Yada yada...Dems want him fired...yada yada...Repubs say yada yada...here is what the boob said (And I can say that since I didn't defend Durbin's boob statements either)

Bush's chief political adviser, Rove 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.



REALITY FACT CHECK TIME...

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.

Yada yada...we are a bunch of commies...yada yada...soft on defense...yada yada...

Do you think Durbin is going to call Karl and thank him for taking the focus of him?

the House voted 420-1

But the 1 against was a Democrat, wasn't she?

not nearly as bad as calling our soldiers a bunch of nazi's is it? And did he say he was talking about members of Congress? He said "liberals" . The vast majority of liberals are not elected to Congress, only a couple hundred out of millions.

who called our soldiers Nazis?

please reread what he said. he said if you din't know who and where said offenses were occuring you'd have thought it was (Germany, USSR, Pol Pot, etc.....)

if you read the offenses going on without knowing W,W,W,W,W you'd never guess it was our country over seeing it.

and it isn't our soldiers, it's our paid professionals and our soldiers are taking the fall for the work of mercenaries though it does provide a perfect out for Rummie and Co.
"these things are not being committed by our military" which though true is misleading.

But the 1 against was a Democrat, wasn't she?

Who was the one? I would have guessed Bernie Sanders, the socialist.

But the 1 against was a Democrat, wasn't she?

Wasn't it Barbara Lee, from Berkeley? Not only is she practically a communist, but so are most of her constituents. She represented them well. She hardly represents Democrats as a whole.

also said 'no thanks to No Children Left Behind" as they couldn't get behind allowing the military so much access to their kids.

Yada yada...Dems want him fired...yada yada...Repubs say yada yada...here is what the boob said (And I can say that since I didn't defend Durbin's boob statements either)

Bush's chief political adviser, Rove 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.



REALITY FACT CHECK TIME...

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.

Yada yada...we are a bunch of commies...yada yada...soft on defense...yada yada...

Do you think Durbin is going to call Karl and thank him for taking the focus of him?
Yeah, they did but now they say they didn't really mean it that Bush was not supposed to actually do anything without further consultation. This became the party line during the campaign when Kerry couldn't seem to define his position. I have seen that sentiment echoed here on this forum recently. The truth is as you stated but you won't hear many democrats voicing that truth these days. It's all about loopholes and "exit strategies" :)

signed on under the context that they weren't being lied to, what was then and what is now are not related. the mantra during the election was 'well we wouldn't have signed on had we known the intel was bad' which was Bush's third fib "I acted on Bad Intel".
Intel was good, his manipulating it to fit his plan was 'bad'. see he didn't lie, he acted on bad intel, what he omitted was he was responsible for that bad intel.
so now dems are saying, hell if I knew our leader was lying through his teeth in no way would I have signed on.
just don't forget our kids are dying over this.

Yes, imagine the gall of Democratic congressmen to stand up and say "We signed on to this thing on a pack of lies, and now we realize that authorizing this war was a huge mistake." Never admit you were wrong. That only shows weakness. Anyone who says that must be for the terrorists. I guess Karl Rove is right after all.

Yes, imagine the gall of Democratic congressmen to stand up and say "We signed on to this thing on a pack of lies, and now we realize that authorizing this war was a huge mistake." Never admit you were wrong. That only shows weakness. Anyone who says that must be for the terrorists. I guess Karl Rove is right after all.
The Congressmen were privy to the same information the Administration had before they signed on to the invasion. the back peddling began during the Kerry campaign, it continues today. Karl Rove is pretty close to the truth. He didn't call then Nazis.

Brit Hume had the whole thing pegged perfectly tonight. Rove said "liberals". Not "All liberals". He also didn't say "Democrat". So why are all the "Democrats" in a hissy? Are all Democrats liberals? Rove wasn't wrong about what he claimed "liberals" wanted to do right after 9/11.

Why does Rove hate America ????

Don't you think it's rather bizzaar that people can get upset over a person making some basically true statement about "liberals", whom ever they may be, yet have no problem with the President of the United States being called "a liar", "stupid", "Hitler" and other denigrating things, by not only "liberals", but also by "Democrat members of Congress"?

The Congressmen were privy to the same information the Administration had before they signed on to the invasion. the back peddling began during the Kerry campaign, it continues today. Karl Rove is pretty close to the truth. He didn't call then Nazis.
Yes, they did. Only one of them who oppose the war now had the integrity to oppose it then. They sought to capitalize politically and it's bit them right in the ass.

Don't you think it's rather bizzaar that people can get upset over a person making some basically true statement about "liberals", whom ever they may be, yet have no problem with the President of the United States being called "a liar", "stupid", "Hitler" and other denigrating things, by not only "liberals", but also by "Democrat members of Congress"?

So what wasn't true about things that you mentioned other people have said about the President.

He is a liar, well documented
He isn't that smart, that's just too plain to see.
He is sort of Hitler-esque, albeit minus the genocide...

Who in the US Congress called Bush Hitler, or made comparisons between Bush and Hitler?

http://semiskimmed.net/bushhitler.html

Not saying that this is the end all be all of people talking about Bush being like Hitler, but it was just updated as of 16-Jun-05, and funnily enough, I don't see any US politicians on there...

So what wasn't true about things that you mentioned other people have said about the President.

He is a liar, well documented
He isn't that smart, that's just too plain to see.
He is sort of Hitler-esque, albeit minus the genocide...

Who in the US Congress called Bush Hitler, or made comparisons between Bush and Hitler?

http://semiskimmed.net/bushhitler.html

Not saying that this is the end all be all of people talking about Bush being like Hitler, but it was just updated as of 16-Jun-05, and funnily enough, I don't see any US politicians on there...
You think senator Durbin meant to leave the administration out of the equation when he made the Nazi, Stalinist, Pol Pot references to Guantanamo? It seems the mantra is all about where the buck stops, one would conclude that the White House would be involved here somehow?

