Karl Rove (J.D. Pooley/ZUMA Press)

Washington memoirs are all about settling scores. Karl Rove’s “Courage and Consequence: My Life as a Conservative in the Fight” takes that tradition to new and self-parodying heights. To read Rove’s recollections of George W. Bush’s White House is to believe that, for eight years, men of “courage and moral clarity” governed the United States and were beset by critics who refused to give them any credit. On page after page, Rove names the naysayers and picks apart their claims. He’s most at ease — his delight jumps right off of the page — when he’s able to recount times he shoved the criticisms back in their faces.

[GOP1]In the memoir’s final chapter, humbly titled “Rove: the Myth,” the architect of a two-term Republican presidency reports how angry he was when he read a passage in then-Sen. Barack Obama’s second book lumping him in with Newt Gingrich, Grover Norquist, and Ralph Reed as “conservative operatives” with “fiery rhetoric” like “No new taxes” or “We are a Christian nation.”

“I certainly don’t believe and have never said, ‘We are a Christian nation,’” writes Rove. “I put the offending page in my pocket and went about my business.” Later that day, he encountered Obama and fell victim to “feistiness,” challenging the senator for using “my name and the word ‘said’ and quote marks.” Obama, Rove reports, blanched when the torn-out page was shown to him and tried to wriggle out of the conversation: “It seemed to me he didn’t much care that he had attributed to me something I had never said and found offensive.”

Four years later, Rove offers up the encounter as proof that Obama’s image as “the truest, purest proponent of a fresh new style of politics” is a ruse, and snarls that “the last time I checked, I hadn’t bombed any government building (like, say, Obama’s great friend William Ayers); or asked that God ‘damn’ America (like, say, Obama’s former pastor and close friend Jeremiah Wright); or declared that I was proud of my country for the first time in my life only when I was in my forties (like, say, Obama’s wife, Michelle).”

It’s a revealing passage — it takes up three whole pages — that demonstrates just how Rove thinks. Accused of being a steamrolling, divisive political operative, he locates a loophole in the argument, and closes by insulting the wife of the person who criticized him. Apart from some gripping narrative sections about how the inner sanctum of the White House reacted to the September 11 attacks, “Courage and Consequence” reads less like the story of one of history’s most powerful presidential advisers and more like a quickie fightback book from some apparatchik ensnared in a petty scandal.

Rove’s quest to debunk and overpower his enemies in politics and the press begins with his account of the “broken family” that raised him. Nineteen pages in, he starts swinging at journalists — James Moore, Paul Alexander, Wayne Slater — who’ve looked into the suicide of his mother and the rumored homosexuality of his father for clues about his psychology. “The writers who are fascinated with whether my father was gay,” Rove snarls, “are really more interested in implying that all people who have gay relatives or friends must support same-sex marriage; otherwise they are bigots and hypocrites. And if one of these people happens to be Karl Rove, so much the better.”

In other, less personal sections of the book, Rove takes the same care in dissembling what his enemies have been saying. Throughout, he settles scores with political opponents while seeing past the fault in his own. Recapping one of the coups of his early career, he admits that he “destroyed the career” of former Texas Railroad Commissioner Lena Guerroro by leaking the proof that she had embellished her academic record. “Did I pass on to a reporter the information that pointed to our opponent’s lie?” Rove writes. “Absolutely, you bet, and I have no regrets about it whatsoever. Why should I? The information, after all, was true. That should have some bearing on this issue.”

Rove doesn’t have the same attitude about information that damaged his own client, George W. Bush. Rove devotes a chapter title — “Derailed by a DUI” — and five pages to how Democrats killed the 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign’s momentum with a leak about Bush’s 1976 DUI arrest in Maine. Mournfully, Rove recounts the reaction of his campaign — “Bush called it ‘dirty politics’ and said, ‘I don’t know if my opponent’s campaign was involved, but I do know that the person who admitted doing it at the last minute was a Democratic and partisan in Maine.” Rove’s regret was that he didn’t outsmart the Democrats by leaking the information before they did: “Of the things I would redo in the 2000 election, making a timely announcement about Bush’s DUI would top the list.”

Rove’s pride and tunnel vision about his campaign tactics aren’t anything new in the Washington memoir genre. Much of Sarah Palin’s “Going Rogue” featured the same sort of finger-pointing about her brief bid for the vice presidency. If anything, Rove takes more obvious relish in attacking the people who made his campaigns difficult — it’s mostly “the kooky left-wing blogosphere” that thinks he ran a dirty campaign against John McCain in 2000, or that only an “imbecile” could have believed the 2004 exit polls that showed a Kerry-Edwards win, and so on.

