Newsweek/MSNBC hard-hitting in-depth article posted:

[dchill]

Rove At War

"He rose using tactics his foes are turning against him. But never bet against Karl Rove."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8600327/site/newsweek/

You can now RATE stories at MSNBC. Currently a 4.

[rocktivity]

1. Ooooo, pass the Pulitzer!

In the world according to Karl Rove, you take the offensive, and stay there. You create a narrative that glosses over complex, mitigating facts to divide the world into friends and enemies, light and darkness, good and bad...You are loyal to a fault to your friends, merciless to your enemies...You use the jujitsu of media flow to flip the energy of your enemies against them...everything is political—and everyone is fair game.

In a familiar Washington twist of fate, Rove's theory of politics is being turned against him—and he is being forced to deploy the Republican machine...(on)...his own defense.

And it's taken Newsweek five years to figure all of this out? More important, does Newsweek see its role in the "media flow" as intimidated, helpless victims or loyal-to-fault co-conspirators? If this is how Newsweek see things, WHY DIDN'T NEWSWEEK PRINT THIS IN 2004 WHEN IT COULD HAVE DONE SOME FREAKING GOOD? Because it's connected to a news organization whose parent company is a defense contractor?

:grr:
rocknation

[thebigidea]

2. I guess if the likes of Miller can get a Pulitzer, whores like Fineman can

[Mojambo]

3. Like him or not

(And I really don't)

That's some very fine writing by Fineman.

[dchill]

4. You have crystallized my thoughts...

exactly

[notadmblnd]

5. wow.. just wow

here's our conspirators folks, meeting to get their stories straight would be my guess.

On another subject, it looks like the cat is out of the bag about W's drinking. If Im reading this right. He was drunk as recently at 2000. Sure would explain the falls now, wouldn't it?

snip:

Outsiders thought it might be tested after Bush was clobbered in the 2000 New Hampshire primary by John McCain. Rove had badly underestimated the senator there. In similar situations, handlers have offered to resign. Asked by NEWSWEEK if he would do so, Rove exploded in a mix of derision, pity and anger. "I can't believe you're asking that!" he shouted. "Of course not!"

Later that week, on a campaign bus rolling through South Carolina, Bush and Rove—now a comedy act—pretended to replay their own responses on election night, rolling their eyes and collapsing "drunk" in their bus seats. "We've lost by twenty damn points!" Rove said, as if talking to Bush on the phone. "Dammit, Karl, you've ruined everything!" Bush yelled back. The good ole boys onboard didn't know what to make of the scene.

[radfringe]

6. It's more than just ROVE

Wilson wrote an op-ed which contradicts bush*'s statements about yellow-cake-Niger-Iraq. This was one of the "examples" bush* used to prop up his Iraq-WMD claims and justification for invading Iraq.

Rove outed Plame to discredit Wilson and thereby "re-frame" the issue from bush*'s lie to questioning the reliability of Wilson. The implication being Wilson got the "Niger" job through family connections. Would this have come out at all if Wilson's findings supported bush* or if Wilson had said nothing? (Aside - how many other bushies got their jobs because they had family connections with the bushies?)

The original reason for invading Iraq - that being Iraq has WMDs - has never been fully investigated. the best we've seen so far is bush* blaming the CIA for faulty intelligence, and Tenent falling on his sword.

There have been hearings where former CIA agents testified Cheney and others were cherry-picking through intelligence. The Downing Street memo clearly states "FACTS WERE FIXED" to justify the Iraq Invasion.

It comes down to this - How much of what we were told by bush* and others is true and how much were lies?

How much was "massaged", "spun", or otherwise "fixed"?

WHAT IS THE REAL REASON WE ARE IN IRAQ?