Truth Dead After Rove Attack

On November 21st former Bush "brain," Karl Rove, in full view of millions of Charlie Rose viewers, summarily dispatched Truth with a blitzkrieg of grisly chops, kicks, and swats. Truth, badly dissipated after many years of savage beatings, simply could not withstand Rove's killing blows. Rove is still at large, although recently observed regaling staffers at Newsweek's HQ. (Photo at left courtesy of NewScott)

Truth is survived by his estranged son and daughter, Bullshit and Pretense. MSNBC plans a special half hour retrospective "After Truth, Can Bullshit and Pretense Fill the Void?"

For those with the stomach for it, Rove's manhandling of Truth occurs over a half minute period beginning at about the 35 second mark in the video below, after Mr. Rose asks Karl, "How about we go way back and make the argument that perhaps we should have delayed and let the inspections take their role?"

The autopsy revealed that three principal wounds proved fatal to Truth:

The first occurred during the following exchange:

"Rove: . . . one of the untold stories about the war is why did the United States Congress, the United States Senate, vote on the war resolution in the fall of 2002?

ROSE: Why?

ROVE: This administration was opposed to it."

The second killing blow fell when Mr. Rove explained that "the administration was opposed" to Congress voting on the resolution in October 2002, "because we didn’t think it belonged in the confines of the election. We thought it made it too political. We wanted it outside the confines of the election."

If Truth had somehow been able to survive the previous wounds, the Medical Examiner concluded that the final exchange delivered so massive a blow that it would have, by itself, stopped Truth's heart:

"ROSE: Because your argument– your argument is you would have had maybe more inspections. You would have been able to build a broader coalition. You could have done a whole lot other things if you didn’t have to have a vote, right?

ROVE: Right, right, exactly."

"In a time of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
Attributed to George Orwell

As one would expect, there's been a lot written about Rove's appearance on Charlie Rose. When the major White House player sets out to fabricate the Bush administration's biggest of BIG LIES, that's a story to stir the reality-based community. Hearing and reading his utter hogwash above, the only response is to define it as Rovian self-parody. Only that seems to explain how he could have lied with such definitive careless abandon. We almost expect, at the end of the interview, a loud "NOT!" Yet, as we saw, he did not "NOT!"

So, we are left with trying to understand what Bush's so-called "brain" was thinking. Had he somehow missed the breathless run-up to war that he and his group of whooping armchair generals cheerleaded and orchestrated with all the subtlety of a rhinoceros in a Porta Potty? Well, we know that's not it, we can very easily find a history of his statements and even photographic and video evidence that Karl was on the scene. His lies are so outrageous that we're left stunned, as if we'd gone to sleep in our cozy beds and awakened on the rough floor of a frigid cave on the Moon . . . we really need to figure this out . . .

Most who've commented on this have explained it as Rove's attempt to recast history. He's realized that Iraq needs an apologist more than a cheerleader, an escape tunnel rather than a victory parade. So, the explanation goes, Rove determined, in the words of one of his misappropriated heroes, Winston Churchill, that "history will be kind to me for I intend to write it." How else do you explain Rovian-sized whoppers like "one of the untold stories" was that the Bush "administration was opposed to" Congress voting on the war resolution prior to the 2002 election? Untold stories? Yes, of course, "stories," as in "bedtime." And we are to furthermore believe that this utterly craven White House, whose record of purely political machinations is unmatched in our times, magnanimously wanted to remove the topic from the upcoming off year elections. Rove bloviates onward, "We thought it made it too political. We wanted it outside the confines of the election." Uh huh. "Too political." At this, one's head simply wants to explode. . .

It seems to me that Rove is not really -- ultimately -- about "history," or its rewriting or revising. He, and a substantial group of his fellow travelers, have a bigger target, truth and fact, and the relationship between them. I've not yet got my head around how this is occurring, but it's not simply revisionist "history." It's truth being forcefully unmoored from history; cynicism regarding "facts" thoroughly politicized. Watch him: Rove felt quite safe and assured in lying with bold faced text about circumstances and timelines that can be easily checked, as was done by many using the White House's own website. Surely Karl knew this, surely he's set legions of his underlings to work doing just such fact checking when smearing political opponents. So how does he believe he can get away with it at this level, where his every uttering will be immediately vetted by thousands?

