Karl Rove Finally Screws Up (BIG TIME) And Bush Flip-Flops On A Huge Issue

[NATO AIR]

WOWi never thought i'd see the day. nearly every political idiot i know, whether they love him or hate him, both fears and respects karl rove like no other political operative. rove knows how to run a campaign, a presidency,i mean the guy is a no joke frigging demagogue of politics right now. he was until now, the teflon campaign manager, no mistake could stick to him, no egg ever got on his face. now he's allowed two serious miscues in less than 48 hours that have my kerry supporter friends howling in delight and anticipation. as a bush voter, i want damage control... fast!

alright, a lot of folks on the board were howling about kerry and NYT/CBS making up that explosives story (i even jumped on the bandwagon and condemned them for trying to lie to the american people). turns out they may be right... and karl rove hitched the white house to the initial NBC report supporting the white house side.... now that report has been margainalized by new revelations from NBC/MSNBC, CBS and people on the ground in the military.

My whole point here is not to argue with what happened there, we don't know yet. I think I jumped the gun on this, there is a lot more to this story than was revealed yesterday on USMB.

My point is this: What was Karl Rove smoking when he pinned the admin's whole defense on this issue on a lone NBC news story from a year ago? This is not like him at all, its far too risky and it blew up in the admin's face now, because all sorts of "revelations" and "new evidence" is showing up. The only person here I believe wholeheartedly is the CO of the 101st interviewed by CBS, he's military and I'll go with what he said until he recants or changes it for whatever reason.

NBC Embedded Reporter: No Signs Soldiers Searched Site
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/26/iraq.weapons.nbc.ap/index.html
There wasn't a search," she told MSNBC, an NBC cable news channel. "The mission that the brigade had was to get to Baghdad. That was more of a pit stop there for us. And, you know, the searching, I mean certainly some of the soldiers head off on their own, looked through the bunkers just to look at the vast amount of ordnance lying around

Unit Commander Tells CBS His GI's Didn't Hunt Explosives, They Were In A Fight
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/25/iraq/main651082.shtml
"Our focus was killing bad guys," he continued, adding that he would have needed four times as many troops to search and secure all the ammo dumps his troops came across during the push into Iraq.

Tom Brokaw Says NBC Simply Reported That The 101st Did Not Find Them
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/27/politics/campaign/27kerry.html?oref=login
Last night on this broadcast we reported that the 101st Airborne never found the nearly 380 tons of HMX and RDX explosives,'' Tom Brokaw, the NBC anchor, said. "We did not conclude the explosives were missing or had vanished, nor did we say they missed the explosives. We simply reported that the 101st did not find them.''

"For its part, the Bush campaign immediately pointed to our report as conclusive proof that the weapons had been removed before the Americans arrived,'' Mr. Brokaw added. "That is possible, but that is not what we reported.''

Now, even better, Bush, whose running on getting his conservative, religious right base out to vote, has been putting heavy emphasis on banning gay marriage through a constitutional amendment. A lot of the supporters of this idea (i oppose it) also dont' believe in civil unions and most of them just plain don't like homos Guess what Bush says on Good Morning America in an interview aired Tuesday?

President Bush's tolerance of state-sanctioned civil unions between gay people - laws that would grant same-sex partners most or all the rights available to married couples.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/politics/10020205.htm?1c

Bush Stance on Civil Unions Upsets Groups

SCOTT LINDLAW

Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Some conservative groups expressed dismay Tuesday over President Bush's tolerance of state-sanctioned civil unions between gay people - laws that would grant same-sex partners most or all the rights available to married couples.

"I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so," Bush said in an interview aired Tuesday on ABC. Bush acknowledged that his position put him at odds with the Republican platform, which opposes civil unions.

"I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights," said Bush, who has pressed for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. "States ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others."

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry backs civil unions for gay couples, too. He opposes gay marriage but also opposes the idea of a constitutional ban.

Some conservative organizations sharply disagreed with Bush and pressed him to seek a constitutional amendment that would ban both gay marriage and civil unions.

"Civil unions are a government endorsement of homosexuality," said Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute, an affiliate of Concerned Women For America. "But I don't think President Bush has thought about it in that way. He seems to be striving for neutrality while defending marriage itself."

Knight said "counterfeits" of marriage, such as civil unions, "hurt the real thing."

The head of another group, the Campaign for California Families, said it, too, wants a sweeping constitutional amendment that bars civil unions and same-sex marriage.

"Here's the truth, civil unions are homosexual marriage by another name," said Randy Thomasson, the group's executive director. "Civil unions rob marriage of its uniqueness and award homosexuals all the rights of marriage available under state law."

"Bush needs to understand what's going on and resist counterfeit marriages with all his might no matter what they're called," Thomasson said.

But Matt Daniel, the leader of a coalition that successfully pressed for legislation that would create the constitutional ban on gay marriage, said Bush had staked out just the right position.

A federal ban on gay marriage, not on civil unions, "is the way for America to resolve this in the fairest way, the best way," said Daniel, president of the Alliance for Marriage. "We do indeed support the president's position."

i personally am glad the president feels this way, but i'm pretty sure a significant amount of his "base" isn't happy with this at all.

