Sunday show hosts left key Rove scandal questions unasked
SUMMARY: In appearances by Karl Rove on Sunday morning talk shows on Fox, CBS, and NBC, not one interviewer asked whether an August 19 Washington Post article was accurate in stating that, according to White House officials, one of Rove's "two basic rules" in putting together briefings for political appointees was "to make sure they complied with the Hatch Act," a federal law that limits political activities by federal employees. As the article noted, "the Office of the Special Counsel ... has concluded that the Hatch Act was violated" during a briefing that was conducted by a Rove aide for political appointees in the General Services Administration.
Deputy White House chief of staff Karl Rove, who announced August 13 that he will resign his position at the end of the month, appeared on the August 19 broadcasts of NBC's Meet the Press, CBS' Face the Nation, and Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday. In none of the interviews, however, was Rove asked to reconcile the assertion by White House officials quoted in an August 19 front-page Washington Post article -- that one of Rove's "two basic rules" in putting together briefings for political appointees was "to make sure they complied with the Hatch Act," a federal law that limits political activities by federal employees -- with a finding by the Office of Special Counsel that the Hatch Act was violated during a briefing that was conducted for political appointees in the General Services Administration (GSA) by J. Scott Jennings, a Rove aide and the White House's deputy director of political affairs. The Post article did not quote Rove, yet all three interviewers on the Sunday morning shows passed up the opportunity to ask him about the article.
In addition, on each of the programs, key questions regarding Rove's involvement in the leak of the identity of a CIA operative were left unasked. While Meet the Press guest host David Gregory and Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace did ask some scandal-related questions, Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer failed to mention a single controversy in which Rove has been implicated.
Potential Hatch Act violations
The Post article, which did not quote Rove, reported that Drew DeBerry, the Agriculture Department's liaison to the White House from 2001 to 2005, stated, "What was surprising was how adamant Karl and his whole team was that we involve the lawyers in our discussions to make sure we didn't come up with things that ran afoul of the law." However, as Media Matters for America has noted, the OSC, headed by Bush appointee Scott J. Bloch, concluded that GSA chief Lurita Alexis Doan violated the Hatch Act.
According to the OSC, following a January presentation by Jennings that detailed 79 candidates targeted by the White House for support or opposition in upcoming elections, Doan asked Jennings, "How can we help our candidates?" The OSC described this question as an "inherently coercive" attempt to "ask and/or encourage her subordinates to engage in political activity." The August 19 Post article reported that "Rove's team gave more than 100 such briefings during the seven years of the Bush administration. The political sessions touched nearly all of the Cabinet departments and a handful of smaller agencies that often had major roles in providing grants, such as the White House office of drug policy and the State Department's Agency for International Development."
Rove was not quoted in the article, and Schieffer, Wallace, and Gregory all failed to ask Rove about the Doan meeting or the OSC's findings.
CIA leak investigation
In 2002, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was sent to Niger by the CIA to investigate whether Iraq had attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium from the African country. Wilson's investigation, which was prompted by questions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, turned up no evidence that any sale had taken place and found that "it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq." After President Bush referred to Iraq's purported attempt to obtain uranium from Africa in his 2003 State of the Union address as justification for invading Iraq, Wilson detailed the findings of his trip in a July 6, 2003, New York Times op-ed. Eight days later, in a July 14, 2003, column, conservative columnist Robert D. Novak identified Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as "an Agency [CIA] operative on weapons of mass destruction" and wrote: "Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger." Novak's sources were later revealed to be Rove and then-deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.
On Meet the Press, Gregory noted that Rove was "a central part" of the CIA leak investigation. Gregory then asked Rove about his July 8, 2003, conversation with Novak in which he reportedly confirmed to Novak Plame's identity as a CIA operative. Gregory aired a clip of Novak on the July 15 broadcast of Meet the Press claiming that Rove confirmed that information to him. Rove denied that he was, as Gregory put it, a "confirming source for Novak," adding: "[I]f a journalist had said to me, 'I'd like you to confirm this,' my answer would have been, 'I can't. I don't know. I've heard that, too.' "
Gregory, however, did not challenge Rove's claim by asking about Time reporter Matt Cooper, who testified that Rove was his primary -- not confirming -- source for Plame's identity. As Media Matters noted, Cooper, on January 31, testified at the trial of former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby that Rove was the first person with whom he discussed Plame's identity. From Cooper's testimony, as documented in journalist Murray Waas' book, The United States v. I. Lewis Libby (Union Square, June 2007):
Q: And can you tell us when you first discussed Mr. Wilson's wife that week and with whom?
