Karl Rove is a bas***d

[TOVisitor]

Now that KKKarl has managed to slander at least 49% of the people in the US, here's what I would do as a liberal to really show that I hate America and the troops:

1. Send an undermanned, underequipped military force into Afghanistan, outsource the fighting to local warlords, and provide a safe haven to Pakistani nuclear scientists.

2. Use 9/11 as an excuse to invade a country with no ties to it, making sure to "gin up" the evidence and lie to the American people about it

3. Once I completed my invasion of Iaq, I want to make sure that I don't protect their historical treasures (so that they can later be sold to help fund more terroorist attacks), and make sure that I protect the oil ministry to the detriment of water and electrical facilities.

4. Make sure that several billion dollars in Iraq aid are allowed to flow to cronies of members of my admin, and make sure that my campaign contributors are put in positions of authority in Iraq even though they have no experience

5. Insult and piss off all of my traditional allies.

6. Make sure to divide the US population with fear mongering and appeals to people's basest instincts.

7. Make sure that I throw around words like freedom and democracy, while at he same time supporting repressive regimes like the Uzbeks.

8. Claim to support the troops but give them poor equipment and underfund Veteran's health care to the tune of $1 billion.

9. Put a radical Christian right-winger in a position of authority in the GWOT and let him make statements like, "My God is bigger than their God"

10. Abuse prisoners and make sure they get no legal protection through treaties we have signed

11. Make sure that OBL gets away.

Yup, that's what this America-hating lberal would do if I were in charge.

 

[maxim4]

never..................

....kill the messenger! Mr. Rove is just doing his job of selling and spinning the neo-con ideas for the new american century! Remember he did admit the non-liberals(the US version) were ready to take action for 9-11. Also to address your post:
1-those are not warlords....those are our allies!
2-the informaton about links to Iraq was 'sexed up' by the British!
3-Like Rumsfeld said ".....this happens when people are liberated.."
4-that's just the cost of doing 'business'
5-those allies belong to...Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy , Eisenhower,Taft, McKinley Truman and both Roosevelts!
6- oh so we aint 2 smart!
7-uzbeks today....Zaire, Uganda, Argentina, Brazil, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Columbia, Panama, Peru, Haiti yesterday.....who's next?
8-blame the 'dems......they held up congress!
9-but our god has given us tanks, nuclear stealth bombers, the internet and Paris Hilton!
10-those are not prisoners....those are enemy combatants! who will remain where they are until the war on terror is over...which may take until kingdom comes!
11-where know where he is...... he is in the mountains....hiding....in a cave....with some followers....he has a beard.....and some guns!

anyway TOvisitor let the leaders lead and the followers follow! The truth is simply that humans in frenzy and too much ignorance have led us to where we are now! And Karl was just doing the same thing he has been doing for years and if they were paying anyone with common sense to spin this war they would done it much like Karl.....yours truly included

 

[Garrett]

Face it, Rove is good at what he does. He made Dubya a war hero (by proxy) and Kerry a lying pussy. He may be a bastard, but the dude earns his pay.

 

[Cool Dude]

Well, there's doing your job and then there's Karl Rove.

I read his comments about liberals and their attitudes after 911. It's all bullshit. It was a cheap shot, and the response to his remarks by the audience was silence. The punchline didn't work. Patacki should have come out swinging. So much for political integrity, and I like Patacki. One reason among many on why I voted for McCain in the general election (write-in) was because of Rove's strategy in South Carolina against McCain.
Of course, since I'm a conservative, my opinion means little here but I thought I would express it anyway.

 

[Mcluhan]

fill in the blanks

Of course, since I'm a conservative, my opinion means little here but I thought I would express it any way.

