The Karl Rove scandal continues to expand and become more damaging with each passing day. Rove's supporters are blissfully unaware that they are associating themselves and their political movement with a man and an operation that has intentionally and purposefully conferred great benefit on Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and the terrorists who killed thousands on 9-11.
The scandal swirling around Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and the GOP continues to expand and become more damaging with each passing day. As they continue to cling to Karl Rove as if he is some kind of savior, they are blissfully unaware that they are associating themselves and their political movement with a man and an operation that has intentionally and purposefully conferred great benefit on Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, and the terrorists who killed thousands on 9-11.…
Article comments
26 - andy marsh
mjh says that my country was started by terrorists...I'm trying to find ANYWHERE in the history of the colonies that colonists targeted innocent civilians in there efforts towards freedom...or better yet, there efforts towards democracy...anyone care to help me out here???
27 - Dave Nalle
>>mjh says that my country was started by terrorists...I'm trying to find ANYWHERE in the history of the colonies that colonists targeted innocent civilians in there efforts towards freedom...or better yet, there efforts towards democracy...anyone care to help me out here???<<
Sorry Andy, they did. There were lynchings, tar and featherings, house burnings and general intimidation of loyalist civilians during the 1770s. The Sons of Liberty were responsible for most of it. They WERE terrorists by technique, and deserve no forgiveness for their methods. There's a reason why Sam Adams never got anywhere politically. They do get a break historically because they were on the side of right in the larger sense - like the IRA - but their methods were still unacceptable.
Dave
28 - andy marsh
I stand corrected...thanks Dave.
29 - Ray Medley
Why is Elliot Abrams on the WH staff? Bush's statements about having to be convicted of a crime before dismissal is about average for his IQ, but why has no one pointed out that he already has a convicted criminal on his staff---pardoned, true, but still convicted.
For the life of me, I do not understand how the main stream media can bow down to this reprehensible administration of liars.
Ray Medley
Stone Mountain, GA
30 - Nancy
I have to agree on Sandy Berger; I don't care which party he's with, or who he is; stealing documents from the National Archives is a felony deserving of a hell of a lot more than a fine & getting his library pass suspended. He should be doing hard time for felony theft of federal property.
31 - Anthony (my country was not founded by terrorists) Grande
The Loyalists that were killed were not innocent citizens. They aided the British, they told the Brits where American Militia camps were and who was in them (watch the patriot). The militias in tern had to intimidate them.
The American's did not blow up little girls.
The American's had no choice to rebel against the Brits. The Brits were stealing our resources and taxing the hell out of us when we bought their products. The Brits killed women and children who's husbands were in the militia. They also killed women who were treating the wounded Americans. The Americans fought for a democracy while the terrorists fight for a dictatorship.
The people of Iraq are not being taken over and oppressed like the Americans were. We are not even taken oil from Iraq or any of their resources let alone tax them. We are just standing by protecting their developing democratic government.
After the Revolution all the loyalists fled to Canada. George Washington then invited them to come back and get free land. Talk about a terrorist tyrant.
32 - Billy Braindeath
For the life of me, I do not understand how the main stream media can bow down to this reprehensible administration of liars.
Because they know that we never get anything but an administration of liars, because politicians are liars and hire liars because liars have the mental flexibility to get the job done.
As for the Bush administration, they get a break from the media because they're liars who are willing to play along and help the media make money. The media is a business first and a service to the public a distant second.
After the Revolution all the loyalists fled to Canada. George Washington then invited them to come back and get free land. Talk about a terrorist tyrant.
Actually, the Continental Congress seized all the loyalist land and sold it at auction to land speculators, most of whom were involved in the government. They then told loyalists who returned tha they would not be persecuted and would be allowed to claim unoccupied land on the indian frontier in the west the same offer they made to any immigrant during the post-war period.
