I Pit anyone who doesn't know Karl Rove is a disgusting slimeball

[septimus]

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." )

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.

Originally Posted by septimus

I think Shodan missed the point that the allegations in the forged memo were true and, just as they did with Lewinsky etc., GOP operatives managed to divert the media onto a less relevant sideshow.

I still think it's likely that Karl Rove, or one of his fans, was responsible for the forged memo. With Google, I see that someone else has the same suspicion. I find it very sad that this thug was one of the country's chief policymakers for eight years, considering the bullets on his resume:

• In the 1996 Alabama Supreme Court race between Democratic incumbent Kenneth Ingram and Republican challenger Harold See, Rove printed anonymous fliers attacking See, his own client. The purpose was "'to create a backlash against the Democrat,' as Joe Perkins, who worked for Ingram, put it to me," Green writes. "Presumably the public would believe that Democrats were spreading terrible rumors about See and his family. ... The ploy left Rove's opponent at a loss. Ingram's staff realized that it would be fruitless to try to persuade the public that the See campaign was attacking its own candidate."
• Rove's slimiest moment came in 1994, when See first ran for the Supreme Court in Alabama against Democratic incumbent Mark Kennedy, who had just served a term as president of the National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse and Neglect. Kennedy's commercials highlighted his volunteer work - and included one that showed him holding hands with children - so Rove started a whispering campaign that Kennedy was a pedophile, Green writes. "What Rove does is try and make something so bad for a family that the candidate will not subject the family to the hardship," explained Perkins.
• In 1970, College Republican Rove stole letterhead from the Illinois Democratic campaign of Alan Dixon, and used it to invite hundreds of people to Dixon's new headquarters opening, promising free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing, disrupting the event.
• When Rove advised on George W. Bush's 1994 race for governor of Texas against Democratic incumbent Ann Richards, a persistent whisper campaign in conservative East Texas wrongly suggested that Richards was a lesbian. According to Texas journalist Lou Dubose: "No one ever traced the character assassination to Rove. Yet no one doubts that Rove was behind it. It's a process on which he holds a patent. Identify your opponent's strength, and attack it so relentlessly that it becomes a liability. Richards was admired because she promised and delivered a 'government that looked more like the people of the state.' That included the appointment of blacks, Hispanics and gays and lesbians. Rove made that asset a liability."
• After John McCain thumped George W. Bush in the 2000 New Hampshire primary, with 48 percent of the vote to Bush's 30 percent, a massive smear campaign was launched in South Carolina, a key battleground. TV attack ads from third groups and anonymous fliers circulated, variously suggesting that McCain's experience as a prisoner of war in Vietnam left him mentally scarred with an uncontrollable temper, that his wife, Cindy, abused drugs and that he had an African-American "love child."
• According to the investigation of Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, Rove played a central role in the outing of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame to columnist Robert Novak and former Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, in retaliation for her husband Joe Wilson's accusation that the Bush administration falsely claimed that Saddam Hussein sought uranium in Niger.
• Rove has ignored subpoenas to testify before Congress regarding the Justice Department scandal of the firing of nine U.S. attorneys. He skipped a hearing on improper use of RNC e-mail accounts by White House staff, which allowed them to skirt the Presidential Records Act.

(Some of the above are excerpted from this page.)

An excerpt from the first cite gives substance to the hunch that the forged memos were a White House trick:

If I insult Karl Rove, and lament that the country has been controlled by bastards of his ilk, am I part of the problem or part of the solution?

I got this response:

Originally Posted by Shodan

I note for the record that septimus' ridiculous claim that Rove was behind the forgeries passes unchallenged by the moderators.

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.

• 1. Those ashamed the sleazeball Rove is associated with their Party.
• 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.
• 3. Those who find it unfair to single out Rove, because the GOP has so many similar hacks.
• 4. Those who think all Americans should be proud of Karl Rove, an inspiring campaign superstar.

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.

Form Huffington post:

I remember it seemed fishy that well-orchestrated internet attacks about the CBS memos from Bush's commanding officer were unleashed literally on the very night Rather's now famous 60 Minutes broadcast (Wednesday edition) aired in 2004. Yes, those memos had questionable lineage, and may have been reproductions.

