Karl Rove: American Twoofer

[ConspiRaider]

Maybe that will be the title to his new book?

Here he is, insisting that DoofieCorps did NOT want to invade Iraq but the Congress "made them do it":
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Olbermann_Rove_rewriting_history_by_denying_1128.h tml

Normal people in America, and Rest Of World:

Watch how the right wingers on the JREF forum run in here and try to spin this, try to shore up and defend Der Oberfuhrer Karl von Rove. Should be a hoot! Here they come!!!

[Upchurch]

Wow. Now that is chutzpah.

[Charlie Monoxide]

Somehow this seems so mundane.

If Karl Rove said the sun rises in the east, I would be inclined to get up early the next day just to verify it ...

Charlie (2nd biggest douchebag of the universe) Monoxide

[Darth Rotor]

One of the untold stories about the war is ... this administration was opposed to voting on (the authorization the use of military force) in the Fall of 2002," Rove claimed with a straight face and apparently uncrossed fingers in a pre-Thanksgiving appearance on PBS's The Charlie Rose Show.
Well gee, Karl, I don't seem to remember it that way. I do seem to remember, numb nuts, that I got a phone call one day that said (roughly) "Off you go, my lad, to a nice hot and nasty place for a while."

Funny old thing, Karl, is that the Constitution has a provision for a President having to get authority from Congress to do that war thing. I read a bit of history, and I have yet to see in American history a President being brow beaten into a war by Congress, including the current one in Iraq. Lately, there were even some Congresscriters who sent (30 of them) a letter to Pres Bush advising him NFW he gets a thumbs up on attacking Iran.

*slams head on desk*

I wonder how many people he thinks will buy this line?

DR

[Upchurch]

*slams head on desk*
Yours or his?

[Darth Rotor]

Yours or his?
Mine, though I soooooooo wish the other was an option. Might slam a bit harder, eh? :cool:

DR

[Upchurch]

Mine, though I soooooooo wish the other was an option. Might slam a bit harder, eh? :cool:
Well, maybe. I can think of better areas to hit him with a desk other than his lying, treasonous head. You know, before locking him in a pit and throwing away the key.

[fishbob]

What the hell does Rove think he is doing?
Lying spokesweasel is the press secretary's job.

[latent aaaack]

http://rawstory.com/rawreplay/?p=115

These comments are at about 6 minutes from the end of the clip.

Well on the plus side most Americans don't inform themselves enough to watch a lengthy interview on PBS anyway. However more proof that the republican party is becoming a state religion is this from one of the 'debates':

Asked if he thought it was "a mistake for us to invade Iraq," Romney declared the question a "null set," and explained:

"If you're saying let's turn back the clock, and Saddam Hussein had opened up his country to IAEA inspectors, and they'd come in and they'd found that there were no weapons of mass destruction, had Saddam Hussein, therefore, not violated United Nations resolutions, we wouldn't be in the conflict we're in. But he didn't do those things, and we knew what we knew at the point we made the decision to get in."

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3112

[Ziggurat]

Here's the actual interview:

http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2007/11/21/1/a-conversation-with-karl-rove

Since I don't trust Olbermann (the apparent original source for this criticism) to accurately quote anyone he doesn't like, I'm watching it right now. Haven't found the quote in question yet, but it's a long interview and I'm skipping around a bit looking for it.

[rikzilla]

Maybe that will be the title to his new book?

Here he is, insisting that DoofieCorps did NOT want to invade Iraq but the Congress "made them do it":
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Olbermann_Rove_rewriting_history_by_denying_1128.h tml

Normal people in America, and Rest Of World:

Watch how the right wingers on the JREF forum run in here and try to spin this, try to shore up and defend Der Oberfuhrer Karl von Rove. Should be a hoot! Here they come!!!


No spin, just an observation that you Godwin'd your own thread in your frothing-at-the-mouth zeal to get Rove. IIRC Rove is a private citizen and has the right to believe or say whatever he wishes. Besides "rawstory.com"??? That site makes Daily Kos look like a pack of globalists.

-z

[Upchurch]

IIRC Rove is a private citizen and has the right to believe or say whatever he wishes.
What's the phrase? "You have the right to your own opinion. You do not have the right to your own facts."

[latent aaaack]

Rikzilla, what's your definition of propaganda? What do you think is the main point that the OP is trying to make?