A: Sure. It was on Friday, July 11th, 2003. And it was with Karl Rove, a member of the White House staff.
Q: And can you tell us how that conversation came about?
A: Sure. Well, I put in a call to Mr. Rove's office. I believe I called through the White House switchboard, and I was routed to his office. At first they said he wasn't there or that he was busy, and then they put me through to him, and we talked.
Q: And tell us what you recall about the conversation with Mr. Rove on that day.
A: Sure. Well, these aren't the exact words, but the gist of it was I said, you know, we are interested in this Wilson story and the sixteen words. By this time, it had become a very big story. And he immediately said, well, don't get too far out on Wilson, which I took to mean, don't lionize Ambassador Wilson or don't idolize him.
And he went on to say -- and, again, I am paraphrasing -- that a number of things were going to be coming out about Ambassador Wilson that would cast him in a different light. He said that the director of the CIA had not sent him, I believe he said the Vice President's office had not been involved in sending him.
And then he said, you know, it would turn out who was involved in sending him.
And I had to draw it out of him a bit. I said, who? And he said, like his wife.
And I guess I, until that point, didn't know Wilson had a wife; I hadn't even thought about it. And then I said, "The wife?" And he went on to say that she worked on WMD at the agency, and by that I took to mean the Central Intelligence Agency, not, say, the Environmental Protection Agency.
And we talked a bit more. And then, at the end of the conversation, he said words to the effect of, "I have already said too much. I have got to go." And that was it.
Gregory did not ask Rove about this discrepancy, even though Gregory was clearly aware of it. Cooper appeared later on the program as part of a panel discussion, during which Gregory asked him about the distinction between Rove's claim that he could not have "confirm[ed]" Plame's identity and Cooper's testimony that Rove was his primary source. Cooper said of Rove's comments, "I think he was dissembling, to put it charitably":
GREGORY: Matt Cooper, let's pick up on an aspect of the interview with Karl Rove having to do with the leak case, the CIA leak case that you were part of as well. And something is very interesting: He went out of his way to say, "I would not have been a confirming source on this kind of information," and taking issue with Novak's testimony and his column that he knew who Valerie Plame was. He said he would never confirm that information. That's different from your experience with him.
COOPER: Yeah, I think he was dissembling, to put it charitably. Look, Karl Rove told me about Valerie Plame's identity on July 11, 2003. I called him because Ambassador Wilson was in the news that week. I didn't know Ambassador Wilson even had a wife until I talked to Karl Rove, and he said that she worked at the agency and she worked on WMD. I mean, to imply that he didn't know about it, or that this was all the leak of someone else --
GREGORY: Or that he had heard it from somebody else.
COOPER: -- or that he heard it as some rumor out in the hallway is nonsense.
From the August 19 broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press:
GREGORY: Let me talk about the CIA leak case, of which you were obviously a, a central part. This is what the president said in 2003 after the identity of Valerie Plame was divulged in a Robert Novak column. Watch.
BUSH [video clip]: If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated laws, that person will be taken care of.
GREGORY: Robert Novak, who divulged Valerie Plame's name in his column, appeared on this program with [Meet the Press host] Tim Russert back in July, and Tim asked about his book. Watch.
[begin video clip]
RUSSERT: Then you go on to say, in the book, "Senior White House adviser Karl Rove returned my call late that afternoon," July 8, 2003, the same day. "I mentioned I had heard that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA in the counterproliferation section and that she had suggested Wilson be sent to Niger. I distinctly remember Rove's reply," quote, " 'Oh, you know that, too.' Rove and I also discussed other aspects of Wilson's mission, but since he never has disclosed them publicly, neither have I."
So you considered Rove's comments -- "Oh, you know that, too" -- as a confirmation?
NOVAK: Yes.
[end video clip]
GREGORY: Were you a confirming source for Robert Novak?
ROVE: No. And I, I remember it slightly differently. I remember saying, "I've heard that, too." Let, let me say this. There is a civil lawsuit filed by Mr. Wilson and Ms. Plame. It has been tossed out at the district court level. They've announced their intention to appeal. I think it is better that I not add anything beyond what is already in the public record until that suit is resolved. But, as I'm -- my recollection is that I said, "I heard that, too." We -- I would point you to --
GREGORY: Where, where had you heard that?
