The Infallible Mr. Rove

The Man behind the curtain:

I wonder if Mr. Karl Rove knows how omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent he is. Apparently the man gets around more than the Holy Spirit, at least according to most liberals. I would love to see a formalized list of the many feats and political coups that he is accredited.

Now Mr. Rove is simply trying to clear the air about the differences in conservative and liberal responses to the 9/11 attacks. And, of course and as usual, democrats are calling for an apology for the truth. Nevermind that their moronic Sen. Dick compared our troops to mass murderers. How dare Karl Rove accuse us of something we said!! Outrageous! Preposterous! (Oh wait, those are big words. I probably should attribute them to liberal rants. :)

The White House is standing behind Rove, to the complete horror of the democrats. (I mean, the horror they're experiencing is right up there with the shock of the torture chambers that are Gitmo!) Ken Mehlmen sent a mass email out and prepared a press release with quotes supporting Rove. And LGF also has a few tasty posts on the topic.

He is this generation's William Wallace. Legend has spread that he's 8 feet tall, has killed a thousand men with his bare hands and topples tyrannical governments in a single leap! I mean, just look at him!!:

Mr. Rove, I think I'd almost like to meet you more than I'd like to meet President Bush. You're one of my heroes, and I would love to just shake your hand.

Posted by Portia at June 24, 2005 10:14 AM

Um....hey there sound like a giddy school girl who has a crush on her teacher.

Posted by: Peter at June 24, 2005 11:57 AM

Instapundit had a link to Postwatch on this. Brilliant move by Rove; by having the media frenzy over this, it now opens the doors for Republicans to publish every single piece of tripe said by liberals. Great move.

Posted by: Dee at June 24, 2005 02:08 PM

I honestly don't think this was a big deal for Rove. I don't honestly think he had any idea that he was saying anything all that provocative. I think he was merely preaching to the choir, and telling the truth as he sees it.

The problem with him speaking his mind, is that it makes the unpopular positions the Democrats and/or liberals have taken look all the more bad, when compared to how the Republican and/or conservatives reacted.

Were he in a vacuum, I would be more compelled to look at wether the remarks were out of line. However, after the "not really a comparison" comparison that Dick made (off-color pun intended), it doesn't sound nearly as galling.

Also, I've gone on record as saying that I want to have Karl's babies. I'm sick, I know.

Posted by: MacStansbury at June 24, 2005 07:41 PM

Should we start a fan club? :)

Posted by: jody at June 25, 2005 10:15 PM

fan club? no.

cult. we need to start a cult.

I was thinking about maybe printing some t-shirts, too. but mostly chanting the leader's name, over and over.

the leeeeeader...

Posted by: MacStansbury at June 25, 2005 11:52 PM

Here are some sayings we can use in the cult:

All Hail the great Rove

May Rove smile upon you and give you peace

Al-Rove-uah Ackbar!

A Merry Rove-mas to all, and to all a good Rove!

Posted by: Peter at June 27, 2005 12:38 PM

May the Rove be with you.

Posted by: Dee at June 27, 2005 01:09 PM

P.S. I was hoping for an Ari Fleischer cult, but he resigned, so I suppose Rove will have to do..."May the Fleischer be with you" doesn't quite cut it.

Posted by: Dee at June 27, 2005 01:12 PM

Rove rocks. 'nuf said.

Posted by: Dave Thomson at June 27, 2005 05:18 PM

you know, actually, I don't think "May the Fleischer be with you" is such a bad catch-phrase. I can honestly see Ari as a vulcan, holding up his fingers in a V and saying, "Live long, and prosper. That's the President's official stance, as I've said over and over again. Next question...Jeff?"

Posted by: MacStansbury at June 27, 2005 08:17 PM

For your sake, I hope Rove didn't really commit treason by unveiling the undercover CIA agent.

I don't get the hate. I am a Christian, but I align myself closer to the Dems. I don't hate the Republicans. And I'm sick of all the party cheerleading- from both sides- by people who so staunchly stick to one party. How about more objectivity from both sides?

Posted by: a passerby at July 3, 2005 10:38 PM

I think you are mistaking agreeing with loyalty. the second the Republicans want to attack Israel, remove religious freedoms, or shove some anti-Christian ideal down our throats, you'll see just how "loyal" the Christians are.

right now, the Republicans are aligning themselves to the ideals of the Evangelical Christians, not the other way around. and it's important that we understand that there are as many colors, or denominations, as there are any political system.

finally, to say that politics are religion-gnostic is like saying that the fish are ocean-gnostic. sure, there are fish in there, but that's not really the point. fish don't really need the ocean to live. it's just a huge coincidence that most fish live in oceans.

all a coincidence.

