Protecting The King

Protecting The King. In the case of Washington, D. C., that’s how things work - protect The President, at all costs. AT ALL COSTS! Nothing is more inportant than that, America, not even the lives of your children who lost their lives in Iraq. You had better wake up to the fact that they did not lose their lives to “protect freedom”, or “restore democracy” (which was not there to restore in the first place), or “fight terrorism”. This war was about personal political interests and financial gain. There is a military term for what they call people who die in such a war, as your sons and daughters did. It’s called “collateral damage”.

History repeats itself. Now is the time for the administration to enter the cover it’s ass stage, just as the Nixon Administration did in the Watergate scandel.

Nixon Administration - 1972
“I am saying that if anyone was involved in that type of activity which I referred to, they would not be working here.” - Ron Ziegler, press secretary to Richard Nixon, defending the presidential aide Dwight Chapin on Oct. 18, 1972. Chapin was convicted in April 1974 of perjury in connection with his relationship to the political saboteur Donald Segretti.

Bush Administration - 2005
“Any individual who works here at the White House has the confidence of the president. They wouldn’t be working here at the White House if they didn’t have the president’s confidence.” - Scott McClellan, press secretary to George W. Bush, defending Karl Rove on Tuesday.

Kent forwarded me this op-ed article on the controversy surrounding Karl Rove. It’s well thought out and I think right on target. (highlighting my own)

Even so, we shouldn’t get hung up on him [Mr. Rove] - or on most of the other supposed leading figures in this scandal thus far. Not Matt Cooper or Judy Miller or the Wilsons or the bad guy everyone loves to hate, the former CNN star Robert Novak. This scandal is not about them in the end, any more than Watergate was about Dwight Chapin and Donald Segretti or Woodward and Bernstein. It is about the president of the United States. It is about a plot that was hatched at the top of the administration and in which everyone else, Mr. Rove included, are at most secondary players. [...]

This case is about Iraq, not Niger. The real victims are the American people, not the Wilsons. The real culprit - the big enchilada, to borrow a 1973 John Ehrlichman phrase from the Nixon tapes - is not Mr. Rove but the gang that sent American sons and daughters to war on trumped-up grounds and in so doing diverted finite resources, human and otherwise, from fighting the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. That’s why the stakes are so high: this scandal is about the unmasking of an ill-conceived war, not the unmasking of a C.I.A. operative who posed for Vanity Fair. [...]

Once we were locked into the war, and no W.M.D.’s could be found, [...] The administration began its dog-ate-my-homework cover-up, asserting that the various warning signs about the uranium claims were lost “in the bowels” of the bureaucracy or that it was all the C.I.A.’s fault or that it didn’t matter anyway, because there were new, retroactive rationales to justify the war. But the administration knows how guilty it is. That’s why it has so quickly trashed any insider who contradicts its story line about how we got to Iraq, starting with the former Treasury secretary Paul O’Neill and the former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke.

Next to White House courtiers of their rank, Mr. Wilson is at most a Rosencrantz or Guildenstern. The brief against the administration’s drumbeat for war would be just as damning if he’d never gone to Africa. But by overreacting in panic to his single Op-Ed piece of two years ago, the White House has opened a Pandora’s box it can’t slam shut. Seasoned audiences of presidential scandal know that there’s only one certainty ahead: the timing of a Karl Rove resignation. As always in this genre, the knight takes the fall at exactly that moment when it’s essential to protect the king. (source)