• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Is Karl Rove attempting to rewrite history?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So the Dems were hornswoggled by Bush?

What does that say about the Democrats that they allowed Bush to fool them?
Jhhnn just summed it up in his post... Either a supporter, or a traitor....

The Democrats were stupid.... Stupid in the idea that the President had the best intentions in mind for the United States after 9-11.....
So the Democrats aren't smart enough to deflect a little name calling?

I'll tell you exactly what the problem with the Democrats voting for the AUMF was. They were following prevailing public opinion, like they always do. The Democrats are poll prostitutes and have been for years. The majority supported the invasion; so did the Dems. They didn't ask questions. They didn't search for answers. They didn't have their own platform or any unity on the issue and they didn't bother to check the facts for themselves. And when public opinion on the war changed, so did the Democrats.

Sorry, but THAT'S why I hate the Dems. They have no stomache, no balls, no fortitude...nothing. They are a bunch of pandering pansies. At least the GOP, which I don't really support either but have a more favorable opinion of, can make a decision and stick to it.

People in here act as if "staying the course" is a bad thing. It's not. It's called believing in something. What do the Democrats believe in? I guess we just have to ask the fickle public to find out the answer to that, though those answers may change tomorrow.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Sorry, but THAT'S why I hate the Dems. They have no stomache, no balls, no fortitude...nothing. They are a bunch of pandering pansies. At least the GOP, which I don't really support either but have a more favorable opinion of, can make a decision and stick to it.
I agree with your take on the Democratic Party. But there's a fair number of Republicans doing the same thing, and it's disgusting.

Pandering Pansies unfortunately describes a Politician to a T.
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,083
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So the Dems were hornswoggled by Bush?

What does that say about the Democrats that they allowed Bush to fool them?
Jhhnn just summed it up in his post... Either a supporter, or a traitor....

The Democrats were stupid.... Stupid in the idea that the President had the best intentions in mind for the United States after 9-11.....
So the Democrats aren't smart enough to deflect a little name calling?

I'll tell you exactly what the problem with the Democrats voting for the AUMF was. They were following prevailing public opinion, like they always do. The Democrats are poll prostitutes and have been for years. The majority supported the invasion; so did the Dems. They didn't ask questions. They didn't search for answers. They didn't have their own platform or any unity on the issue and they didn't bother to check the facts for themselves. And when public opinion on the war changed, so did the Democrats.

Sorry, but THAT'S why I hate the Dems. They have no stomache, no balls, no fortitude...nothing. They are a bunch of pandering pansies. At least the GOP, which I don't really support either but have a more favorable opinion of, can make a decision and stick to it.

People in here act as if "staying the course" is a bad thing. It's not. It's called believing in something. What do the Democrats believe in? I guess we just have to ask the fickle public to find out the answer to that, though those answers may change tomorrow.
Sir, your problem is this - you "hate democrats" in one hand, for not en masse standing against going into Iraq, while in your other hand, would "hate democrats" if they did stand en masse in going into Iraq...........

Can't have it both ways... Seems you should also "hate" the Republican Majority for those years for going along as well....

Do you hate them as well?
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,305
14,511
136
Heh. As if Rove's recent remarks have anything to do with "believing in something", other than in believing his own lies. He denies that the Admin had been beating the war drum for a year, fueled by their own terrarist fearmongering and cultivating a thirst for r@ghead blood among the electorate, denies that they controlled the intelligence information fed to congress and the public, denies that the introduction and forced vote on the war resolution was timed to the election cycle, denies that he and the rest exploited the greatest political windfall since pearl harbor for an unrelated agenda. He claims that BushCo really didn't want the war resolution at the time, even though they introduced it and rammed it through...

"Make a decision and stick to it"? Well, not exactly... It wasn't us, the admin, but rather congress, honest... next thing ya know, they'll claim congress made 'em do it, invade iraq...

One thing's for sure, and that's TLC's dogged persistence in trying to derail this thread, make it about the Dems, rather than about Rove's rather amazing remarks...
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
27,580
13,338
136
Funny how the response for all the Bush administrations failures are...see....Clinton did it too.....see.....Clinton lied.

