• 
• 
• 
• 
President Bush and political adviser Karl Rove, at the South Lawn announcement of Rove's resignation on Monday. AP photo.
by Mark Silva
As Karl Rove withdraws from the political front, the “architect’’ of President Bush’s two election campaigns allows that Republicans face a “tough’’ contest in 2008.
“We’re in an unpopular war,’’ Rove said this morning on NBC’s Meet the Press. “It’s going to be a tough, contentious election year… We have a contentious war, and look, it’s just difficult. That’s what America is about…. It’s just tough (for any party to hold the White House three terms)… It’s just naturally tough. There is just something about change.’’
Rove, who will step down as deputy chief of staff for the president at the end of the month, made the rounds of some Sunday morning news talk shows on a morning that the Washington Post reported about the political machinery that Rove had built.
This included “asset deployment teams,’’ a coordinated campaign deploying Cabinet secretaries with announcements about the delivery of federal grants in the prime media markets of critical election states – targeted to support both Republican congressional candidates and the president’s reelection campaign in 2004.
The report does not suggest that decisions about federal grants were influenced by the political machinery, but rather that agency heads were assigned to gain greater public notice of grants in key election states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.
Rove faced David Gregory on Meet the Press, and Bob Schieffer on CBS’ Face the Nation.
This is from Meet the Press:
Rove maintains that, despite the loss of control of Congress last year, President Bush and the GOP have had a remarkable run.
“In 2000, this president won an election that he shouldn’t have won,’’ Rove said, citing experts who said Bush could not win the White House. “Every one of them said we were going to lose, and we won. In 2002, this president led his party to victory in off-year congressional elections… 2004, he ran for reelection…(with an) “unpopular war….And in 2006, sure we lost…
“It was a very close election,’’ Rove said of the midterm elections, citing narrow margins of defeat for Republicans in the districts where control of both the House and Senate had shifted. “. 85,000 votes out of 82 million cast determined the control of the House of Representatives.’’
“We’re in an unpopular war,’’ Rove said, yet people were concerned about political corruption in Washington, and spending.
Acknowledging that Republicans face a “tough’’ contest in 2008, Rove insisted his party can prevail next year
“We could go through polls all day long,’’ Rove told Gregory. “At the end of the day a contest is decided by the candidates talking about the issues and appealing to the American people based on an optimistic agenda… I am confident that we’ve got good candidates… It’s very tough for a party to win the White House for a third time, but I’m confident.
“It’s going to be a tough, contentious election year,’’ Rove said. “We have a contentious war, and look, it’s just difficult. That’s what America is about…. It’s just tough… It’s just naturally tough. There is just something about change.’’
“We’re in a tough war, no doubt about it,’’ Rove said, insisting that progress is being made in Iraq. “Yes, OK, fine, judge us by our performance… But let’s not be a society that says we are going to judge these things from moment to moment to momentum.
“What would have happened at the end of D-Day if we said, ‘You know what, we have suffered too many casualties, let us step back from this difficult war?’’ Rove asked.
Asked about misjudgments that led to the invasion of Iraq – such as the absence of weapons of mass destruction – Rove said:
“You know what, the whole world thought there was’’ weapons… “It’s one thing to rattle off all of these (problems)…. But if you take a moment and look at each one of these…. Was each thing done perfectly? No. But was it the right thing to do, Yes…. If we were to leave Iraq with the job undone, we would be running the risk of seeing the entire region plunge into violence.’’
Rove was asked about the leak of CIA officer Valerie Plame’s identity in 2003. Robert Novak, the columnist who first printed her name, has identified Rove as one of his sources – with Novak saying he had considered Rove as a confirming source.
“I remember it slightly differently,’’ Rove said of his conversation with Novak at the time, in which Novak said he had heard that Ambassador Joe Wilson, who investigated claims of Iraq trying to obtain uranium from Niger and refuted them, was the husband of the CIA’s Plame. “I remember saying, ‘I had heard that too’… My recollection is that I said I had heard that too.’’
Rove was asked why he has called Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York a “fatally flawed’’ presidential candidate.
“She enters the general election campaign with the highest negatives of anybody in the history of the Gallup Poll,’’ Rove said.
Rove, however, passed on commenting on Barack Obama.
“I’ve said enough,’’ said Rove, asked if he actually is promoting the notion of Clinton’s candidacy with his criticism for her because he fears Obama. “I read that in the L.A. Times this morning – those guys in L.A. really need to get clued in.’’
This is what the Los Angeles Times, a Tribune company newspaper, had to say about that today, with an excerpt here and the article avaiable by this link:
“In this case, Rove's weeklong broadside against Clinton -- which he is expected to repeat in multiple appearances on television talk shows today -- looks suspiciously like an exercise in reverse psychology that his team employed three years ago when it was preparing for President Bush's reelection bid.
“The ploy was described by Rove lieutenant Matthew Dowd during a postmortem conference on the 2004 election at Harvard University the month after Bush defeated Democratic Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts.
“In the run-up to the 2004 Democratic National Convention, when it was not yet clear who Bush's opponent would be that November, Rove and his aides had begun to fear that their most dangerous foe would be then-Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina. With his Southern base, charismatic style and populist message, Edwards, they believed, could be a real threat to Bush's reelection.
“But instead of attacking Edwards, Rove's team opened fire at Kerry.’’
Comments
I watched the interview.
The Koward Karl would't talk about how he came to know about Valerie Plame being a covert CIA agent. He did say that he confirmed that fact to Bob Novak.
Rove put partisan politics ahead of national security in violation of the law and he should have been prosecuted for it.
Posted by: Doug Zook | August 19, 2007 11:29 AM
Bye Turdblossom. Don't let the door hit your butt on the way out. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Posted by: weinerdog43 | August 19, 2007 11:37 AM
Democrat media propaganda makes me laugh. Obama and Clinton are each unelectable. Look for a third term Republican president. Obama, Clinton will guarantee it. Lest we forget Mondale/Ferraro?
Posted by: Marsha | August 19, 2007 11:55 AM
John D.,
How about Dole/Kemp?
Posted by: Doug Zook | August 19, 2007 12:03 PM
Without a stake driven through his heart, Karl Rove will be directing from
the sidelines. The man who invented the big lie technique will match his "swift boating" of Kerry and his defamation of McCain. His work cost Kerry the election and McCain his manhood. Rove will be getting rich speaking to the wealthy while doing his normal hate campaigns.
Posted by: c. perry | August 19, 2007 12:08 PM
Rove - Bush - Cheney and most of all Rumsfeld should be tried as war criminals.....that's because there are no laws against stupidity which they all share. I will work and do everything I can to see NO Republican makes the White House again in my lifetime after 8 years of that Texas Idiot!! Seeing my job go overseas then being unemployed for 3 years (I work in IT) I say: No Republican Ever Again!!
Posted by: Tom | August 19, 2007 12:14 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT9kUslHfBY
Posted by: NetRoots | August 19, 2007 12:44 PM
Why's Bush crying? You'd think he was sending Karl Rove to fight in Iraq!
Big babies!
The good news: now ol' short, black skirt can add Bush and Rove to her list of teary politicians.
Posted by: Bud McFarlin | August 19, 2007 12:45 PM
Even with all his talk about 2006 being "a very close election", Rove can't escape the fact that he was way off on his prediction of its outcome. He's supposed to be an expert at reading the mood of the electorate, but he failed spectacularly at that.
If this didn't discredit him in the eyes of the Republican Party, he wouldn't have to be resigning now, as the 2008 campaign is ramping up.
Posted by: h.man | August 19, 2007 12:59 PM
A Clinton/Obama ticket would be unstoppable. But even Obama alone has a good chance against any Republican after the last eight years of foreign affairs disasters.
Posted by: wiley | August 19, 2007 1:02 PM
Judging by the comments, your readers appear not to have a clue! The battle for ideas is simple. Socialism vs Capitalism. If you want to elect a Marxist, Hillary is your man. If you want to deny that we are in a major struggle for survival, vote for a Democrat. The biggest disasters for this country have been elected Democrats, starting with FDR! Socialism is a disease.
Posted by: Bud Dean | August 19, 2007 1:09 PM
Marsha doesn't say why she thinks Clinton and Obama are unelectable. Is it because they are not white males? If so, she is an excellent spokesperson for the neo-cons.
Posted by: Elizabeth Johnson | August 19, 2007 1:12 PM
c. perry,
Many years ago I went to work for a union in Chicago. I was sitting in the lobby waiting to meet the bosses and I was reading the in-house newsletter.
And I quote:
"Interested in Chicago politics? The next time you see Eddie Vrydoliak's back hit his native Transylvanian soil, be there to drive a stake through his heart so he doesn't re-enter Chicago politics."
Marvin E. "Curly" Lore,
President SEIU Local 11
I didn't think I'd ever quit laughing.
Posted by: Doug Zook | August 19, 2007 1:17 PM
Tom, I wish you would check out Ron Paul as a possible republican candidate. He is not of the 'same ol' sh_t' vent. I voted a republican president once in 44 years of voting. If you have not yet investigated Ron Paul, I urge you to do so, I think you might be pleasantly surprised at what you learn. googleit
Posted by: jeff_p101 | August 19, 2007 1:21 PM
Karl Rove said nothing about Hillary's negatives that leading Democrats, including some up for election in '08, have not also said. They are afraid she will take them down with them and the Democrats will lose the House and Senate. For the first time in recent memory, the Democrats have an alternative candidate with low negatives and charisma. And they're about to blow it.
Posted by: LaTrice | August 19, 2007 1:25 PM
I'm not a David Gregory fan, but he seems to be a huge fan of himself, so he won''t miss my support. But now he knows what it's like to tackle a greased pig, as Rove continually tried to slip away from answers.
It was worth the price of admission to see the clip of Rove in '72 as a young GOP staffer confined to the sub-basement of the RNC. A longer version of it is available on You Tube, if you're interested.
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | August 19, 2007 1:32 PM
I'm with Tom. The Republicans will never again see my vote. Ever again. Poison my water once, shame on you....poison my water twice.....shame on me.
Posted by: J W Collins | August 19, 2007 1:46 PM
"In 2000, this president won an election that he shouldn’t have won," Rove said.