ROVE: You'll have to wait.
GREGORY: But that's an important distinction, because the -- you -- "I heard that, too," suggests that you heard it from somebody else rather than knowing it yourself.
ROVE: That's correct.
GREGORY: But he, he took those notes down just as you said them.
ROVE: Well, but I -- my recollection is, "I've heard that, too." So -- but the point is, if a journalist had said to me, "I'd like you to confirm this," my answer would have been, "I can't. I don't know. I've heard that, too."
GREGORY: It's important to point out that the special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, declined to bring any criminal charges against you. But given the president's emphatic statement about getting to the bottom of this, were you ever held to account by the president for what you did?
ROVE: You know, I acted in an appropriate manner, made all the appropriate individuals aware of my contact. I met with the FBI right at the beginning of this, told them everything. You're right, the special prosecutor declined to take any action at all. I was never a target. In fact, it's -- what's interesting to me is that the person who did give the name, Richard Armitage, we found out at the end of the process, did, did have the conversation with Novak, took no action against him either.
From the August 19 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: Why did you discuss with two reporters that Valerie Plame, the wife of ambassador Joe Wilson, worked for the CIA?
ROVE: First of all, let me say there is a civil lawsuit filed by Wilson and Plame against a wide variety of people.
WALLACE: That's been dismissed.
ROVE: Well, it's been dismissed, but they've announced they intend to appeal. And so, I'm not going to add anything to the public record. What I did say to one reporter was, "I've heard that, too." And what I said to another reporter off the record was, in essence, "I don't think you ought to be writing about this." And, you know, we'll -- I intend to hold my fire and not add anything else to the public record until after this is over.
WALLACE: Matt Cooper, the second reporter you're talking about, who then worked for Time, says you told him that Joe Wilson's wife, who worked for the CIA, authorized the trip.
ROVE: Which I had been told by a reporter.
WALLACE: But did you tell that to Matt Cooper?
ROVE: I don't recall Mr. Cooper's conversation. I'll let his notes stand as a record of it. It's clear off the record, that I'm talking to him off the record, trying to discourage him. After all, this is the day that the CIA is going to issue a statement. I'll remind you what that statement said. By the CIA director George Tenet on July 11. He said contrary to Mr. Wilson's claim in The New York Times, neither the White House, the vice president, or the director of the CIA sent him to Niger. The information he came back with was not treated as dispositive or conclusive on the question of whether or not Iraq had tried to acquire uranium in Niger. In fact, we now know from the Senate Select Intelligence Committee that Mr. Wilson came back but did not mention in his article information that corroborated the British intelligence report about Iraq trying to acquire uranium in Niger. That he, Mr. Wilson, had found a previously undisclosed contact between Iraq and a third party to pressure the Niger government to accept a trade delegation, which it did, and since the only thing they had to trade was uranium cake, the Niger government was very nervous and basically shut down the meeting.
WALLACE: But whether it was off the record, whether you were saying I just heard that, too, whatever it was you were saying, you're a government official. Why traffic at all in the fact that his wife worked for the CIA?
ROVE: I didn't confirm it. If somebody -- if you as a reporter said I'd like you to confirm this, my answer would have been to say I can't. And again --
WALLACE: But you say that's not what you said to Bob Novak.
ROVE: I said I heard that, too. That was not confirmation. If you talk to the CIA, you talk to --
WALLACE: Do you think that you should even have been discussing a CIA operative?
ROVE: Look, there are 30-some-odd-thousand people who worked at the CIA. I did not -- under no -- and I'm not even certain to this day whether she fit the definition of a CIA operative.
WALLACE: I want to take you back --
ROVE: I would remind you also if she were, I suspect that special prosecutor would have done something different about both Mr. Richard Armitage, who was the person who had an extensive conversation with Mr. Novak about this, and would have done something different about me.
WALLACE: I want to take you back to the fall of 2003, when both the president and the president's press secretary said -- denied you had spoken to anyone about Valerie Plame. Take a look.
BUSH [video clip]: I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it and we'll take the appropriate action.
[begin video clip]
REPORTER: You said this morning that, quote, "The president knows that Karl Rove wasn't involved. How does he know that?"
SCOTT McCLELLAN (former White House press secretary): Public knowledge, I've said that it's not true, and I have spoken with Karl Rove.
