Karl Rove - creepy s***bag
 

Since we had so much fun with Dick Durbin last week, what do y'all think about Bush's top advisor Karl Rove saying: "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and 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."

I vote for s***bag.

Yep, blind bloodlust=patriotism, dontchya know?

Yes, it is repulsive for him to suggest that liberals wanted to go soft on Bin Laden and his ilk. Most liberals that I know, myself included, fully supported our efforts to find this murderer and bring him to justice. It is when the administration focused their energy on someone who was, instead, not responsible for 9/11 that we started to get upset.

Karl Rove is an evil man. Brilliant, but evil.

There is a special place in hell waiting for Mr. Rove. I think his mentor, Lee Atwater, will be waiting there for him as well. I know, Lee later got himself a brain tumor, turned Christian and publically apologised for all the lies and hatred he spewed all those years, but I doubt it was enough for God not to thunk him a big one and send him spiraling downward. I also truly belive Rove was behind the CBS debacle, but Rather and Co were idiots to stray so far from real journalism to begin with.

I think **** bag is too mild a term for the pig.

It never occured to most liberals to attack Iraq for something it had nothing to do with.



I take comfort in knowing I don't think like Karl Rove. Tells me my moral compass is still intact. ;)

:rolleyes:

<-and walks out again......

Yes, I too roll my eyes whenever I hear his name. ;)

I'm considering painting his portrait at the bottom of my toilet bowl.

Imagine what the man could do if he were to use his powers for good.

Funny boy- :p

Maybe Rove was refering to these nuts.

Because clearly that's a representative sampling of liberals' opinions.

Maybe not :D

Damn. I'm disappointed in you, Jeff. I fully expected that to be a link to an article or photo of the Clintons.;)

The tide is turning, and history seems to be replaying itself. The Red Menace was a real and present threat to the old order, yet the powers that were overplayed their hand and abused their positions. As a result, the current powers that be spent many years lost in a drug fueled daze, only to emerge as Neo-Cons. The next wave of Liberals will not be as passive as the last. :evil:I used to scoff at predictions of a new sort of 'Third Estate' revolution, but I don't anymore. People are growing tired of being manipulated and lied to, and the natives are getting very restless.

Rove's pronouncements are part of a larger strategy taking hold. The news is getting bad for this administration and is only going to get worse. I think the most troubling thing for them is the ongoing shift of the independents. More and more people are waking up to the fact they've been lied to, and not just about Iraq. Some of the latest polls show the independents rejecting Bush's policies in increasingly similar percentages as the Democrats. It's time to for them to try the "divide and conquer" routine again in an attempt to peel off some of the independents. And this is how it's done.

"Look! Over here!! Something shiny!"

I can't help but think what it must be like for a New Yorker, watching this sleaze hump the corpse of 9/11 one more time for partisan gain. Rove is reaping anger all right, just not the kind he wants. He's forgetting that we were ALL New Yorkers for a time... until that unity was squandered.

Don't be distracted.

.....and now we all know who gets distracted by "shiny" things ;)

Do we? :)

I think the distractions are aimed as much at the Bush supporters as the other side. Better for the conservatives to be paying attention to something like Durban's quote or blindly believing liberals are soft on terror than to have them pay attention to how badly Iraq is going.

Lol- I assumed that's what he meant to begin with. Rove's comments aren't distracting in the least to me- I know exactly what the creep is up to. I'm glad he's not on our 'side'. There may be some wacky libs out there, but none as hateful and hatefilled as Rush, Ann, Karl and Co. I hope I never get as bitter and twisted as these poor souls are.

....but why would Rove want to "divert" conservative attention away from Durban's commets?

No, if he was really trying to "divert" conservative attention he would have said something that riled up their passions...not the liberals.

I thought liberal baiting was a favorite conservative pasttime. "What do you mean, the war is going badly? Hey, look!!! That liberal red diaper doper baby is lighting his crack-pipe with the American flag!!!!!"

