Thursday, August 11, 2005

8/11: GOP-Diddy Redux: "Man, when I blew up, I blew up real good!"

McCain Says Rove Blew Up ‘Old Man of the Mountain’


The New Hampshire Gazette - The Nations Oldest Newspaper

Vol 248, No 15,
April 23, 2004

Click here to view NH Gazette Exclusive Video.

Alleged Motive: Revenge for Bush’s 2000 NH Primary Loss to McCain

Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) charges Karl Rove with blowing up New Hampshire’s ‘Old Man of the Mountain,’ in exclusive video footage obtained by The New Hampshire Gazette.

Rove, arguably the man most responsible for George W. Bush’s occupancy of the Oval Office, dynamited the distinctive and much-revered rock formation one year ago this May 2nd “in a fit of anger,” McCain says on the tape.

Asked if Rove’s motive was “to spite the people of New Hampshire” for rejecting his candidate, Republican George W. Bush, in the 2000 presidential primary, the Senator replied, “Everything that I heard — yes.”

McCain also revealed he has pushed for a federal investigation of the incident. “I’ve asked the FBI on several occasions to investigate that,” he said.

Destroying New Hampshire’s beloved icon to avenge his candidate’s humiliating defeat would apparently not be out of character for Rove, judging from published accounts. Bush’s top political advisor, is “adept at revenge,” according to former White House official Richard Clarke.

McCain himself is no stranger to Rove’s vengeance. In 2000 he soundly trounced Mr. Bush, 115,606 votes to 72,330. From New Hampshire, the 2000 Republican primary battle went south, in more ways than one. In South Carolina, Bush beat McCain in a campaign that set a high water mark for slander, innuendo, and character assassination.

Provenance of the Tape

The Gazette obtained this remarkable footage from 2004 Presidential candidate Vermin Supreme. Mr. Supreme is an independent candidate from Massachusetts, and is not generally considered a likely winner this November. His platform may be the only one that addresses the question of compulsory dental hygiene.

The Gazette’s 45-second online video report opens with Supreme introducing footage he shot of McCain on January 25, 2004, “right outside of the Center of New Hampshire.”

“I wanted to get to the bottom of what really happened to ‘The Old Man of the Mountain,’” Supreme says.

As the camera rolls, McCain approaches and begins the conversation by saying, “Hey, how you doin’, Vermin?” McCain and Vermin had met a few times previously on the campaign trail. After a few brief pleasantries, Supreme pops the question.

“Is it true,” he asks, “that Karl Rove was responsible for the destruction of the Old Man of the Mountain, to spite the people of New Hampshire for voting for you over George W. Bush in 2000?”

McCain answers, “Everything that I heard — yes. In a fit of anger, Karl went up there and dynamited it. I’ve asked the FBI on several occasions to investigate that.”

At this point an unidentified voice off-camera says “We gotta go, guys.” McCain exits the frame and the clip ends.



August 10, 2005


Add Cindy Sheehan to the list. She too dared to stand up for the truth, after losing a son in Bush's war, and found herself in a ditch.


It's as routine and expectable as a chicken laying an egg.

A patriotic American stands up for the truth, and Bush sends Karl Rove out to assassinate their character and pulverize their reputation.

It could be a CIA operative who is rendered inoperable, even though she tracked weapons of mass destruction -- and her CIA front company was exposed by Rove. It could be war heroes like Kerry and McCain, even though the closest Bush got to war was flying plants to Florida in a Texas National Guard Plane. It could be the former National Security Council specialist on terrorism, like Richard Clarke.

The list of slanderous attacks against Americans loyal to their nation and brave in battle goes on and on. It is what Karl Rove does best, like a chicken laying an egg -- an apt analogy to be sure -- since Rove is like Young Republicans in college today who support wars but avoid serving in them.

But what of the Americans hoodwinked by this grave betrayal of their nation? How many are taken in by the demagogues of the media who take their marching orders and messages of the day from Bush's hatchet man, Karl Rove? Millions upon millions listen to the deceptive propaganda of pill-popping Rush Limbaugh and take it as the truth.

"Their" president, the tall white man who boasts that he is God's servant, can do no wrong.

Perhaps it is because so few Democrats are willing to peel off the veneer of manufactured respectability created by Rove. Perhaps it is because most of the corporate press, especially television, dare not offend the White House out of fear that Bush will seek revenge and take actions that will harm their media consolidation plans and profits. Perhaps it is because in an age of television, a Disneyesque visual image of piety overpowers the nefarious reality of having a traitor in the White House.

After all, in TreasonGate, it is Bush and Rove vs. the CIA, not Joe Wilson -- although they would like you to think the latter. And Bush still unleashes Rove to do his stiletto jobs on anyone who would reveal the reality of the Bush lies, deceit and betrayal. Bush is no longer someone who just condones treason; he has enabled it and continues to let the same people who harmed our national security do their anti-American slime jobs out of America's House, the White House.

