Karl Rove

[susnfx]

Weeks, do you judge the response of those on The Left in the U.S. to any topic in general by the responses on this board to that topic? I mean, in your last post you made it sound like you were judging the "silence" of The Left re Berger by the posts or lack thereof on this board. Are you referring to The Left in general or those on The Left on this board?

My apologies if that makes no sense whatsoever.

Susan

[Tyler]

Weeks, do you judge the response of those on The Left in the U.S. to any topic in general by the responses on this board to that topic? I mean, in your last post you made it sound like you were judging the "silence" of The Left re Berger by the posts or lack thereof on this board. Are you referring to The Left in general or those on The Left on this board?

My apologies if that makes no sense whatsoever.

Susan

I dont think he meant any harm by it...
however I will maintain that you and I have the right to rip on Rove at any time we choose because of where he comes from.

[Jerry Freeman]

Well, Tom, there wasn't a lively thread like this one! Yes, the press was all over it as a story, but the Left was silent on it. Don't mistake one for the other. Also, I don't recall any newspaper editorials calling for him to be prosecuted. And, like I said, Bush didn't prosecute him either. I guess he's "in the club."

If I recall, Sandy Berger pleaded guilty to a crime. There was no orchestrated stonewalling and smokescreening, no smear campaign against his opponents, no diversionary emergency. Mostly, a lot of Democrats said they were sorry for him if Sandy Berger had done something wrong, and they hoped he hadn't, because he's a great guy and has given so many years of public service.

Yes, it was stupid and embarassing, but had it been a Republican it would have been a much bigger stink-up.

This is sheer nonsense. At the time, the Republicans made an enormous stink-up. They went about as far as they could with it, seems to me, and I can't imagine that the Democrats could have made a bigger stink-up if the circumstances had been reversed.

Best wishes,
Jerry

[anniemcu]

Guess y'all forgot the Kingmaker=James Baker. He was the evil mastermind behind George, Sr.

Been there, done that. yet, its mostly Republicans who have the behind-the-scenes wizards. Bert Lance just never matched up to Baker. Nixon had the Kraut kronies, Haldeman, Erlichman and goshdarnit, I forgot the third. But I guess Tricky impressed people more as writing his own scripts for his hijinx.

The only reason this story is getting so much play is because the press is involved. And ironically, those of you who want to keep the focus on Iraq, torture, contractor scandals, are taking the bait (plus you think you smell blood). The NY Times and Time mag REALLY want you to care because their reporters are involved and it just further pushes the American public into somnambulance or whatever you call what people do when they tune out.

Stark contrast to the artificial adrenaline rush of the press on this .

"What did he know, when did he know it???" they ask breathlessly.

If you all cared so much about national security, it might actually bother you that Sandy Berger STOLE classified documents and stuffed them into his clothing and was caught on videotape. These documents involved the role he played in interpreting and acting on terror threats, WMDs etc. No ambiguity there (in terms of what he did, caught on tape).

And dammit if Bush didn't let him off....

Bush, Sr. was neither an idiot nor evil. Bush Sr.'s administration FIRED Rove for his underhanded methods. Bush Sr. was not in favor of starting this war in Iraq. His son is another story.

[gonzo914]

. . . but had it been a Republican it would have been a much bigger stink-up.

Yep -- you're right. Republicans have historically been a persecuted and victimized minority, and it's high time some spoke up in their defense. Now if we could only get rid of the pervasive discrimination that keeps them out of corporate board rooms and denies them entry into all the best universities and country clubs, we could make real and tangible social progress.

And after that, we'll work on safeguarding their religious rights.

[TomB]

Well, Tom, there wasn't a lively thread like this one! Yes, the press was all over it as a story, but the Left was silent on it. Don't mistake one for the other. Also, I don't recall any newspaper editorials calling for him to be prosecuted. And, like I said, Bush didn't prosecute him either. I guess he's "in the club."

Yes, it was stupid and embarassing, but had it been a Republican it would have been a much bigger stink-up. I don't know if its ever been proven that he returned those documents or substitutes, btw. Deny it if you want, but in your heart, you know I am right.

Yeah, but the difference here is that Berger entered a guilty plea, and with Rove it's cover up after cover up.

