Karl Rove's comments

[Magyar]

Re: Re: Re: Karl Rove's comments

Damn right wing media. Its got to be a conspiracy.

Seriously, FWIW, I think the news media is between a rock and a hard spot. They have been targeted for so long by the right that they are loathe to pull a Dan Rather. They do often come off looking conciliatory to the right. There are however many anecdotes of the media screwing up the reporting regardless of which side they are reporting on.

I just have to say WTF

Rove

"It's somewhat puzzling why all these Democrats ... who responded forcefully after 9/11, who voted to support President Bush's pursuit of the war on terror, are now rallying to the defense of MoveOn.org, this liberal organization who put out a petition in the days after 9/11 and said that we ought not use military force in responding to 9/11," Bartlett said on NBC's "Today" show. "That is who Karl Rove cited in that speech ... There is no need to apologize."


A TOTAL BULLSH*(. OUTRIGHT easily verifiable LIE!
Go to Moveon.org and and look through their archives for all the advertising they've ever done (as a non profit they list it to show people where all the money is spent)
http://www.moveon.org/press/ads.html

Not ONLY did MoveOn NEVER EVER run any adds even remotely asking for sympathy for the attackers they ran exactly ZERO adds for the year of 2001.

Of course the "liberal media" just immidiately got on the horn to call move on to tell them to distroy all copies of all the adds. so the righties wouldn't have any proof.

"Didn't mean Dems" YEA, the Republican party is just WAY OVERCROWDED with all them liberals. That's why the dems can't win any elections.

And of course no one wants to talk about the fact that if you substitute "liberal" with another 4 letter word whose speaches this one reminds everyone with half a brain.

And OF COURSE there is NOT a single democrate/liberal
who is or has served in, wounded in or died in Afganistan or Iraq.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Karl Rove's comments

Not at all. I just think it is by far the lesser story.

So if the police framed a suspect the coruption of the police would be a "lesser" story?

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Karl Rove's comments

I just have to say WTF

Why? I certainly do not excuse any behavior. I concede that media has a difficult job. Please to explain?

 

[RandFan]

Can anybody explain to me what the big deal about Rove's comments are? Imagine that: a politician in a conservative party meeting said that conservatives are better than liberals using tired cliches! Oh my God, where will it end?

 

[Mark]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Karl Rove's comments

Delicious. Thanks Mark. Of course there IS contradictory testimony but choose the hits and ignore the misses, right?

The vast majority of witnesses have corroborated the information. But, by all means, go with the small minority if it makes you feel better about Saint Bush.

 

[Mark]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Karl Rove's comments

So if the police framed a suspect the coruption of the police would be a "lesser" story?

A more correct analogy would be if the police fabricated ONE piece of evidence against an already overwhelmingly guilty person.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Karl Rove's comments

The vast majority of witnesses have corroborated the information. But, by all means, go with the small minority if it makes you feel better about Saint Bush.

I don't claim Bush is a Saint. That is just a pathetic straw man. I do know that as to the memo there was significant evidence that the events were not as described. How did you determine that the evidence was overwhelming and what do you claim Bush did wrong?

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Karl Rove's comments

A more correct analogy would be if the police fabricated ONE piece of evidence against an already overwhelmingly guilty person.

"Overwhelmingly"? Please, make your case.

 

[Mark]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Karl Rove's comments

"Overwhelmingly"? Please, make your case.

???????

I already did. What, I should repeat myself? Read my posts.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Karl Rove's comments

Right. Eyewitness are notoriously reliable when they all tell the same story; and eyewitness after eyewitness has corroborated that Bush deserted. But you think the forged documents prove his innocence.

What eyewitnesses? This is not my understanding. On the contrary the wife and son of the author of the alleged memo dispute that accounts and the secretary has serious credibility problems. Your "case" appears rather specious. Do you just suppose that we are supposed to accept this as evidence? You are just making a claim. However I will look at your other posts. I hope like hell there is something more there. Here goes.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Karl Rove's comments

As per your request:

http://www.thebushpresidency.org/Character.htm
http://www.factcheck.org/article254.html

I found your "case". Much of it has largely been discredited as I remember. I will gather the data and post shortly, hopefully today. Please bear with me.

RandFan

 

[Mark]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Karl Rove's comments

What eyewitnesses? This is not my understanding. On the contrary the wife and son of the author of the alleged memo dispute that accounts and the secretary has serious credibility problems. Your "case" appears rather specious. Do you just suppose that we are supposed to accept this as evidence? You are just making a claim. However I will look at your other posts. I hope like hell there is something more there. Here goes.

Right. Good thing you're not going into it with your bias hanging out.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Karl Rove's comments

Right. Good thing you're not going into it with your bias hanging out.

Yeah, like your bias isn't coated on every post.

I have admitted when I was wrong on this very forum and if wrong now will happily do so. Will you?

 

[RandFan]

Killian documents

It is disputed whether the allegations contained in the unauthenticated documents cited by CBS News are true and whether they still may accurately reflect Lt. Col. Killian's opinion (See also: George W. Bush military service controversy). Marion Carr Knox, the 86 year old former secretary of Lt. Col. Killian, agreed they were forgeries but stated that they accurately reflect Lt. Col. Killian's opinion of Bush's quality of service in the Texas Air National Guard, [2] (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/091504dnpolnatguard.1185eb4ae.html) a view disputed by Killian's widow and son, and by authentic documents in which Killian described Bush as "an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot."

