• 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 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Originally posted by: Pabster
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.
The only one to eat that plate of crow is you, Pabster.

Clinton did always say that WMD could be a threat that needed to be dealt with - but he only was in favor of inspections to confirm the threat BEFORE any war, and political efforts to address the issue before any war - he was against going to war before those things happened, while going to war before they happened was Bush's policy - Bush kicked the inspectors out of Iraq to get out of the way of the invasion, while Hans Blix had said they'd be done in a few months.

Clinton saying that ignoring the WMD threat created a risk is not Clinton saying he supported this war - the article you link says quite the opposite.

Clinton's statements in the article are aimed primarily at praise for Blair's attempts to AVOID war by further using the UN and inspections - the opposite of what Bush did.

Clinton does lay the blame largely at the feet of Russia and France for threatening a veto of Blair's resolution, but nonetheless he was for the resolution and against the war.

He acknowledges that Blair had to make the tough choice to stand with the US, and encourages people offer support for Blair's tough choice - while having wanted ot avoid war.

You claim Clinton supported the war - here's what your article says, Clinton's comments who those who were in favor of war:

In the face of the foot dragging, hawks in America have been pushing for an immediate attack on Iraq. Some of them want regime change for reasons other than disarmament, and, therefore, they have discredited the inspection process from the beginning; they did not want it to succeed. Because military action probably will require only a few days, they believe the world community will quickly unite on rebuilding Iraq as soon as Saddam is deposed.
He's clearly not in agreement with them.

Here's some more from the article you left out:

Once again, Blair stepped into the breach, with a last-ditch proposal to restore unity to the UN and disarm Saddam without military action. He secured US support for a new UN resolution that would require Saddam to meet dead lines, within a reasonable time, in four important areas, including accounting for his biological and chemical weapons and allowing Iraqi scientists to leave the country for interviews. Under the proposed resolution, failure to comply with this deadline would justify the use of force to depose Saddam.

Russia and France opposed this resolution and said they would veto it, because inspections are proceeding, weapons are being destroyed and there is therefore no need for a force ultimatum. Essentially they have decided Iraq presents no threat even if it never disarms, at least as long as inspectors are there.

The veto threat did not help the diplomacy. It's too bad, because if a majority of the security council had adopted the Blair approach, Saddam would have had no room for further evasion and he still might have disarmed without invasion and bloodshed. Now, it appears that force will be used to disarm and depose him.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Geez,

We've already got a thread on B. Clinton's revisions, you guys should take it over there. This is the Rove thread.

I heard the Rove clip on TV last night. Strikes me as really wierd. He's saying Congress passed the legislation faster than the Admin wanted?

Ummm... My recollection is that both Houses were controlled by Repubs at that time. What could possibly be his point in making that assertion?

Moreover, nothing in that legislation compelled GWB to set a timetable for invasion. Seems to me if he wanted to wait, he could easily have done so. I don't get it?

I'd like to hear Rove himself better/more fully explain what the h3ll he's talking about.

Up til now we've rarely heard directly from Rove. Mostly been Dem claims that he's an evil genius.

They (Dems) were so completely outfoxed by this turdblossum? Good Lord!

IMO, it's about time they (Dems) stopped blaming their lack of success at anything on such "evil genius's" as GWB and Rove and did a little self-analysis. The constant whinning about not being able to win due to "cheating" by these "evil genius's" is beyong lame.

When you're constantly getting "outsmarted" by the likes of these, you need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Fern
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Originally posted by: Fern
Geez,

We've already got a thread on B. Clinton's revisions, you guys should take it over there. This is the Rove thread.

I heard the Rove clip on TV last night. Strikes me as really wierd. He's saying Congress passed the legislation faster than the Admin wanted?

Ummm... My recollection is that both Houses were controlled by Repubs at that time. What could possibly be his point in making that assertion?

Moreover, nothing in that legislation compelled GWB to set a timetable for invasion. Seems to me if he wanted to wait, he could easily have done so. I don't get it?

I'd like to hear Rove himself better/more fully explain what the h3ll he's talking about.

Up til now we've rarely heard directly from Rove. Mostly been Dem claims that he's an evil genius.

