Rove and relativism

Paul Krugman on Karl Rove:

What Mr. Rove understood, long before the rest of us, is that we're not living in the America of the past, where even partisans sometimes changed their views when faced with the facts. Instead, we're living in a country in which there is no longer such a thing as nonpolitical truth. In particular, there are now few, if any, limits to what conservative politicians can get away with: the faithful will follow the twists and turns of the party line with a loyalty that would have pleased the Comintern.

I'd go even further. Lots of politicians distort the facts for political reasons. Rove is bold enough to act as if logic itself had partisan rules. He's cooly deploying a diversionary strategy that doesn't even make sense. Whenever an operative starts talking about Joe Wilson, I just have to laugh. The right wing is babbling on about why Rove had a vendetta against Wilson. The story is that Wilson was a bad guy who needed to be brought down in order to keep him from sandbagging the Bush administration. Normally, we call that the perpetrator's "motive" for "the crime." Can you imagine a defense attorney lecturing a jury about how much his client wanted the victim out of the way? Even if Wilson were a bad guy, what does that have to do with Rove's decision to expose a CIA agent's identity?

Comments

[pdf23ds]

Lindsay, do you read Orincus? dneiwert.blogspot.com

The coming of fascism and all that. There are a few good essays about the way fascist states twist the truth around and such.

[Amanda]

If you think Republicans are, by definition, The Good Guys, the motivation is everything. Their supporters, after all, look the other way when we have torture in prisons because they supposedly have good motivations.

[The Great Beast]

Another case of IOKIYAR: It's Okay If You're a Republican.

Karl Rove is a traitor to his country.

Since the US is in a state of war (on terriers, I believe, but President Bush did call it a war) that means Hot Karl is up for the death penalty--doesn't it?

[R. Mildred]

technically only congress cna declare war, so far only bush has declared war (on pakistan and North korea for being despotic and having nuclear weapons if memory serves, wonder how that's turning out) so it's not a war technically.

It's more accurately a state funded roman occupation re-enactment, with realistic decimation, symbolic well poisoning, not to mention all the raping and pillaging american troops and affiliated civilan operators can manage.

Souveneir "Abu Ghraib is for Lovers" items are on sale at the gift shop.

[The Bulldog Manifesto]

On my blog, I've been discussing the similarities between 9/11 and the Reichstag fire, as well as, Joseph Goebbels and Karl Rove.

I'm not trying to say that republicans are nazis, but I am trying to show a correlation between neoconservatism, in its present form, and fascism in the Third Reich form.

[Humanity is Flawed]

First of all, there have been numerous reports from a variety of independent and international agencies concluding that although the treatment of SOME detainees was harsh, it did not constitute torture.

I am sure there are a few isolated examples of angry and stressed soldiers going too far, but the various "acts of torture" that are being bandied about it the press pale in comparison to the torture that was a fact of life for tens of thousands of Iraqis in the years under Saddam. Do a little research, and you may agree that applying electric shocks to people's genitals and gouging out their eyes is a better example of actual torture then putting panties on someones head and scaring them with a LEASHED dog.

You might not trust your own president, but you might trust Amnesty International. http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engMDE140082001?Open

p.s. Karl did not technically break any laws since Plame was not UNDERCOVER at the time, and could therefore not be "OUTED". She has not been undercover for more than 5 years, which exclude her from the laws you think Karl broke.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Who cares whether Rove broke the law? He destroyed a CIA operative's career, and compromised a 20-year legacy in WMD investigation . He sandbagged a key player in the GWOT for revenge.

[Mnemosyne]

p.s. Karl did not technically break any laws since Plame was not UNDERCOVER at the time, and could therefore not be "OUTED". She has not been undercover for more than 5 years, which exclude her from the laws you think Karl broke.

She was still undercover in 1999 when she listed her employer as Brewster-Jennings, which was a CIA front company.

I say "was" because Robert Novak published the name of the company, claiming Plame had used a fake company name, and the CIA was forced to admit it was one of their secret front companies.

So let's do a little math:

Plame undercover in 1999.
Name revealed in 2003.

That's four years. You may be surprised to hear that four is a smaller number than five.

However, Fitzgerald is apparently looking at prosecuting Rove under the Espionage Act, which has somewhat looser provisions. No time limit and only has to show that harm was done to the U.S.

I think shutting down a CIA front company that worked on WMDs is a pretty grave harm to the U.S., don't you think?

[Jason E.]

Well, let's see here... according to the Espionage Act of 1917 "Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it" is one of the many categories of espionage. Also, back in my security clearance days, it was routinely drilled into our heads that it was our responsibility to know if any information was classified, and if there was any doubt, assume it is. So, even in the most watered down of Rove's excuses, he at very least confirmed classified information, information which without too much of a stretch could be seen as an issue of national security since it involves information networks to gather data about WMD programs, that Novak guessed at or knew of through some other channel, as opposed to saying "I can neither confirm nor deny that" and calling the feds on Novak, which would be the usual thing to do if you're in possession of a security clearance and some non-cleared person suddenly spouts classified information at you. Whatever you do, you sure as hell don't say that you've heard about that, too.

[The Bulldog Manifesto]

"Technically break any laws"? Since when did this become the threshold standard for a presidential adviser?

Its not like he killed anybody, right? (actually, he may have) Give me a break!

The dude needs to be tossed so far out of the White House. At the best, he was grossly negligent.

Thats not good enough.

[Thad]

First of all, there have been numerous reports from a variety of independent and international agencies concluding that although the treatment of SOME detainees was harsh, it did not constitute torture.

Name one.

[Mnemosyne]

"Technically break any laws"? Since when did this become the threshold standard for a presidential adviser?

January 20, 2001.

[Mnemosyne]

Funny, Amnesty International doesn't seem to think the U.S. is a huge improvement over Saddam:

"Guantánamo and beyond: The continuing pursuit of unchecked executive power"

But of course our little troll friend is using the NABA defense: hey, if the U.S. is only 70% as bad as Saddam, what are the Iraqis complaining about?

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

First of all, there have been numerous reports from a variety of independent and international agencies concluding that although the treatment of SOME detainees was harsh, it did not constitute torture.

What kind of statement is that? More Republican-logic, I guess.

Basically, you're claiming that some reports said that some detainees were treated harshly but not tortured. We know that. We http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/cuba/12127293.htm>also know that SOME detainees have been http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact>tortured and that torture was and continues to be sanctioned at the highest levels of the US government.

If you don't think that the Abu Ghraib photos documented torture, you're also suffering from Republican moral relativism.

If you don't think that Alberto Gonzales' defense of "waterboarding" a ringing official endorsement of torture, you're just sick.

[vanmojo]

Normally, we call that the perpetrator's "motive" for "the crime." Can you imagine a defense attorney lecturing a jury about how much his client wanted the victim out of the way? Even if Wilson were a bad guy, what does that have to do with Rove's decision to expose a CIA agent's identity?

This would be true in any normal sense where the point of the exercise is to convince a nominally neutral group of people as to a particular truth.

But that's not the point of this exercise...

Sorry, this wasn't about convincing you or I (or probably anyone else who regularly swings in here) of Rove's rightness or innocence. This was all about keeping the Red Staters on board.

They already know that we are Godless, America-Hating, hell-bound heathen... they could care less about us.

No, if they think that Rove is going down, they need to keep the Mighty Wurlitzer spun up to 11 to make sure the correct rationalizations are parsed out in the Heartland so that when he is frogmarched for comitting numerous National Security felonies, his arrest will be greeted with a roil of partisan hatred by the GOP faithful, who will believe that Karl was acting with some sort of higher moral principle.

That's the goal of the exercise...

mojo sends

[Cameron]

I wonder why people think that it's impossible to be both a public employee of the CIA and a covert operative. This is not a movie--to be covert does not require a groucho nose-and-glasses.

[Fishbane]

to be covert does not require a groucho nose-and-glasses.

Given recent behaviour from On High, that might actually help.

[grip]

To: Humanity Is Flawed.

You may find this analysis of the Plame/Wilson/Rove situation interesting. http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011038.php

It refers to the fact that Mr. Wilson stated to Wolf Blitzer today that his wife was, "not a clandestine officer at the time Novak outed her," and it gives other interesting information about the timelines concerning this business--timelines indicated in Mr. Wilson's own book.

Also, be aware that posting anything here that refutes popular opinions here will only get you called a troll--or, on an exciting day, some juicy vulgar expletives.

Not only is Beyerstein omniscient...she also adheres to the adage of,
"the truth, while interesting, is irrelevant," as evidenced by her pugnacious adherence to her belief that the Killam documents in the Rathergate scandal were authentic even after they were publicly proved not to be.

Beyerstein says, "Who cares whether Rove broke the law?" Following the law to the letter (even in the case of suspect initial evidentiary hearings) is only important in situations like..say.. the Schiavo Case where it achieves the end that Ms. Beyerstein knows beyond certainty is the correct end.

Certainly, only Liberals are allowed MORAL outrage that the law itself might actually protect someone whose actions they question or disagree with.

Everyone knows that Democrats NEVER engage in dirty politics and NEVER do anything suspect.....like dead people who arising and voting Democrat in places like Cook County Illinois during the 1960 Presidential election.

Everyone (well everyone who is anyone) knows that unethical political behavior or a desire for revenge was invented by, is unique to, and exhibited ONLY by ReThuglicans.

"He destroyed a CIA operative's career, and compromised a 20-year legacy in WMD investigation. He sandbagged a key player in the GWOT for revenge."

Apparently Beyerstein not only knows everything that goes on inside the CIA, but is uniquely annointed with the ability to precisely discern Karl Rove's motives. Wow what talent!

Personally, I am astonished that Karl Rove did not know the name and position of every woman employed by the Federal Government; after all Bill Clinton did.

[R. Mildred]

so in four years, at least three intelligence operations have been fucked up by this admin (not to mention 9/11), one of which most likely led to the london bombings being allowed to happen.

last year I was worried that there would be coup and only declared repugs would get to vote, Now i'm worried about 4 more years of an admin that seem convinced to fuck up the actual war on terra as hard as possible will lead to them getting rid of the vote by getting rid of the cause of voting: voters.

[R. Mildred]

dude, don't bring up shit from the 1960's as though it's current, or is the repug party dropping the whole black outreach crap now?

Do morals have no connection to the sick and perverted things you are doing to those strawmen you have there?

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Grip, get off your high horse. Whether Rove violated the letter of the law is of great interest to the grand jury, but of little interest to me. It's the grand jury's job to determine whether he should be tried for a crime. It's the President's job to fire Karl Rove for fingering Valerie Plame.

Rove's supposed to be on our side, remember? He's also supposed to be a consummate professional. The slickest operator in a virtually leakproof administrative team, etc. He disgraced the administration. He admitted to dirty tricks. And now he has to go, because the President promised to fire the leaker.

It is not okay to reveal the identity of a CIA operative, or a former operative. It's not okay to compromise anyone connected to covert operations for frivolous political reasons.

It is no secret that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA for 20 years. Not anymore! That came out in Joe Wilson's book and the Vanity Fair article.

Because of Rove, it became public knowledge that Valerie Plame had worked undercover for many years. Since her cover hadn't been blown by anyone else, everyone she worked with probably still didn't know she was CIA. Everyone who ever worked with her is now either suspicious or under suspicion themselves. Rove's little stunt could get a lot of people killed, starting with the contacts Plame cultivated over the years within hostile regimes.

Why do you think he leaked that info, if not for revenge against Wilson? If it was an inadvertent slip or the tongue or loose gossip, he still deserves to be fired. Like Jason said, if you have security clearance, it's your responsibility to know what's classified and what isn't.

If you're an elite public servant, it's your job to exercise sound judgment in the service of the greater good.

Rove deserves to be publicly condemned as a traitor and fired. I'll let the grand jury worry about whether he should also be tried for violating the law.

[Herbert Browne]

.."Do a little research, and you may agree that applying electric shocks to people's genitals and gouging out their eyes is a better example of actual torture then putting panties on someones head and scaring them with a LEASHED dog.."--
Leashed, not muzzled, my dog is capable (and perhaps willing) to remove your genitalia, whether you are clothed or not- and putting panties on your head may be a cue for the Second bite...
^..^

[Thad]

I am sure there are a few isolated examples of angry and stressed soldiers going too far, but the various "acts of torture" that are being bandied about it the press pale in comparison to the torture that was a fact of life for tens of thousands of Iraqis in the years under Saddam.

I'm not sure why all the trolls and freepers seem to think that "America: Still Not Quite As Bad As Saddam Hussein" is such an inspirational slogan.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Humanity, if electrodes on the genitals your gold standard of torture, do a little more research on that http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR511452004>Amnesty International site you linked to:

Then [the guard] brought a box of food and he made me stand on it, and he started punishing me. Then a tall black soldier came and put electrical wires on my fingers and toes and on my penis, and I had a bag over my head. Then he was saying ‘which switch is on for electricity?’ Iraqi detainee, Abu Ghraib prison, 16 January 2004

If unmuzzled hounds are your sine qua non, here's more from the same AI report:

Interviewed for the Taguba investigation, a soldier from the 229th Military Police Company deployed to Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq recalled an incident involving a military intelligence (MI) officer and a military dog (K-9) handler:

"The MI stated to the K-9 handler to allow the dog into the cell as a method of obtaining information. The dog would go into the cell for about a minute and then MI would call them out. I saw the dog during this strike the detainee. The detainee was bound and could not move, and the K-9 handler would allow the K-9 to approach within inches his face, and one time the dog bit the detainee’s arm. When I saw the detainee later it appeared the detainee was bitten multiple times… During the time I was in the cell the detainee never resisted. The MI was calling the dog into the cell as a scare tactic to gather information."(133)

The Taguba report found that the "intentional abuse of detainees" in Abu Ghraib included "using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee".

[mudkitty]

It is amazing. It's the "they deserved it" defense. As in kindergarten...