Karl Rove: The Republican Mastermind

[SOS2008]

BTW GENIERE, DNFTT was not directed at you. Recently there has been disruption in several threads, with a particular member as the common variable who never presented a case/evidence one way or another regarding the OP/topic, thus pushing the troll envelope IMO.

There are many members who do not share my position, however I respect their view because they are knowledgeable, they make their case with reliable sources, and don’t just spew “on message” rhetoric. Also, we all express opinions since these topics are of a subjective nature, however if a member denounces another member's source, evidence should be forthcoming--not an unsubstantiated opinion.

Moving on…

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8605680/

"Reporter: Rove was first source on CIA leak"
MSNBC News Services
Updated: 3:36 p.m. ET July 17, 2005

WASHINGTON - White House political aide Karl Rove was the first person to tell a Time magazine reporter that the wife of a prominent critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policy was a CIA officer, the reporter said in an article Sunday.

Time correspondent Matthew Cooper said he told a grand jury last week that Rove told him the woman worked at the "agency," or CIA, on weapons of mass destruction issues, and ended the call by saying "I've already said too much."

He said Rove did not disclose the woman's name, Valerie Plame, but told him information would be declassified that would cast doubt on the credibility of her husband, former diplomat Joseph Wilson, who had charged the Bush administration with exaggerating the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs in making its case for war.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050717.wciaa07171a/BNStory/International/

"Cheney’s office linked to Rove affair"
Sunday, July 17, 2005 Updated at 5:37 PM EDT
Associated Press

Washington — U.S. Vice-President Richard Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, was a source along with U.S. President George W. Bush's chief political adviser for a Time story that identified a CIA officer, the magazine reporter said Sunday, further countering White House claims that neither aide was involved in the leak.

Quotes: Big Bush Lies About Rove, Jerry Politex
• "If there's a leak in my administration, I want to know who it is." --George W. Bush
• "The White House has flatly rejected as "ridiculous" and "just not true" suggestions that the source in question was Karl Rove..." --Globe and Mail
• "There's been nothing, absolutely nothing, brought to our attention to suggest any White House involvement, and that includes the vice president's office, as well,...if anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no
longer be in this administration." --Bush Press Sec. Scott McCellan
• "McClellan said Rove "wasn't involved" in any disclosure of the operative's name. "The president knows he wasn't involved. . . . It's simply not true." --Washington Post
• "In early October 2003, NEWSWEEK reported that immediately after Novak's column appeared in July, Rove called MSNBC "Hardball" host Chris Matthews and told him that Wilson's wife was "fair game." But White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters at the time that any suggestion that Rove had played a role in outing Plame was "totally ridiculous."" --MSNBC
• "White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove spoke with at least one reporter about Valerie Plame's role at the CIA before she was identified as a covert agent in a newspaper column two years ago, but Rove's lawyer said yesterday that his client did not identify her by name." --Washington Post
• "I didn't know her name, and I didn't leak her name." --Karl Rove
• "Federal law prohibits intentionally disclosing "any information identifying" a covert operative. So Rove broke the law, right? Unless he insists he didn't know she was a covert CIA agent. But how did he know Wilson's wife [last name, Plame] even worked for the CIA? After all, she was undercover." --Ward Harkavy
• "So, Rove's defense now hangs on one word—he "never knowingly disclosed classified information." Does that mean Rove simply didn't know Valerie Plame was a covert agent? Or does it just mean that Rove did not know that the CIA was "taking affirmative measures" to hide her identity? --Lawrence O'Donnell
• Getting Off Scott Free: AP Presents McClellan's Past Quotes on Rove and Plame --to July 11, 2005
• "Nearly two years after stating that any administration official found to have been involved in leaking the name of an undercover C.I.A. officer would be fired, and assuring that Karl Rove and other senior aides to President Bush had nothing to do with the disclosure, the White House on Monday refused to answer any questions about new evidence of Mr. Rove's role in the matter." --Washington Post
• "The real Rove scandal...If you can't shoot the messenger, take aim at his wife. That clearly was the intent of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove in leaking to a reporter that former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV's wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA agent. To try to conceal the fact that the president had lied to the American public about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, Rove attempted to destroy the credibility of two national security veterans and send an intimidating message to any other government officials preparing to publicly tell the truth. Rove's lawyer now says that Rove didn't break the law against naming covert agents because he didn't know Plame's name and therefore couldn't have revealed it. Perhaps he can use such a technicality in court, but in the meantime he should resign immediately — or be fired by the president — for leaking classified information, trying to smear Wilson and possibly endangering Plame's life." --Robert Scheer, LAT