What lies have you in mind that are so well doccumented, the characterization of the WMD failure of the Intelligence comunity.....of every government large enough to have one? As to his intelligence, that's just an absurd personal attack. You have made some misstatements here on this forum, the strangest was your Tito remarks, I don't believe, however, that it reflects badly on your intelligence, just your intelligence gathering.

Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.

Pretty clear. Pretty bad. Liberals support terrorists, and want our troops to die.

The party line is "he did not say democrats, he said liberals". And he said liberals, not all liberals, or EVERY SINGLE liberal. Just liberals. (of course he did not say SOME liberals either). Please note who regurgitates the spin unthinkingly. It is nice that some things in this world you can rely on.

You think senator Durbin meant to leave the administration out of the equation when he made the Nazi, Stalinist, Pol Pot references to Guantanamo? It seems the mantra is all about where the buck stops, one would conclude that the White House would be involved here somehow?

What lies have you in mind that are so well doccumented, the characterization of the WMD failure of the Intelligence comunity.....of every government large enough to have one? As to his intelligence, that's just an absurd personal attack. You have made some misstatements here on this forum, the strangest was your Tito remarks, I don't believe, however, that it reflects badly on your intelligence, just your intelligence gathering.

Can an opinion be considered misstatement? I don't think so. I have, in the past, on some occassions, when been proven wrong or incorrect in the facts that I thought I had, said I was wrong. I even admitted it to Steam in one thread lately. What Tito remarks are you talking about? I don't even remember.

Lies that I had in mind...

My tax cuts aren't only for the wealthy.

The Iraqi regime is currently trying to pursue getting yellow cake uranium for enrichment.

Lied about his connections to corporate crooks.

Offered disingenuous and misleading explanations about the 9/11 attacks, the war on terrorism, and homeland security

Don't be so naive to believe that the President doesn't lie to you and I about a lot of things. If you can't see that, which I'm sure that you do, then I feel bad for you.

Bush's intelligence, if we want to go back to his grades in college, I can honestly say that I'm smarter, because I got better grades. Do I think that Bush appears to be an idiot and not very intelligent? Yes, I do think that. I'm not alone in this. There are a lot of people who think along the same lines that I do about his intelligence, or lack thereof. When you present yourself as a mis-speaking bumbling idiot, amazingly enough, people are going to think of you in that way. I hate to use this cliche, but sometimes perception becomes reality. Whether or not Bush is really dumb, I don't know, but he plays pretty good at being dumb. Doesn't he? Once again, if you don't see that, I feel bad for you.

Rove, Cunningham, and Hostettler. What a tag team.
These men must spit on the flag every morning when they get out of bed. All of them must use copies on the Constitution when they're done in the bathroom. Before they retire at night, they all must laugh at the evil that they have done today.

Rove, Cunningham, and Hostettler. What a tag team.
These men must spit on the flag every morning when they get out of bed. All of them must use copies on the Constitution when they're done in the bathroom. Before they retire at night, they all must laugh at the evil that they have done today.

That's just it, I think (Snake this is an opinion here) that they actually believe and feel like they are doing good, and that they are doing the work of the nation, and that they are very patriotic and doing a very good service for their country. About half of the country dissents from what they think, but there is another half of the country that pretty much follows along with them and LOVES what they're doing. And when you only look at the "good" information coming to you about what you're doing, you are lulled into a false sense of rightness..

They are sort of dominionists, only without the honety to admit the nature of what it is that they are doing, aren't they?

That's just it, I think (Snake this is an opinion here) that they actually believe and feel like they are doing good, and that they are doing the work of the nation, and that they are very patriotic and doing a very good service for their country. About half of the country dissents from what they think, but there is another half of the country that pretty much follows along with them and LOVES what they're doing. And when you only look at the "good" information coming to you about what you're doing, you are lulled into a false sense of rightness..

Can an opinion be considered misstatement? I don't think so. I have, in the past, on some occassions, when been proven wrong or incorrect in the facts that I thought I had, said I was wrong. I even admitted it to Steam in one thread lately. What Tito remarks are you talking about? I don't even remember.

Lies that I had in mind...

My tax cuts aren't only for the wealthy.

The Iraqi regime is currently trying to pursue getting yellow cake uranium for enrichment.

Lied about his connections to corporate crooks.

Offered disingenuous and misleading explanations about the 9/11 attacks, the war on terrorism, and homeland security

Don't be so naive to believe that the President doesn't lie to you and I about a lot of things. If you can't see that, which I'm sure that you do, then I feel bad for you.

Bush's intelligence, if we want to go back to his grades in college, I can honestly say that I'm smarter, because I got better grades. Do I think that Bush appears to be an idiot and not very intelligent? Yes, I do think that. I'm not alone in this. There are a lot of people who think along the same lines that I do about his intelligence, or lack thereof. When you present yourself as a mis-speaking bumbling idiot, amazingly enough, people are going to think of you in that way. I hate to use this cliche, but sometimes perception becomes reality. Whether or not Bush is really dumb, I don't know, but he plays pretty good at being dumb. Doesn't he? Once again, if you don't see that, I feel bad for you.
My apologies for the tito thing, I had you confused with TMB.

I'm not wealthy and my taxes went down.

The yellow cake remark was one line in a State of the Union speech and was made from bad information. The biggest lie about it is from the left claiming it was pivotol to the Iraqi invasion, it was not.

I'm not sure what connections to corporate crooks you are speaking of. There were oil executives consulted on energy policies that later came into disrepute. There was not reason to question their knowledge or their integrith at the time of the meetings. Other than that, I'm not sure what you could be talking about. The sleeze factor is one given by those of you who wish to characterize it in that manner.

