Image hosted by Photobucket.com KARL ROVE - PUPPETMASTER: July 2005

Saturday, July 30, 2005

Government of lies: The political meaning of the Rove affair

Whenever a major crisis emerges in political life, it is necessary to distinguish between the often peculiar forms in which the crisis makes its initial appearance and the more fundamental underlying issues. So it is with the uproar touched off by the reports that Karl Rove, Bush’s top political aide, leaked the identity of a CIA undercover operative to the press, as part of an effort to punish critics of the Iraq war.

The facts of the Rove affair are no longer in question. In July 2003, after former ambassador Joseph Wilson published an op-ed column in the New York Times criticizing the administration for making bogus claims that Saddam Hussein had sought to purchase uranium in Africa, the White House moved swiftly to retaliate. Wilson explained in his article his own role in going to Niger at the behest of the CIA to investigate the issue in 2002, and related how he found the charges to be unfounded.

Only a day after the column appeared, top White House aides were reading a secret State Department memorandum on the Wilson trip which included the information—denoted as top secret—that Wilson’s wife Valerie was a CIA operative specializing in the field of weapons of mass destruction. Within three days, Rove and other officials were circulating that information to the press, suggesting that Mrs. Wilson had engineered her husband’s trip and presenting this as a case of nepotism that cast doubt on Wilson’s findings.

A week after Wilson’s column appeared, right-wing columnist Robert Novak, a longtime recipient of leaks from Karl Rove, became the first journalist to identify Mrs. Wilson publicly as a CIA agent, under her maiden name, Valerie Plame. This was accompanied by the White House-inspired smear about her alleged role in sending her husband to Niger.

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed by Attorney General John Ashcroft in December 2003 to investigate whether crimes were committed in leaking Plame’s name and identity to the media. While Rove’s attorney has said that Rove is not a “target” of the investigation—meaning no decision has yet been made on a possible indictment—he admitted that Rove and many other White House aides remain “subjects,” i.e., potentially indictable. Fitzgerald must complete his investigation and bring indictments by October, when the term of the grand jury looking into the affair expires.

In a sign of the growing concern that some White House aides will face charges, either for the leak itself or for subsequent lies or obstruction of justice before the grand jury, Bush appeared before the press July 18 and significantly revised his public stance on the case. Where previously he had pledged to fire any staffer found to be involved in leaking the name of the covert CIA officer, he now limited this to a commitment to fire any official who was guilty of a crime. This much more narrow standard would allow Rove, for instance, to keep working at the White House as deputy chief of staff and top political adviser even if he were to be indicted.

The more thoughtful media commentators have begun to acknowledge that the real issue in the Rove affair is not whether Rove, Cheney’s chief of staff Lewis Libby, former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer or some other White House aide leaked Plame’s name or lied about it to Fitzgerald’s investigators or the grand jury. Such lies are only symptomatic of the much greater lies which constitute the Bush administration’s entire case for war in Iraq: claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein was an ally of Al Qaeda, and suggestions that the Iraqi president was somehow linked to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

In one perceptive commentary, New York Times columnist Frank Rich wrote July 17 that the public should not “get hung up” on Rove “or on most of the other supposed leading figures in this scandal thus far.” He continued: “Not Matt Cooper or Judy Miller or the Wilsons or the bad guy everyone loves to hate, the former CNN star Robert Novak. This scandal is not about them in the end, any more than Watergate was about Dwight Chapin and Donald Segretti or Woodward and Bernstein. It is about the president of the United States. It is about a plot that was hatched at the top of the administration and in which everyone else, Mr. Rove included, are at most secondary players. That the investigation has dragged on so long anyway is another indication of the expanded reach of the prosecutorial web.”

Rich’s column was entitled, “Follow the Uranium,” and the comparison to Watergate is more than apt, as is his political conclusion: “This case is about Iraq, not Niger. The real victims are the American people, not the Wilsons. The real culprit—the big enchilada, to borrow a 1973 John Ehrlichman phrase from the Nixon tapes—is not Mr. Rove but the gang that sent American sons and daughters to war on trumped-up grounds... this scandal is about the unmasking of an ill-conceived war, not the unmasking of a CIA operative...”

Like Watergate, and unlike the bogus right-wing-inspired investigations into the Clinton White House, the Rove affair is about government policy, in which the actions of the bit players can be traced back directly to the decision-makers at the top: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld & Co. And like Watergate, the information has begun to surface because of a bitter conflict within the state apparatus, in which murky and even reactionary motives play a role. (Let us not forget the lesson of Watergate’s Deep Throat, now revealed as FBI deputy director W. Mark Felt, who leaked critical details of the Nixon White House conspiracy largely out of institutional loyalty to the FBI and J. Edgar Hoover.)

The driving force of the conflict now raging in official Washington is the increasingly evident failure of the Bush administration’s military intervention in Iraq. There are bitter recriminations over the consequences of Bush’s refusal to heed the cautions from the intelligence agencies and military about the likely outcome of the invasion of Iraq, which has left American imperialism bogged down in an open-ended counter-insurgency campaign.

The dreams of a swift and easy victory giving the US control over the second largest oil exporter, as well as a dominant strategic position in the Middle East, have been shattered. Instead, the plans of the US government and the military for further actions—in Iran or North Korea, for example, and ultimately China—have been significantly undermined, at least in the short term, because nearly all of the deployable forces of the Army and Marine Corps are tied down in Iraq.

No section of the political establishment advocates an American withdrawal, which would constitute a strategic defeat far more costly than Vietnam. But there are intense divisions over policy, with leading sections of the Democratic Party openly advocating the commitment of tens of thousands more troops to ensure military control of Iraq, a course of action that leads inevitably to restoration of the draft.

In the meantime, there is plenty of blame to go around for the current debacle, and a bitter struggle is taking place within the upper echelons of the executive branch, Congress, the judiciary, the two bourgeois political parties, the intelligence agencies, the military brass, and the most powerful corporate lobbyists, influence peddlers and media figures.

All told, this ruling stratum involves mere thousands of people, a layer so narrow that three of the current protagonists, Karl Rove and Joseph and Valerie Wilson, attend the same church in suburban McLean, Virginia. This makes the infighting especially bitter, as demonstrated by Rove’s role in “outing” Mrs. Wilson and perhaps endangering her life. In so doing, the Bush White House broke one of the time-honored rules of the Washington Mafia—likewise observed by its underworld counterpart—“Fight if you must, but don’t ‘hit’ the wife.”

Frank Rich is correct to trace the Rove affair back to the “big lie” campaign to sell the Iraq war, but he is only half right, or, rather, he stops halfway. The Iraq war was not the beginning of Bush’s lies, but the culmination. This is an administration based on lies from its very inception, when it took office through the theft of the 2000 presidential election, hijacked by the Supreme Court intervention to shut down ballot-counting in Florida.

Then came September 11, 2001, an event which has been the subject of the greatest campaign of distortion and cover-up in US history. No serious investigation has been conducted into the US government role in these attacks: from the initial CIA recruitment and training of the founders of Al Qaeda in the 1980s, to the inexplicable ease with which the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists entered the United States and orchestrated multiple hijackings, even though many of them were on government watchlists or actually under surveillance by US intelligence agencies.

The least credible of all accounts of 9/11 is the official story that 19 predominantly Saudi terrorists entered the United States and carried out an intricately organized attack involving multiple hijackings, without any US government agency having the slightest idea what they were doing. This must be set against the enormous political benefits which the Bush administration derived from the 9/11 attacks, which provided the pretext for long-planned invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and for an unprecedented attack on democratic rights at home, and which served as the basic platform for Bush’s 2004 reelection campaign.

Tens of millions of Americans recognize today that the Iraq war is based on lies, but they find no political expression for this understanding within the existing two-party system. The whole US political establishment is deeply discredited—the Democratic Party, which voted for the war and continues to support it; the media, which swallowed Bush’s lies and regurgitated them uncritically; and the official “labor” movement, a political cipher with no serious influence or support in the working class.

Opposition to the war and support for a US withdrawal from Iraq are widespread, despite the virtually complete ban on such views within the official media and political circles. And there is growing recognition that the “war on terror” is actually a war for oil and world domination.

The conclusion that must be drawn from the complicity of the entire political system in an imperialist war justified by lies is the need to develop a mass independent political movement of the working class based on a socialist program and directed against the financial oligarchy in whose interests this war is being waged, and all of its political representatives.

Thursday, July 28, 2005

Rove cartoon blossomed out - World - theage.com.au

Rove cartoon blossomed out - World - theage.com.au: "Rove cartoon blossomed out"It may be US President George Bush's nickname for key political adviser Karl Rove, but some editors don't think it belongs in their newspapers.

About a dozen papers objected to Tuesday's and yesterday's Doonesbury comic strips, and some either pulled or edited them.

The strips refer to Mr Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff, as "Turd Blossom".

Lee Salem, editor at Kansas City-based Universal Press Syndicate, which distributes the strip to 1400 papers, said the complaints from 10 to 12 newspapers were not unexpected.

Unlike other times when editors have objected to Doonesbury content, the syndicate did not send out replacement strips.

"Given the coverage of Karl Rove, we thought it was appropriate, especially given the history of the strip," Salem said.

Doonesbury's creator, Garry Trudeau, has infuriated some editors with his language, images and political themes.

Salem said that since newspapers did not have to notify the syndicate when they choose to remove a strip, it was impossible to know how many papers ran Tuesday's comic.

Advertisement
AdvertisementIn the strip, Mr Bush and an aide are lamenting the problems the Administration has had over allegations that Mr Rove leaked the name of a CIA officer to reporters.

Mr Bush says, "Karl's sure been earnin' his nickname lately."

The unnamed aide says, "Boy Genius? I'm not so sure, sir …"

Mr Bush then says, "Hey, Turd Blossom! Get in here!"

The term is said to be one of several nicknames Mr Bush uses for Mr Rove, one of his closest allies who is widely credited for getting Mr Bush elected in 2000 and re-elected in 2004.

The mainstream US media have rarely mentioned the nickname but it has gained currency overseas and on the internet.

Among those with concerns was the Providence (Rhode Island) Journal, whose editors removed the offensive word from the strip's final panel.

"I didn't think (taking out the word) hurt it," executive editor Joel Rawson said.

"I would prefer to run the strip and if we can edit it, that's fine."

Other papers, such as The Kansas City Star, removed the strip. "We thought it was in bad taste and probably unclear to a lot of people why we would be using the term," said managing editor of news Steve Shirk.

Bush comic pulled from papers

KHON2 - The Team That Knows Hawaii | HomeBush comic pulled from papers



About a dozen newspapers across the country pulled today's "Doonesbury" comic strip. The strip refers to President Bush's key political adviser Karl Rove, who is alleged to have leaked the name of a CIA officer to reporters.

The strip refers to Rove as a "turd blossom," which is said to be one of the President's nicknames for Rove.

Some newspaper editors thought the nickname didn't belong in their papers.

Rhode Island's Providence Journal ran the strip, but removed the nickname which it considered to be offensive.

The Kansas City Star removed the strip entirely, and replaced it with an older one.

Lake County Record-Bee - Opinion-ROVE SHOULD BE CANNED

Lake County Record-Bee - OpinionRove should be canned

It is time for the president to fire his good buddy Karl ("Mr. Dirty Politics") Rove. We know that Karl Rove revealed the identity of an undercover CIA agent to reporter Matt Cooper and columnist Robert Novak. Rove either broke the law intentionally or was at least grossly negligent with national security secrets, yet he still works in the White House with his good buddy Bush.

Outing an undercover CIA agent hurts our national security. Bush should keep his word and fire Rove, even though he probably owes his presidency to Rove's dirty campaign tricks.

There needs to be a full disclosure to the American people about what happened in this CIA leak case. Karl Rove and other leakers in the White House outed a covert CIA agent in order to punish or discredit a critic of the Bush Iraq policy. This is outrageous, putting politics over national security. It's time to get rid of Rove.

Ron Green

Lower Lake

Sunday, July 24, 2005

The outing of Karl Rove

July 24, 2005

Much has happened in "The Strange Case of the Outed Spy" which I wrote about in this space two Sundays ago. As suspected, President Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, was a key source for the two journalists who disclosed the former spy's identity. The president once said he would fire the person responsible for the leak. He now says he would do so only if an actual crime had been committed.

The prosecutor looking into the affair has remained silent although there have been hints that he may now be looking for evidence of perjury or obstruction of justice by one or more of the witnesses.

Otherwise, the most significant development in this case in the past two weeks is that it went from being inside Washington baseball to a major national story. The confirmation of Rove's direct involvement in this affair (after the White House spokesman called it "ridiculous" to suggest such a thing) landed the president's number one adviser on the covers of Time and Newsweek, on the front pages of every major newspaper in the country and in the top of the news on all of the national TV and radio networks. Some have suggested the president sped up his decision on his Supreme Court nominee to get Rove off the front pages. Perhaps. (Actually, there is a real connection between Rove and the Judge Roberts appointment that I'll get to later in this column.)

That intense media attention has transformed the ultimate behind-the-scenes political operative into a national celebrity. Not that Karl Rove was an unknown. Throughout the Bush presidency, liberal activists have seen him as a "Rasputin" – the evil genius behind everything they dislike and fear about this White House. For conservative activists, Rove is a super hero and as Mr. Bush himself has declared, the "architect" of his presidential victories. Still, I would guess that until a couple of weeks ago, the average American would have known little or nothing about him. Now, if only through the process of osmosis, they should know that Rove is the most important presidential adviser in living memory. And because of that, what happens to him is a matter of major political significance.

While he doesn't have a fancy title – he's the deputy chief of staff of the White House – Karl Rove is intimately involved in virtually every aspect of foreign and domestic policy. And by determining the political consequences of a given policy, he significantly shapes it. He is also the master of the Republican Party propaganda machine. He didn't make the decision to go to war in Iraq, but he totally supported it and selling the war to the American people was but one of his many roles.

Rove is a superb political strategist with a ruthless, take-no-prisoners approach to politics. Paul Begala, once one of Bill Clinton's senior advisers says, "Love him or hate him, Karl Rove is one of the most brilliant and successful political consultants of all time."

As Newsweek's cover story describes him, "In the World According to Karl Rove, you take the offensive and stay there. You create a narrative that glosses over complex, mitigating facts to divide the world into friends and enemies, light and darkness, good and bad, Bush versus Saddam. You are loyal to a fault to your friends and merciless to your enemies. You keep your candidate's public rhetoric sunny and uplifting, finding others to do the attacking. You study the details and learn more about your foes than they know about themselves … in fact everything is political and everyone is fair game."

But Rove is much more than a political consultant. The title of a book about Rove by two prominent Texas journalists is "Bush's Brain." In their introduction, authors James Moore and Wayne Slater write, "The influence of Karl Rove on the president may raise constitutional questions. But there is little doubt about the practical implications of his position…. He is the co-president of the United States."

The Bush-Rove relationship goes back more than 30 years. They met in 1973 when Rove was working for the Republican National Committee under George Bush Sr. and junior was a student at Harvard Business School. Rove has suggested he was immediately mesmerized by the young Bush's "confidence" and "charisma." Later in the 1970s, they came together in Texas: Rove as a successful consultant; Bush as a struggling oil man.

Those were the days of major political realignment in the South. Many southern Democrats, unhappy with their party's role in the civil rights battles of the 1960s, were finally willing to forgive the party of Lincoln for winning the Civil War. In large numbers they were switching to a Republican Party more in tune with "states' rights" and other conservative values.

As a top Republican consultant and organizer, Rove was in the midst of this mini-revolution. In this atmosphere, he developed the political formula that would take him – and GWB – to the White House. The idea was to join together the pro-business, wealthy conservatives of the big cities with the Bible belt, usually poor traditionalists of the farms and small towns. The man he chose to preside over that somewhat awkward marriage was George W. Bush. It worked — first in Texas – and then on the national scene in two presidential elections.

But neither Rove nor Bush did this for the sheer pleasure of getting to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. They shared a radical agenda – nothing less than to effectively turn back the clock 75 years, to drastically reduce the role of government by changing laws and reversing judicial rulings made during and since Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal.

Which brings us to the new nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge John Roberts, by all accounts a very smart lawyer and a nice fellow. I don't know a lot about him but I do know this. President Bush, (under the constant tutelage of Karl Rove) said repeatedly during his election campaigns that he wanted to fill future vacancies on the Supreme Court with judges similar to Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

As USA Today (not a knee-jerk liberal paper) editorialized last week, "The Scalia-Thomas mantra was convenient political code for voters who oppose abortion, gay rights and affirmative action; reject government regulation of business, safety or the environment; or want official support for their brand of religion."

So if indeed Judge Roberts does fit the Scalia-Thomas mold — and is confirmed – (both of which seem likely) the Bush-Rove team will be closer than ever to achieving the goal that radical conservatives have been dreaming about for more than seven decades. Kind of makes outing a spy seem like small potatoes.

However, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has not finished his investigations. And lawyers familiar with the case are convinced Fitzgerald would not have put a New York Times journalist in jail unless he had bigger fish to fry. That remains to be seen. But it is possible that the pesky problem of outing a lowly spy could still come back to haunt the "co-president."

Barrie Dunsmore is a veteran diplomatic and foreign correspondent for ABC News now living in Charlotte.

Telegraph | Money | China shows who's really the boss now

Telegraph | Money | China shows who's really the boss nowChina shows who's really the boss now
By Liam Halligan (Filed: 24/07/2005)


China's currency revaluation, which happened last Thursday, was an event of significance. While over-shadowed by London's second terrorist incident in a fortnight, Beijing's move was a landmark in economic history.



How can this be so? After all, China's government raised the value of the yuan by a mere 2 per cent - from 8.3 to 8.1 - against the dollar. And crucial details about the new regime - the composition of the "currency basket" to which the yuan will now be linked, for instance - remain unknown.

Also, a new "trading band" means Beijing would be able to limit movements in China's currency to only 0.3 per cent per day.

But all this misses the bigger picture. The important point is that China's rigid dollar "peg", in place for more than a decade, is now gone. In recent years, US authorities have watched in horror as the value of the yuan has been artificially held down against the dollar, boosting China's already super-competitive exports even more.

The result has been that cheap Chinese goods have flooded American markets, sweeping away domestic manufacturing jobs. "China fear" has become a major US-election issue. Congress has reacted to Beijing's "currency manipulations" by threatening to erect China-specific tariff barriers, in contravention of international trading rules.

Mindful of growing financial imbalances, the White House has been lobbying the Chinese intensely too. The rush of imports from China has contributed mightily to America's yawning trade deficit - now approaching 7 per cent of GDP. This has put downward pressure on the dollar and pushed up US interest rates, threatening to derail the world's largest economy.

But China has taken a step which - potentially at least - eases these concerns. By revaluing the yuan against the dollar, even if by a small amount, Beijing has agreed to make its imports to the US less competitive.

Sino-US trade tensions have become so acute of late that the size of China's currency shift is of far less important than the fact that it happened at all.

So last week's revaluation, while modest, did a lot to defuse the immediate threat of a potentially disastrous trade war between America and China - the twin-locomotives of the global economy. And for that, the rest of the world should be grateful.

But can this new accommodation last? The White House is keen to suggest it can. Journalists were told off-the-record that "the Chinese have finally given in", bowing in the face of American power. Treasury secretary John Snow stressed that Beijing had now "put in place a mechanism providing room for significant currency movements over time".

Many financial analysts agree - pointing out that even China's "trading band" allows the yuan to rise, incrementally, by more than 6 per cent per month. Such was the euphoria greeting Beijing's decision that some Western banks issued predictions of a 35 per cent rise in China's currency by the end of 2005.

But will China let this happen? Or will Beijing use its freshly-minted "managed floating exchange-rate regime" to continue holding down the yuan, albeit at a marginally higher rate, for the foreseeable future?

