He probably learned to type using the Home Row keys.
And if there’s any decisive proof that RR doesn’t watch Fox News or listen to right-wing talk radio, this has to be it.
Yeah. Ditto. One of the great things about Obama being president is that I no longer have to listen to that fuckhead Karl Rove anymore. I switched the radio to a different station.
Trouble is, when BHO gets the treatment from Fox that y’all want NPR to give to Repubs, he pitches a tantrum and tries to ban them from covering him.
Regards,
Shodan
Stopped calling him “Hussein” by now, have you?
What a weasely, bitchy response. You aren’t saying that Rove isn’t an asshat, you’re saying, “Oh yeah, you too!”
And you’re wrong. Obama just gave an interview to fox and the moron who interviewed him kept interrupting to try and drill him harder. Fox didn’t by any stretch of the imagination give a fair interview.
Assuming an equivalency between the President of the United States and Karl Rove???
Really?
REally?
Well, sure, they both ran the country.
And while it’s clear that Shodan is just a dimwitted inbreed, he likes to reinforce things sometimes. Check an ultraliberal site like, say The Rude Pundit, where you find the writer saying, ‘As pathetic as the Fox News Monkey was, the press is SUPPOSED to be confrontational toward the President’. Not whatever bitty brain Shodan has already decided liberals have to say.
-Joe
Maybe the “message behind the message” was,
We had a golden opportunity to do what we already wanted to do, and figured we’d use that as the excuse.
That to me, is the more plausible explanation, but Rove would never openly admit that.
Rove is a weasel, a scumbag, a vile piece of human filth, a waste of oxygen. No amount of equivocation, no attempt to fling poo at anyone else, will ever change that.
The connection to 9/11 was that we didn’t want terrorists who could cause another 9/11 to have a safe haven. So one reason we attacked Iraq was so that terrorists could not use it as a safe haven later. Not the main reason, but it was one of the reasons. And apparently Rove cites it as one of the good things that has come from the Iraq war despite not finding any WMDs there.
Refresh my memory — when, under Saddam, was Iraq a “safe haven” for terrorists? And I’d appreciate something a bit more substantial than “Saddam’s fourth assistant chief of intelligence was seen on the same continent as someone who may have been an al Qaida operative” (which is the best “evidence” of collusion I’ve heard thus far).
Sort of like when Bill O’Reilly left in a huff in the middle of the interview?
Even assuming this was the case - which it wasn’t, since the Administration retracted its claim that Saddam was sheltering terrorists - there are unquestionably more terrorists there now than there ever were before.
It was not a haven until we attacked. Saddam Hussein hated Al Queda. But now, thanks to us, Iraq is a safe have for us.
Holy shit. After all this time, there were NO WMD? How long did it take you to figure it out?
So we can attack and invade, under phony pretenses, and then if that doesn’t work, we can say it’s alright, because we made up something else. Moron.
Probably because it had been said that way, so many times by so many people, that it was unnecessary.
“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 is calculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction… So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
“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 mandated 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 Saddam 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 “Swimmer” Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam 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 “Hypocrite” 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
Holy shit! It was only Democrats!
In that case I think a cowardly sack of shit would be voting for them.
-Joe
Bob Graham really used the word licit? Anyway, you’ve taken most of those comments out of context. The Clinton Administration officials were all talking about airstrikes, not invasion.
I saw Rove on Charlie Rose make the claim that terrorists would eventually leave Afghanistan and find a safe haven in another failed state (like Iraq), so eliminating that possibility was a good outcome. Of course terrorists are now in Yemen and Pakistan, which leaves one wondering how many countries do we invade under that logic. Rove explained to Charlie that some countries could be dealt with by diplomacy, like we are doing now in Pakistan.
I’m not saying this is a good answer. I have no clue whether he is right or not. But Rove isn’t claiming that we attacked Saddam because he had something to do with 9/11. Now he’s claiming that a good outcome of removing Saddam was that we eliminated a future safe haven for terrorists who could carry out another 9/11.
It is not a good answer. it is a stupid answer, crafted to resonate with stupid people. It follows a logic that gives free license to attack and invade
Every Country On The Planet.