Karl Rove is that smug guy who comes home to see his house in flames, but arrogantly assures his neighbors he's not worried because he has enough lumber in the attic to rebuild! -Kevo

Why does Rove get treated as if he's some kind of expert on domestic and foreign policy? The guy's only claim to fame was getting Bu$h elected as governor, and perverting the election process in '00 and '04.

He's a political campaign manager, nothing else!

Karl really said 'Don't you be using...' I'm usually not a grammar pedant, but honestly, that's atrocious.

Karl, don't you be using bad English.

"Secrecy and confidentiality are necessary for every authoritarian government

Fixed.

Seriously, you couldn't ask for a better expression of Rove's contempt for democracy. Transparency and openness are necessary for (small-d) democratic government. Let's not forget that the first time an Administration floated the so-called "state secrets" privilege, it was use not to protect nationa security but to cover up for good old garden-variety incompetence.

Looks like Rove assumes that because he's an expert at stealing elections means he's an expert at EVERYTHING including communication medium.

What a jackass. We used to communicate via non electronic means. All AQ needs is a pen, a paper, a stamp and an envelop the way our cavemen (oh sorry),er, biblical ancestors used so long ago in the Pre historic (sorry again), um, olden olden days.

Couriers and face-to-face meetings, which is what they're been doing all along for the important stuff. Oh, and large amounts of traffic they know is tapped, with big helpings of disinformation and private-language conversation that will never get unraveled because we don't have enough analysts to go through it all.

No, the real lie here is a little more subtle: Rove is slandering the Times by suggesting that terrorists (who are not stupid and have heard of Fort Meade from other sources) don't automatically assume that all their electronic forms of communication are tapped. Any government covert operative has been instructed for decades to assume that adversaries are listening to their phone conversations and reading their email, so why should terrorists be any different?

I'm curious -- what does that leave the terrorists? Smoke signals? Carrier pigeons?

You forgot semaphore flags and tiny mirrors for flashing reflected sunlight---in Morse Code.

-o- oo o-oo o-oo
-o- o- o-o o-oo
o-o --- ---o o

See? Very simple, once you "know the code...."

I don't buy the pop psychology that says that criminals down deep want to be caught, but in Rove's case I'll make an exception.

Remind me again, when is Fitzmas?

And if not for the traitorous, librul NYT, terrorists would have never known that phones could be tapped, or that the CIA had covert field agents, or that web sites might be monitored?

In the wingnut brain, not only were we facing the most dire threat we've ever faced, it was being launched by complete f*cking morons.

Doesn't that speak volumes about the Bush regime? That they could be outsmarted and brought to their knees by such complete f*cking morons?

Most citizens don't want our plans to stop nuclear proliferation splashed on the front pages of the newspaper. So when Karl Rove took it upon itself to expose undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame's information-gathering on nuclear proliferation by rogue regimes such as Iran, when Karl Rove let it be known that we were doing this, he put America and our allies at risk.

Because by sharing this vital secret, he telegraphed to our allies: Don't you be cooperating with the CIA, because we'll expose you.

Don't you be helping avert plans to attack Americans or our friends or allies, because we may expose you, and you'll be in danger of being arrested and killed.

Waitaminit -- wasn't it the hardcore cultist rightie _Washington Times_ that blabbed about bin Laden's satellite phone, leading to a virtually immediate cessation of its use?

To hear Rove tell it, the New York Times effectively told al Qaeda that it can no longer communicate by way of telephones, cellphones, satellite phones, emails, or apparently any kind of electronic communication.

Huh. I always thought it was the 1991 Harrison Ford movie "Patriot Games" or the 1994 "Clear and Present Danger" which told them that. Or, if they missed those, the 1998 Will Smith movie "Enemy of the State"....But maybe al Qaeda, unsophisticated little darlings that they are, hadn't figured out by 2004 that the US intelligence services engaged in electronic surveillance.

Old-time police chiefs relied on this line to prevent newspapers from reporting on serial rapists in their precincts.
"If you report it, the perpetrator will know we're out looking for him."
"Gee Cap'n, Don't ya think after so many attacks he might expect that you ARE looking for him?"

coubtful, ah, equal time for "We have Got..." by President Obama

How will they communicate? Perhaps Craig can suggest foot moves in WCs.

Rove should be tried for treason.Period. Exposing an undercover operative for political shenannigans is inexcusable. They used to hang traitors and reinstatement of that punishment for Rove's crimes would be fitting.

