Karl Rove on the Democrats’ National Security Credentials
March 21st, 2008 at 08:46am Mark Noonan
I can hear liberal heads exploding as I write this - Karl Rove, the 2008 election and national security:
Just a year ago it was almost universally accepted that Iraq would wreck the GOP chances in November. Now the issue may pose a threat to the Democratic efforts to gain power. For while the American people are acknowledging the positive impact of the surge, Democratic leaders are not.
In September, Mrs. Clinton told Gen. David Petraeus “the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.” This week, she said “we’ll be right back at square one” in Iraq by this summer.
In December, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refused to admit progress, arguing, “The surge hasn’t accomplished its goals.” He said a month earlier there was “no progress being made in Iraq” and “it is not getting better, it is getting worse.”
Asked by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Feb. 9 if she was worried that the gains of the last year might be lost, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi shot back: “There haven’t been gains . . . This is a failure.” Carl Levin, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee told the Associated Press the same month that the surge “has failed.”
This passionate, persistent unwillingness to admit what more and more Americans are coming to believe is true about Iraq’s changing situation puts Democrats in dangerous political territory. For one thing, they increasingly appear out of touch with reality, a charge they made with some success at the administration’s expense before the surge began changing conditions in Iraq.
For another, Democrats appear to have an ideological investment in things going badly in Iraq. They seem upset and prickly when asked to comment on the progress America is making. It’s hard to see how Democrats can build a majority if their position on what they claim is one of the campaign’s central issues is shared by less than a fifth of the electorate.
That fifth, as Rove noted earlier in the article, is the number of Americans polled who said that we should have a timetable for a quick withdrawal from Iraq - while 60 oor 70% might not agree with President Bush’s particular handling of the war (and it should be understood that a very large portion of that group is people who wish President Bush were more aggressive), there is not in this nation anything approaching a majority who agree with the HillBama, Defeaticrat, kook left position on Iraq.
Part of the problem for our Defeaticrats is that they just can’t get over the past - really, it all goes back to Florida, 2000 and their unwillingness to forgive President Bush for preventing Gore from stealing Florida’s electoral votes…but to endlessly rehash Florida, even for kook lefties, would be absurd…so, the ongoing war is their meat, but their problem is that their views are frozen in 2003-2004. Convinced that BUSH LIED!!!! to get us into Iraq and that the announcements in 2004 (from such respected military men as Michael Moore) that we couldn’t win are valid, the only thing Defeaticrats want to do is talk about that, and demand as a result that we withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible. Everything which has happened since 2004 is considered irrelevant - except the 2006 elections, which the kook left have convinced themselves were won largely on a Democrat pledge to end the war (even though no such pledge was made at any time in the 2006 campaign). They want us out of Iraq, and don’t care what the facts are - they own defeat and are insisting we carry out a defeat, lest their worldview suffer a crushing blow.
How will this play in November? That really remains to be seen - but its looking more and more like the HillBama position will be a millstone ’round the Democrats’ neck.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Kook Left, War on Terror
40 Comments
1. Zach | March 21st, 2008 at 9:09 am
I’ll give it to the democratic leaders. They’re right and wrong.
Of course it has improved security, That part is a success and it would be nice to see Pelosi, etc. Give a big kudos to the armed forces for there effort.
However, it hasn’t acheived the political success to match said sercurity success.
As long as political progress is slow. They’ll always be able to make blanket statements about the surge being a “failure” and in a small way they will always be right.
2. Magnum Serpentine | March 21st, 2008 at 9:19 am
Well mark, lets see…
george lied about WMD Where are they?
george lied about Saddam and the terrorist link. The terrorist moved in, AFTER george launched his war in Iraq. They invaded because the United States was there.
george lied about nuclear weapons link in Africa. Secretary of State Colin Powell was highly embarrassed to learn what he had thought was the truth was in fact a lie. Secretary of State Colin Powell had given a speech based on what he thought was truthful information and later had to apologize.
george changed the meaning of who was considered war injured and war dead thus george lied about the number of dead from george’s war.
need I go on?
and by the way, Al Gore did not steal the election. george did with the help of the supreme court, which used powers it did not have. And its very interesting that in Ohio, in 2004, the democrats, in the democratic districts, had 1 voting machine for 100 people and the republicans had 1 voting machine for every republican voter in the republican districts. This means that in the republican districts they had far more machines than in the Democratic Districts.
