Rove: "Congress Pushed Bush into Iraq War Prematurely"

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Astounding!

You are not going to believe this, well, actually you will... According to Karl Rove (on Charlie Rose), the Bush Administration did not want Congress to vote on the Iraq War resolution in the fall of 2002, because they thought it should not be done within the context of an election. Rove, you see, did not think the war vote should be "political".

Moreover, according to Rove, that "premature vote" led to many of the problems that cropped up in the Iraq War. Had Congress not pushed, he says, Bush could have spent more time assembling a coalition, and provided more time to the inspectors.

If you are like me, you have stopped reading/listening, and are rushing to get your anti-emetic.

It is worth remembering that the Senate in the fall of 2002 was controlled, barely, by Democrats. Get it? George Bush, we are being told, wanted to delay, wanted to hold back, wanted to take the time to build a coalition and let the inspectors finish their job, but that damn Congress just pushed him into it. George Bush, you see, is a careful, prudent, leader, deeply concerned about the consequences of premature.

Get it? If Biden, Clinton, Dodd or Edwards is part of the Democratic ticket, the Republicans will run a campaign charging the Senate Democrats with rushing to judgment, of pushing the poor President to premature...(well, you fill in the blank)....

Not that Iraq is that big of an issue. Rove claims that, if Iraq had been a big issue, that Joe Lieberman, who was pro-war, could not have won in Connecticut, defeating receiving more Democratic, Independent and Republican votes than any of his opponents.

I have purposefully NOT provided the (obvious) answers to his claims because to answer is to give him control of the argument. That's Rove's tactic, and I have written about that many times in these pages.

Instead, this should be used as a trigger to talk about Rove's history of dissembling, how that is reflected in the Bush Administration's entire approach to public policy and public information. Bush, through Rove, should be attacked for trying to escape responsibility and accountability. And, it will help to make some historical references to rulers whose tenure was so dismal that they could not allow historians to provide objective analyses, and thus try to write the history themselves.

As might have been predicted, Rove raises "historical revisionism" to new depths, what may become known as "hysterical Rovisionism."

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 538 • Replies: 12

No top replies

Of course, that is exactly how I remember it happening.

The cautious words spoken on the Sunday News Shows by the Bush Administration officials being completely cast aside by a blood thirsty Democratic Congress.

The President pleading for more time in the State of the Union Speech.

The lack of any drumbeat for war in any of the media.

Ah yes, I remember it well.

Joe(I also have a head wound)Nation

0 Replies

Q and A at a photo-op by President Bush, Sept. 19, 2002:
Q Mr. President, are you going to send Congress your proposed resolution today? And are you asking for a blank check, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: I am sending suggested language for a resolution. I want -- I've asked for Congress' support to enable the administration to keep the peace. And we look forward to a good, constructive debate in Congress. I appreciate the fact that the leadership recognizes we've got to move before the elections. I appreciate the strong support we're getting from both Republicans and Democrats, and look forward to working with them.

Q Mr. President, how important is it that that resolution give you an authorization of the use of force?

THE PRESIDENT: That will be part of the resolution, the authorization to use force. If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force. But it's -- this will be -- this is a chance for Congress to indicate support. It's a chance for Congress to say, we support the administration's ability to keep the peace. That's what this is all about.

Remarks by President Bush at a photo-op, Sept. 24, 2002:
We just had a very productive Cabinet meeting. We realize there's little time left in -- before the Senate and the House goes home, but we're optimistic a lot can get done before now and then. Congress must act now to pass a resolution which will hold Saddam Hussein to account for a decade of defiance.

From President Bush's radio address, Sept. 28, 2002:
Good morning. On Thursday, I met with Democratic and Republican members of Congress to discuss the threat posed by the Iraqi regime. The security of our country is the commitment of both political parties, and the responsibility of both the President and the Congress. We are united in our determination to confront this urgent threat to America.

We're moving toward a strong resolution authorizing the use of force, if necessary, to defend our national security interests against the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. And by passing this resolution we will send a clear message to the world community and to the Iraqi regime the demands of the United Nations Security Council must be followed: the Iraqi dictator must be disarmed. These requirements will be met, or they will be enforced.

