It's no secret that Republicans are hypocrites on this issue, but when Karl Rove (the man who used fear-mongering on same-sex marriage to turn around elections and pass bans) asks for privacy after obtaining a divorce under Texas' "no fault" divorce law, I have to say "No! You can't have your privacy!" You want to be the pious judge over the marriages of other people? You want to be the defender of marriage? Did your traditional wedding vows say anything about "til death do us part"? Then no, I don't think you deserve any privacy.
I thought the days of investing millions in internet startups with no plans for profit were over. But apparently if that startup company is Twitter, it's raining money like 1997 all over again. One of the venture capital firms behind Twitter also invested in eBay in the early days... so I guess they've got some credibility.
In case you don't know what Twitter is, I'll explain as best I can. It's a "micro blogging" site where you enter your messages (or "tweets" as they call them) in 140 characters or less. You can submit them on the web site, through a 3rd party application, or from your cell phone. You can follow as many other Tweeters as you like and they can follow you.
The results should be an interesting mix of conversations. More so, I find it to be a bunch of people self-promoting their projects, products, and blogs... like me.
I try to be thought provoking and creative in my tweets, but ultimately it's the stupid messages like "should I drink this expired orange juice" that gets the responses from the strangers who are following me. It's all rather weird.
But I suppose the service is handy if you're a news correspondent who wants to get quick input from viewers.
And it's also perfect for a politician who wants to reach out to the masses... or potential terrorists. Rep. Peter Hoekstra made a rather bad judgment call when he gave detailed updates on his recent trip to Iraq via Twitter.
Now Karl Rove wants in on the fun. The former presidential political adviser recently twittered his Texas hunting trip. I admit that I'm slightly relieved that his tweets are no more exciting than mine. Yet I have to wonder -- what if Rove had been tweeting the last eight years? Might we have seen something like this:
KarlRove @JohnMcCain I know about your black baby.
KarlRove Damn! Misplaced my caging lists again!
KarlRove @W woke up with a great idea! Let's out a CIA agent for shits and giggles!
KarlRove I'm just going to blow off that whole subpoena thing today.
KarlRove Let's kill stuff.
So now that I have a direct link to Rove, I feel rather icky. But besides that, I'm wondering if I can craft the perfect 140 character message that will make him open his eyes, repent for his transgressions, and become a better man. Probably not, but I'm so glad we have the internet.
Courage is acting in the face of fear. (If video doesn't show, click here.)
There is one big coward on that stage -- Karl Rove. There is one courageous person on that stage -- Janine Boneparth.
One has to be brave to confront a former Bush adviser and accuse him of treason. However, bravery doesn't guarantee the success of your game plan. I do believe this attempted citizen's arrest needed a lot more planning. For example, how do you hand the criminal over to the police, when the police are clearly not interested in jailing him?
But the many efforts to arrest Karl Rove at least keep his crimes in the spotlight and illuminate his mocking contempt for Congress as he refuses to testify despite being twice subpoenaed.
If our US Congress was courageous, it would exercise its "inherent contempt" authority which permits the person cited to be arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subjected to punishment as the chamber may dictate. Congress has not used this authority since 1934.
But late last month, with little fanfare, the Department of Justice released a 356 page report which convincingly presents the scandalous details of the Bush administration's plans to remove US Attorneys in order to influence voter fraud and public corruption prosecutions.
However, the report concludes that the investigation has gaps due to Rove's obstructions:
We believe our investigation was able to uncover most of the facts relating to the reasons for the removal of most of the U.S. Attorneys. However, as described in this report, there are gaps in our investigation because of the refusal of certain key witnesses to be interviewed by us, including former White House officials Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, and William Kelley, former Department of Justice White House Liaison Monica Goodling, Senator Pete Domenici, and his Chief of Staff. In addition, the White House would not provide us internal documents related to the removals of the U.S. Attorneys.
