Comments of a Nixon Asskisser
This is good ole Ben Stein trying to defend Karl Rove:
In connection with his recent attack on Bob woodward, Stein said Nixon didn't do anything warranting impeachment. It was just politics. So now he defends Rove.
STEIN: Dear President Bush, may I presume upon our friendship and my longtime support to offer you some thoughts about Karl Rove?
First of all, I just had a very thorough exam of my prostate by a Democrat doctor, so I have a good idea of what you both are going through, and it's not fun. But I worked for a president named Richard Nixon who was an extraordinary genius but who handled this kind of thing totally wrong, so maybe we can learn from him.
Let's begin with the obvious:
Karl Rove did nothing wrong in the Valerie Plame case. He did not "knowingly" out her as a CIA secret overseas undercover agent because, among other things, she was not a secret overseas agent. She worked at a desk at Langley, Virginia, at the CIA headquarters. That ain't secret overseas work. So he didn't commit any kind of crime at all.
Next, he's incredibly important to you and to the whole conservative agenda. You called him the "architect" of your victory over Sen. [John] Kerry [D-MA], and you were right to call him that.
It's most questionable whether you'd be sitting in the Oval Office without him. The liberals know that. That's why they're after him. They know he's vital to you and to the whole movement you represent. If you fail to give him your entire support, if you throw him overboard to the [Sen.] Chuck Schumers [D-NY] and the [Senate Minority Leader] Harry Reids [D-NV], you accomplish nothing. They, who loathe you and everything you stand for, will just chase you even harder with more of a scent of blood in their nostrils.
I saw this happen with Mr. Nixon when I worked for him decades ago. Whenever Mr. Nixon tossed an aide off the sled for the wolves to eat, the wolves just got hungrier. Nixon's enemies' target was Nixon, not his aides. Once they devoured his helpers, the enemies just got stronger and Nixon got weaker. There's a lesson there for you: Chuck Schumer's after you, Mr. President, not Karl Rove.
If you do not give Karl Rove your full support, which he has earned in spades, you signal weakness, not strength, to your enemies. With him gone, they'll find a way to attack you, and he won't be there to protect you or your agenda. Learn from the mistakes of my old boss, Mr. Nixon. Don't try to please the ones who are going to hate you no matter what. Use your strength to protect Rove and both of you will come out of this with smiles on your faces. Throw him to the wolves and you embarrass yourself before history, and you'll live to regret it.
In connection with his recent attack on Bob woodward, Stein said Nixon didn't do anything warranting impeachment. It was just politics. So now he defends Rove.
STEIN: Dear President Bush, may I presume upon our friendship and my longtime support to offer you some thoughts about Karl Rove?
First of all, I just had a very thorough exam of my prostate by a Democrat doctor, so I have a good idea of what you both are going through, and it's not fun. But I worked for a president named Richard Nixon who was an extraordinary genius but who handled this kind of thing totally wrong, so maybe we can learn from him.
Let's begin with the obvious:
Karl Rove did nothing wrong in the Valerie Plame case. He did not "knowingly" out her as a CIA secret overseas undercover agent because, among other things, she was not a secret overseas agent. She worked at a desk at Langley, Virginia, at the CIA headquarters. That ain't secret overseas work. So he didn't commit any kind of crime at all.
Next, he's incredibly important to you and to the whole conservative agenda. You called him the "architect" of your victory over Sen. [John] Kerry [D-MA], and you were right to call him that.
It's most questionable whether you'd be sitting in the Oval Office without him. The liberals know that. That's why they're after him. They know he's vital to you and to the whole movement you represent. If you fail to give him your entire support, if you throw him overboard to the [Sen.] Chuck Schumers [D-NY] and the [Senate Minority Leader] Harry Reids [D-NV], you accomplish nothing. They, who loathe you and everything you stand for, will just chase you even harder with more of a scent of blood in their nostrils.
I saw this happen with Mr. Nixon when I worked for him decades ago. Whenever Mr. Nixon tossed an aide off the sled for the wolves to eat, the wolves just got hungrier. Nixon's enemies' target was Nixon, not his aides. Once they devoured his helpers, the enemies just got stronger and Nixon got weaker. There's a lesson there for you: Chuck Schumer's after you, Mr. President, not Karl Rove.
If you do not give Karl Rove your full support, which he has earned in spades, you signal weakness, not strength, to your enemies. With him gone, they'll find a way to attack you, and he won't be there to protect you or your agenda. Learn from the mistakes of my old boss, Mr. Nixon. Don't try to please the ones who are going to hate you no matter what. Use your strength to protect Rove and both of you will come out of this with smiles on your faces. Throw him to the wolves and you embarrass yourself before history, and you'll live to regret it.
Comments
Was North Vietnam more dangerous than Nixon? This is the typical Republican apollogist approach to addressing a preceived threat to White House. Change the subject. Is the point you are making is that since we are at war with terrorism (Oh? that changed, its now a struggle against extemism) it is OK for the administration to possibly commit crimes so long as their are no more terrorist attacks in the US? More specifically, if the administration deliberately tried to discredit Joseph Wilson's report because it didn't support the "sixteen words" in the state of the union message and the mushroom cloud hysteria leading up to the war, are you saying that's OK and can not be investigated by Congress or the press? To demand candor and honesty out of the White House even at a time of "struggle" does not seem like too much to ask. After all, you could probably find hundreds of quotes about the honesty of the Clinton administration in the run up to the impeachment and the 2000 election. Is this "struggle" so important that law and ethics must be put totally on the back burner?
My original comments regarding Ben Stein were intended to point out that a man who vigoursly defends to this day the behaviour of the Nixon White House, now defends the actions of Karl Rove. Does he have knowledge that the press doesn't? Does a man who defends bag men, payoffs, , misuse of campaign funds, breakins and the like, have any creditablity in defending Karl Rove.
Rove maybe blameless, time will tell. But you can bank on the fact the same tactics used to derail the Watergate investigation will be used to circle the wagons around this administration.