News Karl Rove: The Republican Mastermind

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around a PBS program airing at 9:00 PM PST, focusing on Karl Rove's life and career as a political strategist, particularly his role in the Republican resurgence and the controversial tactics he employed. Participants express mixed views on Rove, acknowledging his strategic acumen while criticizing the negative aspects of his political methods, such as dirty campaigning exemplified by the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth. The conversation touches on Rove's ambitions for Republican dominance in U.S. politics, raising concerns about the implications of a one-party state and the erosion of democratic principles. Participants also discuss Rove's involvement in the CIA leak case concerning Valerie Plame, highlighting the contradictions in White House statements regarding his role. The thread reveals deep divisions in political opinions, with some labeling Rove's tactics as un-American and detrimental to constitutional values, while others defend his influence and strategic prowess. The dialogue reflects broader anxieties about the state of American politics and the potential for partisan manipulation of democratic processes.
  • #61
SOS2008 said:
"Root of the Rove controversy is the war in Iraq
*gasp* : NooO! It can't be! I TOTALLY didn't see that coming.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
Smurf said:
*gasp* : NooO! It can't be! I TOTALLY didn't see that coming.
You foreigners are so ahead of the curve--please teach Americans how to do that! :-p
 
  • #63
having to deal with this huge mass of political imbeciles anyone could be called "mastermind"
 
Last edited:
  • #64
Informal Logic said:
"Memo central to probe of leak spelled out information’s status"
Washington Post
Updated: 12:21 a.m. ET July 21, 2005

A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.
---------
Three key questions
The memo may be important to answering three central questions in the Plame case: Who in the Bush administration knew about Plame's CIA role? Did they know the agency was trying to protect her identity? And, who leaked it to the media?

Almost all of the memo is devoted to describing why State Department intelligence experts did not believe claims that Saddam Hussein had in the recent past sought to purchase uranium from Niger. Only two sentences in the seven-sentence paragraph mention Wilson's wife.

The memo was delivered to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell on July 7, 2003, as he headed to Africa for a trip with President Bush aboard Air Force One. Plame was unmasked in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak seven days later.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8635385/

The timing is very suspect--not only as this relates to the leak, but also the speech Bush made later in which he made claims regarding the existence of uranium from Niger, obviously contrary to the memo.
Good point about the timing, Informal Logic - it seems to provide firm evidence of deliberate lying to justify the invasion of Iraq (not that there isn't already evidence about this).

On the topic of the implications of Rove getting away scott free, a Reuters article of 22 July reported as follows:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush's failure to take action against a top aide involved in the outing of a covert CIA operative sends "the wrong message" overseas, former U.S. intelligence officials said on Friday.

At a hearing sponsored by Democrats, the retired agents said U.S. intelligence gathering had been damaged by the leak of Valerie Plame's name two years ago after her husband, former diplomat Joseph Wilson, criticized the White House's justification for going to war in Iraq.
...
"What has suffered irreversible damage is the credibility of our case officers when they try to convince an overseas contact that their safety is of primary importance to us," Jim Marcinkowski, a former CIA case officer, said. [Own emphasis]

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-07-22T202547Z_01_N2223899_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-BUSH-LEAK-DC.XML
And this at a time when conflicts are on the rise and the powers that be argue that there is more need than ever before for intel activity and are bringing all sorts of draconian legislation in that will severely impinge on civil liberties to 'combat terrorism' :rolleyes: I mean, how serious are they about 'combatting terrorism' if they don't care about the implications of revealing secret operatives' names?
 
  • #65
alexandra said:
On the topic of the implications of Rove getting away scott free, a Reuters article of 22 July reported as follows:And this at a time when conflicts are on the rise and the powers that be argue that there is more need than ever before for intel activity and are bringing all sorts of draconian legislation in that will severely impinge on civil liberties to 'combat terrorism' :rolleyes: I mean, how serious are they about 'combatting terrorism' if they don't care about the implications of revealing secret operatives' names?
It should be clear by now to all that this administration has only cared about it's own power, and has pursued it at any cost. In the summer before 9-11 the domestic scene was very worrisome--particularly the economy. Personally I believe Bush, et al, were absorbed with political strategy, and though they may not have realized the degree of destruction per the PDB, they may have even hoped for a distraction (after all, this is in keeping with Rove's MO). If it had not been for the 9-11 attacks and the fear mongering about the war on terror, I doubt Bush would have been reelected. So even if negligence can't be proven, the exploitation of the tragedy can, and this alone is despicable.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K