Nothing like tearing into the opposition to distract people from the real issues, Jeff- it's something that ALL politicos do. Tell me, is what Durbin said really that much more important than the war? The immigration issue? Social Security? Inflation? If you follow the news, it must be. Meanwhile, the very people with the power to protect us from the bad guys have done very little in that area. They talk a lot about how we should be afraid, and why, but they have done virtually nothing to alleviate that threat. Time has an interesting article on how easily terrorists could take over a nuclear reactor, and the people guarding them are screaming for help. The government is NOT listening. Meanwhile, big business just got the go ahead to use 'eminent domain' to take anyones property away from them, if a city or township deems it economically advantageous. The right to Free Speech is being chipped away at.

Ben Franklin said it best: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Interesting that you would bring this up.

Every Conservative on the Supreme Court voted against this kicking freedom in the teeth of an idea.....it was those (ahem) liberal "activist" judges who saw fit to take rights away from the individual in favor of the so called greater good.

******O'Connor was joined in her dissent by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas********

Wendybeth, are you sure you are a liberal? Less then a month ago you were quoting FOX and now you are siding with the likes of Thomas and Scalia :confused: / ;)

Sorry, Jeff, but one must do their homework first...


First, I listed the eminent domain decision as a negative strike against our Constitutional rights, but I don't recall saying it was only conservatives that voted for it. The majority opinion was made by two Dems, two Repubs and a conservative independent. So, both sides suck equally in this decision. My point is that the erosion of rights is happening, and people are starting to wake up.

As far as Fox, I make a point of using conservative outlets whenever possible when arguing with conservatives. I like to hoist them by their own petard.;):evil:

The four who voted against it are also considered by most to be the 4 MOST Conservative members of the court.....this was NOT a politicaly mixed opinion in any way......the so called two Repubs were appointed by Repubs but have never been considered Conservative(and their voting records support that)

To put it another way.........Ginsburg and her cohorts voted to take away our rights and Scalia and co. voted to protect our rights.

......Sorry, but both sides don't suck equally in this decision......clearly one side was trying to protect our rights and one side was trying step on them.

both sides may not suck in this decision, but both sides still suck in general.

I think that one can be a liberal or a conservative and not side with their respective parties on occasion. For instance, my Republican family (and my Alex P. Keaton brother) all voted for Kerry, having been disenchanted with W's decisions.

And I can be angry at Ginsberg et al because I think they're missing the boat.

Divert from your party line when you think they're the ones diverting from it.

Well said, LS. I am not blindly Democrat- I take things issue by issue, and vote accordingly. Which is another reason I read FoxNews and sources other than CNN and MSNBC. It's interesting to see the spin that gets put on a story, depending on the site. (I don't like the liberal spin any more than the conservative- it would be nice to just get the damn story straight up).

Which brings us back on topic to Mr. Rove. I think he's growing more arrogant with each passing day, and very soon he will cross a line that will make even the White House uncomfortable.

Fair enough and very respectable. I too "stray" away from my party from time to time(more often lately since they seem to be leaning away from the wisdom of Newt and Reagan)

Well, darn. I Almost derailed this thing away from Rove(looking around for something shinnier) :D

I wish I shared your optimism. I agree that he is becoming more arrogant but I think it is with the full blessing of the White House. I would like to believe that there is an ethical line that they would rather not cross, but I doubt it. I think they all share in said arrogance.

I'll pass you my paint brush just as soon as I finish painting Tom Cruise at the bottom of mine!

:D ;)

We now bring you, BullCrap Theater



Dick Cheney: Yeehaw, we is kickin' some Arab butt. Those crazy towel heads are gonna give up any day now.

General in Iraq: The insurgency is getting stronger and smarter. More foreign fighters are entering the country than ever.

Our esteemed Commander in Chief: Look, shiny!!




Thank you, this has been another edition of BullCrap Theater. We'd like to thank our sponsor, Haliburton, to whom we somehow ended up owing money. BullCrap Theater is a wholy owned subsidiary of the China National Offshore Oil Co.

Well, say what you want about Rove, but don't blame my thread on Dick Durbin for it....there has been name calling of Rove, Bush, Cheney, etc, LONG before Dick Durbin ever got mentioned.

However, I doubt you'll find Al Jazeera playing the Rove quote over and over again to give encouragement and fuel to the terrorists.

