Dallas Morning News: Rove puts Bush's loyalty to test

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/washington/stories/072305dnnatrove.ad4f68.html

Those who have watched the Rove-Bush relationship from its Texas days say it's inconceivable that the president would throw his trusted aide overboard. Few presidents have had closer advisers than Mr. Rove inside the White House.

And few counselors have been as responsible for a president's political success.

"Loyalty is numero uno with George Bush," said Royal Masset, a Republican consultant in Austin. "He would be disloyal to Rove if he fired him over something where he felt Rove was acting in his interest."


Hailed by Mr. Bush as "the architect" of his 2004 re-election strategy, Mr. Rove got a new title as deputy White House chief of staff and expanded responsibilities in the second term. He now formally coordinates issues for four White House councils: domestic policy, economic, national security and homeland security.

version of abuse of power, it will be absolutely clear that they are Worse than Watergate as John Dean's book declares.

ahead of loyalty to his country.

When you are the President of the United States you swear to put your country ahead of your own interests or any individual. Obviously Bu$h's oath of office they has taken twice, means very little to him.

This should be grounds for Bush's resignation.

Bush isn't being loyal to anybody. They are protecting Bush. I would bet anything Bush knew about the outing of Plame. I bet he approved of it. Its Bush they are protecting. They don't want Rove to be the first domino. If Rove goes down it could lead to Bush.

Now that's what I want in a president.

...let them resign together. It works for us.

If George can't do without Karl, let them leave together.

Stay loyal to Rove until the bitter end.

But I'm guessing that republicans who are up for re-election are going to try to drop you like a bad habit if and when the indictments come down. Or even when indictments are rumored...

That's when the fun will start. I can't wait.

The Presidential Oath of Office

The oath to be taken by the president on first entering office is specified in
Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States.

The Constitution granted the presidency powers of its own, such as the
power of commander in chief. Believing, however, in balanced
government, the framers created a strong Congress and a judiciary to
check the chief executive.

The executive-power clause of Article II, Section 1, states merely that
"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United
States of America."

A companion constitutional power to which presidents have given vast
scope is the commander-in-chief power (Article II, Section 2).

Although the Constitution specifies that the president can make treaties,
the requirement that they be approved by a two-thirds vote of the
Senate has often driven presidents to use executive agreements instead.
If congressional appropriation or other action is required, only a
majority vote is necessary. The term executive agreement is not in the
Constitution. For authority to make such agreements presidents cite the
executive-power clause and the commander-in-chief power.

Presidents also claim to possess EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, or the right to
withhold information from Congress and the public.

but in United
States v. Nixon (1974) the Supreme Court ruled that executive privilege
did not immunize him from judicial proceedings.

It should be noted that although the Supreme Court determines
presidential power by its interpretation of the Constitution, the Court
has seldom directly checked the exercise of presidential power. In
many cases, the Court has affirmed it. In United States v.
Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation (1936), for example, the Court
acknowledged a broad presidential power to make executive
agreements. The Court's rulings against the president have occurred
mainly in civil liberties cases, such as Ex Parte Milligan (1866), striking
down a presidential authorization of the trial of civilians by a military
tribunal in an area far removed from the theater of war.

... can seemingly find more unchecked Executive powers and perquisites in the Constitution than they can find human rights or civil liberties. This, despite the fact that the Constitution is, at its very basis, designed to prohibit and limit the powers of government to only those explicitly defined while being totally open and respectful of the rights and liberties of the People.

he swore a loyalty oath to doesn't factor much into his decisions.

Bush gave/authorized Plame outing - treason - The focus should be on W and/or Cheney and not on Rove/Libby!

Up to this point, it was speculation/hearsay that the CIA used such positions as Covert Agents. (Just as the CIA completely denies it uses reporters or non-profit relief organization personnel as Covert Agents. The same the CIA said about Ambassadors' spouses. But now aWol/Cheney/Rove/Libby have proven to the world this is truth. How much more damage could one do to our Nation's fight against terrorism and WMDs?

Why doesn't CNN, MSNBC, Meet The Whore, CBS... air any of these tapes over the last 3 decades of the CIA and White House and Presidents... denying CIA Covert Agents in these types of positions? It has to be collusion/racketeeting between Bush/Cheney and the Media Industrial Complex.

PS. Since I know Cheney/aWol knew/authorized Rove/Libby the only way out is murder. Resignation is impossible because the others can't trust the person will keep quiet. So either Rove or Libby will be murdered (looks like a suicide.) You've got the Casey Syndrome. The only other way out is if Rove/Libby find an Oswald they can murder and pin it on. If not, one of them will be murdered by Cheny/aWol. So let's see where the LOYALTY DIES!

Rove/Libby!

Loyalty to Bush*. He didn't hesitate to cut Ken Lay loose (Ken WHO?), nor Katherine Harris. I'm sure there are numerous other examples. However, Rove would be a tough one to cut loose because who can replace him? Who else can run those polls and do all the dirty work necessary to keep the Boy King in business? Certainly not a newcomer. * draws his close associates from a very tiny gene pool.

"loyalty"..rove is bush's brain and that's no joke.

Would anyone willingly give up their brain?

should be tried, found guilty and shot on the whitehouse lawn. I'll sign up for the squad.

demand loyalty from their underlings. Bush would rather see Rove dead before he would admit any wrong doing by the eely vice-commander.

Only thing better would be a suicide pact.

Rove knows where all the bodies are buried and believe or not he may be even more dangerous than Hoover could have ever imagined. Remember making people disappear is like taking a trip to the candy store for these guys.

editorial..

"Bush and Karl are tied together in a Devil's Knot. It is a symbiotic relationship. Neither exceeds the sum of their total. They rise and fall together, or not at all. No one else could make Bush look as good, no one else can make Rove less unsavory. This is a fight for the very existence they have created together, for, and with, each other."

And, nobody's indestructible. May they each bring the other down, symbiotically.

they are bringing America down with them :(

rebirth ourselves without them .

Loyalty like this can destroy a man!!!

Bull-Freakin'-Shit! To OUT a CIA agent is acting in the INTEREST of ENEMIES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

Oh, wait a minute! :freak:

Gee, I guess Bush didn't mean it did he...

Aw, damn...You mean Bush isn't loyal to America?

Whodathunkit?

Besides us, that is....

really are trying to get to you", Stein said in his "Opinion" segment on the CBS Sunday show. He used Nixon as a model to emphasize his point.

Stein seems to think Nixon should have been more active in trying to prevent the cavalcade of crooks from leaving his administration during the Watergate shit storm.

He criticizes Nixon and his crew for not throwing up an adequate stonewall.:wtf: