News Karl Rove: The Republican Mastermind

Informal Logic said:
"War is peace," "Freedom is slavery," and "Ignorance is strength." – The three slogans engraved in the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell's book "1984"
Wow. Wow. The first two fed to us, the third the vehicle through which such policies are pushed through.
 

SOS2008

Gold Member
18
0
GENIERE said:
Why bother with a rejoinder? You can’t dissuade, as Lenin put it, the “useful idiot.”

Why bother with someone who supports the likes of Rove? In the meantime, please DNFTT.
 
Informal Logic said:
"War is peace," "Freedom is slavery," and "Ignorance is strength." – The three slogans engraved in the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell's book "1984"
I have a shirt with those slogans on it and under them it says "Big Brother is Watching You". It's my favorite shirt.
 
SOS2008 said:
Why bother with someone who supports the likes of Rove? In the meantime, please DNFTT.
To save you all looking it up: DNFTT = Do Not Feed The Trolls

I had to :biggrin:
 
29
0
you just saved me about 20 seconds lol
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,094
172
Informal Logic said:
Rove did do these things, and changing his title is like putting lipstick on a pig...
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I'm keeping that quote!
 
G

GENIERE

SOS2008 said:
Why bother with someone who supports the likes of Rove? In the meantime, please DNFTT.
Judging by the username, SOS2008 is a college student (instructor?) interested in studying the environment. SOS2008 does not see fit to enlighten us with (her ?) knowledge by posting in the scientific forums. She simply trolls in the political forum while accusing others of the crime.
 

SOS2008

Gold Member
18
0
GENIERE said:
Judging by the username, SOS2008 is a college student (instructor?) interested in studying the environment. SOS2008 does not see fit to enlighten us with (her ?) knowledge by posting in the scientific forums. She simply trolls in the political forum while accusing others of the crime.
Trolls post to cause disturbance, and because this is their main objective it is often unclear what their personal position actually is. And if they do provide a source/link, it usually is one that only contributes further to disturbance. Wikipedia provides a more in-depth description, which you may want to familiarize yourself with.

Judging by my user name, and of course my posts, my position is clear and consistent. Also, I often provide evidence for my posts via quotes/links for reliable sources. I realize other members may not like what I post, but I do not post for the sake of perturbing people.

As for where a member posts, one can post about economics, environment, philosophy, even energy etc. here in Politics and World Affairs rather than under "Other Sciences" or "social sciences." In reading the guidelines, I did not see anything about requirements against choosing to do so in order to participate in PF.

However, I have chosen to be a contributor, which I feel is most important.
 
G

GENIERE

SOS2008 verbally abuses EVERYONE whose opinions differ from hers. In response to one of SOS2008’s posts:
Townsend said:
…You act like you cannot stand someone who speaks against your position.
"Oh wad some power the giftie gie us To see oursel's as others see us! It wad frae monie a blunder free us, And foolish notion"
...
SOS2008 said:
However, I have chosen to be a contributor, which I feel is most important.
A revealing statement. I chose to do both.

From a different thread in Forum Feedback

GENIERE said:
For months and months and months I've been trying to again contribute to PF. Pay pal has me stymied. I've never used Paypal except for PF. I 've had several IP's since I used Paypal the last time. I cannot get through the process since my credit card is tagged to one of the older IP's.

AAAAAGH!

But thanks for reminding me.


...
 
So why has this thread turned into one big ad hominem attack?
 

SOS2008

Gold Member
18
0
BTW GENIERE, DNFTT was not directed at you. Recently there has been disruption in several threads, with a particular member as the common variable who never presented a case/evidence one way or another regarding the OP/topic, thus pushing the troll envelope IMO.

There are many members who do not share my position, however I respect their view because they are knowledgeable, they make their case with reliable sources, and don’t just spew “on message” rhetoric. Also, we all express opinions since these topics are of a subjective nature, however if a member denounces another member's source, evidence should be forthcoming--not an unsubstantiated opinion.

Moving on…

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8605680/

"Reporter: Rove was first source on CIA leak"
MSNBC News Services
Updated: 3:36 p.m. ET July 17, 2005

WASHINGTON - White House political aide Karl Rove was the first person to tell a Time magazine reporter that the wife of a prominent critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policy was a CIA officer, the reporter said in an article Sunday.

Time correspondent Matthew Cooper said he told a grand jury last week that Rove told him the woman worked at the "agency," or CIA, on weapons of mass destruction issues, and ended the call by saying "I've already said too much."

He said Rove did not disclose the woman's name, Valerie Plame, but told him information would be declassified that would cast doubt on the credibility of her husband, former diplomat Joseph Wilson, who had charged the Bush administration with exaggerating the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs in making its case for war.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050717.wciaa07171a/BNStory/International/ [Broken]

"Cheney’s office linked to Rove affair"
Sunday, July 17, 2005 Updated at 5:37 PM EDT
Associated Press

Washington — U.S. Vice-President Richard Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, was a source along with U.S. President George W. Bush's chief political adviser for a Time story that identified a CIA officer, the magazine reporter said Sunday, further countering White House claims that neither aide was involved in the leak.
Quotes: Big Bush Lies About Rove, Jerry Politex
• "If there's a leak in my administration, I want to know who it is." --George W. Bush
• "The White House has flatly rejected as "ridiculous" and "just not true" suggestions that the source in question was Karl Rove..." --Globe and Mail
• "There's been nothing, absolutely nothing, brought to our attention to suggest any White House involvement, and that includes the vice president's office, as well,...if anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no
longer be in this administration." --Bush Press Sec. Scott McCellan
• "McClellan said Rove "wasn't involved" in any disclosure of the operative's name. "The president knows he wasn't involved. . . . It's simply not true." --Washington Post
• "In early October 2003, NEWSWEEK reported that immediately after Novak's column appeared in July, Rove called MSNBC "Hardball" host Chris Matthews and told him that Wilson's wife was "fair game." But White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters at the time that any suggestion that Rove had played a role in outing Plame was "totally ridiculous."" --MSNBC
• "White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove spoke with at least one reporter about Valerie Plame's role at the CIA before she was identified as a covert agent in a newspaper column two years ago, but Rove's lawyer said yesterday that his client did not identify her by name." --Washington Post
• "I didn't know her name, and I didn't leak her name." --Karl Rove
• "Federal law prohibits intentionally disclosing "any information identifying" a covert operative. So Rove broke the law, right? Unless he insists he didn't know she was a covert CIA agent. But how did he know Wilson's wife [last name, Plame] even worked for the CIA? After all, she was undercover." --Ward Harkavy
• "So, Rove's defense now hangs on one word—he "never knowingly disclosed classified information." Does that mean Rove simply didn't know Valerie Plame was a covert agent? Or does it just mean that Rove did not know that the CIA was "taking affirmative measures" to hide her identity? --Lawrence O'Donnell
• Getting Off Scott Free: AP Presents McClellan's Past Quotes on Rove and Plame --to July 11, 2005
• "Nearly two years after stating that any administration official found to have been involved in leaking the name of an undercover C.I.A. officer would be fired, and assuring that Karl Rove and other senior aides to President Bush had nothing to do with the disclosure, the White House on Monday refused to answer any questions about new evidence of Mr. Rove's role in the matter." --Washington Post
• "The real Rove scandal...If you can't shoot the messenger, take aim at his wife. That clearly was the intent of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove in leaking to a reporter that former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV's wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA agent. To try to conceal the fact that the president had lied to the American public about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, Rove attempted to destroy the credibility of two national security veterans and send an intimidating message to any other government officials preparing to publicly tell the truth. Rove's lawyer now says that Rove didn't break the law against naming covert agents because he didn't know Plame's name and therefore couldn't have revealed it. Perhaps he can use such a technicality in court, but in the meantime he should resign immediately — or be fired by the president — for leaking classified information, trying to smear Wilson and possibly endangering Plame's life." --Robert Scheer, LAT
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,094
172
Ho ho ho, merry Christmas!
 
