In an interview with Charlie Rose a few days ago, Karl Rove said Congress was responsible for staring the war in Iraq, not George Bush. After all these years, I thought George Bush and Dick Cheney could not get the war started fast enough, and to learn last night Congress is responsible…well, I’m just dumfounded. (Short video here. Full video here.)
KARL ROVE: One of the untold stories about the war is why did the United States Congress, the United States Senate vote on the Iraq War Resolution in the Fall of 2002?
CHARLIE ROSE: Why?
KARL ROVE: This administration was opposed to it. I’m going to talk about that in my book.
CHARLIE ROSE: Well tell me, give me…
KARL ROVE: No I’m not going to…
CHARLIE ROSE: Come on - give it to me…give me something.
KARL ROVE: No.
CHARLIE ROSE: Give me something.
KARL ROVE: No. I just did. I just told you the administration was opposed to voting on it in the Fall of 2002.
CHARLIE ROSE: Because?
KARL ROVE: Because we didn’t think it belonged within the confines of the election. There was an election coming up in a matter of weeks. We thought it made it too political. We wanted it outside the confines of it. It seemed to make things move too fast. There were things that needed to be done to bring along allies and potential allies abroad.
Karl Rove is absolutely correct that the White House was concerned about the potential impact the prelude to war might have on the elections, but their concern was just the opposite of what Karl stated in the interview. Instead, the White House desperately wanted to put war with Iraq at the forefront of the 2002 election. They made all kinds of public statements heralding the war, established unconstitutional plans to invade Iraq as quickly as possible if Congress did not approve the war, and pressured Congress to pass the resolutions to invade Iraq.
Thanks for coming. We just had a very productive Cabinet meeting. We realize there’s little time left in — before the Senate and the House goes home, but we’re optimistic a lot can get done before now and then. Congress must act now to pass a resolution which will hold Saddam Hussein to account for a decade of defiance.
Today I’m joined by leaders of the House and the Senate from both political parties to show our unity of purpose in confronting a gathering threat to the security of America and to the future of peace.
I want to thank [Hastert and Gephardt] for…building bipartisan support on this vital issue. I also want to thank [Warner, Lieberman, McCain and Bayh] for introducing this resolution which we’ve agreed to on the floor of the Senate this morning.
President Bush Pleased with House Vote on Iraq Resolution
I would like to thank the members of the House of Representatives, just as I thanked Speaker Hastert and Leader Gephardt a few minutes ago, for the very strong bipartisan vote authorizing the use of force in Iraq if it becomes necessary.
I’m also pleased with the progress being made in the Senate, and I look forward to a final vote soon.
In August 2002, the White House had Timothy Flannigan, then head of the Office of Legal Counsel, to issue a legal opinion giving President Bush the authority to invade Iraq without the approval of Congress. (Charlie Savage, Takeover, pp. 156-157). If Congress didn’t pass the resolution the White House, especially Dick Cheney, was prepared to move forward without Congressional approval.
Savage further writes:
When Congress returned in September [2002] for a few last weeks...before the mid-term election, administration officials abruptly demanded that Congress immediately approve a hypothetical invasion of Iraq, just in case Bush later decided that diplomacy had failed and war was necessary…At the same time, administration officials escalated alarming rhetoric about the threat posed by Iraq, warning that “the smoking gun” for Iraq’s alleged weapons programs and its alleged links to Al Qaeda could come in the form of a “mushroom cloud.”
Note: This sudden surge had been crafted by the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) which had been secretly formed in August 2002 to coordinate a strategy for coming confrontation with Iraq. Its members included Andrew Card, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, Condoleezza Rice, and Stephen Hadley.
The proposed hurry up vote on the eve of the first election since 9/11 presented a win-win scenario for the White House: If Democrats voiced caution or skepticism about the proposed war resolution, then the GOP could portray them as weak on terrorism ahead of the election, and if Democrats supported the bill, then the Bush-Cheney administration would fortify its powers by eliminating even the suggestion that it might later need to ask for permission to launch any war against Iraq.
Book stores and libraries will have to put Karl Rove’s book in the fiction section.
Somehow I failed to post yesterday’s Political Lunch, so without further ado, here is yesterday’s Lunch. On the menu: Hillary hits Bush in her first campaign ad, Rove exits stage right, Rudy and Romney talk tough on immigration, and one of the GOP herd decides he’s had enough.
Karl Rove’s resignation today will certainly increase the political debate in the coming days and considerable attention will be on two questions: why and what are the implications. Unless there is an unexpected revelation, answering precisely why is virtually impossible, however, focusing on the controversy surrounding Rove and the implications of his resignation may narrow the scope of why.
