Google Groups: Publishing Trouble

Google Groups: Publishing Trouble

AIR AMERICA REPORTS KARL ROVE TO BE INDICTED ON PERJURY

AIR AMERICA REPORTED THIS EVENING THAT KARL ROVE TOLD JOSH BOLTON THAT HE (KARL) IS TO BE INDICTED ON PERJURY AND ROVE IS STEPPING DOWN FROM HIS POSITION AT THE WHITE HOUSE.

Rove Attacks Democrats for Wanting to `Cut and Run' (Update1)

Jan. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's top political adviser, criticized Democrats for wanting to ``cut and run'' in Iraq and said Bush and the Republicans better understand how to make the country stronger and safer.
``We have a loud chorus of Democrats who want us to cut and run in Iraq,'' Rove, 54, said in a broad attack at the winter meeting of the Republican National Committee in Washington.
``The U.S. faces a ruthless enemy and we need a commander in chief and Congress who understand the nature of the threat and gravity of the moment America finds itself in,'' Rove said. ``President Bush and the Republican party do. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for many Democrats.''
The speech, to about 270 party members, was Rove's first public address since November. He didn't mention the political scandals that hang over the capital, choosing to focus on three areas where he said the parties differ -- national security, the economy and the courts -- in what may be a precursor of the party's platform in this year's mid-term elections.
``Republicans and Democrats have deep differences about our nation, where it is going and what needs to be done to make it stronger, better and safer'' Rove said in a speech interrupted several times by applause.
`Radical Position'
Without citing any Democrats by name, Rove blasted ``one radical position'' calling for ``an immediate stand-down of U.S. troops in Iraq and withdrawal by the end of April.'' Democratic Representative John Murtha, a Vietnam War veteran who voted in favor of the Iraq war, in November called for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, saying they could be out of the country in as soon as six months.
``To retreat before victory has been won would be a reckless act, and this president and our party will not allow it,'' Rove said, drawing a round of applause.
Rove ignored the legal problems that have ensnared some prominent Republicans. I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, was indicted in October on perjury and obstruction of justice charges. He has pleaded not guilty. Rove himself remains under investigation in the probe, which centers on the leaking of Central Intelligence Agency Valerie Plame's name after her husband criticized the Bush administration.
Defending Surveillance
Former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has been indicted on alleged campaign finance violations, and lobbyist Jack Abramoff has pleaded guilty in a federal corruption probe.
President Bush ordered the White House staff in November to take refresher classes on ethics rules and both political parties are striving to be labeled the party of ``reform'' by proposing new regulations on lobbyists.
RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman did touch on the scandals in a speech before Rove's. While ``I'm loyal to the members of our party,'' Mehlman said, ``if Republicans are guilty of illegal or inappropriate behavior, they should pay the price and they should suffer the consequences.''
Rove defended the warrantless surveillance by the National Security Agency as necessary ``to protect American lives'' and said it was ``both legal and fully consistent with'' the Fourth Amendment and the protection of civil liberties.'
The Republicans' winter meeting is designed largely to energize party members for the November congressional elections.
Inevitably, there was also talk of future presidential elections. Mehlman drew laughter during a rules committee session yesterday when he said the group was extremely important because it will set the rules for the selection of the party's 2012 nominee. ``And George P. Bush's presidential campaign will be watching what you are going to do,'' Mehlman said.
George P. Bush is the eldest son of Florida Governor Jeb Bush and President Bush's nephew. In 2012, he will turn 36, one year older than the Constitution requires for the presidency.

Bush Launches “Operation Cindy Sheehan”

Deep in the heart of Texas, an epic confrontation is taking place between Citizen Sheehan and President Bush. It all started when Cindy Sheehan decided to show up in Crawford to petition her president for credible answers about a war policy that resulted in the death of her eldest son.

As recent polls clearly demonstrate, the majority of Americans are very concerned about the debacle in Iraq. They too want to know about the secret agenda that compelled Bush to spill so much blood and waste so much treasure in Iraq. That helps explain the incredible response to Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a fallen soldier who decided she wasn’t buying the administration’s shifting rationale for the war.

So far, Bush has evaded Cindy’s attempts to interrogate him on his motives for launching this disastrous venture. In his estimate -- Sheehan deserves no meeting and no response. The president has made an executive decision that his job description does not oblige him to divulge the real reasons for invading Iraq.

It’s not that Bush doesn’t have time to spare. One can only speculate as to the number of hours he has already wasted plotting a plan of attack against the lady from Vacaville. It now appears that the battle plans have been finalized and “Operation Cindy Sheehan” has already been launched.

Once again, Karl Rove has let the dogs out. A vicious campaign to maul Citizen Sheehan is in play. Instead of answering her questions -- the right wing media hacks are focusing on her motives, her mental health, her ideology and her family. These are standard and classic Rovian tactics used to smear administration critics. The predictable pundits at FOX have taken the lead by portraying Sheehan as a treasonous “crackpot” who is exploiting the death of her son to gain fame and fortune and advance the extremist political agenda of leftist “anti-American” groups. Hate radio stations across the nations are assailing Cindy’s integrity and questioning her patriotism.

The objective of this smear campaign is to draw fire away from Bush. Instead of focusing on the argument between Sheehan and the president -- we now have a contest between Sheehan’s supporters and her detractors. What started out as a search for the truth is being reduced to an ideological spat between the left and the right.

The success of the White House plan of attack is by no means certain. Unlike the small band of neo-cons that infest the administration, most Americans are not glued to any ideology. They tend to navigate the political landscape using nothing more than their common sense. Millions of honorable conservatives want answers to Cindy’s questions. As for the phantom “extreme left” in America -- it only exists in the imagination of the extreme right, which unfortunately has a very real constituency.

Still, one should never underestimate Karl Rove. The man has an unenviable track record in the smear industry. Vilifying Cindy puts her on the defensive and obliges her to fend off vicious attacks questioning her motives, her agenda and her ideology. My guess is that Cindy is not wedded to any ideology and her only agenda is to stop this senseless war and bring the troops home from Iraq -- safe and sound. She does, however, have a motive. She wants George Bush and his merry band of neo-cons to pay a political price for sending Casey Sheehan to an early grave.

The smear campaign against Sheehan has other advantages. It gives the mainstream media a pass from concentrating on George Bush and his failed policies in Iraq. Let there be no doubt that the mainstream media barons have as much stake in this drama as the president. Judith Miller is but one example of the many “journalists” and publishers who conspired with the White House to market this war of choice and pull off the WMD hoax. So, don’t expect them to push the envelope.

Mass Media corporations have transformed themselves into one giant burial ground for this administration’s scandals. In covering the Iraq war, the major media outlets have consistently acted as an echo chamber for the rosy projections originating in the White House. In the last month alone, they have dodged the responsibility to cover the Plame case and the AIPAC spy scandal at the Pentagon. Allegations of war profiteering by Dick Cheney and Paul Bremer have been put aside.

Every critic of this war has taken his lumps. Gen. Eric Shinseki was ushered out of the army for suggesting that the occupation of Iraq required hundreds of thousands of foot soldiers. Lawrence Lindsey was dismissed when he estimated that the war would cost up to $200 billion. The neo-cons berated both men’s estimates as being “wildly off the mark.” We all know what happened to Ambassador Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame. Hans Blix was publicly defamed, Scott Ritter was ignored and General Anthony Zinni was smeared as an anti-Semite. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was labeled a malcontent. And who now remembers Richard Clarke, the anti-terror adviser, who accused both Bush and Clinton of dropping the ball in confronting Bin Laden prior to 9/11?