That's not true at all. I for one would like to hear 'one' sound reasonable, intellegent argument how this war in Iraq is justified that is not based on

a) party platitude: (we must stay the course, etc); or
b) lies: ( we went in as a defense, or we need to democratise the region); or
c) ignorance: it makes strategically good economic sense, ( spending a 1/4 billion dollars a day)
d) myth: we are fighting terrorism on their turf not ours

Further, if a conservative posting here were to come out and speak the truth it would very refreshing. Something along the lines of, "the president and his cronies lied america into war, but there was a good reason, ________. They fixed the intellegence, but here's why it had to be done _______ and it's justifyable because ________. "

Drop the party line, (insulting to rational people's intellegence,) deal in the truth of the matter and let's get down to real reasons why America is in Iraq. Then there will be a basis for intellegent meaningful dialogue.

 

[Garrett]

I read his comments about liberals and their attitudes after 911. It's all bullshit. It was a cheap shot, and the response to his remarks by the audience was silence. The punchline didn't work. Patacki should have come out swinging. So much for political integrity, and I like Patacki. One reason among many on why I voted for McCain in the general election (write-in) was because of Rove's strategy in South Carolina against McCain.
Of course, since I'm a conservative, my opinion means little here but I thought I would express it anyway.

I generally agree with you... and for a conservative, you seem to rate pretty low on the bastard scale Problem is... nothing is about being right.. it all comes down to public opinion and perception. When it comes to that, for whatever reason, the guy has it nailed. Even his latest comments, for all the comment in the media, I bet they play pretty well for the republican home base. Until the dem's have someone to run against the republican machine, they can pretty much do whatever they want (similar to the liberals in Canada).

 

[Cool Dude]

I did express my opinion on why we were in Iraq.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=480805&highlight=general

The fact that our intelligence on WMD was so wrong is what really scares the hell out of me. My concern now is an exit strategy to bring back our boys and preserve the chance for Iraq to have a representative government. I believe in a healthy debate. What I am not interested in is getting into pissing contests with people who attack, demean and insult those who disagree with them. The irony is they sound and act just like those that they castigate. I`m not pointing the finger at you M.

 

[Mcluhan]

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=480805&highlight=general

The fact that our intelligence on WMD was so wrong is what really scares the hell out of me. My concern now is an exit strategy to bring back our boys and preserve the chance for Iraq to have a representative government. I believe in a healthy debate. What I am not interested in is getting into pissing contests with people who attack, demean and insult those who disagree with them. The irony is they sound and act just like those that they castigate. I`m not pointing the finger at you M.

Thanks. Admittedly I have been known to break the rules of Etiquette on more than one occasion in pissing matches. This war is so crazy it gets me inflamed. There`s a lot at stake.

 

[TOVisitor]

The fact that our intelligence on WMD was so wrong is what really scares the hell out of me. My concern now is an exit strategy to bring back our boys and preserve the chance for Iraq to have a representative government. I believe in a healthy debate. What I am not interested in is getting into pissing contests with people who attack, demean and insult those who disagree with them. The irony is they sound and act just like those that they castigate. I'm not pointing the finger at you M.

I will take your finger pointing, Dude, right in my face.

I will do healthy debate with anyone who wants to debate on facts. However, the neanderthals and nutcases here who insist on ignoring facts and instead talk, on the one hand, about Billary or nuking brown people or Teddy's swimming skills, or, on the other hand, about how Hitler and Mussolini were wonderful people underneath it all or that the US should get rid of the heads of soverign governments just because they are not in the US' (read neocons') interest -- these people deserve all that I can dish out to them.

The fact that you are questioning the "assumptions" behind going into Iraq indicates that you are a thinking human being who might be persuaded to understand the lies behind the Shrub admin's decisions. The mendacity of this presdidency is just appalling. There are just too many examples to cite -- most of which are discussed on this board.

What YOU have to decide is this: will you continue to aid and abet the lies and deceptions, the fear-mongering, the stealing, the systematic dismantling of any social safety net -- all in the pursuit of naked power? Because these people are NOT Republicans. They are NOT Conservatives. And every time you vote for or otherwise support these guys, you are part of the problem, and not part of the solution.

 

[TOVisitor]

I read his comments about liberals and their attitudes after 911. It's all bullshit. It was a cheap shot, and the response to his remarks by the audience was silence. The punchline didn't work. Patacki should have come out swinging. So much for political integrity, and I like Patacki. One reason among many on why I voted for McCain in the general election (write-in) was because of Rove's strategy in South Carolina against McCain.
Of course, since I'm a conservative, my opinion means little here but I thought I would express it anyway.