Remember, Clintons Iraq policy was not responsible for almost 4000 dead US soldiers.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So the Dems were hornswoggled by Bush?

What does that say about the Democrats that they allowed Bush to fool them?
Jhhnn just summed it up in his post... Either a supporter, or a traitor....

The Democrats were stupid.... Stupid in the idea that the President had the best intentions in mind for the United States after 9-11.....
So the Democrats aren't smart enough to deflect a little name calling?

I'll tell you exactly what the problem with the Democrats voting for the AUMF was. They were following prevailing public opinion, like they always do. The Democrats are poll prostitutes and have been for years. The majority supported the invasion; so did the Dems. They didn't ask questions. They didn't search for answers. They didn't have their own platform or any unity on the issue and they didn't bother to check the facts for themselves. And when public opinion on the war changed, so did the Democrats.

Sorry, but THAT'S why I hate the Dems. They have no stomache, no balls, no fortitude...nothing. They are a bunch of pandering pansies. At least the GOP, which I don't really support either but have a more favorable opinion of, can make a decision and stick to it.

People in here act as if "staying the course" is a bad thing. It's not. It's called believing in something. What do the Democrats believe in? I guess we just have to ask the fickle public to find out the answer to that, though those answers may change tomorrow.
Sir, your problem is this - you "hate democrats" in one hand, for not en masse standing against going into Iraq, while in your other hand, would "hate democrats" if they did stand en masse in going into Iraq...........

Can't have it both ways... Seems you should also "hate" the Republican Majority for those years for going along as well....

Do you hate them as well?
I hate the Democrats for not standing for anything besides telling the public what they think it wants to hear. They vote by licking their fingers and sticking it up in the air. Gutless wonders, the majority of them.

If they had been against Iraq from the beginning I may not have agreed with them but at least I could have respected their position. Their flip-flopping on the issue then claiming it was all because of the tricksy, tricksy Bush admin is pitiful though.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So the Dems were hornswoggled by Bush?

What does that say about the Democrats that they allowed Bush to fool them?
Jhhnn just summed it up in his post... Either a supporter, or a traitor....

The Democrats were stupid.... Stupid in the idea that the President had the best intentions in mind for the United States after 9-11.....
So the Democrats aren't smart enough to deflect a little name calling?

I'll tell you exactly what the problem with the Democrats voting for the AUMF was. They were following prevailing public opinion, like they always do. The Democrats are poll prostitutes and have been for years. The majority supported the invasion; so did the Dems. They didn't ask questions. They didn't search for answers. They didn't have their own platform or any unity on the issue and they didn't bother to check the facts for themselves. And when public opinion on the war changed, so did the Democrats.

Sorry, but THAT'S why I hate the Dems. They have no stomache, no balls, no fortitude...nothing. They are a bunch of pandering pansies. At least the GOP, which I don't really support either but have a more favorable opinion of, can make a decision and stick to it.

People in here act as if "staying the course" is a bad thing. It's not. It's called believing in something. What do the Democrats believe in? I guess we just have to ask the fickle public to find out the answer to that, though those answers may change tomorrow.
Sir, your problem is this - you "hate democrats" in one hand, for not en masse standing against going into Iraq, while in your other hand, would "hate democrats" if they did stand en masse in going into Iraq...........

Can't have it both ways... Seems you should also "hate" the Republican Majority for those years for going along as well....

Do you hate them as well?
I hate the Democrats for not standing for anything besides telling the public what they think it wants to hear. They vote by licking their fingers and sticking it up in the air. Gutless wonders, the majority of them.

If they had been against Iraq from the beginning I may not have agreed with them but at least I could have respected their position. Their flip-flopping on the issue then claiming it was all because of the tricksy, tricksy Bush admin is pitiful though.
Then start YOUR own thread about that so the rest of us can ignore your ignorant ramblings.
 