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ho ho ho, merry Christmas!

 

[Archon]

Ho ho ho, merry Christmas!

Yay! Christmas!

So, what's Jolly Old St. Rove bringing us this year?

I want a pony, and a book, and a kitten, and a slanderous attack on the Democratic Party.

 

[GENIERE]

BTW GENIERE, DNFTT was not directed at you….

In response to my post:"Why bother with a rejoinder..."

You replied:

... In the meantime, please DNFTT.

.
So much for the denial unless you are unfamiliar with the usage of DNFTT.

... Recently there has been disruption in several threads, with a particular member as the common variable who never presented a case/evidence one way or another regarding the OP/topic, thus pushing the troll envelope IMO.

That may be your opinion of the individual but is not shared by me. The term would be more applicable to me as my posts have degenerated over the years due to the mindless drivel I’ve read in these forums. Russ Waters is a better man than me as he still fights the good fight.

Especially disturbing to me is the ceaseless citation of media liberals who cite opinions of other liberals who cite other liberals and on and on and on…

I would hope you realize that the cited articles are opinion and represent distortion of the facts. Yes, the conservatives are often guilty but I would never knowingly cite opinion as fact.

The last citation is “ugh”, I can’t think of a suitable word.

The first four words “The real Rove scandal” are a necessary preface to the article due to leaked information from the grand jury that exonerates Mr. Rove. Since the unreal scandal must be discounted, it is necessary to begin another.

This is followed by the journalist’s amazing ability to read Karl Rove’s mind:

“ That clearly was the intent of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove in leaking to a reporter…”

If your intent is to persuade others, stick to the facts. If you wish to get into a nodding frenzy with other leftist's keep citing drivel. If you simply want to provide your opinion in a positive manner, I look forward to reading it. Negativism serves no purpose, not mine not yours.

 

[Townsend]

if a member denounces another member's source, evidence should be forthcoming--not an unsubstantiated opinion.

Can you provide me with your evidence of the above claim? Can you provide me with a non-biased link with some evidence supporting your opinion about such matters. Can you prove me with evidence that my opinion is unsubstantiated?

Or is this an unsubstantiated opinion to which no evidence is required to support?

If I want to state facts, that I am claiming are facts then you will have your source; unless of course you agree with the stated facts and so no source is required. However, I will give my opinion, as you have just done so, when and where I choose unless my opinion is somehow a violation of this forums TOU. I could careless if you don't like what I say or what your opinion about me is.

In the future please be forthcoming about who you are talking about as this little game is childish. You didn't make a personal attack on me and so there really is no reason for you play these games.

Townsend (rest his case)

 

[BobG]

I'll be very surprised if it turns out that Rove actually violated the law.

He's been practicing this since 1970. As a rookie working for Donald Segretti (who was convicted in Watergate), Rove was caught for breaking into a Democratic campaign headquarters, stealing some letterhead, and mailing out bogus campaign letters (it was considered a college prank).

He also worked with Lee Atwater, another famous master of the dirty campaign trick (at least, until Atwater developed a brain tumor, converted to catholocism, and started mailing out apology letters to the politicians he'd trashed.)

The only mistake I've heard of him making since his rookie year was in 1992, when he alledgedly allowed his personal vendettas to interfere with his professional life and he trashed a valuable contributor to Bush senior's campaign (it was never proven, but he wound being fired from the Bush campaign).

