You are herecontent / Why Bush Has To Fire Rove

Why Bush Has To Fire Rove

Published on Monday, July 11, 2005 by The Nation
By David Corn

In a weekend posting I asked if it was time to get ready for the Karl Rove frog-march? The question was prompted by a Newsweek article by reporter Michael Isikoff that disclosed the first documentary evidence showing that Rove revealed to a reporter that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. In a July 11, 2003 email that Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper sent to his bureau chief, Cooper noted he had spoken to Rove on "double super secret background" and that Rove had told him that Wilson's "wife...apparently works at the agency on wmd issues." "Agency" means CIA. This is not good news for Rove and the White House.

The email--which Time had turned over to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who is investigating the Plame/CIA leak--may not be enough to prompt Fitzgerald to indict Rove. Under the narrowly written Intelligence Identities Protect Act, Fitzgerald would have to show that Rove knew Valerie Wilson (a.k.a. Valerie Plame) was working at the CIA under cover--that is, as a secret employee--which she was. But Fitzgerald still could build such a case upon other evidence. And Rove also could be in legal peril if his previous testimony to Fitzgerald is contradicted by this email--or the other material Time surrendered, over Cooper's objections, to Fitzgerald or by Cooper's forthcoming testimony to Fitzgerald's grand jury. (Last week, Cooper declared his source, presumably Rove, had given him permission to testify before the grand jury.)

But let's put aside the legal issues for a moment. This email demonstrates that Rove committed a firing offense. He leaked national security information as part of a fierce campaign to undermine Wilson, who had criticized the White House on the war on Iraq. Rove's overworked attorney, Robert Luskin, defends his client by arguing that Rove never revealed the name of Valerie Plame/Wilson to Cooper and that he only referred to her as Wilson's wife. This is not much of a defense. If Cooper or any other journalist had written that "Wilson's wife works for the CIA"--without mentioning her name--such a disclosure could have been expected to have the same effect as if her name had been used: Valerie Wilson would have been compromised, her anti-WMD work placed at risk, and national security potentially harmed. Either Rove knew that he was revealing an undercover officer to a reporter or he was identifying a CIA officer without bothering to check on her status and without considering the consequences of outing her. Take your pick: in both scenarios Rove is acting in a reckless and cavalier fashion, ignoring the national security interests of the nation to score a political point against a policy foe.

This ought to get Rove fired--unless he resigns first.

Can George W. Bush countenance such conduct within the White House? Consider what White House press secretary Scott McClellan said on September 29, 2003, after the news broke that the Justice Department was investigating the leak. McClellan declared of the Plame/CIA leak, "That is not the way this White House operates. The president expects everyone in his administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. No one would be authorized to do such a thing."

Apparently, it is how the White House operated--or at least how Rove operated. If he violated White House rules (and presidential expectations) that prohibit such skullduggery, he should be booted.

McClellan also maintained at the time that "the president knows" that Rove wasn't involved in the leak. And he said that the allegation that Rove was involved in this leak was "a ridiculous suggestion" and "it is simply not true."

McClellan was wrong. Did that mean that Rove had lied to McClellan about his role in this? That Rove had also lied to Bush? Or was McClellan knowingly misinforming the public? If the latter, then there should be two resignations.

Days later, Bush took a clear stand on the Plame/CIA leak. He said:

There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. If there's leaks out of my administration, I want to know who it is, and if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of.

According to Cooper's email, Rove did leak classified information, wittingly or not. Did he share that fact with Bush? If McClellan can be believed, Rove did not. If that's true, Bush should dismiss Rove for holding out on him. But it Rove did talk to Bush about his participation in the leak, what did he tell Bush? And what actions did Bush take? Did Rove tell Bush how he had come to know about Valerie Wilson's position at the CIA? Did he disclose to Bush who else knew about it? Did he tell his boss whether anyone else was passing this information to reporters? In the first column that disclosed Valerie Wilson's CIA identity, Bob Novak referred to "two" senior administration officials? So who in addition to Rove might have revealed this information to Novak?

Bush also said at the time that any government official with knowledge of the leak should "come forward and speak out." Rove certainly did not follow that presidential order. He should be pink-slipped for that, too.