As far as the "silence of the left, (Hellooo Clarrise"), perhaps there were fewer politically enlightned chiffers on the board back then.

Deny it if you want, but in my heart, I know that a lot of folks are wrong.

Tom

[Tyler]

Yeah, but the difference here is that Berger entered a guilty plea, and with Rove it's cover up after cover up.


Tom

Thought it might be appropriate to reinsert this here

[The Weekenders]

Yeah, I am talking about this board, with its daily list of Bush crimes, the periodic generalizations about conservatives and Christian right etc etc.

There was no "traction" with Sandy Berger here and it's not trotted out as evidence or example of egregious out-of-control empowerment by a (former) government official. Anything that happens under Bush is the subject of much eye-rolling and tongue-clicking here. You know it's true.

But, as a matter of fact, I really was watching the media keenly after Berger was caught and there was not a groundswell of "outrage" from honest Democrats, etc etc, fwiw, Susan. Instead, it was the usual "pass" like Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy and other such reprobates get from their like-minded ideologues.

As for the stark reality of Berger admitting to his crime, it WAS BECAUSE HE HAD TO. HE WAS CAUGHT ON VIDEOTAPE. Otherwise, there would have been the usual rush for plausible deniability and other such tactics. If you can't admit the truth of this last statement, then you are intellectually dishonest. He didn't accept the charges because he's such a goshdarn honest guy. People get lawyers to save their asses and do the best they can, no matter how they are registered to vote.

He was stealing national security documents. Does that mean nothing to any of you, who get so worked up about secret memos and other classified info?

The litany of Rove dirty tricks that appeared here earlier; it was not presented with any disclaimer about the dirty tricks that Dems have done over the years (admittedly, this is a Rove thread). I think context and balance should always be included. Otherwise it's just a Leftist amen corner. Especially when I am making some example, I always try to acknowledge in any possible way when that fault or tendency crosses partisan lines.

And Jerry,I really disagree with you denying a double standard.

Look at the current Supreme Court situation. There are constant demands that a conservative NOT be named to the Court, but someone who is "in line" with the American public and a good "compromise."

What was Ruth Bader Ginsburg? The far Left head of the ACLU. There is nothing moderate about her and her ideology yet she was confirmed in the era of the Republican Revolution.

And what is this crap about Board Rooms, clubs etc???? Have you really looked at who is rich and privileged in this country, Gonzo, or are you just taking somebody else's word for it?

Clinton proved, indisputably, about how much power and privilege resides in the Left. There were regular journalistic accounts of how much money he was raking in. Whether it's Ted Turner, George Soros, Oprah Winfrey or many others, it's an absolute fiction to perpetuate the privileged Republican bit... Hey, it's the American way, I am just describing it.

I just finished Medved's autobiography and it was fascinating to read that during his years at Yale, he happened to cross paths with John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, Lanny Davis, George Bush, Hillary Rodham etc etc. How anybody can peddle the nonsense that only Republicans sit at the elite positions in American life is beyond me. For further proof, track the careers of each of Clinton's staffers past their service in the White House.

Rant over.

[Jerry Freeman]

Gosh, Weeks.

You mean I've been wrong the whole time? OK, then. I've seen the error of my ways, and I'll be more careful from now on. Thank you.

Seriously, though. About the Berger thing. I've never seen any indication that it was part of a systematic program or strategy to mislead the public or smear the opposition. It looked like a pretty stupid thing one freelancing individual did, and it left the Dems shaking their heads and wondering aloud about what his motivations were. Karl Rove is too professional to do something that dumb. He is legendary for destroying his patrons' opponents without leaving fingerprints.

The stuff Rove does do is completely different from the Berger affair. I've never heard of Sandy Berger practicing political character assination. It's Rove's stock in trade (e.g. Anne Richards, John McCain). He does it in the naked pursuit of power, and clearly at the behest of the Bush group.

Further, your characterization of this as an issue between Republicans and Democrats is off the mark, in my opinion. If you were to ask John McCain, John Warner, and any number of traditional conservative Republicans, off the record, what they think of the way Rove does business, I'm pretty sure they would tell you that it's reprehensible and does not serve the long term aspirations of the Republican party.

Best wishes,
Jerry

[anniemcu]

Yeah, I am talking about this board, with its daily list of Bush crimes, the periodic generalizations about conservatives and Christian right etc etc.

There was no "traction" with Sandy Berger here and it's not trotted out as evidence or example of egregious out-of-control empowerment by a (former) government official. Anything that happens under Bush is the subject of much eye-rolling and tongue-clicking here. You know it's true.

But, as a matter of fact, I really was watching the media keenly after Berger was caught and there was not a groundswell of "outrage" from honest Democrats, etc etc, fwiw, Susan. Instead, it was the usual "pass" like Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy and other such reprobates get from their like-minded ideologues.

As for the stark reality of Berger admitting to his crime, it WAS BECAUSE HE HAD TO. HE WAS CAUGHT ON VIDEOTAPE. Otherwise, there would have been the usual rush for plausible deniability and other such tactics. If you can't admit the truth of this last statement, then you are intellectually dishonest. He didn't accept the charges because he's such a goshdarn honest guy. People get lawyers to save their asses and do the best they can, no matter how they are registered to vote.

He was stealing national security documents. Does that mean nothing to any of you, who get so worked up about secret memos and other classified info?

The litany of Rove dirty tricks that appeared here earlier; it was not presented with any disclaimer about the dirty tricks that Dems have done over the years (admittedly, this is a Rove thread). I think context and balance should always be included. Otherwise it's just a Leftist amen corner. Especially when I am making some example, I always try to acknowledge in any possible way when that fault or tendency crosses partisan lines.

And Jerry,I really disagree with you denying a double standard.

Look at the current Supreme Court situation. There are constant demands that a conservative NOT be named to the Court, but someone who is "in line" with the American public and a good "compromise."

What was Ruth Bader Ginsburg? The far Left head of the ACLU. There is nothing moderate about her and her ideology yet she was confirmed in the era of the Republican Revolution.

And what is this crap about Board Rooms, clubs etc???? Have you really looked at who is rich and privileged in this country, Gonzo, or are you just taking somebody else's word for it?

Clinton proved, indisputably, about how much power and privilege resides in the Left. There were regular journalistic accounts of how much money he was raking in. Whether it's Ted Turner, George Soros, Oprah Winfrey or many others, it's an absolute fiction to perpetuate the privileged Republican bit... Hey, it's the American way, I am just describing it.

I just finished Medved's autobiography and it was fascinating to read that during his years at Yale, he happened to cross paths with John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, Lanny Davis, George Bush, Hillary Rodham etc etc. How anybody can peddle the nonsense that only Republicans sit at the elite positions in American life is beyond me. For further proof, track the careers of each of Clinton's staffers past their service in the White House.

Rant over.

So... because *some* people (I am not one of them) lump all Republicans, conservatives, Christians, etc., together, and because *some* people (I am not one of them) make the mistake of thinking all big business is evil and Republican owned, the lies, underhanded tricks, mis/dis-information and errors make by *this* administration should be overlooked, denied, excused, or otherwise dismissed? Nah.

Labels and stereotying are wrong. So is allowing a pack of wolves to get away with what this administration has done/is doing. And yes, I will be looking just as closely at the Dems and what they and their elected do. This is not nearly so much a partisan issue as it is a moral issue, and if the team that Bush is held up as a hero by can't see the moral problems his administration has, they need to get some serious vision therapy. If I were a Republican, I'd be seeking a new party. As it is, I'm disgusted with just about all of the currently extant political parites, but especially the people abusing the membership of that particular party right now.

[Tyler]

jeez you guys. I wanted this to be funny thread....
why you gotta get so mad

[s1m0n]

Yeah, I am talking about this board, with its daily list of Bush crimes, the periodic generalizations about conservatives and Christian right etc etc.

There was no "traction" with Sandy Berger here and it's not trotted out as evidence or example of egregious out-of-control empowerment by a (former) government official. Anything that happens under Bush is the subject of much eye-rolling and tongue-clicking here. You know it's true.

Dude, CLINTON IS OUT OF OFFICE! He's been out of office for YEARS!

Your current executive is republican. Congress is republican. The Senate is republican. The judiciary is increasingly republican. When people complain about the government, they're mostly talking about republicans.

That's not bias.

[The Weekenders]

Seriously, though. About the Berger thing. I've never seen any indication that it was part of a systematic program or strategy to mislead the public or smear the opposition. It looked like a pretty stupid thing one freelancing individual did, and it left the Dems shaking their heads and wondering aloud about what his motivations were. Karl Rove is too professional to do something that dumb. He is legendary for destroying his patrons' opponents without leaving fingerprints.

The stuff Rove does do is completely different from the Berger affair. I've never heard of Sandy Berger practicing political character assination. It's Rove's stock in trade (e.g. Anne Richards, John McCain). He does it in the naked pursuit of power, and clearly at the behest of the Bush group.

Further, your characterization of this as an issue between Republicans and Democrats is off the mark, in my opinion. If you were to ask John McCain, John Warner, and any number of traditional conservative Republicans, off the record, what they think of the way Rove does business, I'm pretty sure they would tell you that it's reprehensible and does not serve the long term aspirations of the Republican party.

Best wishes,
Jerry

It may well be that what Rove does isn't serving the party well and I would think that you could find plenty of Dems who Clinton burned with his triangulation tactics. I am just trying to say that it's probably not that unusual. Character assassination comes from both sides of the aisle. Just ask Robert Bork or New Gingrich or Trent Lott. You may not like any of them, but I am disgusted by Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank and others.

And about the Berger thing. Most of the people reading this are probably going to take your word for it, but Sandy Berger went in to that facility at a time when concurrently, the nation was looking at how both Clinton and Bush had responded to Osama's threat and getting ready to point fingers about the WMD thing. Richard Clarke was making headlines, having served both Presidents. Berger was being asked to testify, I believe, before the same Senate sub-committee as Clarke. He was trying to remember his role in all of it, apparently, and needed the documents. Being generous, you could say he was boning up on his future testimony. Not so generous, he wanted to destroy or change documents that made him look bad. He was also apparently writing his own book about his service during that period. Once again, he might have been trying to rehab his own history.

Richard Clarke, in what some might call a self-serving way, basically accused both Clinton and Bush of ignoring his impassioned pleas to take Osama and Islamic terrorism more seriously. I have no doubt that former Clinton admins would love to have it all fall on Bush, when a case can be made that their responses to the situation helped facilitate 9/11 attacks. I am not here to debate that, but to point out that those documents Berger took may have been very important for trying to find some objective, non-partisan truth.

[The Weekenders]

Dude, CLINTON IS OUT OF OFFICE! He's been out of office for YEARS!

Your current executive is republican. Congress is republican. The Senate is republican. The judiciary is increasingly republican. When people complain about the government, they're mostly talking about republicans.

That's not bias.

Actually we were talking about Sandy Berger at length, as representing different treatment even though he breached national security.

The current scandal about Rove is for releasing a name of a CIA operative, I would remind you, not for how he campaigned against John McCain. The subject seems to be migrating. But Rove has been a target for years. The CIA accusation provided the breach that is being picked at.

[Jerry Freeman]

Actually we were talking about Sandy Berger at length, as representing different treatment even though he breached national security.

The current scandal about Rove is for releasing a name of a CIA operative, I would remind you, not for how he campaigned against John McCain. The subject seems to be migrating. But Rove has been a target for years. The CIA accusation provided the breach that is being picked at.

Is it clear that there are documents missing? I hadn't gotten the impression that the end result was that documents had disappeared irretrievably, though I'm quite willing to acknowledge that if it does happen to be a fact.

I'm not sure Berger's "breach of national security" was actually a breach of national security. Certainly he didn't release classified information to the public, and he certainly didn't reveal the identity of a CIA operative. Seems more like, he tried to keep some things secret, presumably not to protect national security, but to protect himself or Clinton. But he didn't breach national security in the process. Seems like a less serious offense to me (but an offense, nonetheless).

Karl Rove has been such a destructive political force for so long, his background becomes tied up in the current controversy because any slip on his part that places him in a position to be held accountable becomes an occasion to hold him accountable for his entire history of dirty tricks. If this were a single, uncharacteristic mistake on his part, I'm sure the reaction would be less strident, and especially so if the administration were willing to acknowledge the misdeed instead of stonewalling and dissembling.

Best wishes,
Jerry