Neither will you find Al Jazeera playing the Durbin quote over and over. They played it when it was news.

WB, Leo. Hope you had a great trip

Oh, yee of little faith.

Looks like maybe Rove could wind up in a very hot seat: Rove and the CIA leak


(Fingers crossed and muttering "Oh, please, oh please...." :evil: )
This may be nothing, but if he is implicated, he's toast.

Yes, I've been following that story with a good bit of interest. It seems like a long shot, if for no other reason than I can't imagine Rove putting himself in such a vulnerable position. Still, one can dream. :)

I've often wondered what happened to Ralphie, the bratty kid who wanted a bb gun in A Christmas Story. Now I know.

Still waiting for the liberal media to unfairly crucify little ol' Rove for his harmless frat-boy shenanigans. I mean, c'mon, who among us hasn't outed an undercover intelligence agent during a time of war? Treason is always good for a few laughs. Can you dig?

Honestly, I don't think it was Rove. As this happened well before the election, I believe if it was Rove, THAT would have been the story - how the chief Bush strategist was leaking names of CIA operatives.

Perhaps it was Kerry. That would be funny. After all, didn't he recently (in the Bolton hearings) leak the name of a CIA operative named Armstrong? To be fair, Republican Richard Lugar did the same thing.

Honestly, I knew you would say that. :p

Really? I thought it was just me.

Don't you find it just a bit coincidental though that Rove was fired from the Bush Sr. campaign in 92 for leaking information to Robert Novak?

Am I that predictable? Gosh, I feel the need to bring up marijuana usage to throw you guys off balance.....

Who knows. It could be Rove. If it is, throw him to the wolves. I would find it more likely that Rove would give the info to someone not associated with the campaign (or on the far, far outskirts of it) if he wanted the info leaked. Call him what you will, but he's smart. Too smart to be directly linked to it. And way, way to smart to tell it directly to someone at the NYT....like I said, that would become the story, and would be have been tremendously damaging to the campaign.

Oh, merde, Scaeagles. Just get it over with and say what you really want to.


"It was Clinton!!!!!"

;):p

Wendy! I am shocked that you would suggest such a thing!


but good lord, wouldn't that be great? :)

Life is good these days....:D
White House in hot seat

It is interesting how the party that has claimed the role of 'patriots' is downplaying Rove's role in this. You've got one of their own involved in the outing of a CIA agent, and it's just no big deal.:rolleyes:

Treason is in the eye of the beholder, wendybeth.

I find it interesting that the NY Times won't reveal their source, yet they are going after Rove as if he is. If he is the source, then they should come out and say so. If he is not the source, then they should not act as if he is.

The NY Times wants to have it both ways. They want to act as if Rove is the source without saying if he is or not. This is not to excuse Rove should he be the source - I have said before if he is, he should be fired and prosecuted.

It's obvious what they're doing (Rove's handlers)- they are slowly acclimating people to the idea that Rove might be involved, and spinning it like crazy. By the time the full extent of his involvement is divulged, they hope that people might be bored with it, or desensitized to the whole subject, etc. Look for a character assassination on Plame and her hubby as well, although they've been making snotty little comments about them all along. The spin they are putting on his e-mail is just ridiculous and strains credulity, especially with his track record.

Let your voice be heard.

Thanks, Sactown. :snap:

You really enjoyed that, didn't you, Sac? LOL

Well, if there are going to be links to move on, I'll link a factual article from NRO -

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200507121626.asp

Says it better than I ever could. Rove didn't do it.

scaeagles,

Any thoughts on why Scott McClellan didn't just say that Rove didn't do it in the press conference yesterday, if that is actually the case? Sure seems like he took a beating for nothing. :)

No thoughts on that, really.

Oh, he was trying to warn Time, to help them not publish an erroneous report....Too bad he didn't do the same for Newsweek.

Karl Rove: Martyred media samaritan. :rolleyes:

I wonder if this will be allowed to die now.....

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050715/D8BBQEVO0.html

"The person, who works in the legal profession and spoke only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy, told The Associated Press that Rove testified last year that he remembers specifically being told by columnist Robert Novak that Valerie Plame, the wife of a harsh Iraq war critic, worked for the CIA.