Next
3. SEW | March 21st, 2008 at 9:38 am
I would like to thank Karl for orchestrating yet another beautiful campaign. He allows berry to preach Peace and Love and Change from the pulpit from an otherwise completely empty suit. Useful idiots everywhere cast their vote, an insurmountable lead follows.
Then fellow Texans and Ohioians keep the Democrats Superdelegates in play. Big time Democratic thinkers and Hollywood again demonstrate their brilliance and publicly announmce their support of this empty suit, allienating the Clintons. Thank you Hollywood, Ted Kennedy and Fake War Hero Francois Kerry. And only then does Karl give a glimpse of berry’s actual hand and the contents of his suit. Huge amounts of very dirty laundry. Overflowing and more to come.
Then berry’s strongest asset, a charming smile, evaporates. He has become a victim again. Whitey has been looking at his laundry! Tin foil hats are exploding everywhere and the Kool Aid stops working.
Thank you Karl, and thank you for allowing the tin foil hat explosions to occur in cyberspace. The finale comes on election day when America, Michigan, Florida and the supporters of the losing Dem nominee cast their vote.
And special thanks to the useful idiots for remaining useful throughout the entire process. Howard Dean, Nancy, Ted, Francois and those here at BFV. And of course the “Reverend” Jere Wright and the United “Church” of Christ.
Karl, how do you control these things? Just curious.
4. SEW | March 21st, 2008 at 9:46 am
“And its very interesting that in Ohio, in 2004, the democrats, in the democratic districts, had 1 voting machine for 100 people and the republicans had 1 voting machine for every republican voter in the republican districts. This means that in the republican districts they had far more machines than in the Democratic Districts.” MS
Karl, many tinfoil hats remain. Good luck with those. Or are you simply allowing some to continue working for a purpose? You are slippery, Karl.
5. InDaVa | March 21st, 2008 at 10:02 am
The surge has been successful to a certain extent. Progress has been made and lost. The surge is more of a failure than it is a success. Benchmarks are set for a reason.
Flip Flopping, Shia or Sunni, McSame…..
6. Zach | March 21st, 2008 at 10:48 am
Magnum,
Can you prove any of those ascertians that Bush lied? His presidency is almost over and no one here can prove any of them.
Next.
As a side note,
I’ll be going to the NRA convention in Louisville this year in May. I’m trying to get tickets for the “Leadership Conference” which includes the chance to meet the infamous Karl Rove, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, (among many others.) with Glenn Beck as a keynote speaker.
Anyone else out there going this year?
7. Zach | March 21st, 2008 at 10:51 am
“(and it should be understood that a very large portion of that group is people who wish President Bush were more aggressive)”
Although I’m in no position to state how accurate that statement is. I would say that I do fall into that category. We’ve talked about this before. Way too few troops to secure a nation such as Iraq..
8. Magnum Serpentine | March 21st, 2008 at 10:59 am
CIA Records show there were no African link. Colin Powell himself said his speech was based on false information which he thought was true. People who died from war wounds have been considered accidental deaths instead of combat deaths despite the fact that they got the wounds from combat, because they did not die in a combat zone its called an accident or some other fool excuse that the fool and war criminal george can come up with.
When President William Clinton Lied, no one died, when george lied, over 4000 or maybe more died.
Hopefully McCain will ship george to the international war crimes court when he becomes president on January 20 2009.
9. Magnum Serpentine | March 21st, 2008 at 11:04 am
Oh yes,
I forgot, 62% of the citizens of this nation want our troops out. I can provide the link to the neutral Gallup poll if you want.
