Dick Morris: "I love Karl Rove. ... He elected Bush"
On the October 20 edition of Fox News Channel's The O'Reilly Factor, Dick Morris -- a political analyst and former adviser to President Bill Clinton -- professed his love for White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove. When host Bill O'Reilly asked Morris to predict the fate of Rove and vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby in the grand jury investigation into the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame, Morris said: "I love Karl Rove. He deserves better. He's magnificent. He elected Bush. The country owes him a debt."
From the October 20 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
OREILLY: All right, Rove/Libby. All I want from you is a prediction. You got a prediction?
MORRIS: Oh, God. I love Karl Rove. He deserves better. He's magnificent. He elected Bush. The country owes him a debt, but I think he and Libby are gonna have problems. And I think that this will --
OREILLY: You think that they're gonna both be indicted?
MORRIS: -- become. I think this -- yeah, but I think, well, I can't speculate on whether -- what the prosecutor is going to do, but, yeah, I think that this scandal could go all the way up into the vice president's office. It could be very, very serious.
OREILLY: All right. But --
MORRIS: And it's gone from nothing 48 hours ago. Forty-eight hours ago, it was just hairless.
OREILLY: But it'll go back; it'll go back; it'll go back to nothing if there are no indictments.
MORRIS: Yeah, that's right.
OREILLY: So, if there are no indictments, it will go back to nothing. If there are, all hell breaks loose.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
"He elected Bush. The country owes him a debt."
I think the Constitution prevents us from giving Rove what he really deserves for this.
Is there any doubt now that Morris is playing with a 51 card deck?
That's our administration...just a bunch of lovable felons! At least he didn't mention the Clintons.
Hairless? What is he talking about?
The right seems to have lost their bluster when asked about the Plame case. I think they might realize this could be the top of a slippery slope.
>"So, if there are no indictments, it will go back to nothing."
That's what worries me. This may be another dry hole. Even though the lies and deceptions about the Iraq War are fairly obvious now, getting something done about it is another matter. If there are no criminal indictments, the GOP propaganda machine will have it buried within a week.
Sorry guys, 5 minutes after this drivel, he started bashing Hillary again hawking his book.
No one but FNC takes Morris seriously anymore. He has become a professional Clinton hater and the Fox machine keeps chewing him out.
Morris: "The country owes him a debt."
Sorry Dick, we don't owe this man SQUAT other than due process of law.
Remember this. Morris is 0 for 2,785 in his predictions. This prediction may arguably be his most accurate though. It uncharacteristically conflicts with his hopes.
Isn't this the same Dick who got publicly embarrassed when it was discovered that he tried to impress whores by letting them suck his toes as he talked to the president on the phone? What the hell do you have to do to stop being taken seriously in Washington?
"What the hell do you have to do to stop being taken seriously in Washington?"
That's easy, as long as Bush is in power simply speak the truth and you won't be taken seriously, only fantasy world need apply.
"Forty-eight hours ago, it was just hairless."
Only in a GOP fantasy world does this comment have anything to do with reality.
I really think many of them really believe that if they keep repeating their hopes, desires and talking points enough it will actually influence things.
Delusional and funny.
Karl Rove runs the country anyway, so the threat of indictment is on multiple fronts. It threatens to expose the real executive , and how the country is really run (a moron for a leader controlled by his key advisor who actually runs things), plus deprive Bush of his key advisor. What about Bush you say (isn t he the president)? No, Bush is just a puppet of Karl Rove; Rove figures out the consequences and tells Bush what to say. Common, do you really think Bush has the capacity to run a campaign, let alone the country? Answer that question, and then get back on who's the real head, Bush or Rove?
Back pre-war, Cheney appears to have taken the lead on Iraq misinformation - from what I've been reading.
Great point bonvechioc.
All I have to add is "Who stole that man's neck?"
i think morris got his debts confused. maybe he meant the national debt after bush adds umpteen trillions to it.
i thing the white house gang assumed in their arrogance they could do whatever they wanted and the bush justice dept wouldn't investigate. they didn't count on an independent prosector.
"i thing the white house gang assumed in their arrogance they could do whatever they wanted and the bush justice dept wouldn't investigate. they didn't count on an independent prosector." --mefirst
-------------------------------------------------
Considering the Whitehouse hired the Republican "independent prosecutor", I think it is safer to say they didn't think he would put doing his job above his politics. That may have been a miscalculation on the part of the Whitehouse. We will find out next week.
Seems to me there are TWO aides from ol Dicky boyo's that have flipped aren't there?
by glass-salmon
-----------------------------
Treason also requires (the key point is) giving aid to the enemy in a TIME OF WAR
Are we in a bona fide war or just a military/police action?
