GOP Counter-Spin on Rove

So, the Republican party is doing its best to muddy the waters on Rove’s role in outing Valerie Plame. The Washington Post’s Jim VandeHei has a good summary: GOP on offense in defense of Rove.

Even more interesting (in the same way that a pustulant abscess is interesting, at least for a pathologist who specializes in such things) is this copy of the the Republican talking points on the story, as distributed by Carolyn Weyforth, director of television for the Republican National Committee: GOP talking points on Rove.

Most of the talking points are either outright lies or blatantly misleading, which I guess is not exactly a shocking state of affairs, but still. Gah.

7 Responses to “GOP Counter-Spin on Rove”

  1. IWonder Says:

    I have a simple question. What does it matter if Wilson told the truth or lied and supported Kerry. The point is Rove talked to a reporter about his wife, an active CIA agent, in an attempt to discredit him. Thereby abusing his position and security clearance by doing so. At least he should be fired (I’d be very surprised if Bush even kept that promise) or hung for treason at best.

    I like the way the GOP will beat a dead horse with a rotten stick to try and shift the blame to anyone but themselves….

  2. Craig Says:

    For those interested in any other points of view on this whole drama, This site seems to cover things with some detail. I don’t pretend to have the thorough understanding or level of obsession needed to wade through the ocean of print and cyber chatter that this issue has generated. It’s shaping up to be another issue of debate that only interests the pundits and the politically-minded, and seems to have no real resonance with the general public. The key for it to pass the sniff test of mainstream relevance would be if Rove is guilty of criminal actions. That point is looking less and less likely. And Bush’s apparent original pledge to fire anyone who committed a criminal act in this situation, (not the more confining statement that a journalist seems to have re-phrased for him to follow), gives him the leeway to not dismiss Rove, if the investigation also finds no criminal act was committed. Thus it becomes Bush’s call if he feels that Rove operated in a shady or reckless enough way (that phrase should generate some eye-rolling from most readers of this website) that some lingering ethics charges could hamper Rove’s or the Administration’s political effectiveness going forward.

    But that is just my two cents, as things stand now. Which may be about what it is deemed to be worth on this blog!

  3. ymatt Says:

    All the criticism seems to me to miss the point. I couldn’t care less if they get Rove fired on a technicality (well, other than a little cathartic spite). Yeah, I’m sure if Rove isn’t on the White House payroll that he’ll just sit quietly pouting at home…

    Isn’t the story here that Rove has basically admitted to trying to smear Wilson (and by the looks of this story, may in fact be working to smear him once again) for nothing more than presenting evidence to contradict the party line? Doesn’t that weird anyone out in the context of a lead-up to war?

  4. Rise Against Says:

    So according to Craig, we should reley on Bush’s judgement to do the right thing.

    rrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiight…

  5. Rise Against Says:

    Hey Craig, is this more confirming statement that you were refering to?

    “…if anyone in this administration was responsible for the leaking of classified information, they would no longer work in this administration.”
    –Scott McClellan, October 6, 2003

    As the official spokesman for Bush, I’d say that’s pretty confirming.

    Watch the Video yourself

  6. Craig Says:

    Rise, why not go to Bush’s own words in 2003?

    “And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.

    If somebody did leak classified information, I’d like to know it, and we’ll take the appropriate action.”

    The argument seems to be that Bush intended a law violation to be a termination offense. Anything else may be something less severe.

  7. Rise Against Says:

    Somone who leaks classified information should be a concern to you all, right, left and centre. That person should be stripped of their security clearence (fired, demoted), and to not do that whould just be another catostrophic blunder by this admin.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.