Rove Calls Lieberman - Then the Lying Begins
As a recent comment to this blog indicated, there is a difference between suspecting something is true, and having no doubt about it. I vowed to be more careful with that phrase in the future, but here I am using it only a few hours later. Below is a link to a story about Karl Rove calling Joe Lieberman today. A description of that call was given by one of his campaign officials, and then another Lieberman official and the White House said that description was not accurate. They claimed Karl Rove just called Lieberman for personal reasons. I have no doubt that this is total BS. We have an election in less than 3 months. If the House or Senate swings away from the Republicans, people like Karl Rove will actually have to start applying for a presidential pardon, if he hasn't already. The White House is currently trying to work out a legal escape hatch for some of their behavior that ranges up to war crimes. That would affect Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Gonzales for starters. The notion that Karl Rove dropped what he is doing today to chat with Joe Lieberman for personal reasons is ludicrous. Ahh, wait, once again I've been schooled by one of the evil greats. Karl Rove can describe the call - which involved Lieberman's run as an independent - as being for personal reasons, because Karl Rove's personal liberty could be involved. Especially if we take a look at what he and his wretched buddies in the White House did to get us into Iraq, and a thousand other twisted, sick, and perhaps criminal moves. Rove is incorrigible, and I guess I am too, because rather than avoiding the "no doubt" phrase, I'm using it again: The White House and Lieberman camp's denials about the conversation are not truthful. I have no doubt that Karl Rove called Lieberman about the campaign - not about how his family's doing.
TheWorldNewser
posted by Bill McDonald @ 3:09 PM
16 comments
16 Comments:
Ok I'll bite. Specifically what definition of war crime are you are using? Can you cite any U.S. or even any international law here, or are you just venting? What actions by Karl Rove or any other member of the Bush Adminisatration fit that definition?
I'm looking at the torture stuff, and so is the White House, especially after the Supreme Court went against them on that one ruling.
As far as my personal opinion, I would include the illegality of preemptive strikes, especially when you manufacture reasons to kill outside of self defense, that don't check out later.
Bill,
I hope this is some of your commedy writing. I guess I'm just not getting what the big deal is here. So what if Rove called Lieberman? And even if it was about his campaign, who cares? Is it any surprise that the White House would prefer Lieberman to LaMont?
And of course they'd deny it has anything to do with the campaign as word that Rove was calling to give advise or even moral support to Lieberman would obviously be damaging to his campaign.
PS - as hinted at in the first comment...can you specify what war crime you think was permitted? Going to war after Congress has granted you that authority is not a crime. If that is, then Clinton better restart his legal defense fund - he didn't even have permission from Congress when he started his war.....
Let me just quote from a Newsweek article about the Gonzales memo:
May 17 - The White House's top lawyer warned more than two years ago that U.S. officials could be prosecuted for "war crimes" as a result of new and unorthodox measures used by the Bush administration in the war on terrorism, according to an internal White House memo and interviews with participants in the debate over the issue.
The concern about possible future prosecution for war crimes—and that it might even apply to Bush adminstration officials themselves— is contained in a crucial portion of an internal January 25, 2002, memo by White House counsel Alberto Gonzales obtained by NEWSWEEK. It urges President George Bush declare the war in Afghanistan, including the detention of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters, exempt from the provisions of the Geneva Convention.
In the memo, the White House lawyer focused on a little known 1996 law passed by Congress, known as the War Crimes Act, that banned any Americans from committing war crimes—defined in part as "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions. Noting that the law applies to "U.S. officials" and that punishments for violators "include the death penalty," Gonzales told Bush that "it was difficult to predict with confidence" how Justice Department prosecutors might apply the law in the future. This was especially the case given that some of the language in the Geneva Conventions—such as that outlawing "outrages upon personal dignity" and "inhuman treatment" of prisoners—was "undefined."
And Bill, another thing now that I've read your response. With regard to the Supreme Court ruling "against them", I take it you are referring to the Hamden decision, correct? If so, I suspect you never actually read any of the opinions because you are completely off base with your characterization of it. If there is another SCOTUS ruling against this administration that you are referring to, can you tell me what it is? I haven't heard about it.
