Archives About Staff BagNews is dedicated to visual politics, media literacy and the analysis of news images.
July 17, 2005

A Little Less Evident


After a week’s worth of Rove images — mostly as a result of Rove having thrust himself into the media eye — we now have this.  If there was any doubt before, the point Karl obviously wants to make is that he can stand up to (or out-gaze) anybody. 

My first question about this cover is why TIME, in taking their best shot at Rove, would actually have him pose for a portrait.  Allowing him to physically appeal directly to TIME’s audience is the visual equivalent of leading off your case by calling your opposition’s key rebuttal witness.  Effectively, Rove’s intention is to say: "Whatever accusatory words you read to the left of me and in these pages behind me, they’re not true.  I couldn’t look at you like this if they were." 

With the setbacks reporters have suffered in this case, as well as other recent press disasters (such as Newsweek’s "Koran flushing" debacle), maybe TIME felt they needed a "fair and balanced" credit that would accrue from giving Rove this kind of access. Call it "blow-back" insurance.

Aside from the fact Rove serves as a disclaimer, however, I think the magazine did try in careful (and not unsuccessful) ways to control matters.  One thing they did was show Rove absolutely on his own, noticeably removed from his typical props (meaning no President, White House, White House Lawn, Airforce One, etc).  (Okay, Rove does sport the overt lapel pin that he must have matched with the tie then shined twice before cameras rolled.)

Also, Rove’s shadow, whether photoshopped onto the flat gray background (or just carried over from the backdrop he was originally photographed against) seems to reflect his shadowy personality and behavior (as well as, possibly, the shadow he’s under).   The gray field, by the way, suggests some interesting allusions.  To me, it has the feel of Karl being up against a wall or even about to face a line-up.  Also, the way he is placed/cropped to the far right with his shoulder cut off and the large white letters pushing up against him would imply that Karl is in a jam or tight spot, and that a fuller picture of him is lacking.

Regarding the portrait itself, I read it as saying Rove might not be as emotionally (or politically) bulletproof as he tends to propagate. 

How so?

I sense that Rove’s almost permanent smug expression is just a
little less evident here. It might be me, but I also sense a slight bit
of emotion in Karl’s eyes. The people that take these shots are such
pros, I imagine the photographer wouldn’t let Rove intimidate him or
dictate the terms of his look.

Of course, the photographer didn’t get close to questioning Karl’s
persona, or even breaking through his mask. (Not like the way TIME thoroughly obliterated
the "missing person" known as Anne Coulter back in April) But I think
– with some slight sadness, pain or wistfulness in those eyes; a hint
of a slightly downward gaze in the right eye; a little heaviness in
those eyelids; slightly less enthusiasm in the typically smug pursed
lips; and a trace of weariness in place of his typical joy in
confrontation — the photographer got a slight bit more out of Karl
than Bush’s strategist intended.

But then — at some level — everybody who puts on a contrived face
wishes to be seen through it. Especially if it’s been a long time.

  • jerry

    The thing that stikes me with the photo is how Rove seems to be slightly leaning in from the edge of the page. His nose doesn’t line up vertically with his jacket’s V. Perhaps he’s crooked, or beginning to fall. With how rigid he is, it reminds me of that statue of Saddam being toppled. Whatever, he isn’t standing stable. And this would have been an easy thing to fix when they laid out the image on the page.

  • eva

    Yes, with that shadow behind his head against the gray background, my immediate impression of the photo was that Rove is in a police line-up: Is this the guy who did it, blew Plame’s cover? To suggest that question in such a slyly visual manner, seems to me, is to answer it.

  • Mugatea

    Grey is a neutral color that takes on any color placed upon it. A grey field with a blue patch in the center will appear cool, with a red patch it will appear warm. This is a warm cover. The fact that his left arm is not in the cover is totally appropriate. He leaves the left out of everything. The issue of the day, his treason, is presented on his right shoulder. His treason, and Libby’s, rest on the shoulders of the Republican party. GOP? My arse.