[end video clip]
WALLACE: Question -- did you mislead the president and Scott McClellan.
ROVE: No, I didn't. In fact, the president said "classified information." I was very clear right from the very beginning on this with both the counsel's office and with the FBI. And look, if I had leaked classified information, Peter [sic] Fitzgerald would have done something different. And what I told Scott McClellan was I didn't know her name, didn't know her status at the CIA.
WALLACE: When was the first time you told the president?
ROVE: I'm not going to -- again, nice try. I've said I'm not going -- there is a civil lawsuit. I'm not going to expand the public record. What I've just said to you is available on the public record before today.
WALLACE: Well, thank you for making it seem even more important, Mr. Rove.
His appearance on FOX with Wallace was a joke
The most offensive things I heard in Rove's interviews were his assertions that the Bush administration tried to build coalitions, and that he did nothing wrong with regard to the Valerie Plame outing. Matthew Cooper was on after Rove on MTP, and he refuted almost all of what Rove said.
MR. MATT COOPER: Yeah, I, I think he was dissembling, to put it charitably. Look, Karl Rove told me about Valerie Plame’s identity on July 11, 2003. I called him because Ambassador Wilson was in the news that week. I didn’t know Ambassador Wilson even had a wife until I talked to Karl Rove and he said that she worked at the agency and she worked on WMD. I mean, to imply that he didn’t know about it or that this was all the leak...
MR. GREGORY: Or that he had heard it from somebody else...
MR. COOPER: ...by someone else, or he heard it as some rumor out in the hallway is, is nonsense.
MR. GREGORY: But he makes no apologies to Valerie Plame.
MR. COOPER: Karl Rove never apologizes. That’s not what he does.
As Salon's headline says, Rove plays the victim quite well, but history does not demonstrate that he's been a victim at all. He has victimized many, but he has rarely been unfairly attacked or characterized. For those of us who hate what Rove did to our nation, the Salon article is preaching to the choir, but I like hearing the choir sometimes. If you do too, here's the link. http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/08/20/rove/index_np.html The poisonous rhetorical legacy of Karl Rove
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/08/20/rove/index.html#
If the eyes are the window to your soul; then Karl Rove is one scary guy. What I see in this picture of him is one cold hearted SOB who's only goal is to win, no matter how or the cost involved. In my opinion we will be covering the cost of his tenure as the "Brains" of the man in the White House for several years to come.
Yeah, I agree, Rove should have given only a half hearted effort in order to be more fair to to his adversary's ..........OK!
Anybody giving Karl only a half an effort probably pulled back a bloody stump.
his "adversary's" what? .....but what i think you're trying to say is anything goes as long as you win. i actually watched this travesty and rove lied his butt off. as mentioned, he tried to make it sound like he was just some casual bystander who happened to hear that valerie plame was an operative for the cia. matt cooper [someone else did the exact quote] made it clear that rove told him, out of the blue. and gregory did not play the clip of bush promising to fire anyone "involved" in the plame outing. he played the later one when bush hedged by saying something to the effect of anyone charged.
rove also said that gore "lost" in 2000 [presumably by getting 600,000 more votes than bush], because he "looked to the past". apparently those balanced budgets and 22 million jobs created in the clinton administration were something to run away from. we needed to get back to the huge republican deficits. rove also talked about the bush job creation rate, which has really been rather anemic.
rove also told the flat out lie that saddam "thumbed his nose at the inspection process". and the media never calls anyone in the bush administration, including bush, on this. the u.n. inspectors were there and finding nothing and they only withdrew because bush told them we were about to start hostilities.
rove also talked about the "pre 9-11 mindset". i doubt it, but maybe he was talking about how bush told bob woodward he was "not on point" about bin laden prior to 9-11. it was the bush administration that ignored the threat of terrorism. richard clarke, who served as counterterrorism adviser in the poppy bush, clinton, and bush2 administrations, said that he felt the bush people had been "frozen in amber" because they came back into office in 2000 with the same concerns like iraq and missile defense, when the new challenge was terrorism.
Someone should offer a sizable financial reward to anyone who can find a single TV appearance in which Rove told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. (No wonder he had to revise his grand jury testimony, what was it, five times?) Seriously. Going back to the 2000 campaign, when I first saw him on TV, I have never seen the guy tell the truth.