I also don't have any idea what references you are making to 9/11 comments or actions by the administration. If you are echoing Michael Moore, you should question your own information sources as much as you do mine.

You probably got better grades than Albert Einstein too, are you smarter than that? Grades are a measure of what you are doing with the information you are being tested on. Many things contribute to them and intelligence is only one of them. A 'c' average can indicate boredom and disinterest as well as intelligence. Grades are not a good measure of ability to think rationally or solve problems. No, Bush is not and doesn't play at being dumb. His past is littered with broken and beaten political adversaries who thought as you do.

RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman Statement On The Democrat Attacks Of Karl Rove


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Tracey Schmitt
202-863-8614



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“It’s outrageous that the same Democrats who stood by Dick Durbin’s libeling of our military are now expressing faux outrage over Karl Rove’s statement of historical fact. George Soros, Michael Moore, MoveOn and the hard left were wrong after 9/11, just as it was wrong for Democrat leaders to stand by and remain silent after Dick Durbin made his deplorable comments.”
- RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Liberal Third Party Groups Urged Restraint, Blamed America:


Immediately After 9/11, MoveOn.Org Petition Urged “Moderation And Restraint” And Use Of “International Judicial Institutions.”


“We, The Undersigned, Citizens And Residents Of The United States Of America … Appeal To The President Of The United States, George W. Bush … And To All Leaders Internationally To Use Moderation And Restraint In Responding To The Recent Terrorist Attacks Against The United States.” (MoveOn.Org Website, “MoveOn Peace,” http://web.archive.org/web/20021127190638/peace.moveon.org/petition.php3, Posted 9/13/01, Accessed 6/23/05)

“We Implore The Powers That Be To Use, Wherever Possible, International Judicial Institutions And International Human Rights Law To Bring To Justice Those Responsible For The Attacks, Rather Than The Instruments Of War, Violence Or Destruction.” (MoveOn.Org Website, “MoveOn Peace,” http://web.archive.org/web/20021127190638/peace.moveon.org/petition.php3, Posted 9/13/01, Accessed 6/23/05)

“[W]e Demand That There Be No Recourse To Nuclear, Chemical Or Biological Weapons, Or Any Weapons Of Indiscriminate Destruction, And Feel That It Is Our Inalienable Human Right To Live In A World Free Of Such Arms.” (MoveOn.Org Website, “MoveOn Peace,” http://web.archive.org/web/20021127190638/peace.moveon.org/petition.php3, Posted 9/13/01, Accessed 6/23/05)

Just After 9/11, Liberal Filmmaker Michael Moore Derided “Terror And Bloodshed” Committed By Americans. (David Brooks, Op-Ed, “All Hail Moore,” The New York Times, 6/26/04)


Just After 9/11, Moore Blamed America’s “Taxpayer-Funded Terrorism” And Bush Administration For Terrorist Attacks. “We abhor terrorism – unless we’re the ones doing the terrorizing. We paid and trained and armed a group of terrorists in Nicaragua in the 1980s who killed over 30,000 civilians. That was OUR work. You and me.…Let’s mourn, let’s grieve, and when it’s appropriate let’s examine our contribution to the unsafe world we live in.” (Michael Moore Website Archive, “Death, Downtown,” Posted 9/12/01, www.michaelmoore.com, Accessed 7/27/04)

Michael Moore Said U.S. Should Not Have Removed Taliban After 9/11. Moore: “Likewise, to bomb Afghanistan – I mean, I’ve never understood this, Tim.” (CNBC’s “Tim Russert,” 10/19/02)

Liberal Donor George Soros Claimed America Should Have Treated 9/11 Attacks As Crime, Responded With Police Work. “War is a false and misleading metaphor in the context of combating terrorism. Treating the attacks of September 11 as crimes against humanity would have been more appropriate. Crimes require police work, not military action. To protect against terrorism, you need precautionary measures, awareness, and intelligence gathering – all of which ultimately depend on the support of the populations among which terrorists operate. Imagine for a moment that September 11 had been treated as a crime. We would have pursued Bin Laden in Afghanistan, but we would not have invaded Iraq. Nor would we have our military struggling to perform police work in full combat gear and getting killed in the process.” (George Soros, The Bubble Of American Supremacy, 2004, p. 18)


Soros Said The Execution Of 9/11 Attacks “Could Not Have Been More Spectacular.” “Admittedly, the terrorist attack was a historic event in its own right. Hijacking fully loaded airplanes and using them as suicide bombs was an audacious idea, and the execution could not have been more spectacular.” (George Soros, The Bubble Of American Supremacy, 2004, p. 2)

Soros Said War On Terror Had Claimed More Innocent Victims Than 9/11 Attack Itself. “This is a very tough thing to say, but the fact is, that the war on terror as conducted by this administration, has claimed more innocent victims that the original attack itself.” (George Soros, Remarks At Take Back America Conference, Washington, DC, 6/3/04)

Liberal Democrats Urged Restraint, Blamed America:


Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH): “‘The Time For Peace Is Now,’ [Kucinich] Declared Optimistically July 11, Two Months To The Day Before Terrorists Hit The Pentagon And The World Trade Center. … Sitting In His Capitol Hill Office Last Week, Near A Window Where He Could See The Smoke Rising From The Pentagon On Sept. 11, Kucinich Insisted He Is More Optimistic Than Ever That People Worldwide Are Ready To Embrace The Cause Of Nonviolence.” (Elizabeth Auster, “Offer The Hand Of Peace,” [Cleveland, OH] Plain Dealer, 9/30/01)


Kucinich: “Afghanistan May Be An Incubator Of Terrorism But It Doesn’t Follow That We Bomb Afghanistan …” (Elizabeth Auster, “Offer The Hand Of Peace,” [Cleveland, OH] Plain Dealer, 9/30/01)