Rove has learned from each of his mentors and has taken the art of the dirty trick to a whole new level. Surely he's too good by now to make a stupid mistake that could land him jail.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This excerpt expresses the notion that has my hopes up. Taken from the interview with Woodward and Bernstein, the men who took down Nixon ala Watergate; This interview aired yesterday on Meet The Press.

MR. RUSSERT: When Mr. Felt was sharing this information with Bob Woodward, and Bob Woodward with you, Carl Bernstein, you, early on, had a sense of just the bigness of it. And while getting a cup of coffee at a machine at The Washington Post, turned to Bob Woodward and said, "Oh, my God, Richard Nixon is going to be impeached."

MR. BERNSTEIN: That's right.

MR. RUSSERT: And Mr. Woodward said, "Don't ever say that in this newsroom."

MR. BERNSTEIN: That's correct. And the reason is that context is all. It's not just the individual facts. Just as context is all in the Karl Rove case. It's not just about Karl Rove. It's about WMD. It's about the truthfulness of the White House. And in Watergate, we were able to get this context very early because not originally Deep Throat but rather the bookkeeper for the committee for the re-election of the president, some other sources that Bob and I had, and Mark Felt all described to us this incredible "switchblade atmosphere" in the White House...

MR. WOODWARD: Yeah.

MR. BERNSTEIN: ...and that context told us Watergate wasn't just about a break-in. It was about a mentality...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8565312/
"NBC NEWS' MEET THE PRESS."

 

[2CentsWorth]

So much for the denial unless you are unfamiliar with the usage of DNFTT.

It only meant that you responded to that member, and were therefore feeding the situation--you were not being called a troll. So why the tiff?

Can you provide me with your evidence of the above claim?

You referred to a source as BS. Instead of providing your own evidence to substantiate why it was BS, not only were you derogatory, you only provided an opinion (something to the effect that most people in the military come from well to do families). That doesn't cut it--at least not if a liberal member had done that.

This excerpt expresses the notion that has my hopes up. Taken from the interview with Woodward and Bernstein, the men who took down Nixon ala Watergate; This interview aired yesterday on Meet The Press.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8565312/
"NBC NEWS' MEET THE PRESS."

I watched that as well--interesting and good comparison.

 

[Townsend]

You referred to a source as BS. Instead of providing your own evidence to substantiate why it was BS, not only were you derogatory,...

Here is the article in question, for reference of course.

Joiners. Demographically, Joiners are predominantly from less well-to-do working or lower middle-class homes. They tend, as well, to reside in smaller towns or rural environments. Most of the youth in this category have a familial tradition of military service and/or extensive contact with people serving in the military. Their familiarity with military life, also, is generally greater than that for youth in any of the other propensity groups, although this familiarity does not always prove a positive influence. Some of the descriptions of military life lead to ambivalence about enlisting in the military.

Many of the youth in this group feel they are not college material or that they are not ready for college at this time. Some are not academically inclined, and others believe that they lack the discipline to study and avoid the "party" temptation if they were to go away to school. "Discipline" and "taking orders" form the most central images of military life for Joiners. These images were not necessarily negative. Several youth noted that accepting discipline can serve an important and maturing role in their lives. For many, the military is considered a structured environment that can prepare them for future careers.

The primary motivations for joining the military are to gain access to training and benefits. Training is considered a stepping stone to the future. Some are enlisting expressly to obtain money for education. These youth are either not ready for college at this time or require funds in order to pursue higher education. Relatively few youth mention serving their country as a motivation for enlistment. The few that did were often apologetic and prefaced their remarks with "I’m not all that patriotic, but..." as if embarrassed to admit a larger social or ideological motivation. Most expressed apprehension about war. Combat and the possibility of dying or killing were worrisome, but they generally considered they were entering a peacetime military.

Separate the facts stated here from the opinions for me please. Comments like in the very first paragraph are more speculation than facts and they are condescending and prejudice. If this were an article about a minority group such as blacks, it would be outright racist.