[rikzilla]

What's the phrase? "You have the right to your own opinion. You do not have the right to your own facts."


Very true and I agree fully...but since Rove is not currently in government it hardly reflects the official view of the administration of Mr. Bush...and this I'm sure is why CR posted it.

Slaming Rove without intending a slap at Bush is kinda like slamming Sandy Berger for his light fingered folly at the Natnl Archives and expecting it to not reflect badly upon Mr. Clinton.
...since both no longer have official duties it seems to me that whatever they do only reflects on themselves.

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. It all just seems rather...irrelevant. (shrug)

-z

[ConspiRaider]

Very true and I agree fully...but since Rove is not currently in government it hardly reflects the official view of the administration of Mr. Bush...and this I'm sure is why CR posted it.

Slaming Rove without intending a slap at Bush is kinda like slamming Sandy Berger for his light fingered folly at the Natnl Archives and expecting it to not reflect badly upon Mr. Clinton.
...since both no longer have official duties it seems to me that whatever they do only reflects on themselves.

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. It all just seems rather...irrelevant. (shrug)

-z
Oh, you spinner you! I really kinda figured you'd show up and minimize this "irrelevant" statement from Doofie's former Chief Of Staff. And a major architect of the mess we now find ourselves in.

Well, obviously a lot of normal people (that does NOT include you) find this to be, at once, reprehensible and shocking. I mean, does not that reflect rather badly on "Mr. Bush" (Doofie, to normal people) ?

So now we are all expecting Doofie to assure the American public (or maybe he'll hide behind the skirts of Perino and let her assure) that despite his loooooonnnngggg friendship with Der Oberfuhrer, that he, Doofie, was the ultimate "Decider" on the invasion of Iraq. Right? He's gonna "man up" and tell us that his friend is mistaken.

Well! Okay! I anticipate Doofie setting the record straight! Oh, that Leader of DoofieCorps! Gosh he's so brave and manly!!! I wish Der Oberfuhrer could come back and have him run for a 3rd term!!! We needs bravelinesses, lots of them!!!

[rikzilla]

Look, I leave for 6 months and THIS is the level to which debate has sunk???? What the hell has happened? Adhominum, demonization, childish foolishness!!?? My 14 year old daughter hates Bush too...but even though she has no political knowledge and is merely doing the thing that the "cool" crowd is doing...even she would be embarrassed to chant "Doofie" over and over again! It would be beneath her dignity, and it should be beneath yours CR....that is if you are over 14 and have any.

-z

[DavidJames]

Look, I leave for 6 months and THIS is the level to which debate has sunk???? What the hell has happened? Adhominum, demonization, childish foolishness!!?? My 14 year old daughter hates Bush too...but even though she has no political knowledge and is merely doing the thing that the "cool" crowd is doing...even she would be embarrassed to chant "Doofie" over and over again! It would be beneath her dignity, and it should be beneath yours CR....that is if you are over 14 and have any.

-zWhile I agree the name calling doesn't rise to the level to be expected on JREF, I think your response to this issue would be akin to that 14 year old running around with their hands over their ears yelling neener neener neener, I can't hear you, neener neener neener.

The presentation may be different, but the results are the same.

[ConspiRaider]

Look, I leave for 6 months and THIS is the level to which debate has sunk???? What the hell has happened? Adhominum, demonization, childish foolishness!!?? My 14 year old daughter hates Bush too...but even though she has no political knowledge and is merely doing the thing that the "cool" crowd is doing...even she would be embarrassed to chant "Doofie" over and over again! It would be beneath her dignity, and it should be beneath yours CR....that is if you are over 14 and have any.

-z
There IS no longer any debate amongst normal, reasonable people in this country, and indeed in the world, about what this American rogue right wing administration has wreaked. And therefore, all bets are off. This "president" no longer deserves respect - he, and his handlers, brought that upon himself.

Your 14-year-old daughter is on the mark, in her opposition to Doofie. So is the "cool" crowd.

Bet you called Bill Clinton "Slick Willie" every chance you got, back in the day. Betcha.

I am over 14, and as to whether I have any dignity? That's pure perception. But frankly if I did NOT vigorously oppose DoofieCorps in my own unique way - I'd lose respect for myself. Other folks who oppose Bush won't call him Doofie, but I do. Each to his own, her own.