On the other hand, the neo-con architects of this quagmire are being handsomely rewarded for their disservice to the nation. Cheney managed to steer multi-billion dollar no-bid contracts to Halliburton. Following in the steps of Robert McNamara, Paul Wolfowitz was promoted to the World Bank. Douglas Feith managed to sneak out the back door of the Pentagon -- no doubt with a generous pension and a new assignment at the Israeli Lobby. And Rumsfeld and Condi Rice still retain their positions of power and influence. When did the mainstream press ever question the motives, character and ideology of these individuals? We don’t even know if Rummy has kids or if Condi has ever landed a date. When have you encountered stories about Paul Wolfowitz and his Israeli sister or Douglas Feith and his law offices in Jerusalem? What about Richard Perle and his management position at the Jerusalem Post? It is common knowledge among certain circles in Washington that Wolfowitz, Feith and Perle have spent their entire professional lives working for think tanks that act as fronts for the Israeli Lobby. We don’t even know if these people have in-laws -- much less what their in-laws think about their Likudnik ideology.

Although Karl Rove has the MSM freaks of nature in his back pocket, he still has his work cut out for him. His adversary is a white middle class small town practicing Catholic mother who married her high school sweetheart at the age of 17. Cindy Sheehan descended on Crawford armed with nothing more than a few legitimate inquiries about the cause of the quagmire in Iraq. In a single year of political activism -- she has managed to earn recognition as a national leader in the peace movement. So far, the Bush administration has vastly underestimated her ability to clearly frame questions regarding the disaster in Iraq. Like, why are we still there and why did we go there in the first place? Who was responsible for the WMD hoax and how can we hold them accountable? When do we bring the troops home and when do we get straight answers?

If we didn’t have Cindy Sheehan -- we would have to invent her. Millions of Americans have reached the conclusion that this illegal and immoral war was justified by an elaborate campaign of deception orchestrated by neo-con operatives in the administration and the media. A small cabal of mud slinging hooligans posing as journalists and pundits has effectively silenced our collective voice. Neo-con chicken hawks and war profiteers posturing as patriots hijacked the Pentagon while many of us sat passively on the fence as neutral observers. When the fictional WMDs didn’t materialize, we gave Bush a pass. Before the first shot was fired, we knew that Iraq had no link to the 9/11 atrocities. Yet, we gave this war mongering administration and its media collaborators carte blanche.

For Cindy to succeed in her noble mission, we need a sudden outbreak of journalism in America. We need to shove aside the professional character assassins at CNN and FOX. We can never hope to shame the clowns on hate radio. Their shame genes were absent at birth. It is a worthless exercise to expect a rational exchange with those endowed with the intellect of cartoon characters. These right wing hacks specialize in the art of distraction. The best way to get around their attempts to shield the president from having to answer Cindy’s questions is to ignore their ideological tantrums and keep pressing for answers from Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice and Congress.

Instead of getting an honest response from the president, Cindy Sheehan is being publicly flogged for daring to challenge the war’s rationale. While journalists go on bike rides with the president -- she ends up doing their job and pressing for answers to some very important life and death questions.

This is not about left or right or center. It’s about the truth and accountability. It’s about the democratic process that Bush claims to champion abroad. We need a little demonstration of his commitment to democracy right here in America. George Bush has an obligation to provide Citizen Sheehan with credible answers as to why 15,000 American soldiers have been killed and wounded in Iraq. We need to remind those in high office that they work for us and we have every right to question their job performance. And we desperately need to reign in Karl Rove by demanding more information of his role in the Plame games. We also need to give credit to the millions of honorable conservatives and Republicans who have voiced their doubts about George Bush’s war and share Cindy’s contempt for the neo-cons. And we need to acknowledge the intellectual integrity of the many Americans who supported the war because they honestly fell for the WMD hoax and Saddam’s alleged role in the 9/11 atrocities. If so many of them had not changed their minds -- we would not now have a majority of Americans rallying against the war. Last but not least, we need to acknowledge Cindy Sheehan as a true American hero who ignited a peaceful democratic insurgency deep in the heart of Texas. That’s the America Casey Sheehan was willing to fight and die for. And that’s the America the world admires.

Rove and Ashcroft face new allegations in the Valerie Plame affair

August 13th, 2005

Justice Department officials made the crucial decision in late 2003 to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the leak of the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame in large part because investigators had begun to specifically question the veracity of accounts provided to them by White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, according to senior law enforcement officials.
Several of the federal investigators were also deeply concerned that then attorney general John Ashcroft was personally briefed regarding the details of at least one FBI interview with Rove, despite Ashcroft's own longstanding personal and political ties to Rove, the Voice has also learned. The same sources said Ashcroft was also told that investigators firmly believed that Rove had withheld important information from them during that FBI interview.

Those concerns by senior career law enforcement officials regarding the propriety of such briefings continuing, as Rove became more central to the investigation, also was instrumental in the naming of special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald.

Up until that point, the investigation had been conducted by a team of career prosecutors and FBI agents, some of whom believed Ashcroft should recuse himself. Democrats on Capitol Hill were calling for him to step down, but he did not. Then on December 30, 2003, Ashcroft unexpectedly recused himself from further overseeing the matter, and James B. Comey, then deputy attorney general, named Patrick J. Fitzgerald as the special prosecutor who would take over the case.

The Justice Department declined to publicly offer any explanation at the time for either the recusal or the naming of a special prosecutor—an appointment that would ultimately place in potential legal jeopardy senior advisers to the president of the United States, and lead to the jailing of a New York Times reporter.

During his initial interview with the FBI, in the fall of 2003, Rove did not disclose that he had ever discussed Plame with Time magazine correspondent Matthew Cooper, according to two legal sources with firsthand knowledge of the matter. Federal investigators were also skeptical of claims by Rove that he had only first learned of Plame's employment with the CIA from a journalist, even though he also claimed he could not specifically recall the name of the journalist.

As the truthfulness of Rove's accounts became more of a focus of investigators, career Justice Department employees and senior FBI officials became even more concerned about the continuing role in the investigation of Ashcroft, because of his close relationship with Rove. Rove had earlier served as an adviser to Ashcroft during the course of three political campaigns. And Rove’s onetime political consulting firm had been paid more than $746,000 for those services.

In response to these new allegations, Representative John Conyers of Michigan, the current ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, and former chairman of the committee as well, said in a statement: "There has long been the appearance of impropriety in Ashcroft's handling of this investigation. The former attorney general had well documented conflicts of interest in this matter, particularly with regard to his personal relationship with Karl Rove. Among other things, Rove was employed by Ashcroft throughout his political career, and Rove reportedly had fiercely advocated for Ashcroft's appointment as attorney general. Pursuant to standard rules of legal ethics, and explicit rules on conflict of interest, those facts alone should have dictated his immediate recusal.

"The new information, that Ashcroft had not only refused to recuse himself over a period of months, but also was insisting on being personally briefed about a matter implicating his friend, Karl Rove, represents a stunning ethical breach that cries out for an immediate investigation by the Department's Office of Professional Responsibility and Inspector General."

A Justice Department spokesman declined on Friday to say what action, if any, might be taken in response to Conyers' request.

Cindy Sheehan's Pitched Battle

Cindy Sheehan's Pitched BattleCindy Sheehan's Pitched Battle
In a Tent Near Bush's Ranch, Antiwar Mother of Dead Soldier Gains Visibility

By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, August 13, 2005; Page A01

CRAWFORD, Tex., Aug. 12 -- Cindy Sheehan vaulted into national consciousness this month on the power of her story as the grieving mother of a fallen soldier.

