Dems Say Rove Should Apologize Or Resign

[Sweetstop]

A master of distraction is the lowest-of-the-low, evil, scary Dr. Frankenstein Rove. As far as his Democratic-counterpart, DNC Chairman Dean is concerned, I think he has only spoken the truth and is the one Democrat w/ a noticeable pair.

[RedsBaron]

Originally Posted by Sweetstop

A master of distraction is the lowest-of-the-low, evil, scary Dr. Frankenstein Rove. As far as his Democratic-counterpart, DNC Chairman Dean is concerned, I think he has only spoken the truth and is the one Democrat w/ a noticeable pair.

Aw com'n Sweetstop. Don't tell me you "hate" all Republicans, to quote Mr. Dean.

[paintmered]

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

The desire on the part of most Democrats to invade Iraq was based upon the intelligence that the Administration presented to them. If the Dems did anything wrong, they trusted that their leader wouldn't present them false and misleading intelligence. Fool me once....

Now wait a second here. Congress doesn't get their intelligence from the White House, they get it from the intel agencies. There's been times when we've found something only for a congressman to leak it for his/her benifit a day or two later.

They didn't have to listen to Bush.

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by paintmered

Now wait a second here. Congress doesn't get their intelligence from the White House, they get it from the intel agencies. There's been times when we've found something only for a congressman to leak it for his/her benifit a day or two later.

They didn't have to listen to Bush.

And who exactly twisted the arm of the CIA/DIA? Who cooked the intelligence "gleaned" and passed on by Mr. Tenet?

Wouldn't be the administration would it, specifically D. Rummy and the (as mentioned by RBA) Office of Special Plans?

[RBA]

Originally Posted by paintmered

Now wait a second here. Congress doesn't get their intelligence from the White House, they get it from the intel agencies. There's been times when we've found something only for a congressman to leak it for his/her benifit a day or two later.

They didn't have to listen to Bush.

You need to google "The Office of Special Plans"

Be skepitcal of all intel, especially if it comes down through channels.

[Mutaman]

Originally Posted by RedsBaron

Aw com'n Sweetstop. Don't tell me you "hate" all Republicans, to quote Mr. Dean.

No of course not. Well wait a minute, I'm trying to think of one, let me think, well I really don't hate the Duke. And Schilling beat the Yankees so I can't hate him. Other than that, Howard Dean speaks for me.

[Sweetstop]

Originally Posted by RedsBaron

Aw com'n Sweetstop. Don't tell me you "hate" all Republicans, to quote Mr. Dean.

Hey, some of my best friends are Republicans (white and Christian, I might add.. ).

[Redsfaithful]

My best friend in the world is as hard core a Republican as you'll ever meet.

Strange, but true.

[GAC]

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

Ah yes, the nihilism argument. Everybody's hands are dirty so no one can do what's right, eh?

I never said nor implied that anywhere in my previous response. So I have no idea where you are coming from.

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by GAC

I never said nor implied that anywhere in my previous response. So I have no idea where you are coming from.

"Both of these poltical parties are so corrupt (and so bought) that IMO, they could care less what is right for this country as a whole or the will of the people."

Okay. What does this quote mean then?

[GAC]

Originally Posted by registerthis

You mean, when the intelligence failed to support the administration's reasoning for the war, the Democrats stopped supporting it?

The intelligence DID support it. That's why so many voted for the war. They read/saw the intel, and then voted. Real simple.

It wasn't until after the invasion and we were physically in Iraq and looking that we discovered there were none, and the intel was wrong. But up to that point, everyone was basing their assessments on the intel.

Show me one Democrat, before the invasion, and who reviewed the intel, who was saying that the intel was wrong and Saddam didn't possess WMD, was not a threat?

So is the Democratic leadership, who were heavily involved in that process - saw the very same intelligence, came to the same conclusions after reviewing that intel, and were saying the very same things that this administration was concerning Saddam, WMD, and the imminent threat he posed to the U.S.(and lonnnng before Bush was even Prez mind you), now also criticizing themselves and accepting some/any responsibilty/accountabilty for their blunders and miscalculations in the whole process? All based on intel too.

Of course not. According to them, they are somehow now immune from any criticism. That bad, bad George Bush lied and mislead them all. Man! We're all suppose to believe that they were all being "led on a string" by this adminstration and had the wool pulled over their eyes.

Convenient. Very convenient. More like politically expedient.

And these accusations about doctoring intel has long been disproven- by Joe Biden and others on that Senate Intelligence Committee, along with the 9-11 Commission. But if you or anyone else doesn't want to accept that, because it counters what you want to believe for partisan purposes, then go for it.