I think it will do the latter. After all, a large appreciation would erode China's huge competitive advantage. And Beijing knows that rapid growth, which is dependent on a stellar export performance, is crucial to maintaining China's political stability.

Another reason why the yuan won't be allowed to rise quickly is low Chinese inflation - now down at 1.6 percent. After all, a much higher currency would significantly reduce the price of China's imports. That would expose the country to the risk of a damaging bout of Japanese-style deflation - which, again, could threaten social unrest. The authorities in Beijing will do everything they can to avoid that too.

It's also worth noting that last week's move - while economically important - was driven by political motives. China's government chose to ease trade tensions with the US at this specific moment for good reasons.

For one thing, Beijing's attempts to buy two American corporations - the oil-producer Unocal and the appliance-maker Maytag - are currently in the balance. And given that the Chinese President Hu Jintao is visiting America in September, feathers needed to be smoothed.

All this leads me to believe the Chinese will allow the yuan to appreciate further, but only in "baby steps" and only over a long period of time. With its $700 bn war-chest of reserves, Beijing is well capable of "sterilising" even significant capital inflows from overseas.

Combine that with pretty fierce capital controls, and China will be able to resist even sustained market pressure to push up the value of its currency for some time to come.

So the ending of China's dollar "peg" was a seminal moment - yes. But, to the intense frustration of the White House, the likelihood is it won't translate into a large appreciation of the yuan - and subsequent loss of Chinese competitiveness - any time soon.

In that sense, rather than being an illustration of America's might on the global economic stage, last week's revaluation could well end up displaying instead the power now wielded by China. That, in the end, will be its ultimate historic significance.


Saturday, July 23, 2005

Democrats-only Hill hearing targets Rove�-�Nation/Politics�-�The Washington Times, America's Newspaper

Democrats-only Hill hearing targets Rove�-�Nation/Politics�-�The Washington Times, America's NewspaperDemocrats-only Hill hearing targets Rove
By James G. Lakely
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
July 23, 2005


Democrats convened a partisan hearing yesterday in an attempt to breathe new life into the suspicion that Karl Rove is guilty of an illegal leak to the press.
The hearing, convened in a Senate office building by the Democratic Policy Committee, featured both House and Senate members and a slate of witnesses guaranteed to testify that the deputy White House chief of staff was guilty of misdeeds in leaking the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame.
"We know that a dastardly crime in all likelihood was committed," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan was peppered with questions about Mr. Rove nearly every day for two weeks in early July, and the story dominated the political news. Since Mr. Bush tapped Judge John G. Roberts Jr. for the Supreme Court on Tuesday, however, questions about Mr. Rove and stories about the controversy have dwindled to a trickle.
Mr. McClellan was not asked a single question about Mr. Rove by reporters traveling aboard Air Force One yesterday.
Roll Call reported Thursday that a set of "talking points" was issued Wednesday by Senate Democratic leadership urging rank-and-file senators to do what they could to keep the controversy surrounding Mr. Rove in the news.
Republican National Committee spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said the "faux hearings" demonstrate that Democrats are too eager to score political points to wait for the facts to come out upon completion of the special prosecutor's investigation into the matter.
"If Democrats had any confidence in the investigatory process, they would hold their fire and let the investigation proceed rather than rushing to judgment," Miss Schmitt said.
Mrs. Plame is the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, who has accused the White House of lying about Iraq's attempts to acquire weapons-grade nuclear material from Niger. A report by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the British intelligence service and other intelligence agencies around the world, however, claim the attempt was made.
The bipartisan intelligence committee report also determined that Mrs. Plame recommended to the CIA that her husband -- a critic of the war in Iraq -- travel to Niger to verify the story of attempted "yellowcake" uranium purchases. Though his own report suggested it had occurred, Mr. Wilson wrote an op-ed in the New York Times on July 6, 2003, saying it was wrong of the White House to suggest it did happen.
Mr. Wilson has never publicly reconciled that conflict.
Democrats, however, made it clear that they believe Mr. Wilson's op-ed, and are convinced that Mr. Rove "outed" Mrs. Plame as a form of political retribution.
"The White House launched a smear campaign, and Valerie Plame became collateral damage," said Rep. Henry A. Waxman, California Democrat. "Now the White House has gone silent. It won't answer any questions. It won't take any administrative action against Mr. Rove."
Rep. John Conyers Jr., Michigan Democrat, said that what occurred is "at its worst, treason committed by high-level White House officials, and at the best we have seen an abuse of power."

TheKansasCityChannel.com - News - Former CIA Analyst Chides Bush Over Rove

TheKansasCityChannel.com - News - Former CIA Analyst Chides Bush Over Rove
Former CIA Analyst Chides Bush Over Rove

POSTED: 11:34 am CDT July 23, 2005
UPDATED: 12:59 pm CDT July 23, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Democrats are alleging that President George W. Bush is jeopardizing national security by not disciplining political adviser Karl Rove for his role in leaking the name of a CIA officer.

Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson, a Republican, delivered the Democratic Party's weekly radio address. In it, he accused the president of going back on his word that anyone from the White House involved in the leak would be fired.

He said the president is "willing to sit by while political operatives savage the reputations of good Americans like Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson," instead of "protecting intelligence officers."

Friday, July 15, 2005

PENN JILLETTE IS A FAT, STUPID ATHEISTIC ASSHOLE...SEE Penn Jillette: Quotations

kwc blog: Why Bush avoids press conferences

kwc blog: Why Bush avoids press conferencesQUESTION: Mr. President, why are you and the vice president insisting on appearing together before the 9-11 commission? And, Mr. President, who will we be handing the Iraqi government over to on June 30th?
BUSH: We'll find that out soon. That's what Mr. Brahimi is doing. He's figuring out the nature of the entity we'll be handing sovereignty over.

And, secondly, because the 9-11 commission wants to ask us questions, that's why we're meeting. And I look forward to meeting with them and answering their questions.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) I was asking why you're appearing together, rather than separately, which was their request.

BUSH: Because it's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9-11 commission is looking forward to asking us. And I'm looking forward to answering them.



QUESTION: In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa.

You've looked back before 9-11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9-11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have learned from it?

BUSH: I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it.

John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could've done it better this way or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn't yet.

I would've gone into Afghanistan the way we went into Afghanistan. Even knowing what I know today about the stockpiles of weapons, I still would've called upon the world to deal with Saddam Hussein.

See, I'm of the belief that we'll find out the truth on the weapons. That's why we sent up the independent commission. I look forward to hearing the truth as to exactly where they are. They could still be there. They could be hidden, like the 50 tons of mustard gas in a turkey farm.

One of the things that Charlie Duelfer talked about was that he was surprised of the level of intimidation he found amongst people who should know about weapons and their fear of talking about them because they don't want to be killed.

You know, there's this kind of -- there's a terror still in the soul of some of the people in Iraq.

They're worried about getting killed, and therefore they're not going to talk. But it'll all settle out, John. We'll find out the truth about the weapons at some point in time.

However, the fact that he had the capacity to make them bothers me today just like it would have bothered me then. He's a dangerous man. He's a man who actually not only had weapons of mass destruction -- the reason I can say that with certainty is because he used them.

And I have no doubt in my mind that he would like to have inflicted harm, or paid people to inflict harm, or trained people to inflict harm, on America, because he hated us.

I hope -- I don't want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't -- you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.



QUESTION: Following on both Judy and John's questions, and it comes out of what you just said in some ways, with public support for your policies in Iraq falling off the way they have, quite significantly over the past couple of months, I guess I'd like to know if you feel, in any way, that you have failed as a communicator on this topic.

BUSH: Gosh, I don't know. I mean ...

QUESTION: Well, you deliver a lot of speeches, and a lot of them contain similar phrases and may vary very little from one to the next. And they often include a pretty upbeat assessment of how things are going, with the exception of tonight. It's pretty somber.

BUSH: A pretty somber assessment today, Don, yes.

QUESTION: But I guess I just wonder if you feel that you have failed in any way. You don't have many of these press conferences where you engage in this kind of exchange. Have you failed in any way to really make the case to the American public?

BUSH: You know, that's, I guess, if you put it into a political context, that's the kind of thing the voters will decide next November. That's what elections are about. They'll take a look at me and my opponent and say, let's see, which one of them can better win the war on terror? Who best can see to it that Iraq emerges a free society?

And, Don, you know, if I tried to fine-tune my messages based upon polls, I think I'd be pretty ineffective. I know I would be disappointed in myself.

I hope today you've got a sense of my conviction about what we're doing. If you don't, maybe I need to learn to communicate better...

Juan Cole: President Bush's Incoherent News Conference

Juan Cole: President Bush's Incoherent News Conference: "And they were happy -- they're not happy they're occupied. I wouldn't be
happy if I were occupied either. " - GEORGE "ASSHOLE" BUSH

Telegraph | News | New claims in CIA row turn heat on Bush aide

Telegraph | News | New claims in CIA row turn heat on Bush aide

Newspapers reported that Karl Rove, the president's chief political strategist, had talked about the agent in a telephone conversation with a columnist in July 2003 shortly before the journalist published the agent's name.

The disclosure of the name, potentially a criminal offence, is the subject of a grand jury investigation that has rocked the White House.

Democrats intensified their calls for Mr Bush to fire Mr Rove, credited with twice putting him in the White House, and often referred to as "Bush's Brain". The president said last year he would fire any staff member who had leaked the agent's identity.

But Republicans hit back, citing a leak from Mr Rove's evidence to a grand jury to argue that far from incriminating him, the details of his conversation with the columnist put him in the clear.

Sources privy to the grand jury told the New York Times and Washington Post that Mr Rove testified last year that in July 2003 he was telephoned by the columnist Robert Novak and asked about the link between a leading critic of the war in Iraq, Joe Wilson, and Valerie Plame, the CIA officer. The pair are married.

Novak said he had heard that Miss Plame suggested that her husband, a former diplomat, be sent on an intelligence mission. Mr Rove told the grand jury that he replied: "I heard that too."

