Translate

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Bend Over Rover

The question is not whether Rove lied -- of course he did. That's what he does; it's probably an involuntary reflex at this point.

ROVE: One of the untold stories about the war is why did the United States Congress, the United States Senate vote on the war resolution in the fall of 2002?

CHARLIE ROSE, HOST: Why?

ROVE: This administration was opposed to it. I‘m going to talk about that in my book.

ROSE: Well, tell me.

ROVE: No.

ROSE: Come on, give me something.

ROVE: No.

ROSE: Give me something.

ROVE: I just did. I told you the administration was opposed to voting on it in the Fall of 2002.

ROSE: Because?

ROVE: Because, we didn‘t think it belonged within the confines of the election. There was an election coming up in a matter of weeks. We thought it made it too political. We wanted it outside the confines of it. It seemed to make things move too fast. There were things that needed to be done to bring along allies and potential allies abroad.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: It‘s an untold story because it isn‘t true. Here is what really happened according to a Rove [ed. -- probably supposed to be "rogue"] Web site called Whitehouse.gov, despite Rove‘s claim that the White House opposed voting on Iraq in the Fall of 2002, on the first full day of Fall that year the president urged Congress to pass an Iraq resolution, quote, “Promptly.” A week later, the president and the House Republicans agreed on Iraq resolution. A week after that, President Bush was pleased with the House vote on Iraq. And a week after that, Mr. Bush signed the authorization for the use of military force in Iraq.


The real questions begged here are more fundamental, more substantial, and thus will never be asked. Why would Charlie Rose -- or any media figure who considers themselves respectable and responsible -- invite Rove on and not even bother challenging his obvious falsehoods? Why is Keith Olbermann the only member of the media bothering to follow up on this, when we keep hearing from the Keepers of the Journamalistic Flame how seriously they take their jobs, which as we all know are the very lifeblood of a functioning and free society? However would we manage to get by without these Princes (and Princesses) of Probity lobbing softballs at pimps and shills for no good reason at all?

Finally, what sort of mouth-breathing, window-licking sack of shit wants to buy a book written by a sociopath like Rove? And what vertically integrated media conglomerate might have a vested interest in the company which pays Karl Rove to continue lying, this time in print (aside from his new Newsweek column?

Jesus, this is despicable. It's been only five years, and it's not too difficult to fact-check this shit on the internets. And this smug little fucker waddles on like butter wouldn't melt in his mouth, and fabricates and calumniates events which have led to the immolation of a country, hundreds of thousands of deaths, trillions of dollars of waste, and the subversion of the Constitution.

It should not be too much to ask that every reporter worth their salt takes a break from whatever shiny object has their eye at the moment, and just do their jobs and point out why this man is a goddamned liar, which barely scratches the surface. At the very least Charlie Rose himself might show some alarm at being greased over like that on his own program. For a trade whose currency is credibility, real or perceived, they do not spend or invest it well by giving ratfuckers equal slimetime.

3 comments:

cavjam said...

a) Charlie Rose is not a reporter, he's of that slimy breed whose success depends to a large extent on his reputation of patent willingness to fluff the guest. He's a goyish Larry King. He'd severely limit his guest list were he to ask such questions as, "How's it feel to be responsible for the maiming and deaths of so many Americans and innocent Iraqis, not to mention the utter hatred of America by the rest of the world, you smarmy jackdaw?"

And were he to challenge blatant lies, he might offend a viewer. You know as well as I that TV exists to be as inoffensive to the thin-skinned as possible.

b) I strongly object to your term "ratfucker." Rats have standards. There's not enough cheese in the world....

OneMadClown said...

I agree with cavjam...I've never grasped why Charlie Rose has this strange "street cred" with a few of my friends, otherwise reasonablly intelligent folk. His style is imperceptibly better than King's insipid ass-sucking, yet by being on PBS, he's given a pass. Fuck'im.
This begs the real question...why isn't Heywood interviewing these pricks? The Heywood J. Nightly News Hour, with guest editorials by Rude Pundit, Teh Sadlies on sports, and TBogg with the weather.

r@d@r said...

it was fun watching charlie rose interview michael stipe some years ago, asking him some stupid questions about his sexual preferences, and not only get fairly bitch-slapped for asking but have the camera pan in on michael's face for an expressive close-up of (1) disgust, (2) rage, then (3) sneering condescension.

i don't know what happened to charlie. he used to be pretty good. i think he just fell in love with the sound of his own voice. sometimes i think he could go on with his fifteen minute interview questions without taking a breath, and the guest could just sit there and nod or shake their head or go to sleep.