Is Robert Novak "the enemy" in the sense of a threat to this country-seriously?
There isn't a case for treason.
Jeez Dick,
If you love Karl so much, why don't ya marry him. Idiot.
Dick was a former Clinton advisor ... curious why he's now siding with these right-wing necons . Someone paying him?
1428a,
According to the Big W, we are in a war. With the Congressional vote support the use of force if necessary, it was not, but Bush got the declaration of force and his own words. I say treason could be argued.
but Bush got the declaration of force and his own words. I say treason could be argued.
by ufleirx
----------------------------------------------
Declaration of Force, but not a declaration of war. Those are two different things. Pay attention to 50 U.S Code Section 1541 [link to uscode.house.gov] The War Powers Act, or if a summary will do [link to thomas.loc.gov] The Declaration of Force in Iraq [link to thomas.loc.gov] That just complied with the War Powers Act, but it was not a declaration of war. I'm well aware of the impossibility of officially declaring war on terrorists, but nevertheless it's just a long term military action. Thus no war, and without war , there cannot be treason.
Let's be clear about the definition of "Declaration of FORCE".
ALL AMERICANS are justified in killing another human being, due to a "declaration of force" under law. By law, we are justified in using deadly force to defend ourselves ... from other deadly force.
If "self defense" is successfully used as a mitigant against a charge of murder, then the defendent is hailed as innocent under this declaration of force which spells out the exceptions to murder.
The charge of murder CANNOT be avoided, however, if you claim your attacker possessed weapons which directly threatened your life, and it turns out he was unarmed.
Bush finds himself in the position of the cop who shoots someone, claiming that someone had a gun, and the evidence clearly showing that the man had no weapon at all. A "Declaration of Force" does not protect you if you cannot prove up that the criteria justifying your action was met.
Absent the criteria of deadly force being directed at you urgently (the case the White House FALSELY made for this war in Iraq), the use of deadly force is considered murder without justification.
by tex - Sunday October 23, 2005 07:57:20 AM EST
I don't think matters of international conflict fall under the same laws as individual conduct and US criminal court. However, even in matters of individual conduct, a "gun" isn't the only means by which a defendent is justified in presuming that his life or property might have been in danger. In any event, the right "gets it." You and the left are against this very successful war. You seem to spend an awful lot of time on this board saying that same thing over and over again. It's clear, you wish us to cut and run, to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, to turn tail, to quit. Not very many people, outside of this board, agree with you though, your amusing little anecdotes notwithstanding.
It is clear your mail should be addressed to Planet Wingnut where reality has no ability to penetrate the atmosphere:
Select questions from poll follow article; for complete poll results, see the New York Times.
52% say leave Iraq ASAP
Approval of Bush’s Iraq policy has fallen from 79% in April 2003 to 36% today
Those saying it was right to intervene in Iraq have fallen from 64% in Dec. 2003 to 44% today
Support for the war in Iraq has fallen to an all-time low, according to the poll. Only 44 percent now say the United States made the right decision in taking military action against Iraq, the lowest rating since the question was first asked by this poll more than two years ago.
When asked how long American troops should remain in Iraq, for example, 52 percent of people interviewed called for an immediate withdrawal, even if that means abandoning President Bush’s goal of restoring stability to that country.
The poll also found that nearly 60 percent now disapprove of the way Mr. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq. And nearly half of those surveyed said that they were not proud of what the United States was doing in that country.
The political divisions that have been present all along remain. Seventy-one percent of Democrats said the United States should leave as soon as possible, while 31 percent of Republicans and 52 percent of independents said the same thing.
[link to www.clw.org]
I dont know what very few people means in YOUR world but to us here in the reality based universe no possible reading of 52% applies. It is YOU, not us that is now on the short end of public opinion. As for your definition of very successful, it shows only that your capacity for self delusion is truly astonishing
Ding dong:
I'm assuming your name comes from the Wizard of Oz, the song "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead". Appropriate for what is currently befalling the Bush Administration.
Unlike you, I can identify a situation that is bad for the USA, and will merely get WORSE as time goes on. You obviously don't mind expending American soldier's lives every day, based on some macho idea that you don't want (the nation) to "CUT AND RUN".
So, to demonstrate your manhood, you will continue a disasterous policy into infinity rather than admit our leadership made a huge mistake.
I wonder how you think Bush's plans square with these latest findings by our allies, the British:
[link to www.telegraph.co.uk]
Let's be clear about the definition of "Declaration of FORCE".
by tex
--------------------------------------------
It is NOT the same thing as a declaration of War (some people seem to think the two are interchangeable), rather it just extends the Presidents authority per the War Powers Act of 1973, to engage in conflicts. The said War Powers Act only gives the President 120 days to use the forces without further approval from Congress.
To paraphrase the opening sentence of the Declaration of Independence, "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to" WAR; and while that document refers to a Declaration of Independence, the paraphrase is near enough to it’s purpose, seeing as the Declaration of Independance was at the same time a Declration of a WAR for Independance.
Now the causes which impel a Nation to WAR are not nearly so complicated (nor so many) as We the People might think; We the People may even hold the truth of those causes to be self-evident: the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution...
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Union, Justice, domestic Tranquility (Peace at home), common defense (National Security), general Welfare, and Liberty.
And as reasons for which a Nation goes to WAR, Justice (for some past action) and common defense (or National Security for some future threat) are the easiest to justify: as in Justice for the attacks at Pearl Harbor, or our National Security against the threat of the Nazi war machine, which are both obvious examples. Even the U.S. Civil War was to preserve the Union, as Ordered by the U.S. Constitution; by We the People.
But what exactly are the causes which impel Operation Iraqi Freedom, and whether they have anything to do with Justice for some past action, or common defense and National Security for some future threat, seems more a confusion of the opinions of mankind, than a decent respect for them…
…and if those causes involve that same Liberty Ordered by We the People, then it seems more a corruption of that same Preamble, that it should involve the Liberty of a foreign people, and not that of ourselves and our Posterity; We the People and our Posterity…
… and if in the Course of human events, We the People (or our Posterity) should fail in articulating the reasons (as a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires) that impel us to WAR, then that shall be the time in which We the People (or our Posterity) will be the inarticulate, irrational Tyranny of this Earth.
(At least in the opinion of a decent mankind; the present administration excluded.)
tex,
The point is Rove didn't commit treason like some on this board seem to think. Novak was columnist not Al-Quada (let's be serious for a moment). Unless you're going to be the equivelent of Fox News and try to say that Novak was threatening America with his views, thus the enemy, theres nothing there. Rove may well have violated the Espionage Act and/or Intelligence Indentities Protection Act, but not treason.
1428a says, "The point is Rove didn't commit treason like some on this board seem to think."
RESPONSE: If he exposed an undercover CIA operation and/or agents, during time of war, this is the exact definition of TREASON: undermining the nation's defense.
1428a says, "Novak was columnist not Al-Quada (let's be serious for a moment)."
RESPONSE: Novak is a pundit/reporter. He reports what other people tell him. If people with the responsibility for defending this country instead "leak" information to him which damages this country, then those who leaked the information have violated the law. His REPORTING of the story is beside the point. (Al Queda is helped every time this nation behaves in a manner out of accordance with the law. Making America lawless, self destructive, and a violator of individual freedoms is the GOAL of our enemies.)
1428 says, "Unless you're going to be the equivelent of Fox News and try to say that Novak was threatening America with his views, thus the enemy, theres nothing there."
RESPONSE: Again, Novak was only the tool used by government officials to exact their strategy of exposing the CIA agent in hopes of discrediting her husband. There is a HUGE there there. We just don't know exactly who was to blame, how many laws were violated, and how high the corruption/criminal behavior goes.
1428 says, "Rove may well have violated the Espionage Act and/or Intelligence Indentities Protection Act, but not treason."
RESPONSE: Violating the Espionage act is, by definition, an act of treason.
I love Right-Wing logic. According to them, protesting the war and criticizing the president is treason, but violating the Espionage Act is not. Yeah.....riiiiiiiiiiight.
Oh and I forgot, what about the precedent of the Rosenbergs -- when were we at war with Russia? Although the exact charge was conspiracy to commit espionage I believe. Conspiracy to commit treason or actual treason should carry at least as severe a penalty, shouldn't it?
Oh and I forgot, what about the precedent of the Rosenbergs -- when were we at war with Russia? Although the exact charge was conspiracy to commit espionage I believe. Conspiracy to commit treason or actual treason should carry at least as severe a penalty, shouldn't it?
by ufleirx
-----------------------------------------
As for the war part; why was it called the cold war?
The Rosenburgs did both; they conspired and acted. The conspired (agreed or planned to commit a crime). They arranged to have the design part for (lens component?) for the implosion type bomb handed over to the Soviet Union.
The Rosenburgs were not all that far into the cold war. I'm not sure I follow you with the penalties, are you proposing that conspiracy and acting (criminally) have the same penalties?
I should point out about my own statement that theres a word missing-it should read: "should have the same penalties?" (as a question) not "...have the same penalties." (implying a fact)