It's Time to Row with Karl Rove...

[Maeve_Mari]

I was reading the latest news about the Time Magazine source release and the role of Karl Rove and the information he may have provided secretly to reporters that led to the outing of the CIA agent. To me it's another politically motivated, dirty tricks play from this keen strategist that the Repubs are so good at turning around to lay blame at the feet of the liberal press. And it's so skillfully underhanded and successful for these perpetrators that it ought to be taught in Business Ethics classes so the rest of the team can play against these skilled menacers!

A couple blubs from posts I found:
Whatever Rove Did, Truth Will Take a Backseat

Karl Rove might be the White House staffer who illegally revealed the identity of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame. While there is currently only the slimmest of evidence that this might be true, just the suggestion that Rove was involved ensures that truth will be bludgeoned as this plays out in the public sphere.

The left already thinks Rove is a despicable human being and will believe this rumor to be full truth—any evidence that Rove wasn’t involved will be treated as intentional obfuscation and further proof that the Bush administration is dangerously deceptive. The right, on the other hand, has every reason to want to keep Rove out of jail and will thus portray this story as evidence of deep set media bias and just one more unhinged and unpatriotic attempt by the left to bring down the Bush White House.

http://theyellowline.blogspot.com/20...will-take.html

KARL ROVE: WORSE THAN OSAMA BIN LADEN By Ted Rall
Mon Jul 4, 7:00 PM ET

NEW YORK--In war collaborators are more dangerous than enemy forces, for they betray with intimate knowledge in painful detail and demoralize by their cynical example. This explains why, at the end of occupations, the newly liberated exact vengeance upon their treasonous countrymen even they allow foreign troops to conduct an orderly withdrawal.

If, as state-controlled media insists, there is such a creature as a Global War on Terrorism, our enemies are underground Islamist organizations allied with or ideologically similar to those that attacked us on 9/11. But who are the collaborators?

The right points to critics like Michael Moore, yours truly, and Ward Churchill, the Colorado professor who points out the gaping chasm between America's high-falooting rhetoric and its historical record. But these bête noires are guilty only of the all-American actions of criticism and dissent, not to mention speaking uncomfortable truths to liars and deniers. As far as we know, no one on what passes for the "left" (which would be the center-right anywhere else) has betrayed the United States in the GWOT. No anti-Bush progressive has made common cause with Al Qaeda, Hamas, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan or any other officially designated "terrorist" group. No American liberal has handed over classified information or worked to undermine the CIA.

But it now appears that Karl Rove, GOP golden boy, has done exactly that.

Last week Time magazine turned over its reporter's notes to a special prosecutor assigned to learn who told Republican columnist Bob Novak that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent. The revelation, which effectively ended Plame's CIA career and may have endangered her life, followed her husband Joe Wilson's publication of a New York Times op-ed piece that embarrassed the Bush Administration by debunking its claims that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from Niger. Time's cowardly decision to break its promise to a confidential source has had one beneficial side effect: according to Newsweek, it indicates that Karl Rove himself made the call to Novak.

One might have expected Rove, the master White House political strategist who engineered Bush's 2000 coup d'état and post-9/11 permanent war public relations campaign, to have ordered a flunky underling to carry out this act of high treason. But as the Arab saying goes, arrogance diminishes wisdom.

Rove, whose gaping maw recently vomited forth that Democrats didn't care about 9/11, is atypically silent. He did talk to the Time reporter but "never knowingly disclosed classified information," claims his attorney. But there's circumstantial evidence to go along with Time's leaked notes. Ari Fleischer abruptly resigned as Bush's press secretary on May 16, 2003, about the same time the White House became aware of Ambassador Wilson's plans to go public. (Wilson's article appeared July 6.) Did Fleischer quit because he didn't want to act as spokesman for Rove's plan to betray CIA agent Plame? Another interesting coincidence: Novak published his Plame column on July 14, Fleischer's last day on the job.