That question is something to be thought about often and with great urgency. Part of the answer, of course, is that the media participates in the lying, the politicized "fact checks," the debasement of a free society's journalism. Karl knew, and knows, that little price will be paid for his murder of the truth. He's comfortable with the likes of Charlie Rose, whose follow-up response to Rove's Mt. Rushmore sized lies was to ask for a mild clarification that gave Rove the last word. Is Charlie Rose that incompetent, or thoroughly stupid about the recorded facts of the run-up to the Iraq war resolution? Not likely. It's more likely that he is another of the co-opted class of journalists who no longer seek or champion the truth, even when it's so easily accessible as in this case. Through their complicity, truth is, if not dead, on life support.

But, just for the record, here's four examples of the voluminous factual record where the truth resides, all, ironically, from the official White House website, www.WhiteHouse.gov:

1. September 6, 2002, "Ari Fleischer press briefing":

"Q But some Democrats are not buying that and are saying flat-out that the President asking them to pass this resolution before they leave is politically motivated, it's just too close to the election.
. . .

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, you know, the President is going to continue to do what he thinks needs to be done to protect the country. And the President is pleased that in that endeavor there are many people in both parties who share his concerns and who are focused on the need for action. And people will exercise their opinions and exercise their judgment. That's exactly why this is an important debate to have.

But particularly given the fact that it looks like the House is going to vote on this before they leave, it's just hard to imagine that somebody would say we should wait until next year." [Emphasis added] [Full White House transcript here]

2. September 13, 2002, "President Bush Discusses Iraq with Reporters":

"And the first part of the question was, Democrats waiting for the U.N. to act? I can't imagine an elected United States -- elected member of the United States Senate or House of Representatives saying, I think I'm going to wait for the United Nations to make a decision. It seems like to me that if you're representing the United States, you ought to be making a decision on what's best for the United States. If I were running for office, I'm not sure how I'd explain to the American people -- say, vote for me, and, oh, by the way, on a matter of national security, I think I'm going to wait for somebody else to act.

And so I -- we'll see. My answer to the Congress is, they need to debate this issue and consult with us, and get the issue done as quickly as possible." [Emphasis added] [Full White House transcript here]

3. September 19, 2002, "President Bush to Send Iraq Resolution to Congress Today":

"Q Mr. President, are you going to send Congress your proposed resolution today? And are you asking for a blank check, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: I am sending suggested language for a resolution. I want -- I've asked for Congress' support to enable the administration to keep the peace. And we look forward to a good, constructive debate in Congress. I appreciate the fact that the leadership recognizes we've got to move before the elections. I appreciate the strong support we're getting from both Republicans and Democrats, and look forward to working with them." [Emphasis added] [Full White House transcript here]

4. September 24, 2002, "President Urges Congress to Pass Iraq Resolution Promptly":

"THE PRESIDENT: 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." [Emphasis addded] [Full White House transcript here]

Is That REALLY Your Final Answer?

At a November 5th news conference, White House comedienne, Press Secretary Dana Perino, fielded questions about Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf's imposition of emergency rule and the consequent suspension of constitutional protections it entails. At one point, the following exchange occurred:

Q "But what [Musharraf] says what he's doing is against the terrorists, that is necessary to preserve stability there against terrorist organizations?

MS. PERINO: We do not believe that any extra-constitutional means were necessary in order to help prevent terrorism in the region. And that's why we are deeply disappointed with the actions, and we asked them to not do it.

Q Is it ever reasonable to restrict constitutional freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism?