It’s like you are telling me that, “The primary motivations for joining the military are to gain access to training and benefits” is anything more than a biased personal opinion of that author. In some cases it maybe the primary motivation but in most cases I have seen it is not. For example, I know the reason I joined and whoever wrote that apparently does not know or understand those reasons at all. That is a substantiated FACT that is beyond contestation by virtue of it being ME who is the only person alive who can decide this. I think that article is crap and I don’t have to provide a link to say so. I am basing my opinion on the FACT that in my case and the case of the majority of fellow military enlisted personal, with whom I've had very close personal relationships with so I know I can speak on their behalf, that the opinions in the article is not just off base but completely wrong.

How, please do tell, would you like me to source my FACTUAL experience and opinion that is directly relevant to the article in question. Or, is it that you think I am lying about what I am saying? Should I get one of my friends that has navy.mil IP address to corroborate my story?

you only provided an opinion (something to the effect that most people in the military come from well to do families).

Is it your opinion that liberals tend to vote along democratic party lines? If there were no links to provide evidence to support that opinion would it be wrong? If someone found a link to an opinion that said other wise how would you refute it?

I cannot find a link that agrees with my opinion but that does not make it wrong. What I can do is provide evidence however...

http://www.defenselink.mil/militarypay/retirement/calc/01_finalpay.html
That describes how to calculate military retirement pay or you can just use the calculator. Now, you typically need 20 years of service to retire but often times people go well beyond 20 years and so their pay goes up accordingly. Now after 20 years a typical person will more than likely be an E-7 and up so we will shoot for low numbers and just say typically a retired person will be an E-7, unless were are talking about officers in which case they make considerably more.

Obviously your not making a killing right after retirement but after a couple of years making about 5k a month on retirement is easy to do (this is being around 15 years according to the chart). While that person is collecting that retirement from Uncle Sam they will more often than not also have another job supplementing their income. So, if that highly trained person enters the job market with his all his experience and skills then on the low side he or she will still be pulling in at least 2k a month, more than likely something like 6 or 7k a month. So, if their wives don't work and they are the single source of income in that house then they are pulling in around 84k a year. Is that a bad income? I don’t think it is but maybe this forum has nothing but millionaires on it.

Besides everything just listed, most people that are retirement material that I have ever met invest about 10 percent of their income. Don’t ask me for a link to prove that because I have no idea where to find one. I guess I am just not interweb savvy enough to locate such obscure information from a reliable source.


What irks me about this is that if my experiences and opinions were in agreement with how you felt then all of a sudden you would defending me instead of trying to denigrate a perfectly good point of view.

Regards,

 

[danAlwyn]

So, if their wives don't work and they are the single source of income in that house then they are pulling in around 84k a year. Is that a bad income? I don’t think it is but maybe this forum has nothing but millionaires on it.

I think the point is that a majority of the people in the military aren't staying long enough to enjoy these benefits, which is a good thing for the military. Think of it like this. The Army alone claims to have 1,041,000 people in their total strength (that's Army HR's 2004 Army Profile). In twenty years if just half of them are retired and pulling down 5k per month, that's thirty billion a year. It's a lot of money. Now I can't find the defense department's breakdown, but if you add in the pay to those who will be making more than 5k per month, I doubt that ten percent of the US defense budget is earmarked for Army retirees. Remember, that's assuming that Navy, Marine and Air Force retirees will patriotically refuse to collect their retirement paychecks, and donate that money back to the military.

There are a lot of people who get a lot of money out of the military, and are fairly well-to-do. They get good jobs afterwards. But they aren't a majority of former military personnel. Most people don't seem to do the full fifteen-twenty year haul.

That is a substantiated FACT that is beyond contestation by virtue of it being ME who is the only person alive who can decide this. I think that article is crap and I don’t have to provide a link to say so. I am basing my opinion on the FACT that in my case and the case of the majority of fellow military enlisted personal, with whom I've had very close personal relationships with so I know I can speak on their behalf, that the opinions in the article is not just off base but completely wrong.

