The Return of Rove, the Liar defends His Lies?

[Gannon]

Do we really have to put up with this non-sense in the 'news'?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/...ex.html?hpt=T2

Why are they giving this man even an OUNCE of coverage...and why would I bother to amplify it by saying anything here?



Because this guy is basically the reincarnation of Joseph Goebbels, and I need to continually stand against anything and everything that leaks from his bulbous face.


There is nothing new under the sun...

[Retroit]

Let's not forget that a lot of Democrats also believed the CIA and foreign governments' contention that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Personally, I don't think that a country having weapons of mass destruction is a valid reason for attacking them, but I also don't think that Saddam Hussein was ever adequately punished for his invasion of Kuwait and his genocide of the Kurds.

I wasn't happy with the way the war was conducted either. The "Shock and Awe"; sending in ground troops; keeping troops there after a new government was formed and a indigenous police force was in place; keeping troops there after Saddam was captured, and brought to trial, and executed; keeping troops there to this very day in the hopes of "winning the hearts and minds of the people", etc.

[Gannon]

Why do you have to bring in the false diametric of the two-party system? That is not relevant in any way, shape, or form. Both sides are always guilty of the same stuff, there is no difference between them, functionally...or DIS-functionally.

The rest of your post I cannot disagree with one whit. [[although I know you have a typo in that second paragraph that reverses what you were trying to say)

[firstandten]

Let's not forget that a lot of Democrats also believed the CIA and foreign governments' contention that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction..

Based on lies sure they believed it, the point is it came from one of Bush's puppetmasters

Personally, I don't think that a country having weapons of mass destruction is a valid reason for attacking them, but I do think that Saddam Hussein was ever adequately punished for his invasion of Kuwait and his genocide of the Kurds.

I wasn't happy with the way the war was conducted either. The "Shock and Awe"; sending in ground troops; keeping troops there after a new government was formed and a indigenous police force was in place; keeping troops there after Saddam was captured, and brought to trial, and executed; keeping troops there to this very day in the hopes of "winning the hearts and minds of the people", etc.

To double down on Gannon's statements I get a lot of "well they do it too" from your posts. The point is Rove is wrong, now if you can find a Dem who did something similar then we can talk.

As I stated in the past the whole reasoning for the war was bogus. Bush wanted to be a war-time president. In his mind it would be easiler to govern and get his domestic agenda thru Congress and have the American people accept it. So ANY reason was a good reason for starting a war.

[Retroit]

Why do you have to bring in the false diametric of the two-party system? That is not relevant in any way, shape, or form. Both sides are always guilty of the same stuff, there is no difference between them, functionally...or DIS-functionally.

That's my point, actually. Like it or not, we do have a two-party system. Neither one is perfect. But while it is wrong to blindly support one party completely, it is equally wrong to blindly condemn one party, or both parties.

There is great pressure on the President to go to war and to keep us in war. This pressure comes from the CIA, the military, presumed domestic political benefit, international leverage, etc. I don't support this philosophy, but I can see how a President can be lured into it, especially since Americans have a tendency to elect Presidents with limited foreign policy experience.

[Retroit]

To double down on Gannon's statements I get a lot of "well they do it too" from your posts. The point is Rove is wrong, now if you can find a Dem who did something similar then we can talk.

Well, I won't bother incredibly asking if you are serious, so let me just remind you that a Democratic President is keeping us in Iraq, and - by the way - never promised to take us out. Clinton also ordered military attacks, as did Kennedy and Johnson. Maybe a review of history is in order.

As I stated in the past the whole reasoning for the war was bogus. Bush wanted to be a war-time president. In his mind it would be easiler to govern and get his domestic agenda thru Congress and have the American people accept it. So ANY reason was a good reason for starting a war.

I somewhat agree with this. I think he had ulterior motives. I think he felt he was completing the First Gulf War, which his father didn't finish successfully [[by deposing Saddam). I also think he wanted to avenge Saddam for threatening the assassination of Bush Senior [[another reason not to elect family members of former politicians and why monarchies are bad).

But you can't ignore the fact that the CIA also has an interest in providing the President with the worst-case scenario so as to defend themselves against post-apocalyptic accusations of neglect. Also, the Armed Forces are always eager to put troops in action.

[firstandten]

Well, I won't bother incredibly asking if you are serious, so let me just remind you that a Democratic President is keeping us in Iraq, and - by the way - never promised to take us out. Clinton also ordered military attacks, as did Kennedy and Johnson. Maybe a review of history is in order.