  • Roy

    I’m curious if this is a new photo or something from the TIME library. If Rove took time out last week to stand for a portrait it shows again what arrogance he has. I’d think the guy was kinda busy. Maybe he figures that the white house has so much clout that TIME will give him a break. Wouldnt TIME sell more copies with a cover that shows more tension? ANd whats this “Valerie Plame spy case”caption? Refering to her as a spy implies she is a shifty character. GIves him the benefit again…

  • cj

    The photo is discomforting in two ways. First, because it is a decontextualized portrait, blank, banal–something is missing. Except for the headline, I would have no idea that the photo was anything other than a recropped stock KR photo. Second, considering that the bushpols have horsewhipped the press so handily in recent years, I have no doubt that Time is trying its best to “look” neutral. However, the off center position of the photo, the listing right, the blank smile and the “dead” look in the eyes behind the glasses makes me think that Rove may indeed be the chief of sociopaths…. The prominance of the fuzzy shadow behind his head is ominous. Also, considering that the attention of the investigation appears to be turning to him and his alleged outing of VP, he seems to be doing the standard administration response–get out there “in your face.” He is playing the “could I look you in the eye, if I were guilty” card, which is intended to appeal to our collective naivete–but the emotional sincerity in his body language is lacking.
    Now about the “ON THE SPOT”…. What spot? In the photo I see two–the shadow and the flag pin. Does that mean he is standing in front of something (hence hiding it) or is he standing behind it (hence supporting/defending it)? In any case he is off balance and maybe its just a matter of “time” before he comes toppling down…..

  • mad

    Excellent comments by all, especially in light of Rove being the master of appearance and deception.
    In this photo, “Bush’s right-hand man” continues to tilt strongly to the right– certainly not upright.
    And then at the top of the page there is Harry Potter– which is a story full of witches, sorcery, darkness and evil. Very appropriate connection with Rove.

  • Asta

    If Rove had inched over to the left just a bit, the M in the word TIME would have looked like horns sprouting from his head. That would explain his not being dead-center on the cover.

  • pjr

    As in everything else this man does, a TIME cover shot is nothing more than a carefully orchestrated attempt to portray an image; in this case of a man harried by the media for being a ‘patriotic American.’ Rove is a despicable, amoral creep, who will use any and all underhanded tactics to enshrine a vision of America which includes smear campaigns, lies, deceit and duplicity on an unprecedented scale. His attempts in the last week to appear as the beleagured recipient of a witch hunt is beyond pathetic. After shooting his mouth of for 2 years, among other WH reps, he now takes on the role of ‘victim.’ Is anyone but Bush apologists buying this crap? Just looking at his insipid, bloated face makes me want to puke.

  • Nutthuis

    I see the shadow as a black spot on Karl. He lives in a gray area but that black spot is only going to get bigger.

  • George Myers

    A wonderful film, “Beat The Devil” screenplay by Truman Capote, directed by John Huston with Peter Lorre, Humphrey Bogart, Gina Lollabridgida (a politician in Italy) was about looking for uranium (“yellow cake”) in Africa, under the guise of selling vacuum cleaners there, its the only DVD I own. It is an interesting film, I can’t recall who orginally wrote the story. “Time” was once admittedly “Presbyterian” in focus and they supported Angela Davis’ innocence so I think they want to cover this issue as today they were announcing they’re the ones Rove told it to! When they started with “cake” story I had to stop and wonder if they were using an “African Queen” scenario, even stealing the “Beat The Devil” plot. Actually, they were had six ways to Sunday by a bogus letter that will leave serious “black mark” on the intelligence community for years to come. Of course then whatever “W” (another interesting film by Hitchcock with Twiggy and the guy from “Battlestar Galactica” she the battered wife) says might be construed as “intelligence”.

  • Bob

    One thing they did was show Rove absolutely on his own, noticeably removed from his typical props (meaning no President, White House, White House Lawn, Airforce One, etc).

    This might be Time’s you’re-on-your-own spin, but it looked like a show of strength, to me: The guy’s coming out of the shadows, and standing on his own as a person-in-himself for the first time.