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI): “Only Now Are We Trying To Figure Out What Is Islam. Maybe If There Was A Department Of Peace, They Would Be Able To Say, ‘Uh-Oh, We’ve Got Some Problems With These People,’ … I Truly Believe That If We Had A Department Of Peace, We Would Have Seen [9/11] Coming.” (Ethan Wallison, “War A Challenge For Peace Caucus,” Roll Call, 10/1/01)


Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA): “I Am Convinced That Military Action Will Not Prevent Further Acts Of International Terrorism Against The United States.” (Eddy Ramirez, “Calif. Congresswoman Alone In Vote Against War Powers Resolution,” [University Of California-Berkeley] Daily Californian, 9/17/01)


Al Sharpton (D-NY) Said That The Attacks On The World Trade Center Are Evidence That “America Is Beginning To Reap What It Has Sown.” (Adam Nagourney, “Say It Loud,” The New York Times, 12/1/02)


Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) Claimed Osama Bin Laden Could Be Compared To “Revolutionaries That Helped To Cast Off The British Crown.” “‘One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped to cast off the British crown,’ Kaptur told an Ohio newspaper, The (Toledo) Blade.” (Malie Rulon, “Lawmaker Compares Osama, U.S. Patriots,” The Associated Press, 3/6/03)


Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) Said The United States Would “Pay Every Single Hour, Ever Single Day” That Bombs Were Dropped In Afghanistan. “‘How much longer does the bombing campaign continue?’ Biden asked during an Oct. 22 speech at the Council on Foreign Relations. ‘We’re going to pay every single hour, every single day it continues.’” (Miles A. Pomper, "Building Anti-Terrorism Coalition Vaults Ahead Of Other Priorities," Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 10/26/01)


“The Bombing Campaign, [Biden] Said, Reinforced Existing Stereotypes Of The United States As A ‘High-Tech Bully …’” (Miles A. Pomper, "Building Anti-Terrorism Coalition Vaults Ahead Of Other Priorities," Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 10/26/01)


Gov. Howard Dean (D-VT) Said Osama Bin Laden Not Guilty. Dean: “I Still Have This Old-Fashioned Notion That Even With People Like Osama, Who Is Very Likely To Be Found Guilty, We Should Do Our Best Not To, In Positions Of Executive Power, Not To Prejudge Jury Trials.” (“Dean Not Ready To Pronounce Osama Bin Laden Guilty,” The Associated Press, 12/26/03)


Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) To High School Students: “How Would [Muslims] Look At Us Today If We Had Been There Helping Them With Some Of That Rather Than Just Being The People Who Are Going To Bomb In Iraq And Go To Afghanistan? … War Is Expensive Too … Your Generation Ought To Be Thinking About Whether We Should Be Better Neighbors Out In Other Countries So That They Have A Different Vision Of Us.” (Gregg Herrington, “Senator Asks Students To Ponder,” The [Vancouver, WA] Columbian, 12/19/02)


Sen. John Kerry (D-MA): “[W]ar On Terror Is Far Less Of A Military Operation And Far More Of An Intelligence-Gathering, Law-Enforcement Operation.” (The Iowa Brown & Black Coalition Presidential Forum, Des Moines, IA, 1/11/04)


Kerry: “[W]hat We’ve Learned Is That The War On Terror Is Much More Of An Intelligence Operation And A Law Enforcement Operation.” (NPR’s “All Things Considered,” 3/19/03)

That's just it, I think (Snake this is an opinion here) that they actually believe and feel like they are doing good, and that they are doing the work of the nation, and that they are very patriotic and doing a very good service for their country. About half of the country dissents from what they think, but there is another half of the country that pretty much follows along with them and LOVES what they're doing. And when you only look at the "good" information coming to you about what you're doing, you are lulled into a false sense of rightness..

By the same token, if you spend your day in Michael Moore conspiracy theories and conversations, you can miss what is actually taking place and be equally deluded as to your patriotism.

I saw a small portion of an interview last night on Fox, disregard it if you like. It was an Army General officer and the gist of what he said was the troops are starting to ask if they have the support of the people at home. He said something to the effect that we are donig good work there but it was hard to keep morale up and stay focused with the distracftions of the news from home.

I try to pay more attention to the news on the war effort than I do to the political arguments from Congress or the media. What attracts attention today is any controversial accusation against American troops or our involvement. We hear of real brutality every day and it is largely ignored because it happens around and to our troops rather than comitted by them. The news is there but our mental priorities seem to be warped. We are basically more concerned with the next political action of this administration than with actual human suffering.

Things are improving in Iraq. The proof of that is the increased involvment of Iraqi troops and police in the anti terrorist activities. The stepped up actions by the terrorists are also proof that they are losing. the concentration of power and propaganda is much like Tet in Vietnam. We kicked their asses and destroyed the Cong infrastructure and manpower but we lost the political support for the war and thereby lost the contest. Like the troops mentioned by the General, I worry that it his happening like that again.

Y, these are just liberals talking. No one is concerned with what liberals said. Oh wait, isn't that the subject at hand?

By the same token, if you spend your day in Michael Moore conspiracy theories and conversations, you can miss what is actually taking place and be equally deluded as to your patriotism.

I saw a small portion of an interview last night on Fox, disregard it if you like. It was an Army General officer and the gist of what he said was the troops are starting to ask if they have the support of the people at home. He said something to the effect that we are donig good work there but it was hard to keep morale up and stay focused with the distracftions of the news from home.

I try to pay more attention to the news on the war effort than I do to the political arguments from Congress or the media. What attracts attention today is any controversial accusation against American troops or our involvement. We hear of real brutality every day and it is largely ignored because it happens around and to our troops rather than comitted by them. The news is there but our mental priorities seem to be warped. We are basically more concerned with the next political action of this administration than with actual human suffering.

