Rove Wanted Chemical Weapons Dead And Buried. Very Wise Politics.

Pun intended: Rush Limbaugh's claim that the chemical weapons which were reported this week to have been found several years ago in Iraq constitute a smoking gun in the hands of Sadaam Hussein is a crock of manure.

Rush concedes

The weapons of mass destruction The Daily Beast is talking about is not the same weapons that both Republicans and Democrats and every intelligence service in the world claimed were being manufactured by Saddam, 1998-2003.  These are not the WMD we're talking about.  These were basically chemical weapons that are prior to 1991.

But then he contends

It doesn't matter.  They were found in 2004.  They were discovered by US troops in 2004 and they show that Saddam was investing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. 

They show that Saddam was in violation of all of those UN resolutions.  He was in violation of the first Gulf War ceasefire.  And Saddam's violation of the first Gulf War ceasefire, including shooting at our planes, was enough on its own to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq....

It could have spelled out exactly who Saddam Hussein was for anybody who didn't want to believe it. It could have spelled out exactly why Saddam had to be targeted.  It would have spelled out and made clear why Saddam Hussein had to go.  

Everyone knew who Sadaam Hussein was and everyone then and since has acknowledged it.  There was no prominent domestic supporter- or apologist- of the Iraqi president. We knew from the time of Iraq-Iran War, recognized Hussein's policy of genocide against the Kurds, and realized that he had at one time stockpiled chemical and biological weapons (photograph below depicting result of an actual weapon of mass destruction, in Hiroshima, from Nuclear Darkness).

We understood, further, that U.S. and British intelligence services had reported that the dictator probably had an active chemical and/or biological weapons program, though it was not fully understood that the intelligence had been twisted by the Administration to justify the war it was determined to launch. It was known- though under emphasized- that Mohamed ElBaradei shortly before the invasion had testified that the International Atomic Energy Agency had found no nuclear weapons activity in Iraq.

The existence of an evil dictator, though, is not enough to justify starting a war, notwithstanding Rush Limbaugh's perspective.   Additionally, Limbaugh distorts the story out of all proportion. He says

And Saddam was thumbing his nose at the UN.  But for a chance to destroy the Republican Party, the Bush administration, and maybe even parts of the military for a while? "To hell with the UN! We'll destroy the Republican Party," and they did....

Look at all that turned out to have been accurate about this.  If I'm a member of the Democrat Party all during this, I have to be really scratching my head, saying, "Why are these guys shutting up?  Why are we getting away with this?  Why are they letting us get away with lying about them and this war every day?" And after a while you stop asking and you just keep piling the lies on top of one another. 

What we're told here is, the active theory was, "Well, that's 2003, 2004, 2005.  We lost that battle. We didn't find any weapons of mass destruction then, and it just won't work to tell everybody we have now, 'cause they won't believe us and they'll think we're lying. Better to let sleeping dogs lie and just move on to the next news story."  Those five years drove me nuts, too.  Not insane with rage, but disbelief that the news was so filled with lies and so filled with distortions every day, with not one day of reality.

Rove kept quiet not because he was worried "they won't believe us and they'll think we're lying." He suppressed the story because his boss, GW Bush otherwise would have been routed in the upcoming election.   Honesty had little to do with it. Two days before Eli Lake's story in The Daily Beast, CJ Shivers of The New York Times had reported

The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government’s invasion rationale. After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Bush insisted that Mr. Hussein was hiding an active weapons of mass destruction program, in defiance of international will and at the world’s risk. United Nations inspectors said they could not find evidence for these claims.

Then, during the long occupation, American troops began encountering old chemical munitions in hidden caches and roadside bombs. Typically 155-millimeter artillery shells or 122-millimeter rockets, they were remnants of an arms program Iraq had rushed into production in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war.

All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.

The weapons would not, could not, have been used against the "homeland," the USA.  Nor could they, would they, have been successfully deployed against the Kurds or any of Hussein's enemies. Worse still,

In case after case, participants said, analysis of these warheads and shells reaffirmed intelligence failures. First, the American government did not find what it had been looking for at the war’s outset, then it failed to prepare its troops and medical corps for the aged weapons it did find.

It was American soldiers, albeit to a limited degree, who were endangered by the mustard gas or residual sarin the US government denied existed.  And now, the unearthed weapons present a threat to the region they may not have if the Bush Administration not effectively shut down the weapons inspection regime prior to the war. Shivers continues

As Iraq has been shaken anew by violence, and past security gains have collapsed amid Sunni-Shiite bloodletting and the rise of the Islamic State, this long-hidden chronicle illuminates the persistent risks of the country’s abandoned chemical weapons.

Many chemical weapons incidents clustered around the ruins of the Muthanna State Establishment, the center of Iraqi chemical agent production in the 1980s.

Since June, the compound has been held by the Islamic State, the world’s most radical and violent jihadist group. In a letter sent to the United Nations this summer, the Iraqi government said that about 2,500 corroded chemical rockets remained on the grounds, and that Iraqi officials had witnessed intruders looting equipment before militants shut down the surveillance cameras.

During his rant, the man who continually derides Democrats as "low information voters" charged Newsweek is "a bumbling, leftist operation."  Presumably corrected by his producer during the commercial break, he returned to admit "yes, yes, yes. I know Eli Lake is a solid conservative." Limbaugh now knows Lake is a foreign policy analyst rather than left-wing activist, but he still doesn't understand that if it hadn't been for Karl Rove burying the chemical weapons story, he would have spent less time the following four years defending George W. Bush than condemning President Kerry.



Share |

Or Was It A Double Latte?

It appears to have begun with the gosh-darned liberal media, when ABC News at 2:19 p.m. on Tuesday reported

Some are calling it the “latte salute.”

When President Obama stepped off Marine One at the Wall Street landing zone in New York City, en route the United Nations, he saluted two Marines at the bottom of the stairs as he held a coffee cup in the same hand.

Presumably, after the President on Wednesday "charted a muscular new course for the United States in a turbulent world" in a speech to the U.N.'s General Assembly, ABC covered the substance of the President's remarks on the third war the USA will be fighting in Middle East in the past dozen years. But on Tuesday, this "liberal" media outlet proceeded to cite three (anonymous) Instagram users (only), none of whom called it the "latte salute." The Washington Post, in maintaining "it was quickly dubbed the latte salute," linked to the ABC article.

Two hours after the ABC piece, Fox News contributor and former Florida Representative Allan West tweeted "if  there was ever any doubt as 2 the level of regard Obama holds for our military, this latte salute seals the deal."

That evening, Karl Rove at least got the drink right after Sean Hannity asked (video below) "did you see the latte salute?" He contended

Look, he knows there are going to be two Marines at the bottom of Marine One when he gets off, and the idea that I’m going to just jaunt out there with my chai tea, and give them the old … you know it’s not a latte salute, it’s a chai salute, because he drinks chai tea, but I mean please, how disrespectful was that?









Rove also described Obama as a "chai-swillin’, golf-playin’, basketball trash-talkin.... Commander-in-Chief’”    Basketball trash-talkin.  Glad we got that race thing out of the way with election of the first black President.

The real problem, however, was described by columnist Garry Wills, who never has claimed to be psychic, but could now. Seven or eight years ago, righteously annoyed about abuse of "commander-in-chief," he wrote

We are reminded, for instance, of the expanded commander in chief status every time a modern president gets off the White House helicopter and returns the salute of marines.