Again, what the hell is Karl Rove smoking allowing this a few days before the election? wow, i can't believe this is happening now.

 

[dmp]

eh? Cliff notes?

 

[Merlin1047]

WOWi never thought i'd see the day. nearly every political idiot i know, whether they love him or hate him, both fears and respects karl rove like no other political operative. rove knows how to run a campaign, a presidency,i mean the guy is a no joke frigging demagogue of politics right now. he was until now, the teflon campaign manager, no mistake could stick to him, no egg ever got on his face. now he's allowed two serious miscues in less than 48 hours that have my kerry supporter friends howling in delight and anticipation. as a bush voter, i want damage control... fast!

Again, what the hell is Karl Rove smoking allowing this a few days before the election? wow, i can't believe this is happening now.

Patience, grasshopper. This is not the last we have heard on this. I doubt that Rove played all his cards at once. The issue of the so-called "missing" explosives was conjured up by the kerry campaign. They have no time line and they have no idea whether or not the explosives were ever there to begin with.

 

[dilloduck]

WOWi never thought i'd see the day. nearly every political idiot i know, whether they love him or hate him, both fears and respects karl rove like no other political operative. rove knows how to run a campaign, a presidency,i mean the guy is a no joke frigging demagogue of politics right now. he was until now, the teflon campaign manager, no mistake could stick to him, no egg ever got on his face. now he's allowed two serious miscues in less than 48 hours that have my kerry supporter friends howling in delight and anticipation. as a bush voter, i want damage control... fast!

alright, a lot of folks on the board were howling about kerry and NYT/CBS making up that explosives story (i even jumped on the bandwagon and condemned them for trying to lie to the american people). turns out they may be right... and karl rove hitched the white house to the initial NBC report supporting the white house side.... now that report has been margainalized by new revelations from NBC/MSNBC, CBS and people on the ground in the military.

My whole point here is not to argue with what happened there, we don't know yet. I think I jumped the gun on this, there is a lot more to this story than was revealed yesterday on USMB.

My point is this: What was Karl Rove smoking when he pinned the admin's whole defense on this issue on a lone NBC news story from a year ago? This is not like him at all, its far too risky and it blew up in the admin's face now, because all sorts of "revelations" and "new evidence" is showing up. The only person here I believe wholeheartedly is the CO of the 101st interviewed by CBS, he's military and I'll go with what he said until he recants or changes it for whatever reason.







Now, even better, Bush, whose running on getting his conservative, religious right base out to vote, has been putting heavy emphasis on banning gay marriage through a constitutional amendment. A lot of the supporters of this idea (i oppose it) also dont' believe in civil unions and most of them just plain don't like homos Guess what Bush says on Good Morning America in an interview aired Tuesday?



i personally am glad the president feels this way, but i'm pretty sure a significant amount of his "base" isn't happy with this at all.

Again, what the hell is Karl Rove smoking allowing this a few days before the election? wow, i can't believe this is happening now.

Nato---I see your concern but I doubt the Bush base will see this as a reason to not vote or to vote for Kerry.

 

[theim]

I am seriously doubting Bush's chances of victory. I don't think they did a good enough job harking on Kerry's voting against the gulf war (UN approved, global test passed, lots of allies, kery votes no? ) and that first debate was a disaster.

 

[dmp]

I am seriously doubting Bush's chances of victory. I don't think they did a good enough job harking on Kerry's voting against the gulf war (UN approved, global test passed, lots of allies, kery votes no? ) and that first debate was a disaster.

I would seriously love to see GWB be a little more aggressive in pointing out Kerry's bullcrap remarks/straight lies.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

If kerry can ignore his entire actual senate record, Bush should be able to weather this one. Your friends are so excited because this piddling issue is all they have.

 

[Flying Duck]

I'm a conservative atheist. I support states being allowed to provide SOME rights through the concept of a civil union. I think it should be done by popular vote or, at the very least, legislatively - but deinfitely NOT by judicial FIAT like MA.

I also support am amendment to define marriage between a man and a woman. GWB does not alientate me at all with his positions on this issue.

As for those who don't beleive in civil unions on religious grounds, you think they'll be mad enough to vote for the pro-abortion candidate? HA!

 

[NATO AIR]

in response to those who told me to be patient and wait for it all to come out, i agree. but i also think it will probably months before we know what really happened, hence my concern on rove seemingly putting their defense on this one story. we shall see, i think kerry's made a mistake by just jumping all over it like a horndog.

the civil unions thing? i know they won't vote for kerry, but could that depress the vote a bit (they won't show up to vote at all)?

thank you though, the wisdom here has calmed me down. its just rare for rove to seemingly screw up like this.

 

[sagegirl]

Patience, grasshopper. This is not the last we have heard on this. I doubt that Rove played all his cards at once. The issue of the so-called "missing" explosives was conjured up by the kerry campaign. They have no time line and they have no idea whether or not the explosives were ever there to begin with.

