BRANDOLAND: Talking to God...For You!

Thursday, July 14, 2005

Hot Karl: He With the Flesh Colored Hair

The REAL threat to Bush with the whole Rove-Plame-Cooper-Miller thing is this: This latest twist might cause "someone" to re-examine Bush's claims re: WMD's. The Bushies did not expect people to be looking into this matter in the summer of '05. That's for sure.

*

Jon Stewart described Rove as having "flesh colored hair" on Tuesday. Genius.

*

Watched "Bush's Brain" with Betsy & Adro last night...

Chilling. Feels like it was produced yesterday - includes a great piece on the Plame Affair - and, God, is it relevant.

The Plame Affair is much more ominous when shown alongside Rove's war on Texas, Max Cleland and (especially) John McCain.

I'd like to throw the Swift Boat Ads on that pile, too: Full Metal Rove.

So - great interview with James "Bush's Brain" Moore on Buzzflash today.

Excerpts:
BUZZFLASH: How do you think Rove could rationalize starting a war based on asserting that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction (which he didn't), while he neutralized a CIA operative whose job was to protect the United States by tracking Weapons of Mass Destruction and their illicit sales? He also exposed her "front company" in the process and possibly endangered her life.

MOORE: Rove, most people don’t realize, is partly pathological. He believes many of the lies he tells. In that regard, his world is a construct where, even if there is no a priori evidence that Saddam was connected to 911, Karl can easily convince himself there was a link. Whatever he does, regardless of how unethical, is always justified as being necessary for a greater political good.

Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame are citizens Karl decided needed to be sacrificed for the benefit of the larger American population.

The case against Saddam and WMD was trumped up because it was simple and readily accessible for most Americans and was something they would believe.

Telling the truth and making an intelligent political case for action in Iraq or a US presence in the Mid East was too complicated. The lie was an expeditious tool needed to accomplish a political end and was, in Rove’s mind, a much lesser sin than letting Saddam continue in power, even though he was not the greatest terrorist threat facing America.

BUZZFLASH: The Republican National Committee issued talking points today that showed up in news coverage on the Republican leaning programs and radio commentators. Not only that, the Chair of the RNC launched a major attack on Joe Wilson's character once again, claiming that the controversy about Rove is all just a partisan witch hunt. Is Rove still "spinning away," with carte blanche from Bush to mount his own diversionary defense?

MOORE: NOTHING that is presently occurring will be happening without Karl’s imprimatur. He is the message maker for the party and the White House.

He probably had Mehlman and a few others offer input, but Karl will not trust his argument or his positioning to anyone other than himself. In fact, when his attorney, Robert Luskin said Karl did not “knowingly” out a CIA agent that was clearly Karl’s parsing of language. He thought that it would protect him from conviction on the treason act and it reflected a strategic step by Karl from back in 1991 when he was testifying before a Texas Senate committee.

He was asked if he knew FBI agent Greg Rampton, who had conducted the spurious investigations of Democrats, and Rove asked the senator what he meant by “knew.”

BUZZFLASH: The press and most people forget that Bush retained a lawyer shortly after PlameGate broke to legally represent him in any investigation, even while he was refusing to personally demand to know who leaked information detrimental to the national security of the United States and fire them on the spot. Is it possible that Rove let Bush know what he was up to and Bush just nodded? Or is that where plausible deniability comes in?

MOORE: The history of their relationship involves a series of wink wink, nudge nudge agreements, where Rove is given implicit licenses to do what is necessary to achieve the political goal. Bush often knows what Karl is doing but, in many cases, he doesn’t want to know and doesn’t ask.

As in the case of the slime attack against Sen. John McCain in South Carolina, Bush knew some of the tactics being used but not all of them. He was aware of and involved in the efforts by a dubious Vietnam veterans’ organization to slur McCain’s reputation, but Bush was mostly oblivious to the push polls and hate pamphlets flying around about McCain.

I think in PlameGate, however, the president probably knew what was about to happen and did nothing to stop it, implying to Rove that he was on his own but to go ahead if he thought it was essential to protecting their arguments for war. The president likely has some exposure in this case, though I have my doubts anyone will ever be able to confront him on it legally or ethically.
Tim Russert weighed in on the whole thing yesterday (from the hard-hittin' TODAY SHOW) and for a second, Tim forgot who he works for:
"One Republican said to me last night. If this was a Democratic White House, we'd have Congressional hearings in a second."
Because they DID.

For every f*ing thing Clinton ever said or DID.

Speaking of Hot Karl - Rick "Man on Dog" Santorum is in "hot water" (ho ho) with Bostonians (Bostonites?) for saying that the "liberal climate" in Massachusets fueled the Catholic Church's abuse scandal.

You know, because of Harvard and MIT and the Red Sox and all.

You can read the Boston Globe's story here.

Excerpts:
WASHINGTON -- Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, the third-ranking Republican in the Senate, refused yesterday to back off on his earlier statements connecting Boston's ''liberalism" with the Roman Catholic Church pedophile scandal, saying that the city's ''sexual license" and ''sexual freedom" nurtured an environment where sexual abuse would occur.
The New England Patriots? Totally gay.
''The basic liberal attitude in that area . . . has an impact on people's behavior," Santorum said in an interview yesterday at the Capitol.
Remember during last years' World Series, when all those dudes were goin' at it above the Green Monster? That was horrifying.
''If you have a world view that I'm describing [about Boston] . . . that affirms alternative views of sexuality, that can lead to a lot of people taking it the wrong way," Santorum said.

Santorum, a leader among Christian conservatives, was responding to questions about remarks he made three years ago on a website called Catholic Online. In those comments, Santorum said, ''It is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political, and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm" of the clergy sexual abuse scandal.
Fenway Park is a huge gay bar by the 7th inning.
''I was just saying that there's an attitude that is very open to sexual freedom that is more predominant" in Boston, Santorum said yesterday. Reminded that the sexual abuse occurred across the country, Santorum said that ''at the time [in 2002], there was an indication that there was more of a problem there" in Boston.
What a dick.

I'll have Scott McClellan's NEXT monologue - as soon as it becomes available.

2 Comments:

  • Brendan -

    It's no surprise to me that a knee-jerk Christian conservative who has in all likelihood never lived in Massachusetts would make such comments. If it's such a liberal place, why do we currently have a Mormon as governor? Why has there been a Republican in the governor's seat for the last ten years? Why can't you get a drink in a bar after f#*@(!@) 1:30 in the morning? Why did they shut down all the sex shops near Chinatown? Why did the state have some of the most violent reactions against integrating schools in the country (even including southern states?) Why did the phrase "banned in Boston" ever come into existence? Why did the governor once order the state militia to fire on women and children in picket lines? Don't talk about liberalism when you can't define it Rick!

    Rick...do some reading before making pronouncments.

    By Anonymous Nick Aieta, at 8:40 AM  

  • Just a general thing I saw about Ann Coulter's opinion on John Roberts.

    COULTER SAYS BUSH PICK WRONG

    "We don’t know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever... Oh, yeah...we know he's argued cases before the supreme court. big deal; so has Larry Flynt's attorney."

    So declares conservative columnist Ann Coulter in a new dispatch set for release.

    Coulter continues: It means nothing that Roberts wrote briefs arguing for the repeal of Roe v. Wade when he worked for Republican administrations. He was arguing on behalf of his client, the United States of America. Roberts has specifically disassociated himself from those cases, dropping a footnote to a 1994 law review article that said:

    “In the interest of full disclosure, the author would like to point out that as Deputy Solicitor General for a portion of the 1992-93 Term, he was involved in many of the cases discussed below. In the interest of even fuller disclosure, he would also like to point out that his views as a commentator on those cases do not necessarily reflect his views as an advocate for his former client, the United States.”

    This would have been the legal equivalent, after O.J.'s acquittal, of Johnnie Cochran saying, "hey, I never said the guy was innocent. I was just doing my job."

    And it makes no difference that conservatives in the White House are assuring us Roberts can be trusted. We got the exact same assurances from officials working for the last president Bush about David Hackett Souter. I believe their exact words were, "Read our lips; Souter's a reliable conservative."

    From the theater of the absurd category, the Republican National Committee’s “talking points” on Roberts provide this little tidbit:

    “In the 1995 case of Barry v. Little, Judge Roberts argued—free of charge—before the D.C. Court of Appeals on behalf of a class of the neediest welfare recipients, challenging a termination of benefits under the District’s Public Assistance Act of 1982.”

    I'm glad to hear the man has a steady work record, but how did this make it to the top of his resume?

    Finally, lets ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. That’s just unnatural.


    from Drudge Report

    By Anonymous Nick Aieta, at 8:42 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home