BB
33 - mjh
"The American's had no choice to rebel against the Brits. The Brits were stealing our resources and taxing the hell out of us when we bought their products. The Brits killed women and children who's husbands were in the militia. They also killed women who were treating the wounded Americans. The Americans fought for a democracy while the terrorists fight for a dictatorship."
Perhaps you are not aware of the bunker-busting bombs that killed innocent Iraqi's during the first Gulf war. Perhaps you are not aware that the U.S. government militarily removed the first democratically elected government in the Middle East (Iran). The innocent casualties of the invasion and occupation of Iraq have been estimated as high as 100,000. More than all of the people who were killed during the entire reign of Saddam Hussein. This is liberation! I think that the parallels between your own history and what has taken place are a lot closer than what you might care to think. The sooner that you recognize that the terrorist attacks represent a response to U.S. foreign policy, the sooner you will have recognized the path to a genuine security. Recent intelligence in the UK has suggested that there is a direct link between the involvement of Britain in the Iraq war and the recent bombings there.
"The people of Iraq are not being taken over and oppressed like the Americans were. We are not even taken oil from Iraq or any of their resources let alone tax them. We are just standing by protecting their developing democratic government."
The Iraqis consider the Americans an occupation force, not a liberation force. You must also be careful for what you ask for, a truly democratic Iraq may elect a government with resources and intentions that are a far greater threat to western security than anything that Saddam could muster. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, the weapons inspections worked and revealed no WMD. As the Downing Street memos revealed, the Bush administration had every intention of invading Iraq no matter what the intelligence truly revealed.
One news report that you may not be aware of was the murder by U.S. troops of the nephew of the Iraqi ambassador to the U.S. The young man escorted US soldiers into a room to show the soldiers where the single weapon, an unloaded rifle, was kept in the house. A short time later, the young man was dead.
I'm not condoning anything that Bin Laden or any other militant group does but I do recognize that this is a response to decades long Middle East policy that is primarily designed to secure access to cheap oil. The war was initiated long ago by Americans and America has fared remarkably well in this war, in contrast to Arabs throughout the Middle East. When you start a war, you can't expect the enemy to follow your rules on how wars should be fought. Their approach, what you are calling terrorism, could be considered another form of combat and one that is much more successful than any armed confrontation against the US military. Wars have casualties. When wars take place, innocent civilians are invariably caught in the crossfire. Although it is possible that the outcome of this invasion may be positive, in the form of a secular and democratic nation arising from the ashes of Iraq, the ends do not justify the means and it is a no-brainer that this is going to generate far more radical western-hating Arabs that are willing to sacrifice their lives to punish the West for their manipulation of the Middle East.
Finally, why, when all of the terrorists could be tracked back to Saudi Arabia, was Saudi Arabia never threatened? This has nothing to do with terrorism. It has nothing to do with liberation and the institution of democracy. The motives lay elsewhere and are not entirely clear at this point. While Saddam was certainly a barbarian, there are no shortage of them in the world. Africa for example. No American intervention there-no resources there. Coincidence?
34 - Dave Nalle
>>The innocent casualties of the invasion and occupation of Iraq have been estimated as high as 100,000.<<
Estimates actually go as high as around 200,000, but like your 100,000 figure they are grossly innacurate. An accurate count is closer to 30,000, and that includes deaths from terrorists after the conclusion of the active military operations. Those killed by US forces can reasonably be estimated to be under 10,000.
>>More than all of the people who were killed during the entire reign of Saddam Hussein.<<
Even your 100,000 figure is substantially lower than the estimated 500,000 killed by Saddam's mismanagement of Iraqi food resources and misdirection of funds from the oil for food program alone.
Dave
35 - Anthony Grande
>>More than all of the people who were killed during the entire reign of Saddam Hussein.<<
You need to look stuff up before you just throw figures around, which are a 100% false.
In fact there is no credibility in comment #33.
"Finally, why, when all of the terrorists could be tracked back to Saudi Arabia, was Saudi Arabia never threatened?"
If you lived in Tuscon, then moved to Miami, where you killed twelve people, should the house in Tuscon(occupied by new family) be raided instead of the house in Miami???
What would our troops do in S.A.??? Kill the terrorist's family??? While the entire network of Al Queda is laughing from their headquarters in Afghanistan. I am glad you are not president.
>>Their approach, what you are calling terrorism, could be considered another form of combat and one that is much more successful than any armed confrontation against the US military.<<
I suppose that blowing up little girls in just another form of combat??? No, it sounds more like terrorism.
>>Africa for example. No American intervention there-no resources there. Coincidence?<<
What resources have we gained by invading Iraq??? Saddam is the only Barbarian that has proved to be very dangerous to his neighbors. And we overthrew him and not a dictator in Africa. Coincidence???
>>The Iraqis consider the Americans an occupation force, not a liberation force. You must also be careful for what you ask for, a truly democratic Iraq may elect a government with resources and intentions that are a far greater threat to western security than anything that Saddam could muster.<<
How do you know what Iraqis think??? Were you there??? My brother and several cousins were. They have stories and pictures of them playing with kids in the streets (mostly soccer
). They also say that they at least 75% of Iraqis love them and some even cheer them as they pass by.
The Iraqi people have already voted for a democratic system. And even in the future if the Iraqis elect an oppressive dictatorship so be it, but if this new dictator make a Saddam like attempt at gaining weapons of mass destruction or ivades a neighbor then he will also be dealt with.
36 - Dave Nalle
Wow, I missed this one...
>>Africa for example. No American intervention there-no resources there. Coincidence?<<
Yeah, there's no oil in Nigeria or diamonds in Rhodesia. No reason to look for resouces on THAT continent.
How can you be so ignorant?
Dave
37 - Jim Jallos
Regarding moving the goal posts - or so says the media who wants it their way no matter what.
Sept 30 2003 -- Pres. Bush "If there is a leak out of my administration I want to know who it is and if the person has VIOLATED LAW (for all those not understanding these words we have a first grade reader available)that person will be taken care of".
Terry Hunt asked the question recently and he , Mr. Hunt, attempted to change the bar by his manipulating and incorrectly reviewing what Pres. Bush had said on 09/30/2003 as compared to July 18 2005 when Mr Hunt asked "Regardless of whether a crime was committed do you still intend to fire anyone involved in the CIA leak case". Evidently Mr. Hunt did not review the President's statement or purposely skewed the question or attempted with his question to raise, lower or bend the bar.
Bush did not yield to the word "regardless" but stuck to his early statement when he replied "We have a serious investigation here and it's being played out in the press and I think its best the people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions and I will do so as well. I dont know all the facts and I want to know all the facts and the best way for the facts to be done is by someone spending time investigating it. I would like this to end as quickly as possibleso we know the facts and if someone commited a crime (he used violated law in his first statement and I believe when you violate the law you have commited a crime DAAAAAA)they will no longer work in my administration.
Is mr. Hunt through? No he now goes and asks this question at the press briefing " The preident seem to, ah, raise the bar and ad a qualifier today when discussing whether or not anybody would be dismissed for the leak of a CIA officers name in which he said that if someone has commited a crime they would no longer work in this administation. That has NEVER BEEN PART OF THE STANDARD BEFORE why is that ADDED NOW?".
Mr. Hunt's attempts to be cute are either a lack of honest journalism or rather an abundance of dishonesty in reporting the facts. Bush said clearly the level was "VIOLATED LAW" in his first remarks and "COMMITED A CRIME" in his second answer. There is no change in the STANDARD or anything ADDED Mr. Hunt its merely a case of lousy reporting of the statements made, the case of being extremely lazy or having some evil agenda.
38 - randy
"First, you're assuming facts not in evidence, namely, that Libby, Rove, et al did the leaking (as Cooper claims) rather than Cooper and Novak (as the White House claims)."
Since when do reporters leak government information to the government? It started as government information - some one in government leaked it to the first reporter.