But back here in the real world, it’s possible the Rovians have finally run up against the one opponent they can’t spin — or steamroll or intimidate or undermine with dirty tricks. And that’s the criminal justice system.
plus
Back to Main
July 13, 2005
WB: Spin Dry + Confidence Game
Comments
amen
i am scared. is it unreasonable for me to have faith? is it possible that we still have any justice left? please please. i am just a voice in the wind. will anything/one be able to turn the tide for us? can we find redemption? i am on my knees. fitzgerald….. please come thru for us. somehow.
excuse my desperation.
Posted by: annie | Jul 13 2005 6:10 utc | 1
If Rove is frogmarched on this I suppose the GOP will decide its time to get the rest of the aspects of their totalitarian state sorted out. They have the media under control and a political propaganda system that I am sure the Soviet Union would have been envious of. I guess they’ll decide that all those prosecutors and judges are a just a bit too independent. After all, you can’t have courts and judges contradicting the latest GOP talking points. That would defeat their whole point.
Unless, of course, they already have this one sorted out. You’ll be able to tell when there is a quiet change in prosecutor, and it is announced that there is insufficient evidence for a prosecution againts anybody in the WH and it looks like it was a Democrat Senate staffer anyway.
Then it will really be time to move to Canada.
Posted by: still working it out | Jul 13 2005 6:40 utc | 2
I think this is one of the few times that Rove and company actually OVERestimated the American public. They somehow believed that Americans would care if they found out that the government was lying in order to get the country into a unnecessary war. They should realize by now that, if they just mention terrorism and 9/11 a few times, they can do whatever they want and lie as much as they want.
Posted by: steve expat | Jul 13 2005 7:21 utc | 3
Awhile back I wrote that truth no longer stands much of a chance in the political arena — not when it’s pitted against the best modern propaganda machine that money can buy. But the question now is whether the truth, armed with subpoena power and the federal rules of evidence, can still prevail in a court of law
Lemme remind you of the 2000 Presidential elections. Or any number of death penalty cases.
I just can’t share your optimism.
In fact, the Newsweek article on Rove and Cooper mentions that Rove ‘gave permission’ to Cooper to hand over his notes – so I’m rather certain they still have cards to play out.
DoDo: One report has heavily suggested that Cooper inferred his personal waiver from a statement by his defense counsel (Luskin), who had said (via that morning’s paper) that “If Cooper was protecting someone, it isn’t Karl Rove”, or words to that effect. That statement implies that Rove has no problem if Cooper does testify. The thinking goes that Cooper was looking for a way out of jail without violating his ethical obligation to his source, and that his own legal counsel would have pointed to this statement as a way out of his dilemma. So this may have been a bit of bad luck for Karl Rove. No link handy, sorry. But that’s the essence.
Posted by: Jassalasca Jape | Jul 13 2005 8:23 utc | 6
(By “his defense counsel (Luskin)”, I mean Rove’s defense counsel.)
Posted by: Jassalasca Jape | Jul 13 2005 8:24 utc | 7
Rove frogmarched? Never hoppen! There is no ‘back here’ here.
Posted by: DM | Jul 13 2005 8:27 utc | 8
I think McClellan was trying to declare confidence in Rove under his new and wildly circuitous rules of not commenting on an ongoing investigation while commenting the hell out of it by distributing talking points to the entire world.
Spin Dry was great writing.
Posted by: SteinL | Jul 13 2005 8:54 utc | 9
If you read Joshua Micah Marshall’s Talking Points Memo site you’ll know that he has a group blog called TPM Cafe.
Anyway, he points out a good thread there on Plame. Started by one Larry Johnson:
“Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA. I entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985. All of my classmates were undercover–in other words, we told our family and friends that we were working for other overt U.S. Government agencies. We had official cover. That means we had a black passport–i.e., a diplomatic passport. If we were caught overseas engaged in espionage activity the black passport was a get out of jail free card.”
and this is an exceptional hypothetical timeline of events by one Oklahoma Hippy:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/comments/2005/7/13/04720/9340/21#21
Quote:
” …. there were whispers all over D.C. before September 11th, that the country should expect something to happen with Iraq in 2002 or 2003 … Hypothetically speaking, the plan is to set up Saddam by forging a memo that would indicate that Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium from Niger. Perhaps someone in our Government faked the document … Then, quite unexpectedly given that we were so focused on Iraq, September 11th happens and the Administration has to regroup.
