Karl Rove: Decoy for Downing Street
by paperwight, Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 06:10:19 PM EDT
I'm tired, heartsick, and cranky so I'm going to be very blunt and more than a little profane.
The news for the next few days will all be about what Karl Rove meant in his recent speech. Did he really mean that all liberals are traitors? Is it really a philosophical difference about how to pursue terrorists? Does it compare with what Dick Durbin said? I'd bet that the Republicans timed this massive "liberals are traitors" blitzkrieg as soon as Durbin spoke that unpleasant truth on the Senate floor. They believed it gave them a license to tell pretty much any eliminationist Dolchstoßlegende they wanted. And they wanted. Oh, how they wanted.
But this whole firestorm about Karl Rove is a bullshit distraction. Just like the firestorm around Dick Durbin was a bullshit distraction. Durbin was telling the truth, Rove is telling a particularly nasty lie, but it's all going to dominate the news cycle. And the structure as it's been set up lets the Republicans trot out all of their bogus talking points about how they're all manly men whose brass balls are so big they have to walk all gingerly bowlegged so as not to make an oddly euphonious clanging sound which would lure in all of the women from the surrounding countryside, and if it wasn't for that, they'd be out there themselves impaling terrahrists on their big manly bayonets. It lets the Republicans trot out still more eliminationist rhetoric both from their political leaders and their media apparatchiks.
Just for shits and giggles, let's say that for the first time ever, George Bush fires someone for being too much of a bastard, too nasty, too vile, too wrong. So fucking what? Does anyone think that Karl Rove won't continue as an under-the-table consultant? This is the most secretive White House in history. You think they can't hide some correspondence with Karl Rove if they want to?
And even if the White House really did sever ties with Rove, does anyone think he won't be offered a hundred consulting gigs and a cozy sinecure with Grover Norquist's group or some other anti-American Republican think tank, where he can pull the puppet strings on ten or twenty campaigns if he wants to? Rove doesn't give a shit whether or not he has to resign. He's done everything he can for the hollow suit in the Oval Office, and he knows it.
It's all a distraction. Because you know what's not in the news for a few more news cycles? The occupation of Iraq. The Downing Street Minutes and all the other British memos. When the majority of the American people now believe the invasion of Iraq wasn't worth it, that all those dead and maimed soldiers and children aren't worth it, when there's finally some evidence gathered in one place that shows what those of us opposed to the invasion have been saying all along, what's on the news?
Are Liberals Traitors? Film at Eleven!
Keep your eye on the ball, people. Maybe you could tie the two themes together:
"Why did famously disciplined Karl Rove choose this moment, when the media is starting to investigate the Downing Street Minutes, to make a profoundly controversial public statement he must have known would cause a firestorm? By his deliberately outrageous insult, is he trying to distract the public attention from the President's awful poll numbers and the violent quagmire in the President's occupation of Iraq?
Tags: (all tags)