« Slow Roasted Porkinator | Main | Info On John Roberts »


July 19, 2005

It's About Rove

-- by Dave Johnson

Bush was going to nominate someone for the Court later in the summer. Instead the White House obviously rushed the nomination out tonite in an effort to distract the press from covering the story that the White House - most notably Karl Rove - leaked the identity of a CIA agent. In fact, this was a direct statement of the Republican strategy:

"Republicans should stop holding back and go on the offense: fire enough bullets the other way until the Supreme Court overtakes" events, said Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.)
But is this nomination about more than just the timing?

Bush has nominated a Ken Starr clone, one of those partisan insiders who can be counted on to do the bidding of the "conservative movement," to the Supreme Court. Was it because Bush is worried that the CIA leak case is headed to the Supreme Court? Did Bush nominate Roberts as a Court vote to protect Rove? Is the nomination of Roberts part of the cover-up?

Posted by Dave Johnson at July 19, 2005 7:46 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.seeingtheforest.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.fcgi/529

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference It's About Rove:

» The Early Reaction From The Left Side Of The Blogosphere To The John Roberts Nomination from Right Wing News
"So what do the shrieking wingnuts think of him? Is he pure enough? Does he speak in tongues, handle snakes,... [Read More]

Tracked on July 19, 2005 9:49 PM

» The Early Reaction From The Left Side Of The Blogosphere To The John Roberts Nomination from Right Wing News
"So what do the shrieking wingnuts think of him? Is he pure enough? Does he speak in tongues, handle snakes,... [Read More]

Tracked on July 19, 2005 10:11 PM


Comments

Was it because Bush is worried that the CIA leak case is headed to the Supreme Court? Did Bush nominate Roberts to be a vote on the Court that will protect Rove?

I doubt it, Dave. I honestly don't believe they're capable of thinking that far in advance. I think Roberts' nomination was just a ploy to distract us from the Rove debacle. Let's not be distracted.

Posted by: Terry at July 19, 2005 8:02 PM

Or... is it possible that this represents the desperate, concensus choice of a much-weakened presidency?

Is it not possible that the absence of a nominee with more obvious fangs is the result of all the damage inflicted on Bush in recent months?

Plainly put, without Rovegate, I think you would have seen a much more frightening nominee.

He may have argued against Roe in various government briefs, but as I understand it, in his previous Appeal Court hearing, affirmed Roe as "well settled law" that he would uphold.

If Bush's political capital was less spent, I think you might have seen much worse.

Until more information is available, I think it is prudent to wait this one out a bit. Save this fight to a later day, when Roberts has disclosed a bit more of his views and the collective blogosphere has examined him and his record more thoroughly.

And in the meanwhile, the real story to watch is Rove, not Roberts.

Posted by: Garry at July 19, 2005 8:03 PM

In the absence of any law being broken, I do not see how it will end up in SCOTUS' docket

Posted by: Pericles at July 19, 2005 10:54 PM

I think Bush considers nominating Roberts a brilliant ploy that will solve many problems for him. It's controversial enough to distract from his Rove problem, pays a debt to his conservative base, Rogers is essentially an unknown quantity as a judge since he's only been a judge for two years, in theory he's come down on both sides of the Roe vs. Wade controversy (he said he'd uphold the law, which doesn't mean he won't try to change the law once he has the power to do so) and he's brilliant, so the Bushies can argue that the progressives are being obstructionists when they object to him. And, of course, there's an election coming up.

Posted by: MJ at July 20, 2005 9:23 AM

Since the LAW that Rowe is supposed to have broken
states that it is a violation of code to disclose the secret idenity of a clandestine CIA agent within five years of their overseas assignment,
and Valery has been assigned in DC for the last six years, weather he indeed outed her is a mute point. She was identified with her husband as a CIA employee in Vanity Fair months before Rowe's interview, means that there was nothing to disclose. She was brought back to DC anyway because her secret idenity was thought to have been blowen by Aldrich Ames the solviet mole in the FBI.

Posted by: Robert jewett at July 20, 2005 6:06 PM

SOMEone has been listening to Rush. This stuff about Vanity Fair is just a lie. The article was in January, 2004, long after Novak's column.

There is no "5-year" qualifier on committing treason by outing an agent. When you out an agent, security services from every country that agent operated in can track down the agent's informants and kill them.

Also, how do you know whether she was assiged to DC? Even so she was operating under a cover until outed.

Other laws Rove broke:

- His security agreement as a government employee.
- Revealed classified information.
- Lied to the FBI
- Lied to the President (unless the President was lying when he told the country Rove had told him he was not involved.

Posted by: Dave Johnson at July 20, 2005 7:08 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?



Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):


Return to main page