The latest revelation links Mr Rove closer than ever to the outing of Miss Plame. Mr Wilson says she was named to discredit him after he publicly undermined one of Mr Bush's key claims about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

But Mr Rove's allies say he has a perfectly respectable defence. His account of discussions with Novak and with another journalist who wrote about the story, indicates that the subject of Miss Plame's role was raised by the journalists, rather than dropped in by Mr Rove.

It seems unlikely that charges will be levelled against Mr Rove. The crime of outing an agent is hard to prove and Miss Plame was not operating under a particularly deep cover, undermining claims that this is a key issue of national security.

Rather the Democrats are raising it as a matter of credibility, highlighting White House statements that Mr Rove was not involved.

Mr Bush yesterday made a point of defending his old friend. For the second consecutive day he walked to a helicopter at the White House with Mr Rove at his side. The image was intended to signal that Mr Bush will not let his man go without a fierce fight.

The next bombshell is expected over the weekend when Matt Cooper of Time magazine, the second journalist Mr Rove spoke to, publishes an account of his grand jury testimony.

Judith Miller, a New York Times reporter who was researching the story, has been jailed for not revealing her sources, until the end of the grand jury investigation, which is likely to be October.

Democratic spokesmen whipped up the row on news channels, employing brutal language against Mr Rove.

Mr Wilson, a former ambassador and a supporter of last year's Democratic presidential nominee, John Kerry, said Mr Rove must be forced out.

After being sent to Niger in 2002 to check British reports that Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy material for a renewed attempt to acquire nuclear weapons, Mr Wilson found the evidence to be extremely questionable and in July 2003 went public.

Critically for Mr Rove, some key Republican Congressmen stand by the White House.

President Bush Holds Press Conference

President Bush Holds Press Conference
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html#

NOTE-THERE IS VIDEO AND AUDIO OF BUSH SAYING THAT HE JUST DOESN'T SPEND THAT MUCH TIME ON BIN LADEN...
"So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him,"

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

M Is for Moronic - Yahoo! News

M Is for Moronic - Yahoo! NewsMax Blumenthal
Fri Jul 8, 2:12 PM ET



The Nation -- "I frankly feel at PBS headquarters there is a tone deafness to issues of tone and balance," Kenneth Tomlinson, the chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, said in May. Since he was appointed to his position by President Bush, he has set about to change the "tone" and rectify the "balance." For example, he helped secure $4 million to fund Wall Street Journal Report, a round-table discussion featuring the newspaper's right-wing editorial board; no liberals or Democrats need apply. Next he collaborated with Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, to kill a legislative proposal that would have required appointments with local broadcasting experience to the CPB board. Last year, to justify his campaign for balance, Tomlinson commissioned a secret study to prove that certain programs aired on PBS radio and television are contaminated with liberal bias.

To carry out this delicate task, Tomlinson selected Fred Mann, a conservative activist with no credentials as an expert on journalism, broadcasting or media issues, who was obscure even within right-wing circles. Mann was paid $14,700 in taxpayer money to monitor a sampling of PBS shows and file a report to Tomlinson on the political partisanship of their content. Tomlinson seems to have planned for Mann's report to become a seminal conservative document. Republicans would wave it during House appropriations committee hearings as they argued for defunding PBS and realigning its programming. Right-wing talk jocks would blare talking points based on Mann's disturbing findings, which would at last provide definitive proof of a liberal media tilt. Meanwhile, insidious liberal activists boring from within public broadcasting studios would cower in humiliation from the exposure.

While Mann diligently went about his work listening to the radio and watching TV, monitoring episodes of PBS's NOW With Bill Moyers, The Diane Rehm Show and The Tavis Smiley Show--Tomlinson concealed his activities from CPB's board. When Mann filed his detailed report, Tomlinson hid it from the CPB board. Only an internal investigation by CPB's inspector general in mid May revealed the existence of the Mann report. And only when journalists at NPR managed to secure a copy were its contents reported. Reading the study, it is clear why Tomlinson tried to keep it a state secret.

The Mann report reads as if dictated by Cookie Monster while chewing on a mouthful of lead paint chips. Names of famous political figures and celebrities are chronically misspelled. PBS guests are categorized by labels--"anti-DeLay," "neutral," "x"--for often bewildering reasons. Mann appears to have spent endless hours monitoring programs with no political content, gathering such insights as that Ray Charles was blind.

Mann begins each of his PBS program summaries with a chart showing guests' ideological leanings. An "L" denotes guests he judges to be liberal; "C" beside conservatives; "N" beside those who are neutral. Among those Mann designated as conservative is the ex-rapper and actor Mark "Marky Mark" Wahlberg, best known for his role as a well-endowed porn star in the film Boogie Nights. While Wahlberg used his June 2, 2004, appearance on The Tavis Smiley Show to promote juvenile justice programs--a liberal hallmark--he also said in passing, according to Mann, that Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ "was a good thing." Another Tavis Smiley guest, Everlast, the rock-rapper who once fronted the Irish-American rap trio House of Pain, was dubbed a "C" for his opinion that some rap music is "sending a bad message to youth." And Henry Rollins, the former singer for the legendary hardcore-punk band Black Flag, was labeled conservative for stating, in Mann's words, that "people who have problems with the war should support the troops." Apparently, feeling sympathy for American servicemen and women is strictly "C."

Mann's liberals are an equally curious bunch. Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, garnered his "L" after speaking glowingly of Ronald Reagan in a discussion with Tavis Smiley. Hagel is, of course, that comsymp who earned a 100 percent rating from the Christian Coalition last year. Another Rehm guest, Washington Post reporter Robin Wright, earned her "L" by articulating an analytical point Mann apparently had not heard expressed before. "Ms. Wright's viewpoint was that U.S. intelligence was geared to fight the Cold War and did not adapt to the new threat of terrorism," Mann writes, describing why he put the "L" word beside her name. For investigating three of Tom DeLay's associates for illegal fundraising in Travis County, Texas, District Attorney Ronnie Earle, who was interviewed on NOW, was dubbed "anti-DeLay." Dr. Arthur Bodette was slapped with an "L" after discussing on Diane Rehm's show "the unlimited possibilities of new advances in DNA chips to screen for birth defects, cystic fibrosis, and mental retardation."

Another unintentionally hilarious aspect of the Mann report is its sloppy typos. Apparently Tomlinson's budget didn't include a proofreader. Former Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr appears as "Ken Staff," former Assistant Secretary of Defense Dov Zakheim as "Doug Zukheim" and former Congressman Newt Gingrich as "Next Gingrich."

There are also curious asides and digressions. In a description of the March 29, 2004, episode of NOW, Mann notes that 9/11 widow Kristin Breitweiser filled in for Bill Moyers as host. What did he make of this? He doesn't say. In his summary of former CIA operative Robert Baer's interview with Diane Rehm, Mann writes, "Mr. Baer's viewpoint was that [Ahmad] Chalabi leaked secret classified information to Iran regarding U.S. cracking Iran's codes. As to how Chalabi new [sic] this information, Baer speculated, it was probably a drunken operative." Reporting on Gen. Anthony Zinni's appearance on Rehm's show, Mann observes, "His viewpoint was that...Saddam was not a treat [sic]." Yes, and Nixon was not a cook.

Besides scrutinizing political PBS guests, Mann was paid to watch countless hours of nonpolitical programming and report back to Tomlinson with his insights. Thus Tomlinson was secretly informed that during one Diane Rehm episode, "Carole King talked about her career.... James Taylor inspired her." Or that, during The Tavis Smiley Show, actor Jamie Foxx "discussed the career of the late Ray Charles and the obstacles (blind and black) that he had to overcome to achieve success." Next to Foxx's name Mann affixed a lowercase "x," which, because Mann labeled neutral guests with an "N," may mean that Foxx's politics are beyond neutral. Either that or he's become a secret black Muslim.

Who is Fred Mann? For all we know, he could be a werewolf with supersensitive hearing that detects liberal bias inaudible to the average human's ear. But since he and Tomlinson have not provided the same level of accountability they are demanding from others, it is impossible to know. Reporters who have attempted to locate him, including NPR, have all failed. Perhaps only Van Helsing could uncover Mann's tracks. What is known is that in 1980, Mann worked on the senatorial campaign of Dan Quayle. Then, during Reagan's second term, Mann went to work at the Virginia-based National Journalism Center as its job bank and alumni director until he retired last year. The National Journalism Center is directed by M. Stanton Evans, a former editor of the conservative Indianapolis News, and a founder in 1960 of the right-wing youth group Young Americans for Freedom. Through the center, Evans nurtured movement activists like Mann and trained aspiring young media players, including Ann Coulter and Maggie Gallagher, the conservative Catholic columnist who took federal money from the Bush Administration to promote its policies.

The Mann report may be one of the strangest documents ever produced by the federal government; however, it is not totally without value. Though it may be botched as an indictment of liberal media bias, it inadvertently offers an unfiltered glimpse into the recesses of the conservative mind.

The conservative media game was neatly summarized by Matt Labash, a former senior writer for The Weekly Standard who now writes for National Review, in a 2003 interview on the website journalismjobs.com. Labash explained: "The conservative media likes to rap the liberal media on the knuckles for not being objective. We've created this cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objective.... It's a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It's a great little racket."

But until Ken Tomlinson, no conservative imagined that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting would provide taxpayer funding for the "great little racket."

Santorum firm on Boston 'liberal' comment

Santorum firm on Boston 'liberal' commentBOSTON, July 13 (UPI) -- U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., seems to be standing by his statement connecting Boston's ''liberalism" with the Roman Catholic Church's sex-abuse scandal.

