Why is the media so obsessed with Karl Rove? Is it because he engineered the defeat of their favored candidates in two separate elections? 
From ABC News
New unreleased e-mails from top administration officials show that the idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys was raised by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove in early January 2005, indicating Rove was more involved in the plan than the White House previously acknowledged. The e-mails also show how Alberto Gonzales discussed the idea of firing the attorneys en masse while he was still White House counsel — weeks before he was confirmed as attorney general.
The e-mails put Rove at the epicenter of the imbroglio and raise questions about Gonzales'
SO WHAT?!!!
There's nothing wrong with discussing this. It would only be an issue if Rove put pressure on any of those attorneys to prosecute for political purposes or fired them for not doing so, and there's no evidence that he did, so why don't you left-wing media types wait for some facts to come out, before you go convicting this poor guy a second time for something that he had nothing to do with?
Thursday, March 15, 2007
I don't get it.....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
Clinton fires all ninety-three attorneys; it's a non-issue.
Bush fires six; it's a conspiracy.
/sigh
Bush intended to fire all of them...he ended up firing 6.
Every President tends to clean house at the beginning of their term, including the U.S. Attorney's office.
What's interesting about this scandal, is that Pres. Bush is cleaning house at the end of his term, firing the very people he hired.
BTW...the only reason this is a scandal is because of HOW the firings occurred. Once again, the President's attempts to thwart the Separation of Powers doctrine comes in to focus. This time, for attempting to covertly do what used to be done overtly, through a little-known rider attached to the re-authorization of the Patriot Act.
I guess Presidents never learn that the cover-up is often worse than the crime. Well, with the exception of Iran-Contra where both were equally despicable.
Forgot to mention my favorite line:
"Only 27% think there is a civil war in Iraq, compared with 61% who do not, according to the survey carried out last month."
Hmmm..so whether a war is occurring is now determined by polling! Wow...technology...awesome.
WTF
sorry...posted the last comment on wrong blog...if you can fix it Mr. Panda, I'd greatly appreciate that...belongs in the "no civil war in Iraq, but lots of Freedom" blog.
I kind of agree with you David, this cover up seems to be the issue, but going after Rove appears to be nothing short of a witch hun.t
As far as Iran Contra goes, while the way administration offcials acted in order to fund the Nicaraguan anti-communist rebels, was wrong, their instincts were right.
The cowardly democratic congress always balked at fighting communism, even as it creeped closer to our borders.
So while the secrecy and the cover up were the problems, the morality of the actual concept is debatable.
In an interesting twist, I am disappointed that we do not attempt to affect change through targeted covert assassinations of key foreign political figures.
I'm sure none of my democratic friends would agree (and if they do now, it's only b/c they are blinded by their hatred of the war in Iraq), but I think that such types of operations could help us to protect ourselves better, encourage regime change when it is in our national interest to do so.
I think you know that my opposition to the war in Iraq has never been based upon silly leftist propaganda. War is necessary, war can be justified. I just am not convinced that this one has helped up become safer, or is otherwise in our national interest. I think, in fact, it has done just the opposite.
I also really really don't care about Iraqis or Iraqi civilians, but if you are going to sacrifice the lives of my fellow citizens, you better have a damn good reason and it better be a last resort. I don't think either test has been met in this case.
Post a Comment