Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Rove’

Cranky Bush

March 21st, 2007

Bush had this to say yesterday about his aides testifying under oath before Congress:

I hope the Democrats choose not to do that. If they truly are interested in information — in other words, if they want to find out what went on between the White House and the Justice Department, they need to read all the emails we released. If they’re truly interested in finding out what took place, I have proposed a way for them to find out what took place. My concern is, they would rather be involved with partisanship. They view this as an opportunity to score political points.

And anyway, the proposal we put forward is a good one. There really is a way for people to get information. We’ll just fine out what’s on their mind.

This is what’s on their mind:

A House panel on Wednesday approved subpoenas for President Bush’s political adviser, Karl Rove and other top White House aides, setting up a constitutional showdown over the firings of eight federal prosecutors.

“Testimony should be on the record and under oath. That’s the formula for true accountability,” said Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont.

Not much time for me to comment on this right now, so I’ll defer to today’s New York Times editorial:

Mr. Bush’s proposal was a formula for hiding the truth, and for protecting the president and his staff from a legitimate inquiry by Congress. Mr. Bush’s idea of openness involved sending White House officials to Congress to answer questions in private, without taking any oath, making a transcript or allowing any follow-up appearances. The people, in other words, would be kept in the dark.

The Democratic leaders were right to reject the offer, despite Mr. Bush’s threat to turn this dispute into a full-blown constitutional confrontation.

It is hard to imagine what, besides evading responsibility, the White House had in mind. Why would anyone refuse to take an oath on a matter like this, unless he were not fully committed to telling the truth? And why would Congress accept that idea, especially in an investigation that has already been marked by repeated false and misleading statements from administration officials?

The White House notes that making misrepresentations to Congress is illegal, even if no oath is taken. But that seems to be where the lack of a transcript comes in. It would be hard to prove what Mr. Rove and others said if no official record existed.

And for more good commentary on this topic, go to Dan Froomkin’s “Indications of Obfuscation” at The Washington Post.

Author: Brad Categories: Politics Tags: , , ,

What’s This?

March 20th, 2007

President Bush and Senate Democrats clashed angrily this afternoon, as the president said he would not allow his key aides to testify under oath about the dismissal of United States attorneys, while the Democrats insisted they would settle for no less.

The current White House counsel, Fred Fielding, offered this afternoon to make Mr. Rove and Mr. Miers available for private interviews — but not sworn testimony — before Congressional investigators.

But Democratic leaders immediately turned down the offer, demanding that President Bush’s aides testify under oath. That set the stage for a major political fight and perhaps a court showdown over the rightful powers of the executive branch and those of a Congress now controlled by Democrats.

Mr. Fielding announced the offer after a visit to Capitol Hill today, which continued to be preoccupied with the future of Mr. Gonzales, even as Mr. Gonzales won new expressions of support.

Democrats angrily rejected Mr. Fielding’s position. “After telling a bunch of different stories about why they fired the U.S. attorneys, the Bush administration is not entitled to the benefit of the doubt,” said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader.

“Congress and the American people deserve a straight answer. If Karl Rove plans to tell the truth, he has nothing to fear from being under oath like any other witness.”

link

Huh?  Democrats with balls? 

We haven’t got a straight answer about anything from anybody in the Administration for the past six years. 

I can think of some better ways to spend subpoena power, but I guess this is a start. Perhaps it will clear a path that leads to more investigations that will expose the lies of the most mendacious Administration in modern history.

I certainly wish that Bush and Cheney had been forced to testify under oath during the 9-11 Commission hearings.

And asking Cheney, Rove and Bush to testify under oath about what they knew about the Plame outing and when they knew it would tell us a great deal about the true nature of these guys.

Author: Brad Categories: Politics Tags: , , , , ,

Interesting…

March 8th, 2007

Some members of congress think Cheney, Rove and company should not be let off the hook so easily:

Congressman Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, said Thursday he wants Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to testify before his committee about his investigation into the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame-Wilson’s identity. Plame-Wilson, Waxman’s office said, has agreed to testify before Congress on March 16.

In his letter to Fitzgerald dated March 8, Waxman requested a meeting with Fitzgerald to discuss whether the special prosecutor can voluntarily appear before his committee.

“I recognize that as a federal prosecutor, you are constrained by the rules of grand jury secrecy,” Waxman’s letter states. “But you undoubtedly recognize that Congress has a responsibility to examine the policy and accountability questions that your investigation has raised. As a result of your investigation, you have a singular understanding of the facts and their implications that bear directly on the issues before Congress…. Your investigation had a narrow legal focus: Were any federal criminal statutes violated by White House officials?”

Read it all here

Also to appear before the committee is Valerie Plame.

Author: Brad Categories: Politics Tags: , , ,

The real October Surprise

November 14th, 2006

Karl Rove is no idiot. When he promises an ‘October Surprise‘, he delivers.  So, if he promised an ‘October Surprise‘ back in September, he knew what he was delivering.  I have pondered this topic in a few other posts(here, here, and here), but never found his special gift to the world.

But what is it???

I think his ‘October Surprise’ is a gift that keeps on giving, for at least the next 18 months or so.

The Republicans took a dive in the midterms.

Before we look at the possibility of the Republicans taking a dive, I want to state that I wholeheartedly believe that voters overwhelmingly wanted Republicans out of office and a change of direction for the nation. But, perhaps Karl Rove did not use all the tricks (ex. electronic voting manipulation, caging lists, etc.) which are accessible to him, allowing the Democrats to take control.

Basically, the Republicans could benefit greatly from taking a dive, letting the shit hit the fan with Democrats in power, then in 2008 come in to clean up the mess. I know, the mess is the Republican’s mess, but remember, these guys operate at a 5th grade mentality.

If you don’t believe me about their mentality, check out this passage from an article in Rolling Stone that I mentioned previously:

According to the rules, conferences have to include at least one public, open meeting…amazingly, the Republicans sneak off to hold the real conference, forcing the Democrats to turn amateur detective and go searching the Capitol grounds for the meeting. “More often than not, we’re trying to figure out where the conference is,” says one House aide.

In one legendary incident, Rep. Charles Rangel went searching for a secret conference being held by Thomas. When he found the room where Republicans closeted themselves, he knocked and knocked on the door, but no one answered. A House aide compares the scene to the famous “Land Shark” skit from Saturday Night Live, with everyone hiding behind the door afraid to make a sound. “Rangel was the land shark, I guess,” the aide jokes. But the real punch line came when Thomas finally opened the door. “This meeting,” he informed Rangel, “is only open to the coalition of the willing.”

So, now that I’ve illustrated the maturity of the Republicans, let’s regress to childhood for a moment and role play…

You are a child in a room. There is one other person in the room. There is a table. On the table is a jar filled with your favorite candy. It isn’t your candy, but you love the candy. You eat a piece, yummmmmmm. You eat another and another. Pretty soon the jar is empty. You hear someone coming.

You have two options. One is to stick around and take responsibility for eating all of the candy. The other option is to go out the back door and avoid any confrontation as to who ate the candy. You know that if you leave, the other person will be held responsible for your actions.

So, what would you do as a child? Not just any child, but the type of child who holds ‘public’ meetings in secret?

Not the best analogy, but hopefully it makes the point. I think that Karl Rove had the Republicans take a dive so that in 2008 they could come back to ‘fix’ the results of the growing mess that the Republicans made in the past 6 years.

The list of the current mess is long and I am tired, but how about Iraq, corruption, a housing bubble about to burst, the growing deficit, and on and on…

The electorate has an amazingly short memory and I predict that the next 2 years will be a period of Republicans turning these into Democrat failures.

The One Finger Victory Salute

November 6th, 2006

A message from George Bush…

[youtube]PdQ6emYoEdo[/youtube]

A ‘One Finger Victory Salute’? We’ll see about that tomorrow night when the midterm results come in.

A few years ago I had the opportunity to give George Bush a ‘One Finger Victory Salute’ when he visited Seattle (quite cathartic). He was probably afraid to look out the window of his limo, as it passed the large group of protestors, and unfortunately missed my ’salute’…

Check out Electoral-Vote.com for the latest poll numbers. It looks like the house is going to flip parties and the Senate will likely do so too.

Any other result should be considered highly suspect.  As mentioned previously, the electronic voting machines are easily manipulated. If the Republicans some how maintain control, all eyes should focus on Karl Rove (the Architect) and the voting machines.

October Surprise found in November

November 1st, 2006

I have been on the lookout for Karl Rove’s promised ‘October Surprise’.

I think it has finally been found, albiet a little sooner than it was intended to be discovered. I am betting that ‘Turd Blossom‘ was hoping that nobody would discover his ‘October Surprise’, especially before the midterm elections were held.

So, any guesses? No fair peeking.

I think that his big surprise is not really a surprise but rather the ongoing manipulation of elections using the electronic voting machines to manipulate the election results.

Here is a story on the engadget website which documents problems with Florida’s Diebold machines. The article describes how a voter could not get his ballot to register his vote for the Democratic candidate for governor. According to a spokesperson:

Mary Cooney, a Broward County Supervisor of Elections spokeswoman, informed The Miami Herald that it’s “not uncommon for screens on heavily used machines to slip out of sync, making votes register incorrectly.

Does this make sense to you? It sure doesn’t make sense to me…

Across the country, people are reporting problems in early voting where the machines are registering a straight Republican ticket, when a straight Democratic ticket was selected.

On Thursday November 2, 2006, HBO will be airing a documentary on Diebold voting machines. Called Hacking Democracy , the film explores the problems with the voting machines and looks to the 2004 election for evidence. Computerworld has a review of the film.

Author: Cory Categories: Miscellaneous, Politics Tags: , , ,

But Rove promised me an October Surprise

November 1st, 2006

Damn that Karl Rove. What a liar!

Back on September 21, 2006, he promised his supporters that there would be an ‘October Surprise’ as mentioned in this September NewsMax article. According to the article, the surprise would help Republicans win the midterm elections.

Did I miss it? What was Rove’s surprise? Maybe it was small…

I did notice gas prices have dropped suspiciously low, but is that enough to get voters to the polls and voting Republican. Christ, I hope it takes a little more than that.

What do you think?

Author: Cory Categories: Miscellaneous, Politics Tags: , ,

Seizing the Center

October 30th, 2006

The mid-term elections approach with the prospect of a Democratic victory for the House of Representatives. And whilst they will likely fall just short of winning a majority in the Senate, they will be close enough to make it difficult for George W Bush to push his agenda – such as it is – rather than simply play defence as a lamer than usual lame-duck president.

This is all to the good but we must all recognize the limitations of the situation for Democrats.  The party will not be able to push much of its agenda through either; a couple of obvious examples of what it may get are an increase in the minimum wage (but don’t forget the earned income tax credit, please!) and legislation to empower Medicare to employ its heft to negotiate prices on drugs with the pharmaceutical companies.  A Democratic House will also enforce long overdue accountability on the Bush administration and, I think we can safely say, will ensure that Congress as a whole belatedly exercises its crucial oversight role.

However, there are two things Democrats in Congress (if they do indeed win the House) can do to remind voters why it was a good idea to make the Republicans share power in Washington and why it may be an even better idea to remove it from them altogether in 2008.

The first is to assume the mantle of reform.  Not the phoney sort that the GOP half-heartedly offered (and which was watered down to virtual nothingness when they finally presented a bill) after their dubious ethics in money-raising were exposed (Tom Delay’s “K Street Project”, the Jack Abramoff scandals to name just two).  No, I’m talking about genuine reform to the rules governing such things as transparency in dealings with special interest lobbyists, strict limitations on accepting junkets and favours and, critically, severe restrictions on the ability of individual House members to add earmarks to appropriations bills to benefit their district – a practice that, whilst bad enough under the Democrats of old, has become an epidemic of gargantuan proportions under the GOP leadership.  In this way Democrats can show that it will not be business as usual, whilst also demonstrating a serious commitment to fiscal probity even at the cost of their own political interests.

In this same vein, the Democratic leadership of the House should eschew the abominable methods employed by the GOP to marginalize the minority party.  For years Delay, Hastert and the rest of that cabal abused House rules by excluding the Democrats from exercising any meaningful role in shaping legislation that was pushed through.  The effect was to essentially disenfranchise millions of Americans who were represented by Democrats in the House.  Republicans have said that this was simply payback for when the Democrats did the same to them in the days of Tip O’Neil et al.  The fact is that the GOP took it much, much further, to the point where, during the Bush presidency, the House has operated more like a parliamentary majority than a United States House of Representatives (and having grown up in a parliamentary system, I know one when I see one).  Democrats should not emulate their opponents and abuse their power.  They need to show they are, indeed, different.

The second thing the Democrats need to do is to demonstrate why it is better for the country to be led by a party of pragmatists who seek to solve problems, than by one blinded by ideology. 

When it departs, this administration’s primary legacy will be a country enmeshed in a brutal and largely un-winnable war in Iraq, combined with a huge budget deficit that has grown alarmingly in the last six years. 

On Iraq it will not be too early for the Democrats to start laying the groundwork for the only outcome that makes any sense, but one which Mr Bush will never countenance whilst he is the White House: orderly withdrawal. 

The Democrats must also act as a break on the GOP’s reckless fiscal policies, which have combined huge tax breaks for the rich with a complete failure to make compensating cuts to expenditures.  They must begin the long, difficult and arduous task of bringing the country’s finances into balance so as to prepare for the looming crises in Medicare and Social Security.  These essential tasks can only be accomplished by a bi-partisan consensus – something that will, admittedly, be impossible whist the no-holds-barred, smear-your-enemies, party-before-country, divide and conquer philosophy of Karl Rove and the current GOP leadership holds sway.

By using their acquisition of the House and increased presence in the Senate to push genuine institutional reform and to demonstrate a willingness to reach across the aisle to find solutions to pressing national challenges that have grown formidably over the last six years, Democrats may yet prove that, however inept as the opposition party, they are the true party of governance.    

October Surprise for 2006

October 1st, 2006

So, here we are at the start of October and I am wondering what brainiac Karl Rove has planned for this year’s midterm elections. According to Newsmax.com, last month he promised political insiders an “October Surprise”.

He has made similar promises in the past. In 2004, he told Sean Hannity that he had a “few surprises”. Hmmm. So, what was this mastermind able to come up with?

I have only been able to come up with 2 items that are attributed to the ‘October Surprise’ of 2004. The first is the Osama Bin Laden video that was aired right before the elections. I don’t really buy that he was responsible for this, although it is quite possible that the tape had been sitting around the CIA, waiting for the right time to air. The second is an article written in the Washington Times that stated:

U.N. ambassadors from several nations are disputing assertions by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry that he met for hours with all members of the U.N. Security Council just a week before voting in October 2002 to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

Wow.

I sure hope ‘Turd Blossom’ can figure out a way to top that.

Here are my current predictions of Karl Rove’s big October Surprise:

10. The announcement that the Democrats founded the Ku Klux Klan. (No, wait, that already happened.)
9. Saddam Hussein (guilty verdict, implicates Clinton Administration)
8. An announcement that torture works and just saved over 10 million lives in Los Angeles, New York, and/or Chicago
7. A proposed tax cut of some sort (targeted at a specific demographic key to the elections)
6. A sudden drop in gas prices (until about mid November)
5. Bill Clinton is still having extramarital affairs (casting doubt on the moral integrity of Democrats)
4. Iran found to be planning an attack on US or Israel
3. Hugo Chavez is linked to narcotics trafficking and named on the FBI’s most wanted list
2.Osama Bin Laden (caught, dead, new video)
1. Nothing at all (just oe big ‘Psyche!’)

Ultimately, who knows what Turd Blossom will come up with.

The Last Refuge of a Scoundrel

June 19th, 2006

Over the last two decades, the Republican Party and its propaganda wing on Fox News and right-wing hate radio have coarsened our political dialogue to a degree that is both astonishing and appalling. The flame-throwing, take-no-prisoners approach championed by the likes of Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay and Karl Rove, cheered on always by their faithful foot soldiers in the right-wing media, has made it increasingly difficult to have a meaningful and substantive policy debate on many issues critical to the well-being of the United States. Nowhere has this stifling of the free exchange of ideas been more acutely felt than in the area of national security.

If there ever was an issue that required careful, thoughtful and rational discussion, surely it is this one. The country faces daunting challenges. In the short-term we confront trans-national Islamist terrorist organizations and networks such as al-Qaeda. The removal of the Taliban/al-Qaeda regime in Afghanistan which garnered wide support was followed by an ill-considered and ultimately disastrous attack and occupation of Iraq which has arguably hindered rather than helped the wider war on Islamic terrorists. The current Administration and Congress have also reacted to the threat of terrorism in a surprisingly panicky fashion by infringing on the civil liberties of Americans through the new but hardly improved Patriot Act and with warrant-less surveillance of Americans’ communications. The Administration has badly sullied our national reputation by its handling and treatment of terrorist suspects in Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan and probably other facilities in locations as yet unknown.

In the long-term we view with trepidation China’s emergence as a growing economic and military powerhouse. Our own economic fortunes appear to be waning under the weight of enormous trade and budgetary deficits, and challenges to our long-term prosperity as more and more manufacturing and white-collar jobs are either out-sourced or created overseas by American companies.

The right-wing of the Republican Party, however, has little interest in a substantive public policy debate on national security, because they’re too busy scoring political points by impugning the patriotism and intestinal fortitude of anyone – meaning liberals, progressives, moderates and Democrats of all stripes – who question their own Neanderthal approach to national defence and security. Any suggestion to slow the rate of increase in the Pentagon budget, much less make a modest reduction, immediately elicits howls of outrage and charges of fecklessness and weakness in defence of the American people – this from the same hypocrites who are completely unwilling to actually pay for the bloated defence appropriation by raising taxes or cutting spending. Apparently, it’s much better to borrow from foreigners.

A similarly overwrought reaction greets those who express concern over the lack of judicial and Congressional oversight of domestic surveillance by the National Security Agency, and our nation’s flouting of international conventions on the treatment of detainees in the war on Islamic terrorism. There is plenty of cause for concern on the part of all Americans with this Administration’s expansive view of its unfettered authority in matters relating to national security, and its willingness to undermine the constitutional system of checks and balances that most of us had, heretofore, taken for granted. To question this authority and to insist on the highest standards in our conduct as a nation is to invite excoriation that we are unpatriotic; blame America-first-liberals; America-haters and blah, blah, blah.

Unfortunately, this campaign of the right has had its effect on Democrats in Congress. Paralysed by the fear of being branded as weak on national security, they meekly sign on to any defence budget placed in front of them; they allowed Senator John McCain to take the lead role in shaming Congress into passing and compelling our Bungler-in-Chief to sign legislation barring torture (which the latter disavowed even as he signed it); and they have been largely silent on the issue of warrant-less domestic surveillance. Even now they allow the GOP to divide them and run rhetorical circles around them on a cynical non-binding resolution in the House of Representatives that conflates the misbegotten Iraq War with the overall war against Islamist terrorists.

It would be nice to think that we will do better than this in the future, if for no other reason than that the well-being of the country demands it. Don’t hold your breath.

It is way too much to expect today’s Republicans, guided as they are by the political strategizing of a Karl Rove, to temper the overheated rhetoric. After all, the notion that Democrats and liberals are weak on national security has gained the GOP a great deal politically. In fact, it is clear that the cornerstone of the GOP campaign this fall will be the phoney contrast between a strong and tough Republican Party, determined to do what it takes to keep us safe, and a weak-kneed Democratic Party that is… what exactly? Overly pre-occupied with Americans’ civil liberties? Seized by the belief that we should leave torture and abuse of prisoners to our enemies and eschew such methods ourselves? Or that we should, perhaps, spend what we need to on our national defence but actually pay for it with our taxes, rather than put it on the national credit card and bill our children? And not invade countries that pose no real threat to us?

The real solution, of course, would be an informed citizenry able to see through cynical political ploys and thirty-second sound-bites, an electorate that understands the issues and values substance over hot air – and can tell the difference between the two. Not much chance of that with so many getting their news from Fox or Rush Limbaugh – or not paying attention to any news at all.

In the end it is up to Democrats to take the offensive and lay out in clear terms that it is not weakness to expect the very best from our government; that is not strength to throw money blindly at the Pentagon, when so many other needs go unmet; that it is not unpatriotic to support the troops in Iraq even as we criticise the mission itself and express our disdain for the incompetent zealots who sent them And it will be up to Congressional Democrats this fall to show that they have the strength of their convictions and will not be cowed by the chicken hawks of the Republican Party.