I Want To Believe Karl Rove...

[Procrustes Stretched]

I Want To Believe Karl Rove...but..,

March 3, 2010, 3:19 pm
Rove on Iraq: Without W.M.D. Threat, Bush Wouldn’t Have Gone to War
By PETER BAKER

Karl Rove, the chief political adviser to President George W. Bush and architect of his two successful campaigns for the White House, says in a new memoir that his former boss probably would not have invaded Iraq had he known there were no weapons of mass destruction there.

Mr. Rove adamantly rejects allegations that the administration deliberately lied about the presence of weapons in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. But he acknowledges that the failure to find them badly damaged Mr. Bush’s presidency, and he blames himself for not countering the narrative that “Bush lied,” calling it “one of the biggest mistakes of the Bush years.”
<snip>

What many historians may focus on is his description of the war in Iraq, its origins and consequences. While many have accused the administration of drumming up a case for war on the back of false intelligence about Mr. Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, or W.M.D., Mr. Rove maintains that the White House genuinely believed the reports, and pointed to Democrats who accepted them as valid as well.
Rove on Iraq: Without W.M.D. Threat, Bush Wouldn’t Have Gone to War - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com

Forum policy on copyright and fair use, to be found HERE (like you don't already know it), prohibits the posting of entire pieces.

~Dude
Does he address the accusations that the intelligence that went into the reports were doctored by, or caused to be doctored by admin officials?

Will I have to buy the book?

There is no debate individual Democrats accepted the reports they saw as valid (I do know Ted Kennedy and others were still cautioning about rushing into war even with the reports.). That argument is a straw man argument.

The reports vs the intelligence: I believe the WH believed the reports.

But the administration is compromised of more than the WH. Does Rove address the intelligence and how it may have been skewed to fit the desires or fears individuals had?

I can imagine a scenario where considering the pressures of the recent 911 attacks, underlings felt pressured to fit the intel to a certain view.

Rove's story in this news article is lacking way too much info to make an honest and informed decision on whether the WH/admin knew the intel was bogus.

I am not sure I believe all of what Rove is said to be asserting. I will have to buy the book.


dD

 

[uscitizen]

Someone on here argued we invaded to free the Iraqi from a horrible dictator.
That was not right???

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bush, I believe, truly believed WMDs existed in Iraq at the time. Whether the information was doctored by the CIA for him is an issue that needs to be far more carefully examined. This has been the worst foreign policy disaster in our history and will drive Iraq right into Iran's hands.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Someone on here argued we invaded to free the Iraqi from a horrible dictator.
That was not right???

I supported that notion as part of my reasoning to go into Iraq.Nothing wrong with coming to the defense of others.

but that is not the issue

 

[California Girl]

No need for any further discussion, JerkDorkey has spoken.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No need for any further discussion, JerkDorkey has spoken.

I bet the irony of your post is lost on you.



It's not lost on others.

thank you for the performance


dD

 

[beowolfe]

I Want To Believe Karl Rove...but..,

March 3, 2010, 3:19 pm
Rove on Iraq: Without W.M.D. Threat, Bush Wouldn&#8217;t Have Gone to War
By PETER BAKER

Karl Rove, the chief political adviser to President George W. Bush and architect of his two successful campaigns for the White House, says in a new memoir that his former boss probably would not have invaded Iraq had he known there were no weapons of mass destruction there.

Mr. Rove adamantly rejects allegations that the administration deliberately lied about the presence of weapons in Saddam Hussein&#8217;s Iraq. But he acknowledges that the failure to find them badly damaged Mr. Bush&#8217;s presidency, and he blames himself for not countering the narrative that &#8220;Bush lied,&#8221; calling it &#8220;one of the biggest mistakes of the Bush years.&#8221;
<snip>

What many historians may focus on is his description of the war in Iraq, its origins and consequences. While many have accused the administration of drumming up a case for war on the back of false intelligence about Mr. Hussein&#8217;s weapons of mass destruction, or W.M.D., Mr. Rove maintains that the White House genuinely believed the reports, and pointed to Democrats who accepted them as valid as well.
Rove on Iraq: Without W.M.D. Threat, Bush Wouldn&#8217;t Have Gone to War - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com

Forum policy on copyright and fair use, to be found HERE (like you don't already know it), prohibits the posting of entire pieces.

~Dude
Does he address the accusations that the intelligence that went into the reports were doctored by, or caused to be doctored by admin officials?

Will I have to buy the book?

There is no debate individual Democrats accepted the reports they saw as valid (I do know Ted Kennedy and others were still cautioning about rushing into war even with the reports.). That argument is a straw man argument.

The reports vs the intelligence: I believe the WH believed the reports.

But the administration is compromised of more than the WH. Does Rove address the intelligence and how it may have been skewed to fit the desires or fears individuals had?

I can imagine a scenario where considering the pressures of the recent 911 attacks, underlings felt pressured to fit the intel to a certain view.

Rove's story in this news article is lacking way too much info to make an honest and informed decision on whether the WH/admin knew the intel was bogus.

I am not sure I believe all of what Rove is said to be asserting. I will have to buy the book.


dD

And that's it in a nutshell. They CHOSE to believe the 'reports' (read that Curveball) and discounted the initelligence.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Bush, I believe, truly believed WMDs existed in Iraq at the time.

I don't. They were looking for a reason to go in back in 2001. They totally cooked the intelligence and Britain went along with it.

 

[chanel]

Rove's confession or whatever you want to call it, has been my belief all along. President Clinton believed it as well. Regardless of pro or con BDD, can we at least put this "Bush lied" to rest?

 

[Avatar4321]

Let's be honest, you don't want to believe Karl Rove. You never have and you never will.

 

[blu]

No need for any further discussion, JerkDorkey has spoken.

and once again you have posted a fallacy. seems to be the only thing you are capable of.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Rove's confession or whatever you want to call it, has been my belief all along. President Clinton believed it as well. Regardless of pro or con BDD, can we at least put this "Bush lied" to rest?

You've missed the point. But that is not unusual.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Let's be honest, you don't want to believe Karl Rove. You never have and you never will.

actually, I have no ill will towards Rove. unlike you, I'm an adult.

 

[uscitizen]

Why would anyone WANT to believe Karl Rove?

 

[uptownlivin90]

Why would anyone WANT to believe Karl Rove?

That's actually what I was thinking.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Why would anyone WANT to believe Karl Rove?

That's actually what I was thinking.

Maybe because adults realize that very few people are as one dimensional as we know them through the media?

Maybe because I think most people who have held power truly want to talk about what they did and why they did it? Human nature?

 

[uptownlivin90]

Why would anyone WANT to believe Karl Rove?

That's actually what I was thinking.

Maybe because adults realize that very few people are as one dimensional as we know them through the media?

Maybe because I think most people who have held power truly want to talk about what they did and why they did it? Human nature?

You and me have a very different view of human nature. Believe me, MOST people in "power" right now democrat and republican don't want to talk about what they did and what they are "doing" for that matter.

It's "human nature" to want to avoid being attacked by a lynch mob and thrown in prison... just saying.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

That's actually what I was thinking.

Maybe because adults realize that very few people are as one dimensional as we know them through the media?

Maybe because I think most people who have held power truly want to talk about what they did and why they did it? Human nature?

You and me have a very different view of human nature. Believe me, MOST people in "power" right now democrat and republican don't want to talk about what they did and what they are "doing" for that matter.

It's "human nature" to want to avoid being attacked by a lynch mob and thrown in prison... just saying.

read it again: " I think most people who have held power "

I was talking about people who have held power, not people who are now holding power.
'
It's okay. I'll give you a "get out of stuck on stupid" pass, this one time. It's late.

 

[uptownlivin90]

Maybe because adults realize that very few people are as one dimensional as we know them through the media?

Maybe because I think most people who have held power truly want to talk about what they did and why they did it? Human nature?

You and me have a very different view of human nature. Believe me, MOST people in "power" right now democrat and republican don't want to talk about what they did and what they are "doing" for that matter.

It's "human nature" to want to avoid being attacked by a lynch mob and thrown in prison... just saying.

read it again: " I think most people who have held power "

I was talking about people who have held power, not people who are now holding power.
'
It's okay. I'll give you a "get out of stuck on stupid" pass, this one time. It's late.

Same goes for those out of power. Plenty of politicians have gotten away with shit while they were in power that they don't want to reveal to the public.

Or am I just to assume all former politicians are trustworthy?

To believe that is beyond being "stuck on stupid".

It's being "fucked on stupid".

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You and me have a very different view of human nature. Believe me, MOST people in "power" right now democrat and republican don't want to talk about what they did and what they are "doing" for that matter.

It's "human nature" to want to avoid being attacked by a lynch mob and thrown in prison... just saying.

read it again: " I think most people who have held power "

I was talking about people who have held power, not people who are now holding power.
'
It's okay. I'll give you a "get out of stuck on stupid" pass, this one time. It's late.

Same goes for those out of power. Plenty of politicians have gotten away with shit while they were in power that they don't want to reveal to the public.

Or am I just to assume all former politicians are trustworthy?

To believe that is beyond being "stuck on stupid".

It's being "fucked on stupid".

being stuck on stupid would be using terms like 'all' to describe a trait of any individuals of any group.