A

Archon

Ivan Seeking said:
Ho ho ho, merry Christmas!
Yay! Christmas!

So, what's Jolly Old St. Rove bringing us this year?

I want a pony, and a book, and a kitten, and a slanderous attack on the Democratic Party.
 
G

GENIERE

SOS2008 said:
BTW GENIERE, DNFTT was not directed at you….
In response to my post:"Why bother with a rejoinder..."

You replied:

SOS2008 said:
... In the meantime, please DNFTT.
.
So much for the denial unless you are unfamiliar with the usage of DNFTT.

SOS2008 said:
... Recently there has been disruption in several threads, with a particular member as the common variable who never presented a case/evidence one way or another regarding the OP/topic, thus pushing the troll envelope IMO.
That may be your opinion of the individual but is not shared by me. The term would be more applicable to me as my posts have degenerated over the years due to the mindless drivel I’ve read in these forums. Russ Waters is a better man than me as he still fights the good fight.

Especially disturbing to me is the ceaseless citation of media liberals who cite opinions of other liberals who cite other liberals and on and on and on…

I would hope you realize that the cited articles are opinion and represent distortion of the facts. Yes, the conservatives are often guilty but I would never knowingly cite opinion as fact.

The last citation is “ugh”, I can’t think of a suitable word.

The first four words “The real Rove scandal” are a necessary preface to the article due to leaked information from the grand jury that exonerates Mr. Rove. Since the unreal scandal must be discounted, it is necessary to begin another.

This is followed by the journalist’s amazing ability to read Karl Rove’s mind:

“ That clearly was the intent of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove in leaking to a reporter…”

If your intent is to persuade others, stick to the facts. If you wish to get into a nodding frenzy with other leftist's keep citing drivel. If you simply want to provide your opinion in a positive manner, I look forward to reading it. Negativism serves no purpose, not mine not yours.
 
SOS2008 said:
if a member denounces another member's source, evidence should be forthcoming--not an unsubstantiated opinion.
Can you provide me with your evidence of the above claim? Can you provide me with a non-biased link with some evidence supporting your opinion about such matters. Can you prove me with evidence that my opinion is unsubstantiated?

Or is this an unsubstantiated opinion to which no evidence is required to support?

If I want to state facts, that I am claiming are facts then you will have your source; unless of course you agree with the stated facts and so no source is required. However, I will give my opinion, as you have just done so, when and where I choose unless my opinion is somehow a violation of this forums TOU. I could careless if you don't like what I say or what your opinion about me is.

In the future please be forthcoming about who you are talking about as this little game is childish. You didn't make a personal attack on me and so there really is no reason for you play these games.

Townsend (rest his case)
 

BobG

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
110
80
I'll be very surprised if it turns out that Rove actually violated the law.

He's been practicing this since 1970. As a rookie working for Donald Segretti (who was convicted in Watergate), Rove was caught for breaking into a Democratic campaign headquarters, stealing some letterhead, and mailing out bogus campaign letters (it was considered a college prank).

He also worked with Lee Atwater, another famous master of the dirty campaign trick (at least, until Atwater developed a brain tumor, converted to catholocism, and started mailing out apology letters to the politicians he'd trashed.)

The only mistake I've heard of him making since his rookie year was in 1992, when he alledgedly allowed his personal vendettas to interfere with his professional life and he trashed a valuable contributor to Bush senior's campaign (it was never proven, but he wound being fired from the Bush campaign).

Rove has learned from each of his mentors and has taken the art of the dirty trick to a whole new level. Surely he's too good by now to make a stupid mistake that could land him jail.
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,094
172
This excerpt expresses the notion that has my hopes up. Taken from the interview with Woodward and Bernstein, the men who took down Nixon ala Watergate; This interview aired yesterday on Meet The Press.