And he takes it from there.
Posted by: jonku | Jul 13 2005 8:55 utc | 10
Thanks Jonku, that piece is a very very good summary of what has happened the last years.
jonku links above well worth the read especially the hippy & other comments about Ames connection.
Posted by: anna missed | Jul 13 2005 9:53 utc | 12
And why are the GOP trying, as the majority party, to gut the courts or shape their ideology? Yup.
Posted by: ahem | Jul 13 2005 10:03 utc | 13
“Awhile back I wrote that truth no longer stands much of a chance in the political arena — not when it’s pitted against the best modern propaganda machine that money can buy.”
can someone give me a link to this, or a title, or a date?
Posted by: aloyisius | Jul 13 2005 10:38 utc | 14
Uh, Bill, isn’t it an insult to the real “Lizard King” (aka Jim Morrison) to don Rove with the “Lizard King” title?
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 13 2005 10:57 utc | 15
Try this: The Right spin machine rallies a majority of the populace to the notion Rove is getting the shaft. Not too difficult considering half the population, or more, is comprised of mad dog rabid fascists. Toss in some “we’re at war, there are more pressing issues at hand, let’s move on” mumbo-jumbo. Then, presto!–Bush pardons Rove ahead of any convictions, a la the Ford/Nixon example. Bush isn’t running again, Rove won’t be in the next administration, and Bush renews his endearment with millions of home grown theocrats, thugs, homophobes, xenophobes and liberal haters. It’s too perfect NOT to happen. Hell, before the dust settles Bush will be chanting the NRO mantra that Rove did it all in the service of his country and he HAS to be pardoned.
Posted by: steve duncan | Jul 13 2005 12:41 utc | 16
Great posts, Billmon. However, unless Rove is indicted or tainted as some kind of unindicted co-conspirator, I think they get away with it.
The Democrats are hapless, the press can only go so far, and the American public that thinks we found WMD and that Saddam planned 9-11 isn’t exactly clued in to this issue. Plus, what does Bush have to lose? Does he really give a shit about the mid-term elections?
I know I’m being pessimistic, but short of indictment, I just can’t see how this is really going to hurt these guys. Short of indictment, I just can’t see Rove quitting. Dear Leader couldn’t be Dear Leader without him.
And to reiterate my other point, if lying us into a war that has killed more than 1,700 Americans and torturing prisoners of war don’t get that many Americans worked up, why should we think that this will?
As you said Billmon, they have the best propaganda the world has even seen.
Posted by: Phil from New York | Jul 13 2005 14:33 utc | 18
“However, unless Rove is indicted or tainted as some kind of unindicted co-conspirator, I think they get away with it.”
Oh definitely. But even Bill Kristol (as cunning a rat as wiggles through the sewers of Republican Washington)is now saying he thinks indictments are just about inevitable. Fitzgerald hasn’t come all this way to fold up his tent now.
Posted by: Billmon | Jul 13 2005 15:50 utc | 19
Fox news:anti national security
FOX News anchor John Gibson just said on air that he thought Karl Rove deserves a medal if he outed Valerie Plame. Let me repeat: John Gibson, anchor at the FOX News Channel, says he believes that we ought to expose our covert government agents and harm national security… as long as it benefits Republicans.
These people are sick, and a danger to America.
UPDATE: Now with video
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jul 13 2005 16:16 utc | 20
I must say, even for the GOP this whole event has taken the slim to an elevated level. I was listening to a radio show and they played Mehlman on Wolf Blitzkreig last night. What a bunch of liars and bastards. This is the worst I’ve seen. If the American people can’t see the GOP for the lying bastards they are this country is in deep shit.
I am waiting for Joe Wilson to come out throwing punches. But the talking heads are giving these assholes a pass and not calling their bullshit bullshit when the info is there. Please go to kos and read susang’s posting of the letter from Wilson to the senate committee trying to correct outright lies Hatch, Roberts, etc, put into the senate intelligence record. These people are corrupt to the nth degree and our country is being set back light years with the rethugs in power.
One light at the end of the tunnel, when power see’s they are lossing their way and feel it, they really make last gasp efforts to hang onto that power. The dems must keep a low profile and let the rethugs self implode
Posted by: jdp | Jul 13 2005 16:43 utc | 21
I am flabbergasted that they’ve got the nerve to float this “Rove is a HERO for outing Plame” bullshit.