The most serious allegation that we were not able to fully investigate related to the removal of David Iglesias, the U.S. Attorney for New Mexico, and the allegation that he was removed to influence voter fraud and public corruption prosecutions. We recommend that a counsel specially appointed by the Attorney General assess the facts we have uncovered, work with us to conduct further investigation, and ultimately determine whether the evidence demonstrates that any criminal offense was committed with regard to the removal of Iglesias or any other U.S. Attorney, or the testimony of any witness related to the U.S. Attorney removals.
The Department’s removal of the U.S. Attorneys and the controversy it created severely damaged the credibility of the Department and raised doubts about the integrity of Department prosecutive decisions. We believe that this investigation, and final resolution of the issues raised in this report, can help restore confidence in the Department by fully describing the serious failures in the process used to remove the U.S. Attorneys and by providing lessons for the Department in how to avoid such failures in the future.
As recommended by the report, the DoJ has appointed a special prosecutor, Nora Dannehy, to continue the inquiry and determine whether anyone should be prosecuted. Possible targets could include former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Karl Rove.
So the next time somebody tries to slap handcuffs on Rove's wrists, maybe -- just maybe -- it will be a sworn law enforcement official doing the deed.
After Janine Boneparth was led off stage, the Mortgage Bankers event continued. Rove complained about some nasty campaign jokes made by Senator John Kerry. Former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, sitting right next to Rove, responded, “I have to say I feel like Dorothy in the land of Oz hearing you lecture about negative campaigns by others.”
And Karl Rove should be feeling like the Cowardly Lion.
The last article I read before I went to bed last night was by Naomi Wolf about the coming police state:
You have to understand how things work in a closing society in order to understand "Palin Power." A gang or cabal seizes power, usually with an affable, weak figurehead at the fore. Then they will hold elections -- but they will make sure that the election will be corrupted and that the next affable, weak figurehead is entirely in their control. Remember, Russia has Presidents; Russia holds elections. Dictators and gangs of thugs all over the world hold elections. It means nothing. When a cabal has seized power you can have elections and even presidents, but you don't have freedom.
I realized early on with horror what I was seeing in Governor Palin: the continuation of the Rove-Cheney cabal, but this time without restraints. I heard her echo Bush 2000 soundbites ("the heart of America is on display") and realized Bush's speechwriters were writing her -- not McCain's -- speeches. I heard her tell George Bush's lies -- not McCain's -- to the American people, linking 9/11 to Iraq. I heard her make fun of Barack Obama for wanting to prevent the torture of prisoners -- this is Rove-Cheney's enthusiastic S and M, not McCain's, who, though he shamefully colluded in the 2006 Military Tribunals Act, is also a former prisoner of war and wrote an eloquent Newsweek piece in 2005 opposing torture.
This and The Four Horseman of the Apocalypse are the stuff that give me nightmares. But when I woke up this morning, I only had one thought easing my worries: Palin isn't Bush in a dress -- she doesn't have the same loyalists that Bush once had. In fact, Alaska doesn't seem to have a very good relationship with their governor at all. If this article and comment section on the Anchorage Daily News site is any indication, many Alaskans are looking at the possibility of a recall election. Anyway, Sarah Palin doesn't garner the type of pathological Republican loyalty needed to take over the world...
Then I got out of bed, checked the blogs and read about an active-duty military force being deployed in the United States. What the hell do we need that for? So we can have more mass preemptive arrests as we witnessed on Labor Day in the Twin Cities? Is the government anticipating violent protests and civil unrest? Due to the financial crisis? Or due to an election they intend to hijack?
I guess it's time to familiarize ourselves with the Insurrection Act and the Posse Comitatus Act, but what good will it do when our leaders shamelessly ignore laws without accountability?
The first time I saw a picture of Karl Rove, I thought, "wow, that man looks like Humpty Dumpty!" Then I laughed to myself because how could a real man look like a nursery rhyme egg? But that pale, oval, balding head and contemptuous grin must have inspired the same imagery in roughly 6000 other minds. At least that's how many Google hits I get on +"Karl Rove" +"Humpty Dumpty."
