I read more than two dozen articles on the Plame investigation today. There is a lot of smearing on the right, and a lot of speculation on the left. But one thing just sticks out. Rove is still there, still working in the White House.
I know that Rove and Bush go back a long way. I know they are close friends. I know Bush is a loyal guy who sticks by his friends. But, by any measure and any precedent, Rove has to resign. And he hasn’t. Why?
Everyone (except for the dittoheads) seems to agree that the investigation has moved beyond the Plame leak into something more serious. On the far end, we have to consider what is in the CIA after-action report. If any of our intelligence officers were assassinated as a result of this leak then we are talking about a nightmare of Watergate proportions. If we lost valuable CIA agents (sources) the charges could be quite serious as well.
But if the after-action report is this serious I would assume that Lindsay Graham and Kit Bond would know about it, and they would not go on Sunday morning talk shows to defend Rove.
Yet, the support for Rove on Capitol Hill is notably weak and tepid.
Let’s say that the fallout was less serious. It seems Rove was banking on Miller and Cooper keeping their mouths shut. The chances that Rove erroneously banked on keeping the nature of conversations with them confidential are quite high. I would be surprised if he hasn’t perjured himself. And the leap from perjury to obstruction of justice is quite small.
In fact, I cannot see how the White House can have avoided charges of obstructing justice. Their whole defense would seem to rely on the fact that Rove has kept his guilt a secret from Bush up until last week. No one has implied that Rove took the fifth amendment. Is it conceivable that he has been testifying fully and truthfully to the Grand Jury, but keeping that information from the President?
Is it possible that Bush testified truthfully about what he knew about Rove, when asked? Can you obstruct justice by lying, even when you are not under oath?
I’m just throwing ideas out here. But it seems odd that Rove has not resigned. He could claim he lied to the President and fall on his sword. But by remaining in office he implicates the President in an ongoing conspiracy to obstruct the investigation. He also makes the President look awful. Does Bush not care about the destruction of a CIA front-company and the careers of our covert operatives? Does he not care that Rove lied to him? If Rove didn’t lie to him, then why has he engaged in a cover-up on Rove’s behalf?
This all leads me to conclude that the White House is in some kind of paralytic panic mode. They are afraid to speak and afraid to act, knowing that anything they do can open up a can of worms. Yet, doing nothing is not a viable option either.
I’m guessing that the big enchilada was the March 8th, 2003 meeting where the decision to investigate Wilson was made. That meeting allegedly took place in the office of the Vice President, and was attended by Cheney, “Scooter” Libby, Newt Gingrich, Steven Hadley, and perhaps Rove.
I don’t know what Fitzgerald’s got, or how high he wants to set his own bar. But if this were containable wouldn’t Rove be gone already?
I think that one of the main reasons neither he nor anyone else resigns is that it would be a major affront to their whole ‘we create reality while others debate it’ philosophy…
If you observe them closely, they essentially value Ego above all else. They deny and repress ID, thus allowing it all kinds of “drunken sailor” type behavior(ie torture, other sexually couched aggressions). All of this, while absolving themselves of any responsibility for developing a Super-ego; this is assigned to someone else… God, George Bush… whatever… it’s not their responsibility.
This allows Ego and ID to behave exactly as we see… If you put yourself in their place, the accountability and introspection that you and I demand is a totally foreign concept and a huge threat to this philosophy… half of our country is infected with this “evangelical circular logic” right now… my $.02
exactly what you mean Bood…probably because my insomnia has reared its ugly head again and my efforts to sleep tonight have failed.
There is something to them having a philosophy of never backing down, never showing weakness. I’m not sure what the exact psychological underpinnings of it are.
But I think there a legal strategy at play here, too. I just can’t pin it down. And maybe I am failing to get it because it really is just paralysis. They have no options.
From whatever perspective you choose to look at it, moral, philosophical, psychological, legal… whatever…they are out of options, and paralysis is the result…
This whole starry-eyed ‘creating reality on the fly’ concept comes crashing down around their ears if we have the courage and discipline to keep rubbing their faces in their own behavior…
If it helps you sleep better, I truly think that we are witnessing the beginning of the end of this nightmare in America… but it is going to get a whole lot uglier and more painful before it’s over…
I think a significant part of the reason Rove is still held dear in the embrace of the Bush regime can be found in this exploration of “malignant narcissism” here. I can’t speak to the legitimacy of the author of all this, but, on it’s own merits, what he says makes lots and lotsof sense, especially as it relates to the White House loonies.