Still, some of the accusations by the right wing blogosphere (that typewriters in the early 70's didn't have raised th capability) were demonstrably false. I inherited my older sister's electric Smith Carona when she went away to college back then, and it already had that feature.

In any event, Rather did a follow-up the week after the initial broadcast, remember? He interviewed the 86-year old personal secretary of Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, Bush's commanding officer in Houston. The elderly woman, a straight shooter, thought CBS's cache of Killian's memos were not originals, but she fiercely stuck to her guns that everything in them, all the bad stuff about Bush, was accurate.

Her evidence: she'd typed the damn things originally, and was Killian's "right hand" for years. Shrub's presence was naturally a big deal because of his father's national prominence, and she remembered like it was yesterday.

I think Rather's ultimate goal is as much about reopening the whole Bush National Guard story as it is getting his pound of flesh out of a former employer.

Unlike the nuttiness from the anti-Obama "birther" crowd, evidence (from the Boston Globe and others) strongly suggests that George W. Bush literally bailed on his Guard duty, got a transfer to Alabama, and then disappeared for at least the final 12 months of his military commitment, perhaps up to 17 months. Some have a lost weekend; he had a lost year.

Viewed within this context, that's what Bush's whole "Mission Accomplished" photo-op in the flight suit was about: rewriting the biggest embarrassment in his background.

From other webpages:

Originally Posted by Dan Rather

we had a lot, a lot of corroboration, of what we broadcast about President Bush's military record. It wasn't just the documents.... It's a very old technique used, that when those who don't like what you're reporting believe it can be hurtful, then they look for the weakest spot and attack it, which is fair enough. It's a diversionary technique.

Originally Posted by Colonel Lechliter

He broke his contract with the United States government -- without any adverse consequences. And the Texas Air National Guard was complicit in allowing this to happen. He was a pilot. It cost the government a million dollars to train him to fly. So he should have been held to an even higher standard.

In May 1972, Bush was given permission to move to Alabama temporarily to work on a US Senate campaign, with the provision that he do equivalent training with a unit in Montgomery. But Bush's service records do not show him logging any service in Alabama until October of that year.

And even that service is in doubt. Since the Globe first reported Bush's spotty attendance record in May 2000, no one has come forward with any credible recollection of having witnessed Bush performing guard service in Alabama or after he returned to Houston in 1973. While Bush was in Alabama, he was removed from flight status for failing to take his annual flight physical in July 1972. On May 1, 1973, Bush's superior officers wrote that they could not complete his annual performance review because he had not been observed at the Houston base during the prior 12 months.
...
Lechliter said the records push him to conclude that Bush had little interest in fulfilling his obligation, and his superiors preferred to look the other way. Others agree. ''It appears that no one wanted to hold him accountable," said retired Major General Paul A. Weaver Jr., who retired in 2002 as the Pentagon's director of the Air National Guard.

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.

[CalMeacham]

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.

[Jackmannii]

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!"

[septimus]

Originally Posted by CalMeacham

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.

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. ) 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.

Regards,
A Fool"

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by Jackmannii

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!"

I'm sorry, I seem to have been distracted by the fact that you have a politician unironically calling himself Dick Tuck. You were saying ?

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Originally Posted by Kobal2

I'm sorry, I seem to have been distracted by the fact that you have a politician unironically calling himself Dick Tuck. You were saying ?

It puts the lotion in the basket.

[Gyrate]

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.

[Bricker]

There are a number of assumptions here:

(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?

If it were me, I''d pick (3).

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil

It puts the lotion in the basket.

I'm right there in the basket with you.

[Sitnam]

Originally Posted by Jackmannii

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!"

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.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by Bricker

There are a number of assumptions here:

(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?

If it were me, I''d pick (3).

I would too, since (1) and (2) are straw man propositions. (Specifically, "any accusation" and "must have been planted."

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Bricker

There are a number of assumptions here:

(1) Since Rove was a well-known slimeball, any accusation against him should be permitted.

Please point to the post in which the assumption that "any accusation against him must be permitted" is made.

(2) Since the fact that the documents were forgeries ended up hurting CBS and possibly helping Bush, they must have planted by the GOP.

