Potential Bush Impeachment?

PapaG · Post by **PapaG** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 11:53 am

Bay Area Cat wrote:It is a change in the White House position, and it is clearly a carefully worded statement to establish the level of misdeeds that have to occur in order for somebody to be fired for this leak (whoever that might be...). It would be more comforting if the White House wasn't proactively qualifying things to this degree. I would hope that any level of wrong-doing, criminal or otherwise, would warrant dismissal.

You are wrong on this. The AP reporter who put out this information either can't do a simple google search (which I did), or he knows there are still those gullible enough to believe what the media says without any reservations.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 12:10 pm

Bush has said both things in the past. He has said he would fire the leaker without the qualification of the criminal act, and he has also made statements that didn't include the qualification. The most recent statements, however, are very pointed in including the qualification. I have googled these as well, and saw a handful of statements that he made at different times, some including the criminal qualification and some not.

This is one with the qualification from the White House website:

Q Given -- given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?

THE PRESIDENT: That's up to --

Q And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 10-36.html

And regardless whether one thinks this is a change in position, I still find it unfortunate that Bush feels compelled to qualify the criminal piece now. I would hope any wrong-doing, criminal or not, would result in somebody being fired. It definitely seems to me that they are being very careful to make sure the "criminal" piece is included now whereas it wasn't necessarily included before. Does this make any difference? I don't personally think so. The problem is that it IS included now. It shouldn't be. That shouldn't be the benchmark of whether or not somebody is employed by the most powerful man in the world.

I fully agree with the gullible part -- which is why I am so frustrated that the GOP talking points have been so fully internalized by many that the dialouge has drifted away from the simple questions about whether or not Rove did something wrong, and if so, what will happen to him. Instead we hear endless rants on the radio villifying the CIA agent and her husband. This seems to me to be the classic smear campaigns of the Clinton era intended to just distract the partisans from the real issues.

PapaG · Post by **PapaG** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 12:19 pm

This seems to me to be the classic smear campaigns of the Clinton era intended to just distract the partisans from the real issues.

This isn't a real issue. Every major news organization is allocating resources to smear Karl Rove before the investigation results are even released. The GOP is allocating resources to smear Wilson and releasing statements because the major media won't report their side of this side issue.

If you think this is a 'real issue', I might suggest you've been living in the Bay Area a bit long. It is a partisan issue (both sides) to the core. I just like to correct glaring omissions on either side.

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 12:38 pm

PapaG wrote:This isn't a real issue. Every major news organization is allocating resources to smear Karl Rove before the investigation results are even released.

In what way is any news organization "smearing" Karl Rove? Does merely reporting the story at all constitute "smearing" him? Should the media just keep absolutely quiet about this until the investigation is complete?

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 12:43 pm

I honestly haven't noticed the smear rhetoric against Rove, so maybe I have just been fortunate to have avoided that garbage. The articles I read just lay out what is known about whether or not he leaked info about the agent, where it came from, etc., etc. Those seem like valid questions that need to be answered. If he would have come clean on exactly what happened from the start, avoiding this whole investigation, then we'd all have the information in hand and this speculation wouldn't be ongoing.

I don't fully buy the argument that the GOP has a hard time getting their message out via the MSM. Every word Bush says is reported instantly, along with everything else that any top GOP person says. If Rove wanted to explain exactly what happened to the American public, he would get plenty of chances to do so. The GOP doesn't have to resort to attack campaigns on the "victims" (term used lightly as no real harm came to them) to overcome any kind of gag placed on pro-administration opinions by the media. They resorted to those methods because they rally the troops and take attention away from the central questions that need to be answered. Like I said before, they learned a lot from the Clinton years.

I agree that some on the left probably are using this for political leverage (the partisanship runs both ways, and I hate it on both sides). Fortunately, I'm not exposed to them all that much, so I'm not aware of what is being said in that regard. I've just tried to focus on reading about factual materials as they come out.

What I have been exposed to, however (thanks to both this site and the talk radio that hits my ears until I can't stand their venomous partisanship anymore), is the coordinated GOP chairman attacks on Wilson and wife. I don't think that should be the role of the GOP party -- they should be just as interested in rooting out wrong behavior as anyone else. The same goes for the DNC when one of theirs potentially messed up. This blind loyalty to party members is a bad thing for the country -- people seem to be placing party over country, and that really scares me (and although it is not necessarily a new thing, it does seem to be more intense lately).

PapaG · Post by **PapaG** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 4:46 pm

This blind loyalty to party members is a bad thing for the country -- people seem to be placing party over country, and that really scares me (and although it is not necessarily a new thing, it does seem to be more intense lately).

I agree with this 100%. Right about now would be a good time for a 3rd party that is socially tilted a bit liberal, financially leaning conservative, militarily more isolationist (and then I wake up to the fact this is a pipedream), and that actually tries to get a handle on border security.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 6:57 pm

Get the ball rolling, and I'll sign up!

If only Libertarians had a real chance of winning an election....

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:07 am

To bad Perot turned out to be crazier than a sh!!t house rat.

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 10:56 am

Everyone knows that Rove is a sleaze bag and that is why he is so successful. What bothers me, however, is that Bush is so stupid as to align himself so closely to him. It is one thing to have these types behind the scenes but he shouldn’t be known as your best friend and closest confidant. Otherwise, we can only surmise that Bush too has no morals. But, like Scrushy, he is a Christian and therefore he can’t really be a bad person and should not be punished.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:06 am

The Frontline episode I saw about Rove had several people that knew him talking about his religious life, and say that he never really gave them the impression that he is particularly religious or even particularly ideological. He just likes to win at any cost. Being flexible ideologically is probably the perfect background for a master strategy guy as it allows one to think outside of the box a bit and simply push buttons that you know will get the victory without regard as to whether you are doing the right or wrong thing.

I would guess that he could work for a liberal Democrat and be just as effective. He's just a talented guy (in the black arts of dirty politics).

Bush is probably loyal to him simply because he wouldn't have won a single election without him. Anybody who can discredit both McCain and Kerry in elections as being inferior in military matters to Bush is a genius, pure and simple.

mquast53000 · Post by **mquast53000** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:14 am

Rove has been with the Bush family for a long time. He helped get Bush Sr. the Governor gig in Texas. Before that the governors of Texas were always Democrats. He has aligned himself with the Bush family and I think that the family realizes that Rove is very responsible for their family’s successes in the political world. Rove knows politics and he is a major asset to the Bush family. The Democrats are gunning hard for Rove because he is so accomplished.

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 1:18 pm

I saw a cartoon today that had Bush back peddling saying, “I’ll fire anyone who disclosed the name of a CIA operative and committed a crime, and has a full head of thick, curly hair. Rove is standing next to him completely confident with his shiny dome.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 9:19 am

More information comes trickling in:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 17_pf.html

Interesting to note for HB -- the state department memo indicates that even they didn't believe the Niger uranium story ... so apparently Wilson was right in the eyes of that department.

This probably isn't news that you will receive from Rush this morning, so I thought I better pass it along.

Whoever leaked the information about Plame must be fired. A message must be sent that this kind of philosophy that places cheap shot politics over national security must end right now.

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 10:39 am

I DIDN’T REALLY THINK THAT ROVE WAS RELIGIOUS. I WAS JUST BEING A SMART ALECK SINCE IT SEEMS THAT ALL YOU NEED TO DO THESE DAYS IS CLAIM TO BE CHRISTIAN AND YOU CANNOT BE CONVICTED. BUSH HIMSELF GETS A LOT OF MILEAGE WITH THAT. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO VOTE FOR HIM FOR THAT VERY REASON; HE IS A PROCLAIMED CHRISTIAN AND GOD PROBABLY DOES TALK TO HIM! ROVE CAN CALL HIMSELF WHATEVER HE WANTS BUT HE IS AMORAL UNDER ANY TITLE.
IT IS AMAZING THAT THEY KEEP REMINDING US TO SUPPORT THE TROOPS WHO ARE GIVING THEIR LIVES FOR US IN IRAQ BUT THEN THEY PUT AT RISK SOMEONE IN THE SECRET SERVICE AND WE ARE SUPPOSED TO GET A CHUCKLE OUT OF THIS.

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 10:47 am

The goods news is that US GIs aren't getting killed in Iraq nowadays. It seems like ever since the word got out, the Army and Marines aren't lauching any new offensives and there is talk that it will be all over in a couple of months. Even though some of today's headlines say that the Iraqis aren't ready to defend themselves. The media is also saying that they are working out some sort of agreement that allows the three sections of the country to enjoy some sort of independence. Which means that when we pull out they will implode and the next real mess will start. The south goes to Iran, the north gets attacked by Turkey, and the middle turn back into the old Iraq.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 11:22 am

Thank you for turning off the cap locks ... my ears were ringing after the previous post.

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 1:42 pm

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8619749/

The graph about why blowing someone's cover after the fact answers some posters responses.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 11:00 am

More news that doesn't jive with the radio talking heads' script. Granted, this article is from Bloomberg, which is probably biased by its uber-liberal editorial positions:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... 8&refer=us

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 11:29 am

Who knows? This may just fade away, but it certainly will get much more interesting before it does. It was a prevalent subject on the cable networks (MSNBC, CNN, FOX) last night. FOX, for some reason, seemed to be spending the least amount of time on it.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 11:39 am

My only real hope from this whole debacle is that the culture of abuse of power and information used to smear percieved political enemies will be exposed. If that happens, then maybe the practice will simmer down a bit in D.C. and maybe eventually people will have the opportunity to think about political things from a factual perspective again as opposed to being constantly subjected to talking points BS from both parties (designed to distract from the real issues as opposed to providing any honest information on a topic).

I know it's a long shot, but it can't hurt. Anytime a political assassin goes down, we get one step closer to some semblance of intellectually honest debate on issues.