That is an innovation that was begun by Ronald Reagan. Dwight Eisenhower, a real general, knew that the salute is for the uniform, and as president he was not wearing one. An exchange of salutes was out of order. (George Bush came as close as he could to wearing a uniform while president when he landed on the telegenic aircraft carrier in an Air Force flight jacket).

Reference to Bush 43 has been made many times this week (still not often enough) and you've probably seen this awesome display of respect a few times:

President Bush didn't get criticized much at the time (not now, either). Aside from the obvious reasons (in order of ascending importance)- he's black, currently unpopular, and a Democrat- Obama has gotten so much flak, there is an additional factor, presaged by Wills.   Brian Adam Jones of the blog Task and Purpose quotes Rachel Maddow in her 2011 book Drift recalling

Soldiers were supposed to salute their president; the president was not supposed to salute the soldiers. No modern president, not even old General Eisenhower, had saluted military personnel. It might even be, well, sort of, improper. Reagan seemed disappointed at this news. John Kline suggested he talk to the commandant of the United States Marine Corps and get his advice, and the commandant’s advice ran something like this: You’re the goddamn president. You can salute whoever you goddamn well please. So Ronald Reagan continued saluting his soldiers, and he encouraged his own vice president and successor, George H.W. Bush, to do the same. And every president since has followed.

(Jones believes Kline, then a Marine officer and now a Repub member of the lower chamber, wanted Reagan to stop saluting, thus rendering his suggestion the President ask the commandant of the Marine Corps rather odd. Imagine: "No, Mr. President, we're angry you've been saluting us." Coincidentally, Bill Maher recently selected Kline as the target for his "flip a district" campaign.)

So we can attribute the practice of a President saluting the soldiers to Ronald(6) Wilson(6) Reagan(6) or, as he is viewed by the GOP. Saint Ronnie. Obama, with his latte, chai, Maxwell House, or I really shouldn't be doing this anyway salute, has failed to uphold the noble practice inaugurated by the Man Who Could Do No Wrong. And that is an even greater sin, in their eyes, than being born black.




Share |

Or He Could Cut And Run, Like Ronald Reagan

Addressing the issue of the Syrian civil war and ISIS on Thursday, President Obama stated "i don't want to put the cart before the horse. We don't have a strategy yet."

John McCain, sensing a way to prove he was born sometime after 1900, responded by tweeting "#ISIS is largest, richest terrorist group in history & 192,000 dead in #Syria."   Slamming President Obama, Karl Rove contended "He was warned about the role that ISIS was playing inside Syria, and he has had all that time to develop a strategy about what to do about ISIS in Syria and he still doesn't."

Indicted Texas Governor Rick Perry argued "Yesterday, the president admitted he had no strategy to deal with ISIS. The deepening chaos in Iraq, Syria, Gaza, and Ukraine is all the clear and compelling evidence the world needs of a president one step behind, lurching from crisis to crisis, always playing catch up." And House Budget Committee chairperson Paul Ryan recommended the USA implement a strategy "not to contain them... but to fundamentally finish them off. And I don't think the president sees this moment for what it is."

Given the complexity of the Syrian War, it's easy to understand why a thoroughgoing policy has not yet been developed, unless one is as clueless about international affairs as the latter three guys.  It becomes even more understandable (and maybe a little disconcerting) upon remembering that the worst President in modern American history didn't see a moment in the Middle East for what it was.

In February, recalling the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, which left 241 American military personnel dead, Micah Zenko explained

In October 1983, after five Marines were killed in three separate incidents, National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane convinced the president to authorize the USS New Jersey to launch attacks against the Druze militia and Syrian forces on land. According to Powell, once the naval attack commenced, the Shiites "assumed the American 'referee' had taken sides against them. And since they could not reach the battleship, they found a more vulnerable target: the exposed Marines at the airport." Within one week, Hezbollah-linked militants drove two truck bombs containing a half a kiloton of explosives into the Marine barracks at the Beirut International Airport, killing 220 Marines and 21 other U.S. service members.

In the months that followed, the Reagan administration discussed a range of options including striking back and fully withdrawing the Marines.

Reagan never retaliated against Hezbollah or their Iranian and Syrian sponsors responsible for the bombings, a position widely endorsed by senior military officials. As then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. John Vessey declared: "It is beneath our dignity to retaliate against the terrorists who blew up the Marine barracks."

The Reagan administration also considered the pluses and minuses of withdrawing from the MNF. On the day after the barracks bombing, however, the president reaffirmed his commitment: "The reason they must stay there until the situation is under control is quite clear. We have vital interests in Lebanon. And our actions in Lebanon are in the cause of world peace." Over a month later, on Dec. 1, Reagan stated that the Marines were in Beirut to "demonstrate the strength of our commitment to peace in the Middle East.... Their presence is making it possible for reason to triumph over the forces of violence, hatred, and intimidation." Nine days later, he told the nation: "Once internal stability is established and withdrawal of all foreign forces is assured, the Marines will leave." Finally, on Feb. 4, 1984, Reagan stated something frequently heard in debates over Afghanistan and other theaters of conflict today -- if the United States withdraws, "we'll be sending one signal to terrorists everywhere: They can gain by waging war against innocent people.... If we're to be secure in our homes and in the world, we must stand together against those who threaten us."

Yet, just three days later, on Feb. 7, Reagan ordered the Marines to "redeploy" to their ships offshore -- which was actually a full withdrawal achieved in three weeks. Although the Marine's mission in Lebanon was not clearly defined and, subsequently, not achieved, Reagan's tacit admission of failure and withdrawal of the Marines from Lebanon limited America's further involvement in foreign-policy disaster -- saving money, lives, and time. Many pundits later claimed wrongly that Reagan was erroneous, because Osama bin Laden contended that the withdrawal was a sign of U.S. weakness; as if America's strategic choices should be held hostage to how terrorists choose to describe them.

For three-and-a-half months, Saint Ronnie dithered, as Republicans would characterize a Democrat proceeding in such a fashion.  Unsure what to do, he finally took a rhetorically tough stand, the equivalent of declaring "if we hesitate, the terrorists win."  Days later he backed down and began to withdraw U.S. forces.

President Obama probably will act more decisively than did President Reagan, who didn't have to fear that the Republican Party would accuse him of appeasement, nor a Democratic Party which doesn't roll that way.

One of Reagan's most enthusiastic acolytes of recent years has been Sean Hannity, who a few years ago promoted the "What Would Reagan Do?" campaign with other conservatives unable to distinguish between Ronald(6) Wilson(6) Reagan(6) and Jesus Christ.  Elias Isquith of Salon reports on a recent episode of  "Hannity"

“I’ve always had the greatest respect for people, like yourself, that have served our country,” Hannity began, speaking to guest Ralph Peters, a retired Army Colonel. “And if I’m looking at us giving up all of our gains in Iraq, I don’t know if I can in good conscience recommend that any American sign up for the military under this leadership,” he continued, referring to the success the Islamic extremist group ISIS has had in claiming territory in Iraq since most U.S. troops left the country in 2011.

“If they risk their blood and treasure and give up their lives only to give it back a year later?” Hannity continued, referring to portions of Iraq, a sovereign country that is not and never was annexed to the United States. “I really could not in good conscience recommend people serve under those circumstances.”

