MC (master criminal) Rove........yep.......nm
Posted By: sm on 2009-02-21
In Reply to: The "new GOP" preview..(sm) - Just the big bad
x
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
She cannot possibly raise that child and utilize her master's, though,
Certainly you'd never encourage your daughter to spend time working on a MASTER'S while trying to also raise a child!! You've just bashed another mother for doing something similar, so I don't get it. Or is okay if you only have ONE child or what? Please fill me in on the double standard you uphold.
Eugenics and master plans.are equal opportunity
Its all about the source and what their driving agendas may be. Readers who believe in and promote master plan theories based on racial purity would be WAY gullible to be convinced of other conspiracy theories, no matter how idiotic the are. Those of us grounded in reality, not so much.
Scouring the net on the topics you named (especially govt takeovers) speaks for itself. If you cite sources from the whack world, don't expect to be taken too seriously.
criminal
Incompetent? I would call it criminal from a criminal administration.
Criminal behavior..
Down below somebody cites lack of opportunity as a reason for blacks in American having a high incarceration rate... Well, yes, that's one piece of the pie. I say that ALL of the reason can be traced to the rampant fatherlessness in the black community, where 69% of all black children in this country are born to a single mother. Everything else from A to Z can be derived from the broken family syndrome. But of course this has nothing to do with race other than than the statistic above. Whites and Hispanice from the same social situation suffer the same fate described below.
WHAT HAPPENS TO CHILDREN DEPRIVED OF THEIR NATURAL FATHERS
Compared to children in male-headed traditional families where their
natural parents are married to each other, children living in
female-headed single-parent, lesbian or other environments where they are
deprived of their natural fathers are:
1. Eight times more likely to go to prison.
2. Five times more likely to commit suicide.
3. Twenty times more likely to have behavioral problems.
4. Twenty times more likely to become rapists.
5. 32 times more likely to run away.
6. Ten times more likely to abuse chemical substances.
7. Nine times more likely to drop out of high school.
8. 33 times more likely to be seriously abused.
9. 73 times more likely to be fatally abused.
10. One-tenth as likely to get A's in school.
11. On average have a 44% higher mortality rate.
12. On average have a 72% lower standard of living.
Source: The Garbage Generation by Daniel Amneus Ph.D. It is posted in
HTML format at http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/damneus/garbgen.htm
==============
Fathers' Absence
- 85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes.
- 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes.
- 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes.
- 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes.
- 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes.
- 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes.
- 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes.
- 85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home.
- California has the nation's highest juvenile incarceration rate and the nation's highest juvenile unemployment rate.
- Juveniles have become the driving force behind the national increase in violent crime; the epidemic of youth violence and gangs is related to the breakdown of the two-parent family.
- 71% of teenage pregnancies are to children of single parents. Daughters of single parents are 2.1 times more likely to have children during their teenage years than are daughters from intact families. Daughters of single parents are 53% more likely to marry as teenagers, 164% more likely to have a premarital birth, and 92% more likely to dissolve their own marriages. All these intergenerational consequences of single motherhood increase the likelihood of chronic welfare dependency.
- In 1983, a study found that 60% of perpetrators of child abuse were women with sole custody. Shared parenting can significantly reduce the stress associated with sole custody, and reduce the isolation of children in abusive situations by allowing both parents' to monitor the children's health and welfare and to protect them.
- 18 million children live in single-parent homes. Nearly 75% of American children living in single-parent families will experience poverty before they turn 11. Only 20% in two-parent families will experience poverty.
- The feminization of poverty is linked to the feminization of custody, as well as linked to lower earnings for women. Greater opportunity for education and jobs through shared parenting can help break the cycle.
- Kidnapping: family abductions were 163,200 compared to non-family abductions of 200 to 300, attributed to the parents' disenchantment with the legal system.
Reestablishing fatherhood is not just a minor issue to the Signatories to the Fathers' Manifesto. It is the only way to rid this world of its current social pathology, and they know it. Any and every plan for doing this must be presented and carefully scrutinized, regardless of its political correctness. There is too much at stake to ignore any possible solution.
The Constitutional right to freedom of religion clearly requires the preservation of families -- and this requires strong fatherhood.
Sources:
The False Child Abuse Industry by John Knight
Fathering Magazine
Even if she did not "pal around" with this criminal
she certainly professed eager willingness to have her daughter become a member of this woman's family and allow this woman to be involved in her grandchild's life. To my mind, that is far worse that any association or claim she made about Obama. It shows very poor judgment on her part.