So, Rove is out of the White House and there may be a propensity for many to breathe a sigh of relief, but in reality there may be little relief. First, let’s take a look at the most important fact. Bush’s Brain, his infamous “Turd Blossom,” may not be on the official White House payroll, but it means absolutely nothing in terms of Rove’s influence if we can rightly assume Rove is still in the good graces of the president. Rove’s primary role was to counsel Bush and that role can continue regardless of his official status. Geography and other responsibilities do not preclude a continuing substantial relationship that dates back directly or indirectly to 1973. Hence, let’s not be too quick to presume the slimeball is not a dominant participant in shaping White House policy and strategy.
While I have nothing to unequivocally substantiate this, the timing of Rove’s departure is anything but insignificant or coincidence. There are two key elements to consider: (1) the 2008 campaigns will go into high gear after Labor Day, which is a mere three days after his official resignation, and (2) Congress will return at the same time with a heated investigation agenda, especially the Constitutional showdown between the White House and Congress. My sense is the latter has far more to do with Rove’s resignation than the former, however we should not lose sight of the fact that the more intense and revealing the investigations, the greater the potential negative impact on Republicans overall in their 2008 campaign efforts. Consequently, there could have been some background quid pro quo maneuvering by Republican leaders to oust Rove. In other words, “Mr. President the more Rove is a threat to my/our reelection chances, the less GOP support you will receive during congressional investigations.”
A very simple review places Karl Rove at the center, albeit untouchable at this point, of every Bush administration scandal as well as several GOP congressional scandals, past and present. And there is no doubt Congress has Rove in their cross-hairs.
There may be some speculation that Rove was booted out for failing to meet one of Rove’s two primary objectives that spanned the past eight years: (1) elect and reelect George Bush, and (2) establish a permanent Republican majority in Congress. Obviously Rove failed to meet the incredibly anti-constitutional and undemocratic goal of a permanent Republican majority. However, if you review Bush’s historical actions, it’s downright laughable to think George Bush thumped Rove because he failed to meet the second objective. Any disagreement with that posit is rebuked by Alberto Gonzales’ survival.
Rove’s demise in the White House, if it can accurately be termed as such, logically is related to the anticipated outcomes of congressional investigations, which may ultimately lead to the fall of Bush and Cheney. Make no mistake about it; the possibility of impeachment investigations of both is rapidly rising and it is not solely a partisan led consideration. Several notable and respected Republicans, such as Bruce Fein, the former deputy attorney general in Ronald Reagan’s administration, are calling for Congress to immediately begin impeachment investigations.
At long last, Bush’s brain, Karl Rove, has resigned. Rove cited “family reasons” as his reason for resigning. We all know this goes beyond simple family reasons. There may be some speculation that this may remove some of the obstacles Congress faces in getting Rove to testify, but I don’t believe so, at least initially. Point in case: Harriet Miers.
So, what are the real reasons for Rove’s resignation?
The Justice Department released a new set of emails last night linking Sara Taylor, former White House Political Director and top Karl Rove aide, to the U.S. attorney scandal.
The emails are exchanges between Taylor and Kyle Sampson, former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, discussing Karl Rove’s protege Tim Griffin, and Bud Cummins, the fired U.S. attorney Griffin replaced. Taylor and Sampson discuss retribution against Cummins for Cummins going public on his firing.
Since I am still recovering from the system crash two days ago, I cannot read the specific emails yet, but ThinkProgress has the full story. According to ThinkProgress, this is from the first exchange where Sara Taylor writes to Kyle Sampson about firing Cummins.
I normally don’t like attacking our friends, but since Bud Cummins is talking to everyone - why don’t we tell the deal on him?
There are several exchanges between the White House and Main Justice that were sent through the Republican National Committee’s email servers, rather than White House servers in a effort to obviously mitigate scrutiny. Too bad they got caught because that is a violation of the Presidential Records Act, but that’s probably the least of their worries right now.
Check ThinkProgress for more details, meanwhile I should have things back to normal soon.
If you want to go directly to the emails, they are here (PDF).
Why, you may ask, was Karl Rove, the Turd Blossom in Chief, not subpoenaed? From Roll Call (sub. req.):
The two committees pointedly avoided issuing a subpoena to presidential adviser Karl Rove, who also has been implicated in the scandal. One senior Democratic aide said lawmakers were “trying to build an investigation” and the timing was not yet right for subpoenaing the White House political guru.
In other words, the more information they have before talking to Rove, the tighter the box Rove will be in. Less room for ambiguity and I don’t recall.