Posted by: four legs good | Jul 13 2005 17:03 utc | 22
I think at least part of the reason for the spin offensive is damage control among the Republican base in the event someone in the administration is indicted. In other words, the spin is another political pre-emptive strike to convince their flock that nothing of any import really happened and that all this is politically motivated to keep Republican defections to a minimum. They may know they can’t completely control the outcome of the investigation but they can influence what a lot of people think about it. They have to put this crap out there so their followers will have something to grab onto; then, their faithful can do what they do best: believe.
Posted by: lonesomeG | Jul 13 2005 17:43 utc | 23
Well, if Rove is a hero for doing that, when will the WH host a ceremony featuring the Headless Figure & Rove handing Philip Agee his new US Passport?
Outrageously Plame may have been one of the few CIA agents doing important work.
Posted by: jj | Jul 13 2005 17:44 utc | 24
… he thinks indictments are just about inevitable. Fitzgerald hasn’t come all this way to fold up his tent now.
Indeed. But everyone keeps focusing on the obvious indictment of turdface. Remember Watergate? The really juicy stuff that topples empires is the coverup. Or are we somehow supposed to believe our little prankster operates out of a vacuum?
From the start of this thing two years ago I believed that if it was Rove, then he was bragging about if from the moment he did it. From the time this thing became an issue I’ll bet everyone in the White House from the prez down to the lowest intern knew who was behind it. Of course the people up top had firsthand knowledge. Which from a legal standpoint means they didn’t come forward with it and they kept it from getting out: coverup.
All this bullshit of Scotty being lied to by the bad Karl… Scotty knew what was what. He was deliberately passing on bad information. (Info with no proof equals bogus info.) He knew Rove did it and he lied about it. Therefore he was part of the coverup.
“The president knows Karl didn’t do it.” Just like he knew of WMD. Another active liar who was in on the game. The fact that he hasn’t fired Rove at this point of common knowledge in the story is proof that he knew of Rove’s role all along. He thinks firing Rove has only political ramifications when in fact it may be the only thing that could keep Bush himself from facing an indictment for coverup.
There’s potentially a lot more at stake here than just the domestic half of the Rove/Cheney Cooperative.
We’ll see what kind of a man Fitzgerald is. My guess is he has enough goods on enough people to necessitate major personel changes in the White House.
Posted by: Julian | Jul 13 2005 17:50 utc | 25
Question for the close followers…..
Why, when Ashcroft backed out, did ass’t AG James Comey appoint a pitbull like Fitzgerald?
Asking because it doesn’t quite fit the ‘enlist a watercarrier for the Whitehouse’ script – especially given the timing late ’03.
RossK
Read earlier somewhere – sorry – can’t put my finger on it – that P Fitz was pushed by FBI, CIA, reasonable people at State – maybe even CP, as payback!
Remind me why Ashcroft left. What rock is he now under?
Posted by: Hamburger | Jul 13 2005 18:07 utc | 27
Apropos of Billmon’s remark about politics and lies, a judge in Louisiana recently ruled that a political candidate was within her first-amendment rights to lie about her opponent’s record.
Posted by: Brian Boru | Jul 13 2005 18:23 utc | 28
The more I read about this story, the more confused I become about what is really happening and why. Obviously, there is a behind-the-scenes struggle between two factions of the elite, and one faction is the so-called Cheney Administration, but I’m not quite sure exactly who the other faction consists of, and what it really is, substantively, that they are struggling against or for.
It seems to me that the CIA never had a problem before, in lying for a President or committing illegal acts to further the cause of American Empire. It seems to me that in becoming a deep undercover CIA asset, one probably takes an oath or something, to the fact that they are aware that they could, at any time, and for any reason (including political) be outed, or even liquidated. Pretty heavy stuff, but then it isn’t a job for everyone.
So then, what did happen? Why did Joe Wilson complain about his wife being outed? Because his report was rejected? Has anyone else in the CIA or State ever complained about a President lying us into war–I don’t recall that happening during the Gulf of Tonkin. So, my very serious question, is why is all this different this time? Only by understanding the answer to questions like these can I feel that I could understand what the mmotivations of the current players are.
