As others have noted elsewhere, it’s fairly clear that he violated his SF 312 “Classified Information Non-disclosure Agreement” at the least (PDF version of SF 312).
I agree that talking about treason, in any formal sense, probably isn’t helpful, because it would be a fairly easy charge to dismiss. I appreciate the idea that this would compel the defenders to talk about treason and about what Rove really did, but I think it would be fairly easy to do in a non-damaging way (for Rove and his supporters).
I also, as much as I hate Rove, cannot see it myself as treason, in the sense of one trying to harm our country. I think that the result was that he did harm the country, and I think that his intent was malicious (as in trying to smear someone else), but treason connotes something different for me.
I think the best way to talk about it is in terms of what it was - an illegal (felonious?) and vindictive release of classified information that damaged our ability to defend ourselves from those who would use WMD against us.
You have NO FUCKING IDEA who we will be debating for the benefit of, do you? We are debating for the TV idjits. They are NOT a bright bunch. If you try to frame the debate in terms of 'violated provisions of the 1996 Espionage Act which forbids this or that," their eyes will glaze over. If you are a Democrat seeking to alert people to what a scumbag he is and what kind of things he has done, YOU HAVE LOST THE DEBATE RIGHT THERE! When their eyes glaze over, and they glaze over VERY EASILY, you have LOST THEM!! Game over, baberino!
If you frame the debate in terms of, “Is Karl Rove a TRAITOR? Did he BETRAY his country? Has he committed TREASON?” their eyes will stay brightnshiny because these are simple things they can understand. If you like that often enough with “outed CIA agent Valerie Plame” they’ll link those two together. And if a court does find Rove innocent, it’ll have as much effect as a court finding OJ Simpson innocent. I.e., none.
The ONLY way we Dems can win the debate is by keeping things short and simple and filled with emotionally loaded words like TRAITOR, TREASON, BETRAYAL.
And then, when Rove isn’t found to be guilty of treason (but maybe of some lesser thing), the stupid sods (a.k.a. The American People who are nearly too dumb to even feed themselves…least thats the impression I get from your post Hentor) will yawn and go 'Welp, guess he really WASN’T a traitor. Damn Democrats had me going there for a while but guess they was wrong. Oh well…wonder whats on Desparate Housewives tonight…"
How did the ‘Bush Lied!’ thing work out in the last election btw? Just curious…
I think you are mistaking ignorance for stupidity. There is a difference. An ignorant person will pick up on your demeaning attitude and become hostile and defensive. Or just tune you out. Because you will affirm the stereotype of “frothing at the mouth leftist” they keep hearing so much about.
Then you have lost them. How is that helpful to anyone?
Maybe your anger and bitterness are affecting your better judgement? But you are only proving that even a bright person can have trouble thinking straight for one reason or another.
Absolutism and “simple” solutions are what got us into this mess.
To say nothing of the administration dressing up the facts to fit their own personal bias.
We can’t stop this sort of crap by engaging in it ourselves.
No, it’s perfectly fine to pour on the coals in general public discussion, and on the political soundbite stage. But, that will not work in court. In other words, heap all the abuse possible to get or keep the public outraged and scare the politicians, but do the real gravedigging, with real and proveable charges in terms of what will stick (the charges, indictment, etc) in the investigation itself and in court. In other words, get 'em to watch your left hand, and then land the haymaker with the right hand.
Actually, have you LOOKED at Bush’s approval ratings lately? The Dem spin machine is finally landing a few blows. It wasn’t enough to keep Bush from getting re-elected by the slimmest of margins, but it may have had more of a carryover effect.
Look, the Dem strategy of mumbling incoherently and apologetically HAS NOT WORKED. We need the same kind of vigor in our public voices that the Repubs have. Otherwise, nobody will hear the Dems. As for your point about the sods … hey, six months to a year of hearing “Rove … traitor … treason … Plame” and it won’t MATTER what the verdict is. The Pubbie faithful may crow, but the damage will have been done.
If you’ll recall, the Pubbies have used this technique VERY effectively against the Dems, even when they had nothing but lies to work with. The Dams will actually have something of substance. Should be fun!
I believe you were the one who started the exchange by shouting with extra large type. You’ve no cause to complain if loud comments generate sharp comments in return.
[/quote]
And how do you suppose these “idjits,” as you so respectfully refer to them, will take it when you lose the debate?
[/quote]
Won’t lose the debate. Six months to a year of calling Rove a traitor while the Pubbies stammer and say how Rove didn’t REALLY out Valerie Plame, and the verdict just doesn’t matter.
I’m not bitter. I know the people who STILL believe Saddam was involved in 911 turned the last election. I know they’re dumber than a box of rocks. I’m not mad at them for that, they can’t help it, much. I just think we Dems have to play on their stupidity and fears, just as the Pubbies do, if we want to win elections.
The TV idjits will never pick up on my attitude 'cause you know what? They don’t hang out on Internet message boards. They watch TV for entertainment. Nothing wrong with that, but unless some Fox News pundit decides to use my posts to demonstrate Dem arrogance – a highly unlikely scenario, to say the least – none of the TV idjits will ever know.
Well, its not exactly all spin…most likely Bush DID lie. The point though is that all the chest beating and shrieking about him lieing instead of focusing on the point (which was that lieing or not Iraq was a major fuck up and it was BUSH’S responsibility) availed you nothing as Bush ended up getting re-elected. It allowed the Republicans to basically focus on the lie part and shift the battle to one they could win (since you couldn’t PROVE that Bush had lied…at least not prove to anyone who wasn’t already pre-disposed to thinking everything Bush does is a lie). And the result was…Bush is still president. I think, similarly, that focusing on the feel good rant that Rove is a traitor will have a similar effect. YMMV though and perhaps it will work out better for you this time.
I hope it works out for you…but I’m not confident this is the best tact. But, you know, I’ve been wrong enough that perhaps I’m not the best one to offer advice anyway.
We’re in agreement, then. I don’t think anybody in this messageboard has any power to influence the Plame investigation, and it’ll be Fitzgerald who decides what he’ll be charging whom with. But so long as the investigation continues, even if Rove isn’t the primary target, the Dems can and should keep his disgustingly little pink feet in the fire.
I am hoping that the fact that the Fitzgerald investigation is still going will mean that there is something he can file charges on. If there had been nothing, I doubt he would be wasting his time with it these past 2 years.
The debate is lost in the first exchange. It’s already being lost in multiple places on the internets. Here for example.
Despite you assertions about your hypothetical, target audience’s stupidity, they really aren’t. Uninformed, underinformed, misinformed and malinformed, yes. But stupid, no.
Further it plays to a very unflattering caricature of Dems that has already been established, crafted, honed, polished and ready for further use. It’ll be just more grist for Team Bush’s noise machine mill.
Well, we have a fairly fundamental difference of opinion here. What you’re talking about isn’t even close to what I’m seeing. We may have to agree to disagree.
And that’s the problem - the Pubbie partisans have succeeded in convincing many of us that the way they have done business is simply the way business is done in Washington, and that this is just another example, get over it. Damn shame, too.
Ken Starr spent a lot of time and effort, and all he could get was that Clinton lied about a blowjob. If anything, by evading and lying, Willy put his own neck in the noose. Dumb move, looking back. If he had just said “Yeah I did” from the start, there would have been no perjury accusations.