But the real story, I think, is that because President Bush authorized the release of classified information about Valerie Plame as Scooter Libby testified* -- there was no "leak" by Rove to prosecute. It's not that Plame was not covert (maybe someone should tell the oh-so-confused Karl that Fitzgerald himselfsaid she was), or that Rove was only a confirming source to his longtime (going back thirty years?) leak recipient Novak.
*"Libby told a grand jury that Bush authorized the release of classified information to rebut Wilson, which Cheney's office [was Matalinstill there then?] considered a 'direct attack' on the credibility of the White House." ["Novak: Rove confirmed Plame's identity," CNN.com, July 11, 2006, [link to www.cnn.com]
Also of interest: "Marcy Wheeler Debunks Rove's Lies From 'Meet The Press' Appearance" [[link to www.journals.democraticunderground.com]
I only saw Rove being interviewed by David Gregory on Meet The Press [guess Tim was too much of a chicken-sh#t to be there]
Gregory tried to drill Rove, but got nowhere, so failing that he tried to trip Rove up by interrupting him or talking over him...but Rove is one cool customer.
To be honest, if one didn't know what a scumbag Rove is, one would have been impressed with his calm under pressure & his answers.
I'll give Gregory a B for effort
But a D for results.
I felt that Gregory was too easy on him. Maybe it's just my prejudice, but the whole thing looked rehearsed. I'm sure Rove knew exactly what he would be asked, and Gregory didn't seem willing to press him on his answers, or spring any surprises on him. I got the impression that Rove was in control.
I kept picturing the two of them doing their "M.C. Rove" routine, and couldn't really take it seriously.
I kept picturing the two of them doing their "M.C. Rove" routine, and couldn't really take it seriously.
That's funny. I felt I was the only one thinking about that little routine when I watched the interview between the two on Sunday.
Nerzog,
I thought Gregory started strong, but faded fairly quickly. Rove was most definitely in charge. No matter what Gregory threw at him, Rove had an answer that to the untrained ear [one not equiped to pick out the bullsh#t] sounded almost reasonable.
Say what you will about Rove, the guy is a pro.
I think that is a fair assessment. Gregory can only go so far with what is known. Both Novak and Cooper contradict Rove and Rove has a different story of what happened in both instances. Gregory isn't Bill O'Reilly where he can just accuse someone of lying without some sort of evidence beyond what he had already shown.
I think the same could be said for Wallace. There are limits to journalism. You can't just go around calling Rove a liar as a reputable journalist although it may be reasonably deduced. The interviewer will just tarnish their own reputation in doing that.
I'm sorry, but I think Rove is a self-serving liar based on Cooper and Novak's statements, but it is simply not enough to hang Rove on with utter certainty. There is still a slim chance that Rove is telling the truth and Novak and Cooper are lying for some unknown reason. Don't laugh. It is possible.
anything novak says is self serving, but what would be cooper's motive to lie? he has every reason and motive to tell the truth. there is zero evidence that cooper learned plame's identity from anyone but rove. cooper also did not reveal her name so that would give him absolutely no motive to lie. in fact, he could have been charged with perjury if he did lie. cooper was someone who had nothing to gain and everything to lose by lying. he was not the target of any kind of criminal charges directly relating to the outing.
Well cripes, if the Libby trial told us anything it told us Russert was a pet reporter Cheney knew they could control.
Gregory is probably tougher, but that's saying very little. I would have liked a follow up on the "thumbed his nose" comment on Hussein, as mentioned above.
Rove is a pro. He can handle the toughest of questions, but I'll be danged if I'd let him spin a lie out on my face, like he did on Gregory. And you'd expect there to be some serious questioning in the Plame matter...what a gyp.
You're definitely right about Rove being a scumbag. I mean, he's a guy who got booted off of GHW Bush's campaign back in the day for being TOO underhanded and too shady, and remember, this is the same Bush who gave us some serious negative campaigning again Dukakis (Hello Willie Horton anyone??). Rove's smear tactics go back to even his college days, when he was pulling stunts to smear his opponents, and he kept working this MO into everything he did.
I think it was back in Texas that he said his opponents bugged his office to try and gain an upperhand on him, but the FBI said no way. The conclusion most came to was that he did it to his own office to make it look like someone else did it, so that he could play victim once again, even though he was the shameless victimizer.