Things are improving in Iraq. The proof of that is the increased involvment of Iraqi troops and police in the anti terrorist activities. The stepped up actions by the terrorists are also proof that they are losing. the concentration of power and propaganda is much like Tet in Vietnam. We kicked their asses and destroyed the Cong infrastructure and manpower but we lost the political support for the war and thereby lost the contest. Like the troops mentioned by the General, I worry that it his happening like that again.

First you cannot compare Michael Moore to Karl Rove. Michael Moore is a sensationalistic filmmaker/documentarian, who makes money off of how many movies he can sell, and how many tickets are sold for people going to see his movies. He pushes people's buttons to get the result that he wants. Karl Rove is a close personal friend and advisor to the President of the United States of America who helped him get elected to the higest office in the land, 2 times. There is no comparison, none...

The troops have the support, in general of the American public. What the American public does not support, according to polls (take them for what you will) are our troops being Iraq in the first place. The American people don't support the mission, but they support the military. I think there is a vast difference between the 2. I think morale is hurting in Iraq because the troops are starting to not believe in the job that they're doing (this is what I've heard from first hand knowledge of people in the Army that I personally know), and that the whole thing is a cluster phuck. I could see though where in the interview you saw, that these perceptions would exist within the minds of the troops within our military.

I personally am a lot more concerned about the loss of human life because of this war than just about anything else tied in with it. The loss of life comes from that fact that we started it, so yes, the world in general are going to look upon our actions there with distaste, and I agree with that. I don't want our guys to be there, never did from the start of things.

Things are not improving in Iraq. Insurgency/terrorist attacks on the civilian population and our military are way up, and show no signs of abating. Not any time soon. The entire country is on the verge of civil war for the most part, and the only reason there isn't a civil war right now is because the US military is there. How do you figure increased terrorist activity is evidence that things are getting better?? Isn't that kind of oxy-moronic? I think so. More people are getting killed so things are getting better. I guess I don't get that one. You'll have to explain your reasoning to me on that one if you so choose. As Republicans are so fond of reminding everyone else, this isn't Vietnam. And this is one thing I can agree with them with. To draw comparisons to Vietnam and Iraq, just doesn't wash. They're not the same, not even close. And remember, we lost Vietnam. I watched The Fog of War last weekend about Robert McNamara's time during Vietnam, and he said later on in the late 90's, he went there to meet with his counterpart who was working for N. Vietnam during that time, and he said point blank, don't you understand, we were fighting for our freedom, we would have never given up, not until the last person standing. We had no chance of winning Vietnam. I also think that there are some parts of the insurgency in Iraq that are there because of the United States military presence. They don't want us there. It's their country, and they are a proud and old country, and they are (some of them, not all of them) fighting for what they view as their freedom as well.

"I saw a small portion of an interview last night on Fox, disregard it if you like. It was an Army General officer and the gist of what he said was the troops are starting to ask if they have the support of the people at home. He said something to the effect that we are donig good work there but it was hard to keep morale up and stay focused with the distracftions of the news from home."

Total BS........I can smell a plant miles away.
Typical White House/FOX NEWS misdirection.

You forgot to mention all the troops who ask......" Why does President Bush want us to die ??"
and the ones who can't ask...." Why did I have to die in friggin' Iraq ??"

Don't you think it's rather bizzaar that people can get upset over a person making some basically true statement about "liberals", whom ever they may be, yet have no problem with the President of the United States being called "a liar", "stupid", "Hitler" and other denigrating things, by not only "liberals", but also by "Democrat members of Congress"?


So if it's wrong, why don't you decry it? No matter who says it? Why equivocate? And of all people to make this observation it comes from the guy whose favorite pejorative last year was "Hitlery".

This is classic Rove. Basically go right up to the line and make all the insinuations and when he gets called on it he affects a disingenuous innocent, hyper-literal pose and basically claims, "I don't know what your talking about!??"

Bush has been doing this sort of crap for years. Ask John McCain.

What the Dems should be saying, instead of calling for his head, is that Rove is a dingbat and look at all the liberals who supported the president after 9/11. Discount him. This is real schoolyard crapola. The Democrats are even outraged that he said it (horrors!) in NYC!!! Yeah, they're so upset!! I really believe that.

What a bunch of malarky. Both sides.

You got it wrong. Bill105 called her "Hitlery". I have e always called her Hillarity, and still do ;) Besides what difference does it make what we call her? We are just nobodies :D

I think it was quite ingenious how Rove got all the Dems to stand up and say "I'm a liberal!" - and say it with conviction. You know how much America loves liberals. LOL! That is probably one of the most masterful political maneuvers I have ever seen. This will come back to haunt all of them one day - especially Hillarity! LOL!!!

Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.


yep. those same words that cn now be seen and heard in about fifteen different republican attack ads. wow, i sure hope al-jazeera doesn't find out, you know how much damage those words could do.

no foot in mouth at all. a planned, conscious move by rove to divert attention from all the bad news faced by this administration, and to go on the offensive against those faceless "liberals" who want our troops to get killed. and this is just the beginning, as the news is just gonna get worse. hey, guess what, that administration that has said, "we don't torture" for four years now? they've just admitted to the UN that hey, i guesswe do torture after all. nice.

now maybe it's just me, but if i really wanted to put our troops in greater danger, i'd send them off to a war with too few numbers to control and stabilize the region after combat operations were over. too few to guard and contain known WMD and weapons development sites, soi their contents could be looted and sold to other rogue states or terrorist organizations, or maybe even used in IED's against our own forces there. send them off without enough body armor and other equipment so they'd have to buy their own if they wanted it, or without armor plating on their vehicles. and then, you know, once they came back home, shot up and wounded, or with severe psychological disorders, i'd cut funding for veteran's medical programs and garnish their monthly pay for the cost of their meals., or rush their discharges so the military wouldn't have to pay for their medical care any more. but that's just me.