It is criminal neglect, IMHO
The more I read articles and watch videos in the net, the more horror it all becomes, I truly believe it is criminal neglect. I would think whomever will be found responsible after investigations (I assume Bush will be, the evidence is there), should be put on trial. This was just simply neglect by the federal govt to respond to a national emergency and hundreds or thousands have died because of it, animals are dying, billions will have to be spent to rebuild, people no doubt will be traumatically scarred for years to come, especially the children. Some will never know what happened to their family as the longer the bodies lay in the water and heat, their DNA breaks down. Beautiful New Orleans destroyed. Its like Bush is truly disconnected..he does not comprehend impending emergencies, he just does not get it and he would rather joke about disasters, like he did last week. I wonder if all that alcohol and cocaine he did in his youth burned part of his thought processes? Im just wondering what the next catastrophe will be under Bush's watch. 9/11, Iraq war and now this..American's dirty little secret is out to the world..we dont take care of the less fortunate, we would rather spend billions killing people in other countries than helping poor American citizens and strengthening our infrastructure. I hope the momentum continues and we demand from our servants, the politicians, to put America back on the right track.
Fraudulent voting is not criminal??
Um, fraudulant voting is NOT a crime?? Since when? I was watching CNN (if they would report on something that makes the democrats look bad, it must be bad), and they showed ballots from people named after businesses, and people who were dead or didn't even exist! One name was Jimmie Johns. When they went to find Mr. Johns, they found the address was actually a restaurant named Jimmie Johns. No such person there. There are approximately 200,000 of these kind of ballots in Ohio alone. And you dems think this is not a problem, or an attempt to win the election? What are you people smoking? Get your head out of the sand and WAKE UP! If these were Republicans doing this fraudulent voting you people would have your lawyers on it pronto style. But because the fraudulent votes are for the Democrats, that's okay, and not a crime...
10 federal employees and 1 w/ criminal charges
over improper relationships between interior dept officials who oversee offshore drilling and oil executives...............Big oil? Offshore drilling? Run afoul of the law?Nahhhhh
Trying to make political hay out of this tragic criminal act
Anyone who would carve ANYTHING in human flesh is obviously mentally deranged.
Paleocon Paul Craig Roberts: A Criminal Administration
Conservative Columnist Paul Craig Roberts: A Criminal Administration
A Criminal Administration
by Paul Craig Roberts
Caught in gratuitous and illegal spying on American citizens, the Bush administration has defended its illegal activity and set the Justice (sic) Department on the trail of the person or persons who informed the New York Times of Bush's violation of law. Note the astounding paradox: The Bush administration is caught red-handed in blatant illegality and responds by trying to arrest the patriot who exposed the administration's illegal behavior.
Bush has actually declared it treasonous to reveal his illegal behavior! His propagandists, who masquerade as news organizations, have taken up the line: To reveal wrong-doing by the Bush administration is to give aid and comfort to the enemy.
Compared to Spygate, Watergate was a kindergarten picnic. The Bush administration's lies, felonies, and illegalities have revealed it to be a criminal administration with a police state mentality and police state methods. Now Bush and his attorney general have gone the final step and declared Bush to be above the law. Bush aggressively mimics Hitler's claim that defense of the realm entitles him to ignore the rule of law.
Bush's acts of illegal domestic spying are gratuitous because there are no valid reasons for Bush to illegally spy. The Foreign Intelligence Services Act gives Bush all the power he needs to spy on terrorist suspects. All the administration is required to do is to apply to a secret FISA court for warrants. The Act permits the administration to spy first and then apply for a warrant, should time be of the essence.
The problem is that Bush has totally ignored the law and the court. Why would President Bush ignore the law and the FISA court? It is certainly not because the court in its three decades of existence was uncooperative. According to attorney Martin Garbus (New York Observer, 12/28/05), the secret court has issued more warrants than all federal district judges combined, only once denying a warrant.
Why, then, has the administration created another scandal for itself on top of the WMD, torture, hurricane, and illegal detention scandals?
There are two possible reasons.
One reason is that the Bush administration is being used to concentrate power in the executive. The old conservative movement, which honors the separation of powers, has been swept away. Its place has been taken by a neoconservative movement that worships executive power.
The other reason is that the Bush administration could not go to the FISA secret court for warrants because it was not spying for legitimate reasons and, therefore, had to keep the court in the dark about its activities.
What might these illegitimate reasons be? Could it be that the Bush administration used the spy apparatus of the US government in order to influence the outcome of the presidential election?
Could we attribute the feebleness of the Democrats as an opposition party to information obtained through illegal spying that would subject them to blackmail?
These possible reasons for bypassing the law and the court need to be fully investigated and debated. No administration in my lifetime has given so many strong reasons to oppose and condemn it as has the Bush administration. Nixon was driven from office because of a minor burglary of no consequence in itself. Clinton was impeached because he did not want the embarrassment of publicly acknowledging that he engaged in adulterous sex acts in the Oval Office. In contrast, Bush has deceived the public and Congress in order to invade Iraq, illegally detained Americans, illegally tortured detainees, and illegally spied on Americans. Bush has upheld neither the Constitution nor the law of the land. A majority of Americans disapprove of what Bush has done; yet, the Democratic Party remains a muted spectator.
