Dems Say Rove Should Apologize Or Resign

[registerthis]

I simply cannot stand Karl Rove.


Taken from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050623/ap_on_re_us/rove_speech

Dems Say Rove Should Apologize or Resign By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 20 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - White House adviser Karl Rove should either apologize or resign for saying liberals responded to the Sept. 11 terrorist strikes by wanting to "prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," Democrats said Thursday.

Adding to the rancor, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., suggested that Republican charges that Democrats were undermining the war on terror with their criticism of administration policies amounted to an act of desperation.

"The president wanted to go to Iraq in the worst possible way and he did," Pelosi said. "The president is on the ropes."

Rove, Bush's chief political adviser, said in a speech Wednesday that "liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Conservatives, he told the New York state Conservative Party just a few miles north of Ground Zero, "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."

Rove said the Democratic Party made the mistake of calling for "moderation and restraint" after the terrorist attacks.

Democrats were quick to respond — and in growing numbers.

"Karl Rove should immediately and fully apologize for his remarks or he should resign," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a statement. "I hope the president will join me in repudiating these remarks."

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean called on Bush to "show some leadership and unequivocally repudiate Rove's divisive and damaging political rhetoric."

During a Senate hearing on Iraq in which Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other military leaders testified, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., read Rove's statement and urged them to reject the remarks.

"I would hope that you and other members of the administration would immediately repudiate such an insulting comment from a high-ranking official in the president's inner circle," Clinton said.

Earlier in the day, Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., said New York has had unity since Sept. 11. "To inject politics into this and to defame a large number of people" is outrageous, he said. "It's not what New York and America is all about."

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (news, bio, voting record), D-N.J., said nearly 3,000 Americans died on Sept. 11 and "we should not dishonor their memory by using that tragic day for political trash talk."

Three days after the terrorist attacks, the Senate voted 98-0 and the House voted 420-1 for a resolution authorizing Bush to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against those responsible for the terrorism. After the votes, Bush said in a statement: "I am gratified that the Congress has united so powerfully by taking this action. It sends a clear message — our people are together, and we will prevail."

During the 2004 campaign, Bush dismissed the notion of negotiating with terrorists and said, "You can't sit back and hope that somehow therapy will work and they will change their ways."

On Wednesday, Rove also denounced Sen. Dick Durbin's comments comparing interrogation at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp to the methods of Nazis and other repressive regimes. He said the statements have been broadcast throughout the Middle East, putting U.S. troops in greater danger. The Illinois Democrat has since apologized for the remarks.

"No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals," Rove said.

Seven House Republicans also wrote Pelosi saying they were shocked by a statement in which she said the war in Afghanistan was over. "Messages like yours could demoralize our troops and undermine our efforts to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and around the world," they wrote.

Pelosi, who made the comment at a news conference where Democrats called for an investigation into detainee abuses at Guantanamo Bay, said Thursday that she was referring to the campaign to drive the Taliban from power in 2001. Fighting continues, she said, because the administration decided to divert its attention from Afghanistan to the war in Iraq.

[RedsBaron]

Howard Dean condemned "divisive and damaging political rhetoric." :rolleyes:
Hey, I'm not defending Rove's comments, but they were pretty mild compared to some of Dean's recent statements. Dean reminds me of a non-charming version of Claude Rains' character in "Casablanca" being shocked to find gambling going on just before he receives his winnings.
I'd like to see some reasoned and civil rhetoric from both politcal camps, but then I'm also hoping for a competent Reds front office, without really expecting either.

[M2]

Howard Dean condemned "divisive and damaging political rhetoric." :rolleyes:

Good point, that is kind of funny. Actually, the thing I like about Dean is that he's so good at divisive and damaging political rhetoric. He's the only Dem with a counterpunch these days.

[macro]

I wish there was a viable third party that had the best interests of the nation as its first and only priority.

[Jaycint]

I wish there was a viable third party that had the best interests of the nation as its first and only priority.

If you take out the viable part then I got a party for ya: Libertarian Party (http://www.lp.org/)

Unfortunately I don't see a third party ever making a splash come November.

[registerthis]

If you take out the viable part then I got a party for ya: Libertarian Party (http://www.lp.org/)

Unfortunately I don't see a third party ever making a splash come November.
Man, if the Libs had their way social programs might darn well disappear completely. That's the problem with a political philosophy dependant upon the least amount of government possible.

I happen to think the Green Party is the party which most closely espouses the "best interests" ideal.