Rove testified that Novak originally called him the Tuesday before Plame's identity was revealed in July 2003 to discuss another story."

"In an interview on CNN earlier Thursday before the latest revelation, Wilson kept up his criticism of the White House, saying Rove's conduct was an "outrageous abuse of power ... certainly worthy of frog-marching out of the White House."

But at the same time, Wilson acknowledged his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak's column first identified her. "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity," he said."

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...1257-9887r.htm

"A former CIA covert agent who supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career yesterday took issue with her identification as an "undercover agent," saying that she worked for more than five years at the agency's headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee.
"She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat," Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990, told The Washington Times. "

So.....
Novak told Rove the name "Valerie Plame". Novak was the one who initiated contact.

Cooper (as discussed earlier) believed a lie of Wilson that Cheney recommended he go to Niger, when it was in fact his wife Plame, and was corrected on it. Cooper was the one who initiated contact.

Wilson acknowledges that his wife wasn't undercover when the Novak article ran.

Most of her friends and neighbors knew she worked for the CIA, so this was hardly any secret.

I wonder what the new "attack Rove" spin will be.

That's good enough for me.


Monica Lewinsky.

Not to be mean, but is there a woman alive who would Lewinsky Rove? He is a tad.....scary looking.

Our definition of good or his definition?

Now, to unravel some spin... :)

I'm having a hard time believing that Rove did not know the name Valerie Plame prior to Novak mentioning it. Even though he has a past history of this kind of stuff, that of which got him fired from Bush Seniors campaign in 92. And, even though her husband had royally pissed off the administration recently (for telling the truth, no less). Nope, I'm sure Rove was totally in the dark.

From MediaMatters.com: Link


From MediaMatters.com: link
Working for the CIA and being known to be a covert op are two entirely different things. Here is an interesting perspective from someone who was a classmate of Valerie.

Truth? I'm certain this will be the subject of debate forever....I'll go with the senate committee's unanimous report.

Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Unanimous Report: “Conclusion 13. The Report On The Former Ambassador’s Trip To Niger, Disseminated In March 2002, Did Not Change Any Analysts’ Assessments Of The Iraq-Niger Uranium Deal.” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04)

And Wilson did assert it was the VP -
Joe Wilson: “[W]hat They Did, What The Office Of The Vice President Did, And, In Fact, I Believe Now From Mr. Libby’s Statement, It Was Probably The Vice President Himself ...” (CNN’s “Late Edition,” 8/3/03)

Regardless, nothing can change two facts - that Cooper and Novak initiated the conversations with Rove, not vice-versa. Hardly what one would expect if there was a plot to out Wilson's wife. And Cooper told Rove, as was evidenced in the email mentioned previously, that the VP sent Wilson on the trip. Rove corrected him.

This is about to die. It's over. Dead. Rove didn't do it. Now.....when will the NY Times allow their source, who has waived confidentiality with them, to be known? I wonder why they won't?

Not quite that easy. Novak found out about Plame, mentioned it to Rove, and soon published it in his column. Novak cited that two administration officials told him about this. Somebody committed a serious crime here. I think we can both agree to this.

During this process however, Rove basically told him that he had heard the same thing. Considering the information they are discussing, what right did Rove have to confirm this to Novak? Maybe not technically a crime but highly unethical. Rove's security clearance should be removed for this alone.

Then, four days later, Rove went on to inform another journalist that Joseph Wilson's wife was a CIA employee. It doesn't matter that he didn't use her name. Nor does it matter that Novak already had this information. What matters is Karl Rove actively divulged the identity of a CIA employee. That violates federal law.

I know how much you all want this to go away but I don't think that is going to happen here. I expect to see at least one indictment. Time will tell.

My major question, which is extremely valid, and just as serious as giving the name, did he verify that she worked for the CIA. Because that offense is just as serious as disclosing the information, because it IS disclosing the information. And that is one of the questions I would be looking at if I were investigating this. In fairness, I will allow Mr. Rove to be innocent until proven guilty, but he is still a suspect.