"I saw a small portion of an interview last night on Fox, disregard it if you like. It was an Army General officer and the gist of what he said was the troops are starting to ask if they have the support of the people at home. He said something to the effect that we are donig good work there but it was hard to keep morale up and stay focused with the distracftions of the news from home."

Total BS........I can smell a plant miles away.
Typical White House/FOX NEWS misdirection.

You forgot to mention all the troops who ask......" Why does President Bush want us to die ??"
and the ones who can't ask...." Why did I have to die in friggin' Iraq ??"
I haven't heard any of them ask those questions. What kind of plants did you say your nose is tuned to?

First you cannot compare Michael Moore to Karl Rove. Michael Moore is a sensationalistic filmmaker/documentarian, who makes money off of how many movies he can sell, and how many tickets are sold for people going to see his movies. He pushes people's buttons to get the result that he wants. Karl Rove is a close personal friend and advisor to the President of the United States of America who helped him get elected to the higest office in the land, 2 times. There is no comparison, none...

The troops have the support, in general of the American public. What the American public does not support, according to polls (take them for what you will) are our troops being Iraq in the first place. The American people don't support the mission, but they support the military. I think there is a vast difference between the 2. I think morale is hurting in Iraq because the troops are starting to not believe in the job that they're doing (this is what I've heard from first hand knowledge of people in the Army that I personally know), and that the whole thing is a cluster phuck. I could see though where in the interview you saw, that these perceptions would exist within the minds of the troops within our military.

I personally am a lot more concerned about the loss of human life because of this war than just about anything else tied in with it. The loss of life comes from that fact that we started it, so yes, the world in general are going to look upon our actions there with distaste, and I agree with that. I don't want our guys to be there, never did from the start of things.

Things are not improving in Iraq. Insurgency/terrorist attacks on the civilian population and our military are way up, and show no signs of abating. Not any time soon. The entire country is on the verge of civil war for the most part, and the only reason there isn't a civil war right now is because the US military is there. How do you figure increased terrorist activity is evidence that things are getting better?? Isn't that kind of oxy-moronic? I think so. More people are getting killed so things are getting better. I guess I don't get that one. You'll have to explain your reasoning to me on that one if you so choose. As Republicans are so fond of reminding everyone else, this isn't Vietnam. And this is one thing I can agree with them with. To draw comparisons to Vietnam and Iraq, just doesn't wash. They're not the same, not even close. And remember, we lost Vietnam. I watched The Fog of War last weekend about Robert McNamara's time during Vietnam, and he said later on in the late 90's, he went there to meet with his counterpart who was working for N. Vietnam during that time, and he said point blank, don't you understand, we were fighting for our freedom, we would have never given up, not until the last person standing. We had no chance of winning Vietnam. I also think that there are some parts of the insurgency in Iraq that are there because of the United States military presence. They don't want us there. It's their country, and they are a proud and old country, and they are (some of them, not all of them) fighting for what they view as their freedom as well.
I believe the nature of the increased terrorist attacks is an indication we are winning. They attack civilians, representatives of the new government and those who are joining the new police and military forces. Their fight is to keep the country from self rule, to cause people to be fearful of taking part. It is a direct threat to their regaining control at some point.

Robert McNamara has less credibility in his newfound wisdom than he did when his prosecution of that war led to so many of our young people from my generation becoming a name on a wall. As for your likening the insurgency n Iraq to some nationalistic freedom movement, that dog don't hunt. They have their government, politically, thay can make of it what they will. This is about domination and control by an armed force that will kill as many innocents as it takes to instill the fear they need to control the country. Don't characterize it as heroism. The heros waved a finger with ink on it, not a gun barrel. The heros are risking their lives in positions in the new government. Your heros are murdering them from ambush. The heros are driving US military vehicles, transporting the security forces and supplies that allow the Iraqi heros to operate their country and new government. Don't get confused in your assesment of heros and honor.

This is about domination and control by an armed force that will kill as many innocents as it takes to instill the fear they need to control the country.
Substantially correct Snake!!!!!!!!!!!!

-but not in the sense that you intended methinks :(

Substantially correct Snake!!!!!!!!!!!!

-but not in the sense that you intended methinks :(
Could you please clarify what you just said? I believe I understand you but wouldn't want to put words in your mouth.

"and the ones who can't ask...." Why did I have to die in friggin' Iraq ??"

If the Repubs can speak for the dead, why can't I ??

1700+ dead. Just so that George's daddy will love him.......Now, that's sick.

"and the ones who can't ask...." Why did I have to die in friggin' Iraq ??"

If the Repubs can speak for the dead, why can't I ??

1700+ dead. Just so that George's daddy will love him.......Now, that's sick.
What's really sick is your corruption of the purpose, and use of the numbers to further your own goals. You are speaking for yourself, you have no idea what those who gave their lives when their country asked or their families would have to say.

"I believe the nature of the increased terrorist attacks is an indication we are winning"

Does this mean, that if they kill another 2500 of our troops, that we've totally crushed them.
Don't make me laugh.....
It's an indication that they are getting stronger, and that it will take a lot more American blood than you ( or president george) will admit.

What's really sick is your corruption of the purpose, and use of the numbers to further your own goals. You are speaking for yourself, you have no idea what those who gave their lives when their country asked or their families would have to say.

ah, but those trapped at the top of the twin towers would want a flag-burning amendmment. this we know.

ah, but those trapped at the top of the twin towers would want a flag-burning amendmment. this we know.
I have always been against criminalizing flag desecration. Pick another insult. Do you think we should show the Towers burning and falling at least once a week in the news channels or are they just reserved for when youi libs need to be maudlin? I'm for showing it, we should never forget.