But before Rove is cast out of the White House, Bush ought to demand that he come clean and--if he has not done so--tell Bush everything that happened with this leak. Then Bush should "come forward and speak out" and share the details with the American public. And an apology to Valerie and Joseph Wilson would be a nice touch.

Fitzgerald is handling the Plame/CIA leak as a criminal matter, as he should. That's his job. But the leak--whether a crime or not--was serious wrongdoing. The White House has taken no steps to address that in the two years since the leak occurred. But it need not wait for Fitzgerald to conclude his investigation. Rove may end up not guilty of a crime, but he is guilty of significant misconduct. With the disclosure of this smoking email, Bush has no excuse for inaction. Newspaper editorial boards and members of Congress (okay, Democratic members of Congress) ought to be howling for a White House response to the news that its current deputy chief of staff revealed national security information to a reporter in order to discredit a critic. The only appropriate response for such a thuggish infraction of White House policy and common decency would be to send Rove back to Texas.

David Corn is author of The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

That's funny David Corn should write that, seeing as how he was the first journalist to actually unambiguously state that Valerie Plame was a covert agent.

Plame's name was never a secret, it was available on the internet before all of this happened by searching for Joseph Wilson. Since you could find it on the internet, is must not have been very secret.

In any case, Rove didn't say she was a covert agent, only that she worked for the CIA. How did he know that? That remains to be seen. Regardless, Rove is cleared of violating the law, and is also thereby cleared of "outing" Plame. He did not blow her cover, as he didn't say anything about her covert status.

Rove was only furthering the information that Plame set up Wilson's trip to Niger, which was true and contrary to what Wilson was claiming at the time, and that Wilson was lying about what his trip to Niger revealed, which the Senate Intelligence report also found to be true.

In summary: Rove told the truth, and did not blow Plame's cover.

So then the question remains: who did blow her cover?

If I were to look at articles written at the time, I would have to conclude that David Corn did. Pretty ironic.

See my blog for a more concise summary.

"He did not blow her cover, as he didn't say anything about her covert status."

Right . . . which goes something like "Hey, man, I didn't tell your wife you were sleeping with Julie . . . I only said you were sleeping around."

The law doesn't say it's illegal to tell her covert status, it says it's illegal to say she works for the CIA.

Any undercover cops out there? Feel secure that while Seixon might announce to the world you are a cop, he certainly won't blow your cover.

Do you write for Bushco?

Really? Let's take a look at the law then, since you seem to want to use it as a cover for your spin:

(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had
access to classified information that identifies covert agent
(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of
covert agents as result of having access to classified
(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of
activities intended to identify and expose covert agents

Ooops. There goes your spin, right down the toilet.

Not everyone working at the CIA is covert, in fact, most of them are not. Rove did not disclose any covert status, thus he did not violate this law, and you are shamelessly in denial.

Actually, I'm not sure that your 'down the toilet' is sufficiently flushed. In particular, substitute 'Plame qua CIA agent' for all occurrences of 'covert agent' in clauses (a)--(c). It's at least prima facie clear that Rove broke the law so read.

On the other hand, you point out that not all CIA agents are covert agents. (True, obviously!) But, presumably, covert agents are not publicly known to be CIA agents. (If they were, there'd be little hope of their pulling off successful covert work, or so it would seem.) If that's right, then presumably the issue is whether Rove transgressed the intent or spirit (or, at any rate, the relevant import) of (a)--(c). If the import of (a)--(c), for purposes of covert (let alone 'double secret') agents , is something like I've suggested -- viz., substituting 'Plame qua CIA agent' for 'covert agent' -- then Rove broke the law.

But I'm not a lawyer. It just seems, as I said, that your 'down the toilet' claim isn't as yet clearly flushed.

Rove did not say she was a covert agent. How was her cover then blown? Cooper didn't say so, either. All they said was that she worked at the CIA. The law explicitly states that you have to tell someone that they were a covert agent, which they didn't do.

Your semantics isn't going to get you anywhere. The real question is, who was the one responsible for actually outing Plame? It wasn't Rove, he never said she was covert. So who did?

The first person to write that she was, unambiguously, was David Corn. Who told him about her status?