MR. RUSSERT: When Mr. Felt was sharing this information with Bob Woodward, and Bob Woodward with you, Carl Bernstein, you, early on, had a sense of just the bigness of it. And while getting a cup of coffee at a machine at The Washington Post, turned to Bob Woodward and said, "Oh, my God, Richard Nixon is going to be impeached."

MR. BERNSTEIN: That's right.

MR. RUSSERT: And Mr. Woodward said, "Don't ever say that in this newsroom."

MR. BERNSTEIN: That's correct. And the reason is that context is all. It's not just the individual facts. Just as context is all in the Karl Rove case. It's not just about Karl Rove. It's about WMD. It's about the truthfulness of the White House. And in Watergate, we were able to get this context very early because not originally Deep Throat but rather the bookkeeper for the committee for the re-election of the president, some other sources that Bob and I had, and Mark Felt all described to us this incredible "switchblade atmosphere" in the White House...

MR. WOODWARD: Yeah.

MR. BERNSTEIN: ...and that context told us Watergate wasn't just about a break-in. It was about a mentality...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8565312/
"NBC NEWS' MEET THE PRESS."
 
GENIERE said:
So much for the denial unless you are unfamiliar with the usage of DNFTT.
It only meant that you responded to that member, and were therefore feeding the situation--you were not being called a troll. So why the tiff?
Townsend said:
Can you provide me with your evidence of the above claim?
You referred to a source as BS. Instead of providing your own evidence to substantiate why it was BS, not only were you derogatory, you only provided an opinion (something to the effect that most people in the military come from well to do families). That doesn't cut it--at least not if a liberal member had done that.
Ivan Seeking said:
This excerpt expresses the notion that has my hopes up. Taken from the interview with Woodward and Bernstein, the men who took down Nixon ala Watergate; This interview aired yesterday on Meet The Press.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8565312/
"NBC NEWS' MEET THE PRESS."
I watched that as well--interesting and good comparison.
 
2CentsWorth said:
You referred to a source as BS. Instead of providing your own evidence to substantiate why it was BS, not only were you derogatory,...
Here is the article in question, for reference of course.

Joiners. Demographically, Joiners are predominantly from less well-to-do working or lower middle-class homes. They tend, as well, to reside in smaller towns or rural environments. Most of the youth in this category have a familial tradition of military service and/or extensive contact with people serving in the military. Their familiarity with military life, also, is generally greater than that for youth in any of the other propensity groups, although this familiarity does not always prove a positive influence. Some of the descriptions of military life lead to ambivalence about enlisting in the military.

Many of the youth in this group feel they are not college material or that they are not ready for college at this time. Some are not academically inclined, and others believe that they lack the discipline to study and avoid the "party" temptation if they were to go away to school. "Discipline" and "taking orders" form the most central images of military life for Joiners. These images were not necessarily negative. Several youth noted that accepting discipline can serve an important and maturing role in their lives. For many, the military is considered a structured environment that can prepare them for future careers.

The primary motivations for joining the military are to gain access to training and benefits. Training is considered a stepping stone to the future. Some are enlisting expressly to obtain money for education. These youth are either not ready for college at this time or require funds in order to pursue higher education. Relatively few youth mention serving their country as a motivation for enlistment. The few that did were often apologetic and prefaced their remarks with "I’m not all that patriotic, but..." as if embarrassed to admit a larger social or ideological motivation. Most expressed apprehension about war. Combat and the possibility of dying or killing were worrisome, but they generally considered they were entering a peacetime military.
Separate the facts stated here from the opinions for me please. Comments like in the very first paragraph are more speculation than facts and they are condescending and prejudice. If this were an article about a minority group such as blacks, it would be outright racist.

It’s like you are telling me that, “The primary motivations for joining the military are to gain access to training and benefits” is anything more than a biased personal opinion of that author. In some cases it maybe the primary motivation but in most cases I have seen it is not. For example, I know the reason I joined and whoever wrote that apparently does not know or understand those reasons at all. That is a substantiated FACT that is beyond contestation by virtue of it being ME who is the only person alive who can decide this. I think that article is crap and I don’t have to provide a link to say so. I am basing my opinion on the FACT that in my case and the case of the majority of fellow military enlisted personal, with whom I've had very close personal relationships with so I know I can speak on their behalf, that the opinions in the article is not just off base but completely wrong.