The U.S. special counsel has requested President Bush discipline General Services Administration (GSA) chief Lurita Doan “to the fullest extent” for violating the Hatch Act. The request is derived from recent findings by the Office of Special Counsel, which included the use of GSA facilities for political purposes. In at least one instance, Doan facilitated a meeting for Scott Jennings, Karl Rove’s deputy, to give a presentation, “2008 House Targets: Top 20,” to GSA employees. The Office of Special Counsel submitted a report of its findings to President Bush last week.
Government Executive reports that General Services Administration chief Lurita Doan violated the Hatch Act according to the Office of Special Counsel (OSC). OSC delivered its findings in a report to President Bush Friday. Since Doan is a presidential appointee and confirmed by the Senate, President Bush must decide what disciplinary action will be taken. Additionally, OSC provided Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, a copy of the report.
In related news, OSC has provided the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee with redacted transcripts of their nine-hour interview with Doan, along with the e-mail records obtained by OSC to determine whether Doan was using her Blackberry during specific time periods during the January meeting. The panel’s chairman, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and ranking member, Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., both received copies of the report, the OSC spokesman said.
On Wednesday Doan is scheduled to appear before the oversight committee to discuss her allegations that GSA employees who testified about her statements at the Jan. 26 meeting were biased and poor performers. Waxman also said Doan may be asked other questions about her previous statements to the committee and to officials involved in the OSC investigation.
I mentioned last night that Chris Matthews asked, in effect, personal questions about Karl Rove and Bill Clinton in the Republican presidential debate, which I thought were inappropriate.
The Karl Rove question is in this video. Apparently former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore is a friend of Rove. Matthews asked Gilmore if he would hire Rove to work in the White House. My perception may be wrong, but it appears to me Gilmore did not receive the question well either. He raised his level of rhetoric and got a bit “testy” when Matthews pressed him.
I don’t think this question was as inappropriate as the Bill Clinton question, but Matthews knew quite well he was digging into personal matters. This wasn’t Hardball and the questions should not have been part of a presidential debate.
Duration: 1:33
Late Update: A DCer provided the backstory on this question. Gilmore and Rove are not friends. They had major disagreements with each-other early on in the Bush administration that led to Gilmore quitting the Republican National Committee after being expected to be the White House’s lapdog. Matthews was baiting Gilmore and he knew it.
Okay, now that Comey has given his testimony, Gonzogate may have just turned into Rovegate.
A former deputy attorney general today heaped praise on most of the eight U.S. attorneys who were fired after he left the job, testifying that he only considered one of them a weak prosecutor who had trouble managing his office.
James B. Comey, the Justice Department’s second-in-command from 2003 until August 2005, also told a House Judiciary subcommittee that he was never informed about an effort by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and his aides to remove a large group of prosecutors that began in early 2005.
Karl Rove’s shameless attempts to twist the federal government for partisan gain have simply gone too far. Rove is now clearly at the heart of the political firing and replacement of U.S. Attorneys warping the impartial execution of justice that all Americans depend onâ€â€and that’s just the beginning. We need to take a stand right now to defend the integrity of our government and our democracyâ€â€Karl Rove must be fired.
Edwards also has a petition he would like for you to sign supporting his call for Rove’s firing (quote below via TalkLeft).
Will Bush listen? Not to John alone. Not to you or me alone. But if thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of us speak out together to demand accountability for Karl Rove and end their era of cynical, destructive, partisan governmentâ€â€we cannot be ignored.
The title of this post is the same as the title of the New York Times’ article I am referencing. I don’t think the Times’ choice of words for their title was an accident and obviously mine was not since I purposefully copied theirs.
Add ice, stir, and make your own jokes…
Karl Rove, the chief political strategist for President Bush, did not intentionally delete e-mail messages to avoid creating a paper trail detailing his work, his lawyer said on Friday. Rather, he mistakenly thought that the messages were being preserved by the Republican National Committee.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT)Â says the White House is lying about the missing emails.
The New York Times has an abbreviated report; however the video provides the non-edited version of Sen. Leahy’s accusations.
On the Senate floor, Mr. Leahy was skeptical that the e-mails are indeed missing. “You can’t erase e-mails, not today,†he said. “They’ve gone through too many servers.â€
Mr. Leahy, a Vermont Democrat who just turned 67, is considered one of the more computer-savvy members of Congress, despite having grown up in the era of typewriters.
“This sounds like the administration’s version of the dog ate my homework,†Mr. Leahy said on Wednesday.
“I am deeply disturbed that just when this administration is finally subjected to meaningful oversight,†Mr. Leahy said, “it cannot produce the necessary information.â€
Karl Rove’s resignation today will certainly increase the political debate in the coming days and considerable attention will be on two questions: why and what are the implications. Unless there is an unexpected revelation, answering precisely why is virtually impossible, however, focusing on the controversy surrounding Rove and the implications of his resignation may narrow the scope of why. 
