.
Posted on 10/21/2014 4:10:20 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross
So Karl Rove was involved in a cover-up. Well, leave it to Karl -- the “boy genius” and the “architect” -- to orchestrate a cover-up that actually hides information exculpatory to his President and his party. He did just that on the issue of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in Iraq. This is not an outlier either -- this is just Rove being Rove. And ‘Rove being Rove’ has sewn the seeds of destruction that gave us Barack Obama in 2008, and again in 2012, and has scattered political germs that still haunt Republicans to this day. This goes back to late 2000 in fact. More on that later.
So in case you missed it, the New York Times ran an eight part expose on WMDs and The Daily Beast ran a well-sourced piece entitled Insiders Blame Rove for Covering Up Iraq’s Real WMDs that chronicles a Rove-inspired cover up. You might remember the little kerfuffle the nation got into when ostensibly no weapons were found? You know, “Bush lied, people died” and all of that? It helped run George W. Bush’s administration right into the ground, and he took the Republican brand with him. Yes, Hurricane Katrina was a major factor too, but again, that was related to ‘Rove being Rove’ as well -- and more on that later, too.
The WMD issue was one of the major public relations snafus of the Bush Administration, and the whole effort in the War on Terror. And the costs of these mistakes are catastrophic and still mounting.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Well done! You have defined Karl. A ‘tactician’ who is morally bankrupt. A soulless political hack.
ping ...
CEW...nailed it...I will take it a step farther in thinking there was some agreement between he and 0bola to tear down Hillary and leaving a huge push for Jeb and on 0bola’s side...Warren. Remember if things get bad doesn’t the Bush family have a large ranch in Paraguay?
Thank you sir - the fun part of this piece (IMO) is the use of Rush and Mark Levin pull quotes from their show - I mean, you can “hear” them saying it!
Rove, you malevolent bastard!
This is an extremely important article.
The unwillingness to prove Iraq’s WMDs actually goes much further than this.
We had better evidence much earlier but preferred not to reveal how we got that evidence.
I remember the stories of WMD’s in Iraq during the war. It was reported in the news at the time.
But the MSM news of the days Pooh, poohed the reports giving them limited air time and claiming they were old munitions - and few in number.
There was even shoots of US soldiers going through bunkers filled with chemical weapons.
So the question is why are they running “cover up” stories now?
I’d say “Anything to help make the Republican looks bad!”
Here is that reply:
As a result of the Bush administration's rope- a- dope strategy, we very nearly lost the war in Iraq, we are isolated in the world, we lost both houses of Congress in 2006, we have put an extreme leftist who could actually be a Manchurian Marxist in the White House and, finally, we have so damaged the Republican brand and the legitimacy of conservative principles that we are probably condemned to wander in the wilderness for a generation.
So your question, why in heaven's name did George Bush fail so pathetically to defend his administration and fight his corner, is apposite and one that I have been asking on these threads for four years. You can imagine my astonishment when I witnessed here in Germany a Karl Rove press conference, I think on CNN International, in which he replied to a question about why the administration did not defend itself against charges such as, "Bush lied and people died." He said he actually went to President Bush and told him that the administration must fight back that it was threatening its entire agenda domestically as well as in Iraq. As inconceivable as it sounds, Bush forbade Rove to wage such a campaign saying that it would divert the administration from other agenda items.
plus, it gives Bush Bashers a reason to live
That’s interesting, but doesn’t jive with what Rove admitted to Rush on air a few years ago, that one of his failings was the strategy of not fighting back - in other words - that was Rove strategy (and of course Bush had to agree).
This kind of non confrontation on the big issues and themes has always been part of Rove recipe.
Other insiders appear to agree ...
Why does Fox News still insist on giving him air time?
Rove has always been the enemy within, his treasonous behaviour regarding WMD’s was so successful he has since double downed.
On December 16, 1998, on the eve of the scheduled House vote on his impeachment, Bill Clinton launched a surprise bombing attack on Baghdad. As justification for this exploit, he cited the urgent threat that Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction posed to America, and the need for immediate action.
Almost immediately, the House Democrats held a caucus and emerged calling for a delay in the impeachment proceedings. House minority leader Dick Gephardt made a statement: "We obviously should pass a resolution by saying that we stand behind the troops. I would hope that we do not take up impeachment until the hostilities have completely ended."
Conveniently, a delay so near the end of the House term would have caused the vote to be taken up in the next session – when the newly elected House membership would be seated with more Democratic representation, thereby improving Clinton’s chances of dodging impeachment.
The Republicans did, in fact, agree to delay the hearings, but only for a day or two. Amazingly, Clinton ended the bombing raid after only 70 hours -- once it became clear that in spite of the brief delay, the vote would still be held in the current session.
Once the bombing stopped, Clinton touted the effectiveness and importance of the mission. As reported by ABC News : “We have inflicted significant damage on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs, on the command structures that direct and protect that capability, and on his military and security infrastructure,” he said. Defense secretary William Cohen echoed the point: “We estimate that Saddam's missile program has been set back by at least a year."
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
”Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
”Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
”Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, December 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
”Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Sadaam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Sadaam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is calculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein’s with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
And yet you still cling to your bitter "no difference between the two parties idiotic meme.
I have no idea whether it was Bush or Rove or Bush/Rove who made that fatal decision. Unfortunately it is fully within the character of both men to have made that decision. Rove demonstrated time and again in his politics. Bush demonstrated time and again in his Christian character, for example, his rehabilitation of the Kennedys and the Clintons served not his party but our adversaries but was fully in keeping with George Bush's conception of Christian principles.
Whoever is ultimately responsible, it is unquestionable that the damage both to the Republican brand and to the American image abroad has been incalculable. Perhaps, like the rest of the establishment Republicans in Washington who have been so intimidated by the media that they simply will not lift their heads above the parapet, the fault lies with a culture in academia and in the media which will not tolerate aggressive conservatism. Rare indeed is a man of Ted Cruz's quality who will knowingly take on the establishment and the media in the cause of conservatism as Cruz did in the fight over Obamacare.
Until we get Republican leaders who will at least defend themselves, conservatism will never be able to stop the centrifugal forces pushing the Republic over the brink.
Although I give Rove a lot of credit, I don’t let GW Bush off the hook. I don’t think he’s unintelligent or out of touch. He knew that silence was costing him, his party, his base.
So, he either did this intentionally or unintentionally. If intentionally, he knew it and rode this all the way to the ground with Rove, 2 mad Strangelove cowboys riding that bomb to destruction. If unintentionally, the only explanation would be naively thinking the silence strategy would work.
Of course, there is always the conspiracy theory route. Bush and Rove intentionally destroyed any chance that anyone would defeat the democrats in the next election cycle. Why? Because a greater conspiracy is actually running things.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.