I know from reading Bill Christenson at Counterpunch that there are two arms of the CIA, Analysis, and Operations, more or less. Operations still seems to have no problems doing every dirty, illegal, immoral, secretive thing asked of it all over the world. Is Analysis somehow softer? Is the real reason really that they are so disturbed that Bush compromised our homeland security? Then why aren’t there endless leaks about the cutting back or scrimping of funds for homeland security, and why haven’t the Democrats been all over this for the past three years, since this is pro-business and plays very well to their base?
What were the effects of the purge at the Agency? Is this really just an opening because some think that Cheney/Bush botched the occupation and compromised longterm corporate prospects? Then why all the money and support for Bush in the last election?
If folks at the Agency are so miffed, then why aren’t politicians walking off buildings in the middle of the night as is usual procedure? Rove seems like he would be pretty easy to set up on a sex charge and Bush on a drug or alchohol charge. As for Cheney, just hide behind a door and say Boo! Why aren’t we seeing this? Is this about lame ducking; Is there really a moral issue at stake for the CIA?
These are just some of the background questions I have that lead me to feel that I have no understanding as to what is really happening, and therefore, no way of predicting what will happen next. It feels to me like I’m trying to infer what was going on behind the scenes at the Kremlin thirty-odd years ago by analyzing who is standing next to who. Has our government become that secretive and cryptic; probably yes. Is that why I am stuck?
Can somebody help me out here with what might be some pretty simple background that I have missed?
Froomkin says:
Other Bush aides who have testified to the grand jury or been questioned by prosecutors include McClellan; Rove; former Deputy Press Secretary Adam Levine; Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff; and Dan Bartlett, a Bush communications adviser.
Bush himself was questioned by Fitzgerald in the Oval Office on June 24, 2004
I am missing Cheney in this list. Does Fitzgerald operates the “first the small fishes” way?
One more question. Powell has always been a loyal footsoldier (remember My Lai). So why would he have such a problem with not winning all the battles with Cheney/Rumsfeld. Because, up until now, he has always failed upward, but now has nowhere to go? Was he promised some future consideration that he is not getting? It is strange to see both Ashcroft and Powell, opposite ends of the Rethug spectrum, both jumping ship.
It’s my belief that a goodly number of the administration’s die-hard supporters view Bush and crew as a sort of parental entity. In their view the notion of being presented with Straussian “noble lies” is not only acceptable (when coming from their leaders), but must be vigorously defended when the facade begins to crumble. At all costs.
Sort of the reverse of the type of parent whose child can do absolutely no wrong, even when provided with irrefutable evidence to the contrary.
Understandable, maybe, from the uninformed, but suspect at best from the “cognoscenti” right.
Posted by: tired of the elephant | Jul 13 2005 18:54 utc | 32
Love this from TPM:
…Eventually the Feds got the idea that the money Saccoccia had paid Luskin and his other attorneys for their services was itself part of the $137 million in drug money he was ordered to forfeit. Now, on the face of it this seems a bit unfair since under our system everyone is entitled to good representation and how was Luskin to know it was tainted money.
Well, the prosecutors thought he should have gotten some inkling when Saccoccia started paying Luskin’s attorney’s fees in gold bars.
Posted by: beq | Jul 13 2005 19:03 utc | 33
he should have gotten some inkling when Saccoccia started paying Luskin’s attorney’s fees in gold bars.
Rove: I can top that — I’m gonna pay him in human flesh! (laughs maniacally).
Posted by: Billmon | Jul 13 2005 19:26 utc | 34
Hamburger,
According to little Johnny Dean Ashcroft stepped down when it became apparent around Christmas Dec 2003 that a low level person may have been flipped who was ready to start giving up higher level folks.
I like the coup and/or push-back hypothesis but I can’t figure out why Aschroft would have agreed to it unless…..
Unless they already had something on him and/or one of his and some sort of uber-post recusement deal was made.
Sorry,
Here’s a link to Dean’s speculative early 2004 piece on Ashcroft’s motivation(s)..
Hi guys,
I have a strong feeling. Believe it or not, the Reich which was going to reign one thousand years has come to roost – in its fifth triumphal year.
Cheers,
Rx
Posted by: Rx | Jul 13 2005 19:40 utc | 37
Has anyone discussed this yet — why did O’Connor resign at this particular moment? maybe I just haven’t been paying attention (as our pathetic species destroys our own planet, it’s such a mesmerising spectacle, I find it hard to get really fixated on the antics of one small team of the wrecking crew)… but where is the official story about ill health or spending more time with family? did I just miss the memo? if I missed a detailed hashing out on a thread in the past, kindly point me to it someone…
Posted by: DeAnander | Jul 13 2005 20:49 utc | 38
Am I the only one that finds it funny that the WH/RNC approach to shift the focus on Wilson when the real issue is not about Wilson anymore, but about a crime? Reporters unfortunately will probably miss the point on all of this and the RNC/WH will win the news cycle with their spin. However as they say, you can win all of the battles and still lose the war: criminal indictments. I guess the WH/RNC strategy is to get out front of the news cycle, impose their meme into the consciousness and hope that no reality-based information comes out to contracdict that, like say… criminal indictments. But I suppose they could try to spin the indictments as well and any plea agreements. Man I hope this goes to trial instead because I really want to the read the criminal complaint: that will be THE document of all documents.
Posted by: Bubb Rubb | Jul 13 2005 21:17 utc | 39
but where is the official story about ill health or spending more time with family? did I just miss the memo? if I missed a detailed hashing out on a thread in the past, kindly point me to it someone…
Posted by: DeAnander | July 13, 2005 04:49 PM | #
Apparently her husband is in ailing health. News reports have said that he has Alzheimer’s Disease. When my grandfather had demensia before he died, taking care of him was a full time job.
Here is an article about that issue.
I don’t think her retirement announcement has a lot of suspicion. If she didn’t do it now, she would have had to wait until the next term ended and probably wanted to do it on her own terms ahead of the type of public speculation that dominates Rehnquist who seems so high on his own power that he will probably die in office rather than retire. She did publish her memoir a couple years ago and probably contemplated retirement to coincide (I am sure the books publisher was hoping so), however I think that post Bush v. Gore, these guys knew they couldn’t retire until after another election. And that is where we are now, the end of last Court term after the last Presidential election.
Posted by: Bubb Rubb | Jul 13 2005 21:51 utc | 40
I’m frustrated that all these inquiring minds can’t figure out the plot. I am completely baffled as to why Rove was involved in this knowing the potential consequences. That attention would be drawn to the whole operation. He could have achieved his aims more surreptitiously.
It has also crossed my mind that Bush’s continuation in office was a setup. I think there is some major battle going on with the puppeteers. And the usual mistrust among criminals not knowing whose with who.
Posted by: jm | Jul 13 2005 22:24 utc | 41
Then I presume the setup would be for complete and permanent irradication of this faction. The question would be, “why, and who stands to gain?”
Rove is an extremely important part of this group and he is the first to get the gun. This is no mistake. He is the most disciplined in staying on track in ruthless pursuit of the goal, and he is probably the best at order and control. So his departure would set chaos in motion I would think. Whatever the details, it just seems likely that he has been rendered impotent.
Posted by: jm | Jul 13 2005 23:08 utc | 43
The “W keys ripped of keyboards” thing never happened. The supposed vandalism of the white house offices was one of the first lies to spew from Ari Fleischer, a smear to portray the outgoing Clinton administration as dishonorable.
Documentation is from a GAO report into the “vandalism”, which is referenced in Al Franken’s _Lying Liars_ book.
Posted by: Bilge | Jul 13 2005 23:39 utc | 44
Another think that intrigues me about the possible setup is Kerry. He knows everything and he has stayed calm and plans to run again. There’s too much confidence there for me not to think that he’s deep in the game. Why on earth would he go through that again unless he knew they were being brought down?
Posted by: jm | Jul 13 2005 23:49 utc | 45
I’ll believe it when I see Barry Goldwater and John Rhodes walk over to let the bastards know they are done. Until there is a Sir have you no decency moment it will be business as usual.
Posted by: razor | Jul 14 2005 2:00 utc | 47
@Razor, that Barry Goldwater story is a canard. The actual story of what triggered Nixon’s resignation comes to us from John Loftus, the almost Bu$h “Family” biographer. He said that BushDaddy, then head of RNC – no that’s not Richard Nixon’s Committee – called Tricky Dick…a blast from the past… & said he had to resign ‘cuz the Nazi skeletons in the Party closet were about to come tumbling out. He resigned the next day.