Rove really stepped in it, Dude.

Pataki will be a loser to Spitzer and Bloomberg will go down as well.

Some folks in NYC that I know are fighting mad about Rove and he better not show his pudgy ass in NYC again, for fear of some serious demonstrations against him.

As to Mr McCain, he does cultivate that maverick image. However, the religious right savaged him already -- something that was NOT deserved.

I, for once, think that he jumped the shark when he endorsed Alberto Gonzales. McCain, of all people, had the moral position to oppose Gonzales and did not, all in the name of politics.

If he decides to run, he will have to swallow his pride and pander to the religious right. THEN we will see just how much of a man or a hack he really is.

 

[Cool Dude]

Correct me if I'm wrong but he did run and he did not pander to the religious right. Patacki won't lose to Spitzer, IMHO, because he's going to run for president. You are correct though TOV, that the finger pointing was directed at you. Why? You are not just insulting those who posted crazy stuff like the examples you cited in your previous post. Everybody on the right gets painted with your brush. What's it been, a little over a month since you started with these rants? They are rants you know. Just because others take the low road doesn't mean you have to. I think you look foolish especially since I take you for no fool.
I'm a political conservative. Therefore, in your eyes, I'm a ditto-head, chickenhawk moron who supports the religious right. Well I don't drink other people's Koolaid. I make my own.

 

[WoodPeckr]

Pataki is toast.....

Correct me if I'm wrong but he did run and he did not pander to the religious right. Pataki won't lose to Spitzer, IMHO, because he's going to run for president.

All Wacky Pataki has done using 'bushie voodoo enonomics' is run up NY State debt to unheard of highs using that GOP mantra of Borrow & Spend & let your kids pay off the debt.
Spitzer will demolish wacky Pataki.

 

[TOVisitor]

Correct me if I'm wrong but he did run and he did not pander to the religious right. Patacki won't lose to Spitzer, IMHO, because he's going to run for president. You are correct though TOV, that the finger pointing was directed at you. Why? You are not just insulting those who posted crazy stuff like the examples you cited in your previous post. Everybody on the right gets painted with your brush. What's it been, a little over a month since you started with these rants? They are rants you know. Just because others take the low road doesn't mean you have to. I think you look foolish especially since I take you for no fool.
I'm a political conservative. Therefore, in your eyes, I'm a ditto-head, chickenhawk moron who supports the religious right. Well I don't drink other people's Koolaid. I make my own.

McCain did not pander to the religious right, and look what it got him -- South Carolina. They will savage him again, for sure. If you wouild like to make a bet on his likely ascension to the Republican nomineee, I will take that bet.

Pataki won't lose to Spitzer? That's another bet that I will gladly take.

And no, I have NOT painted everyone on the right with my brush. There ARE some on the right that I read and admire. I will be glad to direct you to them, should you desire to read them for yourself.

I admire political conservatives who have the consitency to see the inconsistencies of their their opinions and who will change or modify their opinions or who will call out the liars on their side who are doing so.

If anyone here wants to come back with a "Billary" or "Teddy can't swim" or "Clinton did it" or "Southern Dems used the fillibuster 50 years ago" as their witty reparteee, my words are two: F**K off.

To those who insist upon talking about letting others fight the fight against the "evil brown people", I say a pox upon you and your house. The Shrub admin, as far as I am concerned, is neither Republican nor Conservative, but a power-mad cabal led by neocons and fundies who wish to reshape the last 100 years of progress in the US. I will fight tooth and nail against that.

Furthermore, I am sick and tired of conservatives lecturing the left not to be "shrill" and to behave like conservative-lites. The right is chock full of shrill voices -- from Rush Limbaugh to Michael Savage, from Ann Coulter to Sean Hannity, from Bill O'Reilly to, yes, Karl Rove -- who will say anythiing and do anything to keep the corrupt, the lying, and the mendacious in power in Washington.

