« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
Why should it just have been U.S. Attorneys? Or the General Services Administration?
Yes, Karl Rove -- who, the White House has insisted for years, isn't involved in foreign policy -- instructed his White House deputies to repeatedly brief State Department officials and U.S. ambassadors in key foreign missions about GOP electoral priorities. The push to enlist U.S. embassies into the service of Rove's dream of a permanent Republican majority, according to today's Washington Post, has been a feature of the last six years. They involved the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and the Peace Corps. Needless to say, all are expected to be non-political agencies.
Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is going to explore the depths of the White House's political outreach to foreign-policy officials during today's confirmation hearing for Henrietta Holsman Fore, nominated to lead the U.S. Agency for International Development. USAID employees apparently received two briefings for the White House in the last ten months.
Sure enough, this one is another Rove-Sara Taylor special:
In one instance, State Department aides attended a White House meeting at which political officials examined the 55 most critical House races for 2002 and the media markets most critical to battleground states for President Bush's reelection fight in 2004, according to documents the department provided to the Senate committee.On Jan. 4, just after the 2006 elections tossed the Republicans out of congressional power, Rove met at the White House with six U.S. ambassadors to key European missions and the consul general to Bermuda while the diplomats were in Washington for a State Department conference.
According to a department letter to the Senate panel, Rove explained the White House views on the electoral disaster while Sara M. Taylor, then the director of White House political affairs, showed a PowerPoint presentation that pinned most of the electoral blame on "corrupt" GOP lawmakers and "complacent incumbents." One chart in Taylor's presentation highlighted the GOP's top 36 targets among House Democrats for the 2008 election.
The news that Taylor wanted State officials and diplomats to know which races the Republicans are focusing on for 2008 immediately raises the question of how U.S. foreign policy, and specific binational relationships, is unfolding right now to serve a partisan agenda rather than the national interest. Rarely does it matter for, say, U.S.-Portugal relations whether the gentlelady from Oak Bluffs belongs to one party or another. The administration insists that there's no quid pro quo at work here: that the briefings were merely "informational," as opposed to something the State officials and diplomats were expected to act on. If that line sounds familiar, it should: it's what the administration has been saying ever since the briefings -- and the scope of the scheme to "inform" virtually every agency and department in the government -- came to light.
It looks as if the White House's political clash with the Democrats focused heavily on the European theater:
The ambassadors included in the Rove briefing were Eduardo Aguirre Jr. of Spain, James P. Cain of Denmark, Alfred Hoffman Jr. of Portugal, Ronald Spogli of Italy, Craig Stapleton of France and Robert Tuttle of Britain. Gregory Slayton, the consul general to Bermuda, also attended.In total, the seven diplomats donated more than $1.6 million to Republican causes from 2000 through 2006, according to a Center for Responsive Politics report on large Bush donors who were named ambassadors. The State Department, in a letter to Biden, said that Cain -- one of Bush's top fundraisers in North Carolina -- requested the meeting with Rove and did not notify department officials in advance.
Naturally, the White House insists it did nothing wrong. Spokesman Scott Stanzel asked: "Why shouldn't the president's appointees have our understanding of the political landscape?" Similarly, Sean McCormack, the former National Security Council mouthpiece now serving as spokesman for the State Department, called the meetings "entirely appropriate." At this point, both the scandals and the talking points are simply shifting from one agency to another. Could the White House save everyone some time and prematurely insist it won't comply with any Foreign Relations Committee subpoenas?
Update: Here, just as a refresher, is Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) grilling Sara Taylor about the briefings earlier this month.
Comments (42)
jri wrote on July 24, 2007 9:30 AM:My this is my political bias showing, but it seems as though these briefings would be morale-boosters if enough R's were identified as being in danger of losing.
=
Marge wrote on July 24, 2007 9:33 AM:WHEN....just when is any of these investigations going to focus on rove. Whenever there is a slushy, dirty mess, illegal operation, murky actions, who do we find at the bottom of the sewer minded rove. Get with it Conyers, Leahy and Waxman, go after rove. AND damn give us a RESULT of one, any, of the investigations. We are tired of waiting.
Gregory X wrote on July 24, 2007 9:44 AM:I suppose the aid of a US Ambassador might be helpful if Rove wanted to set up any visiting Democratic polician for an embarrassing incident in a foreign country. Leaking disinformation to the local press would be a standard Rovian operation. Democratic Presidential candidates visiting Europe should beware.