Karl Rove: "Don't be using a cellphone, because we might have found some guy on a battlefield somewhere and gone through his pockets. They call it pocket litter. When we kill somebody on the battlefield, every piece of paper, every document, every item on their body is collected and analyzed, and that information goes into a gigantic database...."

The terrorists didn't know about "pocket litter" until Rove gave his speech yesterday. Doesn't he know that most citizens don't want him broadcasting our plans to stop an enemy attack in his speeches made to finance his legal defense fund?

It truly amazes me that these total and absolute liars continue to have an audience. And the university that had Rove speak what's up there. Institutes of higher learning ( and I know that people need to hear both sides of issues) should not allow themselves to be used to provide propaganda outlets for immoral liars like Karl Rove.

Aha! Stefan's secret vice: Super-crappy spy movies.

"To hear Rove tell it, the New York Times effectively told al Qaeda that it can no longer communicate by way of telephones, cellphones, satellite phones, emails, or apparently any kind of electronic communication."

So tell us Steve, do you think that Rove is wrong or right about this? That the running of the story in the NY Times harmed our government's ability to monitor al Qaeda communications.

If so, do you think that the Times acted irresponsibly by running a story that only hurt our side in the War on Terror?

This trash is to the curb; when's the damn garbageman gonna pick it up? Maybe we should hire some investment bankers to do it.

Does Rove think that terrorist needed the New York Times to tell them that they were under surveillance? From the story of Bin Laden's escape from Tora Bora:

According to Moroccan and other foreign intelligence officials, Tabarak sacrificed himself so the others could escape. He took bin Laden's satellite phone, which the al Qaeda leader apparently assumed was being tracked by U.S. spy technology, and walked toward the Pakistani border as the al Qaeda leadership fled in the opposite direction. The ruse worked, although Tabarak and others were captured.

C'mon Chicounsel....

Are you seriously suggesting that our adversaries around the globe did not know satellite phones, e-mail & cell phones were not bugged as Karl 'the genius' suggests?

You may be that vacuous but to suggest our adversaries are is on par with the bush43 pre 9/11 days. Give them a little bit of credit. They aren't as plainly stupid as you may want them to be. Maybe you are really thinking of all the idiots that got us into a war with a nation that never invaded nor threatened us & just mixed up the names? See...even libs can say nice things. I don't believe that, but I'll say it to be polite.

First, I do think this is what has most disrupted al qaeda's operations--greatly limiting their ability to use modern communication systems. They can still use these methods, but only encrypted, and even then traffic analysis may get them caught. And it's a major pain having to use strictly encrypted methods.

Second, it seems to me that if what Rove is saying is true, then the NYT did a public service by telling them that everything they said or wrote was being monitored. It's sorta like the Doomsday Device in Strangelove--better that they know your doing this.

He took bin Laden's satellite phone, which the al Qaeda leader apparently assumed was being tracked by U.S. spy technology, and walked toward the Pakistani border as the al Qaeda leadership fled in the opposite direction. The ruse worked, although Tabarak and others were captured.

So al Qaeda was smart enough to know it was being tracked, but we were stupid enough to fall for the hoary decoy trick?

Wait, an accredited university asked Karl Rove to speak as part of First Amendment Week? What?

Oh, you mean, as an example of how reprehensible speech from social pariahs is protected in our free society, so Karl Rove has a right to speak? I see.

I just wish he'd come up with some fresh material. That stuff about the New York Times making the world safe for terrorists is so... Bush era. Still with the whole idiot-savant bin Laden, who's genius enough to concoct plots to sneak into America and kill us in our beds, but too stupid to know the Americans monitor electronic communications? Again with the blurring of the distinction between monitoring terrorists in Afghan caves and American citizens in Des Moines? Once more with the complaint about the New York Times, but not the Washington Times? And not a hint of irony about "leaking"?

Was it also "golden oldies" week there?

Stefan must watch something until George Romero finishes his documentary about the RepuGs.

Hey, I live in Des Moines!!

So tell us Chicounsel, do you think that Karl Rove acted irresponsibly by leaking the identity of a covert CIA operative for partisan political reasons that only hurt our side in the fight against nuclear proliferation?

Did Karl Rove bother to mention that the guy who first leaked the info about the US tapping bin laden's sat-phone was Orrin Hatch?

Conservatives have this wrong anyway. Unless we really ARE listening in on every form of communication, then it's best for us to scare them into thinking that we are, so as to hamper their usage of any of these things. And it's quite unlikely that we really were listening to everything, so it'd be best if they assumed we were. For example, we don't want a sleeper cell here in America to feel comfortable with ANY form of communication. That's how we'd disrupt their abilities to plan. After all, they know we HAVE these capabilities, but we want them to think we're listening in on every damn thing they're saying.