[registerthis]

Good point, that is kind of funny. Actually, the thing I like about Dean is that he's so good at divisive and damaging political rhetoric. He's the only Dem with a counterpunch these days.
Yeah, he's the Democratic equivalent of much of the Bush Administration. Kind of funny, really.

[Dom Heffner]

Point is, Rove should apologize.

[registerthis]

Point is, Rove should apologize.
But he won't, because if you question the Iraq war, you are unpatriotic and hate America and its freedoms. You don't expect him to apologize for being patriotic, do you?

[Dom Heffner]

But he won't, because if you question the Iraq war, you are unpatriotic and hate America and its freedoms. You don't expect him to apologize for being patriotic, do you?

Well his president's approval rating is about 42% right now, so I hope he doesn't apologize to tell you the truth. Would love to see him in the mid-30s. :)

[M2]

Yeah, he's the Democratic equivalent of much of the Bush Administration. Kind of funny, really.

I'd argue there's a capable and dutiful public servant under the pugilism with Dean. He's got some political principles worth admiration, IMO.

FWIW, I give the Bushies credit for being able to dish it out. They'll go bare knuckles with anyone ... which gets back to why I think Dean's become a necessity for the Dems. Everyone else in his party is cowering under the tables at the bar fight.

Had Dean and Bush been the two main candidates last November perhaps the nation could have gotten the rumble it needs. IMO, we're not moving forward until this latent hostility gets activated.

[RedFanAlways1966]

Pure politics. Rove and Dean. I do not get upset by their comments. I make up my own mind about issues and other things. Karl Rove does not make up my mind for me. And I hope Howard Dean does not make up the minds of those who have differing views than myself.

The real problem is people who believe everything they hear from these mouthpieces. Or from Hollywood types. Or from oil tycoon types. Or whomever.

Freedom of speech, eh? Like burning the flag. Karl, Howard and Rep. Nancy Pelosi have the same rights. And so do we. Speak your own mind.

[registerthis]

Freedom of speech, eh? Like burning the flag. Karl, Howard and Rep. Nancy Pelosi have the same rights. And so do we. Speak your own mind.
The problem is there are many in the Bush administration who would love to stop us from doing just that.

[dsmith421]

Commentary from the Moderate Voice
(http://www.themoderatevoice.com/posts/1119549666)


Let me get this straight: Republicans who were upset over the over-the-top remarks of Senator Richard Durbin and the pungent comments of Senator Harry Reid are now defending Karl Rove accusing liberals and Democrats of not wanting to fight terrorism -- and in effect wanting to see American troops die?
Can there be any doubt that this White House and administration have no desire to work for national unity, even on issue of terrorism? It's MO seems to be division and polarization -- whipping up rage against defined enemies...which now apparently include those who compete with it at the ballot box .. .

. . . Some questions for Mr. Rove:

So our military forces are composed ONLY of Republicans? Only Republicans have died on the battlefield? There were no Democrats, no independents? No one who gave their life for our country was ever a liberal? Do they have to be Rush Limbaugh listeners to go to the front lines?

. . . We did a search and can't find Democrats having suggested a visit to Dr. Laura. When did anyone suggest counseling for terrorists or Sadaam -- or anything remotely suggesting a touchy-feely approach to terrorism? After 911 there was bipartisan unity. Even on the Iraq war, the administration got lots of Democrats to go along with them.

. . . {T}he White House is backing his comments -- which means this is how they feel: that the Democrats are soft on terrorism and want to see American troops harmed.

20th century McCarthyism seems to have been replaced by 21st century Rove-ism.

Me: It's worked so far, apparently.

[RedFanAlways1966]

The problem is there are many in the Bush administration who would love to stop us from doing just that.

I think that is a matter of interpretation. Not sure if you mean the Patriot Act, this new flag burning thing or something else.

Not to single you out, register... but have you lost any freedoms today that you once had before Pres. G.W. Bush and his administration? The only one I can think of for myself is getting on a plane quicker.

[Rojo]

He said the statements have been broadcast throughout the Middle East, putting U.S. troops in greater danger. The Illinois Democrat has since apologized for the remarks.

In other words; oppose our policy -- endanger our troops. That's the most disgusting part, especiallly coming from this clique of chickenhawks.

[registerthis]

I think that is a matter of interpretation. Not sure if you mean the Patriot Act, this new flag burning thing or something else.

Not to single you out, register... but have you lost any freedoms today that you once had before Pres. G.W. Bush and his administration? The only one I can think of for myself is getting on a plane quicker.
I have lost the freedom to have my voice heard. At rallies throughout the campaign, at "town hall meetings" and at press conferences, Bush has insulated himself from protests or dissent of any kind--moving protesters blocks away from the event, denying entrance to those who disagree with him, placing people in the audience to ask him gopher-ball questions.

