I read this book looking for some insight into what went wrong, or at least some explanation or sense of compassion. I was not expecting an apology - I have never heard Rove apologize for anything or even admit he did anything wrong - but at least some attempt to explain why policy decisions that may have seemed a good idea at the time turned out so catastrophically. Perhaps he could help future generations learn from his and his boss's biggest blunders. After all, sometimes people who came across as arrogant and unfeeling in real time write memoirs that reflect more insight and sensitivity than they could show at the time events were unfolding. But not Karl Rove. Few of the rationalizations and excuses in this book are new. Most were Fox News talking points repeated with the mind-numbing discipline Republicans are famous for. Most have been discredited, but they are repeated here. Perhaps Rove realizes that if he were to admit those talking points were wrong, he would have to admit when he was wrong, and that would create a time line that would make it clear he was lying then and he is lying now.
Far from contrite, Rove comes across as almost triumphant, lashing out at his critics instead of addressing the merit of their criticism. In other words, Rove's book is classic Rove.
"Because of his success, Rove has been attacked," the book's blurb proclaims. It wasn't his divisive, unethical tactics, from playing on racial prejudice to torpedo the Republican primary frontrunner McCain in South Carolina in 2000 to homophobia in the 2004 election to the vicious attacks on a decorated Vietnam combat veteran's service record. And it wasn't his role in maliciously outing a covert CIA operative and destroying her career in the hopes of getting back at her husband who dared to state the obvious: that President Bush was lying when he claimed that Saddam Hussein had recently sought to obtain uranium from Africa. (According to Rove (see below) Wilson didn't even say this!) No, we who find Rove's tactics repulsive, dishonest, and deeply injurious to the fabric of our democracy just attack him because he is successful. Really.
In his Prologue, Rove has the audacity to claim that he faced "moments of peril, enormous stress, and danger," citing the legal inconvenience Scooter Libby faced when he was convicted of obstruction of justice and lying in the investigation of the outing of Valerie Plame. I think any soldier who served in harm's way, or any of the hundreds of thousands of civilian killed by the Iraq invasion Rove helped champion, shill, and spin, could give him a lesson on what real peril, stress, and danger look like. This sentence reflects the arrogance of Mr. Rove equating his legal jeopardy with the very real physical danger those in war face every day. Of course, Mr. Rove did not serve in the military, so he would have no way of appreciating how insulting and self-serving this comparison is.
He spends much of the book protesting his innocence about charges against him, and there are many, some even I have not heard of. On page 62, he goes into detail about the "myth" that he spurred the FBI to investigage Democratic officeholders in Texas.
He manages to prove his critics right on page 64 in responding to the observation that a "Rovian style" of political campaigning is "fear-based, smear-based, anything goes." Instead of responding to whether these charges have merit, he instead uses voters as human shields, equating criticism of him with criticism of "the electorate", implying they are "stupid, easily misled by smashmouth TV ads, dirty tricks," etc. If Karl Rove did not believe these tactics worked, then why on earth has he made a career using them? On this single page, he managed to do what he has done his entire political life: take a criticism of a specific behavior (the use of attack ads that play on people's fears of homosexual marriage or terrorism, let's say), twist it into a global and noble issue (this is not an attack on Rove's behavior but on the electorate), then create a strawman argument that was never made (those who criticize me must be calling the electorate stupid). It's brilliant, just like portraying serious questions about whether Bush deserted his National Guard unit as an attack on all National Guard soldiers everywhere. People were not criticizing Bush because he served in the National Guard but because he didn't, or at least did not complete his service and voters had a right to know why not. Instead, thanks to "change the subject" Rove, we heard a shameful attack on a wounded Vietnam veteran which managed to twist Senator John Kerry's service records into something sinister (did he deserve 3 Purple Hearts or 2?). It was masterful distraction, making us all think about something other than the fact that we might have a Commander-in-Chief who not only was not in Vietnam but for some reason or other failed to complete his cushy stateside billet in the Texas Air National Guard.
Even his redefinition of what is a Rovian style of campaigning is creepy and undemocratic. Yes, of course politicians want to win elections, but a campaign should be about ideals that matter to people, not finely targeted micro-advertising that slices Americans into demographic wedges that can be sold a war or a ban on gay marriage the same way the could be sold a deodorant or car. I don't want a candidate who figures out that gun-owning churchgoers who shop at Walmart and live in Northern Virginia are far more likely to respond to a political advertisement that uses wolves and scary music than one that uses flags and an upbeat cadence, let's say. I want a candidate with a set of core principles presented consistently and honestly, regardless of what targeted polling says will be popular.
Rove writes about the importance of "big ideas" but what "big ideas" were reflected in the parallel push to make sure anti-gay marriage initiatives were on many voters' minds in 2004? Or the systematic destruction of Senator Kerry's war record, a campaign that clearly was successful enough to make Americans choose the American who had never been in Vietnam over the one who had served with honor and distinction. "Attack their strength" is the hallmark of that particular character assassination and it had no more to do with lofty ideals than the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush had anything to do with Truth.
His defense of President Bush's decision to engage in torture - a decision Rove clearly and wisely (for self-preservation reasons) states occurred "unbeknownst to me at the time" (p. 295) - is once again put through the twisted lens of politics. Those who recognize that drowning someone (there is no simulated about it), a technique invented by the Spanish Inquisition, who called it water torture (I would posit they were in a position to know) are not all "Democrats" trying to "score points" as he alleges, something he calls "reprehensible and dangerous." I would imagine the torture itself would be far more "reprehensible and dangerous" but then again I am not Karl Rove. He does not even address whether Democratic critics have merit, instead shifting the argument to one of silence passing as assent. Is it possible that Democrats and Republicans who were briefed about these torture techniques were both wrong? Of course. There is no exception in the Torture Protocols that have been signed into United States law that mentions anything about party affiliation, national security, or the popularity of the proposed torture. In fact, even a unanimous Congressional Resolution to authorize torture would be illegal and subject the government to a potential war crimes tribunal. There are certain things a government simply is never empowered to do, and torture is one of them. Period.
Rove's morality is more relativistic and opportunistic. He gropes for narrow legalistic technicalities rather than first principles and his own conscience to defend the use of torture. Torture is prohibited by, among other things, the Geneva Conventions, but, he assures us, the Geneva Conventions do not apply to "international terrorist attacks" not "civil wars." By this definition, Hitler's torture of captured partisans (although it predated some of the Conventions since written) would have been OK, since he called those partisans international terrorists (and some indeed were). Occupied France was not engaged in a "civil war" so Germany, by Rove's logic, should have been free to torture away. I don't buy that for a minute and neither should he.
He states falsely that "broader Geneva protections were meant to apply only to signatory nations, which means they don't apply to al Qaeda." Never mind the fact that al Qaeda is a group, not a nation, and that those tortured had been caught in countries that were signatories to the Geneva Conventions, this statement is both dangerous and false. ALL people, combatants and noncombatants are covered by the Geneva Conventions that demand a minimum level of humanity in how we treat those people caught in a war zone, even those we believe are trying to do us harm (that's why it's called a war zone). WE signed the Geneva Conventions, we must therefore follow them. We cannot grab someone, inquire about his nationality, consult our attorneys, then kill or torture him based on a legalistic quibble.
We do not have a right to torture people because we are scared, angry, or our lawyers tell us we won't get in trouble if we do. If lawyers for the torturing government have a right to give their own government the right to torture, no international agreement against torture would not be worth the paper it is written on (something that Rove should have considered when he engaged in this legal sophistry).
It is shocking and at some level chilling to read him defend the use of water torture because "this wasn't a settled issue of law when President Bush put us on a war footing and still isn't today." Really? Mr. Rove must be unaware - surprising for someone who describes himself as a bookish nerd - that a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, was charged by the United States government (the same one Rove served) with war crimes for waterboarding and sentenced to 15 years' hard labor. How can something that was a war crime in 1947 not be "a settled issue of law" in 2002? There were no rulings since then that overturned or challenged that conviction, and indeed American troops in Vietnam were investigated for allegedly engaging in this form of torture. Does Rove believe those investigators were wasting their time?
At any rate, this legalism - something the Republicans attacked Clinton for in his Whitewater investigation defense - shows an appalling lack of morality. Must we consult with attorneys before deciding if an action is just? Does neither Bush nor Rove have any moral qualms about torturing other human beings, regardless of circumstances? His, "well it wasn't technically illegal" argument - even though patently untrue - sounds like the sort of adolescent excuse a teenager would give for joy-riding and wrecking the family car ("well, you didn't technically say I couldn't, so I assumed I could").
But it is on the issue of Iraq that Rove seemed to do a real cut-and-paste job from 2002. Nothing in his narrative reflects what has been established since and what we actually know he knew then. Rove grossly misrepresents the case for war. On page 304, he states that Saddam Hussein had not allowed "international inspectors to verify and oversee the process" of disarmament. This is a flat-out lie. At the time Bush ordered the invasion, as Rove should know full well, international inspectors had been re-admitted to the country and were busy continuing where they left off following their ejection much earlier (nuclear arms inspectors, the ones we worry most about, were never kicked out of the country, and the IAEA was operating continuously). Perhaps I should correct myself because the weapons inspectors were ultimately kicked out of Iraq although not by Saddam Hussein, but by George W. Bush, who ordered them out so he could invade. Technically, he had no legal authority to do so (the inspectors were working for the United Nations and no resolution gave Bush that power).