They (Dems) were so completely outfoxed by this turdblossum? Good Lord!

IMO, it's about time they (Dems) stopped blaming their lack of success at anything on such "evil genius's" as GWB and Rove and did a little self-analysis. The constant whinning about not being able to win due to "cheating" by these "evil genius's" is beyong lame.

When you're constantly getting "outsmarted" by the likes of these, you need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Fern
I don't give Rove much credit other than for being willing to use some of the worst tactics, from push polling lies to selling out the public for donations in especially shameless ways.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Fern
Geez,

We've already got a thread on B. Clinton's revisions, you guys should take it over there. This is the Rove thread.

I heard the Rove clip on TV last night. Strikes me as really wierd. He's saying Congress passed the legislation faster than the Admin wanted?

Ummm... My recollection is that both Houses were controlled by Repubs at that time. What could possibly be his point in making that assertion?

Moreover, nothing in that legislation compelled GWB to set a timetable for invasion. Seems to me if he wanted to wait, he could easily have done so. I don't get it?

I'd like to hear Rove himself better/more fully explain what the h3ll he's talking about.

Up til now we've rarely heard directly from Rove. Mostly been Dem claims that he's an evil genius.

They (Dems) were so completely outfoxed by this turdblossum? Good Lord!

IMO, it's about time they (Dems) stopped blaming their lack of success at anything on such "evil genius's" as GWB and Rove and did a little self-analysis. The constant whinning about not being able to win due to "cheating" by these "evil genius's" is beyong lame.

When you're constantly getting "outsmarted" by the likes of these, you need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Fern
I posted about Bill's revisions in this thread yesterday before the other thread was created.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,531
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Fern
Geez,

We've already got a thread on B. Clinton's revisions, you guys should take it over there. This is the Rove thread.

I heard the Rove clip on TV last night. Strikes me as really wierd. He's saying Congress passed the legislation faster than the Admin wanted?

Ummm... My recollection is that both Houses were controlled by Repubs at that time. What could possibly be his point in making that assertion?

Moreover, nothing in that legislation compelled GWB to set a timetable for invasion. Seems to me if he wanted to wait, he could easily have done so. I don't get it?

I'd like to hear Rove himself better/more fully explain what the h3ll he's talking about.

Up til now we've rarely heard directly from Rove. Mostly been Dem claims that he's an evil genius.

They (Dems) were so completely outfoxed by this turdblossum? Good Lord!

IMO, it's about time they (Dems) stopped blaming their lack of success at anything on such "evil genius's" as GWB and Rove and did a little self-analysis. The constant whinning about not being able to win due to "cheating" by these "evil genius's" is beyong lame.

When you're constantly getting "outsmarted" by the likes of these, you need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Fern
I diverted from the topic and posted about Bill's revisions in this thread yesterday before the other thread was created.
Fixed for the truth.

 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Craig, Bill said "Trust Tony's Judgement". We know what Tony's judgement was. And Bill supported it.

Amazing that the Clintons still have so many defenders after so long. "Kool Aid Drinker" isn't a strong enough term to describe you folks.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,531
3
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Craig, Bill said "Trust Tony's Judgement". We know what Tony's judgement was. And Bill supported it.

Amazing that the Clintons still have so many defenders after so long. "Kool Aid Drinker" isn't a strong enough term to describe you folks.
Well after 7 years of the incompetent Retch you still support Bill looks like a great President and the nation longs for a Great President

 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Craig, Bill said "Trust Tony's Judgement". We know what Tony's judgement was. And Bill supported it.

Amazing that the Clintons still have so many defenders after so long. "Kool Aid Drinker" isn't a strong enough term to describe you folks.
Its amazing that a partisan thread regarding Karl Rove suddenly turns into a rant against Bill
Clinton.

What is triply mazing is that suddenly someone like Pabster could accuse Bill Clinton Kool Aid as poisonous while ignoring the total poison force fed us by GWB&co.

Lets compare Bill Clinton and the GWB&co. Kral Rove helped bring about.

Bill Clinton worked with congress on a bi partisan basis and left office with a budget slight surplus and the country at peace. And respected in the world. But horror of horrors, Bill Clinton got a BJ.