Related Headlines
Conservatives laud Santorum's book (July 6, 2005) -- Sen. Rick Santorum's new book urging mothers to stay at home is being praised by conservatives hoping the Pennsylvania Republican will run for ... > full story

Boston students banned from e-mail use (May 28, 2005) -- Boston Public School officials have reportedly followed their ban on the use of cell phones during the school day with a ban on e-mail ... > full story

Law banning Indians in Boston repealed (May 20, 2005) -- The Massachusetts Legislature has sent Gov Mitt Romney a bill that would repeal a 1670s-era bill that bans American Indians from entering ... > full story

Santorum bill would limit NWS access (May 20, 2005) -- Opposition is building to a bill from Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., that would limit public access to National Weather Service information. Santorum ... > full story

Respiratory disease hits greyhounds (May 14, 2005) -- An outbreak of a respiratory infection among racing greyhounds in Massachusetts has spurred a new effort to ban the sport in the state. The Boston ... > full story



Responding to remarks made three years ago, Santorum, a leader among Christian conservatives, told the Boston Globe in a Tuesday interview: " I was just saying that there's an attitude that is very open to sexual freedom that is more predominant" in Boston.

When told the scandal had occurred across the country, Santorum told the Globe that "at the time (in 2002), there was an indication that there was more of a problem there" in Boston.

Massachusetts political leaders ridiculed Santorum's suggestion that priests were driven to abuse children by the city's liberal culture.

Santorum faces a tough race for re-election next year in Pennsylvania. The state's treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr., the expected Democratic candidate, has been ahead or even with Santorum in recent polls, although Casey hasn't begun actively campaigning, the Globe said.

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

HoustonChronicle.com - Judge won't kill charges against DeLay associate

Congresswoman Louise M. Slaughter-Send Karl Rove His Pink Slip!

Congresswoman Louise M. Slaughter
SEND ROVE PACKING TO LOWER SLOBOVIA...FIRE ROVE!

AlterNet: Is Karl Rove Screwed, or Not?

AlterNet: Is Karl Rove Screwed, or Not?
Is Karl Rove Screwed, or Not?

By Jan Frel, AlterNet. Posted July 11, 2005.


For once, Bush or Rove or somebody in this administration may get an uppercut that keeps them down on the mat, or at least out for an eight-count. Tools
EMAIL
PRINT
93 COMMENTS

Also in Top Stories

Boy-President in a Failed World?
Tom Engelhardt, Tomdispatch.com

Arab Media on British Terror
Jamal Dajani, Brian Shott, Pacific News Service

Prison Smokescreen
Tony Newman, AlterNet

The Wages of Intolerance
Marci Hamilton, AlterNet

A Dumb Donkey Report
Steven Rosenfeld, Bob Fitrakis, The Free Press

Stonewalled at the White House
David Corn, DavidCorn.com


More stories by Jan Frel



A week ago, what Karl Rove may have done to expose the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame was just another gone-nowhere, 2-year-old, dusty Bush scandal on the shelf, relegated to languish among the lies that got us into the war in Iraq and the doctored FDA reports that suppressed the risks of Big Pharma's moneymakers.

Today, What Karl Rove Said is the story. And there's every indication that for the first time, he is in deep shit. That's really what everyone wants to confirm: Is Karl Rove screwed, or not? And luckily for us, for the first time he's going to have to answer some questions on terms other than his.

Kenneth Lerer, a former top exec for AOL Time Warner, nailed in the Huffington Post how times have suddenly changed for Bush's Svengali advisor. Here's the world Karl Rove until now has lived in:


[When] Rove says he can't be quoted, he's not quoted. Period. He knows what he says will never ever come back to haunt him. Talk to the reporter. Say what he wants to. Move on to the next call. It's like talking to your psychiatrist or rabbi/priest: It's a private conversation never to be repeated.

And now in the present:

But now imagine if some of the things you said to your psychiatrist, rabbi/priest all of a sudden were to become public. Shit. Now you understand Rove's problem.

But, considering the fact that not one of the seven hairs on Rove's balding head has been so much as singed since Bush took office, it's worth looking at what it is that will take the man down. Is it the court case, or will it be political damage?

David Corn points out that Rove doesn't need to go jail for this incident to do grievous harm to the White House -- and that's what we all care about anyway, right? That for once, Bush or Rove or somebody in the administration gets an uppercut that keeps them down on the mat, or at least out for an eight-count. It's about seeing that you can hurt these folks, who have been miraculous untouchables in their first four-and-a-half years.

Corn writes, "This is proof that the Bush White House was using any information it could gather on Joseph Wilson -- even classified information related to national security -- to pursue a vendetta against Wilson, a White House critic. Even if it turns out Rove did not break the law regarding the naming of intelligence officials, this new disclosure could prove Rove guilty of leaking a national security secret to a reporter for political ends. What would George W. Bush do about that?"

Corn reminds us that in George Bush's statements on the leak scandals of 2003, Bush threatened to "take care of" anyone behind the leak. And that he ordered anyone with knowledge about the Plame affair to come forward. Corn writes, "Has Rove done so? No. So it seems he violated a presidential command. Would Bush be obliged to fire him for insubordination?"

Rove is certainly nailed for that. His firing would certainly approach the political damage so many have waited years for.

But it will take media bullying and a concerted effort by all the progressive bully pulpits to turn the Rove's role in the Plame affair into The Question that Bush Must Answer. Oddly enough if it comes down to a political and media battle, Karl Rove is screwed only if a convincing public case is made that what Rove Did Was Wrong, and that Karl Rove Is Screwed.

Reading all the articles and analyses out there, it's pretty clear that no one has a clue if the court case will bring down Rove; with the possible exception of Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor in charge of the case, and even then, he probably doesn't have a clue, either. Not very satisfying, is it? Imagine that despite all this frenzy, no one has even got a solid lead so far on whether on not Karl Rove will be indicted, and if you consider that the stretch between being indicted and going to jail for something is longer than Tom DeLay's list of ethics scandals, there's no point in waiting to find out if Rove will plea-bargain for parole before he turns 60.

Consider Sunday's Big Revelation, which comes from Michael Isikoff in Newsweek. Isikoff published a copy of an email by Time's Matt Cooper in his report that names Rove as the source who leaked Valerie Plame's identity. Here's the money-shot sentence pulled whole-cloth from the email: "It was, KR said, Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip."

Not only this, Rove is now known to have leaked this information before Bob Novak wrote about it in his infamous column of 2003, a loophole in Rove's potential defense now sealed. Potential defense, because of course, if Rove hadn't talked about Plame until Novak published his column, then Rove would be able to say that he learned about Plame reading the column.

So he's screwed, right?

Well, there's no proof that Rove lied about this yet, because in what has become his central public testimony is that he didn't know or leak her name. By saying "she" or "Wilson's wife," or whatever, he's not necessarily lying. Whether Rove lied under oath is still a private matter between Fitzgerald and the grand jury. And then the only other way Rove goes to jail is if he "knowingly" blew Plame's cover, and of course, whether or not someone knowingly did something is one of the hardest things to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

There is one thing causing a distraction from the wave of reports on the Rove scandal, and that is much of the reporting itself. All the big breaking stories on the Rove scandals carry a tone that makes it clear that each word tapped out by every journalist from Michael Isikoff of Newsweek to Dan Balz at the Washington Post was produced in an atmosphere where the authors were judging their work against the giant stories of journalism: the Pentagon Papers, the discovery of My Lai massacre, Watergate. Same with the TV analysts and their pronouncements.

The vanity of these power-hungry hacks swarming around Karl Rove's fate is, I think, revealed perfectly in the very same email from Time's Matt Cooper that confirmed Karl Rove as his source. Cooper writes with boyish glee that Rove told him these things about Valerie Plame on the condition that they use the Tree-House Gang's highest security clearance: "double super secret background." Cooper of course agreed, but only on the condition that Rove would supply the chocolate bars.

But that's another distraction from the real story here, which is that for the first time, there is real blood in Bush's political waters -- and that Karl Rove Is Screwed.


=============SNIP===============
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CBC News: Bush administration won't discuss Rove's role in CIA leak

CBC News: Bush administration won't discuss Rove's role in CIA leak
Bush administration won't discuss Rove's role in CIA leak
Last Updated Tue, 12 Jul 2005 15:25:30 EDT
CBC News
U.S. President George W. Bush and his press secretary declined to answer questions again Tuesday on whether senior advisor Karl Rove leaked the name of a CIA agent to the media to get back at an administration critic.

The president promised a year ago to fire anyone found to have leaked the name of Valerie Plame, which appeared in a column by Washington-based reporter Robert Novak.

But Bush declined to answer a direct question Tuesday on Rove's role, and later White House press secretary Scott McClellan refused to comment for the second day in a row as reporters fired questions at him.

"This is a question relating to an ongoing investigation," was all McClellan would say while under the grilling. Reporters wanted to know whether Rove had committed a crime, would resign or had affected the credibility of the White House.

They also asked in vain about Republican party attempts to downplay Rove's alleged conversation with a Time magazine reporter.

However, McClellan did publicly defend Rove in the fall of 2003 after the investigation had started, a discrepancy he also failed to address. "The president knows he's not involved," McClellan said at the time.


FROM JAN. 6, 2005: N.Y. Times reporter jailed for refusing to divulge source's name

An e-mail from July 2003 by Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper says Rove told him that the woman "apparently works" for the CIA. Federal prosecutors are investigating who in the Bush administration leaked the name of Valerie Plame to the media.

A U.S. law, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, forbids naming undercover agents. It is punishable by a $50,000 US fine and 10 years in jail.

Cooper avoided going to jail recently after a judge ordered two reporters to divulge who had told them about Plame. Judith Miller of the New York Times is in jail for refusing to comply.

Media reports say four other reporters were fed the Plame information before Novak published it, but no one wrote that the administration was using the leak as a revenge tactic.

Niger-Saddam nuclear link sought

Plame's name was released in an apparent backlash against her husband, Joesph Wilson, a former Clinton diplomat the CIA sent to Africa in 2002 to pursue claims by the administration that Saddam Hussein had obtained nuclear material from Niger.

The quest turned up empty after supposedly official documents first discovered by British intelligence were found to be fake.

Wilson wrote an editorial piece published in the New York Times, which criticized Bush for mentioning the Niger-Saddam link in his 2003 state of the union address that ratcheted up the case for invading Iraq.

That fall, the CIA asked the Justice Department to probe the leak and it called a grand jury investigation.

Also Tuesday, senior Democrats waded into the partisan fray with former presidential candidate Senator John Kerry saying: "I believe Karl Rove ought to be fired." Senator Hillary Clinton and Senate minority leader Harry Reid agreed.

"If these allegations are true, this rises above politics and is about our national security," Reid said.

A Senate intelligence report has shown that Plame twice recommended her husband travel to Niger and that the nuclear mission was approved without senior level CIA approval.


Bloomberg.com: U.S.

Bloomberg.com: U.S.White House Says Rove Retains Bush's Backing After CIA Leak
July 12 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush still has confidence in Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, administration spokesman Scott McClellan said, after Rove's name surfaced in the investigation into who disclosed the name of a covert intelligence agent.

``Any individual who works here at the White House has the confidence of the president,'' McClellan said in response to questions about Rove at the daily White House briefing. ``Everybody who is working here is helping us to advance an agenda, and that includes Karl in a big way.''

Earlier today, during an appearance with Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Bush ignored reporters' questions about whether Rove should be fired.

For the second consecutive day, McClellan refused to answer questions about Rove's role in the case, in which an independent prosecutor is investigating the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's name to reporters in 2003. It's a federal crime to intentionally reveal the identity of a covert agent.

McClellan said investigators ``certainly expressed a preference'' that he and other members of the administration not discuss the case.

Democrats, including Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the party's 2004 presidential nominee, called on Bush to fire Rove, the president's top political adviser and the architect of Bush's two presidential election victories.

E-Mail

The July 18 issue of Newsweek reported that Rove told Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper that diplomat Joseph Wilson's 2002 trip to Niger to investigate whether Iraq tried to buy uranium there was authorized by his wife, ``who apparently works'' at the CIA. Newsweek cited an e-mail Cooper sent to his editors that the magazine said has been turned over to the prosecutor. Newsweek reported that Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, said Rove never mentioned Plame's name or that she was a covert agent.

Cooper and another reporter, Judith Miller of the New York Times, were ordered to disclose their sources to the prosecutor investigating the leak, and Miller is now in jail for refusing. Cooper agreed to testify. Plame's name surfaced after Wilson wrote an opinion article for the New York Times criticizing the Bush's administration's case for going to war in Iraq.

At issue are past statements by McClellan, who in September and October 2003, denied Rove's involvement in the leak. ``They assured me that they were not involved in this,'' McClellan said on Oct. 10, 2003, referring to Rove, Deputy National Security Adviser Elliot Abrams and Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff.

McClellan said today that any comment now might compromise the investigation.

``The investigation is continuing. I want to be helpful to the investigation. I don't want to jeopardize anything in that investigation,'' McClellan said. ``I look forward to talking about some of these matters once the investigation is complete.''

Kerry and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid cited past statements by McClellan and Bush that anyone involved in the leak should be fired.

``We are asking the President and the White House to do what they promised,'' Kerry said in an e-mail to supporters.

Sunday, July 10, 2005

FT.com / Home UK - Top Bush adviser revealed as Plame source

By Holly Yeager in Washington
Published: July 10 2005 23:17 | Last updated: July 10 2005 23:17

Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's top political adviser, was the secret source who gave a Time magazine reporter permission to testify last week, thus avoiding jail for contempt of court, Newsweek reported on Sunday.

Mr Rove has been the subject of growing speculation as two journalists faced prison for failing to reveal their sources to a federal prosecutor investigating the leak of the identity of Valerie Plame, an undercover CIA officer.

Last week Judith Miller of the New York Times was jailed after she refused to testify before a grand jury about her source. Matt Cooper, of Time magazine, had expected to keep his source a secret as well. But in dramatic fashion, just as he was about to persist in maintaining his silence, he said he received permission from his source to testify in court.

Mr Cooper has refused to identify his source publicly. But in this week's edition Newsweek said Mr Rove's attorney had confirmed that Mr Rove had discussed Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador who is married to Ms Plame, with Mr Cooper and that he gave Mr Cooper permission to testify.

It is illegal to reveal knowingly the identity of an undercover officer, and the prosecutor has been searching for the source of the leak who revealed Ms Plame's identity, which was first reported by Robert Novak, a columnist.

Mr Rove has insisted he did not leak Ms Plame's name, and e-mail accounts included in the Newsweek story only make clear that he talked to Mr Cooper about Mr Wilson's wife, without revealing her name.

“Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative,” according to Newsweek. “Nonetheless, it is significant that Rove was speaking to Cooper before Novak's column appeared; in other words, before Plame's identity had been published.”

Was it Karl Rove? - The Nuge Board

Was it Karl Rove? - The Nuge Board
Thunder&Lightning
Member posted 07-06-2005 11:21 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
who outed Joe Wilson's wife? If so, he and Novak both need to be sharing a jail cell. Treason committing m*t*e*f*c*e*s.
IP: Logged

Oscar
Member posted 07-06-2005 11:26 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But but but but..he's on OUR side, so treason's ok!
IP: Logged

Thunder&Lightning
Member posted 07-06-2005 11:37 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the implications are far reaching and a major threat to "our security". 20 years of undercover C.I.A. work down the tubes. Her life has been seriously endangered, as well as the lives of the people she associated with, whether or not they knew. All becuase her husband would not jump in bed with the administration. I've known for some time now what a credent Mr. Rove is. He is a Lee Atwater protege. If compelling evidence arises which points to his guilt, losing his job will be the least of his worries.

Bush aide Rove was Time reporter's source-Newsweek

Bush aide Rove was Time reporter's source-Newsweek

Reuters
Sunday, July 10, 2005; 6:35 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Top White House advisor Karl Rove was one of the secret sources that spoke to reporters about a covert CIA operative whose identity was leaked to the media, Newsweek magazine reported in its latest edition.

The magazine said Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed that Rove talked to Time magazine about former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame.


Free E-mail Newsletters
Today's Headlines & Columnists
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
Daily Politics News & Analysis
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
Federal Insider
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
Breaking News Alerts
See a Sample | Sign Up Now

Luskin said Rove recently gave Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper permission to testify about the conversation to a grand jury investigating the leak in 2003, according to Newsweek.

A U.S. federal judge ordered Cooper, along with New York Times reporter Judith Miller, to testify and reveal their confidential sources.

Last week Cooper avoided a jail sentence for contempt of court by agreeing to testify in the case. Miller refused to testify and was jailed.

The case has become an important test involving freedom of the press and has pitting the media's traditional use of anonymous sources against the efforts of a federal government prosecutor to investigate a possible crime.

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

Although Rove has made statements about the Plame leak, he has never publicly acknowledged talking to any reporter about the CIA agent.

Rove has carefully chosen his words when questioned about the leak. "I didn't know her name. I didn't leak her name," he told CNN last year when asked if he had had anything to do with it.

All Headline News - Karl Rove Revealed as Source in Time Magazine, CIA Case - July 10, 2005

All Headline News - Karl Rove Revealed as Source in Time Magazine, CIA Case - July 10, 2005
Karl Rove Revealed as Source in Time Magazine, CIA Case

July 10, 2005 10:21 p.m. EST


Danielle George - All Headline News Staff Reporter

WASHINGTON (AHN) - One of the sources that leaked the identity of a CIA operative to Time Magazine reporters, is Top White House advisor, Karl Rove, according to Newsweek Magazine.

Newsweek said Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed that Rove talked to Time magazine about former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame.

Two journalists faced prison for failing to reveal their sources to a federal prosecutor investigating the leak of the identity of Valerie Plame, an undercover CIA officer.

It is illegal to knowingly reveal the identity of an undercover officer, and the prosecutor has been searching for the source of the leak who revealed Ms Plame's identity, which was first reported by Robert Novak, a columnist.

Last week Judith Miller of the New York Times was jailed after she refused to testify before a grand jury about her source. Matt Cooper, of Time magazine, had expected to keep his source a secret as well, but he said he received permission from his source to testify in court.

Rove is adamant that he did not leak Plame's name, and e-mail accounts included in the Newsweek story show that while he talked to Cooper about Plame there was no mention of her name.

“Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative,” according to Newsweek
=======snip============
The Puppetmaster....Ah Yes...The Texas Turd Blossom...Loose Lips Sink Shits

AlterNet: Blogs: Peek: Newsweek: Rove as source revealed

AlterNet: Blogs: Peek: Newsweek: Rove as source revealedNewsweek: Rove as source revealed

Posted by Deanna Zandt at 8:13 AM on July 10, 2005.


Yep, Rove's our guy. Now let's nail him. Blog Tools
EMAIL
PRINT
COMMENTS


David Corn reports this morning that Newsweek has obtained a copy of emails sent from Matt Cooper to his editor revealing that Karl Rove is the source of the Plame leak. "There now is clear-cut evidence that Rove was involved in--if not the chief architect of--the actions that led to the outing of Plame/Wilson. If he's not in severe legal trouble, he ought to be in political peril," he says, and in another post, explains the full ramifications. (David Corn)


Deanna Zandt is a media, message and web design consultant, as well as a political arts activist in New York.




BLAST FROM THE PAST-----Wayne Madsen: Exposing Karl Rove

Wayne Madsen: Exposing Karl Rove
Exposing Karl Rove
by WAYNE MADSEN

He's America's Joseph Goebbels. As a 21-year old Young Republican in Texas, Karl Rove not only pimped for Richard Nixon's chief political dirty tricks strategist Donald Segretti but soon caught the eye of the incoming Republican National Committee Chairman, George H. W. Bush. Rove's dirty tricks on behalf of Nixon's 1972 campaign catapulted Rove onto the national stage. From his Eagle's Nest in the West Wing of the White House, Rove now directs a formidable political dirty tricks operation and disinformation mill.