I have lost the right to privacy. My library records may now be checked, my purchasing habits scrutinized, my phone calls tapped, and my bank account observed much easier than before. I have lost a due process to fight these intrusions into my life under the guise of "fighting terrorism."

I have lost the right to be a dissenting voice without being labelled a traitor, unpatriotic or a terrorist sympathizer.

But don't just take my word for it...the patriot Act does a fine job of that on it's own:

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigations.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records questions.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.

RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.

FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.

RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.

RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.

...all under the name of "fighting terrorism."

[M2]

But registerthis, they only do those things to the bad guys.

Decent, law abiding non-terrorists have nothing to fear.

[Falls City Beer]

But registerthis, they only do those things to the bad guys.

Decent, law abiding non-terrorists have nothing to fear.

Paternal Republican: "Calm down now, don't be hysterical, be a man and shut up and goose step. I said goose step. And shut up. Ah, ah...I said shut up.

Security!!"

[RBA]

W.House rejects apology for Rove's Sept. 11 remarks

W.House rejects apology for Rove's Sept. 11 remarks

By Steve Holland1 hour, 38 minutes ago



Democrats demanded an apology from top White House adviser Karl Rove on Thursday for saying liberals responded weakly to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, a request quickly rejected by the White House.

The complaints were the latest aftershocks in a bitter partisan battle in Washington over U.S. foreign and domestic policy and followed a Republican-led uproar over remarks made by Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin about U.S. treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

Speaking to the Conservative Party of New York State on Wednesday night, Rove was quoted as saying: "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada issued a statement saying "it is time to stop using Sept. 11 as a political wedge issue."

"Karl Rove should immediately and fully apologize for his remarks or he should resign," Reid said. "The lesson of Sept. 11 is not different for conservatives, liberals or moderates."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan defended Rove's remarks and rebuffed suggestions that he apologize. "Of course not," McClellan said.

He said Rove was "talking about the different philosophies and different approaches when it comes to winning the war on terrorism."

"I would think that they would want to be able to defend their philosophy and their approach, and I know that the Democratic leadership at this point is offering no ideas and no vision for the American people," McClellan said.

Rove's remarks were reminiscent of some of President Bush's speeches from his re-election campaign last year but seemed to go further in saying liberals had offered therapy for the attackers.

Rove was the architect of Bush's 2004 campaign and is now a deputy White House chief of staff.

Congressional Democrats criticized Rove in press releases, at news conferences and in comments on the Senate floor. Some echoed Reed's comments that Rove should retract the comments or resign.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, a New York Democrat, said it was time for all to "just take a breath and calm down and eliminate the divisive rhetoric on all sides."

In New York, Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg, citing the families and survivors of those killed in the hijacked airliner attacks, said, "No one has ever raised issues of ideology or partisanship."

"We owe it to those we lost to keep partisan politics out of the discussion," Bloomberg said.

New York City Council Speaker Gifford Miller, a Democrat, also demanded an apology. "New Yorkers don't need a lecture by Karl Rove," he said.

Democrats' demands for an apology from Rove came two days after Durbin yielded to a drumbeat of largely Republican criticism and apologized for criticizing U.S. interrogation methods at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

That controversy erupted on June 14 when Durbin quoted from an FBI agent's report describing detainees at Guantanamo chained to the floor without food or water.



"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others - that had no concern for human beings," Durbin had said. The cross-fire between Republicans and Democrats reflected a deep partisan divide over the direction of U.S. foreign and domestic policy, from the Iraq war to Bush's proposals for overhauling Social Security. (Additional reporting by Thomas Ferraro)

[registerthis]

But registerthis, they only do those things to the bad guys.
My dad told me I was bad once. Does that count? :confused:

[RBA]

June 23, 2005
FOS11 Statement on Comments Made By Karl Rove
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.
Read the Press Release (http://www.familiesofseptember11.org/include/viewfile.asp?vfile=../..%2fdocs%2fFOS11statement_rove_062305.doc)

[Jaycint]

Rove DOES need to apologize, just like Durbin did earlier this week.

[Unassisted]

Have to hand it to Rove, actually. His verbal grenade did a good job of taking the news spotlight off of the steady stream of bad news about the administration. He's probably not saying anything that conservative pundits like Rush Limbaugh haven't said hundreds of times already.

Not that I think he will or should resign, but even if he did, he'd still be a political consultant to the White House from afar, kind of like Karen Hughes was for awhile.