Actually, Novak said he called the CIA to confirm that she worked for the CIA. If the CIA confirmed it, and if most of her friends and neighbors knew she was in the CIA because she talked it up (as her former boss has asserted), then that isn't even unethical, much less illegal.

And I know how much you want this to go to the highest levels of the Bush administration.

No, what I want is accountability. This administration thinks they can get away with anything. They think they can lie us into a war, and so far have been quite successful. They have destroyed many a persons career in the process. If someone doesn't say exactly what they want them to, they go on the attack. Someone in this administration leaked the name of a covert op. That is a felony, and according to Bush Senior, "the highest form of treason". I could personally care less if it was Rove, personal distaste for the man aside. I want whoever is responsible held accountable for a change.

I could say the same thing about other administrations, but it doesn't matter.

If you support accountability, I hope that you want the NY Times to reveal their source. Get the poor woman out of jail. The source already said it was OK to tell. Again, I suspect the editors at the NY Times does not want the source revealed because it could cause embarrassment to someone they do not wish to be embarrassed.

I find it highly unlikey that Novak, or anyone for that matter, could call the CIA and have that information confirmed, especially without the proper clearance, which Novak certainly doesn't have.

I also have not seen any evidence that her friends and neighbors knew that she worked for the CIA.

Also, from Media Matters:

Novak:
'Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. In July I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction. Another senior official told me the same thing. As a professional journalist with 46 years experience in Washington I do not reveal confidential sources. When I called the CIA in July to confirm Mrs. Wilson's involvement in the mission for her husband -- he is a former Clinton administration official -- they asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else. According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operator, and not in charge of undercover operatives'

So he called the CIA and a former Clinton administration official confirmed it. Sounds like that's the guy who should be found and indicted.

I think you're getting off track here.

Notice where the offending words (he is a former Clinton administration official) are placed in the sentence - directly after "... Mrs. Wilson's involvement in the mission for her husband". My sense here is he's talking about Joseph Wilson, not his confidential source at the CIA. And by getting "he is a former Clinton administration official" in the records, he's introduced the idea that Wilson was motivated by the politics of embarrassing this President.

But what do we find if we keep picking at this statement?

To do so would have indicated to Novak that Plame was in fact a covert agent, wouldn't it?

Asked him, specifically, not to use her name, eh?

Using her name would be identifiying a covert agent, wouldn't it?

... which Novak proceeded to do.

Red courtesy phone for Mr. Novak: Your source was trying to keep you out of trouble.

I agree this confidential source should be questioned. He did NOT handle this exchange with Novak properly. "No comment" would have been the appropriate response, in my opinion. But, it seems that Mr. Novak disagrees with us about who should be indicted and questioned. In order to question this informant, Novak would have to identify him/her. I just don't see that happening unless Novak is compelled to do so.

Of course, it is possible this informant has been called by the Grand Jury and records of any such appearance have not been linked to Novak, at least in the media.

Of course you're right....I was half being funny, trying to poke at MBC. That may shock you, of course.....me, try to poke at a lib????? :)

You scamp, you!

No worries, and in fact, I confess to being a bit relieved. I was afraid you actually believed the crap you were spewing. ;)

Well, just the leak coming from a Clinton official was the joke.....my quote from Novak sayin it wasn't anyone in the Bush administration certainly wasn't crap. :)

Any if anyone should be accused of being confused while posting, it would most certainly be you, MBC. Haven't you been up since 1am or something to line up for the day at DL????? How are you supposed to think clearly after that? :p

Actually, I have been up since 3pm Saturday (30 hours and counting) so you might have a point, or not. Hell, I don't know. :)

Please, please, everybody. Enough! Remember, Karl Rove is just as Satan made him. He can't help it.

Gosh, what with Bolton, Cindy Sheehan, and the Supreme Court battle coming on soon everybody is forgetting about our favorite guy( ;) ).............US News and World Report columnist blogger

Charles Nelson Reilly????

Hold The Phones!!!!
 

WAIT JUST ONE MINUTE... is it me, or is THIS GUY IN THE PICTURE, Rove with a Scarf?...