Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Rove Questioner Spotlights Self

This is a 1, 2, 3 post.

1) The first paragraphs of the Durham Herald Sun's Dec. 4 account of former presidential aide Karl Rove's appearance at Duke University.

2) A H-S op-ed published a few days later in which the first person to "question" Rove at the Duke event, documentary film maker and activist Rebecca Cerese, introduces herself and explains her "question." Her op-ed is presented complete and uninterrupted.

3) JinC comments concerning Cerese's op-ed and an excerpt from a Sept. 2006 CNN news report concerning former State Department official Richard Armitage and Valerie Plame, a CIA employee who for more than five years before she was "outed" commuted from her Washington, DC home to her job at CIA headquarters in Langley, VA.


1) The H-S story begins:

Karl Rove encountered hecklers and protesters at Duke University Monday night, some accusing him of being a fraud, a traitor and even a killer.

President Bush's former White House deputy chief of staff and senior adviser appeared in Page Auditorium for a "conversation" with Duke political science professor Peter Feaver.

But the situation intensified when the floor was opened to questions […]
2) Here's Rebecca Cerese's H-S op-ed - - -

I am the woman who asked the first question of Karl Rove at Duke University on Dec. 3. I want to clarify the context of my question, respond to Rove's answer and expand on a few other issues from the article in The Herald-Sun.

My question started with a 1999 quote from former President George H.W. Bush. Bush, former head of the CIA, stated, "I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors."

It is within this context I asked my question which was: "Since you were so intimately involved with the outing of a CIA asset who not only was covert, but working on issues concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and Iran, I was wondering when does your trial for treason start?"

Rove responded that these were slanderous comments, and questioned my faith in the Justice Department and in Patrick Fitzgerald.

He then added, "If anything that you had to say had a bit of truth in it, I wouldn't be sitting on this stage."

It is important to remember that Patrick Fitzgerald was never able to get to the bottom of the Valerie Plame scandal because I "Scooter" Libby perjured himself and obstructed justice, and then had his prison sentence commuted by President George W. Bush.

We do, however, have Matt Cooper's testimony that Karl Rove was the person who told him Valerie Plame's identity.

Second, I want to respond to some of the comments put forth by the conservative student leadership at Duke, that anyone who protests is "absolutely undignified," and "everything that is wrong with things these days." I would like to counter that by saying that people who don't believe that there is a place for dissent in this country, and want to suppress freedom of speech are what is truly wrong with this country.

I was also taken aback by Stephen Miller's fears that someone would pull a gun or knife on Rove. The protesters present were there to oppose the heinous and tragic violence unleashed on the rest of the world by this administration and were all completely non-violent.

Obviously non-violence is a concept lost on people who support the bloodthirsty war-mongering of Rove and the current administration.

I am sick to death of people questioning the patriotism of liberal Americans who have opposing views on the war and other major issues. Robert Kennedy said, "The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country."

My love for my country goes so deep that I am willing to stand up and speak out against a lawless bunch of criminals who have hijacked our government, and continue to wrap themselves in the flag even as they shred the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Throughout history, America has moved closer to its ideals of eqfuality for all only when ordinary citizens speak out about injustices and demand change. Today, we need that more than ever, and a vigorous exchange of ideas from all sides should be welcomed, as we determine the type of America we wish to live in.


Do you think self-proclaimed patriot Rebecca Cerese knows about former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage?

This from CNN News on Sept. 8, 2006:
Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage acknowledged Thursday that he was the source who first revealed the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame to syndicated columnist Robert Novak back in 2003, touching off a federal investigation.

Armitage told the CBS Evening News that he did so inadvertently.

"I feel terrible," Armitage said. "Every day, I think, I let down the president. I let down the secretary of state. I let down my department, my family, and I also let down Mr. and Mrs. Wilson."
I want to put aside for now Armitage's concerns about all the people he let down, including many of those not mentioned in the CNN report: Karl Rove, for example.