[Falls City Beer]

Have to hand it to Rove, actually. His verbal grenade did a good job of taking the news spotlight off of the steady stream of bad news about the administration. He's probably not saying anything that conservative pundits like Rush Limbaugh haven't said hundreds of times already.

Not that I think he will or should resign, but even if he did, he'd still be a political consultant to the White House from afar, kind of like Karen Hughes was for awhile.

Right. The American public has REALLY been giving the Bush Administration the "fine comb" treatment. They've demonstrated again and again that they won't tolerate any shenanigans from THAT administration. :rolleyes:

[RedsBaron]

Rove DOES need to apologize, just like Durbin did earlier this week.
I don't expect Rove to apologize, but if he does, I expect to be one of the typical non-apology apologies where he says something about being sorry if anyone was offended by his remarks, thereby implying that no one should have been offended. I think that is essentially what Durbin did, following a long standing bipartisan example.

[GAC]

Just a reminder as liberals continue bashing Mr. Bush relentlessly about the war. And of course, they're acting as though Mr. Bush deceived the American people to justify the war. Isn't it odd, then, that they were all in favor of the war BEFORE we committed to it? Isn't it odd that THEY were just as adamant as Mr. Bush about the need for war when they thought it to be to THEIR political benefit?

Below you'll find five years of classic hypocrisy from the political party that specializes in hypocrisy...

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Nancy Pelosi

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."- Al Gore

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockerfeller

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." - Rep. Henry Waxman

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." - Hillary Clinton

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham

The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." - Robert Byrd

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." - John Edwards

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." - Dick Gephardt

And the award for the greatest flip-flopper goes to (envelope please).... Wesley Clark, who says he was against the war from the beginning...

"I've been against this war from the beginning. I was against it last summer. I was against it in the fall. I was against it in the winter. I was against it in the spring. And I'm against it now."- Retired General Wesley Clark, in a candidates' debate, October 26, 2003.

Really?

On the question of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, Clark seemed remarkably confident of their existence. Clark told CNN's Miles O'Brien that Saddam Hussein "does have weapons of mass destruction." When O'Brien asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark was resolute: "Absolutely" (1/18/03).

When CNN's Zahn (4/2/03) asked if he had any doubts about finding the weapons, Clark responded: "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this."

And listen to Clark's boldness and priase for Bush and Blair after the intial invasion of Iraq....

"Liberation is at hand. Liberation, the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions,"

Clark wrote in a London Times column (4/10/03). "Already the scent of victory is in the air." Clark was exuberant about the results of "a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call."

Clark made bold predictions about the effect the war would have on the region...

"Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights."

George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark explained. "Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced." The way Clark speaks of the "opponents" having been silenced is instructive, since he presumably does not include himself-- obviously not "temporarily silent"-- in that category.

Clark closed the piece with visions of victory celebrations here at home...

"Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue." In another column the next day (London Times, 4/11/03), Clark summed up the lessons of the war this way: "The campaign in Iraq illustrates the continuing progress of military technology and tactics, but if there is a single overriding lesson it must be this: American military power, especially when buttressed by Britain's, is virtually unchallengeable today. Take us on? Don't try! And that's not hubris, it's just plain fact."

[Falls City Beer]

Just a reminder as liberals continue bashing Mr. Bush relentlessly about the war. And of course, they're acting as though Mr. Bush deceived the American people to justify the war. Isn't it odd, then, that they were all in favor of the war BEFORE we committed to it? Isn't it odd that THEY were just as adamant as Mr. Bush about the need for war when they thought it to be to THEIR political benefit?

Below you'll find five years of classic hypocrisy from the political party that specializes in hypocrisy...

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Nancy Pelosi

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."- Al Gore

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockerfeller

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." - Rep. Henry Waxman

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." - Hillary Clinton

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham

The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." - Robert Byrd

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." - John Edwards

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." - Dick Gephardt

And the award for the greatest flip-flopper goes to (envelope please).... Wesley Clark, who says he was against the war from the beginning...

"I've been against this war from the beginning. I was against it last summer. I was against it in the fall. I was against it in the winter. I was against it in the spring. And I'm against it now."- Retired General Wesley Clark, in a candidates' debate, October 26, 2003.

Really?

On the question of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, Clark seemed remarkably confident of their existence. Clark told CNN's Miles O'Brien that Saddam Hussein "does have weapons of mass destruction." When O'Brien asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark was resolute: "Absolutely" (1/18/03).

When CNN's Zahn (4/2/03) asked if he had any doubts about finding the weapons, Clark responded: "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this."