How, please do tell, would you like me to source my FACTUAL experience and opinion that is directly relevant to the article in question. Or, is it that you think I am lying about what I am saying? Should I get one of my friends that has navy.mil IP address to corroborate my story?

you only provided an opinion (something to the effect that most people in the military come from well to do families).
Is it your opinion that liberals tend to vote along democratic party lines? If there were no links to provide evidence to support that opinion would it be wrong? If someone found a link to an opinion that said other wise how would you refute it?

I cannot find a link that agrees with my opinion but that does not make it wrong. What I can do is provide evidence however...

http://www.defenselink.mil/militarypay/retirement/calc/01_finalpay.html
That describes how to calculate military retirement pay or you can just use the calculator. Now, you typically need 20 years of service to retire but often times people go well beyond 20 years and so their pay goes up accordingly. Now after 20 years a typical person will more than likely be an E-7 and up so we will shoot for low numbers and just say typically a retired person will be an E-7, unless were are talking about officers in which case they make considerably more.

Obviously your not making a killing right after retirement but after a couple of years making about 5k a month on retirement is easy to do (this is being around 15 years according to the chart). While that person is collecting that retirement from Uncle Sam they will more often than not also have another job supplementing their income. So, if that highly trained person enters the job market with his all his experience and skills then on the low side he or she will still be pulling in at least 2k a month, more than likely something like 6 or 7k a month. So, if their wives don't work and they are the single source of income in that house then they are pulling in around 84k a year. Is that a bad income? I don’t think it is but maybe this forum has nothing but millionaires on it.

Besides everything just listed, most people that are retirement material that I have ever met invest about 10 percent of their income. Don’t ask me for a link to prove that because I have no idea where to find one. I guess I am just not interweb savvy enough to locate such obscure information from a reliable source.


What irks me about this is that if my experiences and opinions were in agreement with how you felt then all of a sudden you would defending me instead of trying to denigrate a perfectly good point of view.

Regards,
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So, if their wives don't work and they are the single source of income in that house then they are pulling in around 84k a year. Is that a bad income? I don’t think it is but maybe this forum has nothing but millionaires on it.
I think the point is that a majority of the people in the military aren't staying long enough to enjoy these benefits, which is a good thing for the military. Think of it like this. The Army alone claims to have 1,041,000 people in their total strength (that's Army HR's 2004 Army Profile). In twenty years if just half of them are retired and pulling down 5k per month, that's thirty billion a year. It's a lot of money. Now I can't find the defense department's breakdown, but if you add in the pay to those who will be making more than 5k per month, I doubt that ten percent of the US defense budget is earmarked for Army retirees. Remember, that's assuming that Navy, Marine and Air Force retirees will patriotically refuse to collect their retirement paychecks, and donate that money back to the military.

There are a lot of people who get a lot of money out of the military, and are fairly well-to-do. They get good jobs afterwards. But they aren't a majority of former military personnel. Most people don't seem to do the full fifteen-twenty year haul.

Townsend said:
That is a substantiated FACT that is beyond contestation by virtue of it being ME who is the only person alive who can decide this. I think that article is crap and I don’t have to provide a link to say so. I am basing my opinion on the FACT that in my case and the case of the majority of fellow military enlisted personal, with whom I've had very close personal relationships with so I know I can speak on their behalf, that the opinions in the article is not just off base but completely wrong.
I'm not trusting the statistics on either side on this. Not to be insulting, but as much as I may have doubts about that article, I have some doubts about your testimony as well. I'll explain why (and then you can decide whether or not to flame me to a crisp). From your personality it just seems to me that if someone had come into the military with the attitude that "I'm not really doing this for my country, I'm just doing it as a job" you wouldn't immediately have tried to get all buddy-buddy with them. They probably would have left the military fairly soon anyways, and you might never have associated with them. Those who join because of patriotism, or because they really like the military life, are going to stay a lot longer. So after a few years all the people you know personally are motivated, proud to be in the military and have nothing but disdain for the other types.