If that’s enough to get him to resign, getting rid of these guys is child’s play. Anyone remember 911? Well, the elite has given permission to open the doors to that. (Everyone should consider getting on the Scoop mailing list.) Looks like David Ray Griffin is going to be addressing the National Press Club on July 22, the same day the court has ordered the release of more AbuG photos. (Hope everyone’s planned a late summer vacation this yr.!!)
Remember they don’t need to prove anything…The elite just has to remove the “conspiracy theory” label from 911 & authorize their scribes, or the bloggers, to discuss it. Then Morgan Reynolds, David Ray Griffin, etc. can trot around the country. The first, as a far right Economist, Professor Emeritus & alum. of BabyBush’s first term, has entree everywhere. The 2nd will drive the Theos nuts – he’s a goddamned professor of the Philosophy of Religion… 42% of Americans already think that they should be impeached based on the silly Downing Street Memos. When American’s everywhere are asked to even consider that 911 was an inside job, their heads will explode. Further, they don’t even have to consider it’s an inside job, they merely have to reflect on how a) Cheney was in charge of the Committee on Terrorism – & it never met b) Bush was repeatedly warned & he couldn’t have been bothered… Surely that’s enough alone for Trials Under definition of High Crimes & Misdemeanors…then put that together w/the Downing Street Memos…and maybe American’s can’t get any further than they let it happen as a pretext for war… And the rage from that could power the country for a year… What’s to prove??? All they need to do is underscore that Bu$hCo failed to execute faithfully his Oath of Office to protect & defend the United States….underscore it again and again on Major Media Across the country. Hopefully, a screen writer in Hollywood is writing a screen play as we write to drive this home. Driving these guys from office, is a stroll in the park – all it takes is a green light from the elite…
Here’s a snippet of today’s email:
(Somebody is paying for this…)
CALLING ALL INDIE MEDIA ACTIVISTS TO
THE DC EMERGENCY TRUTH CONVERGENCE
At the National Press Club, Lafayette Park & American University
JULY 22~24, 2005
Come Help Build a Breakthrough Campaign
to Expose and Explode the Seamless Deceit
behind 9/11, Resource Wars, Troop Betrayal
and Constitutional Jeopardy
DC LAUNCH: JULY 22~24, 2005: An unprecedented event series joining the power of veteran/victim groups, key truth movements and the indie media to halt the deadly coup now underway and launch a thousand Paul Reveres.
Everything we need to succeed – we now have:
– The facts and evidence of betrayal from truth movement researchers
– The support of respected leaders across the political spectrum
– A nationwide communications network in independent media
– Enduring inspiration from whistleblowers, veterans & victim families
– A country gradually waking up to the desperate need for truth
All that’s missing is a shared strategy
– Come to DC and help create it….
….
LATEST SCHEDULE
FRIDAY, JULY 22nd (first birthday of the 9/11 Commission Report)
The first National Press Club briefing specifically for the independent
media The 9/11 Commission Cover-up and the Toll of Media Complicity
1:00 – 2:30 PM, Holeman Lounge, National Press Club Briefers:
Peter Phillips of Project Censored, 9/11 family members, Dr. David Ray Griffin, Danny Schechter, producer of Weapons of Mass Deception, and Celeste Zappala of Gold Star Families for Peace.
To keep up to date on this go to http://www.truthemergency.us
Posted by: jj | Jul 14 2005 2:37 utc | 48
“Another think that intrigues me about the possible setup is Kerry. He knows everything and he has stayed calm and plans to run again. There’s too much confidence there for me not to think that he’s deep in the game. Why on earth would he go through that again unless he knew they were being brought down?”
You mean John “Why, yes, I’m a Bonesman… no, no… don’t bother with a recount” Kerry? You think stinking-rich, firmly-entrenched John Kerry might know more than he’s saying? There’s no doubt in my mind that Kerry threw the 2004 election for his old frat brother. I’d presumed that the payola was that a Dem (Hillary Clinton) would be handed the election in 2008.
It’s no coincidence that Hillary Clinton and Rupert Murdoch have been getting so chummy lately. But it bothers me that Murdoch carried the DSM story before the rest of the domestic MSM. BushCo pulled the necessary strings to get Murdoch the citizenship he needed for his American franchise… why is he turning on them three years too early?
