Simple answer, for me, is YES. So I would not put it past Rove to rat out a CIA whatever. The whatever, being the “he said, she said” type of nonsense that the media talking heads are yammering about the specifics of the case. It’s tough to tell really. All I know is that the points that really mattered is that this is the media’s opportunity to get back at an otherwise secretive and “we can do no wrong” administration. It’s going to be a lot of debate and accusations. I guess we’ll see how it plays out. Bush won’t fire Rove and he won’t be help for treason. Crap, I think the entire cabinet should be put up on charges and impeachment hearings to kick Bush out of office are needed. Clinton may have done bad things, but Bush’s bad things are costing lives. In addition, he is doing much worse things to this country. It’s kind of tough to associate Bush as being a ‘conservative’ or ‘Republican’ when we see citizens rights going down the shitter, an open border, the Cheney-Haliburton "exclusive" Iraq contracts (why no competition???), and shady and bogus reasoning to invade Iraq.
One thing to point out is everyone (as in both parties) supported his Afghanistan campaign. When they seek answers to why and what was the reason for Iraq the only thing that really turns up is misleading and bogus lies as justification for going in. Recent information has turned up that would back those claims, but it should have been used then and not after the fact.
Search the web for PNAC, or The Project for the New American Century. There is an excellent website which covers them. Basically, it’s a neocon think tank that has papers, studies, etc. in which people say the agenda of invading Iraq was a priority of PNAC outlined in some of their works. The reason this beltway think tank stands out from the other ones is the fact that people associated with PNAC also hold positions in the oval office. Paul Wolfowitz, who drafted a document in which “US military dominance over Eurasia and preemptive strikes against countries suspected of developing weapons of mass destruction” is among them. It sure gives me warm fuzzies! The neocon list, plus the above quote, can be found here: http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html?leftNavInclude
A great analysis website is http://www.pnac.info/. Ok, now I have read these documents and websites for awhile now. A lot of it is good input on ideology of how to spend our resources in defense spending and where new threats or shifts in strategy might be in the future. I support the defense industry wholeheartedly. Heck, many of their developments are great contributions to civilian or medical technological advancements.
In all, PNAC is a good group. But the nefarious part comes from their emphasis on who is in the white house now and their agenda prior to 2003. For example, note this:
“In the Beginning - In 1992, Paul Wolfowitz, then-under secretary of defense for policy, supervised the drafting of the Defense Policy Guidance document. Wolfowitz had objected to what he considered the premature ending of the 1991 Iraq War. In the new document, he outlined plans for military intervention in Iraq as an action necessary to assure "access to vital raw material, primarily Persian Gulf oil" and to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and threats from terrorism.
The guidance called for preemptive attacks and ad hoc coalitions but said that the U.S. should be ready to act alone when "collective action cannot be orchestrated." The primary goal of U.S. policy should be to prevent the rise of any nation that could challenge the United States. When the document leaked to the New York Times, it proved so extreme that it had to be rewritten. These concepts are now part of the new U.S. National Security Strategy.”
http://www.pnac.info/blog/archives/000043.html
It really makes me wonder how much of this was just anticipated. Were the 9/11 attacks and subsequent ousting of the Taliban the perfect excuse for these goons in the oval office to seek to take out Sadam? They just needed the means to their end, and those means are sketchy at best. I call them bogus sexed up BS turned into flat out lies. I saw a DVD called “The Truth About the Iraq War” where ex-CIA and other inside the beltway people were being interviewed. It did a great job of explaining fact vs fiction with the evidence to go to war. I do not trust the current administration at all anymore.
You know, if they were just honest with the American people, I would have a different opinion. I know PNAC, a secretive administration, MANY instances of people saying the Iraq justification was a lie, and creepy-sleazy-silly acts like what Rove might or might not have done. I just do not trust them one damned bit. I am all for a strong defense, retaliation for 9/11, ousting Sadam simply because he is an asshole, and the war on terrorism…it just seems that what we should be doing and what has gone on is completely different. For that, 2008 will be a good year. In addition, for what a demon we paint Sadam now, I tend to remember such things as these…
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
I just don’t see the Constitution giving the Federal Government the right or the power of empirical aspirations. Isn’t what we left in the first place? I am all for a strong defense as stated in what is required in the Constitution, but what do preemptive strikes based on bogus information have to do with anything? These idiots in office need to review that document that they made an oath to serve. They are bound to that contract so long as they hold public office. I commend those who also know the citizenship has the power to remove them from power. Not a revolution, that’s stupid…we are not that bad off. I am thinking along the lines of the free press pointing out the actions of those elected to office. I am talking about those whistle blowers who are demonized at times, and are probably much more patriotic than those accusing them of wrong doing. Those folks are great, and we need more of them. Sorry, I thought “Deep Throat” did a great job. If the status quo sucks, change it.
