PressCoverage

watch it here:

this goes to the very heart of the authorization vote... yet it's Bush Leaguers who chirp over and over: "oh yeah, well, Hillary and Edwards voted for it!!!!"... forgetting of course, that at the time, just days before the midterms, it was political suicide to risk a 'nay' vote on Boy King's little invasion plan... plans based on fraudulent claims (despite multiple warnings to look closer)... of course they wanted the authorization BEFORE the elections... of course they did... and of course diabolical Karl Rove was all for it... i'd bet a year's salary on it...

yet here's Pig Man, just flat out lying... to think this PoS will be writing books and giving speeches for a whole new generation of gullable Lemmings to enjoy... but, as one poster here suggests... Propaganda isn't "lying"... it's marketing...

Rove Tries To Rewrite History: Claims WH ‘Opposed’ Politicizing Pre-War Iraq Vote »

Last night on The Charlie Rose Show, former Bush political adviser Karl Rove claimed that he was “opposed” to holding the pre-war Iraq vote just ahead of the 2002 elections. “The administration was opposed to voting on it in the fall of 2002,” Rove said. He stated that his upcoming book will argue that the administration did not want to schedule an Iraq war vote prior to the 2002 elections:

Recall, the House and the Senate voted on whether to authorize war against Iraq in October 2002, just a few weeks prior to the 2002 elections.

Rove’s claim is utterly dishonest and flat-out false. In Sept. 2002, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) asked President Bush to delay the vote on the Iraq war:

“I asked directly if we could delay this so we could depoliticize it. I said: ‘Mr. President, I know this is urgent, but why the rush? Why do we have to do this now?’ He looked at Cheney and he looked at me, and there was a half-smile on his face. And he said: ‘We just have to do this now.’”

While some Democrats — particularly Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-MO) — were arguing that it was “imperative” that Congress vote immediately to authorize war, had the White House wanted to delay the vote until after the 2002 elections, they would have found a great deal of support. Here’s what a few key leaders were saying at the time:

Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL): “It would be a severe mistake for us to vote on Iraq with as little information as we have. This would be a rash and hasty decision.”

Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA): “I do not believe the decision should be made in the frenzy of an election year.”

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): “I know of no information that the threat is so imminent from Iraq” that Congress cannot wait until January to vote on a resolution.

But Karl Rove and President Bush weren’t interested in delaying the vote. Rather, the administration actively politicized it. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said, “Delaying a vote in Congress would send the wrong message.” President Bush explicitly told Congress to “get the issue done as quickly as possible“:

My answer to the Congress is, they need to debate this issue and consult with us, and get the issue done as quickly as possible. It’s in our national interests that we do so. I don’t imagine Saddam Hussein sitting around, saying, gosh, I think I’m going to wait for some resolution.

On Sept. 11, 2002, administration officials briefed Congress on Iraq, with the goal of persuading them to schedule a vote to authorize military action. And the administration’s congressional allies were clear on why they wanted to rush the war vote. “People are going to want to know, before the elections, where their representatives stand,” said Rep. Thomas M. Davis (R-VA.), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. “This could be the vote of the decade, so why wait?”

fleabassist1

Is there a half a star option?

__________________
GO PATRIOTS!!!!

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

PressCoverage

i would say this thread is pretty relevant... this clown will be earning hundreds of thousands on the lecture circuit, spewing one lie after another and hoping to re-write history ...

if it's not relevant, or merely a bad thread, please tell us all why it's not... you know, a little more than just "because it's not" or "because you posted it"...

i mean, are you suggested he's not lying? do you have any semblance of substance behind your claim?

otherwise, the only thing that's 1/2 star is your lazy one-sentence offering...