Stoneburner

Diamond Member
May 29, 2003
3,491
0
76
Some people are letting the dems off too easy. The republicans threw up far more fecal matter when Clinton was pushing for involvement in the balkans. The truth is, while there was some questioning of their patriotism, if they had remained united they could have overcome that easily. No, the truth is that they made the classic political decision. Allow the war to occur. If it goes well, then say you supported it. If it goes badly, t hen say the other side failed miserably. They thought they had a win/win proposition.

This isn't all dems but it applies to many of them, including, but not limited to, johan kerry, hillary clinton, johan edwards... pretty much most of the jackasses running for president.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,487
4,160
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So the Dems were hornswoggled by Bush?

What does that say about the Democrats that they allowed Bush to fool them?
Jhhnn just summed it up in his post... Either a supporter, or a traitor....

The Democrats were stupid.... Stupid in the idea that the President had the best intentions in mind for the United States after 9-11.....
So the Democrats aren't smart enough to deflect a little name calling?

I'll tell you exactly what the problem with the Democrats voting for the AUMF was. They were following prevailing public opinion, like they always do. The Democrats are poll prostitutes and have been for years. The majority supported the invasion; so did the Dems. They didn't ask questions. They didn't search for answers. They didn't have their own platform or any unity on the issue and they didn't bother to check the facts for themselves. And when public opinion on the war changed, so did the Democrats.

Sorry, but THAT'S why I hate the Dems. They have no stomache, no balls, no fortitude...nothing. They are a bunch of pandering pansies. At least the GOP, which I don't really support either but have a more favorable opinion of, can make a decision and stick to it.

People in here act as if "staying the course" is a bad thing. It's not. It's called believing in something. What do the Democrats believe in? I guess we just have to ask the fickle public to find out the answer to that, though those answers may change tomorrow.
Sir, your problem is this - you "hate democrats" in one hand, for not en masse standing against going into Iraq, while in your other hand, would "hate democrats" if they did stand en masse in going into Iraq...........

Can't have it both ways... Seems you should also "hate" the Republican Majority for those years for going along as well....

Do you hate them as well?
I hate the Democrats for not standing for anything besides telling the public what they think it wants to hear. They vote by licking their fingers and sticking it up in the air. Gutless wonders, the majority of them.

If they had been against Iraq from the beginning I may not have agreed with them but at least I could have respected their position. Their flip-flopping on the issue then claiming it was all because of the tricksy, tricksy Bush admin is pitiful though.
I couldn't agree more. The Democratic party is filled with a bunch of turdball cowards and they make me sick to my stomach. Of course that's because they remind me of how I also played along when I was made to feel worthless. I hate myself for caving in although I had to.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
First, any analysis of Rove is incomplete with mentioning the fact that Rove is somewhat a brilliant slice and dice political analyst in his own right. A somewhat cynical and Machiavellian strategist willing to using any means to get to that magic 50.1 % of the electorate. Were the means used just confined to brilliant analysis of changing demographic patters and how to craft political candidates positions to maximum advantage, Karl Rove would not be the subject of this thread. But the problem is Karl will use any means including dirty tricks, whisper campaigns, and will stop at nothing to win.

In a civilized society, as long as one stops just short of things that will end up resulting in jail time, there is some element of cult legend rakishness that results with the in your face we won you lost because I stop at nothing. And the other side is just supposed to suck it up and keep their revilement of Rove to themselves.

The problem is, when GWB&co. try to export their Rovian ideas overseas to the less civilized parts of the world, their all it takes is 50.1 % to govern ideas get met with a
violent opposition. And then this whole in your face Karl Rove type idea flops flatter
than a pancake. And only when there is consensus and compromise can you govern, is an idea someone like Karl Rove instantly poisons.
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,501
1
81
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: cliftonite
Its amazing how this has evolved to a Clinton discussion.
Diversion is Chicken's forte.
Using Clinton to divert attention from GWB's war may be the strategy we will be seeing in the next 12 months.

But all has to be done to deal with this is go to the video tapes. Everything GWB and company said to justify the war in on record.