Whatever the reason, we can be sure of one thing; we are being played again.
Posted by: Monolycus | Jul 14 2005 2:50 utc | 49
Monolycus, can you pls. elaborate on Rupie & Hillary getting Chummy.
One might speculate that Murdoch is an American citizen now & doesn’t care to see America destroyed as Bu$hCo is doing. They cannot possibly leave them in office for 4 more yrs. – things are exploding. The economy’s going – not good for Murdoch properties – the environment is going, and everyone everywhere, including the American people – is uniting in opposition. This is a radically unstable situation. Not to mention that the ME is a disaster, King Fahd is (about) gone & Bu$hCo. strengthens the hand of the Fundies in succession battles…I don’t see how a shred of the American reputation can be rebuilt enough to do business around the world w/ a Torturer appointed to the Supreme Court….and on and on…
Posted by: jj | Jul 14 2005 3:29 utc | 50
@Monolycus
The reporter at the London Times who broke the Downing Street Memo was at another paper (the Independent, I think) when he developed the source and started reporting on the story. Given that it was the London Times (and not The Sun) I’m not sure the Murdoch empire could’ve squashed it easily. I think they would have, if they could.
Posted by: McGee | Jul 14 2005 4:19 utc | 51
Monolycus,
I don’t think it’s Hillary in ’08, but I do think the fix is in for a Democrat, probably Kerry. Even if it looks like her from what you pointed out, it’s probably bluff. I think maybe the Clintons are being strung along. Look at his love affair with George senior.
It’s all business. A corporate loving reasonable Democrat would probably serve their purposes better at this point. There are all kinds of problems with the EU, South America, etc. and a lot to control.
I’m still trying to figure out the Bush faction and if they truly are out.
Posted by: jm | Jul 14 2005 5:15 utc | 52
@jj
I was referring to stories that have been circulating recently such as this one, this one, this one, this one, and this one. Could just be the tabloid couple-of-the-week buzz since the Brad Pitt/ Jennifer Aniston/ Angelina Jolie furor has died down a bit, but it seems like a match made in hell to me. And more than enough fuel for me to suspect that something is rotten in the state of Denmark… or whatever country is left with arable land when this is all said and done.
I’d also like to add that BushCo are almost all US citizens as well and that hasn’t given them any pause about the environment nor the economy. Seems a bit late in the game for Rupie to be growing a conscience… but stranger things have happened.
@McGee
That’s just the thing. They didn’t need to squash it, they only needed to sit on it and do nothing… just as every other US news outlet did. My understanding was that Murdoch was indebted to Cheney et al for pulling strings on his behalf and was their loudest cheerleader via Faux News. Something about this equation isn’t adding up.
Posted by: Monolycus | Jul 14 2005 5:31 utc | 53
Monolycus- as far as the DSMs, they were released to harm Blair’s re-election. He won because of the Labor Party vs the Conservatives, imo. I don’t think the majority of Brits were happy with the Bush Poodle biz. I would imagine that the LP will get rid of him asap because he weakened them in the election.
Murdoch and Hillary…well, isn’t she DLC? …former known as moderate Republicans…
Posted by: fauxreal | Jul 14 2005 6:10 utc | 54
@Monolycus
A few facts about the DSM from Michael Smith’s own mouth.
1) He used to work for the Telegraph, when he was given the earlier batch of documents. They were also given to Richard Norton Taylor of the Guardian.
2 The DSM and the Cabinet briefing paper were given to him by a DIFFERENT source (NB note the disinformation here. If it was different, why mention it?)
3) The guy is a liar. He sat on the minutes for at least two weeks and says he did not at first appreciate the significance of the minutes! He wrote a story on the Cabinet Office briefing paper instead. (yeah, right. Nameless officials are MUCH more interesting than a legal note of what Blair, Straw, Hoon etc actually said.)
4)The document was finally published on 1 May by the Sunday Times, and it was at this time that the word “memo” was used. The British Government reacted with calm, and admitted the document was genuine. WHAT? They didn’t lie? They must have thrashed it out long before 1 May. (thanks, Rupe)
So, too late to do Blair real damage. But not so late as to de-legitimise the result of the election.
It is pretty clear what was going on here.
Posted by: John | Jul 14 2005 12:12 utc | 55