This latest reply is unfortunate. Either you don't see the point made above or you're ignoring it. You seem not to want to ignore the issues, and so I'll assume that you've missed the point. The point (made clearly in the discussion of substituting 'Plame qua CIA agent' etc.) may be seen as follows. You claim, correctly, that not all CIA agents are covert agents, and presumably you agree that many agents are publicly known qua CIA agents. No worries. The issue -- and, presumably, the law governing the 'outing' or 'identifying' covert agents -- concerns whether covert agents (let alone, 'double-secret' etc) are publicly known qua CIA agents. (Obviously, they're not know qua covert agents!) Covert agents aren't known to the public qua CIA. If they were, then their covert work would be 'down the hole', as you said. That's why there's a prima facie case that, simply by identifying a covert agent qua CIA agent, Rove broke the law. Indeed, if it was publicly available that Plame was a CIA agent (notice that I didn't say 'covert agent'), then why would Rove or anyone else need to say as much? Rove enjoyed access to classified information (via., that Plame was a covert agent, and hence a CIA agent, something not publicly known). And he apparently leaked that (classified) information to Cooper, thereby ruining a covert agent's work. (You might say that Rove didn't know that he'd ruin her covert work, but I doubt that you'd actually believe that.)

Seixon, do you really live in Lala Land? 1- We have a victim, Valerie Plame. 2- We have a crime, she was named as a covert CIA agent in articles written by reportes (Novac & Cooper). 3- The information used by the reporters came from Karl Rove. How the hell is it that Rove commited no crime? He gave information that outed Plame, his intentions really don't matter, the crime was done when he gave that information about Plame that labled her as a CIA agent.

Yes, Valerie was outed. By Rove? Nope, he never said she was a covert agent. Rove is not the only source here, buttercup. Nice try in pretending that he is, though.

Rove told Cooper that Plame worked for the CIA, and that she was responsible for getting Wilson the mission to Niger, both true, and there's nothing in there talking about her being covert.

How in the hell do you get him breaking the law that I just showed you?

He didn't say "CIA agent" lol. He said she worked at the CIA, and as you maybe don't know, there are thousands of people who work at the CIA that are not covert.

Might as well put Rove in the guillotine for "outing" George Tenet, by saying that he works for the CIA. LOL

Though Mr Blair is marching on under US supervision, he did not
have a war prime ministership in mind when he got the word from Washington to attack Irag.

Seixon, Seixon, Seixon:

I told you last night that you should humor yourself with your nightly dose of Fox, you know, O"Reilly, et al.

So, go to your TV, change the channel to your propaganda station and get all the venom you need to make it to the morning. The rest of us will go about the business of saving this nation's ass from the likes of your Furher.

Wow, another post that doesn't go into any substance, but tries to frame me as some kind of GOP operative.

Here's a little nugget for you: I don't watch FOX, we don't have FOX since we have only basic cable, I don't watch O'Reilly since he is just as bad as some of the hacks that you rely on for information, like this site.

I know the truth scares you, that's why you didn't want to confront it, but instead chose to put up a smokescreen and hide behind it like the little coward you are.

I just saw Scott McClellen uh, uh, uh, uhing his last press conference. He was so funny! Please sign this guy up for comedy central. What a riot! Please people...wake up and smell the bullshit. It is so strong. God bless America. God damn the Republican sham!!!

In His service,
Perry Jordan
Collosians 3:23

CIA Leak Quotes
By The Associated Press
Some of the denials, other comments, at media briefings by White House spokesman Scott McClellan when asked by reporters whether President Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, was involved in the leak of a CIA officer's identity:

Sept. 29, 2003

Q: You said this morning, quote, "The president knows that Karl Rove wasn't involved." How does he know that?

A: Well, I've made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place. ... I've said that it's not true. ... And I have spoken with Karl Rove.

Q: It doesn't take much for the president to ask a senior official working for him, to just lay the question out for a few people and end this controversy today.

A: Do you have specific information to bring to our attention? ... Are we supposed to chase down every anonymous report in the newspaper? We'd spend all our time doing that."

Q: When you talked to Mr. Rove, did you discuss, "Did you ever have this information?"

A: I've made it very clear, he was not involved, that there's no truth to the suggestion that he was.

* __

Oct. 7, 2003

Q: You have said that you personally went to Scooter Libby (Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff), Karl Rove and Elliott Abrams (National Security Council official) to ask them if they were the leakers. Is that what happened? Why did you do that? And can you describe the conversations you had with them? What was the question you asked?

A: Unfortunately, in Washington, D.C., at a time like this there are a lot of rumors and innuendo. There are unsubstantiated accusations that are made. And that's exactly what happened in the case of these three individuals. They are good individuals. They are important members of our White House team. And that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt with that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you, and that's exactly what I did.

* __

Oct. 10, 2003

Q: Earlier this week you told us that neither Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams nor Lewis Libby disclosed any classified information with regard to the leak. I wondered if you could tell us more specifically whether any of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?

A: I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that's where it stands.

Q: So none of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?

A: They assured me that they were not involved in this.

Q: They were not involved in what?

A: The leaking of classified information.

Cheney directed the speech writer to include the Niger yellow-cake claim in Bush's speech knowing for a fact that it was false. It's quite likely that Judith Miller is in jail protecting Cheney. Cheney had the CIA at his disposal, and ran his own Faux intelligence agency from his office. Rove likely got word from Cheney to smear Wilson in any way possible (using information provided by Bolton, perhaps?).

Rove took his orders from Cheney.

disgusting to think Miller is in the can for letting Cheney hide... granted, Miller is disgusting herself-- all the fake WMD stories... but Cheney likely the man in league with Rove...

Bush has no spine, no brain.. his warped spine is Cheney, warped brain is Rove.
Bush is afraid of Cheney and Rove.

This is one of the first times in US history that a VP is prez and the VP is doing all the prez stuff behind scenes.

Rove and Cheney are in this one up to their necks. Bush won't do a darn thing. Too dumb or too chicken. Probably both.


The CIA, the agency that initiated the investigation into the leak, is also controlled by Cheney, who you say is instrumental in the leak.

So Cheney is launching an investigation into himself?


You should really read through your crazy conspiracy babble before you post it. It doesn't even hold up to the scrutiny of a 4th grader.

Bring it on!
Time to investigate Chenney!

The president expects everyone in his administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. No one would be authorized to do such a thing."

Skippy (aka (P)resident Bush) has a lower standard of conduct than the average American. Don't expect anything to happen to Rove

Nothing will happen to Rove because he didn't violate any law.
He did not tell Cooper that Plame was a covert agent, and Cooper didn't say that in his column either.

So what law did Rove break? The imaginary one in your head?

Let us suppose that you're right: that Rove violated no law. (I doubt that, from the wording of the relevant laws, but I'm not a lawyer.) Question: Do you think that what Rove -- or perhaps more accurately the administration (via Rove) -- did vis-a-vis Wilson/Plame was a good thing? Perhaps more to the point, do you think that it's something an American White House ought to have done, something of which Americans ought to be proud?

Please know that I ask the above question(s) in all sincerity. The question is not rhetorical in any fashion. I am truly saddened by the divide in this country, by the apparent inability (or apparent inability) to carry on genuine discussion. The main reason I ask the question is to figure out a bit more what you, as an apparent supportor of Rove (or the WH), think about the matter. (If my presupposition is wrong, I'm sorry.) It's difficult for me to understand how anyone could fail to be bothered (indeed, indignant) about the Rove incident. I think that all would benefit from understanding what, exactly, the 'other side' is thinking. (This goes equally for the yet unanswered questions surrounding the DSMs.)

You make great points, and have some perfect questions for anyone like Seixon. The problem is that this person, and people like them are not here to have a serious discussion that is open on both sides. They don't come here to get to the bottom of anything because their mind is already made up. They come here to criticize, to try and make people like you and me feel like there is no hope in exposing corruption and lies. They come here to try and be the little voice of doubt in your ear. They will fail, without question, but don't expect to have any real conversation with the likes of Seixon.

First of all, you know nothing about me. Yet somehow, you speak about me as if you do.

I'm not interested in a serious discussion? Really? Almost all of the responses I get here are people like you, who don't even rebut anything I have to say, but tow the "he's just a right-winger, don't listen to him" line.

My mind is already made up? LOL
Look, you and others here on this site have already decided that Rove outed Plame, long ago. Now the facts show us that he did not, and now you have egg on your face and are too cowardly to admit it.