But what began as a solitary campaign to force a meeting with President Bush by setting up camp along the road to his ranch has quickly taken on the full trappings of a political campaign. Sheehan is working with a political consultant and a team of public relations professionals, and now she is featured in a television ad.
Sheehan began her protest here last Saturday after crisscrossing the country for more than a year demanding answers on why Bush continues to wage what she calls an unjust war in Iraq. After her son Casey Sheehan, 24, was killed in Baghdad last year, she founded Gold Star Families for Peace, an antiwar organization that labored largely in obscurity -- until now.

In part, Sheehan's case has echoed as her grievances merged with what polls show is growing dissatisfaction with the war. But her cause has also been aided by political organizers who swiftly mobilized around her -- recognizing an opportunity to cause acute discomfort for a vacationing president and put a powerful emotional frame around the antiwar movement.

No one watching cable television news this week, dominated by coverage of Sheehan's crusade, could doubt that they largely achieved their aim.

Sheehan's Crawford encampment has swollen in the past week, as other antiwar protesters have flocked to Texas. Members of CodePink, a women's antiwar organization, have pitched their tent near Sheehan's.

TrueMajority -- an antiwar group founded by Ben Cohen, one of the creators of Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream -- hired Fenton Communications, a Washington public relations firm that has worked intermittently with Sheehan over the past year to coordinate media coverage.

With this help, Sheehan has courted coverage from the traveling White House press corps with a news conference. A schedule of when relatives of other military casualties in Iraq are expected to join Sheehan here was distributed to reporters. Her team is coordinating an antiwar rally planned for Saturday.

Joe Trippi, the political consultant behind former Vermont governor Howard Dean's early success in the 2004 Democratic presidential primary race, hosted a conference with Sheehan for liberal Internet bloggers, hoping their online dispatches will draw even wider attention.

On Saturday, Sheehan launched a TV ad campaign hoping to achieve what her roadside vigil so far has not: a second chance to directly tell Bush about the devastation she has experienced since her son's death.

"Mr. President, I want to tell you face to face how much this hurts," Sheehan says in the ad, which will air with only a modest $15,000 buy of airtime in Waco, the nearest broadcast market to Bush's 1,600-acre spread. "How many more of our loved ones need to die in this senseless war?"

The rising profile of Sheehan's vigil has proved awkward for the president's staff, which has been reluctant to publicly refute the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, even as they do not wish to be seen as bowing to what they view as an orchestrated publicity campaign. On Friday, as Bush's motorcade whizzed by Sheehan's camp on the way to a nearby barbecue expected to raise $2 million for the Republican National Committee, Sheehan held up a sign saying "Why do you make time for donors and not for me?"

Bush has been publicly respectful, responding to Sheehan's case with reporters on Thursday and saying he has thought "long and hard about her position," even though he disagrees with her about the war.

Still, as Sheehan has stepped onto the media stage, she has become a target in the way that happens inevitably to anyone involved in high-stakes political combat -- with opponents questioning her motives and examining her statements for contradictions.

"Despite what the headlines say, Sheehan, 48, is more antiwar protester than grieving mother," said a column Friday in the online version of the American Spectator. "She is co-founder of Gold Star Families for Peace, an organization that seeks to impeach George W. Bush and apparently to convince the U.S. government to surrender to Muslim terrorists."

Meanwhile, the Heart of Texas chapter of FreeRepublic.com, an online conservative forum, has scheduled a demonstration here for Saturday to counteract Sheehan's protest and show support for Bush and the war.

Others have also raised questions about Sheehan's account of her first meeting with Bush, which occurred two months after her son's death in April 2004. Sheehan was part of a larger group of grieving family members who met with Bush at Fort Lewis in Washington state.

After the meeting, she was quoted by the newspaper in her hometown of Vacaville, Calif., as saying that the president seemed sympathetic. Subsequently, she has said that Bush treated her callously during the meeting.

Sheehan said her initial reaction to Bush reflected her shock over her son's death. In addition, she said she grew increasingly angry toward Bush as it became clear that the United States had not found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and as evidence emerged that the administration had discussed an invasion of Iraq before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. She has said that she has become further angered as the administration has sent mixed signals about its plans for withdrawing troops from Iraq.

Though Sheehan's protest has galvanized support among antiwar activists, it has divided parts of her own family, some of whom sent an e-mail to news organizations distancing themselves from her protest.

"We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the expense of her son's good name and reputation," said an e-mail sent to the Reporter newspaper, in Vacaville. The e-mail was signed by Casey Sheehan's aunt Cherie Quartarolo on behalf of his paternal grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins.

"The Sheehan family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving," the e-mail said. "The rest of the Sheehan family supports the troops, our country and our president, silently, with prayer and respect."

Sheehan, however, told the paper that the admonition came from in-laws who often disagreed with her.

"We have always been on separate sides of the fence politically and I have not spoken to them since the elections when they supported the man who is responsible for Casey's death," Sheehan said. "The thing that matters to me is that my family, Casey's dad and my other three kids, are on the same side of the fence that I am."

Arianna Huffington: It Takes a Village to Smear Cindy Sheehan - Yahoo! News

Arianna Huffington: It Takes a Village to Smear Cindy Sheehan - Yahoo! NewsArianna Huffington
Fri Aug 12, 7:22 PM ET



The right wing attacks on Cindy Sheehan -- desperate, pathetic, and grasping at straws -- expose much less about their target than about the attackers.

ADVERTISEMENT

I mean, trying to slime a grieving Gold Star mom because she is inconveniently questioning the reasons her son was sent off to die in Iraq? Why that would be like trashing a much-decorated war hero or outing an undercover CIA agent…

Oh, right…

How much longer can the Bushies get away with mauling the very values they profess to stand for before their supporters start getting wise to the fact that the only value they really value is power?

Think about it, they’ve shown absolutely no compunction about turning the sleaze machine on an undercover agent who’d spent her career working to protect us from weapons of mass destruction, a Silver Star/Purple Heart veteran who volunteered to fight in a war the administration chickenhawks gamed the system to avoid, and now the mother of a dead soldier.

The right wing smear machine whirrs on -- using its media mouthpieces to do this dirtiest of dirty work. First it was the lie that Sheehan had, in the words of Drudge, “dramatically changed her account” of her June 2004 meeting with Bush. Despite the fact that this supposed flip-flop was a total distortion created by taking quotes out of context, the story quickly made its way into the hands of conservative bloggers… and allowed the TV jackal-pack to start tearing away at Sheehan’s flesh. For all the details on how this went down, check out Media Matters blow-by-blow description. The lowlights included Bill O’Reilly and Michelle Malkin tag-teaming up to push the idea that Sheehan’s “story hasn’t checked out”. O’Reilly also claimed Sheehan “is in bed with the radical left”, and, later suggested “this kind of behavior borders on treasonous”… and, for bad measure, tried to slime Sheehan by linking her with “people who hate this government, hate their country”.

Rush Limbaugh played his usual role, parroting the flip-flop party line, saying that Sheehan was “trying to pull a little bit of a swindle” and that “she’d been totally co-opted by…the whole Michael Moore leftist mentality.” Fred Barnes piled on, saying of Sheehan: “She’s a crackpot” (no doubt using the same video-based diagnostic technique pioneered by Bill Frist). And Michelle Malkin went all Patricia Arquette on the case, using her heretofore unpromoted ESP powers to let us know that Sheehan’s dead son Casey wouldn’t approve of “his mother’s crazy accusations”.