If Newsweek's report is accurate, Karl Rove is more morally repugnant and more anti-American than Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden, after all, has no affiliation with, and therefore no presumed loyalty to, the United States. Rove, on the other hand, is a U.S. citizen and, as deputy White House chief of staff, a high-ranking official of the U.S. government sworn to uphold and defend our nation, its laws and its interests. Yet he sold out America just to get even with Joe Wilson.

Osama bin Laden, conversely, is loyal to his cause. He has never exposed an Al Qaeda agent's identity to the media.

"[Knowingly revealing Plame's name and undercover status to the media]...is a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act and is punishable by as much as ten years in prison," notes the Washington Post. Unmasking an intelligent agent during a time of war, however, surely rises to giving aid and comfort to America's enemies--treason. Treason is punishable by execution under the United States Code.

How far up the White House food chain does the rot of treason go? "Bush has always known how to keep Rove in his place," wrote Time in 2002 about a "symbiotic relationship" that dates to 1973. This isn't some rogue "plumbers" operation. Rove would never go it alone on a high-stakes action like Valerie Plame. It's a safe bet that other, higher-ranking figures in the Bush cabal--almost certainly Dick Cheney and possibly Bush himself--signed off before Rove called Novak. For the sake of national security, those involved should be removed from office at once.

Rove and his collaborators should quickly resign and face prosecution for betraying their country, but given their sense of personal entitlement impeachment is probably the best we can hope for. Congress, and all Americans, should place patriotism ahead of party loyalty.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/2005070...inladen/nc:742

The Rove Factor?
Time magazine talked to Bush's guru for Plame story.

July 11 issue - Its legal appeals exhausted, Time magazine agreed last week to turn over reporter Matthew Cooper's e-mails and computer notes to a special prosecutor investigating the leak of an undercover CIA agent's identity. The case has been the subject of press controversy for two years. Saying "we are not above the law," Time Inc. Editor in Chief Norman Pearlstine decided to comply with a grand-jury subpoena to turn over documents related to the leak. But Cooper (and a New York Times reporter, Judith Miller) is still refusing to testify and faces jail this week.

At issue is the story of a CIA-sponsored trip taken by former ambassador (and White House critic) Joseph Wilson to investigate reports that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from the African country of Niger. "Some government officials have noted to Time in interviews... that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction," said Cooper's July 2003 Time online article.

Now the story may be about to take another turn. The e-mails surrendered by Time Inc., which are largely between Cooper and his editors, show that one of Cooper's sources was White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, according to two lawyers who asked not to be identified because they are representing witnesses sympathetic to the White House. Cooper and a Time spokeswoman declined to comment. But in an interview with NEWSWEEK, Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed that Rove had been interviewed by Cooper for the article. It is unclear, however, what passed between Cooper and Rove.

The controversy began three days before the Time piece appeared, when columnist Robert Novak, writing about Wilson's trip, reported that Wilson had been sent at the suggestion of his wife, who was identified by name as a CIA operative. The leak to Novak, apparently intended to discredit Wilson's mission, caused a furor when it turned out that Plame was an undercover agent. It is a crime to knowingly reveal the identity of an undercover CIA official. A special prosecutor was appointed and began subpoenaing reporters to find the source of the leak.

Novak appears to have made some kind of arrangement with the special prosecutor, and other journalists who reported on the Plame story have talked to prosecutors with the permission of their sources. Cooper agreed to discuss his contact with Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's top aide, after Libby gave him permission to do so. But Cooper drew the line when special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald asked about other sources.

Initially, Fitzgerald's focus was on Novak's sourcing, since Novak was the first to out Plame. But according to Luskin, Rove's lawyer, Rove spoke to Cooper three or four days before Novak's column appeared. Luskin told NEWSWEEK that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information" and that "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA." Luskin declined, however, to discuss any other details. He did say that Rove himself had testified before the grand jury "two or three times" and signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him. "He has answered every question that has been put to him about his conversations with Cooper and anybody else," Luskin said. But one of the two lawyers representing a witness sympathetic to the White House told NEWSWEEK that there was growing "concern" in the White House that the prosecutor is interested in Rove. Fitzgerald declined to comment.