  • MonsieurGonzo

    the M in the word TIME … like horns sprouting from his head.”
    …after reading ASTA’s comment, i could no longer look at this image without seeing those horns!
    yeah. that shadow is a vital feature, n’est-ce pas? without that visual framing, Rove floats; ie., would not be “up against” something, some plane of reference.
    a perp “Line-Up” ?…yeah, i could see that: all he needs is to be holding a placard in front of his chest.
    i step back, try to take in the man
    brrrrr! i mean, he looks mean; so cold, so… sadistic, as if: this is a guy who enjoys being mean. i cannot imagine this man actually “bonding” with another adult human being, certainly not a woman.
    (interesting that we are all focusing in on Mr. Rove. i am looking forward to a good portrait image of Mr. Libby. and if we can stand it, Mr. Novak ;-)

  • Gary

    Somebody needs to take this photo and photoshop a cream pie into it.

  • Annoying Old Guy

    Joe Wilson, for one, who has been defending Rove against criminal charges. Not only did he write a book indicating that Plame wasn’t covert when the Novak column was published, but he has stated it explicitly in a recent interview.

  • zencomix

    It screams “Mugshot” to me….

  • Sarah

    Rove easily steps from the shadows, not entirely, long enough for the appointed photo.
    “I know what you are thinking. I do not care. Want me on the spot? Here I am: clean, blameless, looking directly at you.
    Now, get out of my way. More important matters call me.”
    He believes he is a master of light and shadows, of private whispers and public show. Misdirection is one of the many strategies used. While he somehow seems to remain clean, nothing sticks to that suit, that face.

  • Realpolitik

    George Meyers: The novel that was the source material for “Beat the Devil” was written by Alexander Cockburn’s Stalinist father under a pseudonym (that’s why his The Nation column bears that name). You can google the pseudonym. As an aside, that’s the source of the Cockburn vs. Hitchens/Orwell rift.
    Rove? Even if his sociopathic head swelled up like Atwater’s (and doesn’t it look tumourous already?), I don’t think this guy would express any death-bed regrets for his lowering an already low act–politics.
    What strikes me is how FORMAL Rove looks. He usually dresses down in good ol’ boy style to befriend and manipulate. I’d like to say he’s dressed for a day in court, but with all the shit this rogue regime has gotten away with, he’s pre-dressed for Dumya’s third inauguration or Jeb’s first…

  • ms kubelik

    Something very “The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit” about it:
    And when did Rove drop the 30 pounds? Here he is today, July 18:
    That TIME cover really does the best it can with the subject.

  • donna

    Rove is the distraction. The issue is, Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq. The whole PLamegate scheme was cooked up to distract from that lie. Now Rove is being the focus, instead of Bush. All a bit too convenient….

  • hauksdottir

    I think it is an older, archived photo, brought out and dressed up. Reasons? The flag pin. Bush’s cronies all wear the same pin he does, and Bush switched from a waving flag to a rectangular flag several months ago. And Rove’s weight… hard to tell with this straight on view, but his neck and chin look more corpulent in recent head shots. It might be possible to check other images to see if there is a match with this suit and tie, but my feeling is that this was taken last year or the year before, when he was still on top of the game.
    I wouldn’t be surprised if he was gay, given that he has no sexual attractiveness to us ladies other than possibly power. If he was repressing something like that, it might explain the loathing he feels for others. Whatever he is holding in can’t be good.

  • Hamburger

    hauksdottir | July 19, 2005 03:13 AM,
    I agree. I read part of a bio yesterday in which KR is said to describe first seeing W.
    I paraphrase: “there he was in dungarees and a bomber jacket. He exuded confidence in the way he walked…”
    and so on.
    My first thought: god, sounds like he’ describing love at first sight. Physically, W is everything KR is not. Elmer Fudd meets the Marlboro Man.
    By the way, KR comes from a disastrous and dysfunctional family.
    A lot of hiding in that photo above.

  • cj

    At the end of the day, he looks just like a turtle sticking his head out of his shell….be careful of those jaws…!

  • pjr

    AOG; not sure what your point is, but if I’ve understood some of what you said, this is nothing more than a tempest in a teapot? Is that why a special prosecutor has been investigating for 2 years; because poor KR has been setup by a Democratic party smear campaign? Rove is a master technician when it comes to dirty politics, and has been using devious tactics for years to get his candidate elected, no matter what the cost. Ask McCain what he thinks of Rove’s political maneouverings, or why a good deal of Republicans are opting for silence on the isssue, and not their usual rush to defend one of their own.