Beyond contempt. But I will say this for these sleazeballs: they are nothing if not resilient. After the Cindy as Flip-Flopper story was revealed as a very poorly done hatchet job, a second load of sludge was quickly dumped: the ludicrous statement from the (ahem) “Sheehan Family” condemning Cindy’s “political motivations and publicity tactics” (run under a banner headline proclaiming “Family of Fallen Soldier Pleads: Please Stop, Cindy”).

Where do I start with this piece of manufactured offal? How about the fact that no one put their names on the statement, which was “signed” by “Casey Sheehan’s grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins”. Don’t these folks have names? The only name attached to the “Sheehan Family” statement (delivered to Drudge via email with permission “to distribute as you wish”) belongs to Cherie Quartarolo who describes herself as Casey’s aunt and godmother. So did I miss something? Since when does godmother outrank mother? What I really want to know is: how does Casey’s second-cousin-twice-removed feel about Cindy’s vigil? How about his ex-brother-in-law’s cleaning lady?

Cindy deals with all this very succinctly in her latest post, but suffice it to say that Casey’s dad and their three other children are all supportive of what Cindy is doing. Hmm… I always thought conservatives were big proponents of the importance of the nuclear family. Does James Dobson know about this attempt to undermine the primacy of a mother?

I guess it takes a village to trash a grieving Gold Star Mom.

CNN.com - Soldier's mom digs in near Bush ranch - Aug 7, 2005

CNN.com - Soldier's mom digs in near Bush ranch - Aug 7, 2005CRAWFORD, Texas (CNN) -- A mother whose son was killed in Iraq says she is prepared to continue her protest outside President Bush's ranch through August until she is granted an opportunity to speak with him.

Later, in a TV interview, a Democratic senator from California said the episode evokes images that were commonplace during the Vietnam War.

Cindy Sheehan's 24-year-old son -- Army Spc. Casey Sheehan of Vacaville, California -- was killed in Baghdad's Sadr City on April 4, 2004. The Humvee mechanic was one of eight U.S. soldiers killed there that day by rocket-propelled grenades and small arms fire. (Full story)

They are among the 1,829 American troops, including 31 this month, who have died in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.

The president -- who is spending a nearly five-week-long working vacation at his Texas ranch -- said in a speech Wednesday that the sacrifices of U.S. troops were "made in a noble cause." (Full story)

Sheehan said she found little comfort in his comments.

"I want to ask the president, why did he kill my son?" Sheehan told reporters. "He said my son died in a noble cause, and I want to ask him what that noble cause is."

Sheehan said hers was one of a group of about 15 families who each met separately with the president one day last June.

"He wouldn't look at the pictures of Casey. He didn't even know Casey's name," she told CNN Sunday. "Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject."

Sheehan said she was so distraught at the time that she failed to ask the questions she now wants answered.

"I want him to honor my son by bringing the troops home immediately," Sheehan told reporters Saturday. "I don't want him to use my son's name or my name to justify any more killing."

Sheehan, who co-founded the anti-war group Gold Star Families for Peace, led about 50 demonstrators near the Bush ranch Saturday. Some protesters were with the group Veterans for Peace, which was holding a convention in Dallas.

The protesters stopped their bus miles from the ranch in Crawford, and walked less than a half-mile before being stopped by local law enforcement officials.

A message on the Gold Star Families Web site says, "We want our loved ones' sacrifices to be honored by bringing our nation's sons and daughters home from the travesty that is Iraq IMMEDIATELY, since this war is based on horrendous lies and deceptions.

"Just because our children are dead, why would we want any more families to suffer the same pain and devastation?"

The message also urges Bush to send his twin daughters, Jenna and Barbara, to Iraq "if the cause is so noble."

The site says the group is made up of families of soldiers who have died as a result of war, primarily in Iraq.

Joe Hagin, White House deputy chief of staff, and Stephen Hadley, national security adviser, met with Sheehan for about 45 minutes Saturday, according to White House spokesman Trent Duffy.

Sheehan said that the two men "were very respectful."

"They told me the party line of why we are in Iraq," she said. "I told them that I don't believe that they believed that."

Duffy said Saturday that "many of the hundreds of families the president has met with know their loved one died for a noble cause and that the best way to honor their sacrifice is to complete the mission."

Bush has refused to provide a time frame for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, saying American forces will return home when Iraqis can take care of their own security.

"President Bush wants the troops home as soon as possible, but the U.S. will not cut and run from terrorists," Duffy said.

Sheehan elicited sympathy from both sides of the political spectrum on Sunday.

"What you're seeing with that mom trying to meet with President Bush is echoes of Vietnam," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat. "Because no one is seeing the light at the end of the tunnel."

"I think the president ought to meet with this mother," said Sen. George Allen, a Virginia Republican. "What I would say to her is her son will always be remembered as a great hero and a patriot, advanced freedom in Iraq and the Middle East, has made this country more secure."

Boxer said her own message would be different: "I would tell her to do everything she could to spare other families this grief, to get us off this cycle of violence."

Recent surveys have shown decreasing public support for the war.

In a Newsweek poll released Sunday, 64 percent of those asked said they do not believe the war in Iraq has made Americans safer, and 61 percent said they disapprove of the way the president is handling the war.

The telephone poll of 1,004 adults was taken from Tuesday to Thursday last week and has a margin of error of 4 percentage points.

Gainesville.com | The Gainesville Sun | Gainesville, Fla.

Gainesville.com | The Gainesville Sun | Gainesville, Fla.Evolution revolution?



By ELISABETH BUMILLER

The New York Times
August 05. 2005 6:01AM

Font Size: 101112131415161718192021222324









sharp debate between scientists and religious conservatives escalated this week over comments by President Bush that the theory of intelligent design should be taught with evolution in the nation's public schools.

In an interview at the White House on Monday with a group of Texas newspaper reporters, Bush appeared to endorse the push by many of his conservative Christian supporters to give intelligent design equal treatment with the theory of evolution in public schools.

Intelligent design, advanced by a group of academics and intellectuals and some biblical creationists, disputes the idea that natural selection - the force Charles Darwin suggested drove evolution - fully explains the complexity of life. Instead, intelligent design proponents say that life is so intricate that only a powerful guiding force, or intelligent designer, could have created it.

Intelligent design does not identify the designer, but critics say the theory is a thinly disguised argument for God and the divine creation of the universe. Invigorated by a recent push by conservatives, the theory has been gaining support in school districts in 20 states, with Kansas in the lead.

Recalling his days as Texas governor, Bush said in the interview, according to a transcript, "I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught." Asked again by a reporter whether he believed that both sides in the debate between evolution and intelligent design should be taught in the schools, Bush replied that he did, "so people can understand what the debate is about."

Bush was pressed as to whether he accepted the view that intelligent design was an alternative to evolution, but he did not directly answer. "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," he said, adding that "you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."

On Tuesday, the president's conservative Christian supporters and the leading institute advancing intelligent design embraced Bush's comments, while scientists and advocates of the separation of church and state disparaged them. At the White House, where intelligent design has been discussed in a weekly Bible study group, Bush's science adviser, John H. Marburger III, sought to play down the president's remarks as common sense and old news.

Marburger said in a telephone interview that "evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology" and "intelligent design is not a scientific concept." Marburger also said that Bush's remarks should be interpreted to mean that the president believes that intelligent design should be discussed as part of the "social context" in science classes.

Marburger said that it would be "overinterpreting" Bush's remarks to say that the president believes that intelligent design and evolution should be given equal treatment in schools.

But Bush's conservative supporters said that the president had indicated exactly that in his remarks.