The problem is that the Supreme Court has since ruled that some of President Bush's treatment of detainees was illegal. As with most rulings or laws President Bush still believes he can do anything he wants, so I doubt if the behavior completely stopped. As with the McCain law about torture, President Bush signed but took it as more of a suggestion that he can overlook if he wanted. That's the government we are under right now, and the rulers who grabbed the power have every reason to be concerned about how their actions will be viewed by a more traditional, constitutional form of American government, if one should happen to be reinstated in the future.
By the way, Butch, your first comment completely missed the point. I was just focusing on the White House denials that Rove called Lieberman about the campaign. It was such a clear case of their willingness to say something that wasn't true, that I found it amusing. "And of course they'd deny it" sounds like you're quite used to them lying as well. My problem with your attitude is that you accept it as being okay, and I don't - especially when some of the things that of course they denied, are lies about why we went into Iraq. At least with that there was a good reason to not tell the American People the truth. If they had the war might not have happened. What strikes me here is the effortless, uncaring way they lie about something that is so minor. Almost like exhaling a breath. Oh, and the other part of what concerns me is how their loyal followers lap it all right up. Is it because they're godly men?
Denying a leak - big whoop. That was never done by any other administration. Bill, you need to chill - there is nothing wrong with this. It was meant to be a private phone call and it was leaked. The WH denied it to protect Lieberman. This is about as serious as 'lying' to your kid about Santa Claus.
PS - at least you admit it is something "so minor". But if that is the case, why are you taking issue with it? Why don't you take issue with lies told daily that actually cause harm to people - lies like, "Republicans don't care about black people." or "Conservatives don't care about poor people." Those are blatant lies that actually slander an entire swath of the citizens of this Country. Selective outrage is beginning to be a common meme around here.
Butch,
Just for you I plan to do another post about TWA 800, a Clinton-era outrage. I've done one before this year, but I want to prove it's not as easy me to put labels on me as you think. What I object to is the deflection from the charges based on an assumption that what is driving them is a Clinton-good, Bush-bad prism. I believe more and more Americans of all political leanings have reached the conclusion that Iraq was a mistake. I also think some of the most upset people at President Bush are genuine conservatives - at least they should be. What I worry about is the football-fan mentality in politics - my team versus your team. In addition to all the obvious problems, I don't think it shows enough respect for the game. Football that is. Colts tomorrow night.
Bill, you have to understand (and I'm sure you do) that these Fox puppets will always change the subject. Or bring up 9/11 or blame Clinton.
Or, as we see here, they will go back and whimper that "Congress approved, Congress approved, nah nah nah."
What they forget to bring up is that Congress approved based on lies by the administration. That alone should be reason to impeach.
Don't bother explaining to these morons. They, like Bush, do not have the ability to learn.
quidproquo is starting to show his true colors. Like laurelhurstdad, all the tolerence and objectivity of Sooner at a Longhorns game. Nice to meet ya......
Cool blog, interesting information... Keep it UP new hampshire littleton laser tatoo removal ultram growdens Digital format large print seattle child pulling fire alarm box photo Skin facial rosacea Business cards for salons Red-rose stationery http://www.cargpsmaps.info/Glamourous-web-design-samples.html Http www softseeker ru ultram pharmacy Marijuana depression anti depressant Licence plate frames hawaii theme Protonix pylori ulcer Business card form artists Contact lens manual http://www.sprydental.info/bridge-dental-michigan.html Landlords home insurance shell cordovan shoe sale buy levitra ex nepal pm
Very nice site! »
cheap nike air max msjnbfam cheap nike free run nynqxzgc cheap nike shoes versufof nike air max lkxpykxr nike free run apffrwpg nike shoes online tufmmkel
beats by dr dre nzgvwqxa beats by dre nhhsfrbt beats dr dre ditggqmc beats for sale fubjmwte beats headphones yicwhcsp cheap monster beats segfyone dr dre beats sdswqcgn dr dre headphones xtpppwwk monster beats by dre wusjijxy monster beats headphones wbkjtnqq monster beats rqomqhwd monster headphones wguaynfz
Post a Comment
<< Home