Posted by: MacStansbury at July 4, 2005 10:43 AM

If Rove is in fact guilty of violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act will you support his prosecution even though you agree with him politically?

Posted by: ziggy at July 5, 2005 09:07 PM

The question is do you really think the MSM would go to jail to protect Rove? I think not.

Posted by: Dee at July 6, 2005 08:54 AM

Um, hey might want to lay off the Jolt cola. I think staying up all night playing with OS X Tiger has you all giddy and "deep thinking"...

Posted by: Peter at July 6, 2005 12:23 PM

I don't see how you could see any "deep thinking" in anything I've said.

well, except for the ocean thing. oceans are pretty deep.


Posted by: MacStansbury at July 6, 2005 02:57 PM

That's why I used the "quotes". You know, the kind of "deep thinking" you get into when you're really, really tired, or high, or both?

The type of thinking like, "Why am I, seriously, why am I in here here....sitting at this desk...typing to there some greater meaning to all these keystrokes?..." and the like... I thought that was obvious...Geez!

Posted by: Peter at July 6, 2005 03:26 PM

that's what the sarcasm off button is for: /sarc

Posted by: Dee at July 6, 2005 04:09 PM

It seems to me you are in favor of special rights for conservatives, rather than equality before the law.

Posted by: ziggy at July 10, 2005 05:48 PM

special rights? no. the same rights as everybody else? yes.

it gets very annoying to people like me who keep voting in people to do our will, and then a few hangers on decide that they get to make all the decisions.

so, I guess you'll never figure out why this country keeps voting righter and Christianer.

Posted by: MacStansbury at July 10, 2005 10:22 PM

And good-er....we do vote Good-er....definitely Good-er...

Posted by: Peter at July 11, 2005 10:14 AM

I was referring to MacStansbury and Dee's comment about Rove. It seems to me you favor special rights for him because he is a conservative. That is why you are unwilling to say that he shoudl be fired or prosecuted if he leaked Valerie Plame's identity.

Posted by: ziggy at July 11, 2005 05:55 PM

You didn't answer my question. Do you really think the MSM would go to jail to protect the eeevilll Karl Rove? I'm so certain they would not I'd bet the farm on that one.

They couldn't print the phoney Nat'l Guard memo fast enough to try and hurt Bush before an election, couldn't have Kitty Kelly on enough talk shows doing her Enquirer-style book exposing Bush family stuff...and you think they'd sit on this? Riiight.

Posted by: Dee at July 11, 2005 07:18 PM

I guess I'll say it again, since the first time didn't take...

special rights? no. the same rights as everybody else? yes.

and frankly, I couldn't care less whether or not some secret agent's name was leaked or just goes back to a bad reporter trying to dig up information, and then foolishly thinking that someone would protect them when they did something illegal.

not that I'm an expert in the particulars...I find it interesting that we're talking about Rove's conviction already.

Posted by: MacStansbury at July 11, 2005 11:06 PM

I have it on good authority that Rove has the ability to mind cloud people. (Source: I heard it somewhere.)

Posted by: Dee at July 12, 2005 06:58 PM

Who Knows what EEEvil lurks in the hearts of men....the ROVE knows....MUAHAHAHAAHAH

Posted by: Peter at July 13, 2005 04:58 PM

Dee I have no idea, but it does seem to me that you are both unwilling to say that Rove should be convicted if he broke the law. This seems to be because you are in favor of special rights for conservatives--i.e. that they should be above the law.

Posted by: ziggy at July 15, 2005 04:59 PM

If there were the remotest chance that he did break the law, then I would have no problem saying that. However, all news sources state otherwise, except the NYT and a few other liberal mouthpieces.

After extensive reading from reputable sources, Rove did nothing of the sort; rather Rove tried to warn the reporter off the story and never in fact even mentioned her name. He also signed a waiver over a year ago giving permission to every person he has spoken with about this. This alone makes this a moot point.

As far as 'outing' a CIA undercover operative, actually, Valerie Plame had not been working covertly for years. It turns out Novak gave Rove the name, but not before Wilson himself had outed his own wife in his bio years before this fiasco.

In order for the law to have been broken, Plame had to have ACTIVELY been working undercover at the time and the one who revealed her name had to have done it with malicious intent. She was a desk jockey at Langly, not undercover.

This whole tempest in a teapot is diverting attention away from the fact that Wilson is shown now to be the biggest liar on the planet. He lied about who sent him (claimed it was Cheney), when in fact it was his wife. The 9/11 commission report refuted Wilson's claims about uranium as well.