  • Salam Adil

    I see a secretly subversive image here. The portrait has obviously been tilted slightly – just place another window over the glasses and mouth and the tilt is obvious. Rove himself will probably like the image – the tilt and the cropping makes him look slimmer. Yet the tilt also gives the impression that Rove is listing slightly. Like a ship that is about to sink maybe?

  • Annoying Old Guy

    I have no idea why the special prosecutor has been at this for such a long time. Certainly no small part of it has been that Old Media has fiercely resisted cooperating (note that Rove signed off on full disclosure 18 months ago). Given the inside information possessed by these people, I think that’s a good indicator of who’s really at risk.
    What makes this a surreal event is that Old Media, which has been breathlessly reporting on this for two years, knows what really happened and has all along. The Washington press corps would never tolerate that kind of stonewalling from any other organization, particularly not from a large corporation.
    Some people, such as yourself, hold this up as a clever Rovian scheme. Yet a deeper analysis shows that it’s a self-inflicted wound. The root of the whole event was Joe Wilson writing his op-ed – absent that, none of this would have happened. Both reporters who talked to Rove called him, obtensibly on other subjects and then the reporters brought up the Wilson issue. It was Old Media and the Left Blogosphere that fanned the flames. It was the CIA that requested the special prosecutor. Even granting that Rove is a skilled and dirty political operator, what exactly did he do to get this started or keep it going? About the only political trick Rove could be pulling is delaying the SCOTUS nomination in order to keep this issue on the front pages, where it is doing enormous damage to Bush’s opponents.
    The real question is, why did Bush’s opponents latch on so fiercely to such a non-issue? (One notes that the editorials baying for Rove’s blood over this “crime” changed overnight to “what crime?” when journalists were threatened with jail). The Washington Press corps, at least, knew from the start there was nothing there. Yet off they went anyway. Why? It wasn’t because they considered leaking covert information wrong, as the NY Times does that itself, along with Judith Miller.
    I don’t think it was the Democratic Party driving this. My view is that they just hitched a ride on Old Media’s vehicle because it looked like it was going somewhere. The real fault of the Democratic Party leadership is that they won’t learn anything from this and will almost certainly sign on for the next trip down the garden path.
    On another, related, note, TheBAG wrote about how Bush must have some level of intelligence, or he wouldn’t have gotten as far as he has. I would submit that Bush’s talent may well be just keeping his wits about him when others are losing theirs. This entire issue would be the archetypical example. All Bush and Rove had to do was simply not react hysterically and it all fell in to place. Bush’s greatest political strength might well be the attitude of people like you, that he is the greatest evil ever known. That encourages precisely the overreaction which feeds Bush’s political success.
    Finally, in case anyone is still reading, I suspect that this cover is a last ditch effort to keep the focus on Rove instead of Old Media’s culpability. Rove is there, alone, the “central element of the picture”. The contents are at his right hand, as if he is presenting them, not TIME. He is in front of the TIME logo to show that TIME is just following Rove, a passive player who was mislead in to this quagmire.

  • Molly

    It’s attitudes like the above that will get Rove off scott free.
    Rove breaks the law, so blame the democrats and the media.
    And people wonder why Americans are so apathetic. Why bother when there are people who will turn themselves into pretzels defending “their guys”?
    The more I see Annoying Old Guy’s spin reflected in the news, the less likely I am to believe that Rove will be held accountable for what he has done. I guess I’ll just have to fall back on what I was taught in Sunday School about Jesus and the day of judgement because it sure won’t happen here.

  • Molly

    On the other hand, Tom Tomorrow helps. I think Annoying Old Guy must have some writing credit for this!

  • Molly

    And there is this, as well!
    Yay! My afternoon is looking up! But I still trust in Jesus’ judgment; y’think Karl does, too?

  • Asta

    Well said, Molly. And thanks for the link to Tom Tomorrow. I didn’t know he had a site. I bookmarked it. (His humor keeps me sane.)

  • Cosmic Rose

    Molly states: And people wonder why Americans are so apathetic. Why bother when there are people who will turn themselves into pretzels defending “their guys”?
    LOL… they better stay the hell away from Bush then cause Bush isn’t able to deal with pretzles very well. Reminds me of a terribly funny poster I once saw that can still be seen at the bottom of the page at this url…
    make sure to go to the bottom of the page to see what I’m talking about.

