Rove puts on his revisionist-historian hat

One of the more painful political moments of Bush’s presidency came in the immediate run up to the 2002 elections. Bush was desperate to pin Dems down in support of an Iraqi-invasion policy, and Dems were desperate not to appear “weak” in the first national election cycle after the 9/11 attacks. Republicans were shamelessly demagogic, Dems were cowardly, and the result were congressional majorities, just a few weeks before voters went to the polls, supporting a war that did not need to be fought — a war, we now know, that quickly became a fiasco.

And yet, there was Karl Rove on The Charlie Rose Show, playing his host and the audience for fools.

ROVE: [O]ne of the untold stories about the war is why did the United States Congress, the United States Senate, vote on the war resolution in the fall of 2002?

ROSE: Why?

ROVE: This administration was opposed to it. I’m going to talk about that in my book… [T]he administration was opposed to voting on it in the fall of 2002.

ROSE: Because?

ROVE: Because we didn’t think it belonged in the confines of the election. We thought it made it too political. We wanted it outside the confines of the election. It seemed it make things move too fast. There were things that needed to be done to bring along allies and potential allies abroad and yet…

But you were opposed to the vote.

ROVE: It happened. We don’t determine when the Congress vote on things. The Congress does.

ROSE: You wish it hadn’t happened at that time. You would have preferred it did not happen at that time.

ROVE: That’s right.

ROSE: Because your argument– your argument is you would have had maybe more inspections. You would have been able to build a broader coalition. You could have done a whole lot other things if you didn’t have to have a vote, right?

ROVE: Right, right, exactly.

You. Have. Got. To. Be. Kidding. Me.

It’s possible that Rove has an extraordinarily bad memory. It’s possible that Rove was under the influence of some illegal medication. It’s possible that Rove has suffered some kind of head trauma that prevents him from telling the truth.

But in all likelihood, Rove is a coward, afraid of reality. For him to tell a national television audience that Iraq is Congress’ fault is one of the more audacious, breathtaking lies a Bushie has told about this war in years.

The reality, of course, as Faiz documented very well, is the opposite of what Rove suggested. Everyone from Tom Daschle to Nancy Pelosi to Dick Durbin all said voting after the election would depoliticize it.

Bush wouldn’t hear of it, telling Daschle, “We just have to do this now.” The president told the nation that even a brief delay would act against “our national interests.” White House toadies in Congress were only too happy to use Bush’s playbook — then-NRCC Chairman Tom Davis (R-Va.) said, “This could be the vote of the decade, so why wait?”

And yet, there was Rove, arguing the opposite, and hoping like hell Charlie Rose wouldn’t notice how transparently ridiculous his claim really was (Rose didn’t challenge Rove’s obvious lie).

It opens a new chapter in the annals of White House mendacity — if only Congress hadn’t been in a rush to war, politicizing the conflict, perhaps the inspectors could have taken their time and we could have avoided this tragic debacle. It’s like being stuck in a Twilight Zone episode.

Only someone who has utter contempt for Americans could offer such a bold lie. It’s that simple.

Karl 5 years from now: “The truth is, Charlie, the GOP was adamantly opposed to George W. Bush assuming the Presidency in the disputed election of 2000 — but Gore conceded the race before we could do anything about it.”

  • The outrage and fury I feel that Rove not only actually said this but that Rose said nothing to call him on it. Why wasn’t Rose insulted? Did he just not know enough to be insulted?

    It’s the main reason I stopped watching Rose since he has had most of the traitors to this country on his show and finds it more important to joke and smile in whispers rather than call them on their lies. Politeness has boundaries and it was hard enough watching him kiss Petraeus’ ass but to allow Rove to lie like that and say nothing begs the question of what ever happened to Rose?
    Bush team forced this vote and this war down our throats with smoking gun mushroom cloud talk and pressuring the UN and the rest of the world to approve of our aggression. To suggest in anyway that this war was the fault of congress is beyond insulting. Military force was supposed to be the last option not the first.
    Rove is better off playing the pillsbury doe boy than acting like a credible human being.

