JMS Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 Rove: "Congress Pushed Bush to War in Iraq Prematurely" Posted November 25, 2007 | 08:56 PM (EST) Read More: Bush Administration, Iraq War, Iraq War Resolution, Karl Rove, Breaking Politics News 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. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/rove-congress-pushed-bu_b_74039.html?view=print Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 I knew it! Those hawkish Democrats! I wonder if even Fox followers will buy this? Especially, since there was never a vote for war, but an authorization to use force when and if the President thought it necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 :wtf: If this isn't the craziest...Rove's out of his mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headexplode Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 Yeah, I saw that episdoe last week. I almost **** my pants from laughter when he said that . . . okay, okay, I did **** my pants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 That's actually funny as hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 Just in case you were wondering whether Karl Rove has a sense of humour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 It still hurts that he beat you twice with Baron von Dufus, doesn't it? :laugh: Oh, and it's "Karl," just like "Klinton." (Right Sarge?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headexplode Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 Just in case you were wondering whether Karl Rove has a sense of humour. Well--we are talking about MC Rove, here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 So it's true. Pelosi, that damned bloodthirsty chickenhawk, was behind the rush to war the entire time. I should have guessed. WE ALL SHOULD HAVE GUESSED. And she would have gotten away with it too, if not for this brave, curiously bald-guy-mulleted meddling whistleblower. Bless you, sir! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 Just in case you were wondering whether Karl Rove has a sense of humour. You know what I think is funny? Beating a Nobel Prize winner and a war hero with a guy whose IQ is lower than James Thrash's jersey number. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headexplode Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 You know what I think is funny? Beating a Nobel Prize winner and a war hero with a guy whose IQ is lower than James Thrash's jersey number. :laugh: What's even funner is, didn't you vote for him twice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 What's even funner is, didn't you vote for him twice? Sure did. It's just incredibly entertaining to see how much he still burns you guys. He's been gone how long now? :laugh: Oh and make no mistake, as frustrated as I am with Bush, I'd still take him over Gore or Kerry any day of the week. And it's not close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 You know what I think is funny? Beating a Nobel Prize winner and a war hero with a guy whose IQ is lower than James Thrash's jersey number. :laugh: You forgot the end of the story though. He then laughed at the possibility of losing control of congress and boldly denied any problems only to get his butt kick all over the country by tons of spineless, god hating, un-American, communists. Then he shaped Bush's policy in such a way that drove his numbers from 90% popularity to (post 9-11) to the lowest in the history of the country. Awesome. Yup. He started strong, but man he can't finish. He is the political version of the 2007 Redskins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted November 28, 2007 Author Share Posted November 28, 2007 He is the political version of the 2007 Redskins. Ouch.... The skins are just under 500. Bush is more like 2007 Miami, before Ricky returned.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 You forgot the end of the story though. He then laughed at the possibility of losing control of congress and boldly denied any problems only to get his butt kick all over the country by tons of spineless, god hating, un-American, communists. Then he shaped Bush's policy in such a way that drove his numbers from 90% popularity to (post 9-11) to the lowest in the history of the country. Awesome. Yup. He started strong, but man he can't finish. He is the political version of the 2007 Redskins. He lost a battle sure. But make no mistake. During his tenure, the war went the way of Gulf Part I. And if that wasn't the case, you guys would've let it go by now. Seriously, hasn't he been gone for at least a year now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headexplode Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 Sure did. It's just incredibly entertaining to see how much he still burns you guys. He's been gone how long now? :laugh: You guys? I've long thought Bush irrelevant. He's little more than a pretty face (and a nice tight ass) who talks like a "regular Joe" and makes it easier for the public to swallow the hore**** they're being fed by the short-sighted, greedy little trolls that actually have the power in this administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 You know what I think is funny? Beating a Nobel Prize winner and a war hero with a guy whose IQ is lower than James Thrash's jersey number. :laugh: Actually, that's sad... not funny. And yeah, it still annoys me a little. The Dems went with the following strategy, "This guy is so bad bad that we can put up anyone and win" The Republicans responded, "Oh yeah, Mr. tough guy! Prove it!" Dems puffed out their chest and said, "Fine, we will. Who's the most patheti... Hey John, you up for a Presidential run!