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).

(3) Even if the documents were forgeries, their underlying accusations are absolutely correct.

Given that the OP already states that outright and offers other sources to support it, it's not an assumption but an allegation.

Can the OP, or anyone, clarify which of these they want to defend tooth and nail?

If it were me, I''d pick (3).

I can see why.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by septimus

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.

• 1. Those ashamed the sleazeball Rove is associated with their Party.
• 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.
• 3. Those who find it unfair to single out Rove, because the GOP has so many similar hacks.
• 4. Those who think all Americans should be proud of Karl Rove, an inspiring campaign superstar.

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.

Shodan seems to have fallen for the trick: Because a clever GOP concocted the forgery, it follows that the shirking story must be false.

I don't wonder that you are confused - a clever GOP did not concoct the forgery.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Regards,
Shodan

[Bryan Ekers]

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.

[septimus]

Originally Posted by Shodan

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.

Regards,
Shodan

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?

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Is there any doubt that Bush used wealth and family connections to dodge service in Vietnam?

All the evidence that he did was forged by Karl Rove.

At least Clinton's dodge was based on him being smart, and not because of his relatives. I can respect that.

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.

Bill Clinton did not accept the Navy offer. His uncle's attorney said in a recent interview that the Navy assignment was solicited in part to buy time while the local draft board was pressured to let Clinton, a Rhodes scholar, attend graduate school in England."

Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by septimus

Slow down. Let's get the basics out of the way.

By all means. Let's get the basics out of the way.

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?

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.

Are you willing to correct that oversight now?

There is no oversight - you are a lying sack of shit. Just like you claim Karl Rove is.

Regards,
Shodan

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by septimus

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?

I'm not Shodan, but...

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.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Shodan

All the evidence that he did was forged by Karl Rove.

"Bill Clinton did not accept the Navy offer. His uncle's attorney said in a recent interview that the Navy assignment was solicited in part to buy time while the local draft board was pressured to let Clinton, a Rhodes scholar, attend graduate school in England."

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.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by septimus

Ignoring whether the Rather documents were forged, are the shirking allegations about Bush true?

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?

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

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.

Here is a bit more of a timeline. I can't vouch for every single line of it, but it is how I found the LA Times article above.

As is usually the case with Clinton, it is a case of him making a public statement, and then its being unraveled as a tissue of misrepresentations, false framings, and outright lies.

Regards,
Shodan

[Bryan Ekers]

Probably. He's a politician, after all.

[Mr. Moto]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

At least Clinton's dodge was based on him being smart, and not because of his relatives. I can respect that.

Clinton's dodge was based on political connections with Senator Fulbright, who he had interned with several years before. Not that much of a difference in my mind.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

He's a politician, after all.

Boy, you said a mouthful there. Probably the greatest pure politician of his generation.

I am always surprised that he hasn't died yet. Running for re-election was the mainspring of his life, and now it's gone. All he can do is watch the money roll in, and get blowjobs when Hilary is out of town.

It would be a great retirement for anyone but him.

Regards,
Shodan

[Czarcasm]

Look! Over there!

IT'S CLINTON!!!



A diversionary tactic from The Usual Gang of Idiots as expected as it is tiresome.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

Look! Over there!

IT'S CLINTON!!!



A diversionary tactic from The Usual Gang of Idiots as expected as it is tiresome.

Either Bryan Ekers is an Idiot, or you are.

I know which way I'm betting.

Regards,
Shodan

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Either Bryan Ekers is an Idiot, or you are.

I know which way I'm betting.

Regards,
Shodan

So says The Magic 8-Ball of Idiocy. When it comes to who said what, you've shown that you are the last person anyone should consult, memo boy.

[Bryan Ekers]

I wasn't intending to invoke Clinton as a distraction. I only mentioned him as an afterthought.

Personally, I think putting him back into the Oval Office wouldn't be a bad idea. And that's the last I'll say of him in this thread.

[Mr. Moto]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

I admit not knowing about the alleged efforts of his uncle, but they look moot in any case.

Well, certainly the voters thought so. They elected Clinton president over a combat veteran - twice. Of course, they then did the same thing for Bush twice. And they then elected President Obama over a combat veteran - one Bush had previously beaten in a Republican nomination contest.