No kidding. If Florida wasn't stolen, then we wouldn't be in this mess.
Posted by: Dave | August 19, 2007 1:49 PM
Bush - Cheney and Rove need medals of Honor for all the @x@x the liberals have put them through. Liberals should be tried for treason - cowards.
Posted by: Scott | August 19, 2007 1:57 PM
Vote for Hillary,and we get more failed Hillary care.Plus Tax dollars spent for ole bill to get plenty cigars,To tease female interns,Vote for Obama.and We will have the coran to replace the King James Version.Plus Our National defense will go down the tube.This country in in for waht will be the worst disasters that will make 9-11 look pale in comparison if clinton,or Obama is elected.Remember that i told you so.That The majority of good time americans,Cant claim Ignorance As An excuse.To all the Anti-war americans.The muslims will be in charge,and all of your religion will be at their dictates.Terroist will take over this country,Plus illegals crossing our borders.so enjoy,Your freedon Until The next Democrat wins the white House.and you worse nightmare will become a reality.wake up america before it is to late.
Posted by: mervin williams | August 19, 2007 2:23 PM
Scott, unless you're posting from Iraq, the only traitor here is you.
Posted by: weinerdog43 | August 19, 2007 2:32 PM
The Republicans are a mess but there isn't a Democratic candidate to support. Obama is a slick speaker but doesn't have a solid platform and Hillary is as fake as it gets. She changes her tone and accent based on which race she speaks to. What a joke.
Posted by: John | August 19, 2007 2:50 PM
“What would have happened at the end of D-Day if we said, ‘You know what, we have suffered too many casualties, let us step back from this difficult war?’’ Rove asked.
and
"the whole world thought there was... weapons"
This man can't tell the truth to save his soul.
Posted by: athena | August 19, 2007 2:53 PM
Marvin,
You may need professional help. Too bad the GOP fear machine has made you paranoid and illogical.
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | August 19, 2007 3:03 PM
Karl Rove - “What would have happened at the end of D-Day if we said, ‘You know what, we have suffered too many casualties, let us step back from this difficult war?’’ Rove asked.
Maybe this guy should try looking at America's course to WW II. It was far, far from pre-emptive. Trying to make this comparison is so wrong on so many levels. If he believes in it so strongly, why is jumping ship? Why isn't he supporting the troops by doing everything he can while Bush in office to ensure the war is a "success". Oh, he wants to spend more time with his college-age son. NOW he wants to be a father. While his kid is away at school. Right.
Posted by: kb | August 19, 2007 3:07 PM
"an unpopular war"?
Could somebody tell me which war in American history has been "popular"?
Try an "unnecessary" war, Turd Blossum. Try a war that didn't need to be fabricated because Neocons like yourself want to make the Middle East safe for American oil companies to invest in. Try a war that has sent over 4,000 dead American soldiers home in body bags with no end in sight.
Posted by: BC | August 19, 2007 3:12 PM
Doug, I'm not really sure why you're asking me about Dole/Kemp in an item about Karl Rove?
And I won't waste any time commenting on the psychotic ramblings of the Loony Left in the rest of the posts here.
Posted by: John D | August 19, 2007 3:21 PM
Yes, lets please open the conversation to Ron Paul also. From 9% in Iowa to 19% in Illinois.
You think the media would cover that.
From California.
Go Ron Go!
Posted by: TrafficBulldog | August 19, 2007 3:45 PM
Doug you slay me with Karl Rove and little ol Valerie Plame. Patrick Fitzgerald knew Richard Armitage had leaked Valerie Plames name to Bob Novak. Yet, he didn't charge him with a crime because none existed she wasn't covert. I can't believe you are so informed yet you chant the Daily Kos, MoveOn.org and the DNC playbook. Fitzgerald only charged Libby because he needed a perjury charge to justify his expensive independent prosecutor's charge. The taxpayers were suckers to pay for it and it was brought to a special prosecutor because John Ashcroft was getting old and careful. The Dems did what they always do whine about crooked Republicans to deflect their own corruption. Karl Rove had nothing to do with Plame. The truth is Novak said he learned Valerie Plames name from Joe Wilson's Marquis Who's Who in America entry as usual the narcisist was so vain he gave her name up. Just like he drove around in a convertible with sun glasses showing off Plame for more publicity in Vanity Fair what a schmuck! Jerry White, Springfield, IL
Posted by: Jerry White | August 19, 2007 4:10 PM
wienerdog?? Well named!
Posted by: dwight jundt | August 19, 2007 4:15 PM
John D.,
I thought your name was Marsha. Something you & Rudy want to tell us?
Posted by: Doug Zook | August 19, 2007 4:20 PM
"Judging by the comments, your readers appear not to have a clue! The battle for ideas is simple. Socialism vs Capitalism. If you want to elect a Marxist, Hillary is your man. If you want to deny that we are in a major struggle for survival, vote for a Democrat. The biggest disasters for this country have been elected Democrats, starting with FDR! Socialism is a disease.
Posted by: Bud Dean | August 19, 2007 1:09 PM"
Ridiculous lack of logic here. There are absolutely NOT just two choices, and if there were there's no reason to assume they're Socialism vs Capitalism. Hillary is neither a Marxist nor a man. Voting for a Democrat is NOT denying that we are in a major struggle, nor is the converse. "Biggest disasters" as you've described them is a subjective point of view at best and potentially dead wrong on all counts at worst. Socialism isn't a disease, it's a mode of political thought, and as such it has arguments in its favor and against it (my opinion is that there are more against than for, but others may disagree).
I could just as legitimately say this, and have it be as valid as your comment:
The battle for ideas is simple. Saving our freedoms vs. Conservative fascim. If you want to elect a tyrannical dictator, any Republican will do. If you want to see our Constitution turned into a historical footnote, vote for a Republican. The biggest disasters for this country have been elected Republicans, starting with Reagan! Neo-Conservatism is a social disease.
Posted by: Op109 | August 19, 2007 5:10 PM
Tough contest in 2008, Karl? Duh!
You, Bush, and the entire GOP so-called leadership have done your collective best to ensure that Republicans will face tough contest for the foreseeable future.
Yes, the Iraqi war is unpopular, but no war long remains popular once the human and economic costs become apparent to the public. The unpopularity of the Bush administration and the GOP is much larger than the Iraq war. Try failure to secure the border, the extreme effort to give amnesty to millions of illegals, the shipping of large numbers of American jobs overseas, NAFTA, the selling out of America to big international corporations, abject failure to protect the interests of Americans in so many areas it is unbelievable, and two terms of a dense, ignorant, bull-headed GOP president.
Democrats? You must be kidding. The Democrat Party is no better. As George Wallace more or less said so long ago, "not a dimes worth of difference."
Maybe one day the American public will wake up to the need for a strong centerist third party and break up this elitist-controlled two-party system.
Signed: a sixty-five year old life-long, but very disgusted Republican
Posted by: JonE | August 19, 2007 5:13 PM
Well now, maybe not that tough.
The Dems are already backpedaling big time on Iraq, with all three main candidates reminding everybody that we can't leave Iraq "too fast."
Meanwhile, the Bushies are
talking about small troop reductions--my guess would be, back to pre-surge levels but no greater drops before 2009. Not really a drop at all, since the surge was always supposed to be extra. Then it's Happy Inauguration Day to the next Prez. with best of luck from W. and Dick
So is there going to be a difference between the Repub and Dem candidates
on Iraq. Only in your dreams. Maybe there will be some differences, but the
multi trillion dollar outlays on the war will go on under Hillary or whoever. And under Barack; if you read his foreign policy stuff carefully, we'll be invading even more countries. He talks about using America's power around the world yada yada.
And invading Pakistan if necessary. Kinda scary.
Maybe many will conclude that we might as well stick with the Republicans since the Dems will bring about either no change or more world saving depending on who gets in.
Posted by: Helena | August 19, 2007 6:06 PM
Once again Doug Kook,
Valerie Plame was not a covert agent.
If she was,Richard Armitage would be on trial for outing her.
Nobody was ever charged with outing Valerie(007) Plame,but believe what you want...you goof.
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | August 19, 2007 6:10 PM
KARL ROVE IS A TROUBLE MAKER GUY ALL THE TIME NON STOP- POEPLE THIS TIME WONT BE PURSUADED BY THIS GUY KARL ROVE- THIS AMERICA OF OURS IS BAD AND DOWN AND BANKRUPT UNDER THE REPUBLCIAN PRES, AND THE PARTY. WE HAVE TO WISE UP NOW AmERICA- WE CANT AFFOR TO LOSE THIS TIME TWO TERM OF BSUH EVERYTHING GOES SOUTH. I CRIED AND SUFFER ENOugh IN THIS COUNTRY SO CALLED AMERICA.UR PHSYCHCIC LADY COMMNET.
Posted by: RITA | August 19, 2007 6:39 PM
Doogie, you been taking John E goofy drugs again??? Me, Marsha??? Hmmm, one time you call me Helena. Now Marsha. Sorry, dear, but as stated in the other I was at church. Marsha is Marsha. Helena is Helena. John D is John D.
Posted by: John D | August 19, 2007 6:49 PM
Just a reminder to those of you who still support the republican agenda, your wars were of your own doing and those of Roosevelt and Truman began with attacks upon our people. Niether Afganistan nor Iraq attacked us on 9/11 nor any other time and Osama Bush is still out there laughing at us. The taliban and the saudi bin ladens are both friends of Bush. You can damn well bet that almost any democrat would have better aim than that of the chicken hawk war profiteers thumping bibles and chests instead of turbaned heads. To blame all muslims for the actions of a few is the same as allowing all democrats to pay for JFK embarassing the "honorable' tricky dick nixon and so we digress from mere plumbers to the septic queens. Thanks GOP
Posted by: Kat | August 19, 2007 7:04 PM
Jerry White,
Wrong. Plame was covert. Fitzgerald couldn't charge treason because he couldn't show she had been outted "knowingly," as the law requires.
Will you ever get your facts straight?