Since his formative political years when he tried to paint World War II B-24 pilot and hero George McGovern as a left-wing peacenik through his mid-level career as a planter of disinformation in the media on behalf of Texas and national GOP candidates to his current role as Dubya's "Svengali," Rove has practiced the same style of slash and burn politics as did his Nixonian mentor Segretti. Many of us remember the Lincolnesque Senator Ed Muskie breaking down in tears during the 1972 campaign over Segretti-planted false stories in a New Hampshire newspaper that accused Mrs. Muskie of being a heavy smoker, drinker, and cusser and accused Muskie of uttering a slur in describing New Hampshire's French Canadian population. Rove's hero also forged letters on fake Muskie campaign letterhead, disrupted rallies and fundraising dinners, and spread false stories about the sex lives of candidates. Segretti's brush also smeared George McGovern, George Wallace, Shirley Chisholm, and McGovern's first vice presidential choice, Senator Tom Eagleton. Segretti of course did not go on to a high-level White House job -- he was sentenced to six months in federal prison for distributing illegal campaign material.

In many respects, however, the apprentice Rove has far exceeded the chicanery and evil-mindedness of his mentor Segretti. Rove is a tech-savvy puppet master for Bush. Take, for example, last June's discovery of a "lost" CD-ROM in Lafayette Park across from the White House. Contained on the CD was a PowerPoint presentation given by White House political director Ken Mehlman to Rove on the strategy for next Tuesday's off-year election. The slide show showed First Brother Jeb Bush being vulnerable in Florida. Jeb Bush later joked that the disc was part of a plot cooked up by him and his brother to make it appear that he was vulnerable in order to rally an otherwise complacent GOP base in the Sunshine State. Or was it a joke? Jeb Bush and his political minions like Katherine Harris have shown us that if anyone thinks what the GOP has done in Florida is funny they have an incredibly sick sense of humor.

Rove's own tendency to be sick-minded originates with his mentor Segretti. The 2000 GOP primary was a chance for Rove to hone his skills in dirty tricks. His target then was Senator John McCain who appeared to be within striking distance of Dubya in South Carolina after the then-GOP maverick's surprise upset victory in New Hampshire. Rove's operation proceeded to target McCain with false stories: McCain was a stoolie for his captors in the Hanoi Hilton (this from a lunatic self-promoting Vietnam "veteran"); McCain fathered a black daughter out of wedlock (a despicable reference to McCain's adopted Bangladeshi daughter); Cindy McCain's drug "abuse"; and even McCain's "homosexuality." In the spirit of Segretti, Rove engineered a victory for Dubya but at the cost of trashing an honorable man and his family. Muskie, McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Hart, Tsongas, Clinton, Biden, Dole, Perot, and others had all seen the Segretti/Rove slash and burn tactics before.

And Rove's penchant for fascistic demagoguery and outright lying continues to this very day. After Paul Wellstone's sons asked that Vice President Dick Cheney not attend the Minneapolis memorial service for their father, mother, and sister, the White House explained that the real reason wasn't the surviving Wellstone family's abhorrence for Cheney but the fact the family didn't want Cheney's Secret Service protection to interfere with public access to the service. Of course, the Rove and Ari Fleischer disinformation machine forgot to take into account that two attendees, Bill and Hillary Clinton, had their own Secret Service details. But such is the case with a White House that takes its lessons from Goebbels and the editorial staff of the old Soviet News Agency Tass.

Rove's dirty fingerprints could also be seen in the Iowa Senate race between Tom Harkin and GOP candidate Greg Ganske. A few months ago, a story was leaked that the Harkin campaign had employed a spy within the Ganske campaign. To put this in a Rove context, we must go back to the 1986 Texas gubernatorial race in which Rove's candidate Bill Clements was taking on Democratic Governor Mark White. Just before a debate between the two candidates, Rove spun the story that his office had been bugged. No proof. But the insinuation that White's people had carried out the bugging was reported by the media. In the election, Clements defeated White. Rove stashed away more political capital into his already heavy knapsack of ill-gotten IOUs.

During the 2000 presidential campaign, we were obviously treated to more Rove chicanery when the following Associated Press story hit the wires: "A woman who worked for a media company that produced ads for President George W. Bush's campaign was indicted for secretly mailing a videotape of Bush practicing for a debate to Vice President Al Gore's campaign." Yes, that videotape, along with a 120-page briefing book, just happened to turn up in Gore's headquarters as fast as the CD-ROM turned up in Lafayette Park. The sourcerer Segretti must be very proud of his apprentice. In 1980, no Republican bemoaned the fact that Jimmy Carter's debate briefing book was swiped and found its way into the hands of the Reagan-Bush campaign. In Rove's world, its only an affront when someone "steals" your own campaign secrets and not when your are on the receiving end of a heist.

"If you're not with me, you're against me." Bush's binary view of "good and evil" and "friend and enemy" sits well with the Rove strategy. Georgia's conservative but libertarian-minded Representative Bob Barr found out about this in last August's primary when his GOP primary opponent John Linder began spreading around stories that Barr was "soft on terrorism." Because Barr was skeptical about a number of aspects of the Bush-Ashcroft USA PATRIOT Act, he became a target for the Rove machine. However, it was likely that Barr became a target earlier on when he supported Steve Forbes against Bush in the 2000 primary. Bush apparently means to say, "If you've not always been with me, you're against me." It must have really been a dilemma for Bush and Rove to have to come to the support of John Sununu, Jr. in the New Hampshire Senate race. Although Daddy made George W. unceremoniously give the axe to Sununu's father as White House Chief of Staff during the Bush 41 administration, the man who the junior Sununu defeated in the primary, Bob Smith, was even more of a problem. He had the temerity to quit the Republican Party in 2000 and run against Dubya for President. So in Bushspeak, which is obviously borrowed from Forrest Gump's scripts, "if you're less with me than the other guy, you're more against me."

Undoubtedly, Rove was also behind the campaign to "get" Georgia Representative Cynthia McKinney who was the first nationally-known politician to question what Bush may have known beforehand about 9-11. She was defeated by a former Republican state judge who had supported the wacky Alan Keyes for President in 2000. Never mind, McKinney was "less with Bush" than Keyes, so it was more important to get McKinney who was "more against" Bush.

In all seriousness, rewarding the GOP on November 5 will only increase the appetite of Rove to amass more and more power into the White House. The advent of a Democratic-controlled Senate and House might even begin to spell the end of the road for Segretti's star pupil. German opposition figures in the mid-1930s often lamented the fact that they could have stopped the rise of the Nazis if only they had been more united in a common front when they had a chance. However, they fell prey to the media manipulation of Goebbels and fought among themselves more than they did against the menace from the far right. We Americans also have an early opportunity to stem an out-of-control and anti-constitutional regime with the Rasputin-like Rove at the after steerage helm of our ship of state. That opportunity presents itself next Tuesday--Election Day.

Saturday, July 09, 2005

"London Calling...:"

If anything is learned from the horrible loss of life due to the London attacks, it is that this bizarre notion that we need to be in Iraq to "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here."

Tell that to the families of British soldiers serving in Iraq that sustained injuries or deaths in the attacks of 7-7-2005.

Thursday, July 07, 2005

KARL ROVE: WORSE THAN OSAMA BIN LADEN - Yahoo! News

KARL ROVE: WORSE THAN OSAMA BIN LADEN - Yahoo! News
NEW YORK--In war collaborators are more dangerous than enemy forces, for they betray with intimate knowledge in painful detail and demoralize by their cynical example. This explains why, at the end of occupations, the newly liberated exact vengeance upon their treasonous countrymen even they allow foreign troops to conduct an orderly withdrawal.

ADVERTISEMENT

If, as state-controlled media insists, there is such a creature as a Global War on Terrorism, our enemies are underground Islamist organizations allied with or ideologically similar to those that attacked us on 9/11. But who are the collaborators?

The right points to critics like Michael Moore, yours truly, and Ward Churchill, the Colorado professor who points out the gaping chasm between America's high-falooting rhetoric and its historical record. But these bête noires are guilty only of the all-American actions of criticism and dissent, not to mention speaking uncomfortable truths to liars and deniers. As far as we know, no one on what passes for the "left" (which would be the center-right anywhere else) has betrayed the United States in the GWOT. No anti-Bush progressive has made common cause with Al Qaeda, Hamas, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan or any other officially designated "terrorist" group. No American liberal has handed over classified information or worked to undermine the CIA.

But it now appears that Karl Rove, GOP golden boy, has done exactly that.

Last week Time magazine turned over its reporter's notes to a special prosecutor assigned to learn who told Republican columnist Bob Novak that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent. The revelation, which effectively ended Plame's CIA career and may have endangered her life, followed her husband Joe Wilson's publication of a New York Times op-ed piece that embarrassed the Bush Administration by debunking its claims that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from Niger. Time's cowardly decision to break its promise to a confidential source has had one beneficial side effect: according to Newsweek, it indicates that Karl Rove himself made the call to Novak.

One might have expected Rove, the master White House political strategist who engineered Bush's 2000 coup d'état and post-9/11 permanent war public relations campaign, to have ordered a flunky underling to carry out this act of high treason. But as the Arab saying goes, arrogance diminishes wisdom.

Rove, whose gaping maw recently vomited forth that Democrats didn't care about 9/11, is atypically silent. He did talk to the Time reporter but "never knowingly disclosed classified information," claims his attorney. But there's circumstantial evidence to go along with Time's leaked notes. Ari Fleischer abruptly resigned as Bush's press secretary on May 16, 2003, about the same time the White House became aware of Ambassador Wilson's plans to go public. (Wilson's article appeared July 6.) Did Fleischer quit because he didn't want to act as spokesman for Rove's plan to betray CIA agent Plame? Another interesting coincidence: Novak published his Plame column on July 14, Fleischer's last day on the job.

If Newsweek's report is accurate, Karl Rove is more morally repugnant and more anti-American than Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden, after all, has no affiliation with, and therefore no presumed loyalty to, the United States. Rove, on the other hand, is a U.S. citizen and, as deputy White House chief of staff, a high-ranking official of the U.S. government sworn to uphold and defend our nation, its laws and its interests. Yet he sold out America just to get even with Joe Wilson.

Osama bin Laden, conversely, is loyal to his cause. He has never exposed an Al Qaeda agent's identity to the media.

"[Knowingly revealing Plame's name and undercover status to the media]...is a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act and is punishable by as much as ten years in prison," notes the Washington Post. Unmasking an intelligent agent during a time of war, however, surely rises to giving aid and comfort to America's enemies--treason. Treason is punishable by execution under the United States Code.