A list of basic characteristics of this affliction;
Certainly this laundry list of behavioral traits seem to apply to Rove across the board, but I’d suggest that the character of the regime itself is modeled pretty closely on this whole predatory narcissistic syndrome.
I find psychological explanations of Bush, Rove, et al, to be overcomplicated and unnecessary–particularly when they are clinical diagnoses conducted from afar. What’s more, most of these diagnoses are done by persons without the proper clinical training–and a true medical professional would never hazard a diagnosis without interviewing the subject.
A more relevant, and readily verifiable, insight into the psychology of Mr. Bush would be to observe than since he has become President, he has never once admitted error–not once. One needn’t inquire into why this is so, merely to observe that it is so (as I did in my other comment on this diary).
While these diagnoses of Bush, Rove, and Cheney as narcissists, sociopaths, etcetera, might be entertaining, I find them irrelevant to understanding the issues at hand. How does it help us to know that Bush’s behaviour has some (unverifiable) clinical label? I cannot see the use of it.
there is inherent value in perceiving linkages between various kinds of behavior in order to better identify the broader patterns of destructive behavior with which people are occassionally afflicted.
Whether dealing with a physical disease like cancer, a predatory sexual dysfunction like pedophilia, the varied and sundry traits common to alcohol and drug abusers, or the functional telltales associated with spousal abusers, generally most people agree that the more symptoms one can recognize, the greater the chance for early detection of these terrible things, and the earlier the detection, the greater the chance might be to reduce the damage done.
The link in my previous post, and the list of characteristics, do not represent anyone’s diagnosis of Bush or Rove or anyone else specifically. But, IMHO, those characteristics mentioned do seem to have some resonance with what we see with both Bush and Rove.
The fact that Bush doesn’t seem capable of admitting error is a salient fact, but it is only one of the many unfortunate and destructive behavioral traits he has and only one of many characteristics that are included as part of the predatory narcissistic pathology. The clinical label isn’t the least bit important, it’s the pattern of traits that label describes that’s important.
Diagnosis is not helpful without treatment.
In this case, we are not concerned with treating Mr. Rove nor Mr. Bush’s particular mental health problems, whatever they may be.
Nor is a “diagnosis at distance” helpful–it is more helpful to observe specific character traits without slapping (largely unsupportable and clinically unsound) labels on individuals.
Mr. Bush’s important character traits (for his political opponents):
Mr. Rove’s important character traits (for his political opponents):
5)Is extremely persistent and hard-working;
6) Is often described as unlikeable and unpopular.
If you look at these character traits, you can see how Rove and Bush match up and how Rove fills in the gaps in Bush’s character traits and vice-versa.
You will also see that studying these character traits, readily verifiable from these two men’s public behaviours, will give us greater help in planning how to bring about their downfall and neutralise their political power. The unverifiable clinical “diagnosis at a distance” is spectacularly unhelpful in that regard.
knowledge of mental health issues. Nor am I diagnosing anyone. Nor am I “slapping (largely unsupportable and clinically unsound) labels on individuals.” Nor do I think the labels this guy uses to describe his views have any intrinsic meaning in and of themselves at all. Nor am I proposing “treatment” for these creatures.
All I’ve proposed is that there is a body of interlocking traits that Mssrs. Bush and Rove seem to share and that these characteristics indicate serious destructive propensities. And if such a variety of interlocking traits can be grouped with specific terminology to identify their interconnectedness, I don’t know why you seem to balk at that.
And I’ve always figured the more you know about your adversary the better your chance of defeating him. All of the traits you ascribe to Bush and Rove I agree with, (the exceptions being only your description of Bush as being “bold” and, separately, “cunning”). Many of the characteristics and traits offered by the author of the site I linked to also reflect typical Rove/Bush pathologies, and it just seems to me that making use of such observations where they have resonance can only add to one’s ability to counteract the damage these maniacs get away with.
That’s all I’m saying, and I don’t really understand your somewhat combative tone, unless I’m misreading your perspective.