He was, and probably will be again, a political adviser who can get results. I mean, he got a total and utter moron and failure elected President, twice. Although I think that now, most of America is either tired of his act, or have caught on to it, and basically won't put up with it any longer.
as i remember, the "bug" was "discovered" about two days before the election. and it wasn't until well after that it came out that it was not the opponent.
"To be honest, if one didn't know what a scumbag Rove is, one would have been impressed with his calm under pressure & his answers."
I think you had a realization that Republicans are not the boggy men that the left plays them to be.
If you actually listen to them, instead of just using MMFA who has a vested interest, you'll realize they make a lot of sense.
odiouscontent, that was written by a conservative poster. not exactly the same thing as someone on the left saying that about rove.
I have listened to Rove, a lot. He is not the boogeyman, no indeed. He is THE DEVIL. Pure and simple. He made a deal with Satan and he is definitely holding up his end of the bargain, no holds barred.
I don't have a problem with republicans, real republicans most of the time. What I have a problem with is nitwit neocons who lie their butts off on a daily basis, and peddle that to the American public as the God's honest truth, and also, folks such as yourself, who fall for it, hook, line, and sinker. Have you ever had an original thought, or do you just repeat what you hear on the radio? Judging from your "blog", I'd say, you just repeat things, sort of like a parrot, only more ignorant.
At risk of joining the "Jump on the stupid comment" brigade, MMFA has a nasty habit of providing detailed transcripts which means people turning to them for their news actually do 'listen' to them pretty clearly.
Oh, and you're entirely right (pun only slightly intended), Republicans aren't the boogy man. The boogy man only picks on kids and Santy Claus...
The fact that this guy isn't a pariah in the MS Media confirms a pro-right wing bias. His actions over the years have run the gambit from simply sleazy to downright illegal. The only thing protecting him from prosecution is power not justice. While everyone knows that everything he says is probably a lie or at least a 'half-truth' he is mostly described in the media as a 'mastermind.' The only way a lying media manipulator can receive so much positive press is if there is collusion between the media and the interests he represents.
What has amazed me about Karl Rove over the years is his snake like way he can slither around questions, and come across on these tv morning shows as a friendly likeable "Rapper". You can see the evil in his face however, it is Cheney like. I am not fooled by him and I wish the media especially David Gregory who has in the past asked tough questions would have been more tough on the Valerie Wilson scandal. Why Karl Rove was not indicted is mind bogggling. I am one of the people who believe that the wrong person in Scooter Libby was indicted , convicted. The media has long made Karl Rove a friend and that is wrong.
Cheney-like? Perhaps. I can't help but imagine him taking cranial measurements to determine Aryan characteristics...
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
A nuetered press to a corporate agenda is far from a 1st Amendment enjoying 4th branch of government free press, it is in reality the willing partner in the evolution of American Fascism catering to a Fascist Policital Operative!
Open your eyes my fellow Americans we have been lead by the nose by this scoundrel whom like his boss advocated for a war he dodged only to be the first to pound the drums of war for no better reason than to win an election!
Karl Rove is a Traitor.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
I sometimes wonder what is the point of interviewing Rove or asking him anything at all... unless it is under oath in a criminal investigation. The man is a compulsibe liar who would say anything to protect himself, Bush or the Republican Party. The more free publicity Rove is given the more books he will sell to the brain dead multitudes of Republican die-hards.
Luckily, plain old lying is not a crime. 'Cause I'm sure that I would have been put in jail a long time ago. Rove lying for Bush and propping him up as some sort of mastermind and "Best President Ever" is, well, par for the course for anyone working for Bush, and other past Presidents as well. I wouldn't expect anything less than a full throated defense of the President that they work for. That being said, there are of course some things that are worse than others, and as I've said before, lots of things that Herr Rove has done over the years probably were/are illegal, but hard to prove.
He does come across as well spoken, intelligent, and sort of likeable in interviews, there is no "growling" and or "grunting" and sneering ala Cheney, but if you listen to his message, he's pure evil, if you ask me. Yep, evil. I picture him being completely bald, with a monocle and stroking a hairless cat ala Dr. Evil from Austin Powers' fame.
I also think that Rove is probably the way that he is because he was shoved into too many lockers when he was in high school. No doubt he's trying to make up for some "lack" of something he had, or in this case, didn't have in high school. It's a cautionary tale of high school geek turned powerful republican operative. The funny thing about that perception that I have of him, is that George W. would have been the ringleader locking Rove into lockers, and giving him swirlies in the boy's room (W wouldn't have been doing it, his minions would have done his bidding for him).