It has shown us that our intelligence gathering/review methodology (thanks to alot of massive budget cuts too), and all that are involved in that process (CIA, FBI, domestic and foreign) are sorely lacking and in need of improvement.

THEY ARE ALL GUILTY!

How dare they! Unpatriotic scum, they should be tarred, feathered, and forced to spend the rest of their days in exile along the French Riviera.

Fell better? No one on here has stated such. Only that they are....

HYPOCRITES.

[GAC]

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

"Both of these poltical parties are so corrupt (and so bought) that IMO, they could care less what is right for this country as a whole or the will of the people."

Okay. What does this quote mean then?

Just what the sentence following it said....

It is all about power- acquiring it, and then holding onto it.

You state....

I think in general our politicians vote their constituency's will. Sometimes politicians vote their own consciences, but mostly they vote the way their public wants them to vote. Which, frankly, is as it should be.

Nowhere did I say that never happens. Again -whatever it takes for them to gain or hold onto power. Follow the money trail in both parties (special interest. lobbyists, etc) to see who they listen to more then the general public. A politician will always tell the people want they want to hear.

After all (for example) - isn't it Repubs who are suppose to be beholden to, and in the "back pockets" of the big corporations?

[Unassisted]

Another follow-up from today's Wash Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...501279_pf.html

Rove Taking a More Public Role
Bush Adviser Playing Messenger for Second-Term Agenda

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 26, 2005; A01

He has risen to the highest ranks of the White House, carries the title of deputy chief of staff and presides over a broad portfolio of domestic and foreign issues. But even as he has morphed from political operative to policy adviser, Karl Rove retains the instincts of the direct-mail specialist he once was in Texas.

The verbal strike he aimed at liberals and liberalism during a speech to the New York Conservative Party on Wednesday night came straight out of the direct-mail manual: pithy, provocative and designed to energize one side by torching the other.

Rove's flamboyant remarks -- in which he roused conservatives by saying liberals prefer "therapy and understanding" for terrorists instead of retaliation -- has put President Bush's top strategist back on stage. It's a place where he has seemed increasingly comfortable of late.

Through much of last year, by contrast, Rove remained largely in the shadows, avoiding on-the-record interviews or television appearances and the controversy that inevitably would have followed. A political lightning rod, whom Democrats accused of unfairly injecting the war on terrorism into the 2002 midterm elections, Rove let others in the campaign attack the Democratic nominee, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), and explain Bush's strategy to the outside world.

But the president's reelection victory liberated Rove and marked the beginning of a new chapter in his career. On the afternoon after the election, Bush paid tribute to the outsize role his longtime adviser and friend of 30 years had played, publicly identifying him as the "architect" of a victory that came only after one of the most hard-fought campaigns in modern presidential politics -- a victory even some White House officials doubted would happen, given problems in Iraq and public concerns about the economy.

Rove was rewarded with a new title (while retaining the "senior adviser" designation he carried from the first term) and the first-floor West Wing office down the hall from the Oval Office that other deputy chiefs of staff have used. Long a policy wonk in a political operative's skin, Rove always had significant involvement in issues during the first Bush term. Now, that role has been made formal, with expanded administrative powers and the explicit authority to range widely into a variety of policy areas.

His colleagues see him as one of the administration's most potent public advocates on behalf of Bush's major initiatives. "Karl is a key asset to this White House," White House counselor Dan Bartlett said in an e-mail message. "His keen insight into the president's thinking, grasp of a wide range of complex issues and ability to speak beyond the Washington Beltway, make Karl a valuable messenger for the president's second-term agenda."

In his new role, Rove has become more visible and somewhat more accessible. He has made himself available to White House reporters and has appeared more frequently on television. When he went to the New York Times for an interview earlier this year, he showed up with flowers for columnist Maureen Dowd, part of a running inside joke with one of Bush's most acerbic critics.

Rove speaks on behalf of the president not just on the politics of the moment but also on the administration's policy agenda. He has been at the center of the administration's efforts to restructure Social Security, and he will be deeply involved in the battle to confirm a new Supreme Court justice if there is a vacancy soon, as is widely expected.

Having done what few political strategists have done -- oversee two successful campaigns for the White House -- Rove has become a bona fide celebrity within the Republican Party and one of the most sought-after speakers by GOP audiences. A White House official said Rove now can attract about as much money for a candidate or the party as Vice President Cheney, behind only the president -- an unprecedented capability for a White House staff hand.

A more public role has hardly dulled Rove's combative edge. From the first days of Bush's presidential campaign in 1999 to the present, he has picked the fights and shaped the arguments used to advance his boss's agenda or political ambitions. It was Rove who shared with Bush the passion to promote personal or private accounts as part of Social Security restructuring, a battle that has proved more difficult than many White House officials envisioned. It was also Rove who helped shape the strategy of renominating a series of appellate court judges blocked by Democrats during Bush's first term.