While I agree that a trained clinician would not diagnose someone without interviewing them, I would also like to say that diagnosis in the mental health arena is still light years behind diagnosis in other health-related fields. Clinicians tend to do exactly what has been demonstrated here – look for clusters of symptoms that indicate the presence of a disorder. There’s really not much more to it than that.
PS – I say this having been trained as a clinician.
My best guess would be that the White House staffers who do the dirtywork are panicking but W et al. is just being, well, W.
Reminds me a little bit of Haldeman and Erlichman, 2 other crooks who were kept on past their shelf life. Nixon thought he could hold onto them too.
Who’s hired special counsel re: Plame? Der Leader, that’s who.
Same as Nixon did way back when.
But if this were containable wouldn’t Rove be gone already?
They’re banking on the public’s will to wait for the Grand Jury. Seems valid to me.
My in-laws were on vacation in D.C. when the Iran-Contra hearings were going on. Here on the left-coast it was just one of a number of front-paged stories, back there it was the story. They were amazed that people weren’t glued to C-SPAN.
All roads lead to Fitzgerald.
I don’t have all the facts.
But working with what I’ve got, if I’m advising Bush, I tell him to act before any indictments come down. No one will be impressed by resignations that take place after the indictments are announced. It will look like the White House is on trial.
So, this is either misplaced loyalty to Rove, or they don’t trust Rove to do his time, or they think their best protection is for Rove to win his case, and forcing him out will weaken his case.
That last scenario might have some merit to it, but I just don’t see this as a case about Rove.
but I just don’t see this as a case about Rove.
It’s never been about Rove to me either. This thing will cut three ways: long, deep, and continuous. Follow the chain of evidence leading back to the original “memo”, and Rove truly becomes a blossom on that turd. As you’ve noted, politics. Not lawbreaking.
Well, scratch indictments. Make that convictions (according to Bush’s latest statements).
The White House Iraq Group was a special committee formed strictly for the purposes of propaganda for the Iraq invasion in August 2002. Their stated purpose was ‘to educate the public’ on the dangers of Saddam Hussein.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=White_House_Iraq_Group
It was separate from Office of Special Plans but the membership was similar. If group met on how to handle Amb. Joseph Wilson who would be them.
WHIG was formed in August 2002 for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Bad phrasing on my part.
(It’s early here on the coast.)
I’m with you on this one, sybil (see my comment below).
One thing that Wilson wants to know is who had the authority to obtain his wife’s cover while doing the work-up. There would only be a handful of people capable of that. It makes me wonder if Scooter Libby through the Vice President would have that type of high level access to that sort of information. Who else?
Although JW may not currently be talking directly to people sympathetic to Valerie in the CIA, he is certainly capable of sending messages indirectly through interviews, etc. — directing people where to look. Perhaps this is intended for Fitzgerald, and the media, as well. The March 8 work-up is a pretty significant thing to Wilson. In fact, he clearly states that he has been told a work-up was done — and I don’t think he would be saying this unless he was told by people who would know. I also don’t think he would be highlighting it unless he wanted people to look into it.
I gotta admit, I am an unabashed fan of Joe Wilson. So, I view everything he says as credible. I think he is a true patriot. I also think he is very smart.
When he was once caught in an inaccuracy about a report,
he admitted his mistake. Imagine ‘them’ doing that?
I think he is not the big player here, but he is the instigator. He was on CNN about the lack of proof of
Saddam’s nuclear program before he wrote the July 2003
NYT article and that is when the WHIG may have started their plan to discredit him. It took courage in those
days just after the invasion of Iraq to go against Bush
the War President with his high poll numbers.
I like him too and believe him to be credible.
Agree. The story is about stovepiping intelligence and snuffing out challenges to that massaged intelligence. The story is lying about 9-11 connections and WMD. The story is about Cheney, and oil, and Halliburton, and the energy task force. The story is a chummy media. The story is this endless war those cock-sure, arrogant bastards got us into. But most of all, the story is the deaths of thousands and thousands of people in Iraq — lives our leaders think are expendable.
That’s my rant.