.
"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."

Critics accused the amendment's supporters of exploiting the attacks to trample the right to free speech.

"If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents." said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., whose district includes the site of the former World Trade Center.

I didn't start speaking for the dead until Cunningham, R-Calif., started. What's worse, speaking for the dead to make a point, or speaking for the dead for political gain.

.
"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."

Critics accused the amendment's supporters of exploiting the attacks to trample the right to free speech.

"If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents." said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., whose district includes the site of the former World Trade Center.

I didn't start speaking for the dead until Cunningham, R-Calif., started. What's worse, speaking for the dead to make a point, or speaking for the dead for political gain.
If your only goal is to silence this constant flag burning ammendment, I'm on your side all the way. No need to put it in such offensive terms. Being in Congress doesn't make one above idiocy whichever party they belong to. the Republican dominated Senate will kill this lunacy. Legislators speak to their constituancy and the feelings of citizens vary from area to area. It's just political posturing.

I believe the nature of the increased terrorist attacks is an indication we are winning. They attack civilians, representatives of the new government and those who are joining the new police and military forces. Their fight is to keep the country from self rule, to cause people to be fearful of taking part. It is a direct threat to their regaining control at some point.

Robert McNamara has less credibility in his newfound wisdom than he did when his prosecution of that war led to so many of our young people from my generation becoming a name on a wall. As for your likening the insurgency n Iraq to some nationalistic freedom movement, that dog don't hunt. They have their government, politically, thay can make of it what they will. This is about domination and control by an armed force that will kill as many innocents as it takes to instill the fear they need to control the country. Don't characterize it as heroism. The heros waved a finger with ink on it, not a gun barrel. The heros are risking their lives in positions in the new government. Your heros are murdering them from ambush. The heros are driving US military vehicles, transporting the security forces and supplies that allow the Iraqi heros to operate their country and new government. Don't get confused in your assesment of heros and honor.

I didn't call those people heroes that are killing innocent people. Actually, I never used the word hero once in my diatribe. I do believe though, that there are groups of insurgents who target the US military only, because they don't want to be occupied by a foreign military force, and frankly, neither would I. Don't you remember the movie Red Dawn? Damn, that was some of Partick Swayze's best work ever. But I digress. There are people there, however guided or mis-guided they may be, that do believe they are freedom fighters, and that they are fighting the good fight. We see it differently of course, but would you do any less if the US of A were occupied by a foreign military force? I think that you would. These aren't my heroes, and I never called them that, so stop twisting the ideas that people put out there please. Maybe these attacks though come against civlians, new Iraq government officials, their new military, and our military because these people see it as a puppet regime being put into place, by what they perceive as their enemy, the USA. I'm just putting that out there. It may or may not be true, but it is one reason that may exist. On the other hand, they may just want to kill innocent people. I don't know for sure, but it's not as simple as you'd like to think that it is I think.

You say that the heroes over there waved a finger with ink on it and not a gun barrel, and I do applaud the people of Iraq for living in tough conditions for years on end, and taking a stance to vote, even in the face of puported violence that was going to go on. I'm sure that you also call our military heroes as well, but aren't they waving a gun barrel as well and carrying a much bigger stick? Yeah, we'll force democracy on you whether you like it or not. Just depends on who is looking at it and judging what's going on. From our perspective, wait, let me make that your perspective, we're fighting the good fight. But from the perspective of most of the Arab world, we are evil invaders of a sovereign country. All a matter of degrees I think.

You have to look at all sides of a situation like this, not just the side you want to "win". You have to empathize with them, to try and see what they're thinking, you have to profile them in a way.

Don't let what I wrote confuse you into not twisting my words into something they're not. Oh, I'm sure you will anyway.

Could you please clarify what you just said? I believe I understand you but wouldn't want to put words in your mouth.
magnolia just said it above quite well (probably w/a little more brimstone than I'd have done).

I didn't call those people heroes that are killing innocent people. Actually, I never used the word hero once in my diatribe. I do believe though, that there are groups of insurgents who target the US military only, because they don't want to be occupied by a foreign military force, and frankly, neither would I. Don't you remember the movie Red Dawn? Damn, that was some of Partick Swayze's best work ever. But I digress. There are people there, however guided or mis-guided they may be, that do believe they are freedom fighters, and that they are fighting the good fight. We see it differently of course, but would you do any less if the US of A were occupied by a foreign military force? I think that you would. These aren't my heroes, and I never called them that, so stop twisting the ideas that people put out there please. Maybe these attacks though come against civlians, new Iraq government officials, their new military, and our military because these people see it as a puppet regime being put into place, by what they perceive as their enemy, the USA. I'm just putting that out there. It may or may not be true, but it is one reason that may exist. On the other hand, they may just want to kill innocent people. I don't know for sure, but it's not as simple as you'd like to think that it is I think.

You say that the heroes over there waved a finger with ink on it and not a gun barrel, and I do applaud the people of Iraq for living in tough conditions for years on end, and taking a stance to vote, even in the face of puported violence that was going to go on. I'm sure that you also call our military heroes as well, but aren't they waving a gun barrel as well and carrying a much bigger stick? Yeah, we'll force democracy on you whether you like it or not. Just depends on who is looking at it and judging what's going on. From our perspective, wait, let me make that your perspective, we're fighting the good fight. But from the perspective of most of the Arab world, we are evil invaders of a sovereign country. All a matter of degrees I think.

You have to look at all sides of a situation like this, not just the side you want to "win". You have to empathize with them, to try and see what they're thinking, you have to profile them in a way.

