I'm wondering if ROVE outed Foley

to cover the idiocy that is this administration. So much is pouring forth on the incompetence of this cabal so I'm thinking that Rove chose this moment to drop something so big, so all encompassing, that the compliant press will just stop talking about Iraq and sloppy administration.
Has this been discussed? Sorry if so, but the thought has been occurring to me for a couple of days and especially when it was disclosed that the responsible party for the im's outing was probably gop.
I'll bet on Rove out Foley, it's his style. Power at all costs; whats bad about tossing a gay goper to the press when it pulls your fat ass out of the fire.
?

sorry.

Rove would sooner out Cheney than lose a seat in Congress.

because Palm Beach County is largely Democratic. Outing him would guarantee a Dem win. Foley was also relatively senior since he came in on the "Throw the bums out" furor of 1994. Even replaceing him with a junior Rep. from a safe seat would have been counterproductive, and Foley's district is by no means a safe seat.

They forced his resignation because they wanted it to go away, not get publicized. Remember, this was another Friday news dump story. They're just shocked and appalled that it's still a top story. They honestly thought it would die over the weekend while TV sets were tuned to sports, not news.

I am optimistic Democrats will gain control of the House and when that happens, Iraq and this criminal administration will be in the spotlight. Conyers will be head of the House Judiciary Committee.

I fail to see how Rove outing Foley would be beneficial, unless he wants Democrats to take back Congress. Also, I posted yesterday that the fundies are not happy with Republicans right now (feel betrayed) and are being told by their leaders to abstain from voting.

emails and the BEGGED HIM TO STAY! They thought they could ride this thing out if Foley didn't confess/resign.

he would do this to a D, not an R. Does he think losing the Senate or the House or both is better than * losing face because of Iraq? ABC News says it was an R that gave them this story. There are probably quite a few who would like to see an end to this administration, even if they don't vote or act like it.

Why is it so difficult to believe that Karl Rove is an obnoxious little man and not God the Omnipotent?

There is very little that asshole has managed to control in the past few years. His field is PR and George is where in popularity?

He makes mistake after mistake after mistake. His only hope of winning anything is to control those crooked machines and all the people working them. And that ain't as easy as it looks this time around.

I don't know how Rove became the monster under the bed for so many democrats. He's simply an unprincipled little fuck with no moral conscience.

Why is that so hard to understand?

I'm always amazed that so many DUers believe that Rove is omnipotent, when he's simply a fairly competent, completely repulsive little political operative in the Lee Atwater mode.

You'd think from some posts here that Karl Rove is some comic book supervillian.

I guess I put way too much stock into his ugly imprimatur on this admin.

Can't have that!

It's just the sound of the Rpukes collapsing under the weight of their arrogance, corruption, hypocrisy, hatred and moral decay.

then the answer is certainly "no." Newspaper articles outed him as far back as 2003.

If you mean "outed him as a pedophile," then I would also argue "no," particularly since the St. Pete Times and the Miami Herald had the Foley e-mails as far back as a year ago and sat on them.

coming down the pre-election pipe, like the bombing of Iran (--to be staged perhaps with a Gulf of Tonkin-type incident in the eastern Mediterranean; there's a lot of evidence of amassing of US naval forces there; it may be 'Mad Hatter' time, but I wouldn't rule it out; wouldn't be surprised by it).

Another possibility is that something far worse is about to be revealed. A number of possibilities. 9/11. Plamegate, or DavidKellygate (possibly related*). Gannon. Something as yet under the radar.

I'm sure suspicious of ABC.

And Rove.

I don't think Rove is all that talented, or any kind of "genius." I mean, how much talent does it take to write "talking points" for pre-ordained events (elections, wars)? BUT, his power comes from the war profiteering corporate news monopolies playing along with his games. If they play along with Bushite corporations "counting" all the votes with TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code, what wouldn't they play along with?

So this is what Rove is talented at--having a crude sense of what "plays" well in these bogus corporate news streams, and feeding them their lines. It has nothing to do with persuading anyone, and everything to do with maintaining illusions of legitimacy--i.e., illusions that the minority rightwing is the majority (never has been, never will be).

There HAVE been a number of war and 9/11 revelations recently (rather serious ones) that Rove and his buds at the corporate news monopolies would want to smother with a sex scandal. I think it's plausible, but would be more plausible if it is meant to deflect/smother something MORE that is about to be revealed, or about to happen.

What is it that Americans MOST oppose, of all Bushite policy? 84% (!) opposed to any U.S. participation in a widened Mideast war! (--a poll posted here at DU during Israel's attack on Lebanon). That inclines me to think that Foleygate could be flak for a Bush Junta move against Iran.

With pervasive spying, they probably have a lot of dirt to work with. Making it a Republican sex scandal--if it's timing is phony--is fairly clever. No suspicion that it's connected to Bushite spying on Dems. And a scandal involving a gay man suits their narrative in some ways. They can blame it on gayness and deflect its real cause--Bushite moral corruption in every sphere, on every issue.

And how about THIS for what's possibly coming down the pipe? A Democratic sex scandal that will trump the Republican one (--and that IS the result of pervasive spying). (Don't you ever wonder why the Bush Junta didn't want to get their spying okayed by a FISA court, even when they could get it okayed AFTER it had occurred? Answer: who and what they're spying on would never be approved by a FISA judge.)

Anyway, what I'm saying is, don't dismiss this out of hand. Bookmark it. Keep it in mind.

--------------------------------

*(A member of Parliament over in England has re-opened the investigation into the death of David Kelly, the Brits chief WMD expert, who was found dead, under highly suspicious circumstances, four days after Valerie Plame was outed. Kelly's office and computers were searched, and, four days after that, Novak ADDITIONALLY outed the entire CIA WMD counter-proliferation network (Brewster-Jennings) that Plame headed, putting all of its covert agents/contacts around the world at risk of getting killed. The coincidence of dates is haunting, to say the least. And there is an interesting theory--developed by me and others here at DU--that these events are related, and that what is behind them (the Plame/BJ outings, and Kelly's death) is a Bushite scheme to PLANT nukes in Iraq, to be "found" by the US troops who were "hunting" for them (--as part 2 of a plot that began with the Niger/Iraq nuke forgeries). The job of counter-proliferation agents is to STOP illicit weapons movements. What if that's what happened? Someone in the BJ network detected illicit nuke movement to Iraq, and foiled it. Kelly found out (his death warrant--he was already whistleblowing to the BBC about the "sexed up" pre-war WMD dossier, and could not be trusted to keep this far worse thing quiet; and there is evidence that he knew something else that Blair & Co. were worried--and possibly panicked--about.) Plame may or may not have known. And the BJ network may or may not have done the foiling. But that's what the Bushites THOUGHT--that their nefarious scheme had been foiled by the CIA--thus denying them any justification for the war--and that this was about to be exposed. That's why they outed the whole network (not just Plame) four days after Kelly's death. With the Libby trial still on track, and this new investigation in England, perhaps something quite damning--a very hot "smoking gun" on the war--is about to come out. Nothing like a sex scandal--and a Republican one at that--to grab and maintain control of the headlines. Also, Bush & Co. may not be so worried about the '06 (s)elections at this point--Diebold/ES&S has that under control anyway--as they are about indictment on treason charges, and maybe just plain old murder (of an insider white guy).)

This is about the worst thinmg that could have happened to the Republicans in the Noivember elections.

Roive's play-book, remember, really does not extend much beyond declaring, suggesting, or insinuating an opponent is gay, and being so devoted to the tactic and working it in the right's favor, it seems vanishingly unlikely he would do anything that would hand the poisoned blade to his opponents hilt first....