Okay, I'm going to step out of character for just a minute, just for you.

Based on the fact that Karl Rove is certainly regarded as more than just an ordinary, private citizen; that he has been associated with George Bush for many years; that he has had a major impact on Bush's election to the presidency; that he served as Bush's Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor; that he was directly involved in shaping policy of the Bush Administration: Do you believe that Rove's outrageous statement in the Charlie Rose interview that Congress is to blame for our "rush to war" in Iraq - needs to be refuted by U.S. President George W. Bush?

[Puppycow]

Hey: everyone's entitled to their own facts, right? ;)

[rikzilla]

No.

Rove holds an opinion that is upheld at least in part by hard facts. The "rush to war" was not that controversial. The dangers posed by Saddam's Iraq...again not controversial. It was a view that had such bi-partisan support that only 6...SIX!! out of 100 senators/staff even bothered to read the NIE on Iraq which was provided to Congress before the vote!

...it doesn't make what Rove said true to MY ears, but perhaps it does in his eyes? (shrug)

In any case his opinion is his opinion...and you know...everybody's got one.

-z

[Ziggurat]

Do you believe that Rove's outrageous statement in the Charlie Rose interview that Congress is to blame for our "rush to war" in Iraq - needs to be refuted by U.S. President George W. Bush?

Except that's not what he said. He said that the whitehouse wanted the resolution to happen after the elections. Nothing about that claim requires that the invasion timetable would have been any different. So you're really creating a strawman here, and demanding the strawman be immolated.

[rikzilla]

"It’s probably pretty hard to say with 100 percent certainty how many read it,” the senior staffer said. “You can say with 100 percent certainty that it’s less than 10.” (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/few-senators-read-iraq-nie-report-2007-06-19.html)

[ConspiRaider]

Karl Rove: "One of the untold stories about the war, is why did the United States Congress, the United States Senate, vote on the war resolution in the Fall of 2002."

Charlie Rose: "Why?"

Karl Rove: "This administration was opposed to it."

That is a lie. What you, and other right wingers fail to realize is that MANY OF US WERE NOT ASLEEP DURING THIS TIME! We were watching this whole drama very very closely, Zig. You weren't. You were too busy beating the drums of war along with your friend rikzilla.

When Congress voted to give Bush the authorization to use force if Hussein didn't comply with the UN inspectors, that is EXACTLY what they wanted, when they wanted it! Truth be told, they (DoofieCorps, aka Bush Administration) wanted it LONG BEFORE the Fall of 2002. They wanted to attack Iraq coming through the door after the 2000 election! They wanted - desperately - for Iraq to have been involved in 9/11 - in ANY way - as a justification to attack. In EARLY 2002, Cheney wanted someone to go to Niger and obtain some kind of evidence that Hussein was attempting to purchase uranium. That's the reason for the Wilson / Plame incident.

Everybody who pays attention - and is NOT blinded by the radical right wing - knows this.

Anyway, that's 2. Two right wingers rushing to Rove's aid. Just as you've done EVERY TIME your nightmarish right wing has pulled another fast one on the country and the world. When, Zig, are you finally going to admit that these rogues no longer deserve blind support from you - or from anyone else?

That's two. Bring in your buddy pomeroo and let's go for the hat trick!

[quixotecoyote]

rik: How does that in any way help your case?

[rikzilla]

Karl Rove: "One of the untold stories about the war, is why did the United States Congress, the United States Senate, vote on the war resolution in the Fall of 2002."

Charlie Rose: "Why?"

Karl Rove: "This administration was opposed to it."

That is a lie. What you, and other right wingers fail to realize is that MANY OF US WERE NOT ASLEEP DURING THIS TIME! We were watching this whole drama very very closely, Zig. You weren't. You were too busy beating the drums of war along with your friend rikzilla.

When Congress voted to give Bush the authorization to use force if Hussein didn't comply with the UN inspectors, that is EXACTLY what they wanted, when they wanted it! Truth be told, they (DoofieCorps, aka Bush Administration) wanted it LONG BEFORE the Fall of 2002. They wanted to attack Iraq coming through the door after the 2000 election! They wanted - desperately - for Iraq to have been involved in 9/11 - in ANY way - as a justification to attack. In EARLY 2002, Cheney wanted someone to go to Niger and obtain some kind of evidence that Hussein was attempting to purchase uranium. That's the reason for the Wilson / Plame incident.

