Sound Destruction: LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!

Tuesday, July 12, 2005


Image Hosted by

In June 2004, Bush pledged to dismiss any leakers of Valerie Plame's identity. Now that we've learned slimy Karl Rove is the leak, shouldn't we be hearing of his dismissal along with a major mia culpa from the White House who previously denied Rove's involvement? Nope. Today, we learned that Bush supports Rove. Unfreakinbelievable...and yet not surprising.

Listen up administration - we're not suckers, and shame on you for continuing to play us as if we are!


Blogger Doug said...

I'm sure he won't be convicted of anything, but the thought sure tickles me.

6:21 PM  
Blogger Doug said...


7:46 PM  
Blogger araider said...

My man Karl Rove should not be fired because this is under investigation. A spanking would be more interesting and funny. How can Bush fire a man that called Democrats wimpy panzies? Bush is a good boss, he stands behind his dudes. If I messed badly up at work my boss would fire me. Don't we all want our superiors to stand behind us in our time of need.

8:35 PM  
Blogger Chris Woods said...

Karl Rove committed a terrible offense (though maybe not in the exact legal eyes of the law). But he blew the cover of an active CIA operative AND the CIA front-agency she was working for (I can get links for that information if you want them araider). The fact is, that alone is proof of incompetency on the job. If I were in charge of the CIA, I'd be a bit worried about the White House blowing my agents' cover.

Furthermore, Bush promised to "take care of" whoever the leak was. Just looking at Bush's rhetoric of the past, we know take care of meant firing, not expressing confidence.

At the very least, Karl Rove should be fired for the leak, just like he got fired by George H. W. Bush in the early 90s for a leak on the campaign trail.

9:23 PM  
Blogger Sar said...

I'm sadly inclined to agree with you, Doug.

Araider, let me ask you this. What if it was Clinton's top aide being accused of said violations? Methinks you'd be calling for his head!

CW - Ah, we return to posts you can comment on. ;) Seriously though, I was not aware that Rove was fired by Bush Sr. Am I embarrassingly out of the loop here? How did it wind up that he then is brought back into the Bush inner circle (all you pervs, resist the pun)?

9:50 PM  
Blogger SheaNC said...

"Unfreakinbelievable...and yet not surprising." - Hmm, sort of like being constantly amazed, yet never surprised. It's a feeling that leaves you tingling with enlightenment, isn't it?

My understanding is that revealing the cover of an undercover CIA operative is a federal crime. Since she was also working to uncover WMD's, it directly impacts the Neocons' so-called "war on terror." Of course, Bush supports the violation of federal crimes, and he couldn't care less about winning his phony "war on terror."

I would say Rove blowing the agent's cover, but that concept takes us back to his other boyfriend, Jeff Gannon. Oh, what a love triangle between those three! Wait 'til Karl teaches Jeff & George what he learned in prison!

9:54 PM  
Blogger araider said...

I probably would. Well, maybe not his head just a hand or foot.
Clinton might not fire him either and stand behind him. But Clinton is a proven liar so I maybe wrong.
I's sure CW would set me straight.

9:57 PM  
Blogger tlm said...

Sorry there, araider.. Rove needs to quit.. and NOW. Should've done it long ago. Especially since the identity of "covert secret agent" Plame was probably the worst kept secret in Washington. A timely "Oops, I fucked up!" would've gotten him off the hook, I guarantee it. Time to cut the cord. Here's hoping the Bush administration hangs him out to dry.

A bright side: This should put the no-luck Dems in a bad situation, too. Without the evil Rove to blame for everything short of WWII, they're short a whipping boy.

10:34 PM  
Blogger tlm said...

Beware of the Neocons! The Neocons!!! MUHAHAHAHAHAAA!!

(I'm sorry bout that... I just love how that phony codeword gets thrown around by the left. As a very wise man once said "Any time you see the adjective “new” employed, assume that the label is mere smoke and mirrors." Same principle applies with neo- here.)

10:48 PM  
Blogger Sar said...

Shea - I almost used your quote in my post! And you're correct, that is a sorted love affair of corruption.

(Doug taught me how to italicize words so I'm having me some fun with it!)