So probably the one thing we can learn out of all of this is that as some people on message boards argue over who met and didn't meet their "obligations" (generally in a partisan fashion) voters will ignore this and choose who they want.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

I wasn't intending to invoke Clinton as a distraction. I only mentioned him as an afterthought.

Personally, I think putting him back into the Oval Office wouldn't be a bad idea. And that's the last I'll say of him in this thread.

Could you talk about Hillary a bit so we can at least keep the name alive?

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

I wasn't intending to invoke Clinton as a distraction. I only mentioned him as an afterthought.

Which was rather obvious, which is why you aren't grouped with TUGOI that used it as an excuse to change the subject.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

Which was rather obvious, which is why you aren't grouped with TUGOI that used it as an excuse to change the subject.

You, on the other hand, would need an IQ boost of forty points at least before you could fill out the membership application.

In crayon.

Regards,
Shodan

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Shodan

You, on the other hand, would need an IQ boost of forty points at least before you could fill out the membership application.

In crayon.

Regards,
Shodan

Another spewing from The 8-Ball, folks-collect them all.

edited to add-Read any good Halperin memos lately?

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Bricker

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?

Perhaps because you are the first person to ask? Unlike in your thread, the majority of people here accept at least the general thrust of the OP's argument, and thus less is required to persuade them that their information is correct. Other than Shodan and perhaps you, no one in this thread regards the OP's claim as extraordinary, so no one has thought to require large amounts of proof.

I also believe it is not an unusual position to posit that someone that has invoked one type of treachery might be involved in another similar type. This really is just one step above what Rove usually did.

[Really Not All That Bright]

This could be just the break the Kerry campaign is looking for!

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by BigT

This really is just one step above what Rove usually did.

At first I thought you meant to say "...just one step below what Rove usually did", but on second thought, maybe you had it right the first time.

[John Mace]

I think Rove is too smart to have done this. Why risk bringing up that whole can of worms again? This is like the thread going on in the Elections Forum right now where at least one poster thinks Obama's new mandate for contraception in health insurance is a chess move to force the Republicans to back an unpopular position. We don't live in a Foundation society where brilliant sociologists can accurately predict mass behaviors that accurately.

[Bryan Ekers]

Heh, I actually distracted myself and forgot to reply to this:

Originally Posted by Shodan

All the evidence that he did was forged by Karl Rove.

Really?






- so it wasn't a big reply.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Heh, I actually distracted myself and forgot to reply to this:



Really?

And it would have worked - if it weren't for you meddling kids!

Regards,
Shodan

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by John Mace

I think Rove is too smart to have done this. Why risk bringing up that whole can of worms again?

He would "risk" it because that can of worms was already opened, and the ploy worked in both burying that can deep and ruining the careers of people he disliked. People who are "too smart" do shit like this and get away with it all the time.

[Shodan]

So it was Karl on the grassy knoll! Karl who was behind 9/11! Karl who hid my keys behind the sofa!

Of course! Now it all makes sense!

Regards,
Shodan

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by BigT

Perhaps because you are the first person to ask?

Well, now I have asked, so we can test your theory. Will the OP and other participants, reminded by my question, acknowledge the point and withdraw the claim?

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by septimus

Actually my intent is to understand Shodan's thinking

There's your mistake.

Though I suppose it could be a Zen thing, like contemplating nothingness.

[The Second Stone]

They were forgeries planted by someone to discredit either Bush or CBS News and Dan Rather. If they were intended to discredit CBS News and Dan Rather, then it was done by a Bush ally. Rove is a Bush ally. But that doesn't mean it is logically proven than Rove and Company were behind it. To me it looks like classic Rove. My speculation is that Rove and his crew were behind it. But I don't know that for a fact. I do know that anyone who seriously doubts it comes off looking like a naive tool.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

They were forgeries planted by someone to discredit either Bush or CBS News and Dan Rather.

They were given to CBS by Bill Burkett, a well known anti-Bush kook with a history of mental illness.

"Reality has a liberal bias" my asshole, you gullible buffoon.