"It's what I've been pushing, it's what a lot of us have been pushing," said Richard Land, the president of the ethics and religious liberties commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. Land, who has close ties to the White House, said that evolution "is too often taught as fact," and that "if you're going to teach the Darwinian theory as evolution, teach it as theory. And then teach another theory that has the most support among scientists."

But critics saw Bush's comment that "both sides" should be taught as the most troubling aspect of his remarks. "It sounds like you're being fair, but creationism is a sectarian religious viewpoint, and intelligent design is a sectarian religious viewpoint," said Susan Spath, a spokeswoman for the National Center for Science Education, a group that defends the teaching of evolution in public schools.

"It's not fair to privilege one religious viewpoint by calling it the other side of evolution."

Spath added that intelligent design was viewed as more respectable and sophisticated than biblical creationism, but "if you look at their theological and scientific writings, you see that the movement is fundamentally anti-evolution."

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called the president's comments irresponsible, and said that "when it comes to evolution, there is only one school of scientific thought, and that is evolution occurred and is still occurring." Lynn added that "when it comes to matters of religion and philosophy, they can be discussed objectively in public schools, but not in biology class."

The Discovery Institute in Seattle, a leader in developing intelligent design, applauded the president's words on Tuesday as a defense of scientists who have been ostracized for advancing the theory.

"We interpret this as the president using his bully pulpit to support freedom of inquiry and free speech about the issue of biological origins," said Stephen Meyer, the director of the institute's Center for Science and Culture. "It's extremely timely and welcome because so many scientists are experiencing recriminations for breaking with Darwinist orthodoxy."

At the White House, intelligent design was the subject of a weekly Bible study class several years ago when Charles W. Colson, the founder and chairman of Prison Fellowship Ministries, spoke to the group. Colson has also written a book, "The Good Life," in which a chapter on intelligent design features Michael Gerson, an evangelical Christian who is an assistant to the president for policy and strategic planning.

"It's part of the buzz of the city among Christians," Colson said in a telephone interview on Tuesday about intelligent design. "It wouldn't surprise me that it got to George Bush. He reads, he picks stuff up, he talks to people. And he's pretty serious about his own Christian beliefs."

Politics News Article | Reuters.com

Politics News Article | Reuters.comBy Steve Holland
CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - About 70 anti-war protesters shouted "bring the troops home" from Iraq near President Bush's ranch on Saturday, prompting two White House officials to come out to meet with mothers who lost children in combat in Iraq.

National Security Adviser Steven Hadley and Deputy White House chief of staff Joe Hagin listened to the concerns of Cindy Sheehan and five or six other mothers in a meeting that lasted about 45 minutes, White House spokesman Trent Duffy said. Duffy said Sheehan told the two officials she appreciated the meeting.

"I want to ask the president, why did you kill my son? What did my son die for?" Sheehan, 48, Vacaville, California, told reporters before meeting with Hadley and Hagin. Sheehan blames Bush for the death of her son, Army Specialist Casey Sheehan, 24, killed on April 4, 2004, in Sadr City, Baghdad.

The protest coincided with release of a Newsweek poll that said 61 percent of Americans disapproved of the way Bush was handling the situation in Iraq. The poll came after more than two dozen Americans were killed in the past week in Iraq.

Newsweek said it was Bush's lowest rating on Iraq and the first time it had dropped below 40 percent in its poll. Pentagon officials have said maintaining public support for the war is key to the troops' morale.

The group of protesters, including U.S. veterans from the Iraq and Vietnam wars, were loud yet peaceful and McLennan County sheriff's deputies, trying to avoid arrests, stopped them on a road about 5 miles from Bush's ranch on a hot August day.

"W. killed her son! W. killed her son!" the crowd shouted. They also shouted "Bring the troops home now" and held up signs with slogans such as "Impeach the Chicken-Hawk-in-Chief."

The protesters, many who came from a peace rally in Dallas, first drove toward the ranch in a school bus painted red, white and blue. It was stopped at a police checkpoint and the protesters got out and walked.

Police allowed the group to walk on the side of the road for about a half mile but then stopped them when some in the group walked on the street itself.

After some protesters left, a small group led by Sheehan vowed to stage a vigil on the side of the road until someone representing the White House came out to talk.

HoustonChronicle.com - Anti-war protesters go after Bush at home

HoustonChronicle.com - Anti-war protesters go after Bush at homeAnti-war protesters go after Bush at home
Group, which included mothers of soldiers killed in Iraq, is halted 5 miles from ranch
By MICHAEL HEDGES
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

CRAWFORD - Some U.S. veterans of the Iraq war and mothers of men who died in combat there joined an anti-war protest near President Bush's ranch Saturday and predictably were stopped from delivering to Bush their demand to bring American troops home.The demonstration by about 50 people was led by Cindy Sheehan of Vacaville, Calif., who said her son Casey was killed in Baghdad in April 2004. She said she was motivated to protest by Bush's remark last week in Dallas that those who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan sacrificed their lives for a noble cause.

"I want to ask George Bush what noble cause my son died for," she said. "I don't want him to use my son's name or my family's name to justify more killing."

After driving in a caravan led by a red, white and blue bus to within about six miles of Bush's ranch, the group walked another mile through the withering, near-triple-digit heat, chanting slogans, such as "W killed her son."

They were stopped by a phalanx of local law enforcement officers and U.S. Secret Service agents.

Sheehan, who heads a group called Gold Star Families For Peace, clutched a picture of her son as a 7-month-old and vowed to stay near the ranch until Bush agreed to meet with her.

No one from the ranch, where the president and first lady Laura Bush spent the day, directly acknowledged the protesters.

Trent Duffy, a White House spokesman, said, "We mourn the loss of every life, and Americans deeply appreciate those who have made the supreme sacrifice.

"The president has met with hundreds of families of those fallen. He grieves with all those who have lost loved ones," the spokesman added.

Among the protesters was Amy Branham of Houston, who said her 22-year-old son, Jeremy Smith, was killed in a vehicular accident at Fort Hood in February 2004, just before his unit was to ship out for Iraq.

"Iraq has claimed so many victims that no one is even counting those who died in preparation and those who committed suicide after getting back because of what they saw," she said.

Garett Reppenhagen, 30, said he returned from Iraq in February after a tour of duty as a scout and sniper with the 1st Infantry Division.

"Almost every day I was there, I saw something that made me hate the war," he said. "I saw dead children and women, injured Americans."

Some of the protesters had vowed to get arrested. A few of the most strident tried to accomplish that by calling local police officers fascists and shouting personal insults at them. But as of late Saturday, no one had been detained, a police official said.

Most of the protesters left the area after about a half hour, leaving Sheehan and a few others settled in a shallow ditch next to a one-lane highway, surrounded by scraggly brush and a few cacti.

michael.hedges@chron.com

C.I.A. Leak Case Recalls Texas Incident in '92 Race - New York Times

C.I.A. Leak Case Recalls Texas Incident in '92 Race

E-Mail This
Printer-Friendly
Single-Page
Reprints
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
Published: August 6, 2005
WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 - These hot months here will be remembered as the summer of the leak, a time when the political class obsessed on a central question: did Karl Rove, President Bush's powerful adviser, commit a crime when he spoke about a C.I.A. officer with the columnist Robert D. Novak?

Skip to next paragraph

Lauren Shay/Associated Press
Karl Rove, left, and Robert D. Novak, friends for 20 years, in June 2003 at the 40th-anniversary celebration for Mr. Novak's syndicated column. Mr. Rove's button says, "I'm a source, not a target."
Whatever a federal grand jury investigating the case decides, a small political subgroup is experiencing the odd sensation that this leak has sprung before. In 1992 in an incident well known in Texas, Mr. Rove was fired from the state campaign to re-elect the first President Bush on suspicions that Mr. Rove had leaked damaging information to Mr. Novak about Robert Mosbacher Jr., the campaign manager and the son of a former commerce secretary.

Since then, Mr. Rove and Mr. Novak have denied that Mr. Rove was the source, even as Mr. Mosbacher, who no longer talks on the record about the incident, has never changed his original assertion that Mr. Rove was the culprit.

"It's history," Mr. Mosbacher said last week in a brief telephone interview. "I commented on it at the time, and I have nothing to add."

But the episode, part of the bad-boy lore of Mr. Rove, is a telling chapter in the 20-year friendship between the presidential adviser and the columnist. The story of that relationship, a bond of mutual self-interest of a kind that is long familiar in Washington, does not answer the question of who might have leaked the identity of the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson, to reporters, potentially a crime.

But it does give a clue to Mr. Rove's frequent and complimentary mentions over the years in Mr. Novak's column, and to the importance of Mr. Rove and Mr. Novak to each other's ambitions.

"They've known each for a long time, but they are not close friends," said a person who knows both men and who asked not to be named because of the investigation into a conversation by Mr. Novak and Mr. Rove in July 2003 about Ms. Wilson, part of a case that has put a reporter for The New York Times, Judith Miller, in jail for refusing to testify to the grand jury.

The two men share a love of history and policy, as well as reputations as aggressive partisans and hotheads.

People who have been officially briefed on the case have said Mr. Rove was the second of two senior administration officials cited by Mr. Novak in his column of July 14, 2003, that identified Ms. Wilson by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and said she was a C.I.A. operative.

The larger question has been whether Mr. Rove might have been using the columnist to confirm Ms. Plame's identity to punish or undermine her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, who had accused the Bush administration of leading the nation to war with Iraq on false pretenses.

Mr. Novak, who stalked out of a live program on CNN on Thursday after uttering a profanity on the air, declined to be interviewed for this article.

The anchor of the program, "Inside Politics," Ed Henry, has said he was preparing later in the broadcast to ask Mr. Novak about his role in the leak case.

Mr. Rove also declined to be interviewed.

But Mr. Novak, through his office manager, Kathleen Connolly, provided the information about his first encounter with Mr. Rove. Mr. Novak, by his recollection, met Mr. Rove in Texas in the mid-80's, when Mr. Novak turned up to write columns about the state's shifting out of Democrats' hands into those of Republicans.

In those years, Mr. Rove regularly had dinner with Mr. Novak when the columnist went to Austin. Mr. Rove, in his mid-30's, was a rising political operator who in 1981 founded his direct-mail consulting firm, Karl Rove & Company. Gov. William P. Clements, a Republican, was one of his first clients.

Mr. Novak, in his mid-50's, was big political game for Mr. Rove. He was the other half, with Rowland Evans Jr., of a much read and increasingly conservative column that was syndicated by The Chicago Sun-Times and published weekly in The Washington Post. Evans and Novak, as it was called - Mr. Evans retired in 1993 -closely chronicled the Reagan era, and it would have been a sign of Mr. Rove's arrival on the national scene for Mr. Novak to mention him in print.

Still, a computer search of Mr. Novak's columns shows that Mr. Rove's name did not appear under his byline until 1992, when Mr. Novak wrote the words that got Mr. Rove into such trouble.

"A secret meeting of worried Republican power brokers in Dallas last Sunday reflected the reality that George Bush is in serious trouble in trying to carry his adopted state," the column began.

The column said that the campaign run by Mr. Mosbacher was a "bust" and that he had been stripped of his authority at the "secret meeting" by Senator Phil Gramm, the top Republican in the state.

Also at the meeting, Mr. Novak reported, was "political consultant Karl Rove, who had been shoved aside by Mosbacher."

Specifically, Mr. Mosbacher told The Houston Chronicle in 2003 that he had given a competitor of Mr. Rove the bulk of a $1 million contract for direct mail work in the campaign.

"I thought another firm was better," Mr. Mosbacher told The Chronicle. "I had $1 million for direct mail. I gave Rove a contract for $250,000 and $750,000 to the other firm."

The other firm belonged to Mr. Rove's chief competitor, John Weaver, and Mr. Rove was so angry, Texas Republicans say, that he retaliated by leaking the information about Mr. Mosbacher to Mr. Novak.

C.I.A. Leak Case Recalls Texas Incident in '92 Race

E-Mail This
Printer-Friendly
Single-Page
Reprints
Published: August 6, 2005
(Page 2 of 2)



Mr. Mosbacher fired Mr. Rove. As a result, Mr. Weaver, who later faced off against Mr. Rove as the political director of Senator John McCain's presidential campaign in 2000, walked away with Mr. Rove's $250,000, too.

"That's about the only time that a Novak column benefited me," Mr. Weaver said this week in a telephone interview.

Mr. Rove again turned up in Mr. Novak's columns in 1999, when Gov. George W. Bush was running for president. Mr. Rove, Mr. Bush's national campaign strategist, was quoted briefly on the record in at least three columns, even though Mr. Novak has said on CNN, "I can't tell you anything I ever talked to Karl Rove about, because I don't think I ever talked to him about any subject, even the time of day, on the record."

Whether Mr. Novak forgot about the 1999 mentions is unclear. What is clear is that Mr. Rove has made frequent appearances in Mr. Novak's column in a positive light, often in paragraphs that imparted information about the inner workings of Mr. Bush's operation, feeding perceptions here that Mr. Rove is one of the columnist's most important anonymous sources.

In April 2000, under the headline "Bush Thriving Without Insiders," Mr. Novak wrote of the fears of the Republican old guard about the triumvirate of "rookies" in Austin - led by Mr. Rove - who were running Mr. Bush's "supposedly fading" presidential campaign.

"Actually," Mr. Novak wrote, "the Austin triumvirate has managed the most effective Republican campaign since Dwight D. Eisenhower's in 1952."

Last December, Mr. Novak wrote that the "retention of John Snow as secretary of the treasury was viewed in the capital's inner circles as a defeat for presidential adviser Karl Rove, who wanted a high-profile manager of President Bush's second-term economic program."

Although Mr. Novak did not directly debunk that view, he did suggest a different turn of events when he wrote that two Wall Street executives had said no to the position and that it was "decided at the White House to relieve Snow from his uncertainty and keep him in office."

These days, friends of the two men say they have not seen Mr. Rove and Mr. Novak at dinner together and note that there is little the two would have to celebrate. But in June 2003, The Chicago Sun-Times gave a party for Mr. Novak at the Army and Navy Club here to salute 40 years of his columns.

The biggest political celebrity guest, to no one's surprise, was Mr. Rove.

Philadelphia Daily News | 08/06/2005 | Before CIA leak case, Rove and Novak ties go way bak

Philadelphia Daily News | 08/06/2005 | Before CIA leak case, Rove and Novak ties go way bak
Before CIA leak case, Rove and Novak ties go way bak

By ELISABETH BUMILLER

New York Times News Service


WASHINGTON - These hot months will be remembered as the summer of the leak, a time when the political class obsessed on a central question: Did Karl Rove, President Bush's powerful adviser, commit a crime when he spoke about a CIA officer with the columnist Robert D. Novak?

Whatever a federal grand jury investigating the case decides, a small political subgroup is experiencing the odd sensation that this leak has sprung before. In 1992, in an incident well-known in Texas, Rove was fired from the state campaign to re-elect President George H.W. Bush on suspicions that Rove had leaked damaging information to Novak about Robert Mosbacher Jr., the campaign manager and the son of a former commerce secretary.

Since then, Rove and Novak have denied that Rove was the source, even as Mosbacher, who no longer talks on the record about the incident, has never changed his original assertion that Rove was the culprit. "It's history," Mosbacher said last week in a brief telephone interview. "I commented on it at the time, and I have nothing to add."

But the episode, part of the bad-boy lore of Rove, is a telling chapter in the 20-year friendship between the presidential adviser and the columnist. The story of that relationship, a bond of mutual self-interest of a kind that is long familiar in Washington, does not answer the question of who might have leaked the identity of the CIA officer, Valerie Wilson, to reporters, potentially a crime.

But it does give a clue to Rove's frequent and complimentary mentions over the years in Novak's column, and to the importance of Rove and Novak to each other's ambitions.

"They've known each for a long time, but they are not close friends," said a person who knows both men and who asked not to be named because of the investigation into a conversation between Novak and Rove in July 2003 about Wilson. The investigation has put a reporter for the New York Times, Judith Miller, in jail for refusing to testify to the grand jury.

People who have been officially briefed on the case have said Rove was the second of two senior administration officials cited by Novak in his column of July 14, 2003, that identified Wilson by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and said she was a CIA operative.

The larger question has been whether Rove might have been using the columnist to confirm Plame's identity to punish or undermine her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, who had accused the Bush administration of leading the nation to war with Iraq on false pretenses.

Novak, who stalked out of a live program on CNN on Thursday after uttering a profanity on the air, declined to be interviewed for this article.

Novak, through his office manager, Kathleen Connolly, provided information about his first encounter with Rove. Novak, by his recollection, first met Rove in Texas in the mid-'80s, when Novak would turn up to write columns about the state's shift from Democratic to Republican control.

Still, a computer search of Novak's columns shows that Rove's name did not appear under his byline until 1992, when Novak wrote the words that got Rove in such trouble.

Rove again turned up in Novak's columns in 1999, when George W. Bush, then governor of Texas, was running for president. Rove was Bush's national campaign strategist.

These days, friends of both men say they have not seen Rove and Novak at dinner together, and note that there is little the two would have to celebrate. But in June 2003, the Chicago Sun-Times threw a party for Novak at Washington's Army and Navy Club to salute 40 years of his columns.

The biggest political celebrity guest, to no one's surprise, was Rove.

Outside The Beltway : Novak and Rove�s Long Relationship

Outside The Beltway : Novak and Rove�s Long RelationshipNovak and Rove’s Long Relationship
Posted by James Joyner at 07:22
Elisabeth Bumiller has an interesting piece on the long relationship between Bob Novak and Karl Rove. She is apparently surprised that political operatives cultivate relationships with prominent journalists and vice versa.

C.I.A. Leak Case Recalls Texas Incident in '92 Race (NYT | RSS)

These hot months here will be remembered as the summer of the leak, a time when the political class obsessed on a central question: did Karl Rove, President Bush's powerful adviser, commit a crime when he spoke about a C.I.A. officer with the columnist Robert D. Novak?

Unless something really big develops in the case, this is exceedingly unlikely. "Damn that was a hot summer" is much more likely. Or "the summer the Nats collapsed." Or "the summer of steroids." Or "When 'The Dukes of Hazzard' killed off the Hollywood remakes." Almost anything except "the summer of the leak."

Whatever a federal grand jury investigating the case decides, a small political subgroup is experiencing the odd sensation that this leak has sprung before. In 1992 in an incident well known in Texas, Mr. Rove was fired from the state campaign to re-elect the first President Bush on suspicions that Mr. Rove had leaked damaging information to Mr. Novak about Robert Mosbacher Jr., the campaign manager and the son of a former commerce secretary.

Since then, Mr. Rove and Mr. Novak have denied that Mr. Rove was the source, even as Mr. Mosbacher, who no longer talks on the record about the incident, has never changed his original assertion that Mr. Rove was the culprit. "It's history," Mr. Mosbacher said last week in a brief telephone interview. "I commented on it at the time, and I have nothing to add."

But the episode, part of the bad-boy lore of Mr. Rove, is a telling chapter in the 20-year friendship between the presidential adviser and the columnist. The story of that relationship, a bond of mutual self-interest of a kind that is long familiar in Washington, does not answer the question of who might have leaked the identity of the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson, to reporters, potentially a crime. But it does give a clue to Mr. Rove's frequent and complimentary mentions over the years in Mr. Novak's column, and to the importance of Mr. Rove and Mr. Novak to each other's ambitions.

"They've known each for a long time, but they are not close friends," said a person who knows both men and who asked not to be named because of the investigation into a conversation by Mr. Novak and Mr. Rove in July 2003 about Ms. Wilson, part of a case that has put a reporter for The New York Times, Judith Miller, in jail for refusing to testify to the grand jury.

[...]

But Mr. Novak, through his office manager, Kathleen Connolly, provided the information about his first encounter with Mr. Rove. Mr. Novak, by his recollection, met Mr. Rove in Texas in the mid-80's, when Mr. Novak turned up to write columns about the state's shifting out of Democrats' hands into those of Republicans. In those years, Mr. Rove regularly had dinner with Mr. Novak when the columnist went to Austin. Mr. Rove, in his mid-30's, was a rising political operator who in 1981 founded his direct-mail consulting firm, Karl Rove & Company. Gov. William P. Clements, a Republican, was one of his first clients.

[...]

Still, a computer search of Mr. Novak's columns shows that Mr. Rove's name did not appear under his byline until 1992, when Mr. Novak wrote the words that got Mr. Rove into such trouble.

[...]

Mr. Rove again turned up in Mr. Novak's columns in 1999, when Gov. George W. Bush was running for president. Mr. Rove, Mr. Bush's national campaign strategist, was quoted briefly on the record in at least three columns, even though Mr. Novak has said on CNN, "I can't tell you anything I ever talked to Karl Rove about, because I don't think I ever talked to him about any subject, even the time of day, on the record."

Whether Mr. Novak forgot about the 1999 mentions is unclear. What is clear is that Mr. Rove has made frequent appearances in Mr. Novak's column in a positive light, often in paragraphs that imparted information about the inner workings of Mr. Bush's operation, feeding perceptions here that Mr. Rove is one of the columnist's most important anonymous sources.

I'm not sure that this sheds much light on the Plame case. Rove has acknowledged that he confirmed the "Valerie recommended Joe" story to Novak and Novak can hardly deny having printed the story.

That the two men have used each other professionally for years is mildly interesting, but not terribly illuminating. Politicians and journalists exploit each other's needs for mutual benefit. Water is wet. The sky is blue.

Permalink | Comments (5) | Send TrackBack | Trackbacks (0)


Comments
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/11558/trackback/
both of these criminals belong in prison

TREASON

Posted by: Lt bell at August 6, 2005 08:10 Permalink
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please remove me from your mailing list. Even as a relatively conservative person I found your liberal bashing to be unnecessary and unproductive to a meaningful debate on policy in general and the Rove affair in particular. Our President’s honesty and policies are being questioned by the majority of Americans—whether they are democrats or republicans. Well-reasoned defense of his policies are welcome; but that is apparently not a requisite for this site.

Posted by: neal at August 6, 2005 09:22 Permalink
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Novak has always appeared to be a meanspirited hack for the GOP. The fact that he cannot take the same heat he hands out so easily on news shows, was demonstrated when he walked out during a show with James Carville on Thursday. He has been vicious in his attacks on Democratic candidates as he smirks and discounts any other views. He deserved to be dismissed by CNN and no lame apology should ever gain him his job back!