Within the White House, Rove is regarded as a happy warrior, well-liked by colleagues for his humor and ebullient personality. To the opposition, however, Rove's remarks to the New York state Conservative Party last week were simply fresh evidence of why they loathe him. Congressional Democrats, most of whom supported Bush after Sept. 11, 2001, denounced the speech as deceitful and typical of the low-blow tactics they say have marked Rove's career.

What is still unclear is how deliberate Rove was being in prompting an uproar with his comments. With public opinion on Iraq at an ebb and the president preparing to deliver a major speech Tuesday on the subject, Rove's remarks seemed in part an effort to redraw lines to how they were in last year's presidential campaign. Bush succeeded then by casting himself as the embodiment of strength and resolve, and portraying Kerry as the symbol of weakness and vacillation.

Rove's speech -- a broader meditation on the rise of conservatism and the decline of liberalism -- is one that often animates his public remarks, White House officials noted, and is a topic he has both studied and tried to influence throughout his long career in politics. But this was the first time his inflammatory language about liberals and Sept. 11 drew such wide notice.

The White House reaction to the uproar also bore the indelible stamp of Rove: no apologies and no retractions, and all engines in the GOP spin machine churning in concert. White House press secretary Scott McClellan and Bartlett defended Rove from the briefing room and on several morning television programs, and Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman jumped in with customary aggressiveness. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), in a bit of a role reversal, came to the defense of Rove by repeating some of the most provocative lines to College Republicans and saying, "That's not slander. That's the truth." The National Republican Senatorial Committee sent out an e-mail fundraising appeal proclaiming "Karl Rove Is Right."

GOP officials said Rove had criticized liberals, not Democrats or the Democratic Party, a distinction that many Democrats found unpersuasive. Kerry stoked his e-mail supporters, asking them to sign a letter to Bush asking him to "thoroughly reject Karl Rove's purposeful attack on the patriotism of those who dare ask the tough questions that best protect American troops."

While many Democrats reacted with rage when they first heard about Rove's remarks, they were more mixed in their view of whether he had made the mistake of going too far or had cleverly baited a trap for them by opening up an argument on political turf that long has favored the Republicans. "I don't think anybody knows yet [whether] what he said the other night is a mistake," said Tad Devine, who was a top strategist in Kerry's campaign. "I will say it is calculated and deliberate. Karl for a long time has tried to position the Democrats as liberals, and liberals as weak, who don't want to defend America."

[Mutaman]

In response to Rove's comments, Families of September 11 issued a statement that called the comments "divisive," "offensive" and "not welcome":

"As families whose relatives were victims of the 9/11 terror attacks, we believe it is an outrage that any Democrat, any Republican, any conservative or any liberal, stakes a "high ground" position based upon the September 11th death and destruction. Doing so assumes that all those who died and their loved ones would agree. In truth, some would and some would not. By definition the conduct is divisive and, because it is intended to be self-serving and politicizes 9/11, it is offensive.

We are calling on Karl Rove to resist his temptations and stop trying to reap political gain in the tragic misfortune of others. His comments are not welcome."

However, only a handful of reports mentioned the Families of September 11 condemnation of Rove's comments, including The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Knight Ridder Newspapers, while most reports cited only Democrats denouncing the comments.

The Journal-Constitution reported on June 24:

Relatives of 9/11 victims posted a statement on their Families of Sept. 11 Web site saying Rove's statements were "not welcome" and his conduct "divisive and ... offensive." They urged Rove "to resist his temptations and stop trying to reap political gain in the tragic misfortunes of others."

Also on June 24, Knight Ridder reported:

A group of families whose relatives died on Sept. 11 issued a statement condemning the politicization of the tragedy. "We are calling on Karl Rove to resist his temptations and stop trying to reap political gain in the tragic misfortune of others. His comments are not welcome," their statement said.

By contrast, the Associated Press, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times never mentioned the Families of September 11 opposition in their June 24 coverage of Rove's remarks. Among TV outlets, June 23 reports on ABC's World News Tonight, NBC's Nightly News, CNN's Inside Politics, and Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume also failed to mention the group; the CBS Evening News did not report on Rove's comments at all.


Media Matters 6/24/05

[RBA]

By contrast, the Associated Press, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times never mentioned the Families of September 11 opposition in their June 24 coverage of Rove's remarks. Among TV outlets, June 23 reports on ABC's World News Tonight, NBC's Nightly News, CNN's Inside Politics, and Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume also failed to mention the group; the CBS Evening News did not report on Rove's comments at all.

That's the "Left Liberal Media" for you.