Going after Rove
It more and more seems that Democrats will go after Karl Rove. In my opinion, rightfully so. It seems that he has politicized, with Gonzales, the Justice Department, there is enough reason to believe that he may have violated the Hatch Act, he used RNC e-mail addresses and deleted his e-mails, he seems to organized a very questionable presentation well, I could name quite some more things but I have limited time today.
I am not anti-Bush, nor anti-Rove, in fact, I would probably be a Republican if I were American, but Bush and Rove have done some pretty unprecedented things and seem to have confused, like some other people, the interest of their party, with America’s interest.
For more on Rove, go to Think Progress: fired “U.S. Attorney David Iglesias revealed key new details about the Office of Special Counsel’s (OSC) probe into Karl Rove and other White House officials” and FireDogLake.
Also more at The Daily Dish.
I actually don’t see the point in it. Just like I didn’t see the point in going after Clinton.
By now - and equally by then with Clinton’s era. Congress was already in a not-gonna-budge moment. And we’re already in the campaign cycle. In effect - we have the government system that we were supposed to have to begin with.
I prefer to look ahead, for no matter what people may dream of - any result out of any investigation will only result in political posturing for the election cycle.
This isn’t to say that getting facts out is not important. it is - and it should server to warn the public on the dangers of not having divided government. but IMO - that’s the only benefit it could possibly have.
We’ll know soon enough. Monica Goodling has just received immunity for her testimony by the House.
At least, Iglesias has displayed real guts in defending his reputation after McNulty disparaged it.
If Rove’s involved in this he’s violated federal law.
I think some accountability is definitely in order but I feel that the focus is now almost entirely on ‘getting people’ instead of governing. It’s not that the Bush administration doesn’t deserve what it’s getting in many ways, but the problem is that our country deserves leaders who can provide accountability and actually govern at the same time.
It does not matter what reason the president had for firing the justices. This is just simply hate Bush tactics to continue the onslaught of hate to bring down a president in a time of war.
An outrage that goes beyond being able to describe this in terms that are rational.
This Democratic party decided a few years back that they were in deep trouble politically because of the war. They embarked not upon dissent but upon a willful act of treasonous behavior to undermine America at war for the pure goal of political gain.
They had no recourse. They know they are pathetic creatures when it comes to fighting a war and so they just stirred up the masses to get elected.
Now they have taken it a step farther. Now they are foaming at the mouth with their successes and are going off to the enemies home country and meeting with the enemies of the USA and flipping their noses at AMERICA in an attempt to bring down a sitting US president that they Voted to send to war.
They voted for it. They said. DO IT. Then this.
They are the scum of the earth. They are beyond Scum. I really must take some time off commenting because I am incensed at what I have been seeing transpiring in the last 2 months.
I vote that Bush accept their budget and bring the troops home now. I vote that Bush let the middle east Burn so that we can put this all in the laps of those Democrats who are pure an unadulterated Backstabbing cowards.
They do not have the best interests of the country at heart. They have the best interests of the Democratic party at heart.
Let me repeat. They said GO TO WAR. Then embarked on this.
No words can describe this. Judias. How many pieces of gold did they receive for their treachery?
Nobody,
relax dude.
Your right that there are extreme levels of hypocrisy in the name of politics. Course that goes on on both sides. and yes - the left has no moral high ground when it comes to the war. Neither does the right imho.
but I fail to see the use of extreme talk, and for that matter, keep your bp up you’ll give yourself a heart attack.
Both sides would be well served to remember we’ve got elections in mere months, and one aggravated center that’s happy with neither of the children playing in the sandbox at the moment.
I was about to leave a comment much like the one left by Interested, so I will only say this: I second his comment.
I am incensed beyond comprehension right now.
Its just not politics now. Its Harry Reid standing up in Congress and saying the war is lost. Slapping every boy and girl in Iraq in the face.
Its sending budgets with withdrawal dates on them.
Fine. I accept those terms. Mr. President bring the boys home now. Today. All of them. Let the Middle east Burn.
Let the democrats explain to the people why they are paying 10 dollars a gallon for gas. Let the Democrats explain why their is 10 percent unemployment. Let the Democrats explain to the world why their is a world wide Recession and perhaps Depression.
Democrats in this country are Mindless minions who only want power to pass social agendas at home and foreign policy does not interest them. So when it comes to war and foreign affairs they treat them as bastard step children.
Today for the first time in my life I wished we could do a vote of no confidence and put the Democrats in charge totally and let them destroy America just to prove that point once and for all.
They are incapable of running this country. Period.
And now to prove that point. They are turning to Barak Obama and absolute clueless, inexperience man who has a pretty smile and promises to keep guns out of retards hands.
well either way, if your right you feel the left is destroying, if your left you feel the right is destroying.
I’m gonna have a beer and watch the election process unfold.
well not right now, it’s 10:30 am and I’m at work.
LMAO!
It’s 6.45 here. Thanks for the idea. It’s almost 30 degrees celcius. Long day, tired, still hours to go. Hot.
I’m going to buy myself a beer.
nobody- Tom DeLay stood in the House in 1999 and said that he could not support Clinton’s failed policy in Kosovo, and criticized those who were afraid to speak up when we were mired in Vietnam, allowing needless deaths among our troops. He was angry because we were in the middle of a civil war, without a clear objective which related to our national interest or a clear exit strategy. Yesterday he declared that Pelosi and Reid were almost guilty of treason for saying basically the same thing about W’s failed policy in Iraq.
Haven’t you figured out that its political rhetoric on both sides yet???
Nobody, again, calm down. You make your points much better when you stay calm. I agree with you to a degree, but getting angry and letting anger get the best of you is seldom wise.
mvdg- how can you agree with Nobody when you yourself oppose the surge and think it will probably fail? All Reid did was say what you yourself have said.
Kim: Reid’s “lost the war” comment.
You know, we stayed in Vietnam for 20 years- long after we knew the war had been lost, because no one wanted to admit it- chiefly Nixon and Kissenger. Tom Delay himself (who’s a war hawk in this one)criticized Clinton’s decision to stay in Bosnia because the same thing would happen that happened to us in Vietnam, if we stayed without an exit strategy. I don’t see what’s wrong with saying it’s lost if that’s really what you believe, and it will save American lives.
I’m not even talking about the surge or the troop strength or the way things are being conducted or about Bush’s smile or about halliburton or oil or anything.
I am talking about Harry Reid standing on the floor of congress and pronoucing the war is lost while our boys and girls fight on the streets in Baghdad.
I spent 2 tours in Vietnam with combat units on the ground and was in the first gulf war before I retired. I am not a chickenhawk and to hear this stuff is mind blowing.
I am talking about people who oppose the war purposely undermining morale and the troops who are there because they were ordered. Yes they might be volunteers but they are ordered to IRaq by our government. They do as ordered and let the politicians sort it out.
Right or wrong is not relevant. I am talking about the way the democrats have so Politicized this war that they are pissing on our troops who are just trying to survive till they can come home.
Its beyond words now.
Well, Kim, maybe the answer isn’t that we should have pulled out of Viet Nam more quickly or stayed there longer though (as it was, there was additional blood on our hands for the mess we left behind). Maybe the answer was that in domestic politics, there should have been a greater willingness to discuss the real goals and plan an exit strategy accordingly. That is what some of us are saying now about Iraq; that instead of setting arbitrary dates for withdrawal, we should have open discussions to determine what is possible to salvage for some stability there and then plan accordingly. If that means staying another year or two, then debate that. If it means staying 10 more years, then debate that as well (and more than likely if it truly would take that long, then we might decide that we just can’t commit to it and have to accept the worst). But no one is really willing to discuss this as long as it’s all about the politics of saying what the base wants to hear.
1961 to 1973 is not 20 years .The truest similarity between Vietnam and Iraq is that the military does an excellent job executing its mission and the politicians commit acts that get the soldiers killed. More to the Rove issue I agree with the early comments (#s 1 and 3) that until ‘08 nothing but “hunting” trips will get done in DC.