I'm trying to have a real conversation, I am asking you people to look at facts, look at information, answer critical questions, but unfortunately I mostly gets posts like yours, that say a whole lot of nothing.

Your post is basically, "Seixon is a brainwashed right-winger, don't listen to him, I will now claim he isn't interested in discussion all the while I ignore all his points and don't seek to actually engage in debate with him, all the while writing a completely hypocritical post incriminating myself of the very thing I am alleging Seixon does".

Whatever, hope you sleep well at night.

Rove told a journalist that Wilson was lying to try and discredit the president. He was right. So yes, I think that it was quite ethical for Rove to point out that Wilson was lying about his boss. Wilson claimed that the Vice President had him sent to Niger, which was false since his wife got him set up for it. Wilson claimed he found "nothing" in Niger, also false as the former PM of Niger told him a businessman approached him about acquiring uranium for Iraq. Third, Wilson's whole op-ed centered on an actual transaction taking place between Niger and Iraq, which was a strawman because he was never told to figure that out, he was to figure out if Iraq had SOUGHT uranium, not GOTTEN. Fourth, Wilson claimed he had seen or been told of the forged memos before he went on his mission, another lie since the CIA didn't even get their hands on the memo until many months after Wilson's trip, and Wilson later admitted that he "misspoke".

So yes, I have no problem with Rove telling a journalist that Wilson was a liar, and setting the record straight: that Cheney didn't have Wilson sent, his wife got him sent. That was the only thing Rove wanted to get across to Cooper, because Wilson was lying.

Rove didn't out anyone. Whoever did ought to be tried for a crime. It was not necessary to out Plame as a covert agent, which Rove/Cooper did not do. David Corn did, and I guess you could argue that Novak did, although what he said was ambiguous.

I'm not a de facto supporter of Rove or Bush, I am a supporter of the truth. I am bothered by the outing of Plame's covert status, yet even more bothered that cheap propaganda sites like this one keep whoring their own agenda and ignoring the facts.

Rove is not our guy. Someone else did the outing of her covert status. Let's all find out who did it. The only way we might be able to find out is if Miller is forced to hand over her notes. Miller should do this, since she is not protecting anything other than a potential criminal. She is acting as an accessory to a crime.

I'm a disaffected former Democrat, mostly because of rabid moonbat sites like this one, that have become mainstream in the new and crazy Democratic party.

If only people cared more about the truth, instead of protecting their political agenda.

Your last sentence is quite good , does that go for Rove's attacks on Sen. McCain in the 2000 race? Rove was just telling the truth and had no agenda when he spread lies about the Senator. It must be very convenient to change your beliefs to fit the issue.

Your distinstion between lawful and unlawful are very troubeling and cowardly. The Pres. has lied repeatedly as has most of the White House staff involved and you have no problem with this,for what reason I can't imagine.This all sounds more like a mafia response to questions ,not a White House response ,I still believe there should be a difference between the two. The Pres. said anyone who leaks info. on CIA operatives will not be part of this administration, he made no distinction as to lawfullness of said leak. He also said it was rediculous to think Rove would leak said info. Bush either is or isn't a liar, the choice is his. I welcome your comment as to why you think it is wrong to lie about oral sex but is ok to leak the name of someone fighting terrorism and lie about it.

OK, first you start of with an unproven premise, that the president has lied repeatedly, and that the White House staff does as well. As you present no proof of this, and it is by no means an established fact, your premise is null.

Bush said that if anyone in his administration was involved in outing Plame, they would get the boot. Rove wasn't involved in the outing.

Your last sentence is glorious in its complete incompetence.

"I welcome your comment as to why you think it is wrong to lie about oral sex but it is OK to leak the name of someone fighting terrorism and lie about it."

First of all, I supported Clinton in the Lewinsky scandal, as I thought it was none of anyone else's business. You have here just assumed that I hate Clinton or something. It's dangerous to make such assumptions.

Second, Rove didn't leak the name of Plame. Her name was never a secret, you could have found it within 30 seconds using Google before any of this happened. Get a clue.

Third, Plame wasn't fighting terrorism. She was working on counter-proliferation of WMDs, that is not the same thing.

Fourth, they haven't lied about it. Rove didn't out Plame, so what's the lie?

To list all of the lies told by Bush would take up too much time but how about, Iraq is responsible for the attack on 9-11-01. That one alone is enough for me ,and he said that one in congress. Sending my son to fight a war based on a string of lies, are you going to tell me we started this war so Iraq could have elections? We will be greated in Baghdad as liberators, did you get greated as a liberator when you went. Mission accomplished! Look at Scott McClennan on tv and tell me the administration doesn't lie.It must be nice in your cartoon world, but if you haven't noticed people are dying because of George's lies.

The information that Rove gave Cooper was sufficient to finger Valerie Plame as a covert CIA agent. It dosn't seem to me that it matters much if he used her name or not, the end result is that she was outed. And to say that no harm was inteded is equal to saying that they didn't know the gun was loaded as the victim lies in a pool of blood. If no law was violated then explain why we have a crime.

Someone ELSE committed the crime, not Rove. Get it? Cooper didn't write that Plame as a covert agent. Novak didn't either. He used the word "operative" which can be interpreted in many ways, and the New York Times, or another source, has just today published an article saying "covert agency operative". If "operative" meant covert, why the redundant use of covert? Hmmmm, maybe because operative doesn't necessarily mean covert?

The real question here is: who told David Corn about Plame's status? He wrote in his column that she had "non-official cover". Who did he learn that from?

Why would the Bush administration initiate an investigation on itself if they knew that Rove was guilty or something? Why would Rove give a waiver to all the reporters he talked to so that they could squeal on him, if he committed a crime?

Here's the answer: Rove didn't commit a crime, someone else did.
Rove was recycling common knowledge, not outing anyone.

He' our wing nut and we love him.

Below is my letter to the editor of the NY Times owned
Wilmington, NC "Star-News". It may be a bit harsh for some
on the forum, but after being run from my home and having
MY wife threatened by the NEO CON KKK, I am a bit outraged
by the barbarism of these uncivilized men in their approach to
"getting their way." I apologize if this ruffles anyone's feathers,
but I am bit "pissed off" these days.



Dear Editor,

Subject: NEO CON "Murder Incorporated" Mafia Tactics

In regards to the Wilmington Star-News article, "White House mute on
Rove's role in CIA leak" I feel N.Y. Times News Service writer
Richard W. Stevenson, while actually doing a fine job of finally
putting some facts into the MSM (Main Stream Media), missed a key
humanistic point. As the article points out, it is a criminal
offense (felony) in United States to expose the identity of an
Intelligence operative, but I wish to make it very clear that this
could also mean a "death sentence" to the agent.

I have worked closely with the fine men and women that make up our
SBI, FBI, CIA, NSA, and Military Intelligence agencies over the
years as a trainer and a consultant. It infuriates me that Karl
Rove would intentionally leak the identity of Valarie Plame in a
NEO CON Machiavellian Power Play to not only punish her husband,
Joseph Wilson, for challenging the White House's "cooked-up"
intelligence on Iraq, but to make an example of him for anyone else
that may consider "crossing" them. Depending on how deeply an
operative is embedded in an investigation, a "blown cover" may mean
more than just the loss of a career. It may mean that the agent,
their family, and everyone they love could become the victims of the
criminals they have "betrayed."

The men and women that put their lives on the line to support and
defend the US Constitution deserve much better than this. The
people of the United States and the people of the world deserve
better than this. We will not live in fear of a bunch of rich NEO
CON frat brats with delusions of grandeur as outlined in their
"Policy for a New American Century" (
Personally, I think this ridiculous PAX AMERICA model, which is
largely based on the archaic 19th Century pseudo-science of Static
Social Darwinist Eugenics, is completely un-constitutional in its
dream/nightmare of a "New World Order" and that our military and
intelligence agencies should not be forced to support it. They
should definitely not be threatened and destroyed for challenging
it, either.

- Frederick C. Blackburn

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Support This Site


Get free books and gear when you become a supporter.



Speaking Truth to Empire


Families United


Ray McGovern


Julie Varughese


Financial supporters of this site can choose to be listed here.



Ca-Dress Long Prom Dresses Canada
Ca Dress Long Prom Dresses on

Buy Books

Get Gear

The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.