Regards,
Shodan

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

They were forgeries planted by someone to discredit either Bush or CBS News and Dan Rather. If they were intended to discredit CBS News and Dan Rather, then it was done by a Bush ally. Rove is a Bush ally. But that doesn't mean it is logically proven than Rove and Company were behind it. To me it looks like classic Rove. My speculation is that Rove and his crew were behind it. But I don't know that for a fact. I do know that anyone who seriously doubts it comes off looking like a naive tool.

It looks like classic Rove to you, despite the fact that you can't point to a similar tactic being used by him, ever.

Right, then.

I certainly admit it's possible Rove did it. But that's where it ends. Since there is zero evidence that he did it, I can't say anything more than "It's possible."

I think a far more likely candidate for the forgeries is Burkett himself, an almost pathological Bush hater. The scenario is much simpler: he knows in his heart Bush was guilty of dereliction, but lacks pesky proof. He shops around for a willing ear and keeps hearing that he needs some kind of evidence. Finally he decides to craft the evidence himself, since, after all, it's not "really" a lie. If they had the memos, that's what they would say, right? David Van Os, Burkett's lawyer, essentially admitted this; when asked about Burkett's involvement, he responded with the careful hypothetical that "someone" may have reconstructed documents that the "someone" believed existed in 1972 or 1973

Another candidate is Mary Mapes. In addition to pushing for the use of the unauthenicated faxes, accepting Burkett's claim that he had burned the originals, she called Joe Lockhart, a senior Kerry campaign official, and discussed how Lockhart could use the information from Burkett and even offered to arrange a meeting between Burkett and Lockhart. This kind of action from a supposedly neutral news producer says a lot -- indeed, if I were using Second Stone logic, I might say that forging a few memos to help the cause looks like "classic Mapes" to me.

But despite the fact that Burkett's story changed several times about where he got the documents, despite his lawyer's non-admission admission, you still say it was Rove, huh?

Another one of those examples of the left using rigor and intellect in reaching conclusions, is it?

[SteveG1]

Karl Rove is a disgusting slimeball. It doesn't need to be tied to one specific piece of "evidence" or one particular instance of assholery. Karl Rove is a disgusting slimeball. He alwyas has been and always will be.

And the sun wil rise tomorrow morning too.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by SteveG1

Karl Rove is a disgusting slimeball. It doesn't need to be tied to one specific piece of "evidence" or one particular instance of assholery. Karl Rove is a disgusting slimeball. He alwyas has been and always will be.

And the sun wil rise tomorrow morning too.

The general proposition is a matter of opinion.

My gripe is the jump from the generic "He's a disgusting slimeball," to the specific factual accusation, "Therefore he probably did this."

At the same time as righteous indignation rises against Rove for this supposed action of his, there's not one shred of reproach against CBS, Rather, Maynard, or Mapes for going forward with a story despite the obvious forgery.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Shodan

They were given to CBS by Bill Burkett, a well known anti-Bush kook with a history of mental illness.

"Reality has a liberal bias" my asshole, you gullible buffoon.

Regards,
Shodan

You know, I once played a trick on a friend at work. He was off to Hawaii you see, and was bragging about it daily.

I created a fake printout of a "news website" that talked all about how Hawaii's beaches were closed due to a jellyfish infestation. Included a picture and everything!

Did I hand this sneaky forgery to my friend directly? No sir, I did not, for that would have been a dead givaway (he knows all about my sneakyness). I gave it to someone, who gave it to a contractor, who knew nothing of my cunning plans. HE then gave it to my friend. Mission Accomplished! My friend was up all night searching the internet for news of the deadly jellyfish.

Moral of the story: I am not much of a devious mastermind. The stakes were low. Yet even I knew how to plant a false story in the proper manner to make it believable.

I don't know what Rove did or did not do.... But I will admit it is certainly within the realm of possibility for a Bush confederate to have planted the memo with the intent to diffuse a bad situation by smearing Dan Rather and the CBS news..... Really, it would not have been that hard to do.

[Onomatopoeia]

Originally Posted by John Mace

We don't live in a Foundation society where brilliant sociologists can accurately predict mass behaviors that accurately.

Psychohistorians, if you please. (bolding mine)