10. David B. Schmidt | March 21st, 2008 at 11:06 am
InDaVa,
Another non-point on Sen. McCain
http://www.nysun.com/article/46032
And I guess that Moqtada al-Sadr admitting defeat in Iraq is not good news either.
11. FoolYouTwice | March 21st, 2008 at 11:08 am
A very large portion? Care to give us an actual number? Here is your chance Mark to actually point to evidence for one of your many wild claims. This sounds like just another statistic that you have created out of thin air based on your wishful thinking. Please provide evidence that a large portion of people who disagree with the war do so because they desire Bush to be more agressive.
12. jackson | March 21st, 2008 at 11:14 am
http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/
There’s a list of 935 lies from the bush admin.
He’s pathological. How about the iraq/africa/uranium lie? That was so flimsy and based on such a poorly fabricated letter it’s laughable how desperate they were for ANYTHING to justify this misadventure.
And oh yeah, it’s really been worth it. This surge was supposed the give the iraqui govt. breathing room and it produced NOTHING. No progress.
Fewer people are dying now because we are paying both sides not to fight, all the neighborhoods by now are segregated, and a huge number of iraquis have fled the country creating a refugee crisis second only to Darfur.
13. SEW | March 21st, 2008 at 11:32 am
Karl, Thanks again for the useful idiots. Regards.
14. Some Assembly Required | March 21st, 2008 at 11:40 am
Haha, Nice ‘Useful idiots’. You know, ever stop to think that maybe that’s what your beloved ‘karl’ thinks of you. Only difference being he is actually ‘Using’ you to push his agenda because you are ‘Idiots’
15. Mark Noonan | March 21st, 2008 at 11:44 am
Magnum,
2,859,764 people voted Republican in Ohio in 2004.
Do you ever stop to think about just how foolish you sound?
16. Mark Noonan | March 21st, 2008 at 11:50 am
Jackson,
Well, the curious thing is that while a very large number of people believe that President Bush lied about Saddam’s attempts to obtain uranium in Africa, the actual facts are on Bush’s side and the only people who clearly lied about the issue are Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame (Wilson about what he found, Plame about her role in having Wilson sent).
Its pointless for us to get into the matter - I doubt that any martialing of the facts will knock you off your course…but, as Wilson discovered and reported to the CIA, Saddam did, indeed, attempt to obtain uranium in Africa - which is precisely what President Bush said in his SOTU speech, which you on the left hold up as a lie.
You really should think about it - support for liberating Iraq was very high long before President Bush’s SOTU and Powell’s UN speech…what need was there to lie when the vast majority of Americans and Congressmen were ready to go into the fight?
And even if a majority had to be built to support the liberation of Iraq, Saddam had conveniently provided an endless array of indisputable violations of the 1991 cease fire coupled with his manifest and public support for international terrorism. Once again, no need to lie…
So, on the facts and even on the logic, the whole BUSH LIED!!!! meme is stupid - and only the ignorant, the hate-filled or the entirely dishonest believe it.
17. SteaM | March 21st, 2008 at 12:07 pm
So what are these actual facts, Mark. Please enlighten me. Far as I can tell Powell was very upset about his having been used regarding that speech to the UN when later he found that information about Iraq seeking yellow cake urainum from Niger was based on poorly forged documents.
Are you suggesting that these forged documents were not forged?
18. extramedium | March 21st, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Regardless of the rhetoric, no President is going to withdraw all of our troops from Iraq unless the country is predominantly stable. As far as I can tell we’re not even close. Thus, we’re pretty much stuck there for some time to come.
I’ll start worrying about Republican gains in November when the American public decides that it was a good idea to go into Iraq in the first place. The Right is thus far unrepentant on this point, endlessly defending the bad decisions made in 2003. The people remain unconvinced. A good outcome on the surge may buy some time to keep trying to build a stable nation, but it doesn’t do much to prop up the original idea.
