December 3, 2007
Rove Blames War on Daschle (Bill Press)
If you ever suspected Karl Rove was nuts, now you know he is. Ever since escaping the asylum, he’s been running around like a madman, blaming the Iraq war on Democrats.
He started it on "Charlie Rose." He repeated it on "Fox News Sunday." Back in 2002, he says, President Bush was in no hurry to go to war. He wanted to give U.N. inspectors more time. But Democrats in Congress, led by Rep. Tom Daschle (S.D.), insisted on scheduling a vote on Iraq — in October 2002, before the midterm elections.
It’s an interesting theory. There’s only one problem with it: It is absolutely, totally, no-doubt-about-it FALSE. Former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was on the scene at the time. Like all the rest of us, he remembers well who was driving the issue. “It was definitely the Bush administration that set it in motion and determined the timing, not the Congress,” insists Fleischer. “I think Karl in this instance just has his facts wrong.”
Indeed. As we all remember, it was George Bush who forced U.N. inspectors out of Iraq. It was officers of the Bush White House who publicly attacked Hans Blix. And, when he sent the war resolution to Congress, it was George Bush himself who said: “We’ve got to move before the elections” — meaning the midterm elections of November 2002.
Whatever you think about this war, one thing is certain: It is George Bush’s war. He started it, he directed it, he screwed it up, and now he can’t find his way out of it.
For Karl Rove to try to re-invent history by blaming the timing of the war on Tom Daschle — it's nuts.
Visit Mr. Press's website at billpressshow.com.
25 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
It's hard to tell what the exact truth is inside the beltway sometimes. But I'm sure the president has no problem claiming this war. I don't think Rove was trying to blame anything on Daschle, just trying to give his version of what happened.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — December 3, 2007 @ 9:17 am
Robert you should go into politics with an answer like that.
Karl rove is a sleazy liar who worked for and with another sleazy liar. It's not new news that these criminals will say anything, even if it's something that could be disproven by documented evidence.
How do they do this? They simply don't care. They do not believe that people are smart enough, or matter enough for them to even make an effort to act any other way.
Rove is the most overrated person in government. Some would lead you to believe that he is some sort of calculating gewnius who has his finger on the pulse of the populice.
The truth is that he is just a sc**bag who has no ethics and as I say above, could care less about anything other than the nefarious goals of those that he represents.
Comment by Chris Calbi — December 3, 2007 @ 10:17 am
September 13, 2002:
Q Mr. President, thank you. Are you concerned that Democrats in Congress don't want a vote there until after U.N. action?
THE PRESIDENT: Democrats waiting for the U.N. to act? I can't imagine an elected United States — elected member of the United States Senate or House of Representatives saying, I think I'm going to wait for the United Nations to make a decision. It seems like to me that if you're representing the United States, you ought to be making a decision on what's best for the United States. If I were running for office, I'm not sure how I'd explain to the American people — say, vote for me, and, oh, by the way, on a matter of national security, I think I'm going to wait for somebody else to act.
And so I — we'll see. My answer to the Congress is, they need to debate this issue and consult with us, and get the issue done as quickly as possible. It's in our national interests that we do so. I don't imagine Saddam Hussein sitting around, saying, gosh, I think I'm going to wait for some resolution. He's a threat that we must deal with as quickly as possible.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020913.html
The Iraq Resolution was agreed to on October 2.
Comment by Don Bacon — December 3, 2007 @ 11:34 am
I blame Saddam Hussein.
Comment by Igor R. — December 3, 2007 @ 11:37 am
Why don't people in the media like YOU Bill Press - demand a response from George W. Bush himself on Rove's statement. How does HE feel about it? Does he agree with Rove and if so - WHY?
Make BUSH answer those questions.
Coonsey's View
www.freewebs.com/coonsey/
Comment by Connie Manes — December 3, 2007 @ 11:39 am
Yeah - It's Saddams fault for not surrendering those weapons of mass destruction he didn't have.
It was Saddam's fault for making us think he was going to destroy us with his mighty Navy and bomb us with his all powerful Air force then nuke us with his ICBM's.
It was Saddams fault for making America believe GW's load of horsecrap.
J
Comment by Jeff — December 3, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
Thanks Jeff. you saved me a lot of typing. Igor, come on!
Comment by Chris Calbi — December 3, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
Jeff, hey if a guy points a realistic-looking toy gun at the police in the middle of the night, his family can't later honestly claim that he was shot by the evil police even though he had no weapons. But to a left-winger this logic makes perfect sense.