BTW, Bush, not Clinton, invaded Iraq right?
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Using Clinton to divert attention from GWB's war may be the strategy we will be seeing in the next 12 months.
With Bill out speaking for Hillary so often now, it wouldn't be too difficult. He's giving plenty of ammunition and his past is a target of epic proportions.

But all has to be done to deal with this is go to the video tapes. Everything GWB and company said to justify the war in on record.
But, unfortunately for Bill and his kool-aid sippers, his words are all on tape too.

 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,501
1
81
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Using Clinton to divert attention from GWB's war may be the strategy we will be seeing in the next 12 months.
With Bill out speaking for Hillary so often now, it wouldn't be too difficult. He's giving plenty of ammunition and his past is a target of epic proportions.

But all has to be done to deal with this is go to the video tapes. Everything GWB and company said to justify the war in on record.
But, unfortunately for Bill and his kool-aid sippers, his words are all on tape too.
Jumping up and down and shouting Bill Clinton is not going to change the fact Bush invaded Iraq.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,487
4,160
126
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Using Clinton to divert attention from GWB's war may be the strategy we will be seeing in the next 12 months.
With Bill out speaking for Hillary so often now, it wouldn't be too difficult. He's giving plenty of ammunition and his past is a target of epic proportions.

But all has to be done to deal with this is go to the video tapes. Everything GWB and company said to justify the war in on record.
But, unfortunately for Bill and his kool-aid sippers, his words are all on tape too.
Which is why we know it's accurate that Bill opposed the current war.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Using Clinton to divert attention from GWB's war may be the strategy we will be seeing in the next 12 months.
With Bill out speaking for Hillary so often now, it wouldn't be too difficult. He's giving plenty of ammunition and his past is a target of epic proportions.

But all has to be done to deal with this is go to the video tapes. Everything GWB and company said to justify the war in on record.
But, unfortunately for Bill and his kool-aid sippers, his words are all on tape too.
Jumping up and down and shouting Bill Clinton is not going to change the fact Bush invaded Iraq.
It's not going to change the fact that Bush got a big thumbs up to do so from the vast majority of Dems in Congress at the time as well.
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,501
1
81
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Using Clinton to divert attention from GWB's war may be the strategy we will be seeing in the next 12 months.
With Bill out speaking for Hillary so often now, it wouldn't be too difficult. He's giving plenty of ammunition and his past is a target of epic proportions.

But all has to be done to deal with this is go to the video tapes. Everything GWB and company said to justify the war in on record.
But, unfortunately for Bill and his kool-aid sippers, his words are all on tape too.
Jumping up and down and shouting Bill Clinton is not going to change the fact Bush invaded Iraq.
It's not going to change the fact that Bush got a big thumbs up to do so from the vast majority of Dems in Congress at the time as well.
IIRC, Mr Bush actively sold this war. He and his staff told everyone that Iraq had WMDs and was a threat to the US's security. They backed these statements with Intel. I have heard that this Intel was cherry picked, gotten from questionable sources, faulty, etc.




 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Using Clinton to divert attention from GWB's war may be the strategy we will be seeing in the next 12 months.
With Bill out speaking for Hillary so often now, it wouldn't be too difficult. He's giving plenty of ammunition and his past is a target of epic proportions.

But all has to be done to deal with this is go to the video tapes. Everything GWB and company said to justify the war in on record.
But, unfortunately for Bill and his kool-aid sippers, his words are all on tape too.
Jumping up and down and shouting Bill Clinton is not going to change the fact Bush invaded Iraq.
It's not going to change the fact that Bush got a big thumbs up to do so from the vast majority of Dems in Congress at the time as well.
IIRC, Mr Bush actively sold this war. He and his staff told everyone that Iraq had WMDs and was a threat to the US's security. They backed these statements with Intel. I have heard that this Intel was cherry picked, gotten from questionable sources, faulty, etc.
You've heard?

You can't sell something without willing buyers. As Stoner observed, the Dems thought signing off on the AUMF was a win/win situation for them. It backfired on them like so many of their little political games have.

OMFG! I just agreed with Stoner. Well, icewater for everyone in here. It's on me.
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,501
1
81
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Using Clinton to divert attention from GWB's war may be the strategy we will be seeing in the next 12 months.
With Bill out speaking for Hillary so often now, it wouldn't be too difficult. He's giving plenty of ammunition and his past is a target of epic proportions.

But all has to be done to deal with this is go to the video tapes. Everything GWB and company said to justify the war in on record.
But, unfortunately for Bill and his kool-aid sippers, his words are all on tape too.
Jumping up and down and shouting Bill Clinton is not going to change the fact Bush invaded Iraq.
It's not going to change the fact that Bush got a big thumbs up to do so from the vast majority of Dems in Congress at the time as well.
IIRC, Mr Bush actively sold this war. He and his staff told everyone that Iraq had WMDs and was a threat to the US's security. They backed these statements with Intel. I have heard that this Intel was cherry picked, gotten from questionable sources, faulty, etc.
You've heard?

You can't sell something without willing buyers. As Stoner observed, the Dems thought signing off on the AUMF was a win/win situation for them. It backfired on them like so many of their little political games have.

OMFG! I just agreed with Stoner. Well, icewater for everyone in here. It's on me.
I can't wait to see how this "Clinton and Congress Democrats believed GWB about Iraq so the war is their fault" line is going to work with the voters next year.

It sounds like BS to me.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Then start YOUR own thread about that so the rest of us can ignore your ignorant ramblings.
Hypocrite
I'm sorry, I'm not wasting my valuable time clicking on your link to try and figure out what your infering. If you have something to say (other then your usal lies and half-truths) then say it, otherwise STFU.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Which is why we know it's accurate that Bill opposed the current war.
No, Moonie, it's both inaccurate and flat-out wrong.

Let me direct your attention to a little-known piece Bill wrote in The Guardian (ya know, that liberal rag that tried to get Kerry elected by purchasing votes?) from March 18, 2003.

Bill Clinton: Trust Tony's Judgement

Now let me highlight:

As Blair has said, in war there will be civilian was well as military casualties. There is, too, as both Britain and America agree, some risk of Saddam using or transferring his weapons to terrorists. There is as well the possibility that more angry young Muslims can be recruited to terrorism. But if we leave Iraq with chemical and biological weapons, after 12 years of defiance, there is a considerable risk that one day these weapons will fall into the wrong hands and put many more lives at risk than will be lost in overthrowing Saddam.

And let's lookie here...

Bill Clinton Defends Successor's Push For War

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.

Enjoy that plate of crow, Moonie.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Using Clinton to divert attention from GWB's war may be the strategy we will be seeing in the next 12 months.
With Bill out speaking for Hillary so often now, it wouldn't be too difficult. He's giving plenty of ammunition and his past is a target of epic proportions.

But all has to be done to deal with this is go to the video tapes. Everything GWB and company said to justify the war in on record.
But, unfortunately for Bill and his kool-aid sippers, his words are all on tape too.
Jumping up and down and shouting Bill Clinton is not going to change the fact Bush invaded Iraq.
It's not going to change the fact that Bush got a big thumbs up to do so from the vast majority of Dems in Congress at the time as well.
Which doesn't change the fact that the "decider" started this unnecessary war based on "faulty" intel, that it was poorly planned, and attempted with too few personell.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Then start YOUR own thread about that so the rest of us can ignore your ignorant ramblings.
Hypocrite
I'm sorry, I'm not wasting my valuable time clicking on your link to try and figure out what your infering. If you have something to say (other then your usal lies and half-truths) then say it, otherwise STFU.
The thread on Clinton Lying.

All you did was waltz in there and babble about Bush in your usual BDS fashion, attempting your own diversion in that thread while whining about my posts in this thread.

Now, STFU hypocrite.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The thread on Clinton Lying.

All you did was waltz in there and babble about Bush in your usual BDS fashion, attempting your own diversion in that thread while whining about my posts in this thread.

Now, STFU hypocrite.
That's all he ever does. Don't feed the troll.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY