|
Why Rove Now?
So why did Rove leave now. It’s unlikely that he really wants to have more time with the family.
Josh Marshall senses the media meme: Karl Rove, martyr to Democratic partisanship.
Some folks think it’s an indictment coming.
Larry Johnson says that Abramoff is telling friends Rove is going down because he is implicated in the bribery investigations. Some point to his involvement in the Siegelman case in Alabama. Others claim Cheney pushed Rove out of the door. My first thought was that he’s been hired for a campaign, most likely Giuliani.
But even with dozens of dispatches and editorial on this today, there is curiously no inside account of what really happened.
Well, whatever the reason, who is losing by his departure? An interesting thought on this comes from IOZ, who remarks in contrast to the meme Marshall sees:
Karl Rove’s legendary reputation was build on the amnesia and
illiteracy of the press. He didn’t do anything that Lee Atwater hadn’t
already done, …
[Rove’s] appearance on the political scene meant next to nothing, and his retirement from it means even less. He was more important to Democrats than Republicans anyway. Without an endless stream of GOP bogeymen to parade before their base, perhaps some restive Donk might actually note that their party is not merely compliant but complicit in all the lamentable degredations of the Imagined America that they so tirelessly and uselessly lament.
So Rove was in a certain way a useful idiot for the Demorcat’s. In a mechanistic way, that is quite possibly right.
Rove leaving now, might take away the curtain of the Democrats holiness, reinforcing the picture they left by agreeing to Bush’s spying power. That’s to the advantage of Republicans. Thereby in leaving, Rove still works to his ultimate goal and to his party’s favor.
Yuck …
&titlesjj wrote: Gotta disagree w/Malooga that Bu$h necessarily knows much of anything. No reason he even had to know about 911, or much of anything else…he might, but it’s not necessary in most cases….
Bush has said twice (or even 3 times) that he saw the first plane hit the towers on a TV at Elementary Booker school, just before going ‘into the class.’ He says he thought ‘that was some terrible pilot.’ (or such like expression.) Richard Myers (acting joint chief of staff on that day!) has said something similar, but has been more careful and factual: he also saw the first ‘event’ on TV and said that ‘they thought it was some small plane’. (Indeed, some very early reports did mention a small plane.)
One may question why the supreme commanders watch television!
(Ok, in the case of Myers, he may have been informed, and then seen the event on TV subsequently, within minutes, never mind that multiple hijacks had been taking place for a while!)
(See Cooperative research and links.)
Bush lied, as no video of the first plane (only of the first explosion) was shown on TV until many hours later. Also: the timing doesn’t fit; and why/how would he stumble on a lit TV in an elementary school, when the whole occasion is planned step by step? (N.B. There are about 7-10 different accounts of how/when Bush was informed of the first hit, or event, or fire, or whatever, at the WTC.)
It is a tiny lie, a wisp in the gallery of Gvmt. lies.
For any person to say ‘I saw the robber brandish his gun’ or ‘I saw the first plane hit’ or ‘I saw Marcia secretly whispering to John’ when nothing like that was seen is perfectly natural. We construct their perception-cum-interpretation of event by relying on many sources or registers; what was seen, what was said/told, explained, discussed, how it was interpreted, who saw what/believed what, and, most importantly, how the ‘story’, history, of the event slowly is constructed and fixed thru time, today, largely based on mainstream media, pictures and reports, experts (for events like 9/11, but John’s affair with Marcia is subject to the same processes.) Next, allegiance plays a tremendous role. Bush supporters have to believe his words; feminist friend of Marcia…etc. Tribe loyalty actually creates the ‘accepted facts’, because we live in a reality that is symbolically constructed.
Back to the lies. Many interpretations of them have been given, not mutually exclusive:
a) sloppiness, laziness, lack of coordination, stupidity
b) in yo face ..we create our own reality, dissenters better watch out, and foreign Govmts. take note, the media as well
c) mafia bonding telling stupid lies in that support the PTBs story serves to both trumpet allegiance and to put oneself at risk in case of meltdown, thereby putting in a stake, and joining the band
d) fear lies told out of fear of demotion, exclusion, loss of position, etc. Yes, the serfs line up
e) extreme confusion 9/11 was not what the Gvmt claimed; nor was it what conspiracy theorists generally suppose; in that situation, nobody knew exactly what story they had to support.
Bush simply tells the scripted story, again and again, reinforcing what ordinary Americans are supposed to believe. That doesn’t speak to his knowledge, his involvement, or anything really.
Bush, snippet, horrible accident. There are much longer better vids. available, this is short.
cooperative res. /example Myers.
the situation room at Booker, stills
students at booker some years on
Posted by: Tangerine (ex Noirette) | Aug 15 2007 17:40 utc | 19
|