Now Cindy Sheehan, mother of a young son killed in service in Sadr City, Iraq, sits in a ditch outside of Crawford, Texas, as Bush unleashes Rove, yet again, to besmirch and degrade her. George and his henchmen go after women with a special relish. They are so indifferent and vengeful that even the mother of one of our soldiers killed in action is just more target practice for enforcement of their Omerta.

The Democratic leaders in Congress continue to miss the boat. They think that they need to imitate the Machiavellian appeal of Bush to moral values, when the evidence is in plain sight that the man is immoral. His only claim to credibility is that he says he believes in God, but wonder if God doesn't believe in him? Wonder if God finds him a loathsome creature who betrays the teachings of Christ? Wonder if God long ago abandoned Bush, because Bush long ago abandoned God in deed and practice?

BuzzFlash can announce to the world that Jesus saved us and God is our divine guide in governing America. But judge us then by our deeds, not our words. And so should George W. Bush be judged.

He is a man who countenances acts of evil, who harbors and encourages those who commit them in his name, out of personal loyalty -- rather than loyalty to the nation.

God will judge him harshly, as the American people should, for long ago his primary motivation became the amassing of personal power -- not the practice of religious principles.

Americans loyal to their nation -- and not the power hungry actions of an incompetent scion of a corrupt family with pedigree -- should shun him, for he endangers our safety, our Constitution, the truth, and our good names.

Add Cindy Sheehan to the list. She too dared to stand up for the truth, after losing a son in Bush's war, and found herself in a ditch.



BONUS: We may lose the probe...

The Guardian

Probe Poses Issue of What Rove Told Bush

Thursday August 11, 2005 11:16 PM

AP Photo TXSA104


Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Among the many questions surrounding the investigation into who in the Bush administration leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer is whether President Bush's top political adviser told his boss the truth about his connection to the case.

Two years ago, the White House denied that Karl Rove played any role, but revelations in the past month have shown that Rove spoke with two journalists about the operative, Valerie Plame. Whether Bush knew the truth while the White House was issuing its denials is not publicly known.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan was so adamant in his denials in September 2003 that he told reporters the president knew that Rove wasn't involved in the leak.

``How does he know that?'' a reporter asked, referring to the president.

``I'm not going to get into conversations that the president has with advisers or staff,'' McClellan replied.

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald questioned Bush a year ago and the prosecutor's office has questioned Rove repeatedly, so presumably investigators know the answer to what, if anything, Rove told Bush.

Whether Rove shaded the truth with Bush two years ago is a potential political problem. The president so far has stood by Rove's side, even raising the bar for dismissing subordinates. Two years ago, Bush pledged to fire any leakers, but now he says he would fire anyone who committed a crime.

If Rove didn't tell Bush the truth, that theoretically could be a legal problem for the presidential aide under the federal false statement statute.

Wayne State University law professor Peter Henning said the false statement law covers statements made to all members of the executive branch, including the president acting in his official capacity. In contrast, a typical false statement case involves lying to investigators or writing false information on a form to the government.

The difficulties in bringing even a typical false statement case are considerable. Simply misleading someone isn't enough to bring a prosecution.

``If the president asks Rove, `Do we have anything to worry about here?' and Rove says `No,' that would not be a false statement,'' said Henning. ``These two men have known each other a long time, the president is not going to question Rove closely as a law enforcement agent would, and that makes all the difference.''

Henning is a former federal prosecutor in the Justice Department's fraud section in Washington and has written a law school textbook on white-collar crime.

What is clear about Rove is that after the White House's public denials in 2003 saying Rove wasn't involved in the leak, the presidential aide told investigators behind closed doors about his conversations regarding Plame.

Asked whether it wants to retract its earlier denials, the White House refuses to comment on the grounds that the criminal investigation is ongoing.

Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, and apparently at least one other government official were involved in leaking information to reporters about Plame, the wife of Bush administration critic and former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

Presidential scholars say a White House's refusal to comment can suggest an administration in political trouble.

``When under fire they suddenly hide behind the shield of secrecy as though they have no control over the matter,'' said Mark J. Rozell, a public policy professor at George Mason University who has written five books on the presidency.

``What we really don't know factually is whether Rove lied to the president or whether the president knew something about Rove's role and dissembled,'' said Rozell.

The White House decision not to answer the question makes sense from the standpoint of political damage control, says Steve Hess, senior fellow emeritus at the Brookings Institution.

The CIA leak story ``has very little traction on Main Street,'' but all that would change, Hess said, if someone is indicted in Fitzgerald's criminal investigation.

The federal grand jury investigating the leak expires in October.


On the Net:


White House:

SOURCE -,1280,-5204479,00.html