Karl Rove has damaged America more than any other political advisior in American history.
Even more than Nixon and his aides? I agree Karl Rove has divided America but I remember 1974, ouch.
Nixon resigned. The guy Rove put in the White House is still there.
Good point
The man is patriot. He is in great shape too (more chins than a chinese phone book).
Seriously, the solice we can have is that people like him always get back what they gave ten fold. Clocks a tickin'.
I'd like to believe in such Karma, but Josef Mengele died of old age in South America.
I imagine that Karl Rove is headed for a huge golden parachute and a blanket pardon if he's ever indicted.
They'll all pack up and live on the big Bush ranch down in Paraguay, Rove, Condi, Wolfowitz, Rummie and all the rest. They can set up secret experiments to clone Ronald Reagan and take over the world. The Boys From Bakersfield.
One meeting from a Rove aide might have violated the "hatch act"... yawn
(still in dispute, by the way)
http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=37102&ref=rellink
Also, Rove gets two tough interviews from the MSM on the Sunday talk shows.
Um... and the problem is????
Tough you say? So tough that he got to repeat the same nonsense that we keep hearing from the Bush administration without anyone really questioning him on it? Man, if that's tough, I'd hate to see a REALLY tough interview.
Oh, and the story that you quote saying that it is "under dispute" as to whether or not the Hatch Act was violated, apparently if you ask the attorney for the woman under investigation, of course it is in dispute. This is not an independent voice in the article saying that the charges are in dispute, it's the woman's lawyer. You'll have to come up with something better than that don't you think?
Something as good as 'Saddam has WMDs, honest", for instance?
Why should he? It's not like there's any real consequences or accountability for people making stupid posts, kinda like neocons unashamedly flouting the law.
Thanks for that link throwing doubt on whether Doan really violated the Hatch Act.
I had seen transcripts from the meeting which clearly showed she did violate this act; and I had seen her testimony in which her contempt for congress, and her inability to answer questions, makes her seem guilty as hell.
But your link makes me change my mind, because It comes from Doan's own lawyer! What an objective source.
I mean, did you really expect Doan's lawyer to argue that the Hatch act had not been broken?
You're serious, too, right?
This was my point exactly. Doan's lawyers arguing for their client. My, what an indepedent source to quote that throws "doubt" into whether or not she violated the Hatch Act and all. Amazing that they would defend her like that.
Yes, and the lawyer seems to be parsing words, and omitting a lot of incriminating evidence--what lawyers do, of course.
It wasn't just that one statement that points to Doan's guilt.
REPLY TO ALL:
FROM THE WASHINGTON POST -
ONE SUCH BRIEFING:
"But the Office of the Special Counsel, which protects whistleblowers, has concluded that the Hatch Act was violated during one such briefing, conducted for General Services Administration political appointees ..."
IS NOT A CRIMINAL ACT
"Violation of the Hatch Act, enacted to protect federal executive branch employees from being coerced into engaging in political activity, is not a criminal act but could result in Doan's removal from office...."
-----------------------------------
FINALLY(WASH POST):
During the Clinton administration, White House officials made their own attempt to harness the federal bureaucracy's grant announcements and travel, but they were far less systematic.
--------------------------------------------
In sum - out of dozens of meetings, ONE was declared a "violation" of the NON-CRIMINAL Hatch Act -
And the only reason that the opposition party seems to be upset about it is that they tried to do the same thing but they were just not as good at it.
Once again - yawn
Hey, Mr. Strawman.
No one said it was a criminal act. So why did you post as if we did?
Further, from the same article you linked to:
"The Office of Special Counsel, in a letter to President Bush released late Monday, said General Services Administrator Lurita Doan engaged in "the most pernicious of political activity... I recommend that Administrator Doan be disciplined to the fullest extent for her serious violation of the Hatch Act and insensitivity to cooperating fully and honestly in the course of our investigation."
That's not a Democratic partisan offering that view, but a special counsel.
You did not link to Clinton supposedly doing the same thing, so I cannot comment on it. Provide a link, please.l
QUOTE WAS FROM SAME WASH POST STORY -
Also, since this "Hatch" violation seems to be a relatively minor issue (like a parking ticket or jaywalking) then why did MM make such a big deal of it?