MS. PERINO: In our opinion, no." Full transcript

I know, I know. It's like that old story of the 800 pound gorilla sitting in the living room who everyone somehow manages to ignore. In this case, though, it's a 9,000 pound gorilla sitting ON the living room that gets ignored. Note that the follow-up to Perino's "In our opinion, no" is a question about Bush's delegation of authority to the Secretary of State for the upcoming Mideast summit. Reporters never returned to her "In our opinion, no" for the glaringly obvious follow-up, "Is that really your final answer?" At the very least, you'd expect something like mtvcmiller's YouTube take on it:

(Just in case it's not clear: the laugh track was added by mtvcmiller)

So, the spokesperson for the Bush White House -- the administration whose record of constitutional abuses would have to greatly improve to be judged merely horrifying -- doesn't even get a "WHOA!" from the sleepy journalistic class. What would it take to get a response from these people? "In our opinion, no" followed by monkeys in full SCUBA gear streaming out of Ms. Perino's rear? Would that be sufficient? For jaw dropping moments of disbelief that caused me to question my very existence, I'm old enough to have experienced Nixon's "Im not a crook," but, Ms. Perino, I tip my hat to you.

Irony is clearly dead, and apparently long forgotten, for reporters to have failed to notice the volume and weight of the lies folded into that simple, "In our opinion, no." Truth has been so thoroughly routed and retooled during the Bush administration that such a patently embarrassing statement by an unctuous press secretary slips by unchallenged. Where have those famous follow-up questions gone? Given the abuses visited upon our Constitution by this administration, has there ever been a better opening for a swift journalistic uppercut to a presidential chin? And yet, the press turns and walks quietly to its corner.

Where else might Ms. Perino have gotten away with this? Well, one can think of many venues in WingNut Nation where this might've come to pass, but few so welcoming as last week's Federalist Society 25th anniversary blowout gala in Washington, D.C. There was the ideal setting, among 1,800 or so of the 35,000 conservative-libertarian-strict-construction-states-rights lawyers of the Federalist Society, i.e., with few exceptions the jurisprudential intelligentsia of the conservative movement.

It was not Ms. Perino this time, but the President himself, in fine fettle, who addressed the assembled conservative lawyers. Along the way, Mr. Bush provided a civics lesson, one any eighth grader should know, or used to know:

"When the Founders drafted the Constitution, they had a clear understanding of tyranny. They also had a clear idea about how to prevent it from ever taking root in America. Their solution was to separate the government's powers into three co-equal branches: the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary. Each of these branches plays a vital role in our free society. Each serves as a check on the others. And to preserve our liberty, each must meet its responsibilities -- and resist the temptation to encroach on the powers the Constitution accords to others." (Applause.) The Full Speech

Note: Applause. Well, it was the Federalist Society, the forthright conservative defenders of our Constitution, and it was a conservative President they were appreciating. Yet, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan once observed, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." And somehow, in the admittedly dim light that flickered from the Presidential podium that evening, these "conservative" flag bearers and icons missed the big picture that's emerged in the past seven years: the Bush/Cheney attack on the concept of separation of powers; the abuse of the War Powers of the Presidency; the attempt to tear away the fabric of constitutional liberties; the treatment of Congressional oversight as tantamount to treason; the trampling of the concept of privacy inherent in the Bill of Rights; the legal and moral defense of torture; the pogram to politicize the Department of Justice, its Civil Rights Division and Voting Rights Section; and the other shameful acts that are suggested by these known misdeeds, and which, given the administration's secrecy fetish, may never see the light of day.

In full knowledge of the backdrop of this indictment of bedrock conservative principles, the Federalist Society gave a round of applause to Mr. Bush's words about "separation of powers" and "tyranny" and the importance of "resist[ing] the temptation to encroach." This is a conservative's response? If this is now the conservative viewpoint -- if conservatives are now comfortable with a concept of conservatism that permits the Bush administration's revolutionary and tyrannical Constitutional mischief -- then our Nation is truly in a dark night, and as F. Scott Fitzgerald noted, there, "it is always 3 a.m., day after day."

And it's the darkness now upon the land that perhaps explains why there was no follow-up to Ms. Perino's "In our opinion, no," and why Mr. Bush was rewarded with Federalist Society applause rather than rebuffed in stunned silence. This stumbling in the darkness by those who proudly view themselves as being among the primary protectors of our Constitution -- the press and the conservative movement -- will take a sustained burst of light to correct and to once again illuminate the way home.

How Long Can Kondracke Tread Water?