A more pertinent question now has to do with why Cesere never mentions Armitage as a traitor needing to be punished?

Why could that?

Shouldn't it matter to Cerese that Armitage, not Rove, "outed" Plame?


Anonymous said...

Don't we all know by now that among these folks "It's NOT about the Truth"!!!

Ralph PHe;an said...

She may be a nutbag, but I give her credit for waiting until the question period.

As to her dismissing security concerns I don't know whether she's stupid or disingenuous. I'm going to go with the latter until proven otherwise. Violence from the left is not exactly unprecedented.

Anonymous said...

The actual question should be: how can you "out" someone who isn't covert? Everyone in Plame's neighborhood knew she worked for the CIA. She drove to work daily in her car which bore CIA parking decals. Duhh.

insuficiently Sensative said...

Shouldn't it matter to Cerese that Armitage, not Rove, "outed" Plame?

This is an "either" statement. They both "outed" plame.

Insufficiently Sensitive said...

Cerese: "I was wondering when does your trial for treason start?"

Profound, well-reasoned question designed to... insult Rove, allow Cerese to bask in the howls of the mob, and inform nobody of anything. A perfect example of a Duke intellectual in action.

Cerese: "people who don't believe that there is a place for dissent in this country, and want to suppress freedom of speech are what is truly wrong with this country."

I'll believe her sincerety when Cerese discloses here donations to FIRE in its fight against campus "speech codes".

Cerese: "Obviously non-violence is a concept lost on people who support the bloodthirsty war-mongering of Rove and the current administration."

It was pretty well lost on the Duke potbangers and CASTRATE advocates, too. Only nobody elected them, and they had no responsibilities for national defense whatever.

Cerese: "My love for my country goes so deep that I am willing to stand up and speak out against a lawless bunch of criminals who have hijacked our government"

She must have honors grades in Unsupported Assertions 101, and Mendacious Denunciations 105 - if indeed she takes any classes at all, besides cadre indoctrination at the local MoveOn fern bar.

And she's doing well at imitating the White House press gaggle. Quest for information? Nah. She doesn't have to, she knows the answers and the enemy in advance. She's an Intellectual.

Mungowitz said...

Interesting, and well done, sir! Nicely documented.

Anonymous said...


The lady doth protest too much, methinks....


Anonymous said...

"A perfect example of a Duke intellectual in action." Except for the fact that Rebecca Cerese is a UNC graduate.

One Who Knows said...

Fitzgerald needed a scalp but he knew--as did anyone in government-that he'd never get a conviction on the law that was the basis for his investigation. Reason: Plame may have served in a cover position in the past, but at the time her name was revealed by Armitage she was an analyst at Langley, and had been for the past seven or eight years. She drove her car to work daily and her car had CIA parking tags like any other overt employee. When that fact was entered into evidence by any good defense attorney, it would have prevented any convictions on that law. Fitzgerald then used the lazy prosecutor's method: he nailed Libby on a technicality and a jury of DC "peers" went along with the scheme. This was as much a frame-up as the Nifong attempt. And most of the same MSM scumbags went along with it--especially the New York Slimes.

Ralph Phelan said...

To "one who knows":

Libby's conviction is quite different from the Nifong frame-up in that Libby did at least (arguably) commit the technical violation he is accused of. It's not like he was convicted of something that didn't happen based on evidence made up out of whole cloth.

I see Libby's conviction as being much more like Martha Stewart's conviction for lying during the investigation of a stock transaction that was never proven to be illegal, or Bill Clinton's conviction for a decade-old perjury unrelated to the fishy-smelling land deals that were never proven to be illegal: given the number of laws on the books these days, if a prosecutor is determined to put a particular person in jail and has sufficient time and resources, he will ultimately find something he can use.

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
--- Ayn Rand

"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"
--- Tacitus

Locomotive Breath said...

This is an "either" statement. They both "outed" plame.

Once someone is outed you can't out them again sometime later. Kinda' like you can't lose your virginity twice.