Anna S. wrote on July 24, 2007 9:47 AM:Italy, France, Spain, Denmark, Portugal, Britain, and (oddly) Bermuda. I'm not sure how the Repub election plan is relevant for foreign relations, but I'll bet those huge donors dump cash into Rove's pet districts in th '08 elections now. Naturally, rewards for cronyism shouldn't be allowed to disrupt the Repub donation process by taking the big pockets away from US political awareness.
My only question is: why on State Department time? Rove could have briefed these guys privately and no eyebrows would have been raised. So why take chances? Even if you think you're above the law, why give the opposition potential ammo? For someone as politically canny as he is, Rove sometimes does things that puzzle me.
Anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 9:55 AM:It's a violation of the Hatch Act. But, who cares? There are no violations of the law anymore, according to King Bush, if he deems it to be "not a violation of the law under King Bush."
This country is doomed if we do not impeach this man and his Sidekick Dick.
David Franze wrote on July 24, 2007 9:55 AM:An attorney (which I am not) would know precisely. but I believe that political meetings involving electoral planning in which government employees are attending must be held in the Mansion, not the West Wing, must be held outside the normal business hours of the office those employees work and must not be planned or coordinated using government facilities or personnel. So Rove would be, simply on the basis of these meetings taking place, subject to investigation.
dusty59 wrote on July 24, 2007 10:00 AM:Under the Bush junta EVERYTHING has been politicized from the start. Very early on I attended a HIPAA conference by NIH staff in which it was apparently necessary to provide an opening address as to the gloriousness of the provisions of the HIPAA requirements as related to the Bush whitehouse. Most all the attendees at this large official conference could hardly believe it- and were obviously offended at the partisan tone.
TheraP wrote on July 24, 2007 10:02 AM:Anna S.
Secrecy has operated so well until now. Makes me wonder whether rove has counted too much on people being quiet, and whether this is a sign that his star is waning.
rove could be over-reaching, due to hubris. But maybe whistle-blowers are coming to the fore.
By the way your thinking adds a lot to this place.
Official A wrote on July 24, 2007 10:09 AM:"This country is doomed if we do not impeach this man and his Sidekick Dick."
Right.
So the question is, if our so-called representatives in Congress will do nothing, as they have indicated and demonstrated, then how do we accomplish this? One American hero is actually doing something. Visit
http://www.impeachbush.org
and be in Washington on September 15.
myiq2xu wrote on July 24, 2007 10:10 AM:Maybe they think of government like a business (since lil' George is "the CEO President) so they are attempting to create what every successful capitalist craves - a monopoly!
wf wrote on July 24, 2007 10:12 AM:My suspicion is that they were also calculating how to better turn the vote of foreign U.S. residents towards the R label - whether through direct interactions with U.S. travelers/residents or voter ID work. And I agree with Gregory X that they were scheming how to embarrass any D politicians who happened to appear in their foreign fiefdoms.
Official A wrote on July 24, 2007 10:16 AM:TheraP: "rove could be over-reaching" Posted by:
Karl has been overreaching with impunity for at least seven years. Our elected representatives have demonstrated no will to stop him. Meanwhile, the bar of acceptable behavior has been placed so low a snake could clear it. I have lost faith with the establishment and believe we need a Thomas Paine at this moment in our history. Who will it be?
Official A wrote on July 24, 2007 10:17 AM:TheraP: "rove could be over-reaching" Posted by:
Karl has been overreaching with impunity for at least seven years. Our elected representatives have demonstrated no will to stop him. Meanwhile, the bar of acceptable behavior has been placed so low a snake could clear it. I have lost faith with the establishment and believe we need a Thomas Paine at this moment in our history. Who will it be?
myiq2xu wrote on July 24, 2007 10:18 AM:Oh - I know what must have happened! Ol' Turdblossom musta heard some card-carrying liberal like Clinton (either one) talking about "making government work for you" and he thought it was a splendid idea.
jeffgee wrote on July 24, 2007 10:37 AM:The GOP was thumped in 2006 because of "corrupt" lawmakers, not because of Bush's many blunders. Not Rove's overreaching.