President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution, Oct. 2, 2002:
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all for coming. Today I'm joined by leaders of the House and the Senate from both political parties to show our unity of purpose in confronting a gathering threat to the security of America and to the future of peace.

I want to thank in particular Speaker Hastert, and Leader Gephardt, Leader Lott, for the tremendous work in building bipartisan support on this vital issue. I also want to thank Senators Warner, Lieberman, McCain, and Bayh for introducing this resolution which we've agreed to on the floor of the Senate this morning.

The text of our bipartisan resolution is clear and it is strong. The statement of support from the Congress will show to friend and enemy alike the resolve of the United States. In Baghdad, the regime will know that full compliance with all U.N. Security demands is the only choice, and that time remaining for that choice is limited.

From President Bush's radio address, Oct. 5, 2002:
American security, the safety of our friends, and the values of our country lead us to confront this gathering threat. By supporting the resolution now before them, members of Congress will send a clear message to Saddam: His only choice is to fully comply with the demands of the world. And the time for that choice is limited. Supporting this resolution will also show the resolve of the United States, and will help spur the United Nations to act.

I urge Americans to call their members of Congress to make sure your voice is heard. The decision before Congress cannot be more consequential. I'm confident that members of both political parties will choose wisely.

Speech by President Bush in Cincinnati, Oct. 7, 2002:
Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.

President Bush Pleased with House Vote on Iraq Resolution, Oct. 10, 2002:
I would like to thank the members of the House of Representatives, just as I thanked Speaker Hastert and Leader Gephardt a few minutes ago, for the very strong bipartisan vote authorizing the use of force in Iraq if it becomes necessary.

From President Bush's radio address, Oct. 12, 2002:
Good morning. This week, both the House and Senate passed strong bipartisan measures authorizing the use of force in Iraq if it becomes necessary. Our country and our Congress are now united in purpose. America is speaking with one voice: Iraq must disarm and comply with all existing U.N. resolutions, or it will be forced to comply.

Karl Rove on the Charlie Rose Show, Nov. 21, 2007:
ROSE: Go way back. Make the argument perhaps we should have delayed and let the inspections take their-

ROVE: Charlie- Charlie, I'm not going to tell you the answer to this but I want you to remember you asked me about that because one of the untold stories about the war is why did the United States Congress, the United States Senate, vote on the war resolution in the fall of 2002?

ROSE: Why?

ROVE: This administration was opposed to it. I'm going to talk about that in my book.

ROSE: Tell me, give me-

ROVE: No, no.

ROSE: Give me something.

ROVE: No.

ROSE: Give me something.

ROVE: I just did. I told you the administration was opposed to voting on it in the fall of 2002.

ROSE: Because?

ROVE: Because we didn't think it belonged in the confines of the election. We thought it made it too political. We wanted it outside the confines of the election. It seemed it make things move too fast. There were things that needed to be done to bring along allies and potential allies abroad and yet-

ROSE: So you didn't do it because?

ROVE: There was a vote, and I'm- I'm-

ROSE: But you were opposed to the vote.

ROVE: It happened. we don't determine when the Congress vote on things. The Congress does.

ROSE: You wish it hadn't happened at that time. you would have preferred it did not happen at that time.

ROVE: That's right.

From the readily available evidence, it is not only clear that the White House pushed congress to pass the resolution in October, 2002, but that the White House helped to draft the resolution. Rove is a shameless, baldfaced serial liar -- and, it should be added, Charlie Rose is the worst interviewer on television today.

0 Replies

Thanks for posting that, Joe. I am wondering when the usual suspects will visit the thread and attempt to defend Rove.

(0f course, we can expect the usual stuff like "This is nothing compared to KKKlintler murdering people and raping women."

0 Replies

I can hardly wait to hear the Bush supporters response .

0 Replies

0 Replies

I guess they are not going to defend Rove. He must be dead to them.

Joe(once you leave the compound er, the White House, you are nothing)Nation

0 Replies

Welcome to the surreal world.