I'm not trusting the statistics on either side on this. Not to be insulting, but as much as I may have doubts about that article, I have some doubts about your testimony as well. I'll explain why (and then you can decide whether or not to flame me to a crisp). From your personality it just seems to me that if someone had come into the military with the attitude that "I'm not really doing this for my country, I'm just doing it as a job" you wouldn't immediately have tried to get all buddy-buddy with them. They probably would have left the military fairly soon anyways, and you might never have associated with them. Those who join because of patriotism, or because they really like the military life, are going to stay a lot longer. So after a few years all the people you know personally are motivated, proud to be in the military and have nothing but disdain for the other types.

I'm paranoid about taking your experiences as representative of all military veterans (of any part of the service), after having suffered some brushes with a few military fanatics (the kind who claimed that a US officer or soldier has never made a mistake-that only politicians make mistakes). My father joined the army back before Vietnam and he spent two years of his life as a typist in front of a typewriter. He told me that he was not motivated a great deal, and that most of his motivation had worn off by the end. If I enlisted, my eyesight is so bad that they would probably have to lock me in a warehouse somewhere (especially since I can't drive worth a damn). I can't see being very gung-ho about the job after six or seven months stacking boxes. I have a friend who dropped out of the Marines because he was bored; he joined the marines to shoot stuff and blow stuff up-not because he was really motivated to. Instead they were going to stick him somewhere sorting ordinance, so he just quit. I have an ex-navy guy I used to work with who served in the Navy for a while, but has never come across the conviction of some others. These are also personal experiences from trusted individuals.

I've met some great people who had wonderful experiences in the US military, and who are really fired up about it if you ask them about it. I've also met a lot of others who sort of shrug their shoulders and treat it like it was a job. I can't tell whether the people I know are truly representative of the population, so instead of using that as the basis of a factual opinion I look for statistics that have been more thoroughly gathered.

Basically my point (after much wandering) is that I'm a bit leery of both unsupported statistics, and evidence from personal experience, because both can be sort of biased. I hope nobody feels like I'm insulting them when I don't take their evidence at face value though...

-dA
Who has probably just stuck his foot in his mouth, but it is late and he is tired.

 

[edward]

The paragraph below is from a document prepared by "Defence Manpower Data Center". This private company provides recruiting research data for the DOD. And the document from which the paragraph was taken is currently used by the DOD in recuiting. (Which of course Townsend will deny)

"Joiners. Demographically, Joiners are predominantly from less well-to-do working or lower middle-class homes. They tend, as well, to reside in smaller towns or rural environments. Most of the youth in this category have a familial tradition of military service and/or extensive contact with people serving in the military. Their familiarity with military life, also, is generally greater than that for youth in any of the other propensity groups, although this familiarity does not always prove a positive influence. Some of the descriptions of military life lead to ambivalence about enlisting in the military."



The below paragraph was posted by Townsend regarding the above paragraph:

"Separate the facts stated here from the opinions for me please. Comments like in the very first paragraph are more speculation than facts and they are condescending and prejudice. If this were an article about a minority group such as blacks, it would be outright racist."

It sounds like Townsend is calling the DOD document; speculative,condescending and predjudice. But of course that could never happen. Oh what a tangled web we weave.

BTW wasn't this thread originally about Karl Rove?

 

[Townsend]

Which of course Townsend will deny

No, you showed me that it was as you claimed it to be. No problem unless you want to pretend I cannot change my position with new information about things.

It sounds like Townsend is calling the DOD document; speculative,condescending and predjudice. But of course that could never happen. Oh what a tangled web we weave.

Lets pretend this document was talking about colleges recruiting black athletes for a moment. Can you see why some of the assumptions would seem to be condescending and perhaps even prejudice?

BTW wasn't this thread originally about Karl Rove?

I didn't take this off-topic, I was only trying to defend myself. So don't point the finger at me.