Why is the Justice (sic) Department investigating the leak of Bush's illegal activity instead of the illegal activity committed by Bush? Is the purpose to stonewall Congress' investigation of Bush's illegal spying? By announcing a Justice (sic) Department investigation, the Bush administration positions itself to decline to respond to Congress on the grounds that it would compromise its own investigation into national security matters.
What will the federal courts do? When Hitler challenged the German judicial system, it collapsed and accepted that Hitler was the law. Hitler's claims were based on nothing but his claims, just as the claim for extra-legal power for Bush is based on nothing but memos written by his political appointees.
The Bush administration, backed by the neoconservative Federalist Society, has brought the separation of powers, the foundation of our political system, to crisis. The Federalist Society, an organization of Republican lawyers, favors more energy in the executive. Distrustful of Congress and the American people, the Federalist Society never fails to support rulings that concentrate power in the executive branch of government. It is a paradox that conservative foundations and individuals have poured money for 23 years into an organization that is inimical to the separation of powers, the foundation of our constitutional system.
September 11, 2001, played into neoconservative hands exactly as the 1933 Reichstag fire played into Hitler's hands. Fear, hysteria, and national emergency are proven tools of political power grabs. Now that the federal courts are beginning to show some resistance to Bush's claims of power, will another terrorist attack allow the Bush administration to complete its coup?
_____
Dr. Roberts is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National Review, and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.
Copyright © 2006 Creators Syndicate
rove
So, Karl Rove is the one who outed Ms. Wilson. He should be put in prison for years or better yet, let the people have him, let us tar and feather him..Definitely he needs to be brought up on charges.
Rove
Some of these people could actually witness Rove with a gun in his hand SHOOTING this lady and still defend his actions. Their president can do no wrong, and whatever you do, do NOT confuse them with FACTS. They are a scary bunch.
Rove
Rove's Role
The Boston Globe
Sunday 28 August 2005
 |
 |
Negative attacks have often been at the center of Karl Rove’s strategies.
(Photo: Reuters) |
|
|
Some White House sympathizers have attempted to portray Karl Rove's role in the Valerie Plame scandal as that of a statesman, seeking to provide President Bush with the best information possible on Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions so that Bush could set policy based on facts. This has been met with deserved skepticism. Rove's career, even before he became Bush's deputy chief of staff, is rich with reasons to think his motives in helping to identify Plame as a CIA agent were far darker.
After all, Plame's identity was revealed in a Robert Novak column on July 14, 2003, just eight days after her husband, Joseph Wilson, had embarrassed Bush over his Iraq war rationale. And Rove had talked with Novak on July 9.
As John Roberts, the Supreme Court nominee and federal appeals court judge, wrote last month in another context, the fact that sometimes dogs do eat homework is no reason to ignore more-logical explanations.
Rove's record has been consistent. Over 35 years, he has been a master of dirty tricks, divisiveness, innuendo, manipulation, character assassination, and roiling partisanship.
He started early. In 1970, when he was 19 and active as a college Republican -- though he didn't graduate from college -- Rove pretended to volunteer for a Democratic candidate in Illinois, stole some campaign stationery, and used it to disrupt a campaign event. Later, in Texas, he gave testimony in court that was embarrassing to an opponent of one of Rove's clients, even though it was not true, according to the book Bush's Brain, by two veteran Texas newsmen, James Moore and Wayne Slater.
Negative attacks have often been the center of Rove's strategies. In a race between Texas Governor Mark White and his Republican opponent, Bill Clements, Rove wrote in a memo: Anti-White messages are more important than positive Clements messages.
Often Rove has skated on the edge of being identified with certainty as the author of dirty tricks. In 1986, the discovery of a planted listening device in Rove's own office was widely publicized, damaging the Democrats. Many suspect that the source was Rove himself. This was never proven, but Moore and Slater say, Karl Rove remains a prime suspect. In 1989, Texas populist Jim Hightower was damaged by grand jury leaks for which, Moore and Slater say, Rove remains the most likely source.
Again, most of the personal slurs against candidates who had the temerity to run against Rove's clients have not been pinned on Rove personally, but they follow a pattern. George W. Bush ousted Ann Richards from the Texas governor's office in 1994 after a whisper campaign focused on a small number of Richards appointees who were lesbians and even suggested that Richards was gay. Bush himself stoked the fire, saying some Richards appointees had agendas that may have been personal in nature.
In 1990, Hightower's integrity was smeared. A federal investigation of his expenses produced news stories, but no charge, despite Rove's telling Washington reporters that Hightower and several aides face the possibility of indictment.
