Karl Rove

Why is it that Karl Rove can get away with leaking a CIA operative's name (okay, just the name of her husband and that she is a CIA operative - a sin of omission if you ask me), and still have a job and ride on the president's helicopter??

He's the devil incarnate if you ask me. The orchestrator of all things sneaky that have gone on, and the puppeteer of W for most of his presidency. He should be fired - and publicly strung up. Even if only for the amount of $ and time that has been spent trying to identify the leak -- if they thought he was safe, they should have outed him from the beginning. It seems to me that Republicans are just better organized at running scandals and making mountains out of molehills. Democrats really seem to lack the killer instinct and let things go before "someone" has to pay.

No one died when Clinton lied (I love that bumper sticker). Rove put Plame in danger, and ruined a career.

How do you guys feel about his actions?

I think Bush should stick to his guns on his "leakers will be fired" statement. You don't need to commit a crime to get fired.

[DCJenn]

I think it's hilarious that no one here has let the Rove thing die. I think he's a slimy evil bastid and I have said all along that eventually he'd screw up and do something to crumble the house of cards...excuse the pun. (Andrew Card...haha)

Jenn

Re: Karl Rove

He's the devil incarnate if you ask me. The orchestrator of all things sneaky that have gone on, and the puppeteer of W for most of his presidency. He should be fired - and publicly strung up. Even if only for the amount of $ and time that has been spent trying to identify the leak -- if they thought he was safe, they should have outed him from the beginning. It seems to me that Republicans are just better organized at running scandals and making mountains out of molehills. Democrats really seem to lack the killer instinct and let things go before "someone" has to pay.



How do you guys feel about his actions?

I agree completely. You couldn't have said it better. He will probably get a slap on the wrist and the administration will evade and postpone the issue until something bigger comes along to cover it up.

[Meenah]

Fire him, then burn him at the stake!!! He is as evil as George W. I thing George W. knew it was him all along.
Luanne

[SueC]

Yep, he needs to go. The whole thing sickens me. I was reading yesterday that many of the "terrorists" in Iraq that we are currently fighting were not motivated to come to Iraq and join with rebel forces until after we got over there. The fact that Bush et. al. has spent so much time and money (our money!) orchestrating our involvement over there and covering their tracks is so infuriating. I guess the issue at hand is the CIA leak, but I think he has done so much more than that.

[Rapunzel]

Hmmmm.... I feel like this is one of those things that none of us truly knows all the details on. I do think that it sounds like Rove did something unethical but probably not illegal. Huh, I wonder who else in politics has done unethical things that fall just shy of being illegal? Surely not Democrats and surely not Democrats in "high" places and surely not Democratic presidents. (BTW There's still a lot of questions regarding Vince Foster's death not to mention a woman or two who has allegedly been raped by someone we won't mention).

Does Bush need to fire Rove? If Rove committed a crime then YES. If keeping Rove on hurts more than helps Bush he will also most likely fire the guy.

How do I personally feel about Rove? I don't have any personal feelings for the guy. It would appear a lot of you DO have very strong personal feelings against the man. But, then again I don't really have strong personal negative feelings for very many people in politics with the notable exceptions of Bill and Hillary Clinton (aka Macbeth and Lady Macbeth - my personal "nicknames" for that duo ).

Jennifer

I do think that it sounds like Rove did something unethical but probably not illegal.

Again - the line is so blurred that it cannot be seen. He'll be able to stay on a technicality, and that is infuriating.

Huh, I wonder who else in politics has done unethical things that fall just shy of being illegal? Surely not Democrats and surely not Democrats in "high" places and surely not Democratic presidents.

Agreed - but back to part of my original point, it always seems like the Republicans are more effective at making more of these things. The DeLay scandel, which would have probably caused a Dem to resign, is barely a blip these days, Cheney and Halliburton, Rove and Plame .... it's like nothing sticks to these guys!

[DCJenn]

I don't know, he managed to make the front page of the Post today. Next to the Supreme Court todo.

Jenn

[Rapunzel]

I think the Republicans and the Democrats are neck-and-neck at being able to ride the line between illegal and "just" unethical. For every event from one side I can think of something comparable instigated by the other side. I hate politics and I hate Democrats and Republicans (which are, in my view, the same people with the same priorities and just different nametags).

I don't consider Bush evil. It doesn't mean I agree with everything he has done. In fact, some of the major things he's implemented I really abhor. BUT, when I consider the term "evil" I don't think someone who ousted the Taliban out of Afghanistan qualifies. "Evil" to me is someone who rapes and murders. I'm sure there is some American politician out there that has managed to earn the moniker "Evil" but it's not Bush.

Karl Rove IS under heavy attack from the printed press (big surprise). I do think the guy did something unethical it would appear. But, this is really about "payback" for Rove helping Bush primarily in election campaigns. There are tons of Democrats frothing at the mouth over the guy since the last election campaign. See moveon.org for those loons. Anyway, Rove has been public enemy number one for quite a while for Democrats and THAT is why he's on the radar. I mean, good grief! Like we can't find PLENTY of donkeys that haven't done similar things.

Jennifer

[Vanquisher]

Had to check that this was in the dabates forum before I posted anything! Ha!

Bush is evil. He is a war criminal. I can't believe he got elected again.

Getting a blow job in the oval office and lying about it (and who wouldn't lie about it, really) isn't nearly as unethical and purely evil to me as invading nations under false pretenses ( what weapons of mass destruction?) killing thousands of people, on "their" side and "ours" and asking for over 100 billion dollars to do it with.

Also, using your own relgious, moral compass to screw with millions of people is not something I admire. Can we please try to save people with stem cells, or, oh, that's right the conservative religious zealousness of the Pres says, ummm, nope. And while we're at it, lets have a Constitutional ammendment that says people who love each other, if they are the same sex, can't get married, because after all, what's next, people marrying alligators? So freaking what? If you want to marry an alligator that's fine with me.

Civil rights and liberties are dying.

I need an amendment that says no more Bushes in the White House!

I agree completely that neither Democrats nor Republicans can lay claim to having the most unethical players -- it's too close to call! However, I don't think that should minimize that Karl Rove went too far (IMO) and should resign to "spend more time with his family."

Bush is evil. He is a war criminal. I can't believe he got elected again.

Getting a blow job in the oval office and lying about it (and who wouldn't lie about it, really) isn't nearly as unethical and purely evil to me as invading nations under false pretenses

Civil rights and liberties are dying.

AGREED.

FYI It is illegal to knowingly reveal the identity of an undercover CIA agent.

[Rapunzel]

Had to check that this was in the dabates forum before I posted anything! Ha!

Bush is evil. He is a war criminal. I can't believe he got elected again.

Ummm.... You seem to forget that Clinton, Kerry, the United Nations, and pretty much all of the Western world believed the same intelligence information that Bush had when we entered Iraq. But, somehow Bush is a "war criminal"? Riiiiiiiight. He's been allowing the military to kill too many suicide bombers I suppose? Actually, using the above reasoning, we must conclude that Clinton is a "war criminal" as well since he originally had the pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan bombed based upon less intelligence than Bush had when entering Iraq. The jury for the correctness of that bombing is still out. Additionally I think there are more than a few people involved in the Serbian conflict that might regard a U.S. President who sent in troops to defend the other side that might call him a "war criminal" - which would be ridiculous but follows the reasoning presented above. It should be a crime to bandy about the term "war criminal" without really understanding the meaning of the term.

Getting a blow job in the oval office and lying about it (and who wouldn't lie about it, really) isn't nearly as unethical and purely evil to me as invading nations under false pretenses ( what weapons of mass destruction?) killing thousands of people, on "their" side and "ours" and asking for over 100 billion dollars to do it with.

a) See above (ie the difference between "false pretenses" and "lack of adequate intelligence") and b) I suppose you are against Nixon's impeachment as well based on the above reasoning? There's a tad more to Clinton's "problems" than his perjury (and, as a lawyer, he knew what perjury was and how the President committing open perjury would harm the office itself). But, people have short memories....

Also, using your own relgious, moral compass to screw with millions of people is not something I admire.

I see, so it boils down to your hatred for his religious beliefs? That is what a lot of people on the far end of the political spectrum seem to have a problem with. Religion and the persecution of those who have a strong religious belief system seems to be increasingly popular in some circles.

Can we please try to save people with stem cells, or, oh, that's right the conservative religious zealousness of the Pres says, ummm, nope. And while we're at it, lets have a Constitutional ammendment that says people who love each other, if they are the same sex, can't get married, because after all, what's next, people marrying alligators? So freaking what? If you want to marry an alligator that's fine with me.

Again, it boils down to the fact that you don't like it if people have religious beliefs. Anyone in the U.S. can get married. But, you can't call marriage what it isn't - just like calling the sky the ocean or blue the color yellow "ain't gonna make it so".

Civil rights and liberties are dying.

Actually, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are dying.

I need an amendment that says no more Bushes in the White House!

That kind of directly conflicts with your statement above about "civil rights dying". Specifically forbidding one particular person or family from running for president because you have a personal dislike for them is the very definition of violating someone's "rights".

Going back to the above: Part of the reason so many people (myself included) get annoyed by the rant that "Bush is a 'War Criminal'" and that "he lied" is twofold: 1) If Bush "lied" then there were a heck of a lot of people all over the world and among the Democrats that "lied" as well (and that would imply some ridiculous "plot" among players such as the United Nations and Clinton among many others in order to get the U.S. into Iraq) and 2) there is a profound difference between "lying" and acting on incorrect or insufficient information. If the Democrats were upset that he acted on too little information then I would buy that argument perhaps - I'd at the very least seriously entertain the idea. But, instead you get this hysterical, illogical screaming that is just nonsensical in it's ignorance of recent events.

I'm assuming the "war criminal" rant is coming from Iraq since I'd hope everyone here would consider it a GOOD thing the Taliban was ousted in Afghanistan (especially since most of us here are women). But, Bush is "evil" so we conveniently forget that he was a major player in that event. Love that selective reasoning.


Jennifer

BTW Those of you who term Bush a "war criminal" because we ousted Saddam Hussein in Iraq: Does this mean we need to re-instate Saddam as rightful, illegally-ousted leader of his nation? If Bush, is, in fact a war criminal it would follow that whomever he ousted he did so wrongfully and that leader needs to be given back their leadership. Think about that for a moment.

[Rapunzel]

Now, back to the topic:

If Karl Rove did something illegal then the guy needs to be prosecuted (and, that would imply he would be fired alongside that action). But, if we're going to be labeling him "evil" then we have to label pretty much everyone in Congress (left, right, and upside down) "evil". Consistancy in logic is what I desire here. I suspect many here think Rove is "evil" simply because of his affiliation with the Republican party. Come on, people! That soooo smacks of brain-washing. It would be like me calling, oh, I don't know, James Carville "evil" because he is affiliated with the Democratic party.

Aside from this, the above logic that someone who may have committed a crime is "evil" does two things: 1) denies the basic right we have in the U.S. of "guilty until PROVEN innocent" in a court of law and 2) implies that EVERYONE that is accused of a crime in the US is "evil". Think before you speak is all I ask.

Jennifer