Everybody who pays attention - and is NOT blinded by the radical right wing - knows this.

Anyway, that's 2. Two right wingers rushing to Rove's aid. Just as you've done EVERY TIME your nightmarish right wing has pulled another fast one on the country and the world. When, Zig, are you finally going to admit that these rogues no longer deserve blind support from you - or from anyone else?

That's two. Bring in your buddy pomeroo and let's go for the hat trick!

Actually my real life friends think of me as liberal due to my atheism, and pro-gay marriage, pro-choice stances...

But go on ahead and make me the voice of the right-wing-conspiracy if you like...I don't want to spoil your fun with pesky facts...the kewl kids would be proud.

-z

[rikzilla]

rik: How does that in any way help your case?


Did you read the link? Don't you think that if going to war against Saddam had been controversial at the time....(meaning partisan bickering like now)...that they'd at least read the damned thing?

The problem is you guys are all listening to law makers who THOUGHT they were up against Saddam and his WMD's...they all KNEW he had them that they never even bothered to read the NIE! Now these same law makers are faced with tough questions about their votes and are crying "WE WERE DECIEVED!!!"

I call BS on that...if you are provided the raw info, and don't bother to read it...you weren't decieved, you were irresponsible.

No, Bush may have been leading this "rush to war"....but he enjoyed much bi-partisan support at the time.

Simply because Saddam Hussein as dangerous bad guy was NON-CONTROVERSIAL.

-z

[ConspiRaider]

Did you read the link? Don't you think that if going to war against Saddam had been controversial at the time....(meaning partisan bickering like now)...that they'd at least read the damned thing?

The problem is you guys are all listening to law makers who THOUGHT they were up against Saddam and his WMD's...they all KNEW he had them that they never even bothered to read the NIE! Now these same law makers are faced with tough questions about their votes and are crying "WE WERE DECIEVED!!!"

I call BS on that...if you are provided the raw info, and don't bother to read it...you weren't decieved, you were irresponsible.

No, Bush may have been leading this "rush to war"....but he enjoyed much bi-partisan support at the time.

Simply because Saddam Hussein as dangerous bad guy was NON-CONTROVERSIAL.

-z
Kind of like Musharraf as dangerous bad guy is ALSO non-controversial. When do you think we will invade Pakistan? Kind of like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates being directly involved in 9/11 is ALSO non-controversial. When you you think we should invade them? Kind of like Putin of Russia as dangerous bad guy is ALSO non-controversial. When must we attack Russia? Kind of like Kim Jong-il of North Korea as dangerous bad guy is ALSO non-controversial. When do our bombs start falling on the city of Pyongyang? Kind of like ALL the dangerous bad guys leading countries across the world. When do we put the Earth out of its misery?

We do not have the right to invade and take over a foreign nation because we don't like their leadership. You seem to be saying - that IS our right.

[Ziggurat]

That is a lie. What you, and other right wingers fail to realize is that MANY OF US WERE NOT ASLEEP DURING THIS TIME! We were watching this whole drama very very closely, Zig. You weren't. You were too busy beating the drums of war along with your friend rikzilla.

And you evidently aren't paying any attention now. I didn't say Rove was right. I said he made a different claim than the one you alleged above. And you continue with the misrepresentation by cutting his response short. You are trying to create an impression that Rove was saying the administration didn't want authorization to go to war in Iraq, when he said nothing of the sort. Rove said he didn't want it to happen pre-election, but instead wanted it to happen after the elections. Whether or not this claim is correct, it is a different claim than what you are trying to present here. If you can't follow this very thread with any better grasp of what I actually said than you have so far demonstrated, why on earth would anyone even care about your recollection of events from several years ago?

When Congress voted to give Bush the authorization to use force if Hussein didn't comply with the UN inspectors, that is EXACTLY what they wanted, when they wanted it!

It is the when, and only the when, which is at issue. Your previous post which I responded to indicated that it was the what which was at issue. It is not. And all I did was point out that the what wasn't at issue. Somehow, that got under your skin. I guess maybe you can't take being corrected.

When, Zig, are you finally going to admit that these rogues no longer deserve blind support from you - or from anyone else?

I have never given them blind support. You, however engage in blind attacks quite regularly. You set up strawmen and get twisted in knots when I point out that they're only strawmen. You seem constitutionally incapable of restricting your criticism to the actual facts of the case. You were unable to see that the only issue here was the timing of the congressional resolution and its relationship to elections, and not their content or the timing of the invasion itself, and so you made false claims that Rove was saying Congress rushed us into war. Don't blame me because you can't figure out what Rove said. And that's got nothing, I repeat, nothing to do with whether or not Rove was lying.

Finally, I note that your persistent use of the term "right-winger" to describe me demonstrates not only your ingorance of my actual political beliefs but also a dependence on labels which indicates an inability to address the actual substance of what I'm saying. If you could do that, if you could really show I'm wrong, then that should be enough and it would be unnecessary to apply any label to me. But perhaps I am mistaken: perhaps you would feel compelled to apply labels regardless. That would be kind of sad.

[corplinx]

Look, I leave for 6 months and THIS is the level to which debate has sunk???? What the hell has happened? Adhominum, demonization, childish foolishness!!?? My 14 year old daughter hates Bush too...but even though she has no political knowledge and is merely doing the thing that the "cool" crowd is doing...even she would be embarrassed to chant "Doofie" over and over again! It would be beneath her dignity, and it should be beneath yours CR....that is if you are over 14 and have any.

-z

Thats why Conspi is on my ignore list. Hes not worth the time. What I gleaned about his story from the rest of the thread: Rove is a big fat liar. Well DUH.

[Upchurch]

Rove said he didn't want it to happen pre-election, but instead wanted it to happen after the elections.
Actually, I believe he claimed "we" in "the Administration" didn't want it to happen pre-election.


Whether or not this claim is correct...
It isn't, as the OP article pointed out:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020924-1.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-7.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021010-5.html

[Vorticity]

Just to give Rove's remarks a little bit more historical context for those who did not click on the link in the OP, note the following three press releases from the White House web site. Note especially their dates.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020924-1.html
Press release title: "President Urges Congress to Pass Iraq Resolution Promptly" [Emphasis mine] (September 24, 2002)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-7.html
Press release title: "President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution" [Emphasis mine] (October 2, 2002)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021010-5.html
Press release title: "President Bush Pleased with House Vote on Iraq Resolution" [Emphasis mine] (October 10, 2002)


These would seem to directly and obviously contradict Rove's assertion that the White House was opposed to Congress' Iraq resolution in the Fall of 2002.

ETA: Uppie beat me.

[Upchurch]

ETA: Uppie beat me.
Yes, but you gave more detail. I took the lazy man's way out. :)

[Darth Rotor]

Just to give Rove's remarks a little bit more historical context for those who did not click on the link in the OP, note the following three press releases from the White House web site. Note especially their dates.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020924-1.html
Press release title: "President Urges Congress to Pass Iraq Resolution Promptly" [Emphasis mine] (September 24, 2002)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-7.html
Press release title: "President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution" [Emphasis mine] (October 2, 2002)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021010-5.html
Press release title: "President Bush Pleased with House Vote on Iraq Resolution" [Emphasis mine] (October 10, 2002)

These would seem to directly and obviously contradict Rove's assertion that the White House was opposed to Congress' Iraq resolution in the Fall of 2002.

Well put.

Conspi, I think your over the top rock throwing with rikzilla misses the point.

Rove is trying to cover Karl Rove's backside.

He is hardly in a position to try and cover W's. (Granted, he may still feel a loyalty to W and thus keep on spinning out of habit, or out of some tacit agreement.) It is in his interest to tell such tales as he thinks will somehow put his role in the road to war in a less unfavorable light. Given the credulity of the general public, his little story here can be expected to be swallowed by some.

That he doesn't care much about facts is hardly surprising. His years as a political spin meister seem to have embedded a certain pair of blinders onto his temples.

Why you use this as an excuse to troll for, and to launch into a puerile rant about your well known dislike/disgust for Bush as part and parcel to ad homs against "right wingers," is your affair. Your bogey man. The style you use is one of a foaming at the mouth BDS victim.

You are a writer.

Suggestion: consider using a voice that is less trite, less cliche.

Your call.

DR

[Upchurch]

Since I don't trust Olbermann (the apparent original source for this criticism) to accurately quote anyone he doesn't like, I'm watching it right now. Haven't found the quote in question yet, but it's a long interview and I'm skipping around a bit looking for it.
What did you find out?

Taking yet another look at it, Rove says (pardon my weak transcription):

Rove: This administration was opposed to voting on it in the fall of 2002.

Rose: Because?

Rove: Because we didn't think it belong within the confines of the election. There was an election coming up in a matter of weeks. We thought it made it too political. We wanted it outside the confines of it. It seemed to make things move too fast. There were things that needed to be done to bring along allies, and potential allies, abroad.

Rose: Right.

Rove: And yet,

Rose: So you didn't do it because?

Rove: We...we... there was a vote.

Rose: But you were opposed to the vote.

Rove: But it happened. We don't determine when the congress votes on things. Congress does.

Rose: But you wish it hadn't happened at that time?

{I'm not good at picking apart the cross talk, so I'll just skip down a little}

Rose: Because your argument is that you maybe would have had maybe more inspections, you would have built a broader coalition, you would have done a whole lot different things if you didn't have to have a vote, right?

Rove: Right. Right. Exactly.
(this transaction happens in the last 6 or 7 minutes of the interview)
eta: It starts at about 45:40 here (http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2007/11/21/1/an-hour-with-karl-rove).

Now, I'm opposed to frothing as much as the next guy, but I think Conspi has a point when claims that Rove is claiming it was congress's fault that we rushed to war. Rove does seem to be claiming just that.

[Darth Rotor]

What did you find out?

Taking yet another look at it, Rove says (pardon my weak transcription):

(this transaction happens in the last 6 or 7 minutes of the interview)

Now, I'm opposed to frothing as much as the next guy, but I think Conspi has a point when claims that Rove is claiming it was congress's fault that we rushed to war. Rove does seem to be claiming just that.
Well, "rush to war" is a funny little sound byte, used by folks for a variety of reasons.

So, Rove would have liked the vote to wait a month or two. That would not have made for much less of a rush. A delay in the vote would not really have slowed down any rush, since American troops were already moving into theater.

Rove appears to be spinning like a top.

DR

[Upchurch]

Well, "rush to war" is a funny little sound byte, used by folks for a variety of reasons.
I'll rephrase: Rove is claiming that the administration would not have gone to war as soon as they did if Congress hadn't voted on the authorization as soon as they did.

(As an aside, I'll point out that the authorization did not force the President to use it. That was at his discretion That's just another piece of Rove's baloney.)

eta: (As a second aside, the part Olbermann left out is more damning, in that regard, than what he actually quoted.)

[Ziggurat]

Now, I'm opposed to frothing as much as the next guy, but I think Conspi has a point when claims that Rove is claiming it was congress's fault that we rushed to war. Rove does seem to be claiming just that.

No. The resolution authorized war, it did not demand war. Bush had the option of waiting longer (and I've seen arguments that he waited too long as is), or even not going to war. The timing of the actual war was always up to Bush. Nothing Rove said challenges that.

It does indeed appear that Rove is incorrect, though. If he isn't, then that means the administration was making public statements which contradicted what they actually wanted. This being politics, it's not exactly impossible that what they were saying publicly was different than what they were pushing for with Congressional leaders in private. That wouldn't exactly be flattering to the administration either, but it's not impossible.

[ConspiRaider]

I'll rephrase: Rove is claiming that the administration would not have gone to war as soon as they did if Congress hadn't voted on the authorization as soon as they did.

(As an aside, I'll point out that the authorization did not force the President to use it. That was at his discretion That's just another piece of Rove's baloney.)

eta: (As a second aside, the part Olbermann left out is more damning, in that regard, than what he actually quoted.)
Right, Church, right again. As usual. :) And really, this is merely educational, nothing more. A small contribution to the art of illustrating the level of cowardly sliminess our people's government has descended into, these past 7 years. I'm not surprised at all, I doubt many folks are. This is right in line with the DoofieCorps Dance, and Rove still gots his fast feet and his shuffle and his rhythm.

The original bill was introduced in JANUARY, 2002. Approved by both houses of Congress by October, 2002. Although introduced in January, 2002, Rove would have us believe that DoofieCorps WANTED Congress to shuffle its feet on approval of the bill until it was politically expedient. Yeah right. Of course, Karl.

Here is the bill in question:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/bliraqreshouse.htm

In the House of Representatives:
Republican YEA: 215
Republican NAY: 6
Repub NO vote: 2
Democrat YEA: 81
Democrat NAY: 126
Dem. NO vote: 1
Independent NAY: 1
HOUSE TOTAL: 296 YEAS, 133 NAYS, 3 NO VOTES

In the Senate:
Republican YEA: 48
Republican NAY: 1
Democrat YEA: 29
Democrat NAY: 21
Independent NAY: 1
SENATE TOTAL: 77 YEAS, 23 NAYS

[Magyar]

*slams head on desk*

I wonder how many people he thinks will buy this line?

DR

I'm giving 5 to 2 odds that Real American will be posting soon about how this explains why the only reason the "Dims" are bitching now is because they lost control. And how they are jealous because the reps are doing it so much better.

[Upchurch]

No. The resolution authorized war, it did not demand war. Bush had the option of waiting longer (and I've seen arguments that he waited too long as is), or even not going to war. The timing of the actual war was always up to Bush.
Yes, I know. That's what I said. That isn't what Rove said however.


Nothing Rove said challenges that.

Yes, it does. It's right there in the part I quoted:
Rose: So you didn't do [things that needed to be done to bring along allies, and potential allies, aboard] because?

Rove: We...we... there was a vote.

{snip}

Rose: Because your argument is that you maybe would have had maybe more inspections, you would have built a broader coalition, you would have done a whole lot different things if you didn't have to have a vote, right?

Rove: Right. Right. Exactly.
That vote had nothing to do with when the President decided to go to war. Rove is saying that the vote prevented the Administration from making more inspections, building a broader coalition, and a "whole lot different things".


It does indeed appear that Rove is incorrect, though. If he isn't, then that means the administration was making public statements which contradicted what they actually wanted. This being politics, it's not exactly impossible that what they were saying publicly was different than what they were pushing for with Congressional leaders in private. That wouldn't exactly be flattering to the administration either, but it's not impossible.
It is also not impossible that everyone in the White House was replaced with look-alike actors. How likely do you think it is that either one happened?

It is not impossible that Rove is, as DR put it, spinning like a top. How likely do you think that is?

[Tricky]

Actually my real life friends think of me as liberal due to my atheism, and pro-gay marriage, pro-choice stances...
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King.

[Darth Rotor]

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King.
He's also the only guy who knows who the hot gals are. Everyone else gets dates with gals who have great personalities. :cool:

DR

[ConspiRaider]

Thats why Conspi is on my ignore list. Hes not worth the time. What I gleaned about his story from the rest of the thread: Rove is a big fat liar. Well DUH.
THANK YOU for putting me on "Ignore", corplinx! A badge of honor. When American right wingers DON'T put normal people on Ignore, that means the normal folks ain't tryin' hard enough.

And THANK YOU for confirming the oft-forgot truism that Karl Rove is a big fat liar. Yes - this recently former Presidential Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor to the President - IS A BIG FAT LIAR.

There may be hope for our wonderful USA yet - when right wingers are forced to use the "L" word to describe their former heroes.

Here's the proof, case ya forgot:

From a press conference on September 13, 2002, one month before Congress approved Resolution 114:



(Judy Keen) Q: Mr. President, thank you. Are you concerned that Democrats in Congress don't want a vote there until after U.N. action? And secondly, have you spoken with President Putin since your speech yesterday?

THE PRESIDENT: I have not spoken to President Putin since my speech. I did speak to his Foreign Minister, as did Colin Powell. I'll speak to President Putin, I'm confident, soon. I'll have -- I think we've got a scheduled phone call, actually.

And the first part of the question was, Democrats waiting for the U.N. to act? I can't imagine an elected United States -- elected member of the United States Senate or House of Representatives saying, I think I'm going to wait for the United Nations to make a decision. It seems like to me that if you're representing the United States, you ought to be making a decision on what's best for the United States. If I were running for office, I'm not sure how I'd explain to the American people -- say, vote for me, and, oh, by the way, on a matter of national security, I think I'm going to wait for somebody else to act.

And so I -- we'll see. My answer to the Congress is, they need to debate this issue and consult with us, and get the issue done as quickly as possible. It's in our national interests that we do so. I don't imagine Saddam Hussein sitting around, saying, gosh, I think I'm going to wait for some resolution. He's a threat that we must deal with as quickly as possible.