Christine: Amen Sister.
Kim: I published a post today about Iraq. As I said numerous times, I simply don’t know what to do, or didn’t know what to do, I’m now inclined to support the idea of withdrawings troops to, say, 75,000 and leaving them there until there is no risk of mass slaughter.
Listen, like it or not, America - supported by a coalition of the willing - started this war, you can’t just go away. It’s very simple: the US withdraws, people kill each other on a horrendous scale, even more so than now, what do you think that will do to America’s image? People will, then, say “see, first they cause a war, then limited civil war, then when things get difficult, they withdraw, which opens the door to the deaths of millions of innocent people.”
O, and yes, that will be the same foreigners who are saying that the US should withdraw.
Why? They’re hypocrits like that.
Amen mvdg.
That is exactly what the antiwar supported by the Democrats want. Slaughter. It makes no sense to me but thats what they want.
I am a pretty laid back guy. I admire people that say I hate war and am opposed to it on moral grounds. Hell Ill buy you a beer and Ill wish that I could share your sentiment.
But when soldiers starting becoming in harms way because of a huge Political struggle in DC then I become incensed. Until the Pelosi trip I was tolerating the antiwar as good old American dissent.
When Nancy and Stoyer and then Harry Reid did their lastest thing, it went beyond Dissent and moved into pure treason. This is a declared war by congress. This is not a nato Police action. The similarities are very drastically different.
I kid you not had Pelosi and Stoyer did this in 1944 they would have been exectued.
Therein lies my outrage.
I’m not saying there’s any easy way out or even a choice that feels like the right thing to do. Whatever we decide- it will feel wrong. But , if you believe the war is hopeless why should more money and troops be sent there for no good reason? If you think that way, you have an obligation to end it, not just keep sending more Americans into a meat grinder.
I don’t know if its worse to say that its lost (Reid) or say that we’re making tremendous progress there (Cheney). Is it better to be delusional or defeatist? My point is that if it truly isn’t working, its better to admit it and try to contain the damage, than to obfuscate and cover the truth up with a bunch of patriotic mumbo jumbo- that may sound uplifting, but has no basis in reality.
I think they are pressing Bush hard to match increased troop levels with benchmarks in the progress made by the Iraqi government- they don’t want to leave it open-ended, because up to now it has been a frustrating failure.
Kim,
I think the difference though is how you “try to contain the damage.” This is one area where there is a legitimate use of “spin” IMO because it’s so important to America’s image, the troops morale, and the future ability to mobilize the country to go to war if necessary. I’m not talking about spin like Cheney’s, but what I am saying is that it’s much better to say that we are disappointed that the political situation in Iraq hasn’t allowed us to have the victory we originally worked toward so we now have to revise our goals. Find whatever is possible to salvage in the situation and state that as our goal now. That way we aren’t saying that we have been defeated, we’re saying that we will always find a way to achieve victory (even if it’s a partial victory). That’s the way that you keep America strong and support the mission and morale of our troops. And in the current situation, expressing a willingness to see this through as best as possible because of our obligation to the Iraqis is quite important too, rather than saying, “this is too damn hard so we gotta quit now before any more of our boys and girls get killed.”
That doesn’t mean I think the commitment should be open ended, but it should have some end goal. Announcing that we’re already defeated doesn’t allow for that at all.
This is Bush-ian hyper-simplification. I assume from your reductionist & naive logic that you’re a GOPer.
:: groans ::
Groan all you want, but it’s true. It’s the same daft reasoning that produced gems like ‘we can invade Iraq, and because it’s the right thing to do, the manner in which we do it and and the way we plan the aftermath doesn’t matter.’
That’s prima facie stupid reasoning, whether applied to invasion or withdrawal.
really please,
Have some content to add. This isn’t TMV.
*Gets baseball bat*
Okay, break it up. No ad hominem attacks. This goes for everybody, whether you’re left, center, or right - keep it civil, respect the other commenters and respect me. If you can’t do that - don’t comment. Simple.