Here Sean is pimping the myth of the success of the surge in Iraq as he casually refers to "all of our gains in Iraq."  One of those "gains" was the  election of Nouri-al Maliki, who recently agreed to resign as Prime Minister of Iraq  after several years of encouraging continued bloodshed between Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims and helping create the conditions giving rise to ISIL.  Had, however, United States soldiers remained in Iraq (presumably as peacekeepers) as Senator McCain had recommended and Hannity appears to believe would have been wise, they would have been susceptible to the kind of brutality displayed by ISIL- and to a major attack reminiscent of the Marine barracks bombing.

If that had occurred, the United States would be in an even worse situation than it was in October, 1983 and the President would have been urged not to give in to the terrorists.  The caveat always heard today- "but no boots on the ground"- would have been employed far less often. With the surge of testosterone throughout the media and official Washington, the President would not have the luxury to deliberate carefully before setting out a strategy which would have regional, possibly worldwide, implications and whose repercussions could have affected the globe for decades to come.




Share |

Remorseful, He Had To Go

On Friday, November 15, Mediaite wrote at the time, MSNBC's Martin Bashir

played a clip of Palin’s comments from last weekend, in which she told a crowd at Iowa’s Faith and Freedom Coalition event, “Our free stuff today is being paid for by taking money from our children, and borrowing from China. When that note comes due — and this isn’t racist, so try it. Try it anyway. This isn’t racist. But it’s going to be like slavery when that note is due.”

“It will be like slavery,” Bashir repeated. “Given her well-established reputation as a world class idiot, it’s hardly surprising that she should choose to mention slavery in a way that is abominable to anyone who knows anything about its barbaric history.”

“So here’s an example,” Bashir continued. “One of the most comprehensive first-person accounts of slavery comes from the personal diary of a man called Thomas Thistlewood, who kept copious notes for 39 years. Thistlewood was the son of a tenant farmer, who arrived on the island of Jamaica in April 1750, and assumed the position of overseer at a major plantation.”

“What is most shocking about Thistlewood’s diary is not simply the fact that he assumes the right to own and possess other human beings, but is the sheer cruelty and brutality of his regime,” Bashir added. “In 1756, he records that a slave named Darby ‘catched eating kanes had him well flogged and pickled, then made Hector, another slave, s-h-i-t in his mouth.’”

“This became known as ‘Darby’s Dose,’ a punishment invented by Thistlewood that spoke only of inhumanity. And he mentions a similar incident in 1756, his time in relation to a man he refers to as Punch. ‘Flogged punch well, and then washed and rubbed salt pickle, lime juice and bird pepper, made Negro Joe piss in his eyes and mouth,’” Bashir recited.

“I could go on, but you get the point,” Bashir said, concluding “When Mrs. Palin invokes slavery, she doesn’t just prove her rank ignorance. She confirms if anyone truly qualified for a dose of discipline from Thomas Thistlewood, she would be the outstanding candidate.”

Bashir's remarks were rather loathsome, even though comparing anything to slavery (as Palin did) is bad behavior itself.  (The video below is of the Young Turks' Cenk Uygur, dismissed from MSNBC in mid-2011, though because he was not averse to criticizing Barack Obama.) The following Monday, Bashir did something extraordinary. He issued an "unreserved apology"- not to the classic 'anyone who might have been offended' but to the ex-governor's friends and family, her supporters, and MSNBC viewers.  His words, he conceded, were "wholly unacceptable," inaccurate, unfair, and "unworthy of anyone who would claim to have an interest in politics." "They brought shame upon my friends and colleagues at this network" and, Bashir, added, no one but he was responsible for the remarks

He requested a vacation and this week issued a statement explaining

Upon further reflection, and after meeting with the President of MSNBC, I have tendered my resignation. It is my sincere hope that all of my colleagues, at this special network, will be allowed to focus on the issues that matter without the distraction of myself or my ill-judged comments.

I deeply regret what was said, will endeavor to work hard at making constructive contributions in the future and will always have a deep appreciation for our viewers – who are the smartest, most compassionate and discerning of all television audiences. I would also wish to express deepest gratitude to my immediate colleagues, and our contributors, all of whom have given so much of themselves to our broadcast.

Forthright, contrite,and repentant, Bashir had to go. Once a public figure has admitted that he alone is responsible for his transgression and it is completely unjustified and unjustifiable, he is cooked.

That only encouraged Karl Rove.   Appearing on "The O'Reilly Factor" on GOP TV

Rove acknowledged that “everybody does make mistakes” while in the heat of the moment and on air, but he said Bashir “prepared” his attack against Palin calling it “more than just sort of a misstatement.”

“This was a deliberate attempt to engage in the most foul and disgusting kind of commentary on a political opponent,” Rove said.

Rove also slammed the network, which he said “made it appear like he resigned on his own, which was a mistake.”

Outrageous statements by individuals in the public eye are not uncommon, such as the one made in 2010 by the chairman and co-founder of the Blackstone Group, one of the world's largest private-equity firms. The New York Post at the time reported

Stephen Schwarzman—the leading John McCain supporter in a firm that, in 2008, gave more money to Obama—was addressing board members of a nonprofit organization when he let loose. “It’s a war,” Schwarzman said of the struggle with the administration over increasing taxes on private-equity firms. “It’s like when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939.”

Attendees at the board meeting (who provided details on condition that they and the organization not be identified) were shocked. “War? Hitler? Poland? A little over the top for a proposal to make hedge-fund managers pay their fair share in taxes,” one attendee says about the comments.

Blackstone is still president and CEO of the Blackstone Group, perhaps because unlike Bashir, he followed an apology with a "however."

Rove was silent about Blackstone. Nor has he criticized the talk show host who has said: “Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?”; "Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it;"  and to an African-American female caller “take that bone out of your nose and call me back.”  Calling Senator Obama a "halfrican American" has been followed by equally reprehensible remarks about President Obama.  Rove is still silent.

MSNBC, though it pushed Bashir out the door, nevertheless did so while allowing the host to retain some dignity.  That's how it's done in most public, private, and non-profit organizations, in which humiliation of the employee is generally avoided because it's unnecessary.   Rove, however, complains "They let him go off and have his pre-arranged holiday. Then they came back and then let him sound like it was his idea and express their regret at his departure."

Sarah Palin, uncharacteristically, reacted with near-class, responding in part "My role is to accept his apology and be humble enough to accept it and move on."  Karl Rove could not even clear the bar set by Sarah Palin- behavior far more outrageous than anything attributed to Martin Bashir.







Share |

Victims, Again

Politico on Wednesday reported


Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s reelection campaign asked the FBI and the U.S. attorney’s office on Tuesday to investigate how Mother Jones magazine obtained a recording of a February strategy session.

“Senator McConnell’s campaign is working with the FBI and has notified the local U.S. Attorney in Louisville, per FBI request, about these recordings,” McConnell campaign manager Jesse Benton said in a statement. “Obviously a recording device of some kind was placed in Senator McConnell’s campaign office without consent. By whom and how that was accomplished presumably will be the subject of a criminal investigation.”

You will not be surprised that, with the FBI not yet investigating the matter, Rush Limbaugh has it all figured out- and that it's Democrats to blame.  This afternoon, he claimed

What it was, they recorded a strategery meeting of McConnell staffers talking about opposition research they could use against the actress Ashley Judd who was thinking of running against McConnell in the 2014 Senate race...

Highly illegal? Nothing is illegal in entrapping Republicans. Nothing is illegal in exposing Republicans. Nothing is illegal in exposing conservatives for who and what they really are. Nothing is illegal when you can find out how sexist and misogynist the McConnell staff is. Nothing's illegal.