[Darth Rotor]

From a press conference on September 13, 2002, one month before Congress approved Resolution 114:
Evidence is a better descriptive, says the nitpicky one. ;) But I'll say the evidence is pretty strong in rebutting Roves' line.
And so I -- we'll see. My answer to the Congress is, they need to debate this issue and consult with us, and get the issue done as quickly as possible. It's in our national interests that we do so. I don't imagine Saddam Hussein sitting around, saying, gosh, I think I'm going to wait for some resolution. He's a threat that we must deal with as quickly as possible.
Curious as to why Charlie Rose didn't counter Roves assertion with little bits and pieces like that. Does he not do his research? Was this a softball interview, like a Larry King interview?

DR

[Upchurch]

Curious as to why Charlie Rose didn't counter Roves assertion with little bits and pieces like that. Does he not do his research? Was this a softball interview, like a Larry King interview?
Is it possible that Rove's book wasn't available to Rose to read before the interview? He may not have seen this one coming. Who could?

[ConspiRaider]

Evidence is a better descriptive, says the nitpicky one. ;) But I'll say the evidence is pretty strong in rebutting Roves' line.

Curious as to why Charlie Rose didn't counter Roves assertion with little bits and pieces like that. Does he not do his research? Was this a softball interview, like a Larry King interview?

DR
Hey Darthster -

The evidence is overwhelming on proving Rove's lying statements concerning the push for war in Iraq. There is no doubt.

Today, even Andrew Card (Doofie's former Chief of Staff) said, essentially, that Rove is full of beans, on an MSNBC spot with Scarborough.

We no longer have an actual 4th Estate in this country concerning mass media - the press no longer keeps politicians "honest" - so I don't think we should expect any of these press jackals to get off the softball. And why would they? Mass media in the USA is owned by giant multi-national corporations. The day I stopped listening to World News Tonight with Peter Jennings was the day I found out ABC was owned by Disney. End of any semblance of objectivity.

[ConspiRaider]

And even still today, the Rovester cannot bring himself to admit that maybe he spoke out of school on this issue of Congress acting too quickly on starting a war with Iraq.

Fox News Sunday, Rove is blaming Tom Daschle for the "rush".

Please click on the video at the below link, if you'd like:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/02/rove-confronted-over-iraq_n_74983.html

It's a valuable look-see into the absolute, stubborn, "I'm always right" attitude of the former Senior Advisor to the President, the so-called "Bush's Brain". That's why this is worth bringing to the fore. It provides illumination as to how we Americans find ourselves in the dangerous grip of the current regime: DoofieCorps.

[Darth Rotor]

Hey Darthster -

The evidence is overwhelming on proving Rove's lying statements concerning the push for war in Iraq. There is no doubt.

Today, even Andrew Card (Doofie's former Chief of Staff) said, essentially, that Rove is full of beans, on an MSNBC spot with Scarborough.
Card's candor is a nice change of pace, don't you think?

The day I stopped listening to World News Tonight with Peter Jennings was the day I found out ABC was owned by Disney. End of any semblance of objectivity.
Disney has a lot of dirty underbelly. Are you familiar with Carl Hiassen's investigative reporting on Disney and central Florida? He has since moved on to "novelist" as a career, seems to pay well.

His work on Disney does not paint a pretty picture.

DR

[Upchurch]

And even still today, the Rovester cannot bring himself to admit that maybe he spoke out of school on this issue of Congress acting too quickly on starting a war with Iraq.

Fox News Sunday, Rove is blaming Tom Daschle for the "rush".

Please click on the video at the below link, if you'd like:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/02/rove-confronted-over-iraq_n_74983.html

Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.
George Orwell
Fortunately for us all, Rove controls nothing anymore.


So, what happened to Rove's defenders? rik? Zig?

[Upchurch]

Daschle responds to Rove's accusation (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/03/daschle-calls-roves-iraq_n_75079.html)

"Well, I was called last week a couple of times and I literally thought it was a joke," [Daschle] said. "I thought somebody was trying to pull my leg. I can't believe that anybody would make such an outrageous statement. And I was interested in [the fact] that several of the former Bush high-level people have now disputed it as well... But, he's saying it and I guess he's trying to sell some books."

[Gravy]

"There are no tanks in Baghdad! Oh, they're our tanks? Never mind."

–Baghdad Karl