(apologies)
the baseball bat always does the trick doesn’t it?
ever see the movie lean on me?
about Joe Clark
CS- I get that - but what are the Democrats supposed to do? Bush has not exactly reached out to them on his war strategy- its his way or the highway. Maybe a lot of people believe that the CIC is supposed to manage the war, but he’s done such a terrible job, that most of the country no longer trusts him to do so in a responsible way. The best way out would have been to follow the ISG recommendations. It was a compromise for both sides that would have prevented this stalemate.
Even with Vietnam, there was a point of no return- there will be with this war too.
Well, I thought I did say what I think the Dems should do in my comment #21. I think if they’d have decided to take the high road and do the reaching out themselves (or go straight to the American public with it- with a real plan, that is- if or when Bush declined to listen to them), and if they had been pushing for the kind of solution that I’m advocating (find out what we can salvage and frame it as a victory that we will achieve even if it’s not the same full victory that we went in looking for), then it would be better all the way around. Better for America, better for the troops who are still in Iraq, better for Iraq because that approach would at least give the surge SOME chance to provide the security needed for there to be any chance of the political and economic solutions to take root, AND this would be better for the Democratic party as well IMO because instead of their sole acheivement being that they hastened the defeat in order to get it over with they could lay claim to being the instigators of an exit strategy that did accomplish something positive.
Now, you can of course argue that even a partial victory is impossible, but again I’d say that’s all in how you frame it and what the goals are. I believe that if our own leaders were united around a set of goals, benchmarks for the Iraqis and what will happen if those benchmarks are met as well as if they are not, etc, then those conditions would create the conditions for some stabilization in Iraq. As it is, the division here is clearly making it less likely that any progress will be made and thus Reid’s pronouncement is in some ways a self fulfilling prophecy.
As far as the ISG, Bush’s surge plan actually does follow a lot of their recommendations except for the part about involving Syria and Iran in a regional solution. I can’t really agree with you about that part because it’s basically a Kissinger/realpolitic solution to side with the stronger guys in the region in order to prevent ourselves from ending up on the losing side. One of the main reasons I supported the Iraq war in the first place was because I saw Bush departing from that kind of Cold War mentality of lining up the dictators who would side with us in order to counter the dictators who would side with our enemies. I think the ISG diplomatic recommendations would be a return to that kind of world order and that would be a step back in the wrong direction.
Nobody- that is really unfair to say that the antiwar left wants slaughter. What are you thinking? You are getting blinded by partisanship. The antiwar left just doesn’t think the troops can force democracy on Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died while we’ve been trying to do so. How is staying there going to do them any good?
CS- I agree that we should try to salvage what we can out of the situation- but I’m not sure anyone knows how to do that. Look at how much spin was put out on the ISG plan- the Democrats would never have gotten away with getting their own plan through. Why? Because the Republicans in Congress are still loyal to Bush- and even if the public wanted it, that wouldn’t have changed. As is the case now, they wouldn’t have had the votes to override a veto.
But it is true that they have not united around a plan- the bills in Congress were the best they could get through. There are different wings of the party who want different policies.
I get what you thought would happen, but it doesn’t look like its going to work-they are much more likely to have a failed state and all you can hope for now is to contain sectarian genocide. There were so many warnings about trying to create a democracy there- Bush and Cheney should have listened. Even if they had managed the war better, it would have been a tremendously challenging task. I don’t think Islamic cultures take to democratic liberal values and centuriesof sectarian hatred dominate everything else.
I still would like to try Biden’s plan.
Kim, to be fair - it seems to me that the anti-war left is overlooking this as well. I will not accuse anyone of favoring slaughter, but I don’t quite understand why those on the left who favor (nearly complete) withdrawal never talk about what happens in Iraq after the US forces are gone. It’s very simply Kim: the US goes out - hundreds of thousands even millions will die a horrible death.
Now, I would like the anti-war crowd to come up with a plan to prevent that.