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | August 19, 2007 7:35 PM
Paulo, others:
secret=covert
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/20/AR2005072002517.html
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | August 19, 2007 8:10 PM
Kat, very nice historical revisionism there. Afhganistan did not attack us, but the Taliban government in Afghanistan protected Al Qeada and gave Bin Laden safe haven there. After 9/11, Bush told the Taliban if they handed over bin Laden and Al Qaeda, we would not attack. They did not hand them over so we attacked.
Iraq may not have attacked us directly, but Iraq did invade Kuwait in 1990. The first President Bush gave Hussein plenty of time to leave Kuwait, Iraq did not, so we and other countries sent them packing. Since Desert Storm, Iraq did not obey 17 UN resolutions and also did not abide by the surrender agreement in 1991. Also, Hussein tried to assassinate Bush the father. Throughout the 1990s, Clinton bombed Iraq countless times for a host of reasons, and rightly so.
All of that lead us to 2003. I hope you and the rest of your ignorant breed learned something there.
Posted by: John D | August 19, 2007 9:06 PM
Paolo and Jerry White,
Besides the fact that your both now official traitors to the USA, you're also brainwashed morons. The CIA itself stated Plame was undercover. It was revealed at the hearings and in the press. Stop listening to Rush Limpbag and Sean Insanity. The reason no one else was prosecuted was because of the OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE by Libby. Because of the lies perpetrated by those scumbags in the oval office, the prosecutor was unable to file any additional charges. Joe Wilson is besides the point you mindless hacks! Valerie Plame's cover agency, Brewster/Jennings was also outed forcing untold numbers of spies to be forced into hiding or worse killed, but you spineless chickenhawks don't give a rats ass about the effects of partisan politicing that outed an agent. Wilson's not the issue here, he was just the smoke screen the right wing hacks use to condone the outrageous behavior by Rove, Libby and most importantly, Darth Cheney...outing AN UNDERCOVER CIA AGENT DURING WAR TIME IS TREASON. ANY OF YOU MORONS WHO CONTINUE TO DEFEND THAT ACTION ARE TRAITORS TO THIS NATION AS WELL!
Posted by: Neal | August 19, 2007 9:54 PM
It ia sad that any one should die in war, but these brave men and women signed up knowing there would be at least a chance that they would die. Most of them are Republicans, you could ask Kerry or look up his quote if you don't believe me. but look what all you liberals have no problem with the murder of our children.
UNITED STATES
Number of abortions per year: 1.37 Million (1996)
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 3,700
Why don't we make it legal to murder our kids untill they are 18, we are legaly responsible for them. Maybe it is a hardship on the mothe and she wants her health is threatened why can't she kill it now.
New research now shows without a doubt that going through a unwanted pregnacy is less harmful on the mother than going through an abortion.
THINK ABOUT IT!!!
Posted by: Kevin | August 19, 2007 10:08 PM
Kevin, if you are against abortion, don't have one. Otherwise, mind your own beeswax.
Posted by: weinerdog43 | August 19, 2007 10:22 PM
It ia sad that any one should die in war, but these brave men and women signed up knowing there would be at least a chance that they would die. Most of them are Republicans, you could ask Kerry or look up his quote if you don't believe me. but look what all you liberals have no problem with the murder of our children.
Posted by: Kevin | August 19, 2007 10:08 PM
Moron KevHead,
Why don't you name some these Republican military "heroes"?, maybe "Five deferment" Cheney? or how about "hid in the Naional Guard to avoid the draft" Bush?
Congratulations, you just explained exactly why the Republican Party is on the verge of extinction.
Posted by: John E | August 19, 2007 10:23 PM
Doug,
Dole/Kemp got 159 electoral votes and it would have been more if not for Perot.
Mondale/Ferraro got 13 - his home state and DC. Also lost 59% to 41%.
That's not even in the same league.
KB,
For every article you produce that says she was covert, I can produce an article that says she wasn't:
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200507180801.asp
Posted by: Terry | August 19, 2007 11:14 PM
Anyone who would defend the outing of Valerie Plame is indeed a traitor to America - choosing partisan politics over our country. You also do not read enough to know that she was covert & whether active or not this exposed her as a SPY and all her past dealings became suspect as did anyone who had contact with her. God how can you be so stupid, with notes by Cheney & the reports fed by Libby to reporters (think Libby acted on this own?)
I can see Bush Rove Cheney et al steaming about the Wilson report - salivating to make him pay. Bush and Rove each have reputations for "getting even" and you can bet national security be damned - this was a much needed "mushroom cloud" to be delivered to America and they were NOT going to leave it out of the address to the nation. It was removed but somehow found it's way back in. These guys are all traitors and most of America knows it.
Posted by: Virginia | August 19, 2007 11:37 PM
To the supporters of these criminals now in the White House. "There are none so blind as those who will not see" ... Please write letters to your grandchildren today and explain why you sold out their liberty in order to build up their portfolios.
Rove does not believe in democracy! Why don't you draft Cheney to run for President and see how many American trust him!
If Bill Clinton had pulled 1/10th of the dirt that the Bush/Cheney regeme has, you would be pushing for his crucifiction! Ship yourselves and send your children to Iraq you hypocrites!