This site was monitored for 10 years by the IAEA, the explosives were allowed to be kept for mining purposes ??????? The bunkers that contained the explosives were sealed off and inspected as of the middle of March 2003. Mid march an IAEA team inspected the seals on the containment bunkers and found them to be intact. The pentagon acknowledges that this site was on a list of sensitive sites, granted it was a big list. (One of the reasons some military officials (Shinseki and White and Tommy Franks )wanted more troop strength was to secure and monitor these sensitive sites) . The sites were not officially inspected by the US until about May 18th, although several units including the 101st passed thru. I heard mention of one that went thru on or about April 4th, however it was just an overnight stay,they had encountered Iraqi resistance upon arrival but after a short gun battle secured the site for their stay. They left in the morning.

 

[NATO AIR]

This site was monitored for 10 years by the IAEA, the explosives were allowed to be kept for mining purposes ??????? The bunkers that contained the explosives were sealed off and inspected as of the middle of March 2003. Mid march an IAEA team inspected the seals on the containment bunkers and found them to be intact. The pentagon acknowledges that this site was on a list of sensitive sites, granted it was a big list. (One of the reasons some military officials (Shinseki and White and Tommy Franks )wanted more troop strength was to secure and monitor these sensitive sites) . The sites were not officially inspected by the US until about May 18th, although several units including the 101st passed thru. I heard mention of one that went thru on or about April 4th, however it was just an overnight stay,they had encountered Iraqi resistance upon arrival but after a short gun battle secured the site for their stay. They left in the morning.

why did the IAEA let saddam keep all this stuff? we may have blown the recovery/safeguarding of the items, but why were there in the first place?

 

[sagegirl]

why did the IAEA let saddam keep all this stuff? we may have blown the recovery/safeguarding of the items, but why were there in the first place?

the report that I heard said the explosives were supposedly kept for the purpose of mining. I dont know the exact application, hope it wasnt land mines.

 

[White knight]

Karl Rove has a history of tried and true techniques; he first success with the distraction technique was during the Texas gubernatorial campaign in 1986, in which the political mastermind bugged his own office.
The timing for the discovery of the bug coincided with the day of the only debate. His candidate was not a good debater.
News coverage of the bugging overshadowed the debate; in the papers the next day the debate was jus a minor footnote, his candidate looked like a victim and he went on to win the Governorship.
For those of you who are not in the know about Karl Rove, you will be hearing more about him in the near future.
I believe the forces of evil are at work in this brilliant genius, and if the evangelicals’ fears are true then evil will triumph in his crafty ways.

 

[dmp]

This site was monitored for 10 years by the IAEA, the explosives were allowed to be kept for mining purposes ??????? The bunkers that contained the explosives were sealed off and inspected as of the middle of March 2003. Mid march an IAEA team inspected the seals on the containment bunkers and found them to be intact.

It's noteworthy to remind readers the IAEA did NOT inspect 'the weapons' or the 'containers' to ensure the munitions were still in place.

(One of the reasons some military officials (Shinseki and White and Tommy Franks )wanted more troop strength was to secure and monitor these sensitive sites).

I believe the quote was "We need more troops (if we wanted) to secure the facility"...

that's different.

 

[sagegirl]

It's noteworthy to remind readers the IAEA did NOT inspect 'the weapons' or the 'containers' to ensure the munitions were still in place.



I believe the quote was "We need more troops (if we wanted) to secure the facility"...

that's different.

my comment was ..."officials wanted more troop strength to secure and monitor the site"

what's so different?

The issue is the pentagon had been told about this site, the list of sites raised concerns about the number of troops it would take to secure and monitor them. The number of troops was a big deal to Rumsfelt and Wolfie, who were promoting the invasion and wanted to keep the estimate as low as possible, for obvious reasons. They fought Powell, Tommy Franks, Shinseki,
White, and many other high rankers in the military to agree with their estimates. Some caved, some didnt.

George might have to admit a mistake if it turns out that this site was "intact" when we invaded . This is not the only facility that went unsecured and unmonitored after the invasion. (Almost the entire focus was on Baghdad.)
We can be pretty sure that right now there is alot of focus on the current status of these other sites.

 

[nakedemperor]

I'm personally extremely glad to hear about this newly-flipped position of Dubya's. That is, supporting civil unions with the same rights as marriages. Its so logical and moderate of him! :kiss2:

Rah rah Georgie!

 

[freeandfun1]

I'm personally extremely glad to hear about this newly-flipped position of Dubya's. That is, supporting civil unions with the same rights as marriages. Its so logical and moderate of him! :kiss2:

Rah rah Georgie!

I recall a long time ago hearing Bush say that he supported CIVIL Unions, just not GAY Marriage. Not sure how folks see a flip-flop. If you do, then you must see the same thing in Kerry.

 

[dmp]

my comment was ..."officials wanted more troop strength to secure and monitor the site"

what's so different?

Officials saying "IF we are to secure this site, we'll need more troops to provide optimal coverage" is NOT the same as what's being reported: "We need/ want more troops so we can secure this site!!"

 

[White knight]

What is was story about Gen. Sanchez relived of command for requesting more troops and equipment? I believed this took place around Mar 2003, and shortly after the request he was relived.
Now I hear there is a new memo out, documenting this request. Anyone got more details on this story?