To be clear: Here I am Pitting neither Karl Rove nor George W. Bush. Instead I question the integrity of anyone who defends Karl Rove.
Karl Rove may not be unique. One hears bad things about Bill Clinton’s advisor Dick Morris. (Interestingly, Dick Morris is now a right-wing hack! )
But it is documented that Karl Rove was a key adviser to G.W. Bush, not just on political matters, but on foreign and economic policies – I should think anyone would find that quite disconcerting. (I am aware that many Americans are probably still unfamiliar with the name “Karl Rove.” :smack: )
In a recent GD thread, I suggested Karl Rove might be behind the forgeries that deceived Dan Rather. Two different Dopers asked the Moderator to issue a Warning against septimus for this post; let me re-post it here in BBQ Pit where presumably it’s OK.
I got this response:
I’m not sure what to make of this. I’ll suggest that there are the following types of Republican, and ask Mr. Shodan which type describes him. Since he felt inclined to defend Rove, one guesses he is of type 3 or 4 rather than 1 or 2.
[ul][li] 1. Those ashamed the sleazeball Rove is associated with their Party.[/li][li] 2. Those who feel the Democrats engage in similar dirty tricks, and are proud that Rove, the sleaziest of this ilk, is on their team.[/li][li] 3. Those who find it unfair to single out Rove, because the GOP has so many similar hacks.[/li][li] 4. Those who think all Americans should be proud of Karl Rove, an inspiring campaign superstar.[/li][/ul]
The key point I would make about the Rather forgeries is that the underlying story was true, but the forgery diverted the story. It doesn’t seem unlikely that the forgery and its discovery were planned by some hack (though not necessarily Karl Rove).
Shodan seems to have fallen for the trick: Because a clever GOP concocted the forgery, it follows that the shirking story must be false.
Perhaps an example will help Shodan understand his fallacy. If I forged a document stating that Shodan had been judged mentally incompetent by a judge, would it follow logically that Shodan is mentally competent?
I have no evidence to offer on the source of the Rather forgery, but since Shodan’s comments, if based on rational thought at all, imply that he disbelieves the shirking allegation itself let me close with some cites substantiating that.
ETA: I won’t condemn Bush for his shirking. But surely it is ironic and sad that the 2004 election was swung by lies about the military record of an actual war hero.
I’ve long felt that the Bush memo forgeries were plants (the “debunking” came too quickly and were precise on obscure issues), although I wouldn’t go so far as to name Rove as the instigator. I know that earlier it’s said that it might be one of his acolytes, but it’s Rove’s name in the thread title and all over the OP. There are plenty of slimy political operatives.
I get a slimy sensation reading Rove’s political commentaries in the Wall St. Journal.
If “hunch”, “suspicion” and “allegations” were rocket fuel, we could send Rove to Mars. But they’re not.
The phony Alan Dixon party invites actually are kind of funny, in a Dick Tuck sort of way.
"In 1968, Tuck utilized Republican nominee Nixon’s own campaign slogan against him; he hired a very pregnant African-American woman to wander around a Nixon rally in a predominantly white area, wearing a T-shirt that said, “Nixon’s the One!”
We don’t disagree here, and I did state that my goal is not to Pit Rove.
Actually my intent is to understand Shodan’s thinking, but I didn’t know how to phrase my question in a way that would comply with the rules of any forum but BBQ Pit. I doubt Shodan will condescend to answer the question, so I invite others to conjecture on my questions:
By defending Rove, is Shodan admitting that the Bush-Rove White House had so many slimy hacks that there’s no reason to suspect Rove in particular? Did he fall for Rovian logic? (Forging a memo about a true fact makes the fact false. :smack: ) Is he so infatuated with the GOP as to not even understand the kind of sleaze that dominated the Bush-Rove era?
Or, does he have nothing better than:
"You centrists do it also, but I can’t be arsed to give examples.
Clearly the fact that you have such a long list of Karl Rove’s purported misdeeds at hand suggests that you’re less than impartial in your assessment of him and thus cannot be assumed to be credible. Why should we believe anything you say? This just goes to show that once again this board is willing to blindly attack any conservative no matter how experienced or successful they are.
I think I’m getting the hang of this.
(1) Since Rove was a well-known slimeball, any accusation against him should be permitted.
(2) Since the fact that the documents were forgeries ended up hurting CBS and possibly helping Bush, they must have planted by the GOP.
