Show’s Over, Move Along Now

During the slow-motion unfolding of Karl Rove’s connection to the original smear campaign against former Ambassador Joseph Wilson –that he got his assignment because of his wife– I’ve wondered why it never seemed to matter.

It was tantalizing, thoughts of Mr. Rove resigning in disgrace, possibly being hauled into prison (the slimmest chance of which has since been obviated by careful spinning of his communication with the press) –but somehow, this scandal never felt anything like knocking on the door of change.

It had all the earmarks of a good course shifter: bald-faced lying, national security implications, a direct line to the innermost circle of the White House –but in the end, all that mattered was that it’s “old news” and “there was no crime.”

The Bush administration may yet be living on borrowed time however, despite Mr. Rove’s exoneration in the Plame/Wilson Affair.

For one thing, the heretofore sonambulent White House Press finally showed signs of irritation last week at having been lied to by the White House, putting Press Secretary Scott McClellan through some spirited Q&A over the revelation that Mr. Rove was in fact “involved” in the disclosure of Valerie Plame’s identity in 2003.

It ought then to be a short leap for someone to demand some straight answers as to why the Vice President’s former company is the direct recipient of much of our total outlay for the project to bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East.

Perhaps some intrepid newshound will sniff out the story in making BushCo square its “support the troops” rhetoric with the shameful deprivations it sends them to battle with, or, what’s worse, the woeful disdain with which we greet them on their return to the country they have served.

Surely someone worth their journalistic salt will soon realize the instability of the Korean peninsula has a bearing on the future value of the US Real Estate market, and perhaps question why the security of the American family has never been more unsure.

Because the Bush administration’s plans for dealing with any of those issues are about as good, and about as effective as its plans for dealing with the shitstorm we unleashed in Iraq, no doubt we’ll all live happily ever after.

Amen.

Comments

  1. Bubbles - July 18, 2005 @ 2:40 am

    A lot of people are wondering what could possibly be taking Fitzgerald this long to put together a case? Take a leap of faith and imagine for a moment that Fitzgerald is an honest prosecutor with a sincere interest in National Security, upholding Federal laws and even perhaps the Constitution. If you accept that premise as farfetched as it maybe, it’s not hard to imagine that he fairly quickly came to the conclusion the both Bush and Cheney knew exactly what was going on with Wilson and the attempt/need to discredit him. Combine that with the Whitehouse spinning the WMD fable and the dismissal of the charges that they retaliated against Wilson add some false testimony and it’s not hard to understand Fitzgerald’s dilemma. The only case worth pursuing is conspiracy and obstruction of justice by the President and the Vice President. To prosecute that he’s got to build an airtight case, brick by brick and start leaking evidence himself in order to accelerate the process of the Whitehouse digging its own grave. Thus, he needs Republicans in Congress to break ranks with the Administration to save their skins and additional witnesses to gather their courage and come forward. I believe that is what we are witnessing. Who knows… perhaps, just maybe we’ll see Democracy rear it wondrous head once more? Stranger things have happened.

  2. lonbud - July 18, 2005 @ 9:12 am

    Given the performance of both the public and the press during the past five years, there is little reason to be sanguine about the possibility of any case of conspiracy or obstruction of justice reaching all the way to Bush or Cheney. I’d love nothing more than to see Fitzgerald’s grand jury indict these guys for being the lying warmongers they are, but really, no one of any import has yet taken a fall for even the abuses and torture at Abu Ghraib –and there’s actual hard evidence of that.

  3. Michael Herdegen - July 18, 2005 @ 7:59 pm

    [I]n the end, all that mattered was that it’s “old news” and “there was no crime.”

    The “old news” strategy is, itself, an old one – last used by the Clinton gang re his perjury.
    “MoveOn.org” et al., eh ?