THe right-wing in the US has this wondeful new Catch-22. Criticise the Democrats for not having any ideas, and yet when they have them, the Democrats are shouted down as liberals and left-wingers. Nice, huh?

In short, Dude, you can choose to engage me or not in any way you wish. If you see the BS that passes for right-wing discourse from some here, I am more than willing to give back to them every bit of what I think they deserve.

Finally, as a vet, I take enormous pride in my service to my country. And any little pissant who wants to lecture me on the wondefulness of the war in Iraq who is NOT willing to put their own sorry ass on the line is a chickenshit and a chickenhawk .. and that includes Karl Rove, the subject of this thread.

P.S. It's well-known that Rove was resposible for sliming McCain with tales of his "brown children" in South Carolina. Care to defend Rove?

 

[TOVisitor]

You are not just insulting those who posted crazy stuff like the examples you cited in your previous post.

Please illuminate me. What examples are you referring to?

 

[TOVisitor]

John Cole is a principled Conservative. Here's what he has to say about Rove.

From: http://www.balloon-juice.com/

Gimme a Break

And now, of course, the calls of media bias start. Look, folks- the reason the media is covering the Rove smear more than the alleged Durbin smear is because by and large, the people in the media can read. Durbin's remarks, one more time:

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

No matter how many times you say it, he did not call our soldiers Nazis. He just didn't. It was a stupid remark to make given that he had to know it would be distorted, but there is no way to claim he called the troops Nazis unless you just see whatever you want to see.

The reason Rove's remarks are being attacked as a stab in the back launched at all Democrats is because it is. He created a world with two lines of thought- one conservative, one liberal. The conservative position just so happened to be the one he thought was right, the one he aligned with the GOP, and the positions advocated by this Republican administration.

The other line of thought he attributed to the opposition, who is the Democratic party. There was no mention of 'some liberals,' or 'some Democrats,' and for good measure he threw in Durbin and Dean, just in case we didn't make the not-so-subtle connection.

You are simply lying to yourself if you try to claim otherwise, and it is pretty clear right now that this is a coordinated strategy to mute opposition. Durbin was just the opportunistic opening they were looking for...
Filed under General Stupidity by John Cole at 09:37 AM

 

[assoholic]

..the right is also trying to take over PBS, the right is attacking any thought they deem left wing.

 

[Pete Graves]

The left needs their boogeyman. I'm sure the libs here can explain the vast differences between Rove and Dick Morris.

On his recent comments, was Rove so wrong? When we hired more security screeners, libs scrambled to pay back their debts to organized labor so that incompetent screeners couldn't be fired. Libs compare loud music to death camps. Libs fight to extend the rights of American Citizens to foreign terrorists.

 

[TOVisitor]

The left needs their boogeyman. I'm sure the libs here can explain the vast differences between Rove and Dick Morris.

Rove & Dick Morris? Hello? Earth to Graves. Earth to Graves.

On his recent comments, was Rove so wrong?.

Look at the post two above yours.

And call us when the drugs kick back in.

 

[TOVisitor]

NY Times editorial about Iraq

Hard-hitting and sober. Short and sweet.

The NY Times has been behind Bush since Day One. This is big.

From: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/25/opinion/25sat1.html?

Three Things About Iraq
Published: June 25, 2005

To have the sober conversation about the war in Iraq that America badly needs, it is vital to acknowledge three facts:

The war has nothing to do with Sept. 11. Saddam Hussein was a sworn enemy of Washington, but there was no Iraq-Qaeda axis, no connection between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks on the United States. Yet the president and his supporters continue to duck behind 9/11 whenever they feel pressure about what is happening in Iraq. The most cynical recent example was Karl Rove's absurd and offensive declaration this week that conservatives and liberals had different reactions to 9/11. Let's be clear: Americans of every political stripe were united in their outrage and grief, united in their determination to punish those who plotted the mass murder and united behind the war in Afghanistan, which was an assault on terrorists. Trying to pretend otherwise is the surest recipe for turning political dialogue into meaningless squabbling.