In just one short year, GWB&co. turned that budget towards the red and has now racked up 3.2 trillion in debt, has proved to be a divider and not a uniter, has run the international reputation of the USA into the sewer, the entire US economy now appears headed towards crisis, and now the value of the dollar is falling against all major currencies. Of course we should mention the quagmire in Iraq GWB &Rove helped lie their way into, and the phony war on terror that creates more terrorists than it fights.

And Pabster say Bill Clinton Kool Aid is poison???????????

Apparently too much GWB&co. Kool Aid has left Pabster brain dead and totally disconnected from reality.

Now lets see, where we? Oh yes, I remember, this thread is about Karl Rove who was more or less forced to resign his white house position because of suspected involvement in the Plame outing and the all to real ILLEGAL partisan manipulations of the Justice Department that may net him some jail time when the facts come out.

But as usual, other people pay the price for Karl Rove manipulations. And did I forget to mention, Karl Rove worked for GHB, and GHB had the good sense to fire Karl Rove before
he could get the rest of his campaign staff at each others throats.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Fern
Geez,

We've already got a thread on B. Clinton's revisions, you guys should take it over there. This is the Rove thread.

I heard the Rove clip on TV last night. Strikes me as really wierd. He's saying Congress passed the legislation faster than the Admin wanted?

Ummm... My recollection is that both Houses were controlled by Repubs at that time. What could possibly be his point in making that assertion?

Moreover, nothing in that legislation compelled GWB to set a timetable for invasion. Seems to me if he wanted to wait, he could easily have done so. I don't get it?

I'd like to hear Rove himself better/more fully explain what the h3ll he's talking about.

Up til now we've rarely heard directly from Rove. Mostly been Dem claims that he's an evil genius.

They (Dems) were so completely outfoxed by this turdblossum? Good Lord!

IMO, it's about time they (Dems) stopped blaming their lack of success at anything on such "evil genius's" as GWB and Rove and did a little self-analysis. The constant whinning about not being able to win due to "cheating" by these "evil genius's" is beyong lame.

When you're constantly getting "outsmarted" by the likes of these, you need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Fern
I diverted from the topic and posted about Bill's revisions in this thread yesterday before the other thread was created.
Fixed for the truth.
The next tiem you get all bent out of shape about one of the BDSers spewing b...b...but Bush in a thread about Clinton you might actually be taken seriously. But your own partisan hackery doesn't allow you to make that leap.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Originally posted by: Pabster
Craig, Bill said "Trust Tony's Judgement". We know what Tony's judgement was. And Bill supported it.

Amazing that the Clintons still have so many defenders after so long. "Kool Aid Drinker" isn't a strong enough term to describe you folks.
Nice try to lie about the issue by misrepresenting what Clinton was saying with an out of context quote.

It's been explained to you over and over - and the kool aid comment is a joke from you.

Clinton saw that the issue of Iraq and WMD needed to be dealt with by inspections to confirm the level of threat, and to use the info to get rid of the threat, to try to avoid war.

Blair was in favor of a resolution to push the inspections, and not to go to war.

Clinton supported the threat of force resolution for the reason Bush said he needed it, for leverage for inspection - not for war but to avoid war.

Note - Clinton against war.

Then, when Bush broke his word to use the resolution for peaceful purposes, for inspections and instead ordered the inspectors out so he could invade, that wasn't Clinton's choice.

And as Clinton said, it wasn't Blair's choice. Blair was faced with not getting what he wanted - avoiding war - but rather preserving or breaking the British-US relationship of the British backing the US in the US's decision, and Clinton told them to trust Blair's decision which of those two choices, neither of which were their choice, to do. Clinton was against the war. He wanted Bush not to invade and let the inspectors inspect. Bush did not do that.

I'm not a big fan of Bill Clinton. I like some of what he does, such as his recent push for helping the poor, and oppose a lot of what he did as president.

The point here is the lie of Rove - and the lie you are telling.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
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.
LOL, you dumb asses think your BDS bullshit means something?? You intentionally diverted this whole topic and are still trying to do so, so why don't YOU STFU and stop bringing up what Bill Clinton did or didn't do because he's not our President and if he was he would be impeached for doing the shit Bush has pulled. Now kindly fuck off you miserable excuse for a person.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Maybe Karl Rove is just providing us some Baghdad Bob style amusement. He sounds about as ridiculous.
He can't hold a candle to BB!
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
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.
LOL, you dumb asses think your BDS bullshit means something?? You intentionally diverted this whole topic and are still trying to do so, so why don't YOU STFU and stop bringing up what Bill Clinton did or didn't do because he's not our President and if he was he would be impeached for doing the shit Bush has pulled. Now kindly fuck off you miserable excuse for a person.
Man up Mr. Hypocrite and stop acting like some little whiney wench. If you want to dish it out then you damn well better be prepared to take it.

Now open wide and swallow.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
5
81
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Interesting comments by Rove, not sure how he can defend that action when it's not backed by anything historically identifiable. Oh well.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Rove was wrong too.
These 4 words have been the extent of the relevant contribution you've provided in this thread. A light bulb should be going off in your head right about now; the type of epiphany that should make you realize that, in fact, Bill Clinton has nothing to do with Karl Rove.
But they both have to do with rewriting history on Iraq recently. Why you can't figure that out is beyond me.

Mayhaps the bulb in your head has burned out?
From Clinton's quotes, we can see that he clearly made statements, prior to the invasion, expressing opposition to invading. And he also made statements, after the invasion had begun, saying he agreed with the invasion. If he now says he opposed the invasion "from the start," the truth of that statement can be argued, depending on what "from the start" means. But the statement isn't clearly false. It's ambiguous. Calling this "historical revisionism" is a pretty large overstatement. What Bill did is fudge.

Contrast this with Rove's statement, that Bush was pushed into war prematurely because Congress passed the resolution, against the Administration's wishes. This statement is undeniably, completely, utterly, indefensibly false. There's are no nuanced statements - in the period prior to the when the resolution passed - from anyone in the Administration saying they'd prefer it not be passed at that time. To compare Rove's complete lie - there's no other word for it - to Clinton's ambiguous statement/fudge, is intellectually dishonest in the extreme. Or it's just plain dishonest. In fact, I'd call TLC's distortion here a FAR worse lie than Clinton's fudge.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Uhh, OK. I never claimed that one was or was not worse than the other but if you want to take the splitting hairs approach and argue by degrees to build some straw man against me, help yourself.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
I'm not a big fan of Bill Clinton.
Right. Well, then, you must be getting a nice paycheck. Because you sure spend an awful lot of time defending him...

Say what you will, Craig. It isn't like you'd ever admit Slick or Hildabeast did anything wrong in the slightest. The record is there for anyone to peruse and they can make up their own mind.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,531
3
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Craig234
I'm not a big fan of Bill Clinton.
Right. Well, then, you must be getting a nice paycheck. Because you sure spend an awful lot of time defending him...

Say what you will, Craig. It isn't like you'd ever admit Slick or Hildabeast did anything wrong in the slightest. The record is there for anyone to peruse and they can make up their own mind.
And in comparison to the Bush Presidency it's like a breath of fresh air.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Craig234
I'm not a big fan of Bill Clinton.
Right. Well, then, you must be getting a nice paycheck. Because you sure spend an awful lot of time defending him...

Say what you will, Craig. It isn't like you'd ever admit Slick or Hildabeast did anything wrong in the slightest. The record is there for anyone to peruse and they can make up their own mind.
You know, I could have to defend Hitler, as evil as he is, when he's attacked by people who can even be unfair to him.

Accuse Hitler of eating babies and invading Grenada, and I have to say "no, he didn't do that".

You are the sort of fanatic who forces me to defend those I'm used to criticizing, Pabster.

And for your next lie, they're countless and endless, I've criticized a number of things the Clintons have done, especially Bill.

For a few examples, most of his domestic agenda, other than the tax increase for the top 2%: the telecommunications act, NAFTA, too much an attack on welfare, some pardons.

He did not do enough 'liberal', in my view, albeit with his actions limited by the republican congress for 6 years.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY