law... ain't no trip to cleveland
Posts: 9,352
A$FN: 1,000
The Official "Apologize to Karl Rove" Thread
ready... go!
Quote:
One Leak and a Flood of Silliness
By David S. Broder
Thursday, September 7, 2006; A27
Conspiracy theories flourish in politics, and most of them have no more basis than spring training hopes for the Chicago Cubs.
Whenever things turn dicey for Republicans, they complain about the "liberal media" sabotaging them. And when Democrats get in a jam, they take up Hillary Clinton's warnings about a "vast right-wing conspiracy."
For much of the past five years, dark suspicions have been voiced about the Bush White House undermining its critics, and Karl Rove has been fingered as the chief culprit in this supposed plot to suppress the opposition.
Now at least one count in that indictment has been substantially weakened -- the charge that Rove masterminded a conspiracy to discredit Iraq intelligence critic Joseph Wilson by "outing" his CIA-operative wife, Valerie Plame.
I have written almost nothing about the Wilson-Plame case, because it seemed overblown to me from the start. Wilson's claim in a New York Times op-ed about his memo on the supposed Iraqi purchase of uranium yellowcake from Niger; the Robert D. Novak column naming Plame as the person who had recommended Wilson to check up on the reported sale; the call for a special prosecutor and the lengthy interrogation that led to the jailing of Judith Miller of the New York Times and the deposition of several other reporters; and, finally, the indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff -- all of this struck me as being a tempest in a teapot.
No one behaved well in the whole mess -- not Wilson, not Libby, not special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and not the reporters involved.
The only time I commented on the case was to caution reporters who offered bold First Amendment defenses for keeping their sources' names secret that they had better examine the motivations of the people leaking the information to be sure they deserve protection.
But caution has been notably lacking in some of the press treatment of this subject -- especially when it comes to Karl Rove. And it behooves us in the media to examine that behavior, not just sweep it under the rug.
Sidney Blumenthal, a former aide to President Bill Clinton and now a columnist for several publications, has just published a book titled, "How Bush Rules: Chronicles of a Radical Regime." It is a collection of his columns for Salon, including one originally published on July 14, 2005, titled "Rove's War."
It was occasioned by the disclosure of a memo from Time magazine's Matt Cooper, saying that Rove had confirmed to him the identity of Valerie Plame. To Blumenthal, that was proof that this "was political payback against Wilson by a White House that wanted to shift the public focus from the Iraq War to Wilson's motives."
Then Blumenthal went off on a rant: "While the White House stonewalls, Rove has license to run his own damage control operation. His surrogates argue that if Rove did anything, it wasn't a crime. . . . Rove is fighting his war as though it will be settled in a court of Washington pundits. Brandishing his formidable political weapons, he seeks to demonstrate his prowess once again. His corps of agents raises a din in which their voices drown out individual dissidents. His frantic massing of forces dominates the capital by winning the communications battle. Indeed, Rove may succeed momentarily in quelling the storm. But the stillness may be illusory. Before the prosecutor, Rove's arsenal is useless."
In fact, the prosecutor concluded that there was no crime; hence, no indictment. And we now know that the original "leak," in casual conversations with reporters Novak and Bob Woodward, came not from the conspiracy theorists' target in the White House but from the deputy secretary of state at the time, Richard Armitage, an esteemed member of the Washington establishment and no pal of Rove or President Bush.
Blumenthal's example is far from unique. Newsweek, in a July 25, 2005, cover story on Rove, after dutifully noting that Rove's lawyer said the prosecutor had told him that Rove was not a target of the investigation, added: "But this isn't just about the Facts, it's about what Rove's foes regard as a higher Truth: That he is a one-man epicenter of a narrative of Evil."
And in the American Prospect's cover story for August 2005, Joe Conason wrote that Rove "is a powerful bully. Fear of retribution has stifled those who might have revealed his secrets. He has enjoyed the impunity of a malefactor who could always claim, however implausibly, deniability -- until now."
These and other publications owe Karl Rove an apology. And all of journalism needs to relearn the lesson: Can the conspiracy theories and stick to the facts.
The fact that he wasn't indicted doesn't mean that he didn't do anything wrong, immoral, unethical and against our natiional interests in the name of political revenge.
Rove is smart; I'll give him that. But, just because someone is a brilliant political mind doesn't make him NOT a slimeball. Hitler was one helluva politicer, too.
DISCLAIMER: This is not a direct comparison--I am NOT comparing Rove to Hitler. I am only using Hitler as an example of one who was good at politics and not a good guy.
__________________ America cannot have an empire abroad and a Republic at home.
DISCLAIMER: This is not a direct comparison--I am NOT comparing Rove to Hitler. I am only using Hitler as an example of one who was good at politics and not a good guy.
Too bad that one football player didnt include this in his rant against his ex-coach.
why is that, besides the fact that he is really smart?
He is a genious. He single handedly took a guy who is, well, let's just say not the smartest individual to be in politics, and turned him into a governor, and then the President of the United States. He managed to beat and humiliate the Democrats in ways that even Reagan couldn't do. He put Bush in the White House and took over the House and the Senate.
Not to mention his previous work with Phil Gramm, William Clements, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and John Ashcroft.
Karl Rove is a genious.
__________________
"Don't try to threaten me Mulder! I've watched presidents die."
"If people would know the things I know, we'd all fall apart."
"Once again, tonight, the course of human history will be set by two unknown men standing in the shadows."
The fact that he wasn't indicted doesn't mean that he didn't do anything wrong, immoral, unethical and against our natiional interests in the name of political revenge.
You may suspect this, but you have absolutely no proof of it. As a matter of fact, the real facts that have just come out point in the opposite direction, so hang onto your belief if it makes you feel better. And people say I'm partisian.
Nothing against you, Stefan, I just think it's funny when people can't spell "genius."
But, back to the topic at hand: Lots of people throughout history have proven to very adept at various fields, but probably shouldn't be looked up to as "heroes." A real genius might find a way to win elections without "humiliating" (or degrading, intimidating and smearing) anyone.
__________________ America cannot have an empire abroad and a Republic at home.
Hey, you don't like him, I do. To you he is an asshole, to me he is the greatest political mind in US history. You're entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
__________________
"Don't try to threaten me Mulder! I've watched presidents die."
"If people would know the things I know, we'd all fall apart."
"Once again, tonight, the course of human history will be set by two unknown men standing in the shadows."
Hey, you don't like him, I do. To you he is an asshole, to me he is the greatest political mind in US history. You're entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Actually, I'm not disagreeing with you. I acknowledged how smart he was in my first post--he IS brilliant. You've never addressed his character. For me (and I dare say for most), character is at the heart of any definition of "hero."
...Otherwise, Lex Luthor would be a super"hero" instead of a super"villain."
__________________ America cannot have an empire abroad and a Republic at home.
Linear Mode