TheraP wrote on July 24, 2007 10:39 AM:R-r-right.
Rove's Reich nightmare is but a dream now.
Official A:
Yes, I know. But doesn't it seem like the wall of secrecy is cracking a bit here? Not enough to be sure. But more of how rove operates is coming to light. Or maybe the inner circle is just too small - and the dung so deep - that they can't scheme as effectively anymore?
After last week I have concluded that the citizens may need to rise up and to exert their authority as the 4th Branch. I think there are many, many people - who would never run for public office because they are unwilling to compromise their standards, but who perhaps can lend a hand here.
So I'm beginning to wonder if it's up to us now. I'm just an ordinary citizen. But at least I haven't sold my soul. And I hope I never will.
It's either that or our mysterious "interested litigant" is holding cards that will be played on our behalf.
The tension is building - to a breaking point here - is how it feels.
FRP wrote on July 24, 2007 10:39 AM:They're all focussed on Rove . Just like hunting you don't start with the finish you corner or trap the criminal indite and penalize .
FRP wrote on July 24, 2007 10:41 AM:They're all focussed on Rove . Just like hunting you don't start with the finish you corner or trap the criminal indite convict , and penalize .
kenga wrote on July 24, 2007 10:43 AM:"My only question is: why on State Department time?"
Very simple - if it had not been on State Dept time, the meeting would have simply been informational, given to personnel during personal time. No mandatory attendance = low attendance ...
And, thus, un-actionable vis-a-vis removing personnel who don't follow "the administration's policy priorities." or at least dinging them in subsequent reviews.
And that's why they wanted to do it in the first place - if you don't tell people what you expect them to do, they have cause to sue for wrongful termination, defamation, etc.
Official A wrote on July 24, 2007 10:46 AM:TheraP, the only person (apart from Senator Feingold, who will be drowned out by the moans and groans of his Senate colleagues) doing any leading is Cindy Sheehan. Send her $50 or $100 and go to Washington on September 15. Spread the word.
http://www.impeachbush.org
Send Russ a little too.
http://progressivepatriotsfund.org
It's up to us now.
tjallen wrote on July 24, 2007 10:46 AM:Diplomatic positions in Western Europe have been a plum for major campaign donors for some time (both parties). Rove is hitting on them for more money, not some nefarious old Europe political plan.
Official A wrote on July 24, 2007 10:51 AM:tjallen, I no longer care to analyze and evaluate Karl's strategy. I am interested in removing his hands from the levers of power, and there is but one way to do it legally.
FRP wrote on July 24, 2007 10:58 AM:The unendurable exercise in being part of the American experience is the unending violence . A comment regarding what we will do about the corruption of the constitution tends towards guns pitchforks guns rabble guns and more guns which hasn't got much spam in it ...
kerryinalaska wrote on July 24, 2007 11:00 AM:You gotta wonder if Karl ever took civics classes. It's pretty obvious that the honest, justice for all platitudes taught in the third grade, and surely understood by mr. rove at that time, have become "quaint". mr rove has made bad choices for America, supports illegality aimed at it's underprivledged peoples, and really should be in prison for sedition. Anyone even advocating one party rule doesn't have a clue about justice. This man has worked relentlessly to achieve it. Still he walks amongst us creating who knows what further messes. We have become a lazy and quiescent nation that apparently doesn't care if a single party breaks every convention of normal human decency. Maybe we deserve KKKarl.
pocket wrote on July 24, 2007 11:00 AM:The briefings would also serve as a useful way to instruct the foreign embassies where to tell the foreign governments/lobbyist's were to funnel the bribe money (specific R' campaign's/issues). This could be the preferred may to ensure consistency with an overall bribery scheme. Think of the Abramoff model. Now imagine this model, on a worldwide scale.
Official A wrote on July 24, 2007 11:03 AM:TPM:
Just look for the money trails coming out of these countries, flowing into those districts.
"guns pitchforks guns rabble guns and more guns"
The 1776ers were of course considered rabble by the loyalists and even by the aristocratic rebels. It wasn't so much the violence that accomplished a revolution as the people's unwillingness to bend to authority.
And then, of course, we have the examples of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.
This can be done.
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 11:06 AM:RUN, CINDY, RUN!!!