TLM - Remember I previously said I wish we had our own Rove to level the playing field? Yeah, well, I'd just as soon have no Rove and level the field that way. But that won't happen. He won't get fired because this administration is incapable of admitting any fault or firing their own. Last I check, Rummy's still employed after having severly fucked up strategically with Iraq, not to mention the Abu Graib debacle. In fact, not only did he not get fired for that, he was subsequently promoted. Arg, this administration frustrates me! Oh, and would you prefer right-wing nut to neocon?

11:11 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Araider, I can't help it, I'm starting to like you.

Sar, can you do this?

12:50 AM  
Blogger Nedhead said...

Do not taunt Sar, Doug!

And I don't think Rove is going to get any punishment. If anything, as others have clearly stated, this Bush camp is nothing if not blindly loyal to its members. Nice little Frat they got goin' on.

9:12 AM  
Blogger tlm said...

sar- I prefer neither of those, actually. :)

I say Karl will be out (the Karen Hughes definition of out... only officially, of course) within two weeks. Anyone care to make a wager on that?

9:41 AM  
Blogger SheaNC said...

Araider - you say "But Clinton is a proven liar so I maybe wrong." Does that mean you are equally unsure about other statements in light of the fact that Bush is a proven liar also?

Tim - the neocon movement is legit, not just an empty phrase. Lots of info available, should you care to look.

9:42 AM  
Blogger araider said...

Bush did not lie under oath, so he is not a "proven liar" just a speculated one among democrats and a couple republicans.
I am always sure about my statements.

10:54 AM  
Blogger tlm said...

Oh, that's BS, sheanc!... Aside from it being liberalspeak for a Jewish Republican, it has no real meaning.

It would be like you guys calling yourselves "New Democrats". A rat is a rat, is a rat...

2:03 PM  
Blogger Nedhead said...

"proven liar" = "lying under oath"?

Liar = "a person who tells lies"

Lies = "a deliberate falsehood"

Falsehood = "lack of conformity with truth or fact"

No dictionary I find says anything about being "under oath".

Notice the definition of falsehood.

Made falsehoods about his tax cut reforms in Texas.

Made falshoods about the effect of his national tax cut plan (it would help the little man/woman).

Made falsehoods about his time in the national guard.

Made falsehoods about his reasoning for cutting arsenic requirements for drinking water.

Made falsehoods about the duration and cost of the Iraq invasion.

Made falsehoods about his buddy Rove regarding Plame.

Stated in 2003 that "we found the weapons of mass destruction."

anyway, gotta go..

2:33 PM  
Blogger Sar said...

Do not taunt Sar, Doug! Yeah!

TLM - sadly, in my mind, whether or not Karl is "fired", I fear he'll still continue to be the architect just not from within the WH. And maybe I'm out of the loop, but I've never heard Jewish Republicans specifically equated to neocons.

Araider - I'd gladly welcome an inquiry and impeachment proceedings to "formally" prove Bush is a liar.

Oooh, just noticed Nedhead's latest comment - wow! Right On, Neadhead!!!

2:54 PM  
Blogger Chris Woods said...

I think Karl Rove is in some deep shit.

Maybe they won't get him for revealing Plame, but they can still get him for obstruction of justice, perjury, or a lot of other things that would result in his firing or prison time (LINK).

Anyway, my brain is about fried for today, but on the issue of actual "neoconservatism" check out The Criterion magazine for a good look at what neoconservatism is from their perspective. It makes sense as a political ideology to me based on clear hawkish foreign policy ideas, a realist perspective on international realtions (or even neorealist), and fiscal policy that is based on tax cuts and increased spending on defense. There are lots of intellectual and logical problems with it, but what political ideology doesn't have those?

1:14 AM  
Blogger tlm said...

Hi, Chris- Hawkish foreign policy ideas, a realist perspective on international realtions, and fiscal policy that is based on tax cuts and increased spending on defense...

Hmm... Sounds an awful lot like the groundwork set in place by Reagan. And I've heard R.R. referred to as a lot of things, but never as a neo-conservative.

I'd be all for slapping the "neocon" label on some Republicans (like Specter, McCain, Chafee, etc.), but only if we can alter the definition a bit. (Neo implies change. The conservative movement hasn't changed... a select few of its members have.)

12:37 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Site Meter