In South Carolina in 2000, rumors circulated that John McCain was gay, had a black child, had a Vietnamese child, and got special treatment while a POW in Vietnam. In 2004, a direct link was established between the Bush campaign -- of which Rove was the architect, in Bush's words -- and the libels against John Kerry from the swift boat veterans. With such a history, is it possible that Rove encouraged the Catholic bishops who questioned Kerry's fitness to take Communion?
Earlier this year, he none-too-subtly bestrode the church-state amalgam that helped elect Bush, telling a sympathetic and enthusiastic audience in Washington that conservatism is the dominant political creed in America. Always on the attack, Rove said just this June that liberals want to prepare indictments and offer therapy to terrorists.
According to Moore and Slater, the strategy of attack has been constant throughout his career. Rove didn't just want to win; he wanted the opponents destroyed.
Rove's connection to the Valerie Plame story was the center of attention in mid-July but cooled fast after Bush nominated Roberts to the Supreme Court on July 19. A LexisNexis search reveals 1,944 stories mentioning Rove in the week prior to the nomination, dropping to 1,111 during the week after. Now, with Bush in Crawford for a prolonged vacation, the story has nearly disappeared -- only 169 references in a late-August week.
Still, more is likely to come out after Labor Day. A special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, is expected to finish his two-year investigation this fall. His goal was to find the person who leaked Plame's identity as an undercover CIA agent -- a serious offense in the view of Bush's father. He and many other commentators have deplored the idea that the leaker may have been seeking political retribution at the expense of national security.
So attention will inevitably turn back again to Karl Rove, who did talk with Novak and other reporters who wrote the story but who is now being portrayed by some as a neutral researcher in the Valerie Plame case. Yes, and sometimes dogs do eat homework.
Rove
It's not Bush who's frightening, it's his brain, Carl Rove.
Rove gets Bush out of everything!
He got his training as a political operative in the GOP in the Nixon era. He was an accomplished ratf****r.
I think it was Karl Rove
...who just recently stood up in front of the nation and did the broadest stroking of all concerning conservatives and liberals, didn't he? When you have a Republican President whose #1 spokesperson sees fit to denigrate, insult and impugn the integrity and Americanism of ALL liberals (and what the heck is his job title anyway?) - I don't think liberals are going to waste much more time and patience being too touchy-feely about watching their generalizations concerning conservatives. Of course I'm speaking for myself - but if you can give me a good reason why we should put up with that kind of official pig squeeze and be nice about it too, let me know.
Otherwise I like your post, LOL - it is good to be reminded now and then that there are indeed many shades of gray and not everyone feels the same about every issue, even within a loosely coordinated group. This is very true. Happily this becomes very apparent when people take the time to communicate with others one-on-one and really make an effort to stay civil and keep a feeling of good will.
Of course, after the picture of the Liberal Hunting License I saw today, proudly displayed on the back window of a 40-grand SUV next to an American flag decal - well I sort of lose that sense of humor about conservatives that I normally try to maintain. Maybe someone should hang around and try to communicate with that guy in a nice and civil way? How about you?
rove the jerk
ohmygawd! Rove did it? That's what came out of the information that journalist was forced to reveal? I didn't see that on the news -
If Rove is innocent
why didnt he come forward before now and state what actually went down? Because of his silence, Judith Miller is in jail, Matthew Cooper was threatened with jail, thousands of tax dollars have been spent on a Grand Jury and a special prosecutor and now quite possibly a trial.
The Rove issue
From the Christian Science monitor online-- an interesting commentary on the Rove issue.
(I note per the Conservative board that Mr. Wilson is now being vilified.)
|
from the July 15, 2005 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0715/p09s02-cods.html
Rove leak is just part of larger scandalBy Daniel Schorr
WASHINGTON - Let me remind you that the underlying issue in the Karl Rove controversy is not a leak, but a war and how America was misled into that war.
In 2002 President Bush, having decided to invade Iraq, was casting about for a casus belli. The weapons of mass destruction theme was not yielding very much until a dubious Italian intelligence report, based partly on forged documents (it later turned out), provided reason to speculate that Iraq might be trying to buy so-called yellowcake uranium from the African country of Niger. It did not seem to matter that the CIA advised that the Italian information was "fragmentary and lacked detail."
Prodded by Vice President Dick Cheney and in the hope of getting more conclusive information, the CIA sent Joseph Wilson, an old Africa hand, to Niger to investigate. Mr. Wilson spent eight days talking to everyone in Niger possibly involved and came back to report no sign of an Iraqi bid for uranium and, anyway, Niger's uranium was committed to other countries for many years to come.