A spokesperson for Mother Jones denies the magazine is part of a grand Democratic conspiracy, stating "we were recently provided the tape by a source who wished to remain anonymous. We were not involved in the making of the tape, but we published a story on the tape due to its obvious newsworthiness."  Judd, who was expected to make the run, had begged out of the race shortly before the tape's release.

The Politico reporter added

McConnell is not disputing the authenticity of the tape. Yesterday, his campaign offices were swept by a private security detail, which did not find a bug. Still, given that the meeting was attending by only a handful of longtime McConnell insiders, team McConnell is convinced it was not an internal leak. In an earlier statement, the McConnell campaign accused “the Left” of using “Nixonian tactics” and bugging the campaign’s headquarters.


David Corn, who broke the story, stated "He has tremendous troubles in Kentucky with conservatives, so if he can make himself the target of a left wing hit job, it's going to help him get out of this very difficult situation."  Limbaugh is parroting this line, the standard GOP victim card, remarking "You think that a recording device that enabled Mother Jones to overhear and find out what McConnell's staffers were doing involving Ashley Judd is gonna benefit McConnell?"

Not only do the Repubs claim victimhood; both the McConnell and Limbaugh camps try to draw comparisons to Watergate.

Curiously, Rush claims "Anyway, that's the kind of stuff that's out there, so she's decided not to run, but nevertheless Mother Jones magazine somehow got a recording device in McConnell's office, think Watergate. Think Watergate here."  There, President Nixon himself was the culprit:

The next morning, Woodward received a phone call from a senior investigator. "We interviewed Butterfield," he said. "He told the whole story."

What whole story? Woodward asked.

"Nixon bugged himself," the investigator replied.

Woodward called Bradlee at home Saturday night and told him what he had learned. Bradlee, half-asleep, didn't seem very interested.

"How would you rate the story?" Woodward asked.

"B-plus," Bradlee replied.

So in a way perhaps unintended, McConnell/Limbaugh may be right.  The McConnell/Judd incident is reminscent of the campaign run by Karl Rove in 1984 in the Texas gubernatorial race.  Here is described an incident from "Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential" by James Moore and Wayne Slater, in which

Rove told reporters that someone had bugged his office where he was campaign manager for Texas gubernatorial candidate Bill Clements. On the morning of a major debate Rove called a press conference. He said, "Obviously I don't know who did this. But there is no doubt in my mind that the only ones who would benefit from this detailed, sensitive information would be the political opposition." The press quickly assumed the bugging was done by Clements' opponent, Mark White, who was leading in the polls. By election day, Rove's candidate won and the source of the bug was never found -- but many reporters later concluded that Rove himself had placed it.

Mitch McConnell following Karl Rove's playbook?   Widely unpopular in Kentucky and determined to be re-elected, the Senate Majority Leader could do worse.


Share |

Flogging Flagrant Firearm Fantasies


Pretty slick, those Republican spokespersons. On ABC's This Week, Peggy Noonan remarked

Here's where I think the problem is, I think Congress is attempting to act in a way that ignores a central fact. The central fact is that nobody in America really trusts Congress. If you're Congress, and you admit nobody really trusts us, then you make simple, discreet, five-page bills, not these big comprehensive things that involve assault weapons, and this and that, and putting it forward and then having everybody, say whoa, I'm not sure I trust you.

The reason Americans don't trust these big bills is because they think so much mischief is hidden inside.

But if you're paying attention- and the former speechwriter for President Reagan banks on people not doing so- you have noticed that the leader of the Senate, a Democrat, decided against including an assault weapons ban in federal gun control legislation.  

That firearms provision would have made a firearms bill more comprehensive, though more likely not to gain passages.    By contrast, on Thursday, the GOP-controlled House voted

... to approve a temporary measure to keep the government funded through the end of September. Government shutdown averted.

But it turns out the continuing resolution didn't just address spending. It contains six measures that limit how federal agencies deal with guns.

These are the first gun-related provisions members of Congress have passed since 20 first-graders were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. And while all of the public discussion is about new gun controls, these so-called policy riders very quietly do the opposite.

"There was very little discussion," says Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky. Rogers is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, which produced the bill that contains these riders. One of them dates back to the mid-1990s; the others have been around for seven or eight years, regularly included in spending bills like this one, without any debate.

"These are not new. These are general provisions that we've carried for a long time," Rogers says.

What is new is that the continuing resolution makes four of these riders permanent.

According to Zach Beauchamp of Think Progress, the riders

1) Limit enforcement tools against crooked dealers. One rider would prevent Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) agents from shutting down gun stores due to “due to a lack of business activity,” arguably a sign of criminal sales.

2) Shield gun dealers who “lose” their guns. This legislation precludes any federal law that requires gun retailers to count their guns and submit the results as a mechanism of determining whether any weapons have been lost or stolen.

3) Interfere with ATF gun trace reports. The ATF is now mandated to include, in any reports concerning its tracing of guns back to crime, that trace data “cannot be used to draw broad conclusions about firearms-related crime.” Academic work on guns has used trace data to firmly establish that several firearm regulations effectively prevent the spread of guns to criminal.

4) Expand the class of protected guns. According to Roll Call‘s John Gramlich, the fourth permanent law would “place a broad definition of antique guns and ammunition that may be imported into the United States.”

Many Democrats, facing a Hobson's choice, voted for the measure.  That included perhaps the House's most aggressive advocate of gun control measures, Carolyn McCarthy of New York, who lamented "What's tough on this particular vote is do we shut the government down?"

But the GOP still aggressively pursues its disinformation campaign. On the same program on which Noonan appeared, the issue of expanded background checks on firearms purchases prompted Karl Rove to claim

Let's be clear about this — this was prompted by the Sandy Hook murders. Those guns were legally purchased with a background check. This would not have solved something like that. Let's be very careful about quickly trampling on the rights of people. And look, you want to get something done?  Then stop scaring people.  Don't say we're going to keep a registry of all of these guns ..

Fortunately there to correct the GOP strategist was ABC's Terry Moran, who responded "Stop scaring people? You're scaring people with this Orwellian sense that black helicopters and the government, if we register guns, they're going to confiscate Americans' guns. That kind of paranoia..." A moment later, Moran confronted Rove with ."Who is going to confiscate all of the guns in America?"
 
Alas, Moran was not around earlier when Rove falsely claimed "We're talking about, in this instance, having a registry where if a grandfather wants to give a treasured shotgun to his grandson, or granddaughter, he has to register with the government and go and get approval as the government to give that gun to his grandchild."  Section 937 (f) (1) of the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013 excludes family members.

Accuracy, though, is not an asset but a bug of the Repub campaign against gun safety measures. Rove makes things up to frighten people while Noonan implies that people distrust Congress because it adds provisions to make bills "comprehensive."  Alex Pareene observes

One fun fact about Peggy Noonan is that she always sounds like she is telling small children a story she is making up as she goes along. She is very good at performing “thoughtfulness,” and then saying airy garbage. Noonan said that the president’s poll numbers are “deflating” because “a number of people think the White House is playing games” on the sequester, and “also there is Obamacare.”

But they have in their promotion of a culture of death a powerful ally, one which always has their back.   The anti-law enforcement provisions included in the continuing resolution which funds the federal government through September were heavily promoted by the National Rifle Association, faithfully fulfilling its role as the criminals' lobby in the United States Congress.



Share |

The Strange Concept Of One Country



The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on two cases pertaining to same-sex marriage, the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8.  Associate Professor of Law Margaret Ryznar at Indiana University, blogging at The Huffington Post, explains

In United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court will determine the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed into law in 1996 by President Clinton. Section 3 of DOMA provides that the word "marriage," as used in any federal law or regulation, means only a union of a man and a woman. This includes laws that govern veterans' benefits, tax adjustments, Social Security, and many other benefits...

In 2008, the California Supreme Court overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage because it violated the guarantee of equal protection in the California constitution. Later that same year, California voters approved a ballot measure -- Proposition 8 -- amending the state constitution to specifically disallow same-sex marriages.

A federal district court, having jurisdiction to hear federal constitutional issues, found Proposition 8 to violate the United States Constitution because California had effectively given same-sex couples the right to marry and then taken it away again. The court determined that taking away a right only from a minority group -- which the state had no legitimate reason for doing -- violated the equal protection guarantee in the United States Constitution. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, and the proponents of Proposition 8 sought review by the Supreme Court.

Cultural conservatives are trying to plug up the dam, hoping for an indecisive decision which would enable some states to maintain a prohibition of same-sex marriage.  On GOP News Sunday, both Rand Paul of Kentucky and long-time conservative activist Gary Bauer seemed resigned to decisions which would not maintain federal prohibition of same-sex marriage.  The Senator stated

I've always said that the states have a right to decide. I do believe in traditional marriage, Kentucky has decided it, and I don't think the federal government should tell us otherwise. There are states that have decided in the opposite fashion, and I don't think the federal government should tell anybody or any state government how they should decide this. Marriage has been a state issue for hundreds and hundreds of years.

DOMA is complicated, though, because DOMA does provide protection for the states from the federal government. But, then, you're right, part of it federalizes the issue.

I think there's a chance the court could strike down the federalization part of it. I think the way to fix it is maybe to try to make all of our laws more neutral towards the issue, and, I don't want the government promoting something I don't believe in. 

Bauer, who has staunchly advocated traditional marriage and opposed abortion rights since the beginning of time, explained

Yes, Chris, well, look, you don't advance limited government by being an anti-democratic movement that is attempting to take this issue away from the American people. What the brief is asking for and what the groups waiting outside the Supreme Court are asking for, is for unelected judges to deny the people of the states the right to decide what marriage is in their state...

I would prefer every state in the union keep the definition of marriage that's prevailed in Western civilization for a couple thousand years. That doesn't look like that is going to happen.    So, I certainly at this point would prefer the people of the states to make the decision, as they have.

Over at This Week with George Stephanopoulos, the cultural weather vane known as Peggy Noonan maintained

Yeah, Americans don't take it well and don't accept it as a resolution when their black robed masters in Washington decide to put on them what they decide is the right thing. One of the great sins of Roe versus Wade, the abortion decision of 40 years ago, was that it decided everyone has to do it one way, instead of leaving it to the states.

It seems to me it is certainly in line with conservative political thinking, but I think it would be acceptable certainly to liberal thinking, that when there are these gnawing, disagreeing questions going on in America, if you can't solve it here, you can say everybody can solve it down there. Let's state by state make their decision. You will immediately have New York having some of the most liberal decisions on this issue.

You will perhaps have Utah or Arkansas, having less liberal decisions. Work questions out that way as much as possible.

That is a crock.  The Justices in Roe v. Wade did not determine "everyone has to do it one way." States were permitted to enact some, limited, restrictions on abortion in the second trimester and in the third trimester even prohibit it if the life and the health of the woman were protected.  As the map (below) from Wikipedia illustrates, approximately 20 states (yellow) have no waiting periods before an abortion can be obtained, with the others having waiting periods of less than 24 hours (blue), 24 hours or more (red), or waiting periods which currently are enjoined (grey).  There are similar variations among states in ultrasound requirements, parental notification and consent, and fetal homicide laws.

Noonan's disinformation was echoed by Karl Rove on the same panel, when he said "And maybe should not have imposed one national view from the court." That runs counter to Rove's assertion a moment earlier that a GOP presidential candidate in the next cycle might, as Stephanopoulos put it, say "flat out I am for gay marriage."

Admittedly, it is more likely a Repub candidate will state he or she is in favor of same-sex marriage than will oppose tax cuts for billionaires, support closing loopholes which create incentives to move jobs overseas, or support effective restrictions on Wall Street predators. But no one will say he/she is actually for same-sex marriage.  And permitting such a union will be advocated far less than will leaving matters to the individual state, which will become part of the GOP platform.

Stephanopoulos noted

And interesting, Jim Messina, even the president is not willing to go quite that far yet. I sat down with him two weeks ago and he went farther than he ever had before in saying that gay marriage is a right guaranteed by the constitution, basically said he can't imagine circumstances in a state where a ban could be upheld, but still not going quite that far in enunciating the straight constitutional principle.

Of course, he is not willing to go quite that far yet.  After all, it's not as if we fought a war some 150 years ago- in part over states rights- which, history books claim, the Union won. He may believe gay marriage is a right guaranteed by the constitution, but states should have a right to deny that constitutional right.

The Court ought to decide there is, or there is not, a constitutional right to marry a willing adult, irrespective of gender.  One hundred fifty years after a civil war which decided slavery but apparently little else, center-right politicos like Noonan, Rove, and Obama still can't wrap their arms around the concept of a United States of America.





Share |

Just A Little Threat Between Friends


Many people concluded Representative Todd Akin (R-MO.) was rather stupid when, asked about whether there should be an exception to a ban on abortion if the woman is raped, he stated

First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," Akin continued. He did not provide an explanation for what constituted "legitimate rape."  But let's assume that maybe that didn't work or something. You know I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.

Research makes clear that Mr. Akin was wrong.    A study conducted by Jon and Tiffany Gottschall, from St Lawrence University in Canton, New York, reported in New Science magazine in 2001 of women who had been raped found that just under 8%  who had not been using contraception became pregnant as a result of the attack.    The researchers compared that figure to a separate study which found that the percentage of women who got pregnant from a consensual, one time act of intercourse was 3.1%.   According to this article, the Gottschalls (although others argue otherwise) "believe one possible explanation is that women feel more attractive and sexy when ovulating and unconsciously give off signals that rapists might pick up.  Another possible explanation is that rapists target attractive and healthy-looking women."

Akins' belief may not have stemmed from stupidity but from some combination of ignorance and/or ideological bias against women's reproductive freedom.   But neither ignorance and ideological bias can account for his response to a comment made by a prominent Republican and reported by Alexander Burns:

Karl Rove phoned Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin to apologize for having joked about killing the Republican congressman, an Akin spokesman confirmed to POLITICO.

Akin adviser Rick Tyler said Rove spoke with Akin Friday about his remarks, and that the Akin camp believes it would be appropriate for Rove to make a public apology as well.

"I'm assuming that Karl will make a public apology," Tyler said. "The right thing to do would be for Karl to make a public apology. We appreciate the personal apology."

Bloomberg Businessweek reported earlier that Rove told a gathering of donors in Tampa that Akin had to be forced out of the Senate race, and joked that if Akin were "found mysteriously murdered, don't look for my whereabouts."

Tyler said Rove called the embattled Senate candidate and "spent about three minutes" explaining that he didn't know there had been a reporter in the room and that he would not have made such a comment if he'd been aware of her presence.

"After about three minutes, Todd asked: are you calling to apologize?" recounted Tyler, who said that Rove responded in the affirmative.

"Todd was gracious and he accepted his apology," Tyler said, adding that the episode had not changed Akin's determination to continue his campaign: "Akin's in it to stay."

Rove and other national Republicans have pressured Akin to end his Senate campaign and the Rove-linked group American Crossroads has canceled its advertising in Missouri.

He didn't know there had been a reporter in the room and that he would not have made such a comment if he'd been aware of her presence.   .  As far as we know , Rove apparently didn't say he was wrong for making the comment or even that he didn't believe it.   He was sorry it got out.  Note to Todd:  when someone says he made a comment of which he expected only a select few to be aware, it is not an apology- it is a warning.     If someone threatens your life (jokingly, of course) in private and then regrets the remark was made public, you might want to consider a bodyguard.

Karl Rove will not have Todd Akin murdered, obviously- not after the remark was made public. Nor will he arrange an assassination after telling a bunch of people he was considering it.   But if Politico's report was accurate and thorough, pressure has been applied, and not of the subtle variety.











Share |

The Texas Way



Karl Rove claims "If the President continues to make this outrageous charge- that his campaign had that Romney is guilty of felonious activity (and) committed a felony, that's a big mistake."    Dana Milbank writes 

We know the attack is working because Karl Rove says it isn’t. He called it a “big mistake” to suggest, as Obama aide Stephanie Cutter did, that Romney may have committed a felony in misleading the Securities and Exchange Commission. This, Turd Blossom told Fox News, is “gutter politics of the worst Chicago sort.”

Rove is well-qualified to weigh in on such matters, having presided over Bush’s 2004 campaign, during which opponent John Kerry was accused of lying about his war record — a rather more outrageous allegation than Cutter’s. Some of those who funded the attacks on Kerry are now bankrolling Rove’s assaults on Obama.

Whatever "Chicago politics" are (is?), Karl Rove knows how to do politics.    In an interview with PBS' Frontline shortly after the selection of George W. Bush as president, "The Architect" author Wayne Slater summarized the way of Rove:

What they really show is the beginning of a long pattern of behavior by Karl Rove. In every campaign after that, what you see with Rove is the same kind of thing: You see some series of events that attack an opponent, really not simply on the merits of issues, but in some dirty trick way. This was an opening. This was the first salvo. This was the beginning of the Rove approach. "The mark of Rove" is what some people call it. When Rove gets involved in a campaign, the opponent is going to get smeared in a bad way, and most likely, Rove's candidate will win.

Painting a war hero as a near-traitor in 2004 was only one instance.     In George W. Bush's successful effort to replace Ann Richards as governor of Texas

Karl Rove understood that and strategically, as part of his memos and his arrangements and his campaign strategy, tried to win support [for Bush] from East Texans on conservative values that they felt were important. At the same time that the campaign was very publicly involved in trying to woo these historically Democrat voters from traditionally conservative East Texas, there emerged a whisper campaign, a virulent and obviously orchestrated whisper campaign in East Texas. I would go from place to place in East Texas, I would go from business to business, and I can remember talking to people about the race, Ann Richards, George Bush, and invariably someone would say: "But what about the lesbians? What about the lesbians?"

It was a message that swept East Texas, a message that many people in that community, a largely Baptist community, felt that Ann Richards had embraced lesbians and homosexuals in a way that they did not accept; that she had appointed them to boards and commissions, as she had, in the governor's office; that she had, in fact, had them around on her campaign staff, and the intimation was that she herself, even though she was a divorced woman with four children, might be a lesbian. Very effective campaign.

Rove himself was extraordinarily careful, in all my conversations with him and in conversations with others in the media, to make sure that he was not directly tied to that orchestrated campaign. What we know is that the campaign was orchestrated and very, very effective. Everywhere you went people were talking about it. Phone calls were made. Bush supporters and Bush surrogates were talking about it in a very effective way. In no case could I ever find anyone who said, "Karl Rove told me to do this." But in every case, what I found was a duplication of the exact pattern of every Rove race: that Rove's opponent is attacked, often by a surrogate or anonymous group, whisper campaigns, direct mail pieces or other kinds of personal attacks, in a way that Rove can't be directly seen with his fingerprints, but that Rove's candidate benefits from. It's a pattern not just once or twice, but I've seen it throughout the last two decades. …

And few can- or at least should- forget the compassionate conservatism of the Bush-Rove campaign for the GOP presidential nomination four years earlier, in which

What happened was, you begin first to see the emergence of a so-called military group on the stairs of an event where Bush attended that [would] attack John McCain on the issue of Vietnam. In fact, what they did was suggest that John McCain was not good on the issues of prisoners of war, that he was not really the war hero that he seemed to be. It was sort of the beginning chink in the armor of John McCain among these very conservative, patriotic, Republican South Carolinians. The other message of this early surrogate group was that John McCain might be crazy, that the experience as a prisoner of war in Vietnam might actually work against McCain because it had left him psychologically with a short fuse and maybe not the kind of person that we want to have in office.

It was followed up by … some surrogates sending virulent telephone calls against John McCain and his wife, leaving messages that suggested that John McCain's wife had a drug problem -- she had battled it [Editor's Note: a dependency on prescriptive drugs] and was fighting that -- and also that he and his wife had a black child, which was a dynamite message, especially among some racist voters in this conservative state. In fact, what McCain and his wife had was an adopted child from a Mother Theresa orphanage. But it didn't make any difference, because the surrogates were out there turning the screws on John McCain as a person whose personal life made him unacceptable as a candidate, at the same time that the candidate George Bush was attacking McCain on the perfectly appropriate policy issues that you would see in the campaign.

McCain believed that Bush was behind it. The model was exactly the same that you saw again and again and again in a campaign run by Karl Rove. And although Rove denied any involvement, the outcome was the same: surrogates and groups who supported Bush attacking the opponent in his personal life. Bush was successful and ultimately won that campaign. [But] the relationship between John McCain and George Bush was not very good for months, even years afterwards.

There are other examples of sleazy campaign tactics utilized by Karl Rove, once of Utah but a resident and operative in Texas for many years since he relocated.    My personal favorite is one involving more speculation, wherein the tie to Rove is, admittedly, more questionable.   In 1986, incumbent governor Mark White was leading Republican challenger Bill Clements in a rematch of the gubernatorial race won by the Democrat four years earlier.     The Clements campaign then hired a security firm, Knight Diversified Services Inc., to perform an electronic sweep of the Austin offices of one Karl Rove, an aide to the challenger.    On October 5, two of the company's private detectives found a bug hidden behind a needlepoint of a framed elephant, the symbol of the Gas and Oil Party.

In the resulting outcry, the campaign turned around and Rove's client, Bill Clements, turned White out of office.The FBI initially cleared the campaign operatives of both candidates and eventually focused attention on the two individuals who found the device.     No charges ever ensued and speculation in the following years properly has focused on the individual in whose office the device was found, and whose employer's fortunes dramatically improved after the incident.

Rove knows that Cutter never contended "that Romney is guilty of felonious activity" or "committed a felony," rather that if he was "misrepresenting his position" in filings with the SEC he would have been committing a felony.    But the history of the GOP's most accomplished operative history suggests he knows also that as a major campaign official, Cutter should not have raised the issue, at least as directly.   It is simply not Rovian:  gossip and innuendo are more effective because no one can charge definitively that a candidate, or his spokesman, was responsible.    There are no fingerprints.    It may not be how they do it in Chicago, but it's the way Karl Rove did it in Texas and the way he knows it should be done.