George W. Bush military service controversy

In November 1970, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, the commander of the Texas Air National Guard, recommended that Bush be promoted to first Lieutenant, calling him "a dynamic outstanding young officer" who stood out as "a top notch fighter interceptor pilot." He said that "Lt. Bush's skills far exceed his contemporaries," and that "he is a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership. Lt. Bush is also a good follower with outstanding disciplinary traits and an impeccable military bearing."

More to come.

 

[RandFan]

For anyone interested please see George W. Bush military service controversy which is quite comprehensive. There are points on both sides. I think the best argument can be made that Bush did not completely meet his requirements. As to the rest I don't at all think the case is closed. I'm interested in any comments.

RandFan

 

[Grammatron]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Karl Rove's comments

I just have to say WTF

Rove

"It's somewhat puzzling why all these Democrats ... who responded forcefully after 9/11, who voted to support President Bush's pursuit of the war on terror, are now rallying to the defense of MoveOn.org, this liberal organization who put out a petition in the days after 9/11 and said that we ought not use military force in responding to 9/11," Bartlett said on NBC's "Today" show. "That is who Karl Rove cited in that speech ... There is no need to apologize."


A TOTAL BULLSH*(. OUTRIGHT easily verifiable LIE!
Go to Moveon.org and and look through their archives for all the advertising they've ever done (as a non profit they list it to show people where all the money is spent)
http://www.moveon.org/press/ads.html

Not ONLY did MoveOn NEVER EVER run any adds even remotely asking for sympathy for the attackers they ran exactly ZERO adds for the year of 2001.

Of course the "liberal media" just immidiately got on the horn to call move on to tell them to distroy all copies of all the adds. so the righties wouldn't have any proof.

Petition is not an ad, which is why you are having trouble finding it.

 

[Mark]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Karl Rove's comments

Yeah, like your bias isn't coated on every post.

I have admitted when I was wrong on this very forum and if wrong now will happily do so. Will you?

I already did when it was pointed out to me that Bush's record indicates he was AWOL rather than a deserter, which was how I referred to him.

So you can get off your high horse now.

 

[Mark]

For anyone interested please see George W. Bush military service controversy which is quite comprehensive. There are points on both sides. I think the best argument can be made that Bush did not completely meet his requirements. As to the rest I don't at all think the case is closed. I'm interested in any comments.

RandFan

Since you already said my "case" appears rather specious," and are now admitting there is (at least) some substance to it, I will accept your admission that you were wrong.

I admitted when I was. Can you? Hmmm?

 

[Manny]

Can anybody explain to me what the big deal about Rove's comments are? Imagine that: a politician in a conservative party meeting said that conservatives are better than liberals using tired cliches! Oh my God, where will it end?

There ought not be any controversy, if the Democrats had any brains in their political operatives' heads.

The transcript of Rove's remarks makes it clear to whom his most caustic remarks refer to. Not "Democrats," or even all liberals, but to people and organizations which were soft on or in agreement with the terrorists like moveon.org and Howard Dean.

Originally averred by Karl Rove
But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and 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. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to… submit a petition. I am not joking. Submitting a petition is precisely what Moveon.org did. It was a petition imploring the powers that be" to "use moderation and restraint in responding to the… terrorist attacks against the United States."

I don't know about you, but moderation and restraint is not what I felt as I watched the Twin Towers crumble to the earth; a side of the Pentagon destroyed; and almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble.

Moderation and restraint is not what I felt - and moderation and restraint is not what was called for. It was a moment to summon our national will - and to brandish steel.

MoveOn.Org, Michael Moore and Howard Dean may not have agreed with this, but the American people did. Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said: we will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said: we must understand our enemies. Conservatives see the United States as a great nation engaged in a noble cause; liberals see the United States and they see … Nazi concentration camps, Soviet gulags, and the killing fields of Cambodia.

If the Democrats had a politically astute brain among them, they'd already have run from these types of guys like schoolgirls from a fart. And they'd certainly be distancing themselves from them now.

Instead, they fell right into Rove's trap. Democrats are now in the position of either alienating thier biggest funding sources and an embarrassingly not-small part of their base or intentionally aligning themselves on the record with people and organizations which were, in undisputed fact, soft on terrorism (by the least harsh of all possible interpretations). The Dems had an out. All they had to do was say something to the effect of "we regret that unelected Republican operatives have to resort to such harsh rhetoric, but Democrats voted for the war in Afghanistan. Mr. Rove tries to divert attention from the poorly planned and executed war in Iraq, while we prefer to keep our focus on..." and trot out their hawks like Sens. Schumer and Clinton. But they chose to get offended and take the bait. Now, for the next few weeks, the Republicans can trot out every pro-terror statement ever made by any idiot even marginally connected with the Democrats and tar the whole party with the association. And the Democrats will help them do it.

Karl Rove is vastly, vastly underpaid.

 

[Cylinder]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Karl Rove's comments

Well said. And I accept your correction of AWOL rather than desertion. If there are any here well versed in military law, I would be curious about when being AWOL does become desertion, though.

AWOL is an acronym for Absent With Out Leave. It means just that - any time at which you are not at your duty station without proper authorization. You sleep in - you are AWOL. You miss the last train out of London on Sunday night (like me) you are AWOL.

Desertion is when you flee your base or unit with the clear intent of not returning. When you clean out your billet and hit the road you have deserted.