The next move: Congress should get involved
In our opinion
The Anniston Star
07-16-2007
The state Republicans interested in moving past Don Siegelman and his conviction have shown their strategy. It appears they wish to distract us with word games.
The best hint may have come in the July 8 edition of The Birmingham News. In a front-page article, the paper quotes sources that seek to minimize an allegation that Karl Rove may have been involved in the prosecution of the former Democratic governor.
According to The News, an affidavit that raised this topic “doesn’t actually say Rove was behind the investigation, the lawyer who wrote it said. But that hasn’t stopped others from using the affidavit to demand a congressional hearing.”
And what’s wrong with that? What’s wrong with “others” seeking answers? What other method might be used to get to the bottom of this explosive allegation?
It looks like after an initial round of the key players issuing denials, another tactic is in play. The new one glosses over whether or not Rove’s was mentioned. Instead, we get a sidestep: The affidavit merely says Rove’s name was dropped, it doesn’t establish Rove’s involvement. Call it a case of guilt by name-dropping.
A little history comes in handy.
The past eight months have been filled with stories of how U.S. attorneys’ first loyalties were to be with the Bush administration — “loyal Bushies,” as one administration memo put it. Going off the track resulted in a pink slip, as fired prosecutors David Iglesias and Carol Lam discovered.
If many of the players named in the affidavit were amateurs, rank-and-file partisans or those without a track record of nasty politics stretching back decades, then hearings would be a waste of time.
But this isn’t the case.
Rove’s introduction into Alabama politics came in the 1990s. He had been exiled out of the George H.W. Bush campaign for — gasp! — playing dirty. The Business Council of Alabama hired Rove to turn over a state Supreme Court made up of Democrats it believed to be hostile to business. Rove succeeded, as he did in Texas at about the same time. Republicans gained control of both state supreme courts.
With Rove’s help, a new brand of campaigning for judicial races came to Alabama. As Joshua Green presents in a 2004 Atlantic Monthly article (“Karl Rove in a Corner,”), whisper campaigns were launched that pushed Rove’s favorite electoral hot-buttons, including homophobia.
Long after Rove reached higher levels of fame, Alabamians are left with the affects of judicial campaigns less about justice and more about partisan rabble-rousing.
Rove’s career is weighed down with this sort of legacy. He’s a campaign operative willing to do what it takes to get his candidate in office. He was involved in the leaking of a CIA agent whose status was covert, a criminal act in some cases. The reason for naming the agent? She was married to a Bush administration critic. How he keeps his security clearance is a mystery.
Also, Rove keeps popping up in investigations of the partisan firings of U.S. prosecutors.
So now we come to Jill Simpson’s story. In it, she alleges Bill Canary, a friend of Rove, mentioned “Karl” was going persuade the Justice Department to take down Siegelman.
We must remember that this is merely an allegation. It is yet to be proven. Several possibilities present themselves.
Simpson might not be telling the truth, though she’s risking quite a bit, both professionally and personally, if it’s merely a ruse.
Simpson could be accurate that Canary alluded to Rove during the conference call. Though, it’s possible that Canary might have mentioned Rove even though they’d never broached the subject of prosecuting Siegelman.
It is possible that those connecting the dots are correct. Rove was interested in taking down a Democrat who had shown he knew how to win statewide elections in Alabama.
Rove’s only comment on the matter was to a reporter from the Huntsville Times. When asked about the allegation, Rove said, “I know nothing about any phone call.” That is a wholly irrelevant comment. No one has alleged he was involved in the conference call. It’s known as a non-denial denial, and it’s not helpful.
What would be helpful is for Congress to look into the matter and have Rove, Canary and the others tell their side of the story under oath and before a congressional committee.
Please help in contacting the entire US House & Senate in calling for/demanding an investigation into Governor Don Siegelman’s case and the connection with Karl Rove/Bill Canary/Bob Riley and the Department of Justice/US Attorney scandal. http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/olmbr.html
In our opinion
The Anniston Star
07-16-2007
The state Republicans interested in moving past Don Siegelman and his conviction have shown their strategy. It appears they wish to distract us with word games.
The best hint may have come in the July 8 edition of The Birmingham News. In a front-page article, the paper quotes sources that seek to minimize an allegation that Karl Rove may have been involved in the prosecution of the former Democratic governor.
According to The News, an affidavit that raised this topic “doesn’t actually say Rove was behind the investigation, the lawyer who wrote it said. But that hasn’t stopped others from using the affidavit to demand a congressional hearing.”
And what’s wrong with that? What’s wrong with “others” seeking answers? What other method might be used to get to the bottom of this explosive allegation?
It looks like after an initial round of the key players issuing denials, another tactic is in play. The new one glosses over whether or not Rove’s was mentioned. Instead, we get a sidestep: The affidavit merely says Rove’s name was dropped, it doesn’t establish Rove’s involvement. Call it a case of guilt by name-dropping.
A little history comes in handy.
The past eight months have been filled with stories of how U.S. attorneys’ first loyalties were to be with the Bush administration — “loyal Bushies,” as one administration memo put it. Going off the track resulted in a pink slip, as fired prosecutors David Iglesias and Carol Lam discovered.
If many of the players named in the affidavit were amateurs, rank-and-file partisans or those without a track record of nasty politics stretching back decades, then hearings would be a waste of time.
But this isn’t the case.
Rove’s introduction into Alabama politics came in the 1990s. He had been exiled out of the George H.W. Bush campaign for — gasp! — playing dirty. The Business Council of Alabama hired Rove to turn over a state Supreme Court made up of Democrats it believed to be hostile to business. Rove succeeded, as he did in Texas at about the same time. Republicans gained control of both state supreme courts.
With Rove’s help, a new brand of campaigning for judicial races came to Alabama. As Joshua Green presents in a 2004 Atlantic Monthly article (“Karl Rove in a Corner,”), whisper campaigns were launched that pushed Rove’s favorite electoral hot-buttons, including homophobia.
Long after Rove reached higher levels of fame, Alabamians are left with the affects of judicial campaigns less about justice and more about partisan rabble-rousing.
Rove’s career is weighed down with this sort of legacy. He’s a campaign operative willing to do what it takes to get his candidate in office. He was involved in the leaking of a CIA agent whose status was covert, a criminal act in some cases. The reason for naming the agent? She was married to a Bush administration critic. How he keeps his security clearance is a mystery.
Also, Rove keeps popping up in investigations of the partisan firings of U.S. prosecutors.
So now we come to Jill Simpson’s story. In it, she alleges Bill Canary, a friend of Rove, mentioned “Karl” was going persuade the Justice Department to take down Siegelman.
We must remember that this is merely an allegation. It is yet to be proven. Several possibilities present themselves.
Simpson might not be telling the truth, though she’s risking quite a bit, both professionally and personally, if it’s merely a ruse.
Simpson could be accurate that Canary alluded to Rove during the conference call. Though, it’s possible that Canary might have mentioned Rove even though they’d never broached the subject of prosecuting Siegelman.
It is possible that those connecting the dots are correct. Rove was interested in taking down a Democrat who had shown he knew how to win statewide elections in Alabama.
Rove’s only comment on the matter was to a reporter from the Huntsville Times. When asked about the allegation, Rove said, “I know nothing about any phone call.” That is a wholly irrelevant comment. No one has alleged he was involved in the conference call. It’s known as a non-denial denial, and it’s not helpful.
What would be helpful is for Congress to look into the matter and have Rove, Canary and the others tell their side of the story under oath and before a congressional committee.
Please help in contacting the entire US House & Senate in calling for/demanding an investigation into Governor Don Siegelman’s case and the connection with Karl Rove/Bill Canary/Bob Riley and the Department of Justice/US Attorney scandal. http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/olmbr.html
posted by Pam Miles at 7:21 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home