Is Karl Rove attempting to rewrite history?

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ayabe
I'm with TLC on this guys, Slick is inserting his truthiness here and he was wrong to say it the way he did, regardless of his intent.

Lately, he's been hurting Hillary and really just needs to be quiet.

So, you're saying that Clinton's statement that he was opposed to the war as it happened from the beginning was *completely* false and *completely* revisionist, not merely fudging?

If Clinton would have stated he was opposed to how we went to war instead of making the plain assertion that he was opposed to the war from the start I wouldn't have claimed he was being revisionist or that it was completely false.

This is not G-Dub making yet another stupid statement and screwing up the 'pro-noun-sayshun' of words, it's Billy Clinton. If there ever was a president and politician who understood the nuances of words and phrases it's Bill. He's famous for saying exactly what he means and doesn't make gross errors like that. What he was doing was pandering to a crowd and telling them what he thought they wanted to hear instead of the truth, which is something Bill is also famous for.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ayabe
I'm with TLC on this guys, Slick is inserting his truthiness here and he was wrong to say it the way he did, regardless of his intent.

Lately, he's been hurting Hillary and really just needs to be quiet.

So, you're saying that Clinton's statement that he was opposed to the war as it happened from the beginning was *completely* false and *completely* revisionist, not merely fudging?

Fudging/truthiness call it what you will. He is playing it a little loose with the facts and should mince his words much more carefully.

I love Bill, don't get me wrong, I just think he needs to be a lot more careful with his words, especially because Hillary is under the microscope now more than ever.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ayabe
I'm with TLC on this guys, Slick is inserting his truthiness here and he was wrong to say it the way he did, regardless of his intent.

Lately, he's been hurting Hillary and really just needs to be quiet.

So, you're saying that Clinton's statement that he was opposed to the war as it happened from the beginning was *completely* false and *completely* revisionist, not merely fudging?

Fudging/truthiness call it what you will. He is playing it a little loose with the facts and should mince his words much more carefully.

I love Bill, don't get me wrong, I just think he needs to be a lot more careful with his words, especially because Hillary is under the microscope now more than ever.

Well, you're dodging the issue - you said you are 'with TLC', and that means not just saying Clinton was not entirely accurate, it means you agree he was "completely" wrong.

That's what I was zeroing in on, and what you did not address at all in your response, merely reiterating that he was not completely accurate again.

I don't 'love Bill'; I note how Greenspan called him the best republican president in recent years, and disagree with no small part of his policies.

Look, when he expressed the need for things to do before going to war that Bush didn't do, when he said even when the pressure was high to 'support the troops' that he would not have gone to war before the inspections completed (because he wouldn't have gone to war at all if, as they would have, they came back showing there was not a threat), he has the right to say he was against (as we went to war without letting the inspections finish) the war from the beginning. For a few words, it's fair to say.

Yes, there's more to say, about how he was in favor of war IF the inspections had found a threat and diplomacy didn't work, but this is no 'no sexual relations' misleading.

If you aren't saying he was "completely" false in the statement, you aren't with TLC.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Maybe Rove and Bill Clinton should team up together to write a historical novel since Billy claims he "opposed the Iraq war from the start," which is also completely revisionist and untrue.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22004475/

Congrats on your effective diversion of the topic away from Rove and Bush onto Clinton! But check me on this, Bush not Clinton invaded Iraq right?

 

[Craig234]

nevermind this post.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ayabe
I'm with TLC on this guys, Slick is inserting his truthiness here and he was wrong to say it the way he did, regardless of his intent.

Lately, he's been hurting Hillary and really just needs to be quiet.

So, you're saying that Clinton's statement that he was opposed to the war as it happened from the beginning was *completely* false and *completely* revisionist, not merely fudging?

Fudging/truthiness call it what you will. He is playing it a little loose with the facts and should mince his words much more carefully.

I love Bill, don't get me wrong, I just think he needs to be a lot more careful with his words, especially because Hillary is under the microscope now more than ever.

Well, you're dodging the issue - you said you are 'with TLC', and that means not just saying Clinton was not entirely accurate, it means you agree he was "completely" wrong.

That's what I was zeroing in on, and what you did not address at all in your response, merely reiterating that he was not completely accurate again.

I don't 'love Bill'; I note how Greenspan called him the best republican president in recent years, and disagree with no small part of his policies.

Look, when he expressed the need for things to do before going to war that Bush didn't do, when he said even when the pressure was high to 'support the troops' that he would not have gone to war before the inspections completed (because he wouldn't have gone to war at all if, as they would have, they came back showing there was not a threat), he has the right to say he was against (as we went to war without letting the inspections finish) the war from the beginning. For a few words, it's fair to say.

Yes, there's more to say, about how he was in favor of war IF the inspections had found a threat and diplomacy didn't work, but this is no 'no sexual relations' misleading.

If you aren't saying he was "completely" false in the statement, you aren't with TLC.

I'm not interested into getting into the semantics of my degree of agreeing with TLC, we'll call it 7/8th's and leave it at that. Such diversions are truly a waste of everyone's time.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Maybe Rove and Bill Clinton should team up together to write a historical novel since Billy claims he "opposed the Iraq war from the start," which is also completely revisionist and untrue.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22004475/

Congrats on your effective diversion of the topic away from Rove and Bush onto Clinton! But check me on this, Bush not Clinton invaded Iraq right?

Despite what the hacks try to claim we all know who "the decider" was.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Maybe Rove and Bill Clinton should team up together to write a historical novel since Billy claims he "opposed the Iraq war from the start," which is also completely revisionist and untrue.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22004475/

Congrats on your effective diversion of the topic away from Rove and Bush onto Clinton! But check me on this, Bush not Clinton invaded Iraq right?

Actually my original comment was that Clinton AND Rove should team up. That seemed to pass a couple of the usual knee-jerkers by though. While they'll gladly take Rove to task they'll make apologies for Clinton's revisionism. That's far more telling about the attitude in here than my alleged diversion.

But partisan hacks will be partisan hacks to the end I suppose.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Maybe Rove and Bill Clinton should team up together to write a historical novel since Billy claims he "opposed the Iraq war from the start," which is also completely revisionist and untrue.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22004475/

Congrats on your effective diversion of the topic away from Rove and Bush onto Clinton! But check me on this, Bush not Clinton invaded Iraq right?

Actually my original comment was that Clinton AND Rove should team up. That seemed to pass a couple of the usual knee-jerkers by though. While they'll gladly take Rove to task they'll make apologies for Clinton's revisionism. That's far more telling about the attitude in here than my alleged diversion.

But I'm a partisan hack and that's what I do

QFT

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Maybe Rove and Bill Clinton should team up together to write a historical novel since Billy claims he "opposed the Iraq war from the start," which is also completely revisionist and untrue.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22004475/

Congrats on your effective diversion of the topic away from Rove and Bush onto Clinton! But check me on this, Bush not Clinton invaded Iraq right?

Actually my original comment was that Clinton AND Rove should team up. That seemed to pass a couple of the usual knee-jerkers by though. While they'll gladly take Rove to task they'll make apologies for Clinton's revisionism. That's far more telling about the attitude in here than my alleged diversion.

But I'm a partisan hack and that's what I do

QFT

Might be true. After all I voted for Clinton...both times.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Maybe Rove and Bill Clinton should team up together to write a historical novel since Billy claims he "opposed the Iraq war from the start," which is also completely revisionist and untrue.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22004475/

Congrats on your effective diversion of the topic away from Rove and Bush onto Clinton! But check me on this, Bush not Clinton invaded Iraq right?

Actually my original comment was that Clinton AND Rove should team up. That seemed to pass a couple of the usual knee-jerkers by though. While they'll gladly take Rove to task they'll make apologies for Clinton's revisionism. That's far more telling about the attitude in here than my alleged diversion.