FRP wrote on July 24, 2007 11:10 AM:But they happened to be the most well off , best educated folks in the land not rabble . The loyalists were likely held in equal esteem that may actually been a closer fit , at least in the quality of of their intellectual rigor being closer to rabble .
FRP wrote on July 24, 2007 11:14 AM:Like some today .
illlich wrote on July 24, 2007 11:34 AM:Like I've said before, the "permanent Republican majority" seemed like a pipe dream, until I saw the details of how he was going about trying to achieve it. The difference between this and Watergate is that there's nobody in the administration with any conscience to come forward and admit what was going on, nor is there a tape recording (that we know of) to prove just what they were doing.
Anna S. wrote on July 24, 2007 11:53 AM:kenga:
That's an interesting take, and very likely true for other departments that have gotten indoctrination briefs. But the State Department case is something special: these are the big donors for the Bush campaign. They care deeply about Repub issues, and they've proven it in the past. I would hazard a guess that they would have been delighted to get a private invitation to chat strategy with Rove. He's preaching to the choir there. That's why I was puzzled about the Department time: these are the people he shouldn't have to compel.
Defender wrote on July 24, 2007 12:43 PM:Rove should be tried and executed for treason and other high crimes.
RW wrote on July 24, 2007 12:49 PM:All I got to say is this. Find one action, initiative or one department, one policy areas that this administration has undertook be it Defense, Commerce, Health, Science, Environment, Education, Justice, Energy, GSA, State, FEMA, HS, one area that was not corrupted by the architect's design to co-opt everything for the sake that politics trumped policy in the name of permanant majority.
Isn't this what O'Neill said originally that everything had to do with rewarding and enhancing their political friends and harming their enemies?
Is there any doubt? (doubt is the code word)
Thm Jefferson wrote on July 24, 2007 12:58 PM:Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
JNagarya wrote on July 24, 2007 1:19 PM:WHEN....just when is any of these investigations going to focus on rove. Whenever there is a slushy, dirty mess, illegal operation, murky actions, who do we find at the bottom of the sewer minded rove. Get with it Conyers, Leahy and Waxman, go after rove. AND damn give us a RESULT of one, any, of the investigations. We are tired of waiting.
Posted by: Marge
Date: July 24, 2007 9:33 AM
Aboveboard, legitimate investigation focuses on the evidence, and where it leads. It is a Republican practice to foucs on the preferred outcome, then fix the facts around the means to achieve that outcome.
Do you want honesty in gov't? You hate the way Republicans behave. And you bash the Democrats because they don't behave like Republicans. Make up your mind.
HY wrote on July 24, 2007 1:26 PM:The PC meeting is about empowerment, not oversight.
The USAID story got missed, but there was alot of money going from the intelligence committee to friends. I guess the appointee looked the other way because it really was republicans paying off dems.
Anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 1:34 PM:Note: These weren't Foreign Service Officers, but political appointees. Really misleading headline.
PaminBB wrote on July 24, 2007 1:41 PM:I and others have said this before, but I can't help repeating - Why are the taxpayers paying these people and not the RNC? What "governing" are they doing? Let's get them off the public dole.
JEP wrote on July 24, 2007 2:12 PM:Q"Why shouldn't the president's appointees have our understanding of the political landscape?"
A.Because it is illegal to politicize the State Drepartment?
Anyone who thinks these pay-for-play State Department, Texas millionaire's-club appointees weren't part and parcel of this conspiracy is a doofus.
The biggest political sh#t in history is about to hit the biggest public-scrutiny fan in history.
And it is going to stick to every one of our elected lawmakers with an R behind their name.
I would bet the foreign governments these cowboys are dealing with can't wait for civilization and civility to return to the US Diplomatic Corps.
Maybe people like Joe Wilson could help us fix these problems after the Bushbullies have been dealt with.
edog9 wrote on July 24, 2007 3:20 PM:Interesting. Eduardo Aguirre Jr was at DHS for a while. Wonder why he left?
low-tech cyclist wrote on July 24, 2007 4:34 PM:Is there a reason why Congress shouldn't impeach Rove? I can't think of one.
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 5:32 PM:You mean, other than the fact that impeachment is for "Judges" or "Civil Officers" and Rove is neither? There even exists a current dispute over the use of impeachment against members of the legislative branch since they are not technically "Civil (Executive) Officers". Next canard?