And listen to Clark's boldness and priase for Bush and Blair after the intial invasion of Iraq....

"Liberation is at hand. Liberation, the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions,"

Clark wrote in a London Times column (4/10/03). "Already the scent of victory is in the air." Clark was exuberant about the results of "a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call."

Clark made bold predictions about the effect the war would have on the region...

"Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights."

George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark explained. "Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced." The way Clark speaks of the "opponents" having been silenced is instructive, since he presumably does not include himself-- obviously not "temporarily silent"-- in that category.

Clark closed the piece with visions of victory celebrations here at home...

"Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue." In another column the next day (London Times, 4/11/03), Clark summed up the lessons of the war this way: "The campaign in Iraq illustrates the continuing progress of military technology and tactics, but if there is a single overriding lesson it must be this: American military power, especially when buttressed by Britain's, is virtually unchallengeable today. Take us on? Don't try! And that's not hubris, it's just plain fact."

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....

[M2]

The real knock on the Dems should be that so many of them decided to support the war originally as part of a conniving political strategy. Some of them, Ted Kennedy for instance, called the invasion for the B.S. it was. The intelligence didn't add up, it didn't present Hussein as any sort of legitimate threat to the U.S. and the Bush administration didn't have an exit plan.

What the rest of the party figured was that by voting to give Bush carte blance, they insulated themselves from wimp accusations and improved the party's chances of holding the Senate and re-taking the House in November 2002. Their hope was Hussein was such a non-entity that our military would roll over him (which it did) and that Bush was so gung-ho to make this a military world tour that we wouldn't get bogged down (which didn't pan out).

What they did was cover their cans. They didn't want to be on the wrong side of a popular war. It was sheer political cowardice and they deserve to be flayed for it. IMO, it's a far more damning and accurate accusation than the insistence that no one had figured out the Iraqi invasion was more bogus than Bill and Ted's second trip through time. Hell, I did. A huge chunk of this country actively protested the invasion before it happened. Hans Blix kept pointing out that assuming Iraq had massive weapons stores because we can't find them was the screwiest misapplication of logic he'd ever encountered. It was wildly unpopular across the rest of the world.

[Falls City Beer]

The real knock on the Dems should be that so many of them decided to support the war originally as part of a conniving political strategy. Some of them, Ted Kennedy for instance, called the invasion for the B.S. it was. The intelligence didn't add up, it didn't present Hussein as any sort of legitimate threat to the U.S. and the Bush administration didn't have an exit plan.

What the rest of the party figured was that by voting to give Bush carte blance, they insulated themselves from wimp accusations and improved the party's chances of holding the Senate and re-taking the House in November 2002. Their hope was Hussein was such a non-entity that our military would roll over him (which it did) and that Bush was so gung-ho to make this a military world tour that we wouldn't get bogged down (which didn't pan out).

What they did was cover their cans. They didn't want to be on the wrong side of a popular war. It was sheer political cowardice and they deserve to be flayed for it. IMO, it's a far more damning and accurate accusation than the insistence that no one had figured out the Iraqi invasion was more bogus than Bill and Ted's second trip through time. Hell, I did. A huge chunk of this country actively protested the invasion before it happened. Hans Blix kept pointing out that assuming Iraq had massive weapons stores because we can't find them was the screwiest misapplication of logic he'd ever encountered. It was wildly unpopular across the rest of the world.

You can call it political expediency (or cowardice, as I think it was in the case of the hawkier Dems). And yes, Kennedy and Kerry both supported it only on the stipulation that the inspectors be given a chance to do their job. That's not flip-flopping. I don't care what anyone says. If the threat was real, it needed to be dealt with; if not, then it didn't.

Yes, I knew it was hooey from minute one, but I also understand that a President should be given the authority to go to war IF a real danger exists. So I understand some of the Dems' votes. I'm cynical, but I'm not that cynical.

[M2]

Actually Kennedy didn't support it. He voted against it and thought it was sheer lunacy to give Bush the power to conduct a war without having to get congressional ratifaction.

Ted = Democrat with intact spine

[RBA]

See: The Office of Special Plans

and

I'm getting whiplash. Karl Rove says Democrats were for "therapy" and GAC says the Democrats were out for blood.

[RosieRed]

See: The Office of Special Plans

and

I'm getting whiplash. Karl Rove says Democrats were for "therapy" and GAC says the Democrats were out for blood.

Maybe Rove should read GAC's post?

[GAC]

See: The Office of Special Plans

and

I'm getting whiplash. Karl Rove says Democrats were for "therapy" and GAC says the Democrats were out for blood.