Jeff, Saddam fooled his own generals into believing he had WMDs. There are questions to this day about whether a lot of stuff was moved to Syria. But to you Saddam is just another victim of the evil America and Bushitler in particular. It's good to be a left-winger Jeff, no need to strain your brain with logic.
Comment by Igor R. — December 3, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
Igor the WMD to Syria question only exists in your mind and the monds of the misguided conquerors of the Middle East.
Also, I would think thatthat the US diplomatic community could realize that Saddam simply could not expose his weaknesses to the international community and maintain power. That being the case, we would look beyond his bravado and diversion. The argument that he was using subterfuge is nonsense. We had inspectors on the ground telling us that they could find nothing. Please, once again, do not try to change history.
To object to your country breaking international law by using preemptive war, doesn't mean that you're unpatriotic. It means that you love your country.
Comment by Chris Calbi — December 3, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
Igor;
I know that you have some bs with you but trying to equate a toy gun with WMDs are too funny. If you remember, and I do, GWB told us that without a doubt that Saddam had WMDs. Condi Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell all said the same thing. Actually Saddam sent a report to the UN stating that he didn't have WMDs and if GWB wanted oil, they could negoiate. So saying that Saddam fooled his generals is at best lying. Also Hans Blix was pleading with Bush to wait until they had completed their task but Bush told them to leave the country so that he could bomb it. You post is not only lame but clearly a lie.
Comment by Mike Coleman — December 3, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
Chris, you're not amenable to arguments you don't like. I mentioned probably 10 times on this blog that Saddam didn't give unfettered access to the inspectors. There was a continuous game being played, with delays, difficulties, and general unpredictability. No reasonable person could trust the conclusions of these inspectors. Saddam confessed to his American captor that he was more afraid of Iran than the US. He was also too proud to go into exile that the Saudis offered him, where he would've lived in luxurious and carefree style. When a murderous dictators make the wrong choice, people die, often including themselves. It's that simple.
Comment by Igor R. — December 3, 2007 @ 5:33 pm
Mike, Hans Blix is a Swedish pacifist whose longest job experience of sixteen years was at the Swedish delegation at the Disarmament Conference in Geneva. Saddam Hussein lied just as easily as Hillary. There were papers found in Iraq reporting that many of his generals expected immediate orders to deploy WMDs against the Americans. You're a simple-minded fool and your pathetic attempts at making sense are sabotaged by your under-developed brain.
Comment by Igor R. — December 3, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
Igor, you are mistaken. the work of Hans Blix and his inspectors was given credence by most nations, which is why the so called "Coalition of the willing" was so thin and so weak. You recall we had little to no allies in this war?
Comment by Chris Calbi — December 3, 2007 @ 8:23 pm
One very gratifying thing. no one on here is even close to defending the piece of garbage Rove.
Good job bloggers!
Comment by Chris Calbi — December 3, 2007 @ 8:25 pm
RE:#3 above DON Bacon - do you really believe those press releases from the White House? Early November there was a press release from the WH promoting "chidren's day and making children's good health a priority" on Nov. 6th, GW vetoed the SCHIP program for kids' health care.
Comment by Jjones — December 3, 2007 @ 8:49 pm
I always felt and believed that Karl Rove was nuts, now I have prrof of it!
Ever since escaping the Bush asylum after the 2006, nid-term elections which the Democrats won back both the House and Senate provinjg Rove wassn't the boy genius for the GOP after all, he’s been running around like a madman.
1. Trying to blame the Iraq war on Democrats. When Bush starteed it.
2 On “Charlie Rose.” He repeated it on “Fox News Sunday.” Back in 2002, he says, President Bush was in no hurry to go to war. He wanted to give U.N. inspectors more time. All the Republicans know is lies and trying to spin them,
REove said that the But Democrats in Congress, led by Rep. Tom Daschle (S.D.), insisted on scheduling a vote on Iraq — in October 2002, before the midterm elections.
All one has to do is go to the nearest librarty por search it over the web that this is a bunch of Texas bullsh-t.
One major problem with it: It is absolutely, totally, no-doubt-about-it FALSE!
The Former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was on the scene at the time and he remembers all too well, well who was driving the issue behind the Iraq War. Qouting Ari Fleischer, “It was definitely the Bush administration that set it in motion and determined the timing, not the Congress,” insists Fleischer.”
Indeed. As we all remember, over these past 41/2 years of this horrible war, that it was George Bush who forced U.N. inspectors out of Iraq. It was officers of the Bush White House who publicly attacked Hans Blix. And, when he sent the war resolution to Congress, it was George Bush himself who said: “We’ve got to move before the elections” —meaning the midterm elections of November 2002.