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 Cut the guy some slack. He has a disgraced legacy to salvage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headexplode Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 Actually, that's sad... not funny. And yeah, it still annoys me a little. The Dems went with the following strategy,"This guy is so bad bad that we can put up anyone and win" The Republicans responded, "Oh yeah, Mr. tough guy! Prove it!" Dems pugged out their chest and said, "Fine, we will. Who's the most patheti... Hey John, you up for a Presidential run!" That's exactly what they did. Which led me to lose what little respect I had for them in the first place. (What's even sadder is that I bought into it and voted for the ****er just because I hated Bush so much, even though I knew full well that Bush was a joke and the whole goddamn thing is a joke and the only thing I can do is laugh---then cry----then laugh----then cry-----then . . . well, you get the idea.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_cavalierman Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 Some key words missing is A republican controlled congress.... It is truly unfortunate that the democrats gave Baron von idiot a blank check and a free hand to wage war in Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 Actually, that's sad... not funny. And yeah, it still annoys me a little. The Dems went with the following strategy,"This guy is so bad bad that we can put up anyone and win" The Republicans responded, "Oh yeah, Mr. tough guy! Prove it!" Dems puffed out their chest and said, "Fine, we will. Who's the most patheti... Hey John, you up for a Presidential run!" Did it work? Seriously, what other REAL reason do you guys have to hate Rove? He out-coached you. Can you really hate a guy for that alone? I can just imagine if you guys had a "Rove" and we made the same complaints. Something tells me I'd hear an awful lot of "scoreboard" and not much else. Hence...I say...Scoreboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 Well, Gore DID have more votes than Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 Actually, that's sad... not funny. And yeah, it still annoys me a little. The Dems went with the following strategy,"This guy is so bad bad that we can put up anyone and win" eh, if that were true, Hillary would have run.I know a lot of Democrats believed that 2004 would be easy, but the best-funded candidate who wanted the White House more than anything (Hillary) and the next-best-funded candidate who had a personal stake in defeating Bush (Gore) didn't even try ... in fact, Hillary basically gambled on Bush winning reelection so she could run in '08. The reason the Democrats had such weak candidates in '04 was because the best political people knew that it was going to be hard to defeat an incumbent wartime President with gay marriage amendments all over state ballots. The evidence, as 'hog points out, is on the scoreboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headexplode Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 Did it work?Seriously, what other REAL reason do you guys have to hate Rove? He out-coached you. Can you really hate a guy for that alone? I can just imagine if you guys had a "Rove" and we made the same complaints. Something tells me I'd hear an awful lot of "scoreboard" and not much else. Hence...I say...Scoreboard. But didn't he also help lose the Congress for the GOP? Sounds like a major defeat to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted November 28, 2007 Author Share Posted November 28, 2007 Actually, that's sad... not funny. And yeah, it still annoys me a little. The Dems went with the following strategy,"This guy is so bad bad that we can put up anyone and win" The Republicans responded, "Oh yeah, Mr. tough guy! Prove it!" Dems puffed out their chest and said, "Fine, we will. Who's the most patheti... Hey John, you up for a Presidential run!" I disagree with that. The Democrats put up a conservative candidate. I don't mean his policies were conservatives, but rather Kerry was a very conventional choice for the Democratic nomination. A war hero, A veteran of the Senate, A Democratic insider, Ivy league education ( just like many of our presidents). The reason you think of Kerry as a looser is because Bush's political machine defined him as such and you bought it. Fact is if the Dems had really gone for a new direction (Howard Dean) Bush's attacks would have been even more effective. That's not because Dean is an inferior candidate, it's just that he wasn't a party insider that Kerry was and that leaves him more suceptable to Bush's #1 political strategy.. FUD... Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. If you believed it about Kerry, look for it to happen again against the next Democrate to recieve the nomination. Only watch out if that democrat is Hillary. The Clinton's were always great at getting out and defining the other candidate first, they invented much of what made Karl Rove infamous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.