I could really care less what Karl Rove says. I just simply reminded some of the bold statements and rhetoric leveled by many within the high level Democratic leadership which is a matter of public record. Judge for yourselves. They stated alot more. I just gleaned some highlights from their various speeches and public comments. And compared to the accusations and rhetoric (especially Pelosi as of late) that they keep leveling at Bush - it shows their hypocrisy IMO.

They were just as "hawkish" as Bush was. ;)

The fact is - they wanted to make sure they were gonna end up on the right side - and all for their own political expediency. M2 said it quite eloquently already IMO. They tried to be fence riders so that depending on which direction the effort went they could go either way. That's why I have never bought into any of their after-the-fact explanations for those comments after things started to bog down and not go as planned. It just doesn't line up with what they said.

The only one who showed any consistency throughout it all was Howard Dean. So I'll give him that (he needs some rep points right now :lol: )

I refuse to believe that these high ranking individuals, some who were on the Senate Intelligence Committee and various other agencies, were simply duped by a guy with such low SAT's, and who is considered a moron by so many, and that he fabricated, doctored, and filtered only that intelligence that he wanted them to see in order to make his case. Flimsy excuse/reasoning IMO. Even Joe Biden, who is a senior member on the Intelligence Committee, staunchly refuted those accusations when thye were flying, and showed accountability. I respected him for that.

But even if that was the case - then IMO, that shows me then that they are not qualified to lead this country (if they can be misled so easily).

And if the shoe had been on the other foot, the Repubs would have done the very same thing.

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. It is all about power- acquiring it, and then holding onto it. And when a party is out of power (Repub or Dem), then it's all about what they can do to get it back, and at any cost. And it seems the favorite tactic of choice is obstructionism. And both parties are guilty of it. They can't concede, compromise, or give in on anything, regardless if it's right or beneficial for the country, if it somehow is gonna make the current party in power look good in the eyes of the American people.

We don't need to worry as much about another terrorist attack, as we do about we, as a nation, destroying ourselves from within.

The Red's organization are not the only ones who need a FO change. ;)

[GAC]

Maybe Rove should read GAC's post?

i can't speak for Karl since he has never once returned any of my emails :lol:

But maybe Karl sees them as one's who liked to throw out the tough talk/rhetoric (all for public display); but when it came to action - well that's another story. ;)

[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. It is all about power- acquiring it, and then holding onto it. And when a party is out of power (Repub or Dem), then it's all about what they can do to get it back, and at any cost. And it seems the favorite tactic of choice is obstructionism. And both parties are guilty of it. They can't concede, compromise, or give in on anything, regardless if it's right or beneficial for the country, if it somehow is gonna make the current party in power look good in the eyes of the American people."


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

Bull. It ain't that easy. Everybody at some point caves to the whims of his/her constituency; to think otherwise is pie-in-the-sky idealism. But the reverse of idealism (and just as ill-guided) is out and out cynicism: it's ALL a power grab; no one has anyone's best interest in mind; everyone's corrupt and "bought."

You know what, I call baloney on both ends. 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.

[registerthis]

But maybe Karl sees them as one's who liked to throw out the tough talk/rhetoric (all for public display); but when it came to action - well that's another story. ;)
You mean, when the intelligence failed to support the administration's reasoning for the war, the Democrats stopped supporting it? 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.

Thank God we have a leader like Bush, who not only "talks tough" but also backs it up with "action", even "action" that flies in the face of honesty or intelligence.

[RBA]

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

Thank God we have a leader like Bush, who not only "talks tough" but also backs it up with "action", even "action" that flies in the face of honesty or intelligence.

You mean "doctored" intelligence. See: Office of Special Plans.

[Mutaman]

Were those 343 firemen who died at the World Trade Center liberals or conservatives?
What about the 34 cops?

Hey Karl:

And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand o'er your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead

[RedFanAlways1966]

Hey Karl:

And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand o'er your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead

I am not sure I understand your meaning here... but I hope it is not what I think. Personally I'd never wish death upon anyone in the U.S. political system. However, I am not sure if you are wishing that Karl Rove dies soon. I hope not. Because that might tell me that you need to step aside and get away from the politics for a spell.

[pedro]

I loathe the Karl Rove signing.

[Mutaman]

I am not sure I understand your meaning here... but I hope it is not what I think. Personally I'd never wish death upon anyone in the U.S. political system. However, I am not sure if you are wishing that Karl Rove dies soon. I hope not. Because that might tell me that you need to step aside and get away from the politics for a spell.