Whatever you think about this war, one thing is certain: It is George Bush’s war. He started it, he directed it, he screwed it up, and now he can’t find his way out of it.
For Karl Rove to try to re-write history by blaming the timing of the war on Tom Daschle and the Democrats, Karl Rove like Bush is totally nuts.
Now we have learned that Bushg was lying about Iran having or nuclear capability and trrying to use Iran as fear to creaaate WWIII. when in fact Iran stopped their nuclear ambitions back in 2003.
HHow much more lies to we have to listen to from tis administration and te GOP party?
John Marchese
Nevada
Comment by John Marchese — December 4, 2007 @ 1:06 am
My goodness… how we seem to forget that Saddam was gleefully funding any terrorist's family to the tune of $25,000.00 if he/she could successfully penetrate Israeli security to detonate a suicide bomber's belt in the midst of innocent civilians.
What makes one think that if he was successful in this endeavor Saddam wouldn't have offered the same deal to the Muslim extremists in our own baliwick?
His motto was what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
And did we care to notice that shortly after the liberation of Iraq these attacks greatly attenuated to practically nil?
Oh and on an added note… didn't we also beseech him on numerous occasions to grant IAEA unfettered access to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he in fact did not have WMD's as he claimed?
Did he ultimately acquiesce to this ostensibly logical request?
He subsequently cooked his own goose and that of his countrymen… before the fact.
So to cast negative aspersions on GWB's administration in this regard, yours truly contends… is utter stuff and nonsense plus pure poppycock, ladies and gentlemen….
Comment by Don Zweifel — December 4, 2007 @ 1:16 am
We bombed the north and south Iraq fly zones 4400 times in the 11 years after the Gulf War. If I was Sadam and had WMDs I think I would have used them. Republican apologists, please do this country a favor and kill yourselves.
Comment by buzzcock — December 4, 2007 @ 3:09 am
What is simple Igor is your continued defense of the undefensible. Mr. Bush was wrong about Iraq, and ts today show he is wrong about Iran. Do these countries present threats, probabaly, but not to the degree that the administration has presneted. In a couple of years we will fully investigate Halliburton Presidency, and find the real reasons behind GWB's and DC's actions in leading this country into an uneeded war.
Comment by Larry — December 4, 2007 @ 3:20 am
Don;
You lie like a cheap rug on a couple of points.
1. Saddam sent the UN documentation that Iraq no longer had WMDs.
2. After months of inspections, the UN team found no evidence of a nuclear weapons plant and had Saddam destroy misslies that had a range of over 122 km.
The IAEA after checking the sites that they had tagged found all of te tags in place.
So Don, who should we believe, everyone that was proven correct or you?
Comment by Mike Coleman — December 4, 2007 @ 11:49 am
Chris, we had so few allies because Saddam was good at spreading money around. You remember oil for food, don't you?
Comment by Igor R. — December 4, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
Ahem… suspected possession of WMD (even confirmed, marketed, touted …) does not always mandate invasion and war. SEE N. Korea, Pakistan, India and so on.
And Karl Rove is either suffering dementia or is testing the water to see how blatantly he can lie without the American public calling him on it.
Comment by m.h.rudolph — December 4, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
m.h.rudolph, it's just safer in the long run to destroy regimes that scream that they want to destroy you and look like they are serious about it, even if you doubt their capabilities. Of course if you're a pacifist, it all doesn't matter.
Comment by Igor R. — December 4, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
Igor, we have an organization that I'm sure that you hate. This is the UN, and they refused to be a part of a preemptive war because it is simply against international law, established in part by the United States.
The body sent inspectors. the inspectors found nothing. It was clear that the objective of the US was not legitimate, so no one followed.
These people also understand US oil politics, and it was clear to them, and many of us, that this was the purpose. What has occurred since then gives none of us any reason to change our mind.
Comment by Chris Calbi — December 5, 2007 @ 7:23 am
Good point buzzcock. I'm sick of hearing how 'dangerous' that broken down third world dictator Saddam was. He couldn't keep the lights on in his own country more than a couple hous a day.
I keep hearing the wingnuts say Saddam hid his WMD before the invasion. What a load of crap. If he had them he would have USED THEM! What do you think they're for???
We have the biggest stockpile of chemical/biological weapons on the block. If our country were invaded were invaded, you think we'd ship them to Japan? Would we send all our nukes to Aruba maybe?? No! We'd hit with everything we had before we would see our Country overtaken by a foriegn power.
Are you saying Saddam was a pacifist and just couldn't stand the thought of using WMD on an invading army? Even to save his own ass??
Comment by Jeff — December 5, 2007 @ 7:01 pm