Tuesday, July 12, 2005

ROVE MAY BE GOING OUT--BUT AT WHAT COST?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/12/politics/12rove.html?th&emc=th


For an administration that promised to sweep into Washington like a white Knight on white steed, bush incorporated has been anything but honest. I supposed that if Brandon were here he would say that this administration practices deceit as a virtue, but as a look at the circumstances surrounding Carl Rove I have to wonder why we ever expected anything different. This is a man who openly admits that his political hero is Niccolo Machiavelli. That should have been a warning right there. And while Rove is obviously a political genius--an evil political genius, but still a genius--it appears as if he has finally fallen prey to the characteristic which liberals have been using to describe this administration from day one.

Arrogance.

I suppose the thing that bothers me the most about this is that we have a genuinely determined prosecutor in the form of Patrick Fitzgerald, who, in his determination to uncover the truth, has decided to go after the free press in the process. Do I like Carl Rove? Do I think that he has been a beneficial force in America? Hardly. In fact, I would go so far as to call him a traitor. Not so much for his divisive politics, but because of the fact that he outed a CIA agent during a war on terrorism. As far as I'm concerned the man is dog food. He should be put on trial for treason, and if found guilty, be forced to pay whatever penalty is given to him. But at the same time I am not thrilled that the idea of anonymous news sources have become the victim in Fitzgerald's pursuit for justice. I know, I know, Fitzgerald is a right winger himself, but unlike Ken Starr, Fitzgerald actually seems to be rather straight laced on this matter. He's made up his mind that he wants to get to the bottom of this issue and he isn't about to let anything like a free press get in his way.

And that's what bothers me. I'd love nothing more than to see Carl Rove carted off in chains and shackles. But, by the same token, I don't want to endanger anonymous sources. Anonymous sources, while they should be used rarely and with caution, also provide a valuable service in that they do protect whistle blowers from governmental or corporate persecution. Also, 49 of the 50 states (the exception being Wyoming) have state laws which protect journalists and their anonymous sources. Unfortunately the Federal government does not, although there has been talk in the past few weeks about Congress passing protective legislation--which probably isn't going to happen considering the depth and degree to which this administration hates an independent press.

So, I guess you might say I'm torn on the issue. I'd love to see Carl Rove and his finger puppet of a president up for impeachment. Or better yet, on trial for crimes against humanity. But do I want to do so at the expense of the First Amendment? Do I really want to see more journalists (i.e. Judith Miller) thrown into jail for refusing to reveal an anonymous source? After all, only one private enterprise is mentioned in the constitution and that is the press, or rather, the right to a free press in our First Amendment.

I can't help but think that there has to be a way to root out the corruption of the Bush Administration while protecting the First Amendment at the same time.

2 comments:

BEAST said...

Bush has always lied. From the day he joined the National Guard to cheat his way out of Vietnam, to his lies about WMDs and his fraudulent crusades, he has lied, cheated and stole his way through office.

It seems the only miracle us non-Americans are witnessing is the fact that he isn't being impeached, considering that Clinton had a impeachment trial for having a consensual, sexual liason with a intern.

Honestly, the world will cheer if Bush will choke on a pretzel, or fall of his bike.

Kyle said...

Kyle Kilpatrick here. I'm manning Brandon's post here until he gets back from his vacation in Ireland/Spain. The post above was by yours truly. As I said in my opening post on LeftWingRising, I used to be a Republican. I was brouyght up in a VERY Republican Household. Very rightwing Presbyerian. Very conservative. Today I view my the Republican party as the modern day version of recycled vomit. You'll never get me to vote for another one of those dumb fucks again for the rest of my life. During my all too long stint as a Young Republican we used to sit around and brag about how a lie would work just as well as the truth. The local Baptist pastor who considered himself our "spiritual mentor" had the audacity to tell us that it's "all right to lie if you're doing it in the name of Jesus. Wasn't that comforting. A few years ago I said "chuck this" and re-examined my beliefs. They just didn't fit. Beaqst has it absolutely right. With one catch. The Republicans don't lie COMPLETELY. They mix their lies with enough truth to make their lies SOUND like the truth. And that makes them a lot more dangerous than we could ever imagine.