Posted by: schar at August 6, 2005 09:47 Permalink
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another non-story by the Times to keep this non-story on the front burner as the real evidence continues to suggest Rove was not the “outer” of Wilson’s wife.

I think you are right on track, James.

Posted by: Jim Rhoads (vnjagvet) at August 6, 2005 10:03 Permalink
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

neal: I don’t have a mailing list. Had I a mailing list, I assure you that you would not be on it.

The Moderate Voice - Hot On The Trail Of The Novak-Rove Connection

Hot On The Trail Of The Novak-Rove Connection
by Joe Gandelman
Don't you get the sensation now that the coming months may not be happy ones for White House political bigwig and world-class hiker Robert Novak when they open the newspapers and see the fruits of journalistic enterprise reporting like in today's New York Times?
WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 - These hot months here will be remembered as the summer of the leak, a time when the political class obsessed on a central question: did Karl Rove, President Bush's powerful adviser, commit a crime when he spoke about a C.I.A. officer with the columnist Robert D. Novak?
Mr. Novak and Mr. Rove, brace yourselves:
Whatever a federal grand jury investigating the case decides, a small political subgroup is experiencing the odd sensation that this leak has sprung before. In 1992 in an incident well known in Texas, Mr. Rove was fired from the state campaign to re-elect the first President Bush on suspicions that Mr. Rove had leaked damaging information to Mr. Novak about Robert Mosbacher Jr., the campaign manager and the son of a former commerce secretary.

Since then, Mr. Rove and Mr. Novak have denied that Mr. Rove was the source, even as Mr. Mosbacher, who no longer talks on the record about the incident, has never changed his original assertion that Mr. Rove was the culprit.

"It's history," Mr. Mosbacher said last week in a brief telephone interview. "I commented on it at the time, and I have nothing to add."

But the episode, part of the bad-boy lore of Mr. Rove, is a telling chapter in the 20-year friendship between the presidential adviser and the columnist. The story of that relationship, a bond of mutual self-interest of a kind that is long familiar in Washington, does not answer the question of who might have leaked the identity of the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson, to reporters, potentially a crime.
The self-interest point is a valid one that indeed goes beyond Rove/Novak. In journalism school they always hammered home the message: "A reporter is only as good as his sources." And a reporter's pride and joy was the big, fat Rolodex (TMV had a double one crammed with home and office names). These names and relationships of trust are what made newespaper careers. So Novak having a journalistic relationship by itself is not an issue; it's what may have done with that relationship. MORE:

But it does give a clue to Mr. Rove's frequent and complimentary mentions over the years in Mr. Novak's column, and to the importance of Mr. Rove and Mr. Novak to each other's ambitions.
Yes. Good sources often find they get good treatment. Some of it is intentional. Some of it is almost subliminal.
"They've known each for a long time, but they are not close friends," said a person who knows both men and who asked not to be named because of the investigation into a conversation by Mr. Novak and Mr. Rove in July 2003 about Ms. Wilson, part of a case that has put a reporter for The New York Times, Judith Miller, in jail for refusing to testify to the grand jury.

The two men share a love of history and policy, as well as reputations as aggressive partisans and hotheads.

Bob Novak?? Karl Rove? Pshaw!
People who have been officially briefed on the case have said Mr. Rove was the second of two senior administration officials cited by Mr. Novak in his column of July 14, 2003, that identified Ms. Wilson by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and said she was a C.I.A. operative.

The larger question has been whether Mr. Rove might have been using the columnist to confirm Ms. Plame's identity to punish or undermine her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, who had accused the Bush administration of leading the nation to war with Iraq on false pretenses.
And so on. The fact that they've had a relationship for so long would suggest that if indeed Rove and Novak overstepped legalities in anyway they'll both be on the same wavelength to protect each other. Of course, as we've cautioned before, we really won't know the facts until the Special Prosecutor's work is done.

But the Novak/Rove relationship is not an unusual one for successful journalists; in fact, these kinds of close relationships are more often the rule than not. It's just what HAPPENS with them that could turn out to be unusual here...
"

The Moderate Voice - Hot On The Trail Of The Novak-Rove Connection

The Moderate Voice - Hot On The Trail Of The Novak-Rove Connection
Hot On The Trail Of The Novak-Rove Connection
by Joe Gandelman
Don't you get the sensation now that the coming months may not be happy ones for White House political bigwig and world-class hiker Robert Novak when they open the newspapers and see the fruits of journalistic enterprise reporting like in today's New York Times?
WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 - These hot months here will be remembered as the summer of the leak, a time when the political class obsessed on a central question: did Karl Rove, President Bush's powerful adviser, commit a crime when he spoke about a C.I.A. officer with the columnist Robert D. Novak?
Mr. Novak and Mr. Rove, brace yourselves:
Whatever a federal grand jury investigating the case decides, a small political subgroup is experiencing the odd sensation that this leak has sprung before. In 1992 in an incident well known in Texas, Mr. Rove was fired from the state campaign to re-elect the first President Bush on suspicions that Mr. Rove had leaked damaging information to Mr. Novak about Robert Mosbacher Jr., the campaign manager and the son of a former commerce secretary.

Since then, Mr. Rove and Mr. Novak have denied that Mr. Rove was the source, even as Mr. Mosbacher, who no longer talks on the record about the incident, has never changed his original assertion that Mr. Rove was the culprit.

"It's history," Mr. Mosbacher said last week in a brief telephone interview. "I commented on it at the time, and I have nothing to add."

But the episode, part of the bad-boy lore of Mr. Rove, is a telling chapter in the 20-year friendship between the presidential adviser and the columnist. The story of that relationship, a bond of mutual self-interest of a kind that is long familiar in Washington, does not answer the question of who might have leaked the identity of the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson, to reporters, potentially a crime.
The self-interest point is a valid one that indeed goes beyond Rove/Novak. In journalism school they always hammered home the message: "A reporter is only as good as his sources." And a reporter's pride and joy was the big, fat Rolodex (TMV had a double one crammed with home and office names). These names and relationships of trust are what made newespaper careers. So Novak having a journalistic relationship by itself is not an issue; it's what may have done with that relationship. MORE:

But it does give a clue to Mr. Rove's frequent and complimentary mentions over the years in Mr. Novak's column, and to the importance of Mr. Rove and Mr. Novak to each other's ambitions.
Yes. Good sources often find they get good treatment. Some of it is intentional. Some of it is almost subliminal.
"They've known each for a long time, but they are not close friends," said a person who knows both men and who asked not to be named because of the investigation into a conversation by Mr. Novak and Mr. Rove in July 2003 about Ms. Wilson, part of a case that has put a reporter for The New York Times, Judith Miller, in jail for refusing to testify to the grand jury.

The two men share a love of history and policy, as well as reputations as aggressive partisans and hotheads.

Bob Novak?? Karl Rove? Pshaw!
People who have been officially briefed on the case have said Mr. Rove was the second of two senior administration officials cited by Mr. Novak in his column of July 14, 2003, that identified Ms. Wilson by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and said she was a C.I.A. operative.

The larger question has been whether Mr. Rove might have been using the columnist to confirm Ms. Plame's identity to punish or undermine her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, who had accused the Bush administration of leading the nation to war with Iraq on false pretenses.
And so on. The fact that they've had a relationship for so long would suggest that if indeed Rove and Novak overstepped legalities in anyway they'll both be on the same wavelength to protect each other. Of course, as we've cautioned before, we really won't know the facts until the Special Prosecutor's work is done.

But the Novak/Rove relationship is not an unusual one for successful journalists; in fact, these kinds of close relationships are more often the rule than not. It's just what HAPPENS with them that could turn out to be unusual here...