Republican verbal waterboarding just keeps on pouring down our throats with the usual assist from POX News . . . Their October 29th Special Report featured the following reasoned discussion between Mort Kondracke and Brit Hume, once again proving that they really will say ANYTHING:

See, waterboarding's not really too bad. After all, as fearless Brit Hume views it, you're "safe," although admittedly not as safe as in a POX newsroom, but, you do get to lay on your back, it's not like you're required to sit upright in a chair for an hour at a time like a POX pundit . . . and who doesn't have fond memories of seesaws? And there's even more good news!

KONDRACKE: ". . . I'm sure it feels like torture, you know, it doesn't result in any lasting damage, but it feels like torture. The question -- it's never -- it's not illegal.

HUME: It is used, by the way, isn't it, by our -- on our own servicemen.

KONDRACKE: Yeah, pilots, pilots, Special Forces trainees, those people who might be captured are routinely trained under this with this technique.

HUME: So we do it to our own people.

KONDRACKE: Yeah, we do it to our own people."

Although not as expert in Republican semantic sleight-of-hand as Morton Kondracke or Brit Hume, Dr. Allen S. Keller, M.D., director of the Bellevue Hospital Center/New York University Program for Survivors of Torture provides another view of waterboarding, a view apparently invisible to those outside the reality-based community:

[Warning: Facts occur in the following excerpts. Those unable to tolerate facts may suffer extreme, even torturous, discomfort.]

Dr. Keller reports (see his full Senate Intelligence Committee written testimony) :

"Water-boarding or mock drowning, where a prisoner is bound to an inclined board and water is poured over their face, inducing a terrifying fear of drowning clearly can result in immediate and long-term health consequences. As the prisoner gags and chokes, the terror of imminent death is pervasive, with all of the physiologic and psychological responses expected, including an intense stress response, manifested by tachycardia, rapid heart beat and gasping for breath. There is a real risk of death from actually drowning or suffering a heart attack or damage to the lungs from inhalation of water. Long term effects include panic attacks, depression and PTSD. I remind you of the patient I described earlier who would panic and gasp for breath whenever it rained even years after his abuse."

Similarly invisible to the members of the Fantasy Based class is the firsthand knowledge of waterboarding of Malcolm Nance, a former Master Instructor and Chief of Training at the US Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School (SERE). Mr. Nance personally performed and supervised training exercises that involved waterboading of SERE staff as part of their training .

And yes, as Brit Hume fearlessly reported, "we do it to our own people," but, as Mr. Nance writes, waterbhoarding, as employed in SERE training, "was designed to show how an evil totalitarian, enemy would use torture at the slightest whim." Note: Waterboarding. Torture. Evil. Totalitarian. Enemy.

Mr. Nance continues:

"Waterboarding is a controlled drowning that, in the American model, occurs under the watch of a doctor, a psychologist, an interrogator and a trained strap-in/strap-out team. It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning. How much the victim is to drown depends on the desired result (in the form of answers to questions shouted into the victim’s face) and the obstinacy of the subject. A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs which show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience, to horrific suffocating punishment to the final death spiral.

Waterboarding is slow motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of black out and expiration –usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch and if it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia. When done right it is controlled death. Its lack of physical scarring allows the victim to recover and be threaten[ed] with its use again and again." To see Mr. Nance's complete narrative at Small Wars Journal

So, do you feel better now? It's safe, it only "feels like" torture, and we "do it to our own people." Oh, and for the lawyers in the house, Mr. Kondracke's Kategorical, "it's never -- it's not illegal." Well, on that point they once again will say ANYTHING; the facts are that at many points in our history we have prosecuted individuals, including our enemies, our own servicemembers, and police officers, for waterboarding. Examples of prosecutions

This show isn't over yet, but given the promised "yea" votes in the Judiciary Committee of Democratic Senators Feinstein and Shumer, it now appears certain that Mukasey's confirmation will move to a confirmatory vote in the full Senate. We're bound to hear more about waterboarding, and more attempts at POX News and elsewhere in NutjobNation to drown reason, dissent, and the rule of law. Unfortunately, Feinstein and Schumer have chosen to join in . . .