Although I prefer to use the moniker "Humpty Dumpty Head," Rove's more common nickname is "Bush's Brain." Here are some of the brainiac maneuvers he's linked to:
During the 2000 Republican Primary, Karl Rove, working as Bush's chief strategist, allegedly spread rumors about John McCain implying that McCain had committed treason while a prisoner of war, and had fathered a child by a black prostitute.
Rove was possibly involved in firing nine U.S. attorneys in a purge designed to turn the Department of Justice into a Republican reelection machine.
Did I call these brainiac maneuvers? I'm sorry. What I meant to say was mountain of crime committed with complete disregard to the U.S., its people, its institutions, and its constitution.
Last May, the House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed Karl Rove to testify explicitly about the attorney purge. That testimony was scheduled to take place July 10. He didn't show. In fact, he was out of the country.
The Bush administration claims that high-level aides to the president are completely immune from compelled congressional testimony. The administration is not claiming that there exists sensitive subjects that cannot be discussed due to national security. They are declaring that these people are above the law and answer to nobody.
This outrageous defiance threatens the pillar of our democracy -- equal justice for all.
So last Thursday, lawmakers faced an empty chair, an untouched glass of ice water, and a little printed sign that read "Mr. Karl Rove."
I don't know what the next step is. The committee has again ordered Rove to appear, but this thing will drag out long after Bush leaves the White House.
Will Humpty Dumpty ever take his fall? Or will he be rescued? I'm reminded of Through the Looking Glass when Humpty Dumpty exclaims "Yes, all his horses and all his men... They'd pick me up again in a minute, they would!" And that's what I'm afraid of.
Loser Takes All is a collection of essays covering the vast election fraud that has been perpetrated by the GOP—with the Democratic Party’s acquiescence—since 2000. The number of topics alone is alarming: the myth of George Bush’s victory in Florida in 2000, and FOX News’s key role in propagating it; Senator Max Cleland’s dubious defeat in Georgia in 2002; Bush’s “re-election” in 2004, including evidence of systematic fraud outside of Ohio; startling evidence of fraud committed in the 2006 midterm elections, which the Democrats appear to have won by a far larger margin than officially reported; and, crucially, evidence that the Republicans will attempt to steal the presidential election in 2008.
The book also includes an essay about Don Siegelman, a story that not many Americans are aware of:
The 60 Minutes interview doesn't cover the whole story though. In a recent Air America interview, Don Siegelman made very specific allegations of election fraud against Karl Rove and the Bush administration:
[Thom Hartmann]: Right. Now, in our conversation you have suggested that the original election that you lost to Bob Riley by a few thousand votes in the middle of the night may have been stolen. That is a part of the story that has been treated as if it was radioactive by the corporate press. It has, to the best of my knowledge, I have never heard that in any of the official corporate news reports. Have you asserted that before, have you been saying this all along, or is this…
[Don Siegelman]: Well yes, we have been saying it, we have been saying it since the night of the election. I mean, we won the election, the votes were counted and were declared and then in one county which is controlled by Republicans the, after midnight when everybody went home, when the poll workers were sent home, when the media was gone, they decided to electronically recount these votes and shifted the votes and certified the vote illegally the next day. The, interestingly, Karl Rove’s client sepped in, the attorney general stepped in and said, ‘if anybody tries to hand count these votes we’re going to put them in jail’. We initially had a green light from the local Republicans in this one area that we could come in and hand count these ballots where the electronic shift occurred.[..]
(image via Miami Herald)
is a collection of essays covering the vast election fraud that has been perpetrated by the GOP—with the Democratic Party’s acquiescence—since 2000. The number of topics alone is alarming: the myth of George Bush’s victory in Florida in 2000, and FOX News’s key role in propagating it; Senator Max Cleland’s dubious defeat in Georgia in 2002; Bush’s “re-election” in 2004, including evidence of systematic fraud outside of Ohio; startling evidence of fraud committed in the 2006 midterm elections, which the Democrats appear to have won by a far larger margin than officially reported; and, crucially, evidence that the Republicans will attempt to steal the presidential election in 2008.