  • Annoying Old Guy

    I’m honestly curious – is whether Plame was in fact covert in any way relevant to Rove’s alledged law breaking? Is the claim that Plame wasn’t covert “spin”, even if it is true?
    As I noted above, even Joe Wilson now says Plame wasn’t covert. A veritable who’s who of Old Media says “not covert” in an amicus court filing. The list includes ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, AP, Newsweek, Reuters America, the Washington Post, the Tribune Company, and the White House Correspondents. Is this kind of thing relevant information for evaluating the claim of covertness, or is the covertness of Plame an article of faith?
    My analysis proceeds from the presumptions that (1) Plame wasn’t covert and (2) the reporters on the story knew this. Clearly if you believe that (1) is false beyond the possibility of debate, the rest will look like spin. However, based on quite a lot of evidence (to some of which I’ve provided links), I think both of those points are true.
    What’s ironic is that I am blaming Old Media for screwing over the Democratic Party, not for getting Rove in trouble. I thought it was relevant because it was a response to pjr and examined how Old Media can make news instead of reporting it.
    P.S. I strongly recommend reading the amicus brief. It’s not very long and somewhat more informative than Tom Tomorrow comic strips.

  • Cosmic Rose

    How many undercover narcotics agents do you know who’s spouses go about declaring in public that they are undercover? Wouldn’t they deny such things to ensure that their family not become a target of some drug trafficker bent on getting rid of anyone potentially capable of putting them away for their activities? I don’t see where this is so hard for you to grasp. I also don’t see how hard it is to grasp that this woman’s undercover government spy status was revealed as REVENGE for Wilson’s blatant stand against this administrations manipulation of the facts that took us into an illegal war. If people would have listened to what he had to say then… we wouldn’t need to be having this conversation now. There is obviously many more secrets to be revealed and some in the higher etchelons are gonna be revealed as the liars they have been all along because of it. Now why is it taking so long? TO MAKE SURE THERE ARE NO LOOPHOLES FOR ESCAPE.

  • Asta

    Cosmic Rose’s comments inspired me to this thought:
    That Valerie has been publicly revealed as a CIA agent, such action has compromised all her FUTURE work. HER CAREER IS COOKED. She CAN’T go covert, she can’t do anything now. (Forgive me for the uppercase, but I don’t know the html code for this site to choose Bold or Underline or Italize.)
    It really doesn’t matter about the past stuff, her cover has been blown and we have lost a good agent because of petty personal revenge crap. (Let’s consider the costs involved of training a CIA agent in the first place…employee turn-over must be a real bitch.)
    I don’t care what her level at the CIA is/was. It is clearly irresponsible of all parties to have given out her name in the first place. And it is clear to me that such irresponsible behavior warrants investigation and convictions. Robert Novak should be fitted right now for an orange jumpsuit, and Rove should be fired post haste and fitted for similar attire.
    Oh, and AOG, since you are such a true patriot and you pray for our troops and you believe so whole-heartedly in this unholy war, I would think you would be more adamant about treasonous acts being rigorously punished. Instead, you find loopholes and excuses and lame explanations for letting these traitors continue their acts of treason. (BTW, I think you’re just jealous that Tom Tomorrow is vastly more intelligent and talented than you are. You’re just Silly Putty; you haven’t had an independent, original thought in your head for decades. My parrot is more creative than you are.)
    And yes, I am very snarky tonight…I have no air- conditioning and it is VERY hot here in this far northern state. It’s that Global Warming Thingy that no one wants to talk about.

  • mugatea

    In exposing Plame – a whole front, a group of people forming a cover company, were exposed. Who knows how that plays on their careers, or lives for that matter.
    These people worked on US comprehension of international trade/use/collection of WMD. Remember those?

  • …now I try to be amused

    Annoying Old Guy, even if the Plame leak had caused little damage to our national security (and I disagree), the prosecutor has to work with what evidence he has. After all, Watergate started with a “third-rate burglary”.

  • Quentin

    Two questions about AOG, which he can also answer himself:
    Does AOG believe what he writes in the comment.
    Does AOG only write what he thinks will annoy, being true to his alias?

