Rove Under the Microscope

Karl Rove has emerged unscathed in the justice system so far. But the New York Times puts out its claws today and draws blood.

I can't remember a time during PlameGate, the closest Karl Rove came to being indicted, that the New York Times so lambasted Rove.

Whatever the immediate objective, Mr. Rove seems focused on one overarching goal: creating a permanent Republican majority, even if that means politicizing every aspect of the White House and subverting the governmental functions of the executive branch.

....This was, perhaps, the inevitable result of taking the chief operative of a presidential campaign, one famous for his scorched-earth style, and ensconcing him in the White House — not in a political role, but as a key player in the formation of policy. Mr. Rove never had to submit to Senate confirmation hearings. Yet, from the very start, photographs of cabinet meetings showed him in the background, keeping an enforcer’s eye on the proceedings. After his re-election in 2004, President Bush formally put Mr. Rove in charge of all domestic policy.

The Times says Congress shouldn't let Rove skate on testifying under oath at hearings on the fired U.S. Attorneys.

The investigation of the firings of the United States attorneys seems to be closing in on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who should have been fired weeks ago. But Congress should bring equal scrutiny to the more powerful Mr. Rove. If it does, especially by forcing him to testify in public, it will find that he has been at the vortex of many of the biggest issues they are now investigating.

I think Karl Rove's bigger problem is that Bush is now a lame duck and the media figures his lieutenants are now fair game.

The whole bunch of them are about to see their power dwindle.

It's up to us in 2008 to ensure we get a regime change, not just a name change.

< New Member of the Out of Iraq Blogger Caucus? Bush's Former Pollster Says "Out of Iraq" | March Madness - Gators Go For Repeat >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The Untouchable (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Palcewski on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 01:41:46 AM EST
    Yes, the NY Times calls Rove on his involvement in virtually every unethical, illegal and treasonous thing the administration has done the past six years. Turdblossom is indeed the fat clown behind the scenes pulling all the strings.  But you will note in the same issue of the Times that Matthew Dowd, Bush's chief campaign strategist, refuses to talk about the chubby fascist.  Which means Karl has something on Dowd, as he has on virtually all the stenographers of the Mainstream Media. That's why Karl did that grotesque dance at the correspondents' dinner the other night.  He displayed the flabby jig and jive of a man who KNOWS he's getting away with murder, and there isn't a damned thing anyone can do about it.  

    i -- for one -- refuse to believe. . . (none / 0) (#5)
    by the rainnn on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:33:19 AM EST
    . . .that karl rove will ultimately
    escape his date with the klieg-lights. . .

    i mean the ones in the dirksen office
    building, room 226
    . . .

    i am well-aware that rove has been the
    "unseen hand that moves the market" -- the
    market here, being made -- in dirty-tricks, dis-
    information, and agit-prop wedge-issues. . .

    and, despite the long history of his escapes,
    i refuse to believe that he will skate this time.

    we all must do all we can to make sure
    he doesn't. sen. leahy, rep. conyers and
    rep. waxman need to keep hearing from us
    on this score. . .

    now, i admit to being highly-encouraged by some
    of what has come out of traditionally-hard-right
    dead-tree publications, in the last week.

    it seems that people of conscience -- both
    left and right -- are finding the courage to
    speak-up and act-out to reject the cheney/
    rove/bush politics of hate, division and fear:

    read about marine col. v stuart couch.

    he has refused to prosecute a gitmo
    case because the evidence to be presented
    against the accused was the product of torture.

    and this, his story, appears in the wall
    street journal -- the weekend edition -- but
    the journal, nonetheless. . .

    i am not naive -- but i do think we
    can bring karl rove to account.  we can.


    Karl Rove is evil (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by profmarcus on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 09:59:02 AM EST
    i've been following him for a number of years, and i'm convinced that the man is truly a dark force... there isn't any other way to describe a man that has devoted the vast majority of his life to creating hateful divisions between and among people and groups that could otherwise be working constructively together toward a common good... the fact that he's done this to a large extent with outright lies only makes it worse... we can only hope that satan decides to call in his marker sooner rather than later...

    And, yes, I DO take it personally

    John Nowacki- Political Operative in the DOJ (none / 0) (#1)
    by MisterApologist on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:28:47 AM EST
    The Justice Department officials who were selected to be interviewed hit merely the tip of this iceberg.  It is extremely important that the House and Senate Judiciary Committee's interview John Nowacki, Principal Deputy Director as well as the Acting Counsel to the Director in the Executive Office of the Justice Department, in order to establish the links between the Justice Department officials, the US Attorney's in the field, and the political operatives who helped remove the targeted US Attorney's.  I have gathered and organized every document released so far from the Justice Department relating to John Nowacki as well as background information on his relationship with the Federalist Society.  You will be shocked at how many key pieces of information he gives to Paul McNulty, William Moschella, Michael Elston, William Mercer, Monica Goodling, and former employees Michael Battle and Kyle Sampson.
    This story on John Nowacki, including updates, can be found at: http://misterapologist.blogspot.com/

    Rove (none / 0) (#3)
    by fahrender on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 07:01:53 AM EST
    i have said repeatedly:




    In that order.

    Rove will skate.

    It would be sweet to be wrong.

    fahrender -- i beg to differ. . . (none / 0) (#6)
    by the rainnn on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:36:11 AM EST
    he'll only skate if we -- the
    collective we, of "we, the people. . ."
    allow it to pass.  do not allow it
    to pass. . . here endeth my sermon.

    Rove will skate? (none / 0) (#8)
    by diogenes on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:16:03 PM EST
    Alleged criminals should be investigated by grand juries.  The burning desire to have Rove "testify under oath" in front of Congress (rather than in front of a grand jury) is that it might trap him in perjury when he is not charged with any other crime (think Bill Clinton or Scooter Libby), it is public (political theater), and there is no probable cause for a grand jury investigation.  
    Besides being poor law, this idea will make President Hillary run her white house like the mafia-advisors will only speak to one person, never in meetings, never on paper.  
    The Left is as addled by its hatred of Bush as the Right was by its hatred of Clinton and pursuit of impeachment.

    Perjury is preventable (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 12:30:39 AM EST
    The burning desire to have Rove "testify under oath" in front of Congress (rather than in front of a grand jury) is that it might trap him in perjury when he is not charged with any other crime (think Bill Clinton or Scooter Libby), it is public (political theater), and there is no probable cause for a grand jury investigation.

    Lots of people testify under oath in front of Congress.  Oversight is one of the functions of Congress, and it has been going on for a long time.  Ever hear of Watergate?  Lots of sworn testimony, from presidential aides.  The GOP Congress was adamant that Bill Clinton's people testify in front of Congress, AND THEY DID.

    So you are saying that what was good for Clinton, a precedent set by the GOP, does not apply to the GOP  How much hypocrisy has to be exposed before hypocrites recognize it?

    Finally, why hasn't it occurred to you that in order to avoid beng charged with perjury, all you have to do is tell the truth?  What is the difficulty Republicans and their apologists have with this simple legal concept?

    Scooter Libby was not "trapped" into perjury.  He knew the truth, but he lied and thought he could get away with it. He had the best defense money could buy to explain his lies away, and the jury saw through it.  Bill Clinton's lie under oath was not perjury, as you well know.


    It's funny (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 02:36:02 AM EST
    If you always tell the truth you never have to remember what you said.