The war has not made the world, or this nation, safer from terrorism. The breeding grounds for terrorists used to be Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia; now Iraq has become one. Of all the justifications for invading Iraq that the administration juggled in the beginning, the only one that has held up over time is the desire to create a democratic nation that could help stabilize the Middle East. Any sensible discussion of what to do next has to begin by acknowledging that. The surest way to make sure that conversation does not happen is for the administration to continue pasting the "soft on terror" label on those who want to talk about the war.

If the war is going according to plan, someone needs to rethink the plan. Progress has been measurable on the political front. But even staunch supporters of the war, like the Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, told Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at a hearing this week that President Bush was losing public support because the military effort was not keeping pace. A top general said this week that the insurgency was growing. The frequency of attacks is steady, or rising a bit, while the repulsive tactic of suicide bombings has made them more deadly.

If things are going to be turned around, there has to be an honest discussion about what is happening. But Mr. Rumsfeld was not interested. Sneering at his Democratic questioners, he insisted everything was on track and claimed "dozens of trained battalions are capable of conducting anti-insurgent operations" with American support. That would be great news if it were true. Gen. George Casey, the commander in Iraq, was more honest, saying he hoped there would be "a good number of units" capable of doing that "before the end of this year."

Americans cannot judge for themselves because the administration has decided to make the information secret. Senator John McCain spoke for us when he expressed his disbelief at this news. "I think the American people need to know," he said. "They are the ones who are paying for this conflict."

 

[Mcluhan]

Hard-hitting and sober. Short and sweet.

The NY Times has been behind Bush since Day One. This is big.

From: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/25/opinion/25sat1.html?

Three Things About Iraq
Published: June 25, 2005

To have the sober conversation about the war in Iraq that America badly needs, it is vital to acknowledge three facts:

The war has nothing to do with Sept. 11. Saddam Hussein was a sworn enemy of Washington, but there was no Iraq-Qaeda axis, no connection between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks on the United States. Yet the president and his supporters continue to duck behind 9/11 whenever they feel pressure about what is happening in Iraq. The most cynical recent example was Karl Rove's absurd and offensive declaration this week that conservatives and liberals had different reactions to 9/11. Let's be clear: Americans of every political stripe were united in their outrage and grief, united in their determination to punish those who plotted the mass murder and united behind the war in Afghanistan, which was an assault on terrorists. Trying to pretend otherwise is the surest recipe for turning political dialogue into meaningless squabbling.

The war has not made the world, or this nation, safer from terrorism. The breeding grounds for terrorists used to be Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia; now Iraq has become one. Of all the justifications for invading Iraq that the administration juggled in the beginning, the only one that has held up over time is the desire to create a democratic nation that could help stabilize the Middle East. Any sensible discussion of what to do next has to begin by acknowledging that. The surest way to make sure that conversation does not happen is for the administration to continue pasting the "soft on terror" label on those who want to talk about the war.

If the war is going according to plan, someone needs to rethink the plan. Progress has been measurable on the political front. But even staunch supporters of the war, like the Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, told Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at a hearing this week that President Bush was losing public support because the military effort was not keeping pace. A top general said this week that the insurgency was growing. The frequency of attacks is steady, or rising a bit, while the repulsive tactic of suicide bombings has made them more deadly.

If things are going to be turned around, there has to be an honest discussion about what is happening. But Mr. Rumsfeld was not interested. Sneering at his Democratic questioners, he insisted everything was on track and claimed "dozens of trained battalions are capable of conducting anti-insurgent operations" with American support. That would be great news if it were true. Gen. George Casey, the commander in Iraq, was more honest, saying he hoped there would be "a good number of units" capable of doing that "before the end of this year."

Americans cannot judge for themselves because the administration has decided to make the information secret. Senator John McCain spoke for us when he expressed his disbelief at this news. "I think the American people need to know," he said. "They are the ones who are paying for this conflict."

TOV, you should put this in a new thread and ask for an honest discussion, based on these as tenents, any squabbling thereof be dammed.