  • Annoying Old Guy

    No. I also provide supporting links. Further, I directly address points, rather than misquote and insult.

  • pjr

    AOG; I fail to see the misquotes and insults you speak of. People are simply astounded that when faced with the obvious evidence of cooked intelligence and WH obfuscations, that those who would support Bush under any circumstances continue to blame those who expose the lie, but not the liars. All this bullshit about how you’re now in Iraq, so who cares how you got there is further proof that those in power, and those who support them, will tolerate ANYTHING to further their agenda. The blatant duplicity of this issue speaks volumes about who really cares about truth, justice and the American way; increasingly it appears that it sure as Hell ain’t Republicans.

  • Annoying Old Guy


    that those who would support Bush under any circumstances


    All this bullshit about how you’re now in Iraq, so who cares how you got there


  • mugatea

    Excuse me, but I find it quite entertaining that an original post of a Karl Rove image would slowly disolve the comments into an argument about insults and misquotes thus taking the conversation off subject … that’s what Rove’s political style is all about.
    Don’t fall for that crap.

  • Cosmic Rose

    The Iraq-Niger connection fabrication was the foundational framework in support of the Bush administration’s agenda for war as well the revelation as to how the so called intelligence was being FIXED to support that agenda. Rove… joined by Cheney’s chief of staff Lewis (“Scooter”) Libby and whomever else… teased reporters with information meant to divert their attention from the facts that Wilson was intent on revealing while at the same time sending a message to Wilson that you don’t mess with people in such positions of power and imagine you aren’t going to suffer grave consequences for doing so.
    What most are not grasping is how this case supports original assertions that the Bush Administration wasn’t receiving bad intelligence rather they were cooking good intelligence in order to support their drive to oust Saddam at all cost even if it meant lying to the same public who would be sending their loved ones off to die without a JUST or legitimately legal cause. Remember… this was the impetuous for initiating a new way of engaging in wars called PRE-EMPTION?
    As further evidence of how the facts were being manipulated/fixed by this administration specifically to take us into war are the previous statements of Powell and Rice prior to-9/11 such as….
    “Saddam Hussein has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.” (Colin Powell, Feb. 24, 2001)
    “We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.” (Condoleezza Rice, July 29, 2001)
    Yet The Bush administration needed to make a powerful impression on the public that Iraq was on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. This required a new threat having to be created without evidence… basically being pulled out of thin air while hoping that the pundits wouldn’t have too great a recall pertaining to what had been stated by senior U.S. officials about Saddam’s military capability prior to 9/11
    VP Dick Cheney was first to use manipulated intelligence to deceive Americans In one of his speeches claiming: “We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Among other sources, we’ve gotten this from the firsthand testimony of defectors – including Saddam’s own son-in-law.”
    However… Saddam’s son-in-law Hussein Kamel had related information to the extreme opposite of this claim stating in 1995 that: “All weapons – biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed.” Being responsible for these programs; the weaponry was destroyed at his command. This is not new information. It was available before we engaged Iraq but wasn’t being released via the mainstream media who are accomplice to this perpetuation of lies and deceit.
    Does anyone need question what the main motivation behind the White House character assassination of Joseph Wilson was about? It was because he exposed a major lie that he KNEW to be a lie along with the essential role it played in the administration’s plans to portray a nuclear-armed Iraq as the most compelling threat that could be sold to our representatives and senators. The purpose being to deceive them into approving the present Administration’s personal war and not a war of necessity. Anyone supporting such insanity are part of the problem and not the solution.

  • Quentin

    Hey AOG, why are you so fixated, for instance, on the brief amici curiae? The signatories maintain that (paraphrased) the public record gives ample evidence to cast serious doubt whether a crime has been committed according to the named law. It does not say that a crime has not been committed. They are stating a very general evaluation, and give no arguments to back it up. I mean really, Victoria Toensing. Maybe a crime has been committed according to another law. Maybe CIA agents have been murdered in Antarctica because of the naming of Plame, for all I know. Or some CIA contacts have been brutally mistreated because of all of this. The CIA must have made a damage assessment by now, but no one has heard anything about it. What is going on? You know as little as I do. But you seem blindly to assume that the CIA and Fitzgerald are asses who, at best, don’t know what they are doing or, at worst, are deceiving everyone. Since you know so much, tell me, which is the case? I have no idea what is going on. No one can even tell me why Judith Miller is in prison (it has nothing to do with sources, damn it!). Something curious is definitely going to come out of this, and you will just have to accept that WE ARE ALL SUBJECT TO THE LAW, including Mr. Rove and his entourage, which includes the president. We had Clinton’s blow job, now we have…could it be Vietnam and Watergate rolled into one.
    And hanksdottir/Carolly, the speculation about Karl Rove’s sexuality, jocular, sarcastic or otherwise, is silly.