In early October 2003, NEWSWEEK reported that immediately after Novak's column appeared in July, Rove called MSNBC "Hardball" host Chris Matthews and told him that Wilson's wife was "fair game." But White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters at the time that any suggestion that Rove had played a role in outing Plame was "totally ridiculous." On Oct. 10, McClellan was asked directly if Rove and two other White House aides had ever discussed Valerie Plame with any reporters. McClellan said he had spoken with all three, and "those individuals assured me they were not involved in this."

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8445696/site/newsweek/

[esskreemr]

I have a feeling this will go nowhere. Apparently, expressing your dislike for the President of the US is unAmerican but releasing the name of a CIA operative is acceptable.

MM, I think we are going to have to wait for an admin change to get answers to many questions. By that time the trail may have cooled a bit.

I've got one for you that has been bothering me for a couple days now...

Prior to 9/11, NORAD had conducted multiple drills around the idea of jets being used as weapons:

On September 11, 2001, the Air Force was in its second day of annual wargame drills, titled VIGILANT GUARDIAN, designed to test national air response systems, which incidentally involved hijacking scenarios. In addition the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) which is staffed by military and CIA personnel, and is in charge of most American spy satellites, was running a drill for the scenario of an errant aircraft crashing into its headquarters. NRO headquarters also happens to be located just four miles from Washington’s Dulles airport – where Flight 77 (the flight said to have hit the Pentagon) originated...

The protocol apparently worked well in previous exercises and the automatic procedure was triggered 67 times the year previous to 9/11.

Scrambling Air Force interceptors does not mean shooting down any aircraft. It simply means that an Air Force jet is dispatched to fly next to the off course aircraft, attempt to communicate with the its pilots, look inside the cockpit, see who is in control of the plane and report back to flight control what is actually happening. In the year prior to 9/11 this automatic procedure was triggered a total of 67 times (AP, 8/13/02). On the morning of 9/11, it was not successfully applied even once in the well over an hour-long period in which the four separate hijackings occurred.

Military aircraft had nearly an hour to respond to the flights, but didn't.

The protocol was rewritten in June, 2001 to require specific permission from the Secretary of Defense:

"CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF INSTRUCTION; J-3; CJCSI; 3610.01A
1 June 2001
AIRCRAFT PIRACY (HIJACKING) AND DESTRUCTION OF DERELICT AIRBORNE OBJECTS
1. Purpose. This instruction provides guidance to the Deputy Director for Operations (DDO), National Military Command Center (NMCC), and operational commanders in the event of an aircraft piracy (hijacking) or request for destruction of derelict airborne objects.
2. Cancellation. CJCSI 3610.01, 31 July 1997.
3. Applicability. This instruction applies to the Joint Staff, Services, unified commands, and the US Element, North American Aerospace Defense Command (USELEMNORAD).
4. Policy.
a. Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) of Civil and Military Aircraft. Pursuant to references a and b, the Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), has exclusive responsibility to direct law enforcement activity related to actual or attempted aircraft piracy (hijacking) in the “special aircraft jurisdiction” of the United States. When requested by the Administrator, Department of Defense will provide assistance to these law enforcement efforts. Pursuant to reference c, the NMCC is the focal point within Department of Defense for providing assistance. In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval. DOD assistance to the FAA will be provided in accordance with reference d. Additional guidance is provided in Enclosure A."
ENCLOSURE D; REFERENCES:
d. DOD Directive 3025.15, 18 February 1997, “Military Assistance to Civil Authorities” - Defense Technical Information Center (06/01/01)

Why change a protocol that has so far been succesful in exercises but never used in a live scenario.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/050317wargames911
CMK: Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-GA)
DR: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
RM: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers
TJ: Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Tina Jonas
DH: Chairman Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA)

CMK: The question was, we had four wargames going on on September 11th, and the question that I tried to pose before the Secretary had to go to lunch was whether or not the activities of the four wargames going on on September 11th actually impaired our ability to respond to the attacks.

