Liberals On The Attack Over Rove: We Don’t Need No Stinking Facts 

7-27-2005

Lee P. Butler

Liberals are beside themselves with... let’s be politically correct here, for their sake... an incrementally increasing form of delusional emotional distress because they can’t understand how anyone could actually defend the political acumen of Karl Rove.

Just mentioning his name will set them off like the geyser ‘Old Faithful’. Getting rid of Rove is now their main goal, because they believe that removing him from the picture in Washington, will ultimately lead them to their most longingly cherished feat of bringing down President Bush and ending the momentum of Republican growth.

The sad reality for them is that their ‘ticket to paradise’ is mired in the whole Wilson/Plame saga and that story has always been a straw hut that is now burning to the ground around them. The biggest problem they face in this misguided quest is their continued reluctance to accept that there has been a man pouring gas on the hut and that man is Joe Wilson himself.

Media elitists and leading liberal Democrats know that they need their liberal base to stay motivated if they are to accomplish that agenda and the best way to do that is to feed the anti-war emotionalism of their base using the self-generated martyrdom of the Wilson family who are now the poster children of the anti-war movement.

Only Federal Prosecutor Fitzpatrick has a true grasp of whether or not a crime has been committed by any of the participants involved, so any speculation along those lines before the investigation is complete is just that, speculation. If anyone involved is proven to have committed a crime, then that person should be prosecuted and if it is someone in the administration, then they should be removed.

Nobody disagrees with that premise, but the problem so far has been that before the investigation can be completed, one of the main participants, Karl Rove, has already been charged, tried, and convicted as being guilty in the media’s liberal court of public opinion.

When anybody on the Right says ‘hold on a minute here’ and starts pointing out the discrepancies in the various stories concerning this issue and uses actual events, conversations, or reports to justify a probable defense to prevent a rush to judgment on Rove, they get lambasted by liberals who are hell bent on destroying the man despite the facts that could prove otherwise.

Liberals continue to fall into their own trap by accusing Rove of being guilty of a crime when it has yet to be announced that a crime has even taken place. While at the same time they defend the arrogant pomp put forth by Joe Wilson as he maliciously attacked the President and his administration using accusations that have been refuted, proven false, or that even he has changed along the way.

One factor that continues to be disregarded is if Joe Wilson’s wife was an active covert CIA agent working undercover overseas, she shouldn’t have involved herself at all in the selection of Joe Wilson to go on the Niger trip in the first place.

It now appears Valerie Plame was no longer working in a covert capacity, which is what allowed her to promote Wilson for the trip that the CIA wasn’t even sure about doing anyway and she even went so far as to write a memo campaigning for her husband’s selection, which ultimately led to the approval of the trip.

Wilson denied her involvement in the process and he was later reprimanded by the Senate Select Committee; including eight Democrats, because of his canard.

When Joe Wilson’s misleading op-ed was produced in the New York Times that falsely accused the President of lying in his SOTU speech, that op-ed sent anti-war liberals into a frenzy and their media counterparts have spun that story and the surrounding chapters ever since.

To this day, liberals still believe that Wilson debunked President Bush’s use of British intelligence in his SOTU speech, yet the bi-partisan Senate Select Committee agreed unanimously that Wilson had in fact confirmed the accuracy of the sixteen words President Bush used that night, along with the Butler Report in Great Britain and Joe Wilson himself in his book.

Media elitists such as Chris Matthews on MSNBC continue to misguide people by asserting the 16 words said, “Saddam Hussein was buying yellow cake, buying uranium.” When, in fact, that premise is entirely contrary to the 16 words in the SOTU address. Matthews then adds, “But why did the- why did the president retract it,” meaning the 16 words.

Liberals use this tactic of misdirection to defend Wilson and his charge that the President lied. Yet former CIA Director George Tenet clearly explained the reason for the supposed ‘retraction’. “Agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct,” Tenet wrote, sending liberals into apoplectic fits, because they only like factually correct statements when they refer to liberals, not conservatives.

Tenet continued, “The British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa. This should not have been the test for clearing a Presidential address. This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for Presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed.”

The White House apologized for using the statement because, ‘it didn’t meet the standard’ of intelligence that should have been used for a SOTU speech. They ‘retracted’ it’s USAGE, not it’s ACCURACY!

But that is standard liberal spin the media has become known for and why their credibility and ratings are in shambles.

Another recent ruse generated by the liberal media is that the President has ‘raised the bar’ on what it would take for him to fire Rove. They rarely quote his past statement and give their own account of what he supposedly said, then compare their own recitation to his current statement.

In September 2003, President Bush said, “if that person [the leaker] has violated law,” but the media says he ‘raised the bar’ because he now says, “If someone committed a crime.” Both statements clearly say what the qualifier would be to fire someone in his administration.

Where’s the difference?

The media and liberal Democrats did, however, ‘raise the bar’ on what it should take for President Bush to fire Rove. When they first thought they had caught Rove in a crime, they were screaming that he should be fired for leaking national security secrets.

Now that it looks as though that hasn’t happened, they ‘raised the bar’ and started asserting that he should be fired no matter what. They wanted to know why ‘violating the law’ or ‘committing a crime’ had to be the only reason to fire Rove.

According to media elitists, who are still drumming this mantra, Rove ‘leaked Plame’s identity’ as revenge for Wilson’s fallacious NYTimes op-ed. Yet Time magazine correspondent Matt Cooper admitted that he had called Rove and that Rove was warning him about faulty information Cooper was planning to produce.

Cooper’s own recollection of the conversation proved that Rove wasn’t ‘leaking Plame’s identity’, but attempting to correct media spin about who had sent Wilson to Niger. It was Cooper who chose to use her name publicly.

That was corroborated by Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus who admitted that he was told the White House disregarded Wilson’s trip because it was a ‘boondoggle’ arranged by his wife. Pincus didn’t report the information because, “Plame’s name was never mentioned and the purpose of the disclosure did not appear to be to generate an article.”

So if Rove wasn’t trying to generate an article, how was he using Plame’s identity to get revenge for Wilson’s op-ed attack?

Therein lies the dilemma. The Right is forced to defusing the hearsay created by media spin doctors generated through Wilson’s and the media’s own misinformation. The Left is reduced, by their blind hatred of Rove and their wanton desire to see him destroyed, to rely on an uninformed public believing that same misinformation.

Only time knows what the final outcome will be.