Regards,

 

[Townsend]

...
Basically my point (after much wandering) is that I'm a bit leery of both unsupported statistics, and evidence from personal experience, because both can be sort of biased. I hope nobody feels like I'm insulting them when I don't take their evidence at face value though...

I appreciate your input. My point is not to completely refute that article but simply to offer an alternative point of view. I don't expect you to accept my experience as absolute truth and I am not offend that you don't take it at face value. I am very please to hear that you looked at it and made a fair judgement about it instead of just dismissing it.

Regards,

 

[edward]

A lesser moment for capitalism and Karl Rove

Sorry guys and gals I just couldn't resist posting this link.

http://www.cafepress.com/thewhitehouse/438933

 

[The Smoking Man]

Sorry guys and gals I just couldn't resist posting this link.

http://www.cafepress.com/thewhitehouse/438933

I feel your pain.

 

[SOS2008]

Sorry guys and gals I just couldn't resist posting this link.

http://www.cafepress.com/thewhitehouse/438933

Made in China no doubt?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Made in China no doubt?

I may be able to get bootleg then!?

Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum ... it's a pirates life for me.

 

[SOS2008]

I may be able to get bootleg then!?

Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum ... it's a pirates life for me.

Ah the wonders of capitalism.

I saw this, and though I don't vouch for this blogger website, the message contains valid information:

Sunday, July 17, 2005
Rovian Republicanism

Rove continues to memorize the hard core Republicans as he plays the cards they want to see. In typical Rovian fashion, he promotes slander on non-warmongers by publicly announcing that "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." In reality every Senator of this land voted to go to war on lies told to America by Rovian Republicans.

Rove is part of the rabid and radical conservative movement designed to tear this country apart rather than bind us together in the time of Terror. His followers, who call themselves Conservative Republicans, do not represent the traditional Conservative Republican of yesterday. Rovians represent a radical faction designed to push the traditional beliefs just a little further each time until the whole Republican party thinks it’s ok to slander and destroy other Americans.

Rovian dogma shows us that if you keep a country in a state of panic, fear, or hatred, you can compromise the values of the people of that state without being noticed. You can scare journalists into keeping their mouths shut. You can give away billions to your favorite corporations while the people are not looking. You can steal oil from another county. You can slander, oppress, and exterminate a race of people you don’t like.

The Rovian Republicans are in danger of ripping up the very fabric of America and American traditional values. If this movement is allowed to continue, it will turn American into a kill or be killed state with no tolerance anywhere. The sleeping giant does not feel it yet when he turns on his big-screen television, but by the time he notices it will be too late.

http://republicanwhore.com/2005/07/rovian-republicanism.html

 

[edward]

Sos2008

"Rovian dogma shows us that if you keep a country in a state of panic, fear, or hatred, you can compromise the values of the people of that state without being noticed. You can scare journalists into keeping their mouths shut."

I seem to remember Adolph Hitlers minister of propoganda saying something similar: "Convince the people that they have an enemy and they will follow you without question" (probably not verbatim but close).

 

[The Smoking Man]

Ah the wonders of capitalism.

I saw this, and though I don't vouch for this blogger website, the message contains valid information:
http://republicanwhore.com/2005/07/rovian-republicanism.html

'ja think they might be biased

LOL

 

[2CentsWorth]

"Rovian dogma shows us that if you keep a country in a state of panic, fear, or hatred, you can compromise the values of the people of that state without being noticed. You can scare journalists into keeping their mouths shut."

I seem to remember Adolph Hitlers minister of propoganda saying something similar: "Convince the people that they have an enemy and they will follow you without question" (probably not verbatim but close).

Oh the web we weave, when at first we try to deceive... There is so much crap hitting the fan it's becoming a friggin' musical chairs routine.

 

[BobG]

Sunday, July 17, 2005
Rovian Republicanism

Rove continues to memorize the hard core Republicans as he plays the cards they want to see. In typical Rovian fashion, he promotes slander on non-warmongers by publicly announcing that "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." In reality every Senator of this land voted to go to war on lies told to America by Rovian Republicans.