I'll tell ya folks, ya can't make this sh*t up--truth stranger than fiction? Fiction ain't got a patch on these boys and girls.

0 Replies

the inmates are in charge of the asylum that's for damn sure...

0 Replies

Again, a fine time to recall Ron Suskind's revelation...

Quote:

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

Rose is rather a dick, isn't he. I was recently reviewing interviews (youtube) that Frank Zappa gave during the two years or so when he was doing a lot of public appearances speaking out against rightwing proposals to save youth from sex through labels on music CDs. One of these was on Rose's show and Zappa quickly realized that Rose was precisely as much of an idiot as the christian lady with the seething pussy.

0 Replies

http://www.glumbert.com/media/rollins

0 Replies

This is a post by looseheadprop on firedoglake. look it up.

Quote:

Mario Cuomo gave a speech on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving to 2,000 of the most influential lawyers in NYC. The program didn't give a title for the speech, but Gov. Cuomo repeatedly invoked, as if she were some kind of Catholic saint, "Our Lady of the Law."

He called out "power seeking presidents" who engage in "efforts to throw off constitutional restraints" through various means. He decried in particular

Quote:
"signing statements," "secret White House task forces," and the "unprecedented politicization of the Department of Justice."

But of all the overreaching by presidents, the one that came under Gov. Cuomo's harshest criticism was

Quote:
"the seizing by presidents of the power to declare war."
Quote:
"There is a time to be silent and a time to speak. This is the time for lawyers to speak."

Later, the following line caused quite a few members of the audience to interrupt the speech with spontaneous applause when he made reference to a march by lawyers that had taken place in NYC the previous week to express solidarity with the lawyers protesting in Pakistan:

Quote:
"If US lawyers are marching in the streets in support of the rule of law in Pakistan, why aren't we marching in support of the rule of law here?"

(meaning in support of the rule of law in the US)

He said that Our Lady of the Law had endured for 200 years because we had upheld her, but now a timid Congress was throwing away the Constitution with both hands and that

Quote:
"We have no heroes. We are not even sure what we want to make of ourselves as a nation."

which I took to mean that he thought somehow we, as a nation, were failing to effectively communicate to Congress what our vision for ourselves as a nation might be. Not that we aren't trying, heaven knows, but it is obvious that our message is not getting through to them. Cuomo said we have to make them understand that we are after

Quote:
"something sweeter than the taste of partisan victory"

The clear message was that he fully expected that it was the obligation of lawyers everywhere to speak up in support of the Rule of Law or as he persisted in calling it "Our Lady of the Law." That he expected us to take to the streets, to the OpEd pages, the airwaves, and to every other medium available to us (I hope blogs count).

He even at one point mentioned litigation that had occurred apparently challenging the legality of the Viet Nam war. Unfortunately, he never mentioned the name of the case, though it was before a Judge Judd [sp?] and there was some intervention involving Justice Douglas. If anybody has clue what that refers to, I'd like to know. There may be some instruction in the history of that case that we can learn from. [Edit: Holtzman v. Schlesinger, 414 U.S. 1304 (1973)] LINK

You know early in his speech, he went into how his grocery store owning immigrant parents were soooo impressed when he became a lawyer. And how they never wanted him to be "a crooked politician," they wanted him to be a judge.

There is some prestige and deference that people throw your way just because you've got that sheepskin. However, that honor comes with responsibility. Shakespeare's famous "first let's kill all the lawyers" line was uttered by a character who wants to end the rule of law.

That character believes that lawyers are more than machine operators who know how to manipulate the cogs and levers of the law. We are meant to be its guardians and protectors as well. So, if you want to end the rule of law, you must first silence the lawyers.

His final call to action was this:

Quote:
"If not the lawyers, then who? If not now, when?"

Posted in legal

I nearly stood up and applauded just reading these words last night. You know any lawyers? Make them read this.

Joe(and then start making phone calls and typing messages.)Nation

0 Replies

As we all now know, Andy Card admitted on Joe Scarborough's show that Rove is lying about this.

0 Replies

Rove: "Congress Pushed Bush into Iraq War Prematurely"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know