But partisan hacks will be partisan hacks to the end I suppose.

Okay,

Congrats on your effective diversion of the topic away from Rove and Bush to Rove and Clinton.
Bush, not Clinton, invaded Iraq right?

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Maybe Rove and Bill Clinton should team up together to write a historical novel since Billy claims he "opposed the Iraq war from the start," which is also completely revisionist and untrue.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22004475/

Congrats on your effective diversion of the topic away from Rove and Bush onto Clinton! But check me on this, Bush not Clinton invaded Iraq right?

Actually my original comment was that Clinton AND Rove should team up. That seemed to pass a couple of the usual knee-jerkers by though. While they'll gladly take Rove to task they'll make apologies for Clinton's revisionism. That's far more telling about the attitude in here than my alleged diversion.

But I'm a partisan hack and that's what I do

QFT

Might be true. After all I voted for Clinton...both times.

3rd times the charm

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Maybe Rove and Bill Clinton should team up together to write a historical novel since Billy claims he "opposed the Iraq war from the start," which is also completely revisionist and untrue.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22004475/

Congrats on your effective diversion of the topic away from Rove and Bush onto Clinton! But check me on this, Bush not Clinton invaded Iraq right?

Actually my original comment was that Clinton AND Rove should team up. That seemed to pass a couple of the usual knee-jerkers by though. While they'll gladly take Rove to task they'll make apologies for Clinton's revisionism. That's far more telling about the attitude in here than my alleged diversion.

But partisan hacks will be partisan hacks to the end I suppose.

Okay,

Congrats on your effective diversion of the topic away from Rove and Bush to Rove and Clinton.
Bush, not Clinton, invaded Iraq right?

Title of the OP: Is Karl Rove attempting to rewrite history?

Whether Bush or Clinton invaded Iraq is not really the issue. The issue is rewriting the history of the action.

That's not to mention that when a Clinton subject is posted in here it doesn't take long for the b...b...but Bush-ers to rush in headlong and divert. Let's not forget it happens when Kerry is brought up as well. So welcome to a taste of the same medicine dished out frequently in here. Apparently it doesn't go down as smoothly when the other side has to swallow a dose of it.

 

[cliftonite]

Its amazing how this has evolved to a Clinton discussion.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: cliftonite
Its amazing how this has evolved to a Clinton discussion.

Easily solved, from the OP's Whitehouse link:

THE PRESIDENT: I'm confident a lot of Democrats here in Washington, D.C. will understand that Saddam is a true threat to America. And I look forward to working with them to get a strong resolution passed.

Prime Minister Blair, first of all, is a very strong leader, and I admire his willingness to tell the truth and to lead. Secondly, he has -- continues to make the case, like we make the case, that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace; that for 11 years he has deceived the world. For 11 years, he's ignored the United Nations, and for 11 years he has stockpiled weapons. And we shouldn't deceive ourselves about this man. He has poisoned his people before. He has poisoned his neighborhood. He is willing to use weapons of mass destruction. And the Prime Minister continues to make the case, and so will I.

And I again call for the United Nations to pass a strong resolution holding this man to account. And if they're unable to do so, the United States and our friends will act, because we believe in peace; we want to keep the peace. We don't trust this man -- and that's what the Blair report showed today.

The reason why it wasn't specific is because -- I understand why -- he's not going to reveal sources and methods of collection of sensitive information. Those sources and methods may be -- will be used later on, I'm confident, as we gather more information about how this man has deceived the world.

So who was decieving who?

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Balt
If they repeat it enough times, the American people will believe it.

exactly.

like obi-wan said: "who's the more foolish? the fool, or the fool who follows him?"

 

[First]

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.

 

[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?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ayabe
I'm with TLC on this guys, Slick is inserting his truthiness here and he was wrong to say it the way he did, regardless of his intent.

Lately, he's been hurting Hillary and really just needs to be quiet.

So, you're saying that Clinton's statement that he was opposed to the war as it happened from the beginning was *completely* false and *completely* revisionist, not merely fudging?

Fudging/truthiness call it what you will. He is playing it a little loose with the facts and should mince his words much more carefully.

I love Bill, don't get me wrong, I just think he needs to be a lot more careful with his words, especially because Hillary is under the microscope now more than ever.

Well, you're dodging the issue - you said you are 'with TLC', and that means not just saying Clinton was not entirely accurate, it means you agree he was "completely" wrong.

That's what I was zeroing in on, and what you did not address at all in your response, merely reiterating that he was not completely accurate again.

I don't 'love Bill'; I note how Greenspan called him the best republican president in recent years, and disagree with no small part of his policies.

Look, when he expressed the need for things to do before going to war that Bush didn't do, when he said even when the pressure was high to 'support the troops' that he would not have gone to war before the inspections completed (because he wouldn't have gone to war at all if, as they would have, they came back showing there was not a threat), he has the right to say he was against (as we went to war without letting the inspections finish) the war from the beginning. For a few words, it's fair to say.

Yes, there's more to say, about how he was in favor of war IF the inspections had found a threat and diplomacy didn't work, but this is no 'no sexual relations' misleading.

If you aren't saying he was "completely" false in the statement, you aren't with TLC.

I'm not interested into getting into the semantics of my degree of agreeing with TLC, we'll call it 7/8th's and leave it at that. Such diversions are truly a waste of everyone's time.

No, they're not, but you don't seem to care about the accuracy of your remarks, which is pretty ironic considering you're attacking Clinton for a smaller inaccuracy than your own.

How funny is it to say Clinton is guilty of such a terrible "completely false" statement, when your own greater inaccuracy than his is 'semantics of your degree', a waste of time?

 

[First]

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?

lmao. Yes, I'm well aware that Clinton has made some contradictory statements. Unfortunately for you and your transparent agenda, that has zilch to do with Karl Rove or this thread.

 

[Craig234]

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?

Rove is telling a bald-faced lie completely contradicting the fact that the administration pushed the resolution when it did, wanting the pressure of the election to twist arms.

Clinton accurately said he had opposed the war - the war without the inspections completing to confirm the need for it.

That's accurate, regardless of whether he would have approved a war in some circumstances or not; he opposed the war as it happened, which is the statement he made.

The two are not at all comparable, and your lie is to equate things not equal.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Craig234

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?

Rove is telling a bald-faced lie completely contradicting the fact that the administration pushed the resolution when it did, wanting the pressure of the election to twist arms.

Clinton accurately said he had opposed the war - the war without the inspections completing to confirm the need for it.

That's accurate, regardless of whether he would have approved a war in some circumstances or not; he opposed the war as it happened, which is the statement he made.

The two are not at all comparable, and your lie is to equate things not equal.

Woohoo. Circular arguments FTW.

Your attempt at apologising for Clinton has already been addressed and discarded and trying to insert caveats where Clinton did not is just plain foolish.

 

[Jhhnn]

Of course Rove is attempting to revise history- it's what he and the admin have done every inch of the way, from conflating Iraq and wmd's with al qaeda and terrar to freeing the iraqi people to not being able to just leave the mess they created in the first place. The rationale for war and occupation has taken on the appearance of a kaleidoscope- just spin it to get a different picture...

The truth is that Bush and the repubs used 9/11, the greatest political windfall since pearl harbor, as a well planned and timed bludgeon against the Dems in the 2002 midterm elections, and to get their war resolution. Anybody who didn't vote for the resolution was immediately branded a terrarist coddler, sympathizer, traitor, or worse... The Whitehouse leaned on Congress mercilessly to get the authorization, and they did, even as they made assurances behind the scenes that it was really only intended to pressure the Iraqis...

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

So the Dems were hornswoggled by Bush?

What does that say about the Democrats that they allowed Bush to fool them?

 

[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.....