Posted by: Murphy | August 20, 2007 10:20 AM
Anger about politics these days is a natural emotion, but our reaction to it is exactly what these 'political strategists' are after. When we're so polarized, no collective progress is made, and only one party gets their most single-sided agenda pushed through (if that). Where is the constructive dialogue vs. the vilifying of the other person, where are the new ideas vs. the finger pointing, where is the compromise vs. the 'all or nothing'? Sure, each side has strong opinions about how an ideal society and government will look - but we're a nation of many, and that means no one group gets their way while everyone else is screwed. Karl Rove was incredibly focused and strategic to be able to accomplish so much of the Conservative agenda - but he was a major contributor to the polarizing of America, and the destruction of constructive dialogue.
Posted by: Ny | August 20, 2007 10:25 AM
For every article you produce that says she was covert, I can produce an article that says she wasn't:
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200507180801.asp
Posted by: Terry | August 19, 2007 11:14 PM
Terry, wouldn't you say that an outfit like the NR has a vested interest in publishing articles like this? After all, the Republicans are the manly party. They are benevolent protectors not traitors.
They are going to protect us from all of the bogey men-as long as it doesn't effect the bottom line.
Posted by: Catherine | August 20, 2007 10:34 AM
[quote]
For every article you produce that says she was covert, I can produce an article that says she wasn't:
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200507180801.asp
Posted by: Terry | August 19, 2007 11:14 PM
[/quote]
Terry, your "source" provides NO PROOF to back up your or its allegation that Plame wasn't covert. You'll have to do way better than this.
Are you learning your poor research techniques from John D?
Posted by: BC | August 20, 2007 10:48 AM
Turd Blossom was a source of the CIA leak involving Valerie Plame, Bob Novak even confirmed this. Rove knows this too but can't disclose. It will come out later on. Rove needs to be prosecuted.
This Mr. Bush will be the worst President in U.S. history. We already see the rats jumping ship. Chickenhawk J. Dennis Hastert and Tony Fox Lies Snowjob are the latest.
And 'Terry'- what exactly does Dole/Kemp and Mondale/ Ferraro have to do with a Karl Rove posting?? You must be dizzy or deluded or both.
And the Republicans will be facing a tough contests in 2008. They brought it on themselves.
Posted by: Doug R. | August 20, 2007 10:51 AM
Virginia your entry is insane. Plame and Wilson are both political hacks. Chuckie Schumer gave a TV News Conference to win Dem Senate votes with Joe Wilson, John F Kerry rightly fired Wilson for lying to the Senate Intelligence Committee from Kerry's campaign. But, Chuckie didn't care he used words like covert and victims to stir up the left kook fringe to turn out the base. He used Plame and Wilson for political gain pure and simple.
President Bush and Dick Cheney wanted to clear up a lie from Wilson that he was sent by the Vice President to Niger. Clearly Valerie recommended him for the assignment and the VP did not know he went till he got back. Wilson never wrote a report and the VP rightly was mad that Wilson said the VP sent him.
It bothers me that liberals would rather lie when the truth is easy to find even in the filtered driveby media. Valerie had a desk job at Langley she was not a spy for more than 5 years and as Victoria Toesing says the law did not apply. Toesing wrote the bill that became law. Jerry White, Springfield, IL
Posted by: Jerry White | August 20, 2007 11:07 AM
>>Rove: Republicans face 'tough' contest in 2008
This statement makes Rove the most intelligent man in the Bush Administration... it's an indication that he understands the consequences of his actions.
Posted by: Nancy Naive | August 20, 2007 11:16 AM
To the supporters of these criminals now in the White House. "There are none so blind as those who will not see" ... Please write letters to your grandchildren today and explain why you sold out their liberty in order to build up their portfolios.
Rove does not believe in democracy! Why don't you draft Cheney to run for President and see how many American trust him!
If Bill Clinton had pulled 1/10th of the dirt that the Bush/Cheney regeme has, you would be pushing for his crucifiction! Ship yourselves and send your children to Iraq you hypocrites!
Posted by: Murphy | August 20, 2007 11:32 AM
You guys just need to chill out. Lets get rid of both these parties and get some better ones in there that aren't owned by the lobbyist.
Posted by: Seth | August 20, 2007 11:53 AM
"BUSH, CHENEY, RICE, ROVE, RUMSFELD, FIGHTING THE UNPOPULAR WAR"
THE WAR IS AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THE WAR IS AGAINST WOMEN. THE WAR IS AGAINST THE FACT THAT A WOMAN MAY BECOME PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THAT IS A CARDINAL SIN TOWARDS MAN.
UNPOPULAR WAR IS AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND WHATEVER THEY STAND FOR IN TODAYS TIME.
KARL ROVE SHOULD BE IMPRISONED AND NOT BE ALLOWED TO RUN AROUND TOWN LIKE TOM DELAY AND CLAIM INNOCENCE.
THE DARKEN DAYS OF THE WHITE HOUSE ARE COMING TO A CLOSE, AND THESE MEN, OR EVIL DOERS JUST CANNOT HANDLE IT AT THE END OF THE DAY. THEY ARE LITTLE MEN WITH LITTLE MEN COMPLEX SYNDROME.