Rove is part of the rabid and radical conservative movement designed to tear this country apart rather than bind us together in the time of Terror. His followers, who call themselves Conservative Republicans, do not represent the traditional Conservative Republican of yesterday. Rovians represent a radical faction designed to push the traditional beliefs just a little further each time until the whole Republican party thinks it’s ok to slander and destroy other Americans.

Rovian dogma shows us that if you keep a country in a state of panic, fear, or hatred, you can compromise the values of the people of that state without being noticed. You can scare journalists into keeping their mouths shut. You can give away billions to your favorite corporations while the people are not looking. You can steal oil from another county. You can slander, oppress, and exterminate a race of people you don’t like.

The Rovian Republicans are in danger of ripping up the very fabric of America and American traditional values. If this movement is allowed to continue, it will turn American into a kill or be killed state with no tolerance anywhere. The sleeping giant does not feel it yet when he turns on his big-screen television, but by the time he notices it will be too late.

This article is wrong because it completely misses the point regarding Rove. He has no 'followers'. He's more like an amplifier than a source. His business is running campaigns and ideology figures very little in his motivations. He sabotaged Texas religious conservatives when they posed an obstacle to Bush's run for governor - he mobilized the nation's religious conservatives when he needed their support to beat Kerry in 2004.

He's very good at what he does and more amoral than immoral - anything goes as long as it contributes to success. But the responsibility for the policies of his candidates still reside with his candidates, not Rove.

 

[Informal Logic]

"Memo central to probe of leak spelled out information’s status"
Washington Post
Updated: 12:21 a.m. ET July 21, 2005

A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.
---------
Three key questions
The memo may be important to answering three central questions in the Plame case: Who in the Bush administration knew about Plame's CIA role? Did they know the agency was trying to protect her identity? And, who leaked it to the media?

Almost all of the memo is devoted to describing why State Department intelligence experts did not believe claims that Saddam Hussein had in the recent past sought to purchase uranium from Niger. Only two sentences in the seven-sentence paragraph mention Wilson's wife.

The memo was delivered to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell on July 7, 2003, as he headed to Africa for a trip with President Bush aboard Air Force One. Plame was unmasked in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak seven days later.[/QUOTE]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8635385/

The timing is very suspect--not only as this relates to the leak, but also the speech Bush made later in which he made claims regarding the existence of uranium from Niger, obviously contrary to the memo.

 

[SOS2008]

'ja think they might be biased

LOL

I was googling for information about mainstream media in the U.S., which led to media whores, which led to this site—with a title like that who could resist?

This article is wrong because it completely misses the point regarding Rove. He has no 'followers'. He's more like an amplifier than a source. His business is running campaigns and ideology figures very little in his motivations. He sabotaged Texas religious conservatives when they posed an obstacle to Bush's run for governor - he mobilized the nation's religious conservatives when he needed their support to beat Kerry in 2004.

He's very good at what he does and more amoral than immoral - anything goes as long as it contributes to success. But the responsibility for the policies of his candidates still reside with his candidates, not Rove.

You are correct that Bush has the following, and Rove is the wizard pulling levers behind the curtain. In regard to election strategy, Bush lost in his first attempt to run for congress. He lost because he was considered an Easterner (not a Texan), but most of all because he failed to appeal to the religious-right. Later when Bush ran for governor, it was made known that he was ‘born-again,’ and since then he has always concluded his speaking engagements with “God bless you.” This has continued with appeal to Hispanics, and of course making the issue of gay marriage #1 in the 2004 election. Aside from other election controversies (I can attest to this personally in 2004 in which my vote did not count), the use of propositions to ban gay marriage did wonders to get the fundamentalists to the polls (including in states where gay marriage was already banned via statutes). Aside from the narrow margins, Bush supporters wonder why many Americans don’t accept the election results as a mandate or even particularly legitimate.