It's generally best for the enemy to think the opposite of whatever we're doing. Similarly, if we have secret agents infiltrating them, we want them to think we don't. But if we don't have them, we want them to think we do, so they won't know who to trust. It's just basic mind-screwing.

You can tell just what sort of "serious newspaper" the neighborhood throwaway advertiser formerly known as the Los Angeles Times is by the fact that yesterday's Op-Ed page carried Rove's b.s. as a "major commentary" - right next to Jonah "The Pear-Shaped Fascist" Goldbergs weekly spew.

Republican stooge Chicounsel wrote: So tell us Steve

I'm not Steve, but I'll play!

do you think that Rove is wrong or right about this?

For starters, "Rove is wrong" is a good default position to start from. Once you figure that one out, you might embarrass yourself here a little less often.

That the running of the story in the NY Times harmed our government's ability to monitor al Qaeda communications.

I'll say it definitively: Running the NY Times story did in no way harm the government's ability to monitor al Qaeda communications.

It only revealed that Bush was wiretapping -- an ability of his that is a matter of public record -- illegally by not obtaining the required warrants.

Again: The NYT story revealed nothing about the Administration's wiretapping except the fact that it was illegal -- a fact even the Bush Administration stopped bothering to deny.

If so, do you think that the Times acted irresponsibly by running a story that only hurt our side in the War on Terror?

There was no harm, except the political embarrassment caused by the exposure of the Administration's criminal acts. The Times did not act irresponsibly. The Bush Administration did -- both by its illegal acts, and its attempts, which you continue, of defending its criminality on bogus national security grounds. Shame on you, Chicounsel.

Jackass.

Coming next. Karl Rove attempts to ban all Tom Clancy books in case them pesky Mooslims get any fancy ideas.

If there was any justice, and just 2 more Dem Senators, you'd introduce a very specific draft bill which allowed only for the drafting into the military of elderly guys called Karl. Other than Rove & Lagerfeld, who else might that take care of?

Guys, you don't understand how close we came to capturing bin laden. We'd totally friended him on myspace and were this close to finding his blog which details all their plans, plus we were pretty sure his Flickr account was open. Now he's moved to facebook and we totally can't snag an invitation to the 'death to America' group. And he's not even tweeting! How was rove supposed to find him when he wouldn't tweet?

Aha! Stefan's secret vice: Super-crappy spy movies.

My secret shame, revealed. That and, of course, sodomy.

You post here regularly, sodomy is kind of assumed, no? But bad Clancy movies...tsk tsk

Northzax's on a comic roll!

"So tell us Steve, do you think that Rove is wrong or right about this? That the running of the story in the NY Times harmed our government's ability to monitor al Qaeda communications."

Of course he's wrong, moron, which is neither he, you, nor anyone else has ever been able to demonstrate any "harm."

Passing on a "state secret" that has been known for decades, that the US can listen in on cell phone calls, is not a leak.

A leak is when the identity of active CIA officers are made public.

Or when an al Qaeda operative is arrested in London in 2004, provides valuable intelligence on potential operations in England, then a certain US administration lets the world know who he is.

Aside from the Washington Times running this story, I thought that bin Laden stopped using his satellite phone after some member of the House intelligence committee said on national television that the US, in fact, was listening in.

Good Heavens, I remember the morning when my boss, Osama bin Laden, opened up the New York Times and read that particular article. He was freaking out.

"What!?!" said Big O, "those infidel bastards have got the nerve to be reading our email? Why, that's absolutely unbelievable! I'd never, never have dreamt that they'd stoop to a low, unfair tactic like that! I thought they were gentlemen, and gentlemen don't read each other's mail! Well, that's it, brothers - I'm cancelling my AOL account this minute. And the rest of you had better do the same. If I catch any of you communicating our top secret terrorism plans via email, I swear I'll take your computer away from you." And in a big huff, fuming and cursing, he stomped off to his cave.

A few minutes later he was back. "Ahmed," he said, "I guess this also means that YouTube is out. Isn't it. Damn it."

I replied, "Yes indeed, big O, if they're spying on all the emails in the world, I'll bet they're also monitoring YouTube. And even if they aren't, somebody on Fark or something is apt to stumble on one of our videos and betray us to their police agencies."

He thrust his fists into the air and cried, "Allah smite those infidels! I had a honey of a recruitment video all ready to upload. Curses! Foiled again!"