It’s NOT about Rove. They have too much else they have to hide. If he resigns or is fired there will be alot of explaining to do. I am seeing a lot of folks talking about the loyalty factor. Rove is a sociopath. They are void of feelings. If he is fired I think he will sing like a canary. He, imho,probably knows everything these criminals have done and that is why Bush is mum. ROVE knows they lied about the intelligence, he knows all this little details of deception because he helped invent them. Any other president would have removed him immediately upon learning he was the leaker. George is too dependent upon him and thus as said earlier they are paralized. They are damned if they do and damned if they don’t and I for one love seeing the panic in their eyes. Mehlman is way out there right now. Let the B team try to keep spinning this. The web of deceipt is unraveling.
Wilson has updated his speculation about the work up (in his recent Raw Story interview) — saying the WHIG would have been the likely group to request it. I’m not sure it matters, though, since Scooter Libby was involved with both groups. It would extend the number of people involved to possibly include Hadley, Rove, Hughes, Matalin, Card, and others — assuming they were shown the results of the work-up.
I’ve been obsessed about this ever since I read the RS interview — a bit embarrassingly so. But, if true, a work-up in March 2003 would have rendered information about Wilson’s personal life that could have been available to the eventual authors of the INS memo read on AF 1.
It seems likely the other chunk of info contained in that memo was extracted from notes taken about Wilson’s findings after he returned from Niger in Feb/March 2002. There were two people present at that debriefing besides Wilson — one from the CIA and one from the State department. Although this information may not have been passed up to the VPs office, the notes could have been filed somewhere in the state department.
As far as what appeared in the Senate report — info I understand that was distilled from the INS memo, I think the CIA confirmed the parts about the trip to Niger, but not the other parts related to Valerie Wilson. So it is plausible that there were, at least, two sources of information contained in the INS.
Of course, this is all my personal theory and speculation. I am just a mid-westerner with a laptop glued to my legs trying to unravel this bizarre story. Imagine what people with access to inside information must know? But I have felt there had to be a source for the “wife is in the CIA” part of this, and the March work up is where Wilson believes it began. I am looking for that grand unifying theory that puts all the parts together that eventually resulted in that memo.
I just can’t help wishing I was a fly on the wall at the Carville/Matalin house these days. Think of all that she knows. Do they REALLY not talk about it?
This is incredibly funny and very insightful.
“
CNN Bullsh*t Coverage of Karl Rove”
Lou Dobbs Tonight Show on July 15, 2005. Here is the partial transcript. Mr. Dobbs continues: ” …Rove testifying that he first learned about Plame from columnist Robert Novak, a CNN contributor. Danna Bash reports.” Immediately after that you can clearly hear a female voice saying “that’s bullshit.” Thereafter Dana Bash begins her report.
P.S. Download the attached video file at
“http://satire.myblogsite.com/blog”
and watch.
I heard that voice “this is bullshit” and it was so refreshing. I just hope that the person is not fired
for representing the majority American opinion.
I’ve seen him described as machiavellian but Machiavelli believed in morals and integrity. He also advised the Prince to adapt with the times, not like Rove who believes in rigidly ‘staying the course’ no matter what.
Salon.com has a review on “The Prince” this morning.
LINK
(Free day pass if you watch an ad)
“It seems Rove was banking on Miller and Cooper keeping their mouths shut. The chances that Rove erroneously banked on keeping the nature of conversations with them confidential are quite high. I would be surprised if he hasn’t perjured himself. And the leap from perjury to obstruction of justice is quite small.”
Yes, I had the very same thought; that is, Cooper’s comment in the latest Time article where he writes about Bush joking he thought Cooper would “be in jail by now.” The White House was clearly banking on reporters maintaining the confidentiality shield. No doubt they sh*t when Cooper’s email was leaked to Newsweek and then Cooper agreed to testify. It’s quite likely that obstruction of justice charges will be the least they have to worry about. OofJ charges brought down many of the Nixon co-conspirators.
“Can you obstruct justice by lying, even when you are not under oath?”
Yes, answers to questions posed by FBI agents that are false or untruthful in any respect can result in charges/punishment, e.g., Martha Stewart.
(1) Bush may not know all the “facts”–remember, he doesn’t read the papers, but relies upon aides to “filter” the news for him. Bush has a long history of being ignorant and proud of it.