Share |

A Looming Test, Possibly

Does the GOP establishment still have clout? If Republican primary voters (especially in South Carolina and Florida, where they matter) prefer Rick Perry's blustering red-meat, take no prisoners conservativism to Mitt Romney's more measured approach, we will find out. Last month, the Texas governor said of the chairman of the Federal Reserve

If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I dunno what y'all would do to him in Iowa but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas. Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treacherous – or treasonous in my opinion."

Yes, we know what they do to undesirables in Texas. And that's even if they haven't committed treason (or even murder). Mitt Romney, asked by Wolf Blitzer if he disagrees with anything Rick Perry said about the Federal Reserve chairman during the GOP presidential debate, replied (part 3 of debate transcript, here)

Well, my own view is that, quite simply, that the Federal Reserve has a responsibility to preserve the value of our currency, to have a strong American currency, such that investors and people who are thinking about bringing enterprises to this country have confidence in the future of America and in our currency. People will not invest in this country and create jobs in this country for the American people if they don’t have belief in our currency.

Of course we should see what the Fed is doing. There should be some oversight to make sure that it’s — it’s acting properly.

But at the same time, we recognize that we need to have a Fed. Why — why do I say that? Because if we don’t have a Fed, who’s going to run the currency? Congress? I’m not in favor of that. I’d rather have an agency that is being overseen rather than have the United States Congress try and manage our currency.

As can be seen, Mitt Romney didn't say anything; mission accomplished. Though no progressive or moderate he, the former Massachusetts governor, unlike his major rival, has evinced no interest in blowing up the economy for..... what- spite? to prove a point? just because?

Karl Rove and the rest of the old-line Repub establishment knows that the candidate its primary voters will choose will be someone extremely conservative- or someone reckless, a crony capitalist (and theocrat or faux theocrat) willing to damage the nation's economy for some unknown purpose or whim (and apparently a theocrat or faux theocrat, which makes the party's corporate establishment uncomfortable). If it looks good for Rick (or Michele, which it won't) and bad for Mitt, it will be surely tempted to step in and effect selection of the candidate with a reasonable chance of victory.

Share|

Media Objectivity

For all his tough questioning of interviewees and remarkable insight he sometimes displays, Chris Matthews periodically blurts out something ludicrous or disturbing.

And so Matthew appeared on his network's Morning Joe two days after the election, discussing the likelihood of Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D.- Ill.) accepting the offer from president-elect Obama to be the latter's chief of staff. Credit should go to Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski, and Time Managing Editor Richard Stengel for their defense of journalistic integrity. The intriguing portion of the discussion begins at approximately 2:25 of the video and continues, off-and-on, till the end at 6:40.





Watch the video yourself, but here are the portions of the discussion I think were most significant:

Matthews: I want to do everything I can to make this work, this new Presidency work....yeah, that's my job....how can you not root for the succcess of a new president?

Scarborough: As Americans, Chris Matthews, we're all rooting for the success of Barack Obama... but you just talked about being a journalist your job is not to question motives and two seconds later, your job was to make this presidency a success. I think this is curious.

Matthews: I think we need a successful presidency.

Stengel: As journalists, we have to hold his feet to the fire.

Matthews can get swept up in the excitement of an event. For the last several years, he has been an eloquent opponent of Gulf war II, just as he opposed the American invasion before it was launched. But characteristically, he was a supporter, arguably a cheerleader, of the effort in those early weeks of the war following what at the time looked like a successful strategy.

Perhaps this is the instinct that led Matthews yesterday to forget (or, less likely, misunderstand) his journalistic responsibility during this period, all the more dramatic and hopeful with the election of the first black president in the U.S. But it is precisely the honeymoon period during which the media must be most skeptical (though not cynical) of a new President/President-elect. As Stengel reminded the audience, Walter Cronkite said "journalists are skeptical so the public doesn't become cynical."

There will be plenty of time for journalists to support Barack Obama- not directly, but indirectly by closely questioning his critics, maintaining a healthy skepticism of the Republican opposition. The website NewsHounds ("we watch FOX so you don't have to") described a conversation between Karl Rove and Allan Colmes on the November 5 "Hannity and Colmes" in what is an impressive demonstration of trying to have it both ways:

Rove also said that Obama ran “a center-right campaign.”

Colmes was astounded. “Center right? Center right? He was accused of being a radical socialist!”

“Well, if you dug in,” Rove said.

President Obama may set forth an aggressive, progressive agenda or a cautious, "post-partisan,"one reflecting his risk-averse nature. Either way, the Repub meme in the new Administration probably will be: He promised us centrist, bipartisan policies and instead he's giving us a polarizing left-wing agenda. At that point, it will be the role of the mainstream media to support the institution of the Presidency- not by blind obeisance to one man but by reasoned skepticism of the oppositions's extremist agenda masked by sloganeering and tired rhetoric.

The Same Old Tune

"Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose."
-Jean-Baptist Alphonse Karr, Les Guepes, 1849

And so it goes with Democratic vice-presidential nominees.

As to 1988: In an article otherwise chock full of speculation and distortion, Karl Rove in today's Wall Street Journal points out:

Michael Dukakis spent the last months of the 1988 campaign calling his opponent's running mate, Dan Quayle, a risky choice and even ran a TV ad blasting Mr. Quayle. The Bush/Quayle ticket carried 40 states.

Aside from his memorable and biting comment about Quayle in the debate, where was Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee Lloyd Bentsen? Running a positive campaign, enhancing his own reputation, and doing nothing to undermine the GOP presidential nominee.

And 2000:

A little friendly banter between Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee Joe Lieberman and Halliburton's Dick Cheney, in which the Connecticut senator during debate declines to call Cheney on his self-serving modus operandi:

....I'm pleased to see, Dick, from the newspapers that you're better off than you were eight years ago, too.
CHENEY: I can tell you, Joe, the government had absolutely nothing to do with it. (LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE)
MODERATOR: This question is to you.
LIEBERMAN: I can see my wife and I think she's saying, "I think he should go out into the private sector."
CHENEY: I'll help you do that, Joe.
LIEBERMAN: I think you've done so well there, I want to keep you there. (LAUGHTER)

The V.P. nominee did what he could to undermine the ticket's chances during the recount controversy. In a July, 2001 article in The New York Times about the Florida vote debacle and the issue of Americans living abroad, David Barstow and Don Van Natta Jr. explained:

The flawed votes included ballots without postmarks, ballots postmarked after the election, ballots without witness signatures, ballots mailed from towns and cities within the United States and even ballots from voters who voted twice. All would have been disqualified had the state's election laws been strictly enforced.

Joe Lieberman's response on November 19, 2000 on Fox News Sunday to Repub efforts to have unlawful ballots from military personnel, contrary to law, counted? "In fact, we think that the ballots -- both the absentee ballots and the ones that are being hand counted in the three counties in South Florida now -- deserve the benefit of the doubt."

Then in 2004: Democratic vice-presidential nominee John Edwards runs a listless campaign with little criticism of the Repub ticket, arguably an effort to maintain his reputation as a positive campaigner so as to enhance his bid for the 2008 presidential nomination, if Kerry were to lose.

And now in 2008: Joe Biden, appearing yesterday at a town hall meeting in Nashua, New Hampshire, gushing

Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Let’s get that straight. She’s a truly close personal friend; she is qualified to be president of the United States of America. She’s easily qualified to be vice president of the United States.