There are so many examples, such as whether Bush was wearing an earpiece during the debates, the way they use Laura Bush, and you know someone is providing prompt reminders to Bush to stop scowling and smile – where would he be without Rove!?

 

[SOS2008]

New headlines:

"Root of the Rove controversy is the war in Iraq
U.S. justification for waging war on Saddam still haunts White House"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8562589/

And another about Rove and how it was easier to get into the Iraq war than getting out of the war. That the leak is related to lies about the war make Rove's defence weak.

 

[Smurf]

"Root of the Rove controversy is the war in Iraq

*gasp* : NooO! It can't be! I TOTALLY didn't see that coming.

 

[2CentsWorth]

*gasp* : NooO! It can't be! I TOTALLY didn't see that coming.

You foreigners are so ahead of the curve--please teach Americans how to do that!

 

[stoned]

having to deal with this huge mass of political imbeciles anyone could be called "mastermind"

 

[alexandra]

"Memo central to probe of leak spelled out information’s status"
Washington Post
Updated: 12:21 a.m. ET July 21, 2005

A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.
---------
Three key questions
The memo may be important to answering three central questions in the Plame case: Who in the Bush administration knew about Plame's CIA role? Did they know the agency was trying to protect her identity? And, who leaked it to the media?

Almost all of the memo is devoted to describing why State Department intelligence experts did not believe claims that Saddam Hussein had in the recent past sought to purchase uranium from Niger. Only two sentences in the seven-sentence paragraph mention Wilson's wife.

The memo was delivered to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell on July 7, 2003, as he headed to Africa for a trip with President Bush aboard Air Force One. Plame was unmasked in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak seven days later.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8635385/

The timing is very suspect--not only as this relates to the leak, but also the speech Bush made later in which he made claims regarding the existence of uranium from Niger, obviously contrary to the memo.

Good point about the timing, Informal Logic - it seems to provide firm evidence of deliberate lying to justify the invasion of Iraq (not that there isn't already evidence about this).

On the topic of the implications of Rove getting away scott free, a Reuters article of 22 July reported as follows:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush's failure to take action against a top aide involved in the outing of a covert CIA operative sends "the wrong message" overseas, former U.S. intelligence officials said on Friday.

At a hearing sponsored by Democrats, the retired agents said U.S. intelligence gathering had been damaged by the leak of Valerie Plame's name two years ago after her husband, former diplomat Joseph Wilson, criticized the White House's justification for going to war in Iraq.
...
"What has suffered irreversible damage is the credibility of our case officers when they try to convince an overseas contact that their safety is of primary importance to us," Jim Marcinkowski, a former CIA case officer, said. [Own emphasis]

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-07-22T202547Z_01_N2223899_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-BUSH-LEAK-DC.XML

And this at a time when conflicts are on the rise and the powers that be argue that there is more need than ever before for intel activity and are bringing all sorts of draconian legislation in that will severely impinge on civil liberties to 'combat terrorism' I mean, how serious are they about 'combatting terrorism' if they don't care about the implications of revealing secret operatives' names?

 

[SOS2008]

On the topic of the implications of Rove getting away scott free, a Reuters article of 22 July reported as follows:And this at a time when conflicts are on the rise and the powers that be argue that there is more need than ever before for intel activity and are bringing all sorts of draconian legislation in that will severely impinge on civil liberties to 'combat terrorism' I mean, how serious are they about 'combatting terrorism' if they don't care about the implications of revealing secret operatives' names?

It should be clear by now to all that this administration has only cared about it's own power, and has pursued it at any cost. In the summer before 9-11 the domestic scene was very worrisome--particularly the economy. Personally I believe Bush, et al, were absorbed with political strategy, and though they may not have realized the degree of destruction per the PDB, they may have even hoped for a distraction (after all, this is in keeping with Rove's MO). If it had not been for the 9-11 attacks and the fear mongering about the war on terror, I doubt Bush would have been reelected. So even if negligence can't be proven, the exploitation of the tragedy can, and this alone is despicable.