No news is bad news for an administration gearing up for war. Ignoring Wilson's report, Cheney talked on TV about Iraq's nuclear potential. And the president himself, in his 2003 State of the Union address no less, pronounced: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Wilson declined to maintain a discreet silence. He told various people that the president was at least mistaken, at most telling an untruth. Finally Wilson directly challenged the administration with a July 6, 2003 New York Times op-ed headlined, "What I didn't find in Africa," and making clear his belief that the president deliberately manipulated intelligence in order to justify an invasion.
One can imagine the fury in the White House. We now know from the e-mail traffic of Time's correspondent Matt Cooper that five days after the op-ed appeared, he advised his bureau chief of a supersecret conversation with Karl Rove who alerted him to the fact that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and may have recommended him for the Niger assignment. Three days later, Bob Novak's column appeared giving Wilson's wife's name, Valerie Plame, and the fact she was an undercover CIA officer. Mr. Novak has yet to say, in public, whether Mr. Rove was his source. Enough is known to surmise that the leaks of Rove, or others deputized by him, amounted to retaliation against someone who had the temerity to challenge the president of the United States when he was striving to find some plausible reason for invading Iraq.
The role of Rove and associates added up to a small incident in a very large scandal - the effort to delude America into thinking it faced a threat dire enough to justify a war.
• Daniel Schorr is the senior news analyst at National Public Radio. |
Rove is going to come out of this smelling like a
Worried about Rove?
Am worried about Roe v Wade, but not about Rove. He is not worry-worthy - way too much effort. I AM concerned that nothing will happen to any of them that are involved in Plamegate unless it is some third-string low-on-the-totem-pole flunkie who will be completely blindsided when he gets blamed/fired/arrested. This shadow administration is far more evolved than the Nixon guys. I predict nothing will happen to them but what is worse, we have been lied to so often for the last 4+ years that most of us won't even care. They are going to do what they are going to do...the end. Here in Florida we voted last election for smaller class sizes and not to build a bullet-train between Tampa and Orlando. Jeb just changed both of those things. We are building the train set up and class sizes stay the same. I wonder why we vote on these amendments at all. What difference does it make? And so it is with D.C. It has not mattered for so long what a great number of us have felt about Iraq and all the lies surrounding it. They just do what they want. And before anyone says "we elected him" as a plausible argument, 51% is not a mandate. One half of this country is on the other side. Our country does not deserve the autocratic theocratic government that has been forced upon us. When the shoe is inevitably on the other foot I suspect you won't like it either.
key Rove (RIP) strategy
Attack your opponents strong points. Read many posts below that ham-handedly attempt to use this tactic. Throw in a cup of "sour grapes" and NOW your cookin'. Go Ron Paul! Split the vote!
McCain and Rove
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121993561392479859.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Rove and McCain
for those too busy posting inaccurate opinions to look things up.
Mehlman, Rove boost McCain campaign
By: David Paul Kuhn
March 8, 2008 11:33 AM EST |
John McCain is getting much more than President Bush's endorsement and fundraising help for his campaign. He’s getting Bush's staff.
It’s no secret that Steve Schmidt, Bush’s attack dog in the 2004 election, and Mark McKinnon, the president’s media strategist, are performing similar functions for McCain now.
But other big-name Bushies are lining up to boost McCain, too.
Ken Mehlman, who ran Bush’s 2004 campaign, is now serving as an unpaid, outside adviser to the Arizona Republican. Karl Rove, the president’s top political hand since his Texas days, recently gave money to McCain and soon after had a private conversation with the senator. A top McCain adviser said both Mehlman and Rove are now informally advising the campaign. Rove refused to detail his conversation with McCain.
The list could grow longer. Dan Bartlett, formerly a top aide in the Bush White House, and Sara Taylor, the erstwhile Bush political adviser, said they are eager to provide any assistance and advice possible to McCain.
Rove explained that he and McCain “got to know each other during the 2004 campaign.” In a separate interview, Mehlman noted that “McCain was completely loyal to the president in 2004 and worked incredibly hard to help him get elected.” According to Taylor, “The Bush Republicans here in town are excited for John McCain.”
|
Rove in politics
I think above all else Rove is loyal to the Republian party, above any particular candidate. I don't think McCain was his choice, but that won't stop him from trying to get him elected now that he is the nominee.
Now, say what you will about Rove. I personally think he is despicable, but the man knows politics and voting trends. He said McCain needed to pick Romney as VP to win, so it will be interesting to see whether or not that prediction was right (inferring that not picking Romney means not winning).
Fox said Karl Rove was
working furiously with a ventiloquist as late as yesterday afternoon.
wilson versus rove
Ms. Wilson is Valerie Plame, she is married to Joseph Wilson. She worked for the CIA but Rove gave her name to Robert Novak, thus jeopardizing her life.
Today's latest on Rove
WASHINGTON - The White House is suddenly facing damaging evidence that it misled the public by insisting for two years that presidential adviser Karl Rove wasn't involved in leaking the identity of a female CIA officer. President Bush, at an Oval Office photo opportunity Tuesday, was asked directly whether he would fire Rove -- in keeping with a pledge in June, 2004, to dismiss any leakers in the case. The president did not respond. For the second day, White House press secretary Scott McClellan refused to answer questions about Rove.
_______________
This article says that the White House may have misled the public. And, they apparently pledged to fire anyone who had leaked this information. This has become interesting, hope it doesn't fade right away from the public view.
Rowe, Rove, only one letter
difference, and both words represent betrayal by government in one form or another.
Women who believe in choice will see their rights digress and witness history go backwards. CIA agents have already seen that they can't trust their government in a time of war.
Actually, Karl Rove has a very important job. Because of him and the heat the administration has been taking because of his actions, Bush was forced to actually do his job and nominate a replacement for Justice O'Connor. Very, very "hard work" before he spends the entire month of August in Crawford.
I think soon, though, y'all will see it didn't work. Rove can't escape the heat that easily. I believe you will find that Bush failed in getting the heat taken off of Rove, and he had to rush to do all that "hard work" for no reason at all!
What is sad is the reinvention of pub/Rove campaign...
nm
Better yet vote for Karl Rove nm
nm
Carl Rove has testicles
the size of peanuts. I wish he'd get a real job.
Did anyone else see a headline/story this morning about Rove?
I saw it briefly this morning and then it disappeared. It said that Rove himself found out about Plame's undercover status from Novak, not the other way around! The article made it sound like this affair was resolved, Rove was the good guy that we all know him to be, ha-ha.
Well, I suppose I can just wait to see if it reappears. Seemed surprising, but stranger things have happened.
I checked that "other" board to see if they were crowing about it yet but na-da, nothing so far. Maybe I misinterpreted it.
Karl Rove, Bill O'Reilly, et al. sm
Hilariously shows how the hipocrasy knows no bounds:
http://www.indecision2008.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086
This above is a link to the Daily Show with John Stewart. I love his show, and Stephen Colbert's. I'm not a political junkie (yet) so I need a *lot* of comic relief with my politics in order to stomach it.
Both sides are hypocrites, it's true. But I swear, the Republicans are so much funnier. The mental gymnastics they're having to go through in order to claim SP has "experience" alone is a sight to see. (Watch the clip above if you don't believe me. Oh, and you can see S. Palin making a good point near the end of it for all of you who are fans of hers.) In fact, Jon Stewart said he's putting "county first" in supporting Obama, because McCain being the pres. would make his job (as a comedian) so much easier... 
Oh, and have no fear, anyone. I balance out the political comedy with a healthy dose of serious political coverage too. The most serious I can find lately is the stuff on PBS. You know, the calm, old-style journalism type, free of the crawl at the bottom of the screen, free of all the hype and wild graphics at the bottom of the screen, free of people shouting because they actually take turns letting each other talk. Anybody else miss that kind of reporting, where it's kinda boring to watch and you have to actually listen and pay attention to more than sound bites? Ah, well. I'm rambling...
Karl Rove -- why isn't this moron in jail yet? (sm)
Yep, he has refused to show for yet another subpoena, this time because Bush seemingly wrote a letter 4 days before leaving office saying he didn't have to show up? Give me a break! This guy is such a crook and needs to be put under the jail. I hope they fry him. I wonder what would happen to any of us who refused to show up for a subpoena.....about 3 or 4 times, that is.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/182240/?gt1=43002
I have been trying to follow this Rove vs Wilson thing and I'm not sure what's going on, but I hope
they keep the pressure on, because IF our govt has behaved irresponsibly we need to know.
Isn't Fitzgerald's grand injury investigation into Rove, et al.
about to come to an end soon?
I think October is going to be a very interesting month. 
My bet is Delay will be found innocent and Rove is old news.
Besides, last time I check we had a system of balances in this country. The time and the law will prevail, I have no doubt.
Scotty also slipped up and admitted Rove and Abramoff
...have known each other for 30 years. Sounds really cozy! This whole Abramoff thing is just a dodge - this guy has been all over the world, very busy and the tendrils go very deep. He happened to be in Italy at the time that the bogus yellowcake report was issued to the White House. He was instrumental in the whole Suncruz affair, arranging a source of non-taxable non-traceable income for political operatives. His pleading guilty now to some very minor charges keeps the rest of the offenses safely under wraps and hidden from further investigation. He'll do a few easy years in a posh hotel prison and then back to business as usual!
What I really wonder is, who's BEHIND this guy? Who's been financing him, assigning him, paying his travel expenses, telling him where to go and what to do?
EPA Rule Loosened After Oil Chief's Letter to Rove
Dirty politics equals dirty water. 
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rove13jun13,0,1520344,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines
From the Los Angeles Times
EPA Rule Loosened After Oil Chief's Letter to Rove
The White House says the executive's appeal had no role in changing a measure to protect groundwater. Critics call it a political payoff.
By Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten
Times Staff Writers
June 13, 2006
WASHINGTON — A rule designed by the Environmental Protection Agency to keep groundwater clean near oil drilling sites and other construction zones was loosened after White House officials rejected it amid complaints by energy companies that it was too restrictive and after a well-connected Texas oil executive appealed to White House senior advisor Karl Rove.
The new rule, which took effect Monday, came after years of intense industry pressure, including court battles and behind-the-scenes agency lobbying. But environmentalists vowed Monday that the fight was not over, distributing internal White House documents that they said portrayed the new rule as a political payoff to an industry long aligned with the Republican Party and President Bush.
In 2002, a Texas oilman and longtime Republican activist, Ernest Angelo, wrote a letter to Rove complaining that an early version of the rule was causing many in the oil industry to openly express doubt as to the merit of electing Republicans when we wind up with this type of stupidity.
Rove responded by forwarding the letter to top White House environmental advisors and scrawling a handwritten note directing an aide to talk to those advisors and get a response ASAP.
Rove later wrote to Angelo, assuring him that there was a keen awareness within the administration of addressing not only environmental issues but also the economic, energy and small business impacts of the rule.
Environmentalists pointed to the Rove correspondence as evidence that the Bush White House, more than others, has mixed politics with policy decisions that are traditionally left to scientists and career regulators. At the time, Rove oversaw the White House political office and was directing strategy for the 2002 midterm elections.
Angelo had been mayor of Midland, Texas, when Bush ran an oil firm there. He is also a longtime hunting partner of Rove's. The two men first worked together when Angelo managed Ronald Reagan's 1980 presidential campaign in Texas.
In an interview Monday, Angelo welcomed the new groundwater rule and said his letter might have made a difference in how it was written. But he waved off environmentalists' questions about Rove's involvement.
I'm sure that his forwarding my letter to people that were in charge of it might have had some impression on them, Angelo said. It seems to me that it was a totally proper thing to do. I can't see why anybody's upset about it, except of course that it was effective.
Asked why he wrote to Rove and not the Environmental Protection Agency or to some other official more directly associated with the matter, Angelo replied: Karl and I have been close friends for 25 years. So, why wouldn't I write to him? He's the guy I know best in the administration.
White House spokesmen said Monday that the rule was revised as part of the federal government's standard rule-making process. They said the EPA was simply directed by White House budget officials to make the rule comply with requirements laid out by Congress in a sweeping new energy law passed last year.
The issue has been a focus of lobbying by the oil and gas industry for years, ever since Clinton administration regulators first announced their intent to require special EPA permits for construction sites smaller than five acres, including oil and gas drilling sites, as a way to discourage water pollution.
Energy executives, who have long complained of being stifled by federal regulations limiting drilling and exploration, sought and received a delay in that permit requirement in 2003. Eventually, Congress granted a permanent exemption that was written into the 2005 energy legislation.
The EPA rule issued Monday adds fine print to that broad exception in ways that critics, including six members of the Senate, say exceeds what Congress intended.
For example, the new rule generally exempts sediment — pieces of dirt and other particles that can gum up otherwise clear streams — from regulations governing runoff that may flow from oil and gas production or construction sites.
Sen. James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.), who joined five Democrats in objecting to the rule, wrote in March that there was nothing in the energy law suggesting that such an exclusion of sediment had even entered the mind of any member of Congress as it considered the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Moreover, Jeffords wrote, the rule violated the intentions of Congress when it passed the Clean Water Act 19 years ago.
White House and administration officials disagreed.
At the EPA, Assistant Administrator Benjamin H. Grumbles said the rule responded directly to congressional action. He cited a letter from Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, endorsing it. He added that the rule still allows states to regulate pollution, and that it continues to regulate sediment that contains toxic ingredients.
Lisa Miller, a spokeswoman for another senior lawmaker, Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Texas), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said Monday that the rule was designed to hold oil companies accountable for putting toxic substances in the soil, but not for dirt that results from storms.
When it rains, storm water gets muddy, regardless of whether there's an oil well in the neighborhood, Miller said. Congress told EPA to do this, and now they have. If there's oil in the water, a producer has to clean it up. If it's nature, they don't.
The change in the rule occurred last year when staffers in the White House Office of Management and Budget began editing an early version drafted by EPA technical staff. The Office of Management and Budget oversees another division, the Office of Information and Regulatory Policy, which critics complain has served as a central hub in the Bush White House for making government regulations more business-friendly.
A spokesman for the White House budget office, Scott Milburn, said Monday that the White House's involvement in making rules was intended to ensure that agencies issue regulations that follow the law.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino rejected the suggestion that Rove was involved in the rule change. Rove frequently receives requests, she said, and that he tries to reply and direct those requests to the appropriate people. She said that for environmentalists to accuse Rove of manipulating the EPA rule was a typical overreach by administration critics.
That is quite an overreach, when it was the United States Congress that passed the Energy Act in a bipartisan way to ask the EPA to undertake this rulemaking, she said.
In their March letter, Jeffords and his Democratic colleagues asked EPA officials whether the correspondence with Rove influenced the final rule.
A response written by Grumbles did not directly address the Rove question. But the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups assert that they know the answer.
We can't say that Karl Rove walked over to OMB and demanded these changes, said Sharon Buccino, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's land program. But it is clear that there was direction coming from the top of the White House, and this was a result of the thinking of the White House as opposed to environmental experts at EPA.
Buccino called the rule yet another example of the Bush administration rewarding their friends in the oil and gas industry at the expense of the environment and the public's health.
In his letter to Rove, Angelo did not hide his political feelings. He thanked Rove for all you do, and added words of encouragement on another topic: The president has the opposition on the run on the Iraq issue.
His letter appeared to gain notice at the highest levels of the administration. Three months after Angelo sent it, a top EPA official wrote to tell him that the agency had decided to impose the temporary delay on the construction permitting rule for oil and gas companies.
The letter was copied to Rove, White House environmental advisor James L. Connaughton and then-EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman.
Yes, I would agree Rove is loyal to the Republican party...
he is still not one of my favorite people. And yes, he is brilliant as far as politics are concerned. Frankly, I think he said the stuff about Romney because he figured McCain would not pick him. I really never thought he would. They just don't fit, in my opinion. In a lot of ways, and if you are going to run this country with someone, basic ideas need to be the same. That is why the #1 most liberal senator and the #3 most liberal senator are running on the Dem ticket.
Of course, Rove is toeing the party line now and saying that Palin was a good pick, but still saying he thought it was going to be Romney. So we will see...all I can speak for is myself, but I would not have been nearly AS energized for a Romney pick as I am for Sarah Palin. I would still have supported McCain...but not as enthusiastically.
Bush angry with Rove for being CLUMSY in discrediting Wilson!
*But the President felt Rove and other members of the White House damage-control team did a clumsy job in their campaign to discredit Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, the ex-diplomat who criticized Bush's claim that Saddam Hussen tried to buy weapons-grade uranium in Niger.*
New York Daily News - http://www.nydailynews.com |
Bush whacked
Rove on CIA leak
BY THOMAS M. DeFRANK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF
Wednesday, October 19th, 2005
WASHINGTON - An angry President Bush rebuked chief political guru Karl Rove two years ago for his role in the Valerie Plame affair, sources told the Daily News.
He made his displeasure known to Karl, a presidential counselor told The News. He made his life miserable about this.
Bush has nevertheless remained doggedly loyal to Rove, who friends and even political adversaries acknowledge is the architect of the President's rise from baseball owner to leader of the free world.
As special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald nears a decision, perhaps as early as today, on whether to issue indictments in his two-year probe, Bush has already circled the wagons around Rove, whose departure would be a grievous blow to an already shell-shocked White House staff and a President in deep political trouble.
Asked if he believed indictments were forthcoming, a key Bush official said he did not know, then added: I'm very concerned it could go very, very badly.
Karl is fighting for his life, the official added, but anything he did was done to help George W. Bush. The President knows that and appreciates that.
Other sources confirmed, however, that Bush was initially furious with Rove in 2003 when his deputy chief of staff conceded he had talked to the press about the Plame leak.
Bush has always known that Rove often talks with reporters anonymously and he generally approved of such contacts, one source said.
But the President felt Rove and other members of the White House damage-control team did a clumsy job in their campaign to discredit Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, the ex-diplomat who criticized Bush's claim that Saddam Hussen tried to buy weapons-grade uranium in Niger.
A second well-placed source said some recently published reports implying Rove had deceived Bush about his involvement in the Wilson counterattack were incorrect and were leaked by White House aides trying to protect the President.
Bush did not feel misled so much by Karl and others as believing that they handled it in a ham-handed and bush-league way, the source said.
None of these sources offered additional specifics of what Bush and Rove discussed in conversations beginning shortly after the Justice Department informed the White House in September 2003 that a criminal investigation had been launched into the leak of CIA agent Plame's identity to columnist Robert Novak.
A White House spokesman declined to comment, citing the ongoing nature of Fitzgerald's investigation. |
You are wrong. Karl Rove is working FOR the McCain campaign.
.
|