So, all this to say, this entire fiasco has been the Democrats on a witch hunt for Rove's head.

Again, I will state unequivocably that NO ONE in the MSM would go to jail to protect Rove. No one.

Posted by: Portia at July 15, 2005 06:37 PM

What she said.

Posted by: Dee at July 15, 2005 06:59 PM

I think the point that ziggy's trying to make is that Rove, like Bush, will get away with whatever they've done, because of their powerful positions. I'm just sticking words in you mouth, of course, because nobody's ever said that anybody's above the law. If Rove is found guilty of something, then he'll be tried and judged.

If he's guilty, then he'll suffer some kind of punishment - that's never been a question. As details continue to come out, it turns out that Rove is less and less guilty. If anything, he was the one trying to stop other people from making horrible mistakes.

Posted by: MacStansbury at July 15, 2005 10:17 PM

Well I'm glad to see that Emily for one is in favor of applying the law equitably. My point was that Dee and MacStansbury seemed to be unwilling to say this should be done, although Macstansbury has now concurred with Emily on this. As to whether he committed a crime or not, that remains to be seen.

Posted by: ziggy at July 17, 2005 01:19 PM

have you read one single thing I wrote?

let me say it again, three times, and hope it sinks in, as I keep saying the same thing over and over, and I've never changed my position, but it doesn't seem to get heard:

special rights? no. the same rights as everybody else? yes.

special rights? no. the same rights as everybody else? yes.

special rights? no. the same rights as everybody else? yes.

maybe that'll work.

Posted by: MacStansbury at July 17, 2005 03:04 PM

Hi Ziggy,

You never acknowledged or answered my question: do you think for a NY minute that the MSM would protect Rove?

I also agreed with Portia (did you not see my comment?).

One more question: if you've been reading the headlines, it now appears Rove was entirely innocent. Do you agree the MSM and lefties were a little quick on the trigger to tar and feather him?

Posted by: Dee at July 17, 2005 04:27 PM

MacStansbury I was well aware of your general statement that you are in favor of equality before the law. What I was pointing out was not that you were unwilling to make such a general statement, but that you were unwilling to make a specific statement that Rove should be convicted were he guilty of violating the law, until Emily said as much.

Dee, I saw your comment, but it is very vague. MacStansbury has said much more clearly that she would be in favor of a conviction for Rove should he in fact be guilty of violating the law. You have still not made this clear. This would still seem to be an inclination toward special rights for conservatives.

I also responded to your question about the mainstream media, which was to say that I have no idea who its members would go to jail to protect or not. I wouldn't try to make a generalization as broad as that.

As for Rove's innocence or guilt, I don't feel as though I know enough to make a statement about that, as the majority of the grand jury testimony has not been made public. Even if it had been, a grand jury only collects evidence for an indictment. A trial is still necessary to establish guilt.

Whether the mainstream media or the left were too quick to call for his conviction, again I would say I couldn't make a generalization as broad as that.

Posted by: ziggy at July 17, 2005 07:26 PM

Ziggy, according to your assumption that because we "were unwilling to make a specific statement", you jumped to yet another assumption: that we would pervert justice for one of our own. Several assumptions there all rolled into one just because we wouldn't do the 'say after me' spiel. Is this a new litmus test?

As far as the MSM goes, it's pretty obvious they've been out for blood since before the election, and yes, you CAN make some generalizations there. It's easy, just look at their track record.

Now if turnabout is fairplay, do you think Wilson should spend time in the slammer when it's proven he's lied and misled everyone from the State Department, Senate, WH, and of course the ubiquitous MSM?

Posted by: Dee at July 17, 2005 09:06 PM

well. seems I've been going to the wrong bathroom for 30+ years.

and my statement concerning no special rights cuts both ways. didn't John Kerry blow a special agent's cover? and where was the outrage? where was the investigation?

answer: wasn't one. because it wouldn't help the press "get Bush"

Posted by: John of at July 17, 2005 10:48 PM

Why did Rove lie about not mentioning Wilson's wife to a reporter when asked before?

Scott Mclellan was told that both Rove and Libby didn't talk to the media about Wilson's wife, and now we know this isn't true.

This may not be illegal, but how can anyone trust someone who will play games with the media and therefore the American citizens?

Posted by: a passerby at July 19, 2005 07:18 AM

that would assume that "playing games with the media" wasn't the same as "protection valuable secrets, and keeping the identity of secret agents secret."

and playing games with the media has nothing to do with playing games with the American citizens.

Posted by: John Stansbury at July 19, 2005 08:23 AM