(2) Rove is dangerous–he knows where all (or most) of Bush’s bodies are buried (so to speak). If Bush fires Rove, Rove–feeling he has nothing further to lose–might decide to co-operate with the special prosecutor and tell much, if not everything, of what he knows! That’s a thought to keep Bush and Cheney awake nights.
(3) Bush firing Rove would be an admission of error, and would not stop further questions but rather invite them. Any sign of weakness now would be fatal according to Bushthink. Not only that, but Bush simply does not err–he is incapable of admitting mistakes (it’s part of his character), even when doing so would benefit him.
(4) The media are complacent and lazy, and the Democrats aren’t strong enough to keep pushing this issue–so Bush believes that, like all scandals before it, this storm shall also pass.
(5) Bush NEEDS Rove. Without Rove’s machinations, Bush would be on permanent vacation on his Texas “ranch”.
If I had to pick one reason as the most important one of why Rove will not be fired, I’d say #2.
Amen…
At least there’s one other person who understands what this story is really about. I put this up this morning:
Let’s Keep It Simple
It’s About National Security…Stupid!!!
Rove is still there for the same reason Rumsfeld and Rice are still there, along with every other criminal, incompetent, negligent, lunatic, loose cannon, in that administration. The only reason people are fired or asked to resign is the perception of disloyalty. Everything else is not only excused, but lauded. I have found it baffling from the outset how few people resign, even when they are obvious liabilities, but I’ve learned through observation that Bushco will not admit errors, and respond to every conflict with unbridled aggression. Circumstances that would make any other administration embarrassed and lead to firing anyone they could to cover the asses, just make Bushco tighten up their defenses, and attack any detractor with force. This is not politics as usual. We are into a whole ‘nother paradigm, here.
It could all be a whole lot simpler. The White House probably has a better idea of how far the Grand Jury is from issuing indictments. They also haven’t had numbers (until today) on how their attempts to spin the story are working with the public.
They are calculating whether it’s necessary, and they will probably conclude it’s best, and then they’ll figure out the timing.
The standard operating procedure in situations like this is to find a period when things are quieting down, and then late some Friday afternoon, Rove will resign to spend more time with his family, or if the heat is still high, to spare the president from distractions as Rove insists that ultimately he will be proven innocent.
Bush will never, never fire Rove. If that were to happen, it would signal that a power struggle of massive proportions is going on within the Bush-Cheney-Rove camp.
It seems to me (and this ties into the narcissistic personality disorder theory) that Bush perceives the admission of any mistake as a sign of weakness — something only flunkies do. Leaders, by definition, are never wrong.
This is CEO thinking, in my experience — the myth of executive privilege. Not that ALL CEOs think that way, or all managers, executives, etc.,but I’ve worked for a very large percentage who do. Whatever goes wrong, shit rolls downhill. Admission of error is something subordinates do. Executives get catered to — whatever happens, they pass the blame down to those beneath them. And when you work for a boss like that, you soon learn — either you take the blame, grovel like the lower-ranked creature that you are and clean up after the boss’s mistakes as best you can (while shifting the blame even further down the ladder if you can), or you find a new job. The power of the high-level executive in most big companies (and even small ones sometimes) is that the Executive must NEVER be inconvenienced, must never be told what he doesn’t want to hear, must get his wishes catered to even if they’re not logical or even good business, and that whenever the boss is concerned, none of the rules apply.
Bush seems to combine the executive privilege of the CEO with the almost mythical power of the Presidency in a way that inflates everything he does way out of proportion. He seems to quite literally believe that for him to admit to ANY mistake whatsoever would bring ALL of his leadership into question and actually undermine his authority as President. The only way he can hold authority is to be infallible by definition — to admit being otherwise would tarnish the Presidency itself. The fact that he’s lived all his life on the executive privilege balloon, and never actually been held liable for any mistakes in his business career (and I use the term loosely there) makes it even worse.
Machiavelli lived in a culture where the Prince was very much the center of the court and the city-state — his Prince expected and got that kind of response from people. But Machiavelli was also a pragmatist, who could see beyond the illusions of power to the balance of relationships that made it a reality; he understood that sycophants who would do or say anything to remain in the Prince’s good graces had their uses, but they were not worthy advisers.