RM: The answer to the question is no, it did not impair our response, in fact General Eberhart who was in the command of the North American Aerospace Defense Command as he testified in front of the 9/11 Commission I believe - I believe he told them that it enhanced our ability to respond, given that NORAD didn't have the overall responsibility for responding to the attacks that day. That was an FAA responsibility. But they were two CPXs; there was one Department of Justice exercise that didn't have anything to do with the other three; and there was an actual operation ongoing because there was some Russian bomber activity up near Alaska.

Conspiracy theories aside, everything I've read points not to a Nation unready for such an attack, but a chain of GROSS incompetence starting with Rumsfield and working it's way down the ladder.

In addition, is it just coincedence that the terrorists chose 9/11 for this attack? Seems unlikely. How did they find out about the wargames? Why was the previous protocol violated on this particular day?

[Inquartata]

Pssst! Esskreemr fences foil...

Oh, no! I've just released a closely guarded "secret"! Whatever will happen to poor Ess now?

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Pssst! Esskreemr fences foil...

Oh, no! I've just released a closely guarded "secret"! Whatever will happen to poor Ess now?

Your sarcasm would only be relative if I was planning on entering an epee tournament or something.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

{snip}
Military aircraft had nearly an hour to respond to the flights, but didn't.
{snip}

Kinda off the point--but according to NORAD's Timeline, it was more like 6 minutes for the first, and 20 minutes for the second from time of notification, to time of impact.

Planes were in the air for the second within 9 minutes of notification of the 2nd plane (they were ordered launched for the 1st plane, which had hit by the time they scrambled), but were still 70 miles away at the time the 2nd plane hit.

--Philistine

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Philistine

Kinda off the point--but according to NORAD's Timeline, it was more like 6 minutes for the first, and 20 minutes for the second from time of notification, to time of impact.

Planes were in the air for the second within 9 minutes of notification of the 2nd plane (they were ordered launched for the 1st plane, which had hit by the time they scrambled), but were still 70 miles away at the time the 2nd plane hit.

--Philistine

Sorry, that was worded poorly. From the time Flight 11 veered off course (8:13) to the time that it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC (8:46) was over 30 minutes. NORAD claims it was notified at 8:40 but there is conflicting testimony indicating that they were notified much earlier.

Flight 77 struck the Pentagon at 9:38 am (as per the 9/11 commission timeline). This was nearly an hour after Flight 11 struck the WTC, almost an hour and a half after Flight 11 veered off course (considered an emergency event in aviation) and nearly an hour after Flight 77 had veered off of its course (8:54am).

Two F-15s take off from Otis ANG Base, six minutes after being ordered to go after Flight 11, which has already crashed. [8:52, NORAD, 9/18/01, 8:52, CNN, 9/17/01, 8:53, Washington Post, 9/12/01, 8:52, Washington Post, 9/15/01, 8:52, ABC News, 9/11/02] This is 38 minutes after flight controllers lost contact with the plane. They go after Flight 175 instead. According to Lt. Col. Timothy Duffy, one of the pilots, before takeoff, a fellow officer had told him "This looks like the real thing." He says, "It just seemed wrong. I just wanted to get there. I was in full-blower all the way." A NORAD commander has said the planes were stocked with extra fuel as well. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02] Full-blower is very rare - it means the fighters are going as fast as they can go. An F-15 can travel over 1875 mph. [Air Force News, 7/30/97] Duffy later says, "As we're climbing out, we go supersonic on the way, which is kind of nonstandard for us." He says his target destination is over Kennedy airport in New York City. [ABC News, 9/11/02] According to Major Gen. Paul Weaver, director of the Air National Guard, "The pilots [fly] 'like a scalded ape,' topping 500 mph but [are] unable to catch up to the airliner." [Dallas Morning News, 9/16/01] ABC News later says, "The fighters are hurtling toward New York at mach 1.2, nearly 900 miles per hour." [ABC News, 9/11/02] NORAD commander Major General Larry Arnold says they head straight for New York City at about 1100 to 1200 mph. [MSNBC, 9/23/01 (C), Slate, 1/16/02] "An F-15 departing from Otis can reach New York City in 10 to 12 minutes, according to an Otis spokeswoman." [Cape Cod Times, 9/16/01] At an average speed of 1125 mph, they would reach the city in 10 minutes - 9:02. So if NORAD commander Arnold's speed is correct, these fighters should reach Flight 175 just before it crashes. Yet according to the NORAD timeline [NORAD, 9/18/01], these planes take about 19 minutes to reach New York City, traveling less than 600 mph.