Given that Saddam Hussein had no WMD program, how on earth does Rove still insist that Iraq was not "comply[ing] with the world's just demands." And once again, notice the language: not the United States demands, but the world's. This grandiosity belies the fact that vast majorities in every country except 2 (Israel and the United States) opposed our invasion, the UN Security Council to whom Bush had made his case rejected it, and Kofi Annan stated that the war was "illegal." If Saddam Hussein posed such a threat, why did none of his neighbors, who arguably would have the most to lose if he were, support the invasion? For Rove to make this case in 2003 was irresponsible. For him to repeat it years later is breath-taking in its audacity. A lie repeated often enough might be believed in the controlled environment of Germany in the 1930s and 1940s, but does Rove not understand that a schoolchild with an Internet connection and a pulse can fact check these 2002 sound bites?
After all of this legalistic sophistry, Rove later states that Bush "was a man of his word" (p. 304). To his credit, he is not alleging that Bush was honest, only that he was delivering on his long-stated, pre-9/11 threat to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power.
Rove states that "the information Wilson returned with actually bolstered the case that Iraq had attempted to acquire uranium from Niger" (p. 345). I met Ambassador Wilson, heard him speak in detail about this matter, and read his book; the case against Bush he made was compelling, methodical, and painstaking. If Wilson's charges were without merit, as Rove now wants us to believe, or even bolstered Bush's allegations, why then did Bush remove them from a speech and publicly express regret about having used them in another? Was Bush wrong when he said he was wrong or does Karl Rove just hope that those of us who lived through those events forgot about them? And if Wilson's charges bolstered Bush's case for war, why did Rove go after his wife so savagely? None of this makes any sense. If Rove can lie so blatantly about what Ambassador Wilson did not find in Africa, why should we believe him when he tells us anything else?
I frankly do not trust Karl Rove. I believe he has done more damage to our Republic than Osama bin Laden. Not directly through driving planes into buildings, but indirectly through manipulating, cunning, and deceit. Buildings can be rebuilt, victims can be buried, and families can heal. We can and should hunt down those responsible for the almost 3,000 killed on 9-11, but who will hold those accountable for the higher number of Americans killed in our invasion and occupation of Iraq or the hundreds of thousands innocents killed as a result of Rove's successful selling of the war? Who can put the torture genie back into the bottle and cross back over that line that Bush and Rove crossed because their lawyers said they wouldn't get in trouble if they did? Who will restore the credibility and trust in America that it will never go it alone, violating the will of the international community while claiming to act on its behalf?
And closer to home, how will political campaigns ever again be about ideals, values, and honestly presented choices instead of about which candidate you think is most likely to let gay terrorists marry? Rove did not invent the attack ad, but he elevated it to an art form, a pornography of hate, a titillating but ultimately deeply dishonest portrayal of one's opponent as something evil, sinister, and dangerous. We should have been talking about the best way to prevent another 9-11 or whether tax cuts justified by a surplus really made sense once that surplus disappeared. Instead we had commercials with wolves and scary music and promises that an elected Democrat was a virtual guarantee of another 9-11.
I still remember seeing the Rovian ads against Senator Max Cleland, a man who lost 3 limbs in Vietnam during the Battle of Khe Sanh, morphing his image into that of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. I laughed and shook my head. That would never work. But I was wrong and Karl Rove was right: attack ads reducing a complex idea - should the newly formed Department of Homeland Security federal employees have the same rights and benefits of other federal workers? - into a vicious smear - Max Cleland is an ally of Osama bin Laden because his position on this staffing differs from Bush's.
Invading Iraq may not have been Rove's idea, but without his slick marketing campaign, does anyone really believe 60% of Americans would have supported something so transparently and mind-numbingly disastrous and counter-productive? At the time we were hunting for al Qaeda and needed all the resources we could (including the Arab linguists fired by a homophobic Bush administration intent on appeasing religious fundamentalists at home even if it compromised our ability to hunt for religious fundamentalists abroad). The rest of the world was outraged at what we seemed intent on doing, but the rest of the world did not have Karl Rove to slice their demographics and find out what buttons could be pushed to get otherwise reasonable, compassionate people to be scared enough or angry enough or confused enough to launch a war that has killed hundreds of thousands, displaced millions, and triggered a civil war.
History has not been kind to Mr. Rove or to the man he worked for. When Bush left office, he managed to set a record for the highest disapproval rating of any President in American history, topping even Jimmy Carter and a post-Watergate Nixon. As Rove admits, his name has become an adjective, a synonym for dirty campaigns that play to people's basest instincts. Even his citing of "Libya's Gaddafi" (p. 304) as proof of the wisdom of invading Iraq (the Libyan dictator and admitted terrorist was given lucrative oil contracts and brought in out of the diplomatic cold in exchange for promising never to develop a nuclear program he couldn't develop anyway) must be deeply embarrassing now.
But of course to be embarrassed, one must have self-awareness, decency, and a capacity for shame. If you are looking for evidence in those in the Karl Rove as presented in this book, you will be sadly disappointed.