The average American has to ask themselves whether they’d like to pony up for another round of regime change and nation building in a country like Iran or Syria. If the Right won’t admit toppling Iraq was a mistake, they’re sure to keep going until they’ve forced democracy on every state in the middle east. If I were a Democratic strategist, that’s the issue I’d keep front and center as far as national security is concerned. The rest of it - whether or not the surge worked, the tired and inappropriate frames of victory and defeat, who will withdraw the fastest or stay the longest - is mostly noise.
19. Mark Noonan | March 21st, 2008 at 12:16 pm
SteaM,
It would take too long - just to demonstrate that the forged documents weren’t used as part of the justification for the claim of Saddam seeking uranium would take a long comment…its old news, anyways; you’re locked into your belief that BUSH LIED!!! and while I’m sorry for you on it, I don’t think any progress can be made in swaying your view - at least not as long as President Bush is in office…we might start having some luck with you in 2009….
20. Mark Noonan | March 21st, 2008 at 12:19 pm
extra,
Curiously enough, I saw that same opinion expressed by that NPR talking head on Fox News…the concept that regardless of rhetoric, neither part of HillBama will really do what they say they will…which makes me wonder:
1. Do you think they are liars?
2. Upon what basis do you hold such a view?
21. js | March 21st, 2008 at 12:21 pm
“So, on the facts and even on the logic, the whole BUSH LIED!!!! meme is stupid - and only the ignorant, the hate-filled or the entirely dishonest believe it.”
That isnt entirely true. There is another element out there Mark. They are dangerous too. They incite honest people into believing lies. You, I and several others here have been challenging them for proof of thier accusations, but all we get is double talk, spinning topics, and cunning deciets.
People like DP, DT, and a pot full of stooges, think that by saying the same thing over and over, they dont need proof. That somehow, somewhere, one of them would actually find the proof is pretty far against the odds, because they get thier cheese from the same factory, the gossip core of the conspiracy theories, places like moveon.org and inept leaders like Pelosi and Reid.
In time of war we call them traitors. By spreading the enemies propoganda, and trying to manipulate the countries motivation to do what is right, they give comfort and aid to the enemies of freedom, they give hope where there should be despair, and anticipation of victory where there can be none. They hide behind free speech and freedom of the press, but the truth is, what they are doing is what destroys the integrity of both of these icons of freedom.
22. Magnum Serpentine | March 21st, 2008 at 12:32 pm
mark
that number is also in dispute as well. Read the various lawsuits that have been filed in the past few years over that twisted election.
23. FoolYouTwice | March 21st, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Mark,
Do you have any evidence to support your claim that a large percentage of those who disagree with Bush on Iraq do so because they wish he was more agressive? Yes or no. Pretty simple question. If yes, please provide such evidence. If no, admit you made this up.
24. extramedium | March 21st, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Mark,
1. I think all politicians are liars, but even so, a troop withdrawal plan which is changed out of necessity won’t constitute a “lie”.
2. Talking about withdrawing troops now is important to keeping the left on board. In the case of Obama, his plan calls for phased withdrawal of all troops over 16 months (from Feb 2009 I would assume). Of course that timetable could (and should) be altered based on the assessment of stability in Iraq at the time. I’d be thrilled to find out that Iraq was ready to stand on it’s own in mid 2010, but I sincerely doubt that will be the case. I’m confident we’ll see this thing through and I think that it will involve a significant American presence in Iraq for many years.
Both Obama and Clinton have said that they would leave an unspecified amount of American troops in Iraq to protect American interests, provide security continue to train Iraqis. That leaves a lot of room for adjusting troop levels in a reasonable manner later on.
The part about painting everything as black and white for political reasons - victors and defeatists, liars and bearers of truth - that’s the noise. Dishonest noise.
25. SteaM | March 21st, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Mark,
Then the information that Bush was given was incorrect.
Someone screwed up.
26. Mark Noonan | March 21st, 2008 at 1:42 pm
SteaM,
No, it was correct - as Joe Wilson verified in his trip to Africa. But, no matter - I’m not going to be able to convince you.
27. Mark Noonan | March 21st, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Fool,
Ever heard of a thing called logic?
If the question is asked: “Do you approve or disapprove of President Bush’s handling of Iraq?” (or some variant thereof), do you think that everyone answering “no” is in favor of immediate or quick withdrawal or can you conceptualise the fact that if you asked that question in 2006, John McCain - who is pledged to victory - would have answered “no”?
When, on the other hand, the question is aked, “Do you want an immediate/quick withdrawal from Iraq”, polling shows less than 25% supporting that view. Given that such people would likely 100% support the “Disapprove President Bush’s handling” question, but would not be, in and of themselves, sufficent to obtain a 70% disapproval rating in a national poll, there simply must be people in the “disapprove” group who disapprove for other reasons than the fact that President Bush won’t immediately or soon withdraw from Iraq.
Do you liberals ever think, at all?
28. SteaM | March 21st, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Mark,
Ok then, for the sake of avoiding a neverending debate I’m going to assume that Iraq did indeed try to obtain yellowcake uranium from Niger. Even though I strongly feel that something is fishy there because I’m not that naive.
29. BARRASSO | March 21st, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Here is a good link on the failure of the surge,
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/03/21/the-guardian-the-surge-may-be-on-the-verge-of-collapse/
This well managed, well thought out war is totally improving Americas’ position in the world.
Seriously I don’t really care if Bush lied us into war, he did everything he could to put us in Iraq and the entire event has been the greatest mistake America has made since Vietnam. Those pesky evil liberals were right about everything they predicted in this war, and the chickenhawks were wrong about everything but keep spinning some day it will all magically be the liberals fault.
30. Mark Noonan | March 21st, 2008 at 2:22 pm
SteaM,
In my view, it is always best to assume the worst about dictatorial regimes - you’ll never be caught napping that way. Very much lost in the leftwing critique of the was just was a complete SOB Saddam was and the fact - attested to by everyone who knows anything - that he was, at the very least, prepared to ramp up his WMD programs just as soon as he could get the sanctions lifted…in which effort his bribes to certain western politicians was working splendidly.
My view of the matter is that Saddam likely did retain a stockpile of chemical weapons at least through the end of 2002 - the worldwide intel on that is pretty indisputable, and while an intel agency might get it wrong, its pretty near impossible for all of them to get it wrong, especially when its not a matter of degree, but of absolute (ie, an intel agency might get it wrong by saying an enemy has 100 tanks when the enemy has 50…but its extraordinarily unlikely that an intel agency would say an enemy has 100 tanks when it has none). What happened to them? Don’t know - perhaps Saddam destroyed them. Perhaps the Russians reclaimed their part of it (another thing lost in the debate was just how much Russia provided Saddam over the years)…perhaps it was moved to Syria…or, perhaps its still buried out there in the Iraqi outback. We may never know - but to say that Bush lied about Iraqi WMD is just foolish; it is a position at variance with facts and common sense.
Another thing we know for certain is that Saddam was very close to building an atomic bomb in 1991 - the only reason to suppose he wasn’t at least laying the groundwork for another effort would be that he suddenly became a “no nukes” peacenik…I didn’t see much evidence of that in his words and actions. Did you? For someone to say with certainty that Saddam didn’t attempt to obtain uranium in Africa is foolish - its a prime global source of the stuff, and if you even have a mind to perhaps one day building a nuke, you’ll likely have to go to Africa. Couple this with the indisuptable fact that Saddam sent a trade mission to Niger. Niger’s major exports are:
Uranium.
Livestock.
Which do you think a Saddamite trade mission would be most interested in?
I make the guess on uranium. How ’bout you?
31. js | March 21st, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Saddam’s Man in Niger
What was the Iraqi regime’s nuclear expert doing in Africa?
by Christopher Hitchens
09/25/2006, Volume 012, Issue 02
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/713yamai.asp
32. FoolYouTwice | March 21st, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Mark,
So you are admitting you have no evidence to back up your claim. That is fine, just say as much. You specifically said that a “very large portion” disapprove because they want Bush to be more agressive. You cannot show this to be a true statement and you now have weakly admitted to that.