But unlike Palin — unlike most people with his portfolio — Rove was in the cockpit for much of a consequential presidency that launched two wars and dramatically expanded the size of the federal government. He writes about this the same way he writes about minor tiffs and campaign tricks. He spends a page trying to debunk the idea that Bush ever told Americans to “go shopping” after the September 11 attacks. Technically, he’s right. The closest Bush ever came to using those two precise words — the moment that most people remember as the “go shopping” moment — were his September 27, 2001 remarks at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport when he urged Americans to “get down to Disney World in Florida” and “take your families and enjoy life, the way we want it to be enjoyed.” But Rove insists that the “closest he ever came” was a different speech in which Bush praised Americans for “going about their daily lives, working and shopping and playing, worshiping at churches and synagogues and mosques, going to movies and to baseball.” Even there, Rove skips past the argument made by critics — that Bush, in a unique position to demand more of Americans, gave an “all-clear” sign and moved on. In writing about Hurricane Katrina, one of his only regrets is “flying over the region in Air Force One on Wednesday, rather than landing.” In one of Rove’s few admissions, he admits that he’s “one of the people responsible for this mistake.”

“Courage and Consequence” is filled with such arguments. Pre-release excepts about Rove’s take on the Iraq War — that his biggest regret was that he should have worked harder to spin the fallout over the lack of WMD in Iraq — foreshadowed the way Rove would tackle most of the controversies of his tenure. At several points, he simply misstates facts. He impugns the character of former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias, who was removed from his position in New Mexico after not pursuing politicized prosecutions, by claiming that Iglesias was incompetent and gunning for electoral office. Paragraphs later, he claims that the only qualm that Democrats have with former U.S. Attorney Tim Griffin — who resigned after negative attention on his own politicized appointment — is that they feared it would help Griffin’s career. Left unmentioned is the real Democratic argument, that Griffin helped the Bush-Cheney campaign challenge the voter registrations of voters in largely African-American, Democratic-leaning areas. But to Rove, the most important Republican political strategist of his generation, Democratic worries about election integrity are basically one big joke. In an unsurprising chapter about the 2000 presidential election recount — revelations are limited to the angry looks and sighs that various players gave to Rove — he refers to the Bush team in Florida as “freedom fighters whose homeland had been occupied as they grappled with a blitzkrieg of lawsuits filed by Gore’s attorneys and street protests led by Jesse Jackson.”

Very little of this should surprise observers of Rove in power or out of power, as a quotable White House aide and then as a Fox News pundit who has reliably attacked the Democrats. Rove’s disinterest in policy or consequences of policy isn’t surprising, either. (“I didn’t pretend to be Carl von Clausewitz or Henry Kissinger, but I knew the Iraq War wasn’t going well,” Rove writes of his thinking in December 2006.) The historical value of the book itself is minimal. It functions, instead, as a test of whether Rove’s combination of pique and pride will be helpful as Bush administration veterans argue that they spent eight years changing America for the better, over the cries of critics, only to watch their work be ruined by Barack Obama and his pack of elitist liberals.

Colin Powell served as Secretary of State during a time of swift and far-reaching change, both for our nation and the world. His tenure began just a few weeks into the new millennium. Nine months later, the September 11th attacks occurred. In the days and weeks that followed, Secretary Powell provided a calm, steady, and hopeful voice as Americans sought to understand the threats we faced and the uncertain future that lay ahead.

In fact, on the day of the attacks, Secretary Powell was in Lima, Peru, attending a special session of the Organization of American States to adopt the Inter-American Democratic Charter, a critical instrument for strengthening public institutions and helping democracy deliver real improvements to people’s lives. When he heard that the planes had hit the Towers, he told his staff that they’d be returning to the United States immediately – and then he returned to the session to cast our nation’s vote in favor of the charter.

Guess what she didn’t mention.

Unfortunately forgotten, however, has been a rarely mentioned Novak column penned in September 2002 — six months before the Iraq invasion — in which he points out the inconvenient truth (highly unpatriotic at the time) that Saddam Hussein’s supposedly threatening arsenal of weapons had been sold to him by the United States.

An eight-year-old Senate report confirms that disease-producing and poisonous materials were exported, under U.S. government license, to Iraq from 1985 to 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war. Furthermore, the report adds, the American-exported materials were identical to microorganisms destroyed by United Nations inspectors after the Gulf War. The shipments were approved despite allegations that Saddam used biological weapons against Kurdish rebels and (according to the current official U.S. position) initiated war with Iran.

This record is no argument for or against waging war against the Iraqi regime, but current U.S. officials are not eager to reconstruct the mostly secret relationship between the two countries. While biological warfare exports were approved by the U.S. government, the first President George Bush signed a policy directive proposing “normal” relations with Saddam in the interest of Middle East stability. Looking at a little U.S.-Iraqi history might be useful on the eve of a fateful military undertaking.

Novak went on to blast the selective amnesia of then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who was questioned about those weapons sales by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.).

At a Senate Armed Services hearing last Thursday, Byrd tried to disinter that history. “Did the United States help Iraq to acquire the building blocks of biological weapons during the Iran-Iraq war?” he asked Rumsfeld. “Certainly not to my knowledge,” Rumsfeld replied. When Byrd persisted by reading a current Newsweek article reporting these exports, Rumsfeld said, “I have never heard anything like what you’ve read, I have no knowledge of it whatsoever, and I doubt it.”

That suggests Rumsfeld also has not read the sole surviving copy of a May 25, 1994, Senate Banking Committee report. In 1985 (five years after the Iraq-Iran war started) and succeeding years, said the report, “pathogenic (meaning “disease producing”), toxigenic (meaning “poisonous”) and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq, pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce.” It added: “These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction.”

The report then details 70 shipments (including anthrax bacillus) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding, “It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program.”

With Baghdad having survived combat against Iran’s revolutionary regime with U.S. help, President George H.W. Bush signed National Security Directive 26 on Oct. 2, 1989. Classified “secret” but recently declassified, it said: “Normal relations between the United States and Iraq would serve our longer-term interests and promote stability in both the Gulf and the Middle East. The United States government should propose economic and political incentives for Iraq to moderate its behavior and to increase our influence with Iraq.”

Bush the elder, who said recently that he “hates” Saddam, saw no reason then to oust the Iraqi dictator. On the contrary, the government’s approval of exporting microorganisms to Iraq coincided with the Bush administration’s decision to save Saddam from defeat by the Iranian mullahs.

“Such recollections of the recent past,” Novak added, “make for uncomfortable officials in Washington and Jerusalem today.”

Any historians writing the Iraq War chapter pertaining to journalism’s complicity in the invasion shouldn’t fail to include mention of these words.

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

Needless to say, these are some hot-button legal issues that go to the heart of what the president has been doing over the last eight years in executing his “war on terror.”

Yet, you’d never know it from reading these memos. As I wrote in my recent piece about the Bush Justice Department, the lawyers chosen to lead the Office of Legal Counsel appear to have used their position not to explain to the president what the law is, but to provide him legal justification for doing precisely what he wanted to do all along.

Thus the newly-released OLC memos concluded that suspected Taliban and Al Qaeda detainees are “enemy combatants” who are entitled to no protection whatsoever under the Geneva Conventions or the U.S. Constitution — a position the Supreme Court has since repudiated; that the president has the authority to create military commissions that did not comply with the Geneva Conventions without the approval of Congress — also rejected by the Supreme Court; and that the president has the right of “anticipatory self-defense” against Iraq, even if the threat posed by Iraq isn’t all that imminent. (The possibility that Iraq might possess WMDs apparently makes the usual “imminence” requirement very squishy.)

Perhaps it was just sloppy lawyering, as former OLC director Jack Goldsmith said when he took over the office and criticized some of its opinions in his book, “The Terror Presidency”.  But more likely it’s what critics like Dawn Johnsen, President-elect Barack Obama’s pick to head the OLC under his administration, have described as the tragic refusal of  OLC lawyers to just say no to the president and vice-president — even when they were intent on disregarding the law.

As Johnsen told the American Constitution Society, “OLC and the Attorney General have to be prepared to tell the President ‘no’; that’s what the law requires.”

Well, he’s no Mike Hayden. More soon.

We would like to let you personally know that we have decided that this past election will signify my last term in the House of Representatives. In 2010 it will be time for us to move on to new challenges.

Hoekstra says he’s eying a run to become Michigan’s governor.

First elected in 1992, the former Fortune-500 executive ran on a reform platform, but hasn’t always kept to the script. He went back on his vow to stay in Washington only 12 years, for example, and veered from another promise not to accept money from political action committees, or PACs.

In 2004, Hoekstra was named head of the House intelligence committee, where he rankled Democrats with a disputed 2006 report that the U.S. military had discovered hundreds of WMDs in Iraq. Another 2006 report coming out of the Hoekstra-led intelligence committee found that Iran was well on its way to procucing a nuclear weapon — an assertion blasted by the United Nations as “erroneous” and “misleading.”

Even Hoekstra seems to acknowledge the prickly nature of his tenure. “While I know that on any given day there would be differences on policy, I tried to insure that disagreements would not become disagreeable,” his statement reads. “Civility and respect are cornerstones of our democracy. That has always been my goal and my vision. I recognize that on some days I came up short. I apologize for that.”

Depending on how the Senate’s chairmanship shuffle unfolds, John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), might give up the intelligence gavel to take the helm at the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. If that happens, Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), is likely to chair the intelligence panel, Senate aides say.

Rockefeller never truly wanted the gavel in the first place. I did a profile of him in 2003, and I learned that he felt in over his head on all the intelligence-related controversies about Iraq, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. As the years went on, he found more of his footing. But he’s remained something of a squish, acquiescing to a baseless GOP charge that Joe Wilson only took his fateful trip to Africa because his wife at the CIA wanted a fanciful junket for her husband; believing that Dick Cheney never pressured the agency to cook its WMD and terrorism analysis to support the Iraq invasion; or supporting the gutting of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act this year.

It’s no wonder that progressives call him Jello Jay. And if he ends up moving aside for Feinstein, an imperfect but more reliable voice for oversight and civil liberties, it would seem like Rockefeller and progressives would consider that win-win.