[jBirch]

The policy change seems to be a jurisdictional clarification around who has the call to actually shoot down aircraft. I assume SOP post 9/11 is to have aircraft in the air in the event of a hijacking over Continental US as soon as they know about it , then escort the aircraft to someplace not America. Like Halifax.

The War Games seems unrelated.

The key phrase in the timeline is "Time of Notification". When did the FAA actually make the call?

And you have to factor in take-off and accelleration in your timeline. Yes, an aircraft going 1200mph will make it in 10 minutes, but how much of that time is spent clearing the runway for take off, stepping on the gas, accellerating through the atmosphere, manouvring? I'm sure someone had to give the order for these guys to go supersonic (if they did) and there's that delay in there too. That order probably wasn't given until the first plane crash had been confirmed and then it probably wasn't necessary.

The Karl Rove thing is probably a red herring sensationalised because it reinforces the concept that the US Administration is dodgy. If they are right, then the story is HUGE. If they are wrong, it's still a pretty good story.

James.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by jBirch

The policy change seems to be a jurisdictional clarification around who has the call to actually shoot down aircraft. I assume SOP post 9/11 is to have aircraft in the air in the event of a hijacking over Continental US as soon as they know about it , then escort the aircraft to someplace not America. Like Halifax.

The War Games seems unrelated.

The key phrase in the timeline is "Time of Notification". When did the FAA actually make the call?

And you have to factor in take-off and accelleration in your timeline. Yes, an aircraft going 1200mph will make it in 10 minutes, but how much of that time is spent clearing the runway for take off, stepping on the gas, accellerating through the atmosphere, manouvring? I'm sure someone had to give the order for these guys to go supersonic (if they did) and there's that delay in there too. That order probably wasn't given until the first plane crash had been confirmed and then it probably wasn't necessary.

The Karl Rove thing is probably a red herring sensationalised because it reinforces the concept that the US Administration is dodgy. If they are right, then the story is HUGE. If they are wrong, it's still a pretty good story.

James.

Let me clarify that reaction time in military exercises is quite different from a Live situation in any case, particularly when the possibility of shooting down aircraft containg hunders of people.

My initial shock was because I don't remember having heard it before. My second reaction is that this should have been enough to launch a deeper investigation than the 9/11 commission was "commissioned" to explore.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Your sarcasm would only be relative if I was planning on entering an epee tournament or something.

Well, under the influence of Zilverzmurfen anything is possible.

But my point was that Plame's position wasn't really a secret around the Beltway. Lots of people knew it already. Which meant that every spy in DC knew it. Which meant that Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen, Syria and Iran knew it. Which meant that any Islamic terrorist group that cared would have known it. The purpose of the leak was to draw attention to the connection between Plame and Wilson, and to how he got the appointment
( IMO ). The "outing" of a CIA employee ( not agent ) was incidental...but that's the angle that's been played up because it's the only angle that had potential as a weapon against Bush...

Which makes very good politics, but rather bad truth.

Sometimes I wonder whether the enmity of Moore, Rall, Franken and others for Rove doesn't derive from the psychological truism that we hate most in others that which we fear exists somewhere in ourselves. Except for the positions they occupy they all strike me as similar characters.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

{snip} NORAD claims it was notified at 8:40 but there is conflicting testimony indicating that they were notified much earlier.

Could be. According to the 9/11 Commission--"At 8:37:52, Boston Center reached NEADS. This was the first notification received by the military—at any level—that American 11 had been hijacked."