Just quoting Dylan my friend. Heres the whole song. I think its very applicable to people like Rove and his cronnies.


"Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build the big bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks

You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly

Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain

You fasten the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud

You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins

How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
Even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do

Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul

And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand o'er your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead "

And I'll step away from politics when these idiotic oilmen are out of power, and American kids stop dying because of this absurd nonsensical invasion conducted by these people. Save your sympathy for those dead kids, not the gutless chickenhawks who killed them.

[pedro]

I been mothered, fathered, aunt and uncled,
Been Roy Haleed and Art Garfunkeled.
I just discovered somebody's tapped my phone.

[RedFanAlways1966]

Just quoting Dylan my friend. Heres the whole song. I think its very applicable to people like Rove and his cronnies.

Fair enough, Muta. I am not a Dylan fan, so I did not know those lyrics. Sometimes it is hard to interpret on a message board.

"War Pigs" by Black Sabbath... more my style. Same topic as the Dylan song more-or-less. Generals gather in their masses, just like witches at black masses.

[Unassisted]

Remember what I said above about the distraction? A washingtonpost.com blogger agrees:
http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/achenblog/2005/06/stalinist_repub.html


My guess is that, as part of some double-secret triple-backloop political strategy, Rove realized he needed to cause a distraction. He informed the president that the poll numbers were looking bad, or that Social Security privatization is about as likely as the resurgence of alchemy. The president said, "Karl, go out there and say something really dumb." By now you should know that nothing happens in the White House political shop except for very calculated reasons. Rove is a red herring. Keep your eye on the big fish.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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/content/article/2005/06/25/AR2005062501279_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. ;)

[GAC]

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.

When speaking to one's constituency, that is what you do. And both sides have, and will continue, to do so.

The sharp ideological divisions in the country has risen to new heights with there sharp tongues, rhetoric, sensationalism, and verbal, public volleys at each other.

And when one side says something that the other dislikes/detests, they get their shorts all in a bunch and want an apology or a resignation. I find it all laughable, yet this is what it has come down to.

I don't agree with Rove's statements, no more then when I hear Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, or anyone else from the Democrats throwing out their viscious labels and rhetoric over the last 5 years.

The Dems think Rove should apologize or resign for saying liberals responded to the Sept. 11 terrorist strikes by wanting to "prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers".... yet it has been perfectly OK for them, over these last several years to label Bush as a Fascist, his policies Nazism, compare him to Hitler, Pol Pot, or Stalin, and that he is the world's greatest terrorist.

Sure the Dems want Rove out. He was the key architect for their defeats in 2000 and 2004. His startegy, in the dirty world of politics, outplayed and outsmarted them. I don't expect any Dem to like Rove anymore then a Repub liked Terry McAuliife or current head Howard Dean. That is how the game is played.

I think in the next election I'll vote Independent - Is David Letterman or Jay Leno running? At least when they make pithy political comments the people laugh.

Thick skin people - thick skin.

As I stated before, and both parties are guilty of it - it's all about achieving power, holding onto it, and once it's lost, doing/saying anything to get it back.

Both sides are very poor losers.

[Falls City Beer]

When speaking to one's constituency, that is what you do. And both sides have, and will continue, to do so.

The sharp ideological divisions in the country has risen to new heights with there sharp tongues, rhetoric, sensationalism, and verbal, public volleys at each other.

And when one side says something that the other dislikes/detests, they get their shorts all in a bunch and want an apology or a resignation. I find it all laughable, yet this is what it has come down to.

I don't agree with Rove's statements, no more then when I hear Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, or anyone else from the Democrats throwing out their viscious labels and rhetoric over the last 5 years.

The Dems think Rove should apologize or resign for saying liberals responded to the Sept. 11 terrorist strikes by wanting to "prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers".... yet it has been perfectly OK for them, over these last several years to label Bush as a Fascist, his policies Nazism, compare him to Hitler, Pol Pot, or Stalin, and that he is the world's greatest terrorist.

I think in the next election I'll vote Independent - Is David Letterman or Jay Leno running? At least when they make pithy political comments the people laugh.

Thick skin people - thick skin.

As I stated before, and both parties are guilty of it - it's all about achieving power, holding onto it, and once it's lost, doing/saying anything to get it back.

Both sides are very poor losers.

I never ask for apologies. And I think it's stupid when anyone in politics asks for one.

When I'm right, I'm right, and nothing the guy in the wrong can say much matters to me. I generally can blast it out of the water anyway.

[GAC]

I never ask for apologies. And I think it's stupid when anyone in politics asks for one.

When I'm right, I'm right, and nothing the guy in the wrong can say much matters to me. I generally can blast it out of the water anyway.

And visa versa FCB - visa versa. ;)

I wasn't speaking to you personally anyway, but in generalities. What does the title of this thread say?.... "Dems Say Rove Should Apologize or Resign".

They want Rove to resign. Kennedy wants Rumsfield to resign.

It could just as easily say "Repubs Say Dean Should Apologize or Resign". ;)

It's pointless and unproductive IMO.

[Mutaman]

I think in the next election I'll vote Independent - Is David Letterman or Jay Leno running? At least when they make pithy political comments the people laugh.



I know a lot of New Yorkers who didn't think 9/11 was all that funny. At least the parents of my two friends who died at the WTC didn't think so. And as hardcore liberals they didn't think Rove's comments were all that "pithy" or funny either. In fact I don't know any New Yorkers who wanted to offer therapy or understanding to OBL, we just wanted him dead. And we blame Rove's people for the fact that 2 1/2 years later, he isn't.

[registerthis]

I know a lot of New Yorkers who didn't think 9/11 was all that funny. At least the parents of my two friends who died at the WTC didn't think so. And as hardcore liberals they didn't think Rove's comments were all that "pithy" or funny either. In fact I don't know any New Yorkers who wanted to offer therapy or understanding to OBL, we just wanted him dead. And we blame Rove's people for the fact that 2 1/2 years later, he isn't.
It is interesting to note that Rove accuses Dems of being lax about wanting to catch Bin laden, yet the very people tasked with doing it, now nearly 4 years later, still have come up empty.

Very interesting indeed...

[LvJ]

I never ask for apologies. And I think it's stupid when anyone in politics asks for one.

When I'm right, I'm right, and nothing the guy in the wrong can say much matters to me. I generally can blast it out of the water anyway. :beerme:

http://raisedbykubrick.com/otherstuff/POLITICSLOL.gif

:runaway:

[GAC]

I know a lot of New Yorkers who didn't think 9/11 was all that funny. At least the parents of my two friends who died at the WTC didn't think so. And as hardcore liberals they didn't think Rove's comments were all that "pithy" or funny either. In fact I don't know any New Yorkers who wanted to offer therapy or understanding to OBL, we just wanted him dead. And we blame Rove's people for the fact that 2 1/2 years later, he isn't.

I don't think Rove's comments were funny or appropriate either. But again - look at WHO he is speaking in front of? You appease your base. It's like a pepper rally. You don't shoot at cheerleaders. Some are trying to make such a big deal out of it. Where's that defense of free speech and the right to dissent? Is it only certain types of dissent that we are to protect (that which we agree with)?

Is it any different from Howard Dean or Hillary Clinton (who just gave a speech recently and visciously attacked Republicans and Bush with various rhetoric) speaking before their base and doing/saying similar things? And it's been going on for the last 5 years also.

You stated earlier that you have a deep hatred for guys like Hannity, Limbaugh, and other conservative commentators. Personally, I don't listen to any of them. They're entertainers as far as I'm concerned. They have their jobs for the shock value.

And it's the same with guys like Al Franken, Michael Moore, and Bill Maher. I've never heard Franken. He can't seem to get on enough airwaves, at least not in this area, for me to ever listen to Air America :lol:

But I like to watch Maher's show on late night cable. I don't agree with him from an ideological standpoint (maybe if I smoked a couple dubies before watching I'd understand better); but I find him (and his guests) entertaining.

I've seen Moore's last two movies, and just shake my head and laugh. Truth is obvious blind to him. But it makes him a nice living.

But I don't HATE any of them. And I find that with some liberals, their anger and hate is so driven that they are gonna either pop a blood vessel some day or if they see any of these guys in public they'll want to pull a Squeaky Fromme. :lol:

So both sides have those that drive/fuel their audience.

[RedsBaron]

But I don't HATE any of them.
You obviously have no future here. Can't you call somebody a Nazi or something, just to fit in?

[Rojo]

But again - look at WHO he is speaking in front of? You appease your base. It's like a pepper rally. You don't shoot at cheerleaders.

So this what the GOP faithful are reduced to for motivation? Pitifull.

[Falls City Beer]

But I don't HATE any of them. And I find that with some liberals, their anger and hate is so driven that they are gonna either pop a blood vessel some day or if they see any of these guys in public they'll want to pull a Squeaky Fromme. :lol:

So both sides have those that drive/fuel their audience.

Unlike most conservatives, I don't own a gun and I eschew violence. So you needn't worry that my rage will have lethal consequences...yet. ;)