Truespeak

Well, it's official. The Republicans love criminals.

Q: ...So does he [George Bush] retain confidence in Karl Rove, specifically?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes. Any individual who works here at the White House has the President's confidence. They wouldn't be working here if they didn't have the President's confidence...

So they are now endorsing someone who is known to have lied about his involvement in a criminal act. That's something to be proud of. Not only are they endorsing him, they're trying to spin what he did as a good thing. According to RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman:

"It's disappointing that once again, so many Democrat leaders are taking their political cues from the far-left, Moveon wing of the party. The bottom line is Karl Rove was discouraging a reporter from writing a false story based on a false premise and the Democrats are engaging in blatant partisan political attacks."

So to make sure everyone understands this, Mehlman is saying that only the far-left would ever consider holding a criminal responsible for his actions. This naturally begs the question, "How fucking far to the right do you have to be to think that holding criminals responsible is "far-left?" But hey, who am I to judge? After all, I'm obviously from the far-left. So let's look at their defense of old Karl, shall we?

For starters, they claim:

Cooper’s Own Email Claims Rove Warned Of Potential Inaccuracies In Wilson Information:

“[Time Reporter Matt] Cooper Wrote That Rove Offered Him A ‘Big Warning’ Not To ‘Get Too Far Out On Wilson.’ Rove Told Cooper That Wilson’s Trip Had Not Been Authorized By ‘DCIA’ - CIA Director George Tenet - Or Vice President Dick Cheney.” (Michael Isikoff, "Matt Cooper’s Source," Newsweek, 7/18/05)

While this sounds like it would be to their advantage, they're misrepresenting what Cooper actually wrote in his e-mail. Yes, Rove warned Cooper to not get "too far out there," but according to Cooper "it was, KR [Karl Rove] said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." That's where the crime occured. Look, if Rove wanted to warn Cooper he could have done so without mentioning Wilson's wife or her association with the CIA. But he did. And I believe did with the intent that Cooper would run with the information. Look, Cooper is a reporter. You don't say something to a reporter and expect them to not publish it. It's not like confessional where you can expect your priest to keep quiet. Cooper's a reporter and he's going to run with any information he's presented with.

Second in their line of defense is this little gem:

Wilson Falsely Claimed That It Was Vice President Cheney Who Sent Him To Niger, But The Vice President Has Said He Never Met Him And Didn’t Know Who Sent Him:

Vice President Cheney: “I Don’t Know Joe Wilson. I’ve Never Met Joe Wilson. … And Joe Wilson - I Don’t [Know] Who Sent Joe Wilson. He Never Submitted A Report That I Ever Saw When He Came Back.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 9/14/03)

Hmmmm. I'm getting this sense of deja vu. Where have I heard this line of defense before? Let's see... never met him......Oh yeah!

CHENEY: ...Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session. The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight.

Well, we all know how truthful that was. I'm sorry, but Dick's memory is not something I'm willing to base an argument on.

What other evidence do they site to bolster their case? Well, there's this little beauty:

Wilson’s Report On Niger Had “Thin” Evidence And Did Not Change Conclusions Of Analysts And Other Reports:

The Butler Report Claimed That The President’s State Of the Union Statement On Uranium From Africa, “Was Well-Founded.” “We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: ‘The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.’ was well-founded.” (The Rt. Hon. The Lord Butler Of Brockwell, “Review Of Intelligence, On Weapons Of Mass Destruction,” 7/14/04)

This one's my personal favorite. Why? Because it's a complete misrepresentation of what was said. They only include the part of the quote that helps their cause, but it misrepresents the actual statement. Here's what the Butler Report actually said:

We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in
President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that:


The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

was well-founded.

We also note that, because the intelligence evidence was inconclusive, neither the Government’s dossier nor the Prime Minister went on to say that a deal between the Governments of Iraq and Niger for the supply of uranium had been signed, or uranium shipped.

We have been told that it was not until early 2003 that the British Government became aware that the US (and other states) had received from a journalistic source a number of documents alleged to cover the Iraqi procurement of uranium from Niger. Those documents were passed to the IAEA, which in its update report to the United Nations Security Council in March 2003 determined that the papers were forgeries:

So as it turns out, Wilson was right, but never mind that. Facts and accuracy will always get in the way of protecting a criminal.

So when it comes right down to it, what we have here is a bunch of liars using lies to protect another liar. Sure makes Al Franken's book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them seem a little more appropriate doesn't it?

Hey, here's my latest idea for a new bumper sticker. If anyone wants to produce them, you have my permission to do so.