Hey, guy who posts here under another name usually, why would you call it an offense similar to a parking ticket if the guy charged with investigating this said,
"The Office of Special Counsel, in a letter to President Bush released late Monday, said General Services Administrator Lurita Doan engaged in "the most pernicious of political activity... I recommend that Administrator Doan be disciplined to the fullest extent for her serious violation of the Hatch Act and insensitivity to cooperating fully and honestly in the course of our investigation."
I might be wrong - a parking ticket violation might be WORSE than violating the Hatch act -
Penalties for Violating the Hatch Act
An employee who violates the Hatch Act shall be removed from their position, and funds appropriated for the position from which removed thereafter may not be used to pay the employee or individual. However, if the Merit Systems Protection Board finds by unanimous vote that the violation does not warrant removal, a penalty of not less than 30 days' suspension without pay shall be imposed by direction of the Board.
----------------------------------------------
But, but.. You said earlier yesterday that the violation was in much dispute, and then posted a press release (more or less) from Doan's lawyer.
So let me get this straight. Was there a violation, or wasn't there a violation? Nobody here said it was a criminal act, but there are consequences for what Doan did. Now you are changing your story from the violation was in dispute, to it is no worse than a parking ticket, although most parking tickets I've received in my lifetime have been on the order of $25-$50 fine that was mailed in, I never lost my job over a parking ticket, which is what Doan should have happen to her, so indeed, violating the Hatch Act is WORSE than a parking ticket.
Keep changing your rhetoric and your story, we'll keep pointing it out to you.
REPLY -
I'm going to argue both positions - the "violation" is still in dispute. And even if there is a "violation", it's a relatively minor civil infraction - not much of a controversy.
Well, you have contradicted yourself with your own sources. You haven't shown us anything to bolster your case that the violation is in dispute, besides a *press release from Doan's own lawyer,* a silliness on your part you still haven't acknowledged.
"GSA employs around 13,000 federal workers and has an annual operating budget around $16 billion, of which approximately 1% is appropriated from tax-payer dollars. GSA oversees $66 billion of procurement annually and contributes to the management of about $500 billion in U.S. Federal property, mostly divided among 8,000 owned and leased buildings and a 130,000 vehicle motor pool. Among the real estate assets the GSA manages is the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, the largest U.S. Federal building after The Pentagon." --[link to en.wikipedia.org] the size of the General Services Administration and the massive amount of money it controls, to minimize the issue of their alleged consideration of how to help Republicans is either disingenuous, woefully ignorant or simply naive at best.
I don't know about what the parking tickets are like where you live, but I don't think I could ever lose my job for it - as one could from a Hatch Act violation. Looks like your comparison doesn't make any sense. Apples and oranges.
Now you are changing your story. At first you claimed there was no violation.
I have never gotten a parking ticket, but I can't imagine a parking ticket causing me to lose my job and I can't imagine a parking ticket resulting in an investigation. The Hatch Act is meant to stop the government from using our tax dollars and government time from promoting one party over the other.
Woops, I forgot. You never followed up with a link to Clinton's supposed violation of the Hatch Act. My understanding is that travegate turned up no evidence of any violation.
I am waiting for Carvile and Biggalla to get theirs..........or maybe they have and I missed it.
i didn't know they outed any cia operatives to reporters.
How about Martin & Lewis? Or Sonny & Cher?
Carville/Begala and above duos aren't trying to subvert the Constitution. Sorry if this is a sporting event to you. It's not.
Think Johnies mentioning (sorta) Travelgate. What a can of worms that was -). How many charges came out of that. Whats Hannity's take on this, besides probably guilty?
Let's hope next time that Karl just responds, "I don't recall or I have no recollection", in any future depositions. Using the Clinton strategy will make certain to prove his innocence of any wrong-doing.
Keep up the worthwhile work here at Media Matters (Very Little).
The CLINTON strategy? You mean the one made famous by Ronnie Raygun during the Iran Contra hearings. The difference being Ronnie was so braindead and ignorant he probably couldnt remember all three of his names.
Proud One?
Will you please explain what you mean by (Very Little)?
I will venture to predict that this Rove blitz on the TV Media stage is just a small preview of what is to come.
I see him as a likely contributor or employee for Fox News. He's a master liar who at the same time can appear credible and truthful, all with a perfectly straight look on his face.
A perfect fit for the likes of the Fox News propaganda parade.
The Sunday show hosts seem to fear Rove. If they are so afraid of questioning Rove then why do they invite him? They just waste their and our time.