Karl Rove Quits!

Whenever a politician says he is leaving “to spend more time with his family,” it isn’t the family.

The lead editorial in the August 14^th New York Times blazes, “Mr. Rove gets out of Town.” The editorial is blunt and leaves no doubt that the reason for Rove’s departure on August 31^st is that the Congressional subpoenas start coming on September 1^st.

Some choice summaries from that lead editorial:

“Mr. Rove has spent the last six and a half years improperly and dangerously politicizing the Federal government.”

“Mr. Rove appears to have been deeply involved in the decision to fire nine top Federal prosecutors.”

“…there is also mounting evidence that he turned nonpartisan agencies into campaign boosters, quite possibly violating Federal law.”

“Mr. Rove failed his own party, as well as the American people, when he counseled President Bush to turn every serious policy debate into one more political dog fight.”

“… he used his office to put politics above the interests of the American People.”

Rove has gotten an inflated idea of his own importance, going from a talented political mechanic to usurping the power of the White House. Rove has inappropriately posed as the leader in presenting the issues.

Think about it. President Bush has achieved great success in producing a vigorous economy; he’s reduced taxes while lowering the Federal deficit; he has handled 9-11 great, but is getting no credit for his leadership in the Iraq War.

That Iraq War becomes more obviously necessary week by week. Consider what happens if the U.S. pulls out of Iraq, leaving a power vacuum in the Middle East- a vacuum that would not last long as Iran resumes the 1988 war on Iraq. Iran would take Iraq, Saudi Arabia and that vast pool of oil. Iran is getting nuclear, is acting violent, and has the money and troops to take over the region. That combination of insane, religious violence and unlimited access to money would mean big trouble for the U.S. Bush should long ago have been presenting the overwhelming importance of the Iraq engagement.

Republicans will not be elected without strongly presenting Republican values. Instead, Rove has led an insider’s political organization, welding the White House to the RNC and in Illinois, to the GOP State Central Committee.

Look at Illinois. Rove and his old college chum Bob “Individual K” Kjellander, presently Illinois’ GOP National Committeeman, have lost the Senate, the House, and all constitutional offices, including governor. These guys are losers!

Rove lost control of the U.S. Senate partly by opposing the re-election of U.S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald. He was abetted in this by Kjellander and by Congressman Hastert. The Illinois GOP hierarchy didn’t want the honest and rich Fitzgerald because Fitz was the loudest voice against the corruption in Illinois.

Rove’s present problem has a lot to do with using the National Party and the White House to seek the removal of Pat Fitzgerald, U.S. Attorney in Illinois. That particular vendetta was supposed to be covered by seeking a number of other U.S. Attorney removals. But that plan has blown for Rove. Make no mistake- the core of Rove’s political chicanery is right here in Illinois with Kjellander and their insider enablers.

They got to play with the big bucks in the pension troves- $809,000 in one case, $4.5 million in another to Kjellander. They had an inside connection to the Carlyle Fund, that big consortium of international deal makers. That tangled network has attracted the attention of U.S. Attorney Pat Fitzgerald.

It’s a big political mess with Rove at the core. That’s why his exit is so necessary. Perhaps in his absence the GOP can have a resurgence of Republican values, giving the voters a reason to cast their ballots for real Republicans.

The same goes for Illinois. Without Rove, Kjellander has lost the support that has kept him in place despite votes for his removal by the IL GOP State Central Committee and the IL GOP County Chairmen, and a number of top GOP leaders in Illinois.

Iran invades Iraq?

If the U.S. were to pull out of Iraq, many military experts believe that Iran may very well renew the war they quit in 1988. That eight year war was fought over geographic objectives as well as religious motivations that were not settled in that war and still currently exist. After eight years and almost a million deaths, Iran was winning until the U.S. gave aid to Iraq, resulting in a stalemate.

Today, Iran is far more powerful than Iraq in usual military forces and is on the verge of having atomic abilities. Imagine how easily Iran could fill the power vacuum created by U.S. withdrawal in Iraq and take over Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia with all those oil resources and the money that flows out of that region.

Religious hatred and the mad pursuit of power motivate Iran’s ruling class. When you combine power, money and mad ambition, the result is a force that is not going to yield to diplomacy. Democrat “peaceniks” in the U.S. have long pretended that discussions could have done the job with Saddam Hussein and that military intervention was not necessary. That type of vapid dream leads to nightmares.

If those cowardly dreamers cause the U.S. to pull out of Iraq, they would precipitate a confrontation with terrible consequences for the Middle East, and re-stabilization would require a huge commitment of military resources from both the U.S. and Europe. Are we talking WW III here?

So we are reduced to ineffective diplomacy as Iran and its friends take over the world’s oil reserves and all that flow of money. Islamic mosques in the U.S. and elsewhere would have funds beyond imagination to energize suicide squads without limit. Trying to cope with that highly motivated newly rich hatred would bend the freedoms we now enjoy in a free America.

Furthermore, the productive economy we now enjoy would be a distant memory. Imagine the effect on the price of gasoline for your car if you were required to get it from a supplier driven by hatred toward the Western world.

Reason and discussion do not always solve conflicts, either in one’s personal life or certainly between nations. Many such conflicts require one to either submit or fight back. This is especially true of the enemy we currently face in the Middle East.

In historical terms, our present military commitment in Iraq is quite small, nowhere near the losses in many a single battle in WWII. This is no Okinawa, no Iwo Jima, no D-Day, no Bastogne. We have more deaths from drug overdoses each year in Chicago than soldiers killed in Iraq.

Each individual American soldier killed in Iraq is a personal tragedy, but it’s also a life given for a worthy endeavor. Political weaklings in America have apparently never learned or have forgotten Nathan Hale’s famous statement, “I regret that I have but one life to give for my country.” Perhaps that is too strong a commitment for some, but we should be making a collective commitment that we each will take our chances to preserve the American way, the way so many soldiers and their mothers proudly defended it in wars past.

We are being challenged by a determined evil enemy, have no doubt about that. Cowards suffer all their lives. Be an American, be proud of it, and send enough soldiers, equipment, and determination that the enemy will have no doubt of his certain defeat.