Predictably, the McCain camp promptly jumped on the statement, contending

It's very interesting that when it comes down to Barack Obama's biggest decision of the presidential election in choosing a vice president, the man that he selects says that he himself was the wrong choice, and that Hillary Clinton would have been a better fit.

Joe Biden is on the ballot this November for re-election to his Senate seat in Delaware, as Joe Lieberman was on the ballot (successfully) for re-election to the U.S. Senate as he was allegedly working to be elected Vice-President. Biden thus far has been reluctant to criticize the other V.P. nominee, Sarah Palin (who is constantly attacking Obama), though I am unaware whether this has been his choice or instead that of the campaign. Still, as Rove notes in his piece today, "the asssaults (or what the Republican operative implies are "assaults") diminish him- not her."

I admit that I thought the selection of Biden was wise- in part because he would not be reticent in going after whomever John McCain would select as his running-mate. Instead, or so it appears, "the more it changes, the more it's the same thing."

The Saga Continues

As CQ Politics reported July 3, 2008, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D.-MI) on May 22, 2008 issued a subpoena to force Karl Rove to testify before the Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee on July 10, 2008. Congressional Democrats want to inquire about the firing of several U.S. Attorneys and, especially, "about allegations that the Justice Department has engaged in politically motivated prosecutions of Democratic officials, including former Alabama governor Donald Siegelman."

In a development as stunning as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west, Rove refused to testify- citing executive privilege- and "offering" instead to testify in private with no oath and no transcript. On Wednesday, July 30, 2008 the Judiciary Committee voted 20 to 14 along party lines to recommend to the full chamber that the former political and policy (simultaneously) advisor to President Bush be held in contempt.

On July 31, 2008 U.S. District Judge John Bates, a Bush 43 appointee, ruled there is no basis in case law for Bush Administration officials former legal counsel Harriet Miers, Chief of Staff Josh Bolten, and Rove to invoke executive privilege to avoid responding to Congressional subpoenas.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi responded as expected:

It certainly strengthens our hand. This decision should send a clear signal to the Bush administration that it must cooperate fully with Congress and that former administration officials Harriet Miers and Karl Rove must testify before Congress.

And when they don't testify? What will Pelosi do then? Since the Democrats gained "control" in January, 2007, Congress has, at the insistence of the White House: repeatedly funded the Iraq war without conditions; enacted the "Protect America Act" giving President Bush new powers to eavesdrop without a warrant; defeated a bill to increase intervals between deployment of American troops; enacted the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 giving immunity to telecoms for breaking the law and squashing any realistic chance of investigating Bush's NSA spying program; and so much more. To call the Pelosi leadership "spineless" would be a childish, ad hominem attack- but she has displayed a marked proclivity to being intimidated by an extraordinarily unpopular president.

On McClellan

You've heard some of the prominent members of the Bush administration, past or present, criticize former press secretary Scott McClellan for the revelations in his new book "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception."

Karl Rove (former Deputy Chief of Staff and chief strategist): "First of all, this doesn't sound like Scott. It really doesn't. Not the Scott McClellan I've known for a long time. Second of all, it sounds like somebody else. It sounds like a left-wing blogger. Second of all, you're right. If he had these moral qualms, he should have spoken up about them."

Dan Bartlett (former White House counselor): "Scott McClellan was not the press secretary. He was the deputy press secretary who dealt with domestic issues. So, he would not have even been really have access to the types of meetings and deliberations that the president participated in."

Dana Perino (White House spokeswoman): "Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House. For those of us who fully supported him, before, during and after he was press secretary, we are puzzled. It is sad. This is not the Scott we knew."

Ari Fleischer (former White House press secretary): "I'm just scratching my head about this book. There are just parts of here that just do not sound like Scott McClellan. So it's got his name on it, and Scott knows that, he's said the chips will fall will they may. ... But on principle and on policy, this doesn't make any sense to me because if it did, I think Scott would have expressed it privately and repeatedly."

The attacks on McClellan have one thing in common: no one denies what he said- no one has said that it is simply not true. Fleischer comes closest- it "doesn't make any sense to me" obviously comes from someone not in a position to know one way or another. One of Rove's remarks is the most amusing: "if he had these moral qualms, he should have spoken out about them." Here the rhetorical question of MSNBC's David Shuster is appropriate: "are Administration officials trying to do with McClellan what officials did to war critic Joe Wilson?" And to the attacks upon Scott McClellan because he participated, however unwittingly, in the Administration's coverrup, MSNBC's Chris Matthews asked "what's wrong with a whore escaping the whorehouse?"

But I give the Bushies some credit for their response to Scott McClellan's charges: in choosing not to deny categorically the accusations, they displayed an uncharacteristic reluctance to lie.

It is common among bloggers to criticize prominent members of the mainstream media, and I periodically have joined in that. so it's only fair for me to acknowledge instances in which two television journalists have done something admirable.

The recent Democratic Presidential debate at Dartmouth College was hosted in part by Tim Russert, Washington bureau chief of NBC News, who performed superbly, asking good questions and often following up on them with the candidates. And today, October 25, Wolf Blitzer, host of the Situation Room on CNN, made a laudable remark to Valerie Plame Wilson.

Mrs. Wilson, as you all know, was a covert CIA agent, whose husband, career diplomat Joseph Wilson, ran afoul of the Bush Administration for reporting that he had found no evidence during his trip in February, 2002 to Niger that Sadaam Hussein's Iraq had tried to purchase uranium "yellowcake" from the African nation. In his February, 2003 State of the Union message, President Bush infamously proclaimed "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Six months later in his New York Times op-ed piece, "What I Didn't Find in Africa," Wilson wrote "I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."

Soon afterward, after speaking to Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, syndicated columnist Robert Novak revealed Joseph Wilson's "wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." Hence, Mr. Novak had "outed" Mrs. Wilson by revealing her status as a (covert) CIA agent. Karl Rove, Presidential Press Secretary Ari Fleisher, and the Vice-President's Chief of State, I. Lewis ("Scooter") Libby also revealed to reporters Ms. Plame's employment status, though classified information.

And now we know positively what the right wing had been vigorously denying for four years- that Valerie Plame was in fact "covert." Note this from the action brought against the government by Plame and her publisher, Simon & Shuster, in the United States District Court, Southern District Court of New York State:


Further, in connection with Mr. Libby’s sentencing, the CIA confirmed that at the time of the leak, Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States. As acknowledged by the government in connection with the sentencing phase of the criminal prosecution of I. Lewis Libby, in January 2002, Ms. Wilson was a CIA operations officer, assigned to the Counter Proliferation Division (“CPD”) at CIA Headquarters. In that capacity, she served as the chief of a CPD component with responsibility for weapons proliferation issues related to Iraq. Over the years, on numerous occasions Ms. Wilson traveled overseas, always under a cover identity, using an official or non-official cover, with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.


Valerie Plame was a covert CIA officer investigating the possible linkage between Saddam Hussein's government and "weapons of mass destruction," a major rationale for the war launched by President Bush. Her cover was blown by an Administration apparently unconcerned about the damage to the critical intelligence operation she was carrying out on behalf of that government and the American people. And so at the close of today's interview with Plame, Wolf Blitzer boldly uttered those words otherwise now so commonly, and appropriately, addressed to members of the Armed Services:

"Let me thank you on behalf of a lot of our viewers for your service to our country."