(NEADS=Northeast Air Defense Sector).

9/11 Commission Staff Statement 17

Flight 77 struck the Pentagon at 9:38 am (as per the 9/11 commission timeline). This was nearly an hour after Flight 11 struck the WTC, almost an hour and a half after Flight 11 veered off course (considered an emergency event in aviation) and nearly an hour after Flight 77 had veered off of its course (8:54am).

Again, according to the Commission--

At the suggestion of the Boston Center’s military liaison, NEADS contacted the FAA’s Washington Center to ask about American 11. In the course of the conversation, a Washington Center manager informed NEADS that “We’re looking—we also lost American 77.” The time was 9:34. This was the first notice to the military that American 77 was missing, and it had come by chance. If NEADS had not placed that call, the NEADS air defenders would have received no information whatsoever that American 77 was even missing, although the FAA had been searching for it. No one at FAA Command Center or headquarters ever asked for military assistance with American 77.

At 9:36, the FAA’s Boston Center called NEADS and relayed the discovery about the aircraft closing in on Washington, an aircraft that still had not been linked with the missing American 77. The FAA told NEADS: “Latest report. Aircraft VFR [Visual Flight Rules] six miles southeast of the White House. … Six, southwest. Six, southwest of the White House, deviating away.”

Massive failure to communicate between FAA and NORAD--sure. NORAD sitting on its hands while the planes barreled in? I just don't see it.

--Philistine

[keith]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

But my point was that Plame's position wasn't really a secret around the Beltway. Lots of people knew it already. Which meant that every spy in DC knew it. Which meant that Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen, Syria and Iran knew it. Which meant that any Islamic terrorist group that cared would have known it. ..

snippity

yes but there is a difference between knowing and knowing ; as any astute student of politics and Mordechai Vanunu are well aware

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

{snip} The purpose of the leak was to draw attention to the connection between Plame and Wilson, and to how he got the appointment ( IMO ). The "outing" of a CIA employee ( not agent ) was incidental...but that's the angle that's been played up because it's the only angle that had potential as a weapon against Bush...

Which makes very good politics, but rather bad truth.
{snip}

At this point, though, I think the investigation has likely gone beyond the actual "leak" iteself, and to a possible coverup. (At least that's what I've been reading, and it seems to make sense given what's been going on).

--Philistine

[Zilverzmurfen]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Your sarcasm would only be relative if I was planning on entering an epee tournament or something.

Hum-de-dum-de-dum...


(Ok, sorry for breaking into a quite serious debate!)

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Well, under the influence of Zilverzmurfen anything is possible.

But my point was that Plame's position wasn't really a secret around the Beltway.

Are you a Washington insider? Did you know that Plame was a CIA agent before the incident? I didn't, of course I'm not an Islamic terrorist.

Lots of people knew it already.

By whose account? Apparently the CIA and Congress weren't aware of this.

Which meant that every spy in DC knew it. Which meant that Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen, Syria and Iran knew it. Which meant that any Islamic terrorist group that cared would have known it.

Are we to assume that your initial assertion (everyone knew Plame was an agent) is correct before we follow your chain of knowledge to the Islamic terrorists?

The purpose of the leak was to draw attention to the connection between Plame and Wilson, and to how he got the appointment
( IMO ).

Your opinion is based on what facts?

The "outing" of a CIA employee ( not agent ) was incidental...but that's the angle that's been played up because it's the only angle that had potential as a weapon against Bush...

So the question remains, is it a violation of federal law or not? That should be pretty easy to answer. If it is, hearing. If it isn't, game over.

Sometimes I wonder whether the enmity of Moore, Rall, Franken and others for Rove doesn't derive from the psychological truism that we hate most in others that which we fear exists somewhere in ourselves. Except for the positions they occupy they all strike me as similar characters.

Unlike the benign countenances of the all-loving Limbaugh, Falwell, Hannity et al, and the entire plethora of the neocon pr league.

You didn't make the same observations when the right's attack wing was going full-scale after Kerry.