Retroit, I am serious. Obama did promise to get us out of Iraq, remember that was a campaign promise and he added the word responsibly and he set a timetable for removing the troops. Are we dealing with revisionist history here ? He did not promise to get us out of Afghanistan he felt that was the war that needed to be fought. Even with that however he has set a timetable to get out. You may not like it or agree, but at least we are not going to war based on a lie. As far as military attacks ordered by previous Dem presidents if those were based on the type of lies of a Rove, then I'm with you

I somewhat agree with this. I think he had ulterior motives. I think he felt he was completing the First Gulf War, which his father didn't finish successfully [[by deposing Saddam). I also think he wanted to avenge Saddam for threatening the assassination of Bush Senior [[another reason not to elect family members of former politicians and why monarchies are bad) .

Political analyst base the reasoning of "W" wanting to be a war-time president on exactly what you just stated.

But you can't ignore the fact that the CIA also has an interest in providing the President with the worst-case scenario so as to defend themselves against post-apocalyptic accusations of neglect. Also, the Armed Forces are always eager to put troops in action.

Also to keep that military-industrial complex just humming along

[Retroit]

Obama did promise to get us out of Iraq, remember that was a campaign promise and he added the word responsibly and he set a timetable for removing the troops.

As I recall, he said he was going to sit down with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and discuss the matter.

[firstandten]

As I recall, he said he was going to sit down with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and discuss the matter.

Please review some of his campaign speeches, the getting out was not an issue the discussions with the Joint chiefs of staff concerned the timing. Of course the discussions with the joint chiefs gave them an opportunity to pitch to Obama why we shouldn't get out, among those was Gen Petraeus who Obama had to let know that he is the commander-in-chief.

[Jimaz]

What part of "overstaying your welcome" do these neocons not understand? Do they really think they have any chance to recover any reputation at all after the carnage they left in their wake?

Their best chance would be to crawl into hiding for a generation and not reemerge without paper bags over their heads.

[Gannon]

That's my point, actually. Like it or not, we do have a two-party system. Neither one is perfect. But while it is wrong to blindly support one party completely, it is equally wrong to blindly condemn one party, or both parties.

There is great pressure on the President to go to war and to keep us in war. This pressure comes from the CIA, the military, presumed domestic political benefit, international leverage, etc. I don't support this philosophy, but I can see how a President can be lured into it, especially since Americans have a tendency to elect Presidents with limited foreign policy experience.

I hear ya, but in this particular case I believe you were hearing way MORE than I was saying.

Rove isn't republican, he is a nazi-wannabee. Evil incarnate. That is beyond an either/or thing and I will do my best in my non-party allegiance to stand against him every chance I get.

[gnome]

not a fan of the death penalty, but I could be talked into changing my mind if the subject of Karl Rove comes up.

[gibran]

first of all many military are not eager to put troops in harms way....they train troops to be prepared in harms way...it's usually politicians [[in Iraq it clearly was neocons and their middle east agenda) in collusion with the military industrial complex, that Eisenhower warned us about, that pushed this...along with some of our allies.... However, under normal circumstances...this war hase been a complex one and has called for adjustments due to plotical climates here a nd there,and was exploited by each side...
However, a disturbing financial overide was one of the outcomes of this war and the phenomena that is/was Blackwater et al...is costing our budget emensely...

I find it amusing that for three years the extreme right perspective on this forum [[cc et al) trumpeted and approved the wars ...now there is this rhetroic about how now it's Obama's war and he logically is at is at fault ....logic permeating from this is illusive unless you add the variable of politics.

[Gannon]

Don't forget the whole paid-shill program.

We suspected it with ol' Karl, especially when he dashed at exactly 10,000 posts...and felt it with Cc, too.

It makes a bunch of sense, in retrospect.


This is now, those who matter are still around. It is time to make noise again, and we'll just wait and see who shows up to be the false-foil.

Cheers and more. Tomorrow will be a brighter day.

[oldredfordette]

No matter what is said about their war criminal heroes, they will respond with their idea of an equivalent. It's in every thread. It's tiresome, isn't it?

[Papasito]

I'm so sick of America playing the world policeman when nearly 20% of the polulation right here at home is in a state of poverty, there's 10% unemployment, and our economy is a disaster. This middle east thing has played out way too long and cost way too many lives. What ever happened to the good old days when all we had to worry about were the Ruskies? And what ever happened to the days when going to war FUELED the economy by putting Americans to work to supply the war, instead of it DRAINING the economy by supplying the war with foreign contracts and whatnot?
Everything is so backwards these days

[gibran]

we have to balance our dependency on others around the world for natural supplies...in short we cant exploit without exporting good

[johnsmith]

Why are they giving this man even an OUNCE of coverage...and why would I bother to amplify it by saying anything here?

I feel the same way every time Cheney pops up in the news. Palin too. How does that saying go, "follow the money." Yeah, the media is in business to make money, and arguably to shape public opinion and/or outrage, not to report for the public good.

[Detroitej72]

It still boggles the mind that Rove is walking around, free as a bird, rather than sitting in the slammer. I guess its good to have influential, political friends who can ensure your freedom.