Don't let what I wrote confuse you into not twisting my words into something they're not. Oh, I'm sure you will anyway.
We did real good till we got to the part about American soldiers waving buns around. You see, there are only two sides to this issue, it really isn't many faceted nor that hard to differentiate. One side is right and one side is not. Are some of thise insurgents idealists? Certainly, but they are still wrong. Are we forcing democracy as you say? How the hell do you force democracy? There was a large turnout, even in the face of idealists with guns and bombs. People didn't hide their faces, they held their inky fingers up for the cameras whenever the opportunity arose. How can you say we are forcing freedom of choice on people with that kind of courage. They didn't go to the polls at American gunpoint, they went in spite of the threat from armed "idealists" who were held at bay by the American gun waving.

magnolia just said it above quite well (probably w/a little more brimstone than I'd have done).
Humor me. I don't see any magnolia above. Put it in your own words.

We did real good till we got to the part about American soldiers waving buns around. You see, there are only two sides to this issue, it really isn't many faceted nor that hard to differentiate. One side is right and one side is not. Are some of thise insurgents idealists? Certainly, but they are still wrong. Are we forcing democracy as you say? How the hell do you force democracy? There was a large turnout, even in the face of idealists with guns and bombs. People didn't hide their faces, they held their inky fingers up for the cameras whenever the opportunity arose. How can you say we are forcing freedom of choice on people with that kind of courage. They didn't go to the polls at American gunpoint, they went in spite of the threat from armed "idealists" who were held at bay by the American gun waving.

You know as much as I admire those inky fingers I think it is about farking time they wash their hands pick up a gun and kill the bastards that keep blowing them up with car bombs.

/Just a thought. It is foolish for the U.S. to think we can give them democracy...all we can do is give them a chance...and THEY are blowing it...THAT is why it is not working.

Humor me. I don't see any magnolia above. Put it in your own words. Oh, sure-what else is there to do...


This is about domination and control by an armed force that will kill as many innocents as it takes to instill the fear they need to control the country.

Well-it sounds sorta like what the US is doing (rather than the insurgents). I'll admit though; your clever use of the word 'innocents' ruins the absolute transferece it still works though to some extent.

You know as much as I admire those inky fingers I think it is about farking time they wash their hands pick up a gun and kill the bastards that keep blowing them up with car bombs.

/Just a thought. It is foolish for the U.S. to think we can give them democracy...all we can do is give them a chance...and THEY are blowing it...THAT is why it is not working.
I can't really disagree with your basic idea but I believe they are trying to do that very thing. For a long time, it seemed like every attack was on lines of men waiting to join the national police force or new recruits ambushed somewhere. We are going to be there in strength and providing security for at least two more years. The Iraqis involved in the insurgency are basically the ones who had the guns and power before. Getting a government up and running and s defense force at the same time is pretty daunting even without the fact that both are under constant attack.

I can't really disagree with your basic idea but I believe they are trying to do that very thing. For a long time, it seemed like every attack was on lines of men waiting to join the national police force or new recruits ambushed somewhere. We are going to be there in strength and providing security for at least two more years. The Iraqis involved in the insurgency are basically the ones who had the guns and power before. Getting a government up and running and s defense force at the same time is pretty daunting even without the fact that both are under constant attack.

Relative...think about it SNAKE...we broke away from the most powerful power the world had known up to that time...because we were pissed over some taxation issues! Men picked up a gun and shot out of their frigging front doors at anything dressed in red. I think the fact that the 8.5 million people that voted should go up to the U.S. army and say hey thanks we got it now, can I borrow your gun cause I am going to go dirty harry on those farkers that just blew up that car down the street. I am sorry but they are just inside watching it happen and that means to me that they either A don't give a crap or B are secretly rooting against the Americans or C are chickenshiat. I am very pissed at these people everyone in the whole country that is not an insurrgent should be in the streets looking to do whatever they can. Are you telling me that a couple of million motivated and brave (willing to be martyred) Iraqis can't kick the crap out of these losers? It doesn't take training it takes heart, commitment and an overwhelming number. Where is their valley forge? Crispus Attics? I tire of these people because some very good men and women of the USA are bleeding into their sand for them and they don't give a fark...so fark them if they don't want to bleed a little...trained or not.

Relative...think about it SNAKE...we broke away from the most powerful power the world had known up to that time...because we were pissed over some taxation issues! Men picked up a gun and shot out of their frigging front doors at anything dressed in red. I think the fact that the 8.5 million people that voted should go up to the U.S. army and say hey thanks we got it now, can I borrow your gun cause I am going to go dirty harry on those farkers that just blew up that car down the street. I am sorry but they are just inside watching it happen and that means to me that they either A don't give a crap or B are secretly rooting against the Americans or C are chickenshiat. I am very pissed at these people everyone in the whole country that is not an insurrgent should be in the streets looking to do whatever they can. Are you telling me that a couple of million motivated and brave (willing to be martyred) Iraqis can't kick the crap out of these losers? It doesn't take training it takes heart, commitment and an overwhelming number. Where is their valley forge? Crispus Attics? I tire of these people because some very good men and women of the USA are bleeding into their sand for them and they don't give a fark...so fark them if they don't want to bleed a little...trained or not.
That's pretty emotional and I can't really disagree sith that emotion. I still think it is working and what you are calling for is happening. Lets both hope the process accelerates.

the shoe shine boy for the ruling elite.

you stated that those who supported it were privvy to the same info as the admin (FALSE) as the documentation now shows the admin was fixing the info long before it was given to congress or the UN.
Duke's been profiteering on this whole scenario. wrapping himself in the flag whilst collecting bribes from contractors. SHAMEFUL as he is an military man. He's profiteering on our dead, and I hope those soldiers and 9-11 victims are standing there waiting for him in the great beyond.