ASK YOURSELF DO YOU HONESTLY THINK THEY HAVE ANY CONSCIENCE TO HUMAN LIFE?
THINK DOWNEY STREET MEMOS!
BUSH IS WALKING US TO DIFFERENT TRAINS GOING TO DIFFERENT CAMPS IN AMERICA. WE ARE JUST TOO VAIN TO SEE IT.
JUST RHETORIC!
Posted by: Roger Morris | August 20, 2007 12:03 PM
Obama/Edwards 2008
Reps don't stand a chance this time! It won't be close!
Posted by: David | August 20, 2007 12:41 PM
For every article you produce that says she was covert, I can produce an article that says she wasn't:
Posted by: Terry | August 19, 2007 11:14 PM
Terry, how many reports written by the CIA can you produce that say she wasn't covert? Because I have a report, written by the CIA, that says she was:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070529_Unclassified_Plame_employement.pdf
Posted by: Tony | August 20, 2007 12:47 PM
Democrat, Republican, Conservative, Liberal ... who's on top is as relevant as a peanut butter sandwich: do you like peanut butter on top of the jelly or the other way around? In the end the elites who run this country get their way.
Posted by: Ash | August 20, 2007 1:11 PM
Ash,
As much as this Democrat disagrees with you, please tell me what you have in mind (plausibly) to replace our two party system?
Posted by: Doug Zook | August 20, 2007 1:38 PM
Multi-party system all the way!!!! If we had multi-party Bush would have been gone already.
Posted by: Seth | August 20, 2007 1:51 PM
The only way Democrats can win Presidential elections is when 3rd party candidates split the vote. Perot did just that in 92 and 96 allowing BJ Bill to win with LESS than the popular vote both times. Sure Bush has got low ratings right now but the Democratic led Congress is even lower. At least Bush has a pair I'm afraid the next one elected won't! God help US!
Posted by: Steve Miller | August 20, 2007 1:58 PM
POSTING: Posted by: Terry | August 19, 2007 11:14 PM
Terry, how many reports written by the CIA can you produce that say she wasn't covert? Because I have a report, written by the CIA, that says she was:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070529_Unclassified
COMMENT: In a country wherein lies and half-truth rule the day, it is refreshing and compelling when someone brings forth primary sources that eviscerate the lame, stilted, worn-out "talking points" that no-substance Republicans rely upon.
Rove and Republicans are the poster children of form without substance in government.
Thanks to the efforts of such folks, and the sheep who support their wacky ideas, we live not in a democracy, but in the shadow of idiocracy.
I cannot be alone in saying I'm sick of it.
Posted by: billybob | August 20, 2007 2:10 PM
Hey, you guys and gals, simmer down and stop calling each other names! Name-calling, without any real facts to back you up, simply reduces the discussion to the level of a bar room brawl.
Posted by: JohnO | August 20, 2007 2:11 PM
I feel in my heart that even though it seems like the current administration has won the battle of constant occupation, it cannot possibly win the war. The war on terror is unwinable, because violence begats violence, plain and simple. It is elementary morality to hold ourselves accountable in the same manner we hold others. Thus, the only true way to stop terrorism is to stop partisipating in it."
Posted by: DL | August 20, 2007 2:46 PM
Jerry
You should follow more closely and stop watching Fox TV - Cheney did indeed make an inquiry (which is why the CIA sent someone for a report.)
Such irony that Cheney instigated his own downfall of one of major reasons for going to war. Must have really pissed him off that the CIA acted on his inquiry. The CIA sent a letter to the Justice Dept. asserting that Plame was an undercover operative, the information was classified and asking for an investigation. Plame testified that she was asked about her husband going to Niger - a logical question, but Cheney wanted it to appear as if the poor guy needed work & wifey helped him. There was a report furnished but Cheney says he never read it. Odd that they wanted to de-classify the entire report when now they classify literally everything as TOP SECRET. Odd huh? Tenet fell on the sword in saying he was responsible for the words in the state of the union address, when he was the very one who cautioned against using it. He at least got a medal out of it but lost all credibility.
You cannot put lipstick on this pig and pass it off for something other than what it is - TREASON!
Posted by: virginia | August 20, 2007 2:47 PM
All this talk about misreading the electorate. Has anyone noticed that following the virtual "revolution" that occurred around the "Senate Comprehensive Immigration reform" legislation, apparently the Democrats still didn't get the message! What part of NO AMNESTY, NO INCREASES in immigration, and NO GUEST WORKER program don't these morons in Washington understand?
Posted by: Ed Weirdness | August 20, 2007 2:57 PM
Jerry
You might want to read this article - if you have anymore reservations then verify it yourself.
http://consortiumnews.com/2007/032207.html
Posted by: virginia | August 20, 2007 3:02 PM
John D. writes:
"Iraq may not have attacked us directly, but Iraq did invade Kuwait in 1990."
OH! THIS is why we invaded 13 years later! Thanks for clearing that up, John.
John D. then adds:
"Also, Hussein tried to assassinate Bush the father."
YIKES!!! Bush the Father, Bush the Son ... can Bush the Holy Ghost be far behind??? Just how far religiously Rightwing can someone get?