I'm paranoid about taking your experiences as representative of all military veterans (of any part of the service), after having suffered some brushes with a few military fanatics (the kind who claimed that a US officer or soldier has never made a mistake-that only politicians make mistakes). My father joined the army back before Vietnam and he spent two years of his life as a typist in front of a typewriter. He told me that he was not motivated a great deal, and that most of his motivation had worn off by the end. If I enlisted, my eyesight is so bad that they would probably have to lock me in a warehouse somewhere (especially since I can't drive worth a damn). I can't see being very gung-ho about the job after six or seven months stacking boxes. I have a friend who dropped out of the Marines because he was bored; he joined the marines to shoot stuff and blow stuff up-not because he was really motivated to. Instead they were going to stick him somewhere sorting ordinance, so he just quit. I have an ex-navy guy I used to work with who served in the Navy for a while, but has never come across the conviction of some others. These are also personal experiences from trusted individuals.

I've met some great people who had wonderful experiences in the US military, and who are really fired up about it if you ask them about it. I've also met a lot of others who sort of shrug their shoulders and treat it like it was a job. I can't tell whether the people I know are truly representative of the population, so instead of using that as the basis of a factual opinion I look for statistics that have been more thoroughly gathered.

Basically my point (after much wandering) is that I'm a bit leery of both unsupported statistics, and evidence from personal experience, because both can be sort of biased. I hope nobody feels like I'm insulting them when I don't take their evidence at face value though...

-dA
Who has probably just stuck his foot in his mouth, but it is late and he is tired.
 
38
165
The paragraph below is from a document prepared by "Defence Manpower Data Center". This private company provides recruiting research data for the DOD. And the document from which the paragraph was taken is currently used by the DOD in recuiting. (Which of course Townsend will deny)

"Joiners. Demographically, Joiners are predominantly from less well-to-do working or lower middle-class homes. They tend, as well, to reside in smaller towns or rural environments. Most of the youth in this category have a familial tradition of military service and/or extensive contact with people serving in the military. Their familiarity with military life, also, is generally greater than that for youth in any of the other propensity groups, although this familiarity does not always prove a positive influence. Some of the descriptions of military life lead to ambivalence about enlisting in the military."



The below paragraph was posted by Townsend regarding the above paragraph:

"Separate the facts stated here from the opinions for me please. Comments like in the very first paragraph are more speculation than facts and they are condescending and prejudice. If this were an article about a minority group such as blacks, it would be outright racist."

It sounds like Townsend is calling the DOD document; speculative,condescending and predjudice. But of course that could never happen. Oh what a tangled web we weave.

BTW wasn't this thread originally about Karl Rove?
 
edward said:
Which of course Townsend will deny
No, you showed me that it was as you claimed it to be. No problem unless you want to pretend I cannot change my position with new information about things.

It sounds like Townsend is calling the DOD document; speculative,condescending and predjudice. But of course that could never happen. Oh what a tangled web we weave.
Lets pretend this document was talking about colleges recruiting black athletes for a moment. Can you see why some of the assumptions would seem to be condescending and perhaps even prejudice?

BTW wasn't this thread originally about Karl Rove?
I didn't take this off-topic, I was only trying to defend myself. So don't point the finger at me.

Regards,
 
danAlwyn said:
...
Basically my point (after much wandering) is that I'm a bit leery of both unsupported statistics, and evidence from personal experience, because both can be sort of biased. I hope nobody feels like I'm insulting them when I don't take their evidence at face value though...
I appreciate your input. My point is not to completely refute that article but simply to offer an alternative point of view. I don't expect you to accept my experience as absolute truth and I am not offend that you don't take it at face value. I am very please to hear that you looked at it and made a fair judgement about it instead of just dismissing it.

Regards,
 
Last edited:

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top