A recent Rasmussen poll said this: “35% want troops to remain in Iraq until the mission is complete”. At best, maybe 5%-10% of people who disagree with the way Bush has handled war do so because they wish he were more agressive.
You can lie to yourself if it makes you feel better, but don’t expect anyone else to do the same. Consistently polls have shown that a “very large portion” of Americans hold a view on Iraq closer to the Democrats than Republicans. I know you won’t ever admit to that, but you are smart enough to know that it is true. You wouldn’t admit to it in 2006 and you ended up looking like a fool, much like Karl Rove. I know that you sided with Rove in 2006 and went against what all the pollsters were showing; don’t make the same mistake again. As much as you wish it were so, Rove doesn’t have special “math” skills that magically turn all polls on their heads and make them say the opposite of what they are.
60 to 70% of Americans consistently show that they believe Bush is a bad president, that he has mismanaged the war in Iraq, that Iraq was not worth going into, and that we should leave Iraq immediately or within a year. That will be his legacy. Deal with it.
33. SteaM | March 21st, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Yet is it not also best to assume that any nations leaders can be corrupt at any time? Why just dictators?
I am just as suspicious of my own government. Besides, I don’t want to be caught napping.
34. jackson | March 21st, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Even if ALL of those lies were still true, they do not excuse the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq and the disastrous neocon occupation. It’s a popular and pathetic Republican technique to haggle over the details and ignore the big picture.
35. Mortimer | March 21st, 2008 at 10:24 pm
War is so fun when the little people can safely cheer the troops on and attack anyone who opposed the war in the pyjamas on the kbd; knowing that they are not only totally safe from enemy counterstrikes or the draft, but they don’t even have to pay any extra taxes or sacrifice any of their luxuries. Besides, our little friends in Iraq are busy chumming up to Iran, Shiites anyone?
36. Freedom1 | March 21st, 2008 at 10:46 pm
WOO HOO!!! :)
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/48552.html
IRAQIS PREFER PRESENT TO PAST
ABC NEWS reports that a recent poll taken in Iraq finds Iraqis, unlike some Americans, do not think of Saddam’s rule as the good old days:
70% Say things are “Good” today in Iraq
56% Say their lives are better NOW than before the war
71% Say their lives will be better one year from now
72% Say schools are better today
56% Say household basics are better today
53% Say crime protection is better today
39% Support the presence of Coalition Forces in Iraq
51% Oppose presence of Coalition Forces but only:
15% Say the U.S. should leave now
10% Say the U.S. should leave in 6+ months
8% Say the U.S. should leave in a few months
78% Reject attacks on Coalition Forces
99% Reject attacks on Iraqi Police
79% of all Iraqis support a united, centralized government
Jobs, commerce and wages are increasing.
70% Trust Iraqi’s Religious Leaders, followed by the Iraqi Police and the Iraqi Army.
37. Freedom1 | March 21st, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Iranian Entanglements: McCain was right the first time — Iran is helping al-Qaeda in Iraq. - NRO
By Christopher W. Holton
38. Freedom1 | March 21st, 2008 at 11:13 pm
…From that NRO article above…
The NRO article has a loooooong list of Iran/Al Qaeda links.
39. Freedom1 | March 21st, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Here’s the NRO link:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGE0ZWE0MWVjMmI2YjI4NzI1OTg2YzZmMjJjNzMwOGY
40. FmrMarine | March 22nd, 2008 at 1:52 pm
What a load of crap;
you donks sure have a short memory!
george lied about WMD Where are they?
george lied about Saddam and the terrorist link. The terrorist moved in, AFTER george launched his war in Iraq. They invaded because the United States was there.
george lied about nuclear weapons link in Africa. Secretary of State Colin Powell was highly embarrassed to learn what he had thought was the truth was in fact a lie. Secretary of State Colin Powell had given a speech based on what he thought was truthful information and later had to apologize.
What about all these LIARS?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNgaVtVaiJE