Rove on the Stand?

There is a clash of titans underway at the filing room of the federal courthouse in Washington. Now that special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald and Scooter Libby's defense team are in the thick of pretrial motions, every week or so one side or the other files a motion, a counter-motion or a counter-counter-motion, and these documents are providing sporadic glimpses into what happened in the weeks that led up to the Plame/CIA leak in 2003. For instance, it was a Fitzgerald filing that revealed that Libby had testified that Dick Cheney had authorized him to leak selective portions of the National Intelligence Estimate on WMDs in Iraq to New York Times reporter Judith Miller and that this had happened after George W. Bush approved releasing (or leaking) slices of the NIE.

The most recent Libby filing did not contain such a blockbuster disclosure. But here are a few interesting portions:

When the issue of Valerie Wilson's employment is viewed in its proper context, and the full story is revealed, it will be clear that Ms. Wilson's role was a peripheral issue. If the press stories surrounding the governments NIE disclosure illustrate anything, it is that this case is factually complex and that the government's notion that it involves only Mr. Libby and the OVP [Office of the Vice President] is a fairy tale.

Hmmm, does this mean that there was a wide-ranging White House effort to undercut Joe Wilson's credibility that involved others than Libby and went beyond trying to depict Wilson trip to Niger as a boondoggle orchestrated by his wife, a CIA officer? Libby's lawyers keep hinting that they will suck the rest of the White House into the case to defend their man. But this is puzzling, for if Libby goes too far down that road, won't he hurt his standing as a deserving recipient of a presidential pardon? Many White House fans are raising millions of dollars for the Libby defense fund and a conservative think tank has put him on the payroll. So how many grenades can Libby throw at Bush, Cheney and Karl Rove?

The defense is likely to call Mr. Rove to provide testimony regarding Mr. Libby's conversations with Mr. Rove concerning reporters' inquiries about Ms. Wilson, as expressly discussed in the indictment.

Rove on the stand, being examined by Fitzgerald? Neither Rove nor the White House can want that. Fitzgerald has not indicted Rove, and his exact role in the leak remains murky--though he reportedly was the second source for the Bob Novak column that disclosed Valerie Wilson's CIA employment. And he was the firt source for Matt Cooper of Time. If he hits the witness stand, Fitzgerald can ask much. What exactly did Rove do before the leak? What did he say to Novak? How did he learn about Valerie Wilson's CIA status? Who else knew? Did he talk to Bush about this? After the leak investigation began--and Bush publicly said he wanted to know who the leakers were--did Rove inform his boss that he had been one of leakers? If so, why did Bush not keep his promise to fire anyone who had leaked classified information? This could be a rather dramatic moment in the Libby trial. Will Libby really put Rove (and the White House) through this? Or are his lawyers merely bluffing for now--in order to burden Fitzgerald with various documents requests? For his part, Fitzgerald has said he has no plans to call Rove as a witness.

In addition, Mr. Libby plans to demonstrate that the indictment is wrong when it suggests that he and other government officials viewed Ms. Wilson's role in sending her husband to Africa as important. We need the requested documents to prepare this crucial aspect of his defense.

Fitzgerald's indictment of Libby notes that Cheney--weeks before the Plame leak happened--told Libby that Valerie Wilson worked for the Counterproliferation Division of the clandestine service of the CIA, the operations directorate. Why was Cheney himself seeking out--and passing to Libby--information on Valerie Wilson if he did not view her role as potentially significant? Perhaps Cheney can answer that on the stand.

Further, Mr. Tenet is a likely witness.

Should this happen, Fitzgerald, unfortunately, is not going to examine former CIA chief George Tenet on how the agency screwed up much (though not all) of the prewar intelligence. He won't grill Tenet on why the CIA director did not say anything when Bush and other administration officials overstated the CIA's intelligence. That's not part of Fitzgerald's case. But it would be rather interesting to hear Tenet discuss the conflict that raged between the CIA and the White House at the time of the leak, when it was becoming increasingly likely that no WMDs would be found in Iraq and when the agency and the Bush crew were pointing fingers at each other. Tenet, who oversaw one of the biggest intelligence screw-ups in the CIA's history (two, if you count 9/11), has snagged a presumably lucrative book contract. American citizens should not have to pay $30 each to receive Tenet's explanations of what went wrong. They deserve this information (even if it is self-serving) for free. But none of the Republican-controlled congressional committees have called Tenet to testify publicly and extensively about the prewar intelligence disaster. Perhaps Fitzgerald can slip in one or two questions.

Imagine the spectacle if Libby's attorneys are right in their pretrial assertions: Rove, Cheney and Tenet on the stand. The trial is not scheduled to begin until next January. Republicans fretting about the coming congressional elections should at least be happy about that.

******

I'M A DECIDER-MAKER. On Tuesday, Bush once again came to Donald Rumsfeld's rescue--and he did so with that patented Bush eloquence:

I say, I listen to all voices, but mine is the final decision. And Don Rumsfeld is doing a fine job. He's not only transforming the military, he's fighting a war on terror. He's helping us fight a war on terror. I have strong confidence in Donald Rumsfeld. I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense.

Ladies and gentlemen, your president--who hears voices and reads the front page (anything on the inside?), and who is the "decider" who decides "what is best." This should really help him in the polls.

Comments (48)

1. Where is MASK?

   Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/18/2006 @ 1:44pm

2. The "decider-maker" could be accurately described as the "muckraker" too.

   Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/18/2006 @ 1:48pm

3. But I thought the generals "on the ground" are making the decisions? That's what Bush says everytime someone asks him about troop levels. So is Bush now making decisions?

   Posted by BlueTexan at 04/18/2006 @ 1:52pm

4. Bluetexan,

   Re: "But I thought the generals "on the ground" are making the decisions? That's what Bush says everytime someone asks him about troop levels. So is Bush now making decisions?"

   Posted by BLUETEXAN 04/18/2006 @ 1:52pm

   Just like all the other lies Bush has told, he is only fooling the right-wongnuts and himself.

   Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/18/2006 @ 1:59pm

5. LVLIBERTY cannot defend Bush, of course. The case against Bush is simply overwhelming for him.

   Instead, LVL attacks Bush's critics and engages in name-calling.

   That is all LVL can do, commit AD HOMINEM, not address any facts.

   Posted by jkrogman at 04/18/2006 @ 2:30pm

6. When the issue of Valerie Wilson's employment is viewed in its proper context, and the full story is revealed, it will be clear that Ms. Wilson's role was a peripheral issue.

   One more time with feeling: Joseph Wilson's revelations about his trip to Niger did not, by themselves, undermine the Bush regime's case for war in Iraq. What they did was draw attention to how the regime got something wrong. No one would have paid any attention to that if it turned to be the only thing the regime got wrong in its case for war against Saddam.

   Unfortunately, the policymakers in the regime didn't get anything right. So how they managed that is a valid question and Wilson's revelations are important.

   It might not be relevant to the case against Libby, but how that NIE came to be written is another good story. The NIE is a piece of crap. It was written with the intelligence bullied out of the CIA by Cheney and Libby and cherry picked and edited from DIA intelligence by Doug Feith. The State Department intelligence, which cast doubt on the war party's line, was ingnored.

   The question arises: what did Bush know about the fraudulent case for war and when did he know it? If Bush was lied to about the war by neoconservatives trying manipulate him into fighting the war they wanted to fight before the regime seized power (they said so in various PNAC papers dating back to the nineties), then Bush should have at least booted them out of his administration. However, only Feith and Libby are gone, the latter only after being indicted. Dick Cheney was not dropped from the ticket; Bush will not accept Rumsfeld's resignation; and Dr. Rice was promoted from National Securtiy Adviser to Secretary of State. Otherwise, General Powell, whose State Department produced the best intelligence only to have it ignored, is gone. Bush is surrounded by liars and incompetents, yet it doesn't seem to phase him in the slightest. He rewards them.

   Of course, the alternate theory is that Bush is surrounded by liars and rewards them it is because he knew they were lying and wanted them to lie. The British government memo produced in February, which documents a meeting of Mr. Bush and Prime Minister Blair, indicates that Bush knew that the case against Saddam was weak. He even came up with an idea of which only an idiot could think of how to provoke Saddam into attacking in order to have a clear pretext for war.

   So, the evidence is that Bush lied and knew he was lying. He claimed to have certain knowledge of Saddam's weapons and ties to international terrorists, when Saddam had neither and the raw intelligence was, at best, inconclusive. And General Powell told the UN Security Council how much of these non-existent weapons Saddam had and Mr. Rumsfeld went on television to tell us exactly where they were.

   We may ask why they wanted this war, since it obviously had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist, violations of UN directives to disarm by a nation that had, in fact, disarmed, or anything related to national security. The desire by the US to put a colonial-style governor general in charge of Iraq who would enact neoliberal trade laws by decree comes to mind; to provide business opportunities for a corporation of which Mr. Cheney was once CEO also seems to suggest itself as a reason.

   I don't think it is just my opinion that lying to start an unnecessary colonial war is not just an impeachable offense, but a war crime. Those who don't even want to talk about a wimpy little censure resolution are in serious denial about the Bush regime. There are good and strong reasons, supported by facts, to seriously discuss impeaching Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and three of the four top cabinet officers and then putting them on trial either in federal court or before an international tribunal.

   Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/18/2006 @ 2:30pm

7. "Hmmm, does this mean that there was a wide-ranging White House effort to undercut Joe Wilson's credibility"

   I think Joe cut his own credibility.

   Posted by john maasch at 04/18/2006 @ 2:42pm

8. LL, Maybe Bush should use the phrase "The Buck Stops Here" instead of pussy-footin' around with this "generals on the ground" BS. Bush has been dodging the buck since it landed on his desk in 2001. If he was 1/10th the macho man he thinks he his, he'd start accepting some blame for what's been going on.

   Posted by BlueTexan at 04/18/2006 @ 2:53pm

9. Where is MASK?

   Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 04/18/2006 @ 1:44pm | ignore this person

   Right here, ILP....but good to see you're assuaging your inferiority complex by getting "First Post"!...hehe

   I seriously think at this point...the Mr Corn will be claiming the "Doom of Karl Rove" upto and BEYOND....January 20, 2009 when Bush leaves office and Rove REALLY leaves the White House!

   Posted by Mask at 04/18/2006 @ 4:18pm

10. JK,

    RE: "LVLIBERTY cannot defend Bush, of course. The case against Bush is simply overwhelming for him.

    Instead, LVL attacks Bush's critics and engages in name-calling.

    That is all LVL can do, commit AD HOMINEM, not address any facts."

    Posted by JKROGMAN 04/18/2006 @ 2:30pm

    It is typical of the Bush supporters; never mind the issue just attack the messenger.

    They are attacking the Generals who criticize Bush's Iraq failure, but do not address the issue in question. It appears that Bush wasn't listening to the Generals after all.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/18/2006 @ 4:34pm

11. Right here, ILP....but good to see you're assuaging your inferiority complex by getting "First Post"!...hehe

    Posted by MASK 04/18/2006 @ 4:18pm

    Actually it is the other way around - I have to work to keep my superiority complex in check... I was just trying to chip away at your self esteem :-)

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/18/2006 @ 5:12pm

12. LL, the point is that if Bush truly supported the troops as he claims to, he would give them a Secretary of Defense that would work with the generals instead of against them.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/18/2006 @ 5:14pm

13. Posted by RIO BRAVO 04/18/2006 @ 5:57pm

    What's it like being the only one, anywhere you go, who thinks you're clever?

    Posted by New Dawn at 04/18/2006 @ 6:52pm

14. I think Joe cut his own credibility.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/18/2006 @ 2:42pm | ignore this person

    how so? by exposing the administration on a lie?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/18/2006 @ 8:26pm

15. As an executive, it was my duty to encourage suggestions and even contradictory options from the managers who worked for me. That should never mean that 100% of those views were always correct nor that they should always be followed. The bottom line means that only the most senior in command, whether the military or a business makes the ultimate decisions. Or is it only Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld that can be wrong? It is not even conceivable in the eyes of yourself and others that one or more of these generals is or was incorrect? Where also is the evidence of their disagreement during their time in active duty? No diaries, letters to spouses or fellow officers, or formal recommendations made to Rumsfeld, Meyers, or the Administration?

    Starting with the formal recommendations, they clearly were cognizant of the examples made of Shinseki and L. Lindsey, who spoke truth to power regarding the manpower and economic costs of the venture and were slammed down. Secondly, we can argue that Bush, et al. made the wrong decisions from the sheer incompetence with which the occupation has been conducted; incompetence that can be traced to a large extent to Rumsfeld, who tried to do the occupation on the cheap.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/18/2006 @ 8:37pm

16. LV:

    That's right, only the most senior person makes the ultimate decisions, and when those decisions prove wrong, they are the ones held accountable.

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/18/2006 @ 11:13pm

17. I have a quick question for David Corn regarding the prosecutor in the CIA Leak case. Mr. Corn, you were there at the news conference...do you think it was odd that Mr. Fitzgerald called on Mr. Isikoff by his name? I thought Mr. Fitzgerald never had comments for journalists or the press. How would he know who he is? Surely he didn't see his name badge, he wasn't sitting right in front of him. He did call a couple of the other reporters by their name but Fitzgerald knowing Isikoff by his name was odd to me. I mean, he didn't call you by your name. It could be nothing. What do you think about that?

    Posted by cat_girl25 at 04/18/2006 @ 11:29pm

18. they are the ones held accountable.

    Posted by HMAN23 04/18/2006 @ 11:13pm

    Nuh uh!

    First you blame the liberal media. If that doesn't work, you blame the democrats. If that doesn't work, you blame Bill Clinton. If that doesn't work, you blame social security. If that deosn't work, you blame those cowardly leakers. If that deosn't work, you blame the few bad apples.

    If that doesn't work...

    (and after you blame everybody else, if that doesn't work, you blame the liberal media. If that doesn't work, you blame the democrats. If that doesn't work, you blame Bill Clinton...)

    Posted by Will C. at 04/18/2006 @ 11:33pm

19. And after his fifth shot of jack daniels, Rio ejaculates his brilliantly devoid-of-both-content-and-meaning-spew:

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 04/18/2006 @ 5:57pm: This posting is not only is just another "field of dreams", but another one of the Nation's over fertilized patch of Corn!

    Clearly satisfied with his superior wit, Rio smugly settles in for a sixth shot...

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/19/2006 @ 12:01am

20. Its a gift from God like my other 10 talents! Go ask Jesus what to do with your singular talent!

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 04/18/2006 @ 11:52pm

    Hmmm. So God gave you large nostrils and ten fingers to mine them with.

    I bet your hands are never idle

    (and I think the big guy already inspired Dawn as to what to do with the mind God gave him)

    Posted by Will C. at 04/19/2006 @ 06:12am

21. It seems to me evident that Bush has never been in charge, has never been the "decision-maker." As a businessman, he was primarily employed as a handshaker whose father was a powerful politician. That's what he was good at. As a politician, he's done more or less the same thing: shake hands in public and follow instructions. Whether or not he's ill-informed is irrelevant, although it seems clear from countless examples that he is. Since the major decisions are left to Cheney and Rumsfeld, it doesn't matter whether he reads more than the front page. His job is to get up on his hind feet and say what he's told to say. (A side note: he CAN'T fire Rumsfeld. The marionette can't dance without the puppeteer)

    Posted by bookmanjb at 04/19/2006 @ 09:19am

22. Will C. -

    You forgot the socialists.

    The socialists are coming!!!! The socialists are coming!!!!

    aghhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/19/2006 @ 10:51am

23. Re the comment of ORAIBI1952 on 04/18/2006, "Every intelligent liberal who has met Bush has indicated that he is anything but dumb"? What?? I'm intrigued. Who are these intelligent liberals?

    Posted by sjhatton at 04/19/2006 @ 2:04pm

24. Re: "I'm a Decider-Maker"

    I don't think Bush cares much about polls at this point in his sorry saga playing at being a "tough guy" President from Texas; nor does he care about what's best for our country. I'm a 5th generation native Texas and can assure you that, contrary to the fact that he carried Texas in both elections, there are millions of Texas who despise him and hate his guts!!! There! I've vented my anger...

    Posted by Redbuccanee at 04/19/2006 @ 2:16pm

25. As a newbe here at the nation, I am impressed with the quality of the stories as well as the comments above. I am particularly impressed with jackrabbit's observations, and I agree wholeheartedly with him on the "war crimes" observation. I was fortunate enough to have spent my tour of duty in the Army during the 60's in Germany instead of Vietnam. While there, I repeatedly asked various German friends and their elders how the Germans could have allowed Hitler to do what he did. I received a number of answers, however, since the elections of 2000, I now have a better understanding of how it occurred.

    Posted by byoung3rd at 04/19/2006 @ 2:36pm

26. He "reads the front page" and "hears voices" (I'm sure he's been hearing all kinds of voices his whole life, he's such a psycho), "but he decides what's best"...so, ONLY his opinion is the best one. This jerk, who has been taking up unmerited, unearned space in the White House for the past six years has GOT to go. IMPEACH THE MANIAC AND THROW AWAY HIS CRONIES. He is absolutely the DUMBEST, MOST STUBBORN, MOST ARROGANT BLOCKHEAD we have ever had as president. After having suffered through eight years of Ronald Reagan, I thought that it would be absolutely impossible to find such a stupid, war-mongering monster as him ever again taking up residence in the White House. But I was wrong. W makes Ronald Reagan look like Jerry Brown.

    Posted by antigop at 04/19/2006 @ 3:17pm

27. When the issue of Valerie Wilson's employment is viewed in its proper context, and the full story is revealed, it will be clear that Ms. Wilson's role was a peripheral issue.

    Peripheral, as in an agent who specialized in Iran, and for the Cheney cabal, Iraq + Iran = increased dominion over China?

    A good read is Vice Squad by Robert Dreyfuss in The American Prospect (4/17/06).

    Posted by LookEast at 04/19/2006 @ 3:18pm

28. He "reads the front page" and "hears voices" (I'm sure he's been hearing all kinds of voices his whole life, he's such a psycho), "but he decides what's best"...so, ONLY his opinion is the best one. This jerk, who has been taking up unmerited, unearned space in the White House for the past six years has GOT to go. IMPEACH THE MANIAC AND THROW AWAY HIS CRONIES. He is absolutely the DUMBEST, MOST STUBBORN, MOST ARROGANT BLOCKHEAD we have ever had as president. After having suffered through eight years of Ronald Reagan, I thought that it would be absolutely impossible to find such a stupid, war-mongering monster as him ever again taking up residence in the White House. But I was wrong. W makes Ronald Reagan look like Jerry Brown.

    Posted by antigop at 04/19/2006 @ 3:22pm

29. and the full story is revealed, it will be clear that Ms. Wilson's role was a peripheral issue.

    kind of like Watergate was a peripheral issue

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/19/2006 @ 3:40pm

30. Carl Bernstein calls for probe of Bush - Journalist urges Watergate-style investigation in Senate

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12361384/from/RSS/

    Should the Senate open a Watergate-style investigation of President Bush's conduct in office? * 18699 responses

    92% Yes, this administration has hidden and manipulated information at every turn. It must be called to account.

    7.6% No, this administration has been making its best effort to deal with many bad situations. We don't need a Senate witch hunt.

    Posted by New Dawn at 04/19/2006 @ 4:11pm

31. Oh joy...not only is Dubya a "decider", he also "hears the voices"! I wonder wehat they're telling him?

    BTW: Will anyone be left in the WH who isn't going to court?

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/19/2006 @ 4:55pm

32. Scotus will never allow this white house to be questioned! Their ruling irt Clinton was for a civil proceeding. Although I would love to see them grilled by a crackerjack prosecutor, only in our dreams... I can only wish for a change in power in the House and Senate... Kick some ass and get people to vote this fall.!!!

    Posted by was at 04/19/2006 @ 7:15pm

33. Secret courts [tinyurl.com], civil or criminal courts, seem to be the norm in the era of the Patriot Act and a direct result of the Bush Administration's above-the-law attitude and actions.

    Bush will do "whatever it takes" to advance its agenda -- including destruction of the U.S. Constitution.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/20/2006 @ 10:53am

34. Orai

    ...and in Florida...imagine that!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/20/2006 @ 11:02am

35. To LeftOfCenter:

    Oh joy...not only is Dubya a "decider", he also "hears the voices"! I wonder wehat they're telling him?

    Bush is so arrogant that when he talks to God, he is probably telling Him what to say and do.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/20/2006 @ 11:09am

36. American citizen: "God, please help us poor citizens of America."

    Bush: "How can I help you?"

    American citizen: "By resigning from the Office of the President."

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/20/2006 @ 11:20am

37. ...and in Florida...imagine that!

    Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 04/20/2006 @ 11:02am

    LMAO.

    On the serious side, the Bush Admin is up to something in Latin America and Florida is the base. Karen Hughes focused on L. America and Caleb McCary appointment as Coordinator of the Transition in Cuba.

    Could an invasion (overtly or covertly invaded) of Cuba be the "October surprise"? Bush may perceive Cuba a much easier target than Iran.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/20/2006 @ 11:26am

38. The Bush Administration, via its Medicaid Program [tinyurl.com], attempts to further narrow the definition of citizenship and deprive Americans of their full citizenship rights.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/20/2006 @ 12:02pm

39. At its web site, Electronic Frontier Foundation [tinyurl.com] provides a wealth of information on its law suit against ATT; this includes legal documents, press releases, et cetera.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/20/2006 @ 12:37pm

40. Mr. Corn, I look forward to your next update on this topic in light of Mr. Rove's name being presented to the Grand Jury. Looks like, finally, it may be time to strike up the band for the Rove frog-march.

    Posted by nathanhale at 04/20/2006 @ 4:32pm

41. do I hear the sound of knives sharpening?

    http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/042006Z.shtml

    are you listening Maasch? your bets are off

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/20/2006 @ 5:17pm

42. Oh, Johanne...

    You just made my afternoon, pal...

    Much obliged.

    Posted by New Dawn at 04/20/2006 @ 5:32pm

43. we are all messengers, of reason, of humanity, of peace.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/20/2006 @ 6:03pm

44. Of course Bush is not an idiot. It would take smashing two of him together to make one good idiot.

    This man can't pronounce the simple word, NUCLEAR, correctly in a nuclear age. Either he's too dumb to learn or he's intimidated those around him not to correct him. Typical of a tyrant.

    I'm convinced that Bush has a classic case of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome - can't tie consequences to his actions and is extremely charming but manipulative. The victims of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome ALWAYS blame bad outcomes on something or someone else.

    If an enterprising investigative reporter ever does a report on Bush, I'll bet we learn that Barbara was drinking heavily during her pregnancy with George.

    I haven't done a time-line, but I would not be surprised if it was when GHW Bush brought his girlfriend, Jennifer Fitzgerald, to China when he was Ambassador to the ChiComs, and Barbara left, because he would not send his girlfriend back to the states.

    One needs only to read either or both of the books: Bush on the Couch or Bush's Brain to know Bush has a psychopathic personality disorder.

    Bush's apologists and toadies can't defend Bush's actions, statements and policies on their merits. All they can do is name-call and exercise moral relativitism while insisting they subscribe to and practice the principles of moral absolutes. Every time Bush and his innercircle of cronies and criminal friends is caught off-base, and they are caught off-base a lot, all they todies can say is, "yes, but...(Clinton, Kennedy, fill-in-the-blank, blah, blah, blah) to excuse Bush's failings or wrongdoing or missteps.

    They think cutting the seat out of their pants and smoking a cigar keeps the gnats away from their face (if we fight'em over there, we won't have to fight'em over here"), but they just draw more gnats and they stink and their asses are still hanging out.

    Posted by gamecock69 at 04/21/2006 @ 11:13am

45. does anybody think that if Rove ever put his hand on a bible to take the oath that he would immediately burst into flames?

    Posted by Will C. at 04/22/2006 @ 12:12am

46. I'd step back...just in case of stray electrical discharges!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/22/2006 @ 01:30am

47. http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html

    Creeping Fascism

    The voices of the past, on Recognizing the Unrecognizable…

    "You will understand me when I say that my Middle High German was my life. It was all I cared about. I was a scholar, a specialist. Then, suddenly, I was plunged into all the new activity, as the university was drawn into the new situation; meetings, conferences, interviews, ceremonies, and, above all, papers to be filled out, reports, bibliographies, lists, questionnaires. And on top of that were the demands in the community, the things in which one had to, was ‘expected to' participate that had not been there or had not been important before. It was all rigmarole, of course, but it consumed all one's energies, coming on top of the work one really wanted to do. You can see how easy it was, then, not to think about fundamental things. One had no time."

    "Those," I said, "are the words of my friend the baker. ‘One had no time to think. There was so much going on.'"

    "Your friend the baker was right," said my colleague. "The dictatorship, and the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting. It provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway. I do not speak of your ‘little men,' your baker and so on; I speak of my colleagues and myself, learned men, mind you. Most of us did not want to think about fundamental things and never had. There was no need to. Nazism gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about--we were decent people--and kept us so busy with continuous changes and ‘crises' and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the ‘national enemies,' without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us. Unconsciously, I suppose, we were grateful. Who wants to think?

    "To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it--please try to believe me--unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,' that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures' that no ‘patriotic German' could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.

    "And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self-deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little boy, hardly more than a baby, saying ‘Jewish swine,' collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything, has changed and changed completely under your nose. The world you live in--your nation, your people--is not the world you were born in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. Now you live in a system which rules without responsibility even to God. The system itself could not have intended this in the beginning, but in order to sustain itself it was compelled to go all the way.

    "Once the war began, the government could do anything ‘necessary' to win it; so it was with the ‘final solution of the Jewish problem,' which the Nazis always talked about but never dared undertake, not even the Nazis, until war and its ‘necessities' gave them the knowledge that they could get away with it. The people abroad who thought that war against Hitler would help the Jews were wrong. And the people in Germany who, once the war had begun, still thought of complaining, protesting, resisting, were betting on Germany's losing the war. It was a long bet. Not many made it."

    How ironic then that the persecuted have become the persecutors, using the tactics of their former oppressors to destroy those they wish to control and/or exterminate. 9/11 was their Reichstag Fire (a near-perfect False Flag Operation - but for the "Dancing Israelis"), the pretext to launch their plan – rooted in revenge and greed. But they have taken it one step farther, compelling others to do the job on their behalf.

    Posted by plunger at 04/22/2006 @ 07:05am

48. This all goes back to the ignorant or just hate filled logic of the far left that continues to perpetuate among themselves the "Bush is an idiot" mantra. Every intelligent liberal who has met Bush has indicated that he is anything but dumb. But you keep on with your fantasies and myopic view of the world. I'm sure you will rule the world very shortly (LOL).

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/18/2006 @ 2:09pm

    You must have your head buried up GW a$$ like the rest of them. The people will decide this fall. Just as GW's one sentence comment "America is too dependant on foreign oil". Duh !!! WOW...Now that's smart....It's his comments like this that exposes his ignorance..Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out...And this guy is a Yale graduate ???? What a joke...

    Posted by djmarch at 04/24/2006 @ 11:08am