  • Asta

    The Left Coaster website will give you all the links we need to counter the B.S. GOP talking points concerning Treasongate. It is good reading.

  • Annoying Old Guy

    Because my primary point (which I will re-iterate again) is the failure and duplicity of Old Media. The brief illustrates the point (2) I mentioned above. Whatever the truth is, we know that Old Media has been on both sides, depending on which was convenient for them. Isn’t analysis of the media one of the points of this weblog?
    As for Fitzgerald, that’s yet another instance of misquoting me. Can you cite where, in fact, I called Fitzgerald “an ass” or insinuated that he didn’t know what he was doing? I said I didn’t know what he was doing and I stand by that statement.
    Oh, and I am truly wounded by the claim that I am accusing the CIA of deceiving people! What could ever give me the idea that the CIA, that bastion of Light, Truth and Goodness, might try to deceive people? Well, no matter, I will throw caution to the winds and state forthrightly that I think the CIA is deceiving people. I think factions in the CIA have played dirty on this issue and in general have been trying to subvert the official foreign policy of the USA. Personally, I’m close to being persuaded that the CIA should be disbanded in toto.
    P.S. Doesn’t your irony meter peg when you see the Progressive Left defending the CIA as an honest player and a reliable source?

  • Quentin

    Good, AOG, you’ve finally said something with conviction: the CIA should be disbanded. Now if you have old media, you must have new media. What are the new media? In fact the brief does not illustrate anything except the opinions of the signatories. I attach no importance to the brief. I attach importance only to Fitzgerald’s findings. Yes, I was not completely fair to you when I said you thought Fitzgerald is an ass. My point is: just accept that he’s not an ass and knows what he is doing. Who’s talking about the progressive left anyway, whatever that is. AOG, let’s wait to see what Fitzgerald pulls out of his hat before we continue this conversation. You exhaust me. To relax I think I’ll take a look at Asta’s reference. Sorry AOG, something deep and confusing is going on and I am not the cause.

  • pjr

    AOG; how is it an insult to state that Bush supporters will allow for anything? Lies and fixed intelligence in going into Iraq are facts; that those who support Bush refuse to acknowledge this is also obvious. Where you see that as insulting is your own hangup; suggesting that the Right see Liberals as having been on a witch hunt against Bush seems just as insulting, however I prefer to see it as an opinion, not an insult, though you’ll note I do not represent that opinion as yours. My so called ‘misquote’ is again my opinion; not sure how you can suggest my own words are somehow a ‘misquote,’ but hey, it’s still a free country…..for now.

  • ms kubelik

    What David Corn says
    about wasting time w/those blinded by partisan loyalty or just like to see if they can shout the loudest.
    Point those who might wish to know the craven nature of Bush’s administration to the link above for the bulk of the testimony regarding the Rove scandal from James Marcinkowski, a former CIA case office and a former prosecutor, July 22, 2005. Here is one pertinent example:
    And so the real issues before this Congress and this country today is not partisan politics, not even the loss of secrets. The secrets of Valerie Plame’s cover are long gone. What has suffered perhaps irreversible damage is the credibility of our case officers when they try to convince our overseas contact that their safety is of primary importance to us. How are our case officers supposed to build and maintain that confidence when their own government cannot even guarantee the personal protection of the home team? While the loss of secrets in the world of espionage may be damaging, the stealing of the credibility of our CIA officers is unforgivable….
    The Republicans in Congress are too scared to even call hearings re Rove’s apparently criminal act. They know Rove’s crooked, else they’d willingly clear him and shove it down the Dems throats.
    This Bush administration continues to shame our nation.

  • Annoying Old Guy

    What do you think now?

Refresh Archives

Random Notes