John D. then adds:
"Throughout the 1990s, Clinton bombed Iraq countless times for a host of reasons, and rightly so."
NEVER did he bomb Iraq because of terrorists living in a different country, though. It was for things Iraq did, not someone in Afghanistan. It may be reaching a little, but I think he would have probably bobmbed Afghanistan for that.
John D. then closes with one of his usual loving and gentle salutes:
"All of that lead us to 2003. I hope you and the rest of your ignorant breed learned something there."
LOVELEY, John. As the late, great Gilda Radner, in her character Rosanne Rosanadana, might have said, "Never mind!"
Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2007 3:32 PM
Really, is this necessary? Rove's interests as well as those of his boss are served better with his departure.
Why continue to hate the man, demos?
Well, perhaps because ...
Rove attempted to alter the GOP in order to put the Democrats out of business once and for all, by reaching to their core minority group constituencies, particularly Hispanics, White Ethnics, Jews, and Religious Middle Class Blacks. Unfortunately, the GOP base remains tone-deaf to the demographic realities making these moves necessary.
Posted by: Jack Kalpakian | August 20, 2007 3:33 PM
All the red states that Bush won in '04 are NOT going to swing to the far left for Hillary or Obama. Both of them are unelectable. All the Repubs needs to do is run a low key candidate and the presidency is in their pocket.
Posted by: Joe Coffin | August 20, 2007 3:36 PM
Virginia the lipstick on pigs all belong to Democrats they are Jackasses anyway. What's the diff. Your argument comes from tax cheat George Soros MoveOn.or, Daily Kos and rest of Hil's weied websites which she compares to honest think tanks. John Podesta, James Carville, Paul Bagala and strange ol George Stehanopolis define her 24/7 rant and yours too Virginia. Jerry White, Springfield, IL.P.S. You probably work for Chuckie Schumers DNC Senate.
Posted by: Jerry White | August 20, 2007 6:13 PM
It doesn't matter whether we get a Democrat or a Republican in the next election. Just remember what the comic Morey Amsterdam said: 'We've got the best politicians in this country that money can buy.' All other comments are redundant.
Posted by: Lee Larson | August 20, 2007 9:21 PM
All Libs must DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Tim | August 20, 2007 11:22 PM
Jerry you poor sap - this is not about dems or repubs - pay attention - this is about Americans & treason. Parties do not matter to me and should not to you. Your mind is closed, bet you vote a straight party ticket, which is just ignorant!
Posted by: virginia | August 23, 2007 4:48 AM
MoveOn Petraeus Ad
Why is it OK for Republicans to run attack ads but the moment some non-republican group does, then it is somehow wrong. Republicans shamelessly did this to war veteran John Kerry during the 2004 presidential campaign, they currently do it by manipulating disfigured war veterans to garner support for their lie based war and they will do it again and again. Give it up Republicans, the people of the USA are no longer buying your cheap attempts to twist perceptions about your war and your further attempts to manipulate the impressionable minds of this nation who like to be told what to think. Your quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand mentality has been exposed and all your attacks against those who oppose you only further expose your personal greed and hypocrisy.
In retrospect, I'm surprised that the common ordinary US citizen would even care about the Moveon.org Petraues ad. We all knew that General Petraues was going to write his own speech, in his own words, saying exactly all the things that he knew the Bush administration wanted to hear in a form that sounded acceptable to all republican politicians. The very fact that these Bush sycophants in the republican party got some of the spineless democrats to side with them in their wasteful republican efforts to condemn the MoveOn.org add clearly shows that these democrats are no different then these dysfunctional republican politicians. They both only value the interests of the rich minority of the nation, the interests of large corporations and votes in swing states as opposed to standing for their oath to the US Constitution, truth, the facts & doing the moral right thing by the people of the USA. McCain and all Republican politicians should be ashamed of themselves for their self-serving conduct all throughout the Bush administration as it is clear that they are not of, for or by the people.
If these spineless rich republican chicken hawks want their war so much, they should start funding it themselves instead of strapping the wasteful war debt on the backs of middle and lower class children for the next several generations. If these spineless republican chicken hawks really think that their illegal unconstitutional war was and is justified, then they should send their young college republican sociopath offspring to go fight their war. They all claim to be for war but always claim to be too busy to join the military and fight in it. Its time that they put their money where their mouths are by enlisting in the military and going to Iraq to be part of the Bush / Cheney / PNAC occupation of Iraq for oil.
MoveOn.org should be commended for their willingness to present the facts and stand up for the truth. Apparently, the Republican Party has not changed for the better and still has the very same unstable mindset of their vicious pseudo-conservative, quasi-Taliban mouthpieces like Ann Coulter who speak at their fund raising efforts. The appealing part about being like these viscous mouthpieces who attack MoveOn.org is the fact that it allows them to think that they are superior to others and further promote hate and war mongering within the masses. The sad reality to being one of these sociopaths is the fact that they usually cannot find anything filthier then their own personal reflection. When they are confronted with that reality, they always resort to the same cheap tactic over and over which is to rally their chicken hawks, hate mongers & vicious mouth pieces to make up lies against those who expose their sins. Very predictable…
Posted by: Larson | September 28, 2007 4:50 PM