    Shouldn’t it matter that no crime is known to have been committed by the Bush admin in the Rove/Wilson affair ?
    After all, Watergate was about actual crimes,
    and former President Clinton was impeached and had his law license taken away over actual crimes

    The Bush admin may have acted deviously, or not, but even if so, why would it not matter if such behavior was criminal or not ?

    The Bush administration may yet be living on borrowed time…

    Too true.
    They will be gone by Feb. ’09.

    [T]he instability of the Korean peninsula has a bearing on the future value of the US Real Estate market…

    If you’re talking about Kim Jong Il’s nuclear missiles, then kinda sorta.
    North Korea can potentially hit Hawai’i and the West Coast, and almost certainly Alaska…

    However, the guidance systems on NoKo’s missiles are crude, at best. It’s just as likely that, if launched, they’d land in the ocean or miles from any populated areas.

    Further, the Bush administration is using diplomacy to try to resolve the potential threat from NoKo.

    Since you are dismissive of that effort, does that mean that you’d prefer open WAR with NoKo ?

    Take a leap of faith and imagine for a moment that Fitzgerald is an honest prosecutor with a sincere interest in National Security, upholding Federal laws and even perhaps the Constitution. If you accept that premise, as farfetched as it [is]…

    Because most Federal prosecutors are corrupt, right ?
    Fitzgerald’s been on the take ever since he sent ALL of the NY Mafia family heads to prison…
    Right ?

    Combine that with the Whitehouse spinning the WMD fable…

    Pres. Clinton, Vice Pres. Gore, Sen. Teddy Kennedy, Sen. John Kerry, the UN, France, Russia, and Germany ALL have stated, at one time or another, that Saddam and Iraq possessed WMD.

    Are all of them lying ?
    And, if so, who CAN we trust, if ALL sides of the political spectrum are perpetuating this massive fraud upon the American people ?

    Further, since Saddam has actually USED nerve gas and mustard gas…

    The only case worth pursuing is conspiracy and obstruction of justice by the President and the Vice President.

    That might be fun, but since no one is alleging that Bush or Cheney broke any laws, even if Rove did so…

    To prosecute that [Fitzgerald’s] got to build an airtight case, brick by brick and start leaking evidence himself…

    Because nothing secures justice like judicial misconduct !
    Seriously, how could any rational person declare that a Federal prosecutor should build a criminal case against some person or persons who leaked sensitive information, by himself illegally leaking sensitive information ?

    Thus, [Fitzgerald] needs Republicans in Congress to break ranks with the Administration to save their skins…

    What would anyone in Congress know about the affairs of the White House staff, and why would anyone in Congress have anything to fear over said ?

  4. lonbud - July 18, 2005 @ 10:08 pm

    The Right’s obsession with Bill Clinton remains utterly incomprehensible to me. A man whose presidency amounted to little more than an eight-year reduction in the rate of what has now been a nearly uninterrupted 46 year-long abdication to the demands of corporate capitalism can not possibly be vested with the meaning and the responsibility to which the Right assigns him.

    I had an exchange recently with one of my oldest friends, who happens to be a big fan of Dubya. I asked him,

    i know the official party line is no comment on an ongoing investigation, but should it turn out Karl Rove divulged the CIA operative status of Valerie Plame, do you think he should be fired?

    his response, and our continuing dialoge:

    sure…do you think that if the President of the United States comes on national television and tells a bold face lie to the citizens of the United States, then gets completely caught, he should be fired?

    it depends. if he lies about his personal peccadilloes, or about having had consensual sex with another adult, no.

    but if he lies about the inner workings of his administration, or the collection and quality of intelligence he then uses to frighten the citizens of the United States into supporting his launching an illegal war in which thousands of innocent american troops then die, and in the process fans the flames of radical Islam and increases the incidence of worldwide terrorism, then, yes.

    The whole point of my post is that the Wilson/Plame affair, and whether or not Karl Rove (or anyone else in the White House) broke the law in trying to smear a man and his wife, is largely irrelevant in the face of much greater crimes Bush, and Cheney, and others in their administration have surely committed.

  5. Bubbles - July 18, 2005 @ 10:46 pm

    We are witnessing the slow methodical digging of grave by the corpse. The jig is up. I’m certain now, its not just the ‘liberals’ who recognize the height of absurdity for Mr. Bush to look America in the face and tell us that he needs to learn the facts about what his staff has done or not done from an outside prosecutor. Who better than the prosecutor to tell us what happened? You Sir should tell the American people what happened in your Administration! This total absence of accountability is some how coherent with his new standard for conduct in which only if the law has been broken will people be dismissed. Was it not Mr. Bush who came to Washington to remove the sleaze factor and restore credibility to the Whitehouse? Republican’s wise-up turn on this zombie before he pulls you in with him.

  6. Bubbles - July 18, 2005 @ 11:02 pm

    BTW РPresidents and Vice Presidents are tried in the Senate. That’s outside Fitzgerald’s jurisdiction but it doesn’t mean he isn’t interested in seeing that prosecution take place. The more I’ve read about the guy the more I’m apt to think he is really concerned about terrorism. That does not bode well for Bush and Cheney.

  7. lonbud - July 18, 2005 @ 11:06 pm

    The polls would certainly indicate the people of this nation have begun to question the veracity of their dear leader, but i think the operative phrase may be slow methodical.

    I can envision this whole mess being played out under strict legalistic constraints of jurisdiction and endless parsing of what the definition of is is. Soon enough, the great hegemon will have not only the specter of Islamofascist terror with which to stun the medicated beast into paralysis, but the potential nightmare of Hillary Clinton as well.

    I honestly thought there was no possible way for Bush to complete his first term in office; I’m beginning to think the American people are in a far worse quagmire than anyone has yet to grasp.

  8. Michael Herdegen - July 19, 2005 @ 1:34 pm

    The Right‚Äôs obsession with Bill Clinton remains utterly incomprehensible to me. […] [He] can not possibly be vested with the meaning and the responsibility to which the Right assigns him.

    I can only speak for myself, but I often like to use Clinton’s actions or inactions to compare and contrast to the current administration’s actions or inactions, because not only is he the last Democratic President, he’s also the first successful Democratic President since JFK.

    The whole point of my post is that the Wilson/Plame affair […] is largely irrelevant in the face of much greater crimes Bush, and Cheney, and others in their administration have surely committed.

    That’s just nuts.

    You don’t like the Bush administration, so you’re sure that they must have committed crimes, despite any allegations or proof of same ?

    [L]aunching an illegal war in which thousands […] die…

    Possibly tens of thousands, but neither Afghanistan nor Iraq were “illegal” wars, even if you believe in the fable and myth of “international law”, and can wrap your mind around the concept of “illegal war”.

    Iraq’s invasion of Iran was surely “illegal”, by Western standards, but what was Saddam’s penalty for launching that war, in which over 500,000 people died, including 100,000 by poisonous gasses, and another 1,000,000 were maimed or wounded ?

    Nothing whatsoever.

    So much for the “law”.

  9. lonbud - July 19, 2005 @ 2:19 pm

    One need not resort to fable or myth to understand the illegality of Mr. Bush’s entire presidency. Leaving aside for a moment the treasonous Supreme Court ruling that placed him in office, under our very own Constitution, Congress is solely vested with the authority to declare war. Mr. Bush ordered American troops into battle in both Afghanistan and Iraq without a declaration of war by Congress.

    By Western “standards,” furthermore, invading a sovereign nation that has not attacked or otherwise made war against one’s own would be considered at least bad form, if not outright “illegal.”

    Saddam’s reward for making war with Iran was billions of dollars in aid from the United States of America, delivered personally with a smile and a handshake by none other than Donald “Long Hard Slog” Rumsfeld.

  10. Michael Herdegen - July 19, 2005 @ 10:54 pm

    Well, now we’re getting somewhere: You’re implicitly recognizing that Bush hasn’t committed any crime, and instead resorting to libel.

    Leaving aside for a moment the treasonous Supreme Court ruling that placed [Mr. Bush] in office…

    I assume that if Mr. Gore had been placed in office by the Supreme Court, you would find that ruling to be “treasonous” as well ?

    Would you have prefered Civil War ?

    Anyhow, assume that the Supreme Court had refused to hear the case.

    The Florida Legislature was going to send Bush electors to the Electoral College, regardless, as is legal under Florida and Federal law.

    If for some reason the Electoral College couldn’t elect Bush, the issue would have gone to the House of Representatives, where Bush would have been elected President, as set forth in the Constitution, and practiced several times in American history.

    You say that you cannot understand why people still reference Clinton, and I have the same incomprehension regarding the “Supreme Court selected Bush” myth.
    Do those who truly believe that canard know nothing of American history, or the U.S. Constitution ?

    One can only assume that’s so.

    [U]nder our very own Constitution, Congress is solely vested with the authority to declare war. Mr. Bush ordered American troops into battle in both Afghanistan and Iraq without a declaration of war by Congress.

    Perhaps you were otherwise occupied, but Congress voted to give Bush the authority to deploy troops at his discretion.

    Further, neither Korea nor Vietnam had declarations of war voted on by Congress. Was the U.S. defense of Korea un-Constitutional ?

    By Western “standards,” furthermore, invading a sovereign nation that has not attacked or otherwise made war against one’s own would be considered at least bad form, if not outright “illegal.”

    Except that Saddam HAD made war against the U.S., in ’91, and had not abided by the terms of the peace agreement that he signed, which is why, TWELVE YEARS later, the UN still had sanctions in place against Iraq, and controlled the Iraqi oil industry.

    If the U.S. had attacked France, for instance, that would have been in bad form, but attacking Iraq was not only clearly allowable, it was expected.

    Saddam‚Äôs reward for making war with Iran was billions of dollars in aid from the United States of America…

    And thus you implicitly agree that there is no such thing as an “illegal” war, only those “in poor form”.

    “Legality”, or the lack of it, depends on an enforcing organization, of which none exist at the international level.

    Therefore, there can be no international legal framework for war, only a political framework.

  11. lonbud - July 20, 2005 @ 8:32 am

    You make a lot of assump[tions in your otherwise logical-sounding explication, Michael. In addition, your syntax leaves it unclear whether you are saying I’ve accused Mr. Bush of libel or whether you are accusing me of libel.

    In any event, given the current course, I don’t see how Civil War is to be avoided in this country; perhaps it would have been better if Mr. Gore had stood his constitutional ground and for us to have had it out in 2000 – 2001.

    The fact that Congress abdicated its responsibility under the Constitution does not excuse Mr. Bush for launching a war of agression against a foe with no capability of harming America or America’s interests. And yes, Korea and Vietnam were both unconstitutional wars.

    Saddam, you will recall, made war against Kuwait in ’91 and the U.S. rushed into the breach. Clearly you and many others feel any global event that jeapordizes unfettered American access to the fossil fuel supply justifies mobilization of the U.S. military.

    In the end, you are right. The absence of an enforcing organization at the international level obviates the “legality” of any act by a person or a people who refuse to be guided by either their own laws or their own sense of ethical and moral behavior.

  12. Don Abel - August 25, 2005 @ 8:54 am

    As long as our President is taking his plans directly from GaWoDuh, we can’t loose and we surely can’t be wrong. For too long this country has relied upon old outdated tools, like research, logic and the meetings of many minds to keep America strong. It is about time that our fine country is guided by the wise and all seeing advice of the Good Lord and Duh bya?.
    Pat Robertson for Secretary of Defense.

    I just love it when there are forums provided for pointless babel in defense of criminal activity.
    Keep up the good work LonBud
    I couldn’t hep mysef!

Leave a Reply