Rove: "Congress Pushed Bush to War in Iraq Prematurely"
You are not going to believe this, well, actually you will... According to Karl Rove (on Charlie Rose), the Bush Administration did not want Congress to vote on the Iraq War resolution in the fall of 2002, because they thought it should not be done within the context of an election. Rove, you see, did not think the war vote should be "political".
Moreover, according to Rove, that "premature vote" led to many of the problems that cropped up in the Iraq War. Had Congress not pushed, he says, Bush could have spent more time assembling a coalition, and provided more time to the inspectors.
If you are like me, you have stopped reading/listening, and are rushing to get your anti-emetic.
It is worth remembering that the Senate in the fall of 2002 was controlled, barely, by Democrats. Get it? George Bush, we are being told, wanted to delay, wanted to hold back, wanted to take the time to build a coalition and let the inspectors finish their job, but that damn Congress just pushed him into it. George Bush, you see, is a careful, prudent, leader, deeply concerned about the consequences of premature.
Get it? If Biden, Clinton, Dodd or Edwards is part of the Democratic ticket, the Republicans will run a campaign charging the Senate Democrats with rushing to judgment, of pushing the poor President to premature...(well, you fill in the blank)....
Not that Iraq is that big of an issue. Rove claims that, if Iraq had been a big issue, that Joe Lieberman, who was pro-war, could not have won in Connecticut, defeating receiving more Democratic, Independent and Republican votes than any of his opponents.
I have purposefully NOT provided the (obvious) answers to his claims because to answer is to give him control of the argument. That's Rove's tactic, and I have written about that many times in these pages.
Instead, this should be used as a trigger to talk about Rove's history of dissembling, how that is reflected in the Bush Administration's entire approach to public policy and public information. Bush, through Rove, should be attacked for trying to escape responsibility and accountability. And, it will help to make some historical references to rulers whose tenure was so dismal that they could not allow historians to provide objective analyses, and thus try to write the history themselves.
As might have been predicted, Rove raises "historical revisionism" to new depths, what may become known as "hysterical Rovisionism."
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
If there were any justice in this country, Rove would be publicly executed for blatant lies and treason. Rove obviously has absolutely no conscience and no shame for his lies and covert manipulations.
ARe you watching? Its slick...it
MSNBC is spending more time discussing whether or not Bill Clinton was opposed to the war as he says, and is that true than they are spending on Karl Rove's obvious lie.
If all the MSM do that, Rove's lie will get implanted without challenge.
This is about as animated as Rose gets. You go Charlie!
And Rove wants us all to go out and buy his book to get more of this horseshit. Sweet mother of God.
Rove is the biggest nimrod in the history of history. Does he really believe that he can rewrite what really happened? I am guessing with the help of talk radio and Fox he might be able to and he knows it.
This takes balls. If ANY believes this man after this comment they are NUTS.
Coonsey's View
http://www
and so began the national mantra "it's not my fault". We should all remember this as the beginning of the period of not being accountable, responsible, some one else's fault, arrogant, self centered, I am a "Christian" philosophy. This is preached and adhered to by many smiling, Flag lapel pin "aren't I wonderful" people prejudging us today. As we are aware, they have a tendency to only want their way and will lie and evade to get it and than cry that the other guy is not compromising. They own the major media outlets and from time to time confuse and blow smoke by claiming the "Liberal" media is responsible for all the bad stories. They also do not know how to save, but spend others money. They have done everything to bankrupt the country without any plan for pay back. Someone will have to raise taxes and they will than claim they never did, but also, never tell they spent all the money. They also wear dirty underwear.
I have never understood why the media never points out that the rush to war was almost certainly a Rovian plan to make sure that Bush went into the '04 election with a victory under his belt. These guys really did believe that the war would be a cake walk, so by invading in the spring of '03 they figured they would have things wrapped up in time for the campaign.
Rove and many Republicans believe that Presidents need a military victory to be reelected and that Carter lost because he didn't have one. Remember the Granada invasion? Just a macho show.
Rove - Backstepping, now that he is out of the White House. Is he trying to clean up his image? Maybe he will write a book and blame anyone he can think of to write his reputation. Never Happen!!!!!! Why is anyone even listening to him. He is a liar, pure and simple.
Rove is spewing 100% bullshit. Full stop. No one believes him anymore.
uh, Carl, where is the Decider/Commander-
in Chief? you mean he doesn't make his
very own mind up?
Rove is not a very smart man. It is evident now that he is out from the shadows of the GOP spin machine in the White House. His essay in Newsweek was laughable. Now this.
Remember, the only person that looked up to Karl was George W. Bush. That is a BIG clue to the limits of Rove's idiocy.
As ariyana have said yesterday about Rove, a man without a heart and soul, that basically sums it up.
Now out of the white house he would have more time to spew his venom.I must remember to cancel my Newsweek subscription.
http://www
The Iraq crisis as the War of the Jews
an undercurrent of argument that Jewish influence in America and Israel is a crucial factor pushing Washington into battle, spurring furious debate over the line between free expression and classic anti-Semitism.
veteran Democratic Congressman James P. Moran Jr. sparked fiery condemnation by telling an anti-war gathering at a Virginia church
"If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this, The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should."
An onslaught of criticism followed, undiminished by Moran's subsequent apology. calling Moran's statement "reprehensible and anti-Semit
Moran's remarks came amid a flood of commentary from analysts suggesting that Bush administration was taking advice - if not outright orders - from the Sharon government and the Israeli defense establishment on handling Saddam Hussein.
The analysts' comments have intensified as top-ranking Israeli officials have gone on record predicting that the war could have a cure-all effect for many of the Jewish state's paralyzing economic and security ills.
The initial rumblings of the current debate over alleged Jewish and Israeli influence took place years before the election of George W. Bush. The Clinton administration was peppered with Jewish aides in key positions.
Several of Bush's current defense advisers were instrumental in the preparation of a 1996 position paper for Benjamin Netanyahu, one of its recommendations, the position paper advised Israeli leaders to "focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq."
The paper's authors included Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, and David Wurmser.
The voices also cite the appointments of the hawkish Paul Wolfowitz as Deputy Defense Secretary and of Perle protege Elliot Abrams. The Abrams appointment spurred an unnamed senior administration official to tell the Washington Post last month that "the Likudniks are really in charge now."
There's a candidate who we Democrats can support who had the sound judgement from day 1 NOT to support this war! Mr. Abrams makes a great point when he says, "If Biden, Clinton, Dodd or Edwards is part of the Democratic ticket, the Republicans will run a campaign charging the Senate Democrats with rushing to judgment, of pushing the poor President to premature". However, a vote for Barack Obama stops this spin machine in its tracks!
Well, at least now we know what the next neo-con talking point (known as the Big Lie when the Nazis and Communists did it) will be.
I think the brazeness of Karl Rove is unimaginable to the common person. In ordinary society, this sort of lie is not tolerated. Among neo-cons, it is the price of admission.
I have to believe that all the Republicans that I knew from earlier times (Eisenhower, Warren, Ford, Rockefeller, Reagan, Goldwater) would not only refuse to partake in neo-con tactics, but they would actually denounce them. The fact that among today's Republicans only Ron Paul denounces the neo-con take over of the GOP is quite telling about the state of American politics.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