(3) Even if the documents were forgeries, their underlying accusations are absolutely correct.
Can the OP, or anyone, clarify which of these they want to defend tooth and nail?
That’s awesome, one of my favorites (possibly apocryphal):
Lyndon B. Johnson was in the middle of an election for Texas’ 10 Congressional District when after a heated debate he said his opponent fucks goats. His aid said, “sir you can’t call him a goat fucker” and he replied, “I dare him to deny it!”
Thats what kept going through my mind when Christine O’donnell felt she had to fight off the witch scandal.
Please point to the post in which the assumption that “any accusation against him must be permitted” is made.
Please point to the post which says or implies that they “must” have been planted by the GOP (rather than stating suspicions and patterns of behavior).
Given that the OP already states that outright and offers other sources to support it, it’s not an assumption but an allegation.
Option 5 - None of the Above. There is no evidence of any substance that Rove or the GOP had anything to do with the story.
I don’t wonder that you are confused - a clever GOP did not concoct the forgery.
It would establish that you were a dishonest hack desperate to establish something for partisan advantage, that nobody cared all that much without more evidence than you could come up, and so you got desperate and used foul means to do what you could not achieve with fair.
No, I am pointing out what you admit yourself - that there is no evidence for your allegation that Rove forged the documents.
In order to establish your case that he did, you need to forge some evidence and have it disproven. According to your logic, that will show that somebody else did it.
Is there any doubt that Bush used wealth and family connections to dodge service in Vietnam? I thought this was so obvious that I wondered at the time why the memos, real or not, were being treated as so significant. It’s like someone “unearthing” documents that Joe McCarthy was a jerk. I mean… duh. Even if they’re real, they don’t tell us anything we didn’t already know.
At least Clinton’s dodge was based on him being smart, and not because of his relatives. I can respect that.
Slow down. Let’s get the basics out of the way. Answer the following questions:
Ignoring whether Rove did this particular sleaze forgery, do you deny it’s the sort of thing he’s noted for?
Ignoring whether the Rather documents were forged, are the shirking allegations about Bush true?
You managed to create a longish response without even hinting whether you know the answers to these questions. Are you willing to correct that oversight now?
All the evidence that he did was forged by Karl Rove.
Depends on what you mean by “smart”, and what you mean by “relatives”.
["Despite statements by Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton that he “never received any unusual or favorable treatment” to avoid being drafted during the Vietnam War, there is strong evidence that Clinton benefited from a concerted lobbying campaign orchestrated by his uncle to delay his military induction, The Times has found.
The previously undisclosed lobbying effort directed by his uncle, Raymond Clinton, produced, among other results, the offer of a Navy reserve assignment created especially for the young Clinton at a time in 1968 when no existing reserve slots were open in his hometown unit.
By all means. Let’s get the basics out of the way.
No, I don’t care to ignore the subject of your OP.
You have no evidence at all for your ridiculous conspiracy theories of Rove planting the forgeries. You are trying to change the subject to distract from that fact.
There is no oversight - you are a lying sack of shit. Just like you claim Karl Rove is.
Ignoring whether Rove did this particular sleaze forgery, do you deny it’s the sort of thing he’s noted for?
Yes. Accepting arguendo that he’s known for dirty tricks like planting negative stories about opponents, so far as I’m aware there’s never been a similar accusation to this: planting a negative story about the person he supports, but doing it by means of documents or sources that will be discredited, thus reversing the effect.
Has he?
Or is your position that all dirty tricks are the same?
Ignoring whether the Rather documents were forged, are the shirking allegations about Bush true?
I regard them as unproven. As the proponent of the allegations, it’s for you to provide proof. The mere fact, for example, no one can remember Bush being at a particular place forty years ago is hardly convincing. If I had to guess, I’d say it’s more likely than not that they are true, but not by a wide margin. If I were a juror in a criminal case, I’d vote to acquit on this evidence. If i were a juror in a criminal case, I’d probably find that he skipped service.
Well, he was smart enough to be eligible to study abroad, anyway. I admit not knowing about the alleged efforts of his uncle, but they look moot in any case.
In another thread, I’m contending that a drop in gun crime numbers means that gun control advocates’ predictions were wrong. I was challenged to provide specific, methodologically sound data sets before the proposition could be accepted.
I’m wondering why that same spirit of rigor doesn’t apply here?
)