How far up the White House food chain does the rot of treason go? "Bush has always known how to keep Rove in his place," wrote Time in 2002 about a "symbiotic relationship" that dates to 1973. This isn't some rogue "plumbers" operation. Rove would never go it alone on a high-stakes action like Valerie Plame. It's a safe bet that other, higher-ranking figures in the Bush cabal--almost certainly Dick Cheney and possibly Bush himself--signed off before Rove called Novak. For the sake of national security, those involved should be removed from office at once.

Rove and his collaborators should quickly resign and face prosecution for betraying their country, but given their sense of personal entitlement impeachment is probably the best we can hope for. Congress, and all Americans, should place patriotism ahead of party loyalty.

Campaign veterans run anti-Wal-Mart effort - Tom Curry - MSNBC.com

Campaign veterans run anti-Wal-Mart effort - Tom Curry - MSNBC.comWASHINGTON - A union crusade against America's largest retailer, Wal-Mart, has the potential to not only hurt the company’s balance sheet and alter Americans’ shopping habits, but also to change the course of the 2006 and 2008 campaigns.

Americans cast their votes not just on Election Day but every day, by deciding where to spend their money. And the United Food and Commercial Workers Union is urging Americans to not spend their money at Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart has successfully fought the union's efforts to organize its workforce.

Now the union has recruited strategists from the 2004 Howard Dean and Wesley Clark campaigns, and they are mounting a crusade that goes beyond the usual union tactics, such as the boycott or shareholder resolution expressing disapproval of a company’s policies.

Paul Blank, who served as political director for the Dean campaign, is running the "Wake-Up Wal-Mart” campaign, and Chris Kofinis, a strategist for the Clark campaign, is the effort's communications adviser.

Blank and Kofinis are deploying election campaign-tested tactics to assail Wal-Mart: running petition drives and holding house parties, canvassing at farmers’ markets, stockpiling an e-mail list and conducting conference calls to marshal the efforts of local anti-Wal-Mart activists.

“We need a broad social movement to change this company,” said Blank. “This is a moral question about what kind of America we want to live in. Do we want to live in Wal-Mart’s version of America, where you drive down wages, don’t provide health insurance, provide no retirement security, ship jobs overseas and have complete abandonment of your values in the relentless pursuit of profit?”

“This is going to become a very important wedge issue that political leaders on Capitol Hill and across the country are going to have to face,” said Kofinis.

Focus on health insurance
At the moment, the union’s indictment of Wal-Mart is focused on the charge that the company does not provide adequate medical insurance for its employees, some of whom must turn to Medicaid, the federal-state insurance program for low-income people.

The company’s response: It offers health insurance plans to both full-time and part-time workers. The full-time worker must wait six months before being eligible and the part-timer must wait two years. The Arkansas-based Wal-Mart has 1.2 million employees, of which 568,000, or 47 percent, are covered by the plan.

Blank offers a longer bill of anti-Wal-Mart particulars:

"Poverty-level wages, which have a huge negative impact not only on the workers but also in terms of driving down wages for the entire industry."
A retirement plan that is "an empty promise which leaves more than 550,000 Wal-Mart employees ineligible for any retirement benefits at all."
"Exploitation of sweatshop labor and foreign–sourced labor."
"The destruction of small businesses in communities and downtowns."
"Sprawl" caused by the company’s proliferating stories.
One possibility is that the Americans who shop at Wal-Mart — about 112 million of them every week — have digested these charges and nonetheless still like the store's low prices.

But Kofinis said the company will have no choice but to change its practices to keep customers. “If consumers say, ‘You do not reflect our values right now, the way you treat you employees, the effect you have on the country; if you don’t change your behavior, we’re not going to do business with you.’ Wal-Mart is going to respond to that," he said.

Blank added, "This is not about destroying Wal-Mart. This is about making a better America and that starts by making Wal-Mart be a more responsible company."

If consumers sour on Wal-Mart, grocery store chains such as Kroger and Giant and discounters such as Costco stand to gain. All three have workforces that are at least partly unionized.

Creating jobs
Wal-Mart’s response to the United Food and Commercial Workers Union is that it offers people a way out of poverty, with an average wage of $9.68 per hour. (One Wal-Mart competitor, Costco, says its average wage is $16.72 per hour.)

“Wal-Mart often provides the mechanism for associates to remove themselves from public assistance and build a better life,” said Wal-Mart spokesman Nate Hurst. “Seventy-six percent of our store management began in hourly jobs at our stores, often their first jobs.

Another company spokesman, Dan Fogleman, responded to the "destroying neighborhood business" charges by saying, "Look outside almost every Wal-Mart store. You'll find business cropping up. Businesses want to locate near Wal-Mart locations to take advantage of the customer flow we create."

Last year, he said, Wal-Mart purchased $150 billion in goods and services from more than 61,000 suppliers in the United States .

As for "sprawl," Fogleman said, "Look at a Wal-Mart super center. You can do your shopping, get an oil change for your car, get prescriptions filled, get a hair cut. It is the truly the convenience of a one-stop shopping experience."

Rebutting Blank’s charge of “no retirement security,” Fogleman said Wal-Mart offers a combined profit sharing/401(k) plan and contributes up to 4 percent of an employee's wages, whether the employee contributes his own money or not.

So for a worker making $30,000 a year, Wal-Mart will contribute $1,200 a year.

Both full- and part-time workers are eligible to participate in the plan after completing 13 months of service and 1,000 hours.

The company also offers a stock purchase plan and matches 15 percent of a worker’s purchases. More than half of the employees own Wal-Mart stock obtained through the purchase plan.

In Congress and in some state legislatures, the union is getting support from its Democratic allies. This year, the Democratic-controlled Maryland Legislature passed a law requiring firms with more than 10,000 employees to spend an amount equal to at least 8 percent of its payroll costs on health care benefits. The only employer to fall into this category was Wal-Mart.

Governor vetoes bill on health insurance
Gov. Robert Ehrlich, a Republican who is running for re-election next year, vetoed the measure, saying it jeopardized Wal-Mart's plans to build a distribution center in Somerset County, Md., that would provide up to 750 jobs at an average of $12 an hour, $2.50 more than the county's current average wage.

The law, Ehrlich said, is “bad policy because it imposes an arbitrary number on employers and health care and further establishes that a state will dictate to businesses the type and level of health insurance they must provide for their employees.”

Blank predicted that Ehrlich would "pay a political price for standing with Wal-Mart.”

Meanwhile, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. has been touting his bill to require states to identify which companies with 50 or more employees have workers receiving Medicaid or other taxpayer-funded health insurance. The bill would also require states to estimate the cost to taxpayers of providing health insurance to employees of large firms who are enrolled in Medicaid.

“Every American worker across this country is contributing a part of their taxes to pay for health care for those families in need who work at Wal- Mart,” Kennedy said at a recent Capitol Hill rally . “And at the same time we see record profits, which they (Wal-Mart executives) are distributing to themselves and to their shareholders.”

The bill’s purpose, according to its House sponsor, Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., is to “find out how much that dollar that we’re saving on a pair of jeans is costing us in other ways.”

Kennedy said his bill “is the first step, but it certainly will not be the last,” hinting at a federal law along the lines of the Maryland legislation that Ehrlich vetoed.

Arguing that Wal-Mart’s low wages undercut its competitors, whose workers are represented by labor unions, Sen. Jon Corzine, D- N.J. said, “Our friends who work in the labor movement struggle every day in collective bargaining to try to provide health care to their workers… It is absolutely essential that we level the playing field, that we make sure that workers are treated equally everywhere.”

Contributor to Clinton, Bayh campaigns
If one believes that campaign contributions give a donor political clout, then Kennedy, Corzine, and Weiner face an uphill battle in Congress.

The Wal-Mart political action committee, which ranked 20th among all PACs in the amount of its donations in the 2004 campaign, gave 78 percent of its contributions to Republican candidates and 22 percent to Democrats.

Among the prominent Democrats receiving Wal-Mart PAC money for the 2004 and 2006 campaigns are Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, and House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland. In the early 1990s, while living in Arkansas, Hillary Clinton served on Wal-Mart's board of directors.

If the Wal-Mart issue grows in prominence, then Clinton and Bayh, potential contenders for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, may find themselves facing tough questioning from anti-Wal-Mart activists on the campaign trail.

“Every American worker across this country is contributing a part of their taxes to pay for health care for those families in need who work at Wal- Mart,” Kennedy said at a recent Capitol Hill rally . “And at the same time we see record profits, which they (Wal-Mart executives) are distributing to themselves and to their shareholders.”

The bill’s purpose, according to its House sponsor, Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., is to “find out how much that dollar that we’re saving on a pair of jeans is costing us in other ways.”

Kennedy said his bill “is the first step, but it certainly will not be the last,” hinting at a federal law along the lines of the Maryland legislation that Ehrlich vetoed.

Arguing that Wal-Mart’s low wages undercut its competitors, whose workers are represented by labor unions, Sen. Jon Corzine, D- N.J. said, “Our friends who work in the labor movement struggle every day in collective bargaining to try to provide health care to their workers… It is absolutely essential that we level the playing field, that we make sure that workers are treated equally everywhere.”

Contributor to Clinton, Bayh campaigns
If one believes that campaign contributions give a donor political clout, then Kennedy, Corzine, and Weiner face an uphill battle in Congress.

The Wal-Mart political action committee, which ranked 20th among all PACs in the amount of its donations in the 2004 campaign, gave 78 percent of its contributions to Republican candidates and 22 percent to Democrats.

Among the prominent Democrats receiving Wal-Mart PAC money for the 2004 and 2006 campaigns are Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, and House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland. In the early 1990s, while living in Arkansas, Hillary Clinton served on Wal-Mart's board of directors.

If the Wal-Mart issue grows in prominence, then Clinton and Bayh, potential contenders for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, may find themselves facing tough questioning from anti-Wal-Mart activists on the campaign trail.


eXTReMe Tracker