    Rose is very likable but needs to start doing his home work again like he used to and quit avoiding conflict just to be amiable. It doesn’t fit with interviewing.

  • My letter to Mr. Rose.

    Hello Mr. Rose,

    You are supposed to be an astute and critical interviewer. As far as I can tell, the inquiring media ball just got dropped again and you walked off the stage after chit chatting with Karl Rove having filled an hour with worse than nothing, blatant and critically flawed disinformation.

    Here is one of many blog posts that will be highlighting this continuing pass that the media gives these snake oil salesman. http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13688.html

    Why do you do it? Don’t you care? Just go talk with Murdoch and tell him you want to catapult the propaganda. I’m sure he’d be happy to oblige. It’s obvious that you have the right stuff. Listen to B.S. and let it pass. Provide a forum for the propaganda and stand back while it slides on by.

    If you say that you do care about accuracy and analysis but this is the best you can do sir, just step away and do something else because you are failing at provoking or providing the information that your reputation is based on and which I guess you would probably say you still care about. But I don’t see it. And this was a big one. Rove, one of the most critical players. The red carpet through his valley of baloney runs for miles. Yet he rolled by you like he was talking to the chair.

    An off night? You’ll do better next time? Whatever. This was Karl Rove on The Charlie Rose Show and it was just propaganda flying by. Revisionist history in a steaming pile at your feet. Did you notice anything at all. Anything?

  • I really wish Rose had done something more. I don’t watch his show, but from what I’ve seen of him while flipping through the channels, he seems kind of milque-toast.

    Only someone who has utter contempt for Americans could offer such a bold lie. It’s that simple.

    Word.

  • The silver lining to the cloud is that I know several people in the library field who have already decided they will not add Karl’s “book” to their collections; more than a few of which are large academic units. It doesn’t meet the definition of “non-fiction” because it’s not true; it doesn’t meet the definition of “fiction” because of all the blatant lies presented as truth.

  • And we all know that in a short period of time a large segment of Americans and possibly Congress are going to believe what Rove has said and if the war isn’t Bill Clinton’s fault then it is going to be Congress’s.

  • Why stop lying if no one ever calls you on it (well, the liberal blogosphere does but Rove already has the MSM discounting that.) Rove can say any damn thing he wants to because he’s cowed the media into being paranoid that they may appear to be liberal (God forbid) if they even even think of questioning a Republican’s motives or actions. Rose is just another pawn.

    Hey Newsweak … Rove’s your liability now. Imagine the libelous crap he’ll be prone to spout there.

  • One of the more painful political moments of Bush’s presidency came in the immediate run up to the 2002 — CB

    I’d re-write it as “one of the most painful political moments in modern American history”. It happened during Bush’s presidency but the Dems didn’t hold the line or cry “they will not pass” loud enough, either.

    Steve, @6, said (about Rove’s book):
    it doesn’t meet the definition of “fiction” because of all the blatant lies presented as truth.

    I thought it didn’t meet the definition of “fiction” because a) there was no good story to it and b) there was no happy ending to it 🙂

  • Oh. My. God.

    I saw this last night and could not believe what I was hearing.

    I’m not sure I’ve ever heard anything so completely ridiculous in my entire life.

  • Truthiness is an account which purports to be true but isn’t.

    A rove is a person who speaks truthiness.

  • Q: How do you know when Karl’s feeding you $hit?

    A: Any sign of life is a good indication.

    But the real question is –

    Why isn’t the traitor Karl Rove in jail?

  • People who have short memories and may not recall the political atmosphere in September/October 2002 prior to the Senate vote need only watch some of the news coverage from that time. The link below will take you to PBS’s NewsHour stories from September 25, 2002. Watch the two segments on “War and Politics” and decide for yourself how the Bush administration handled the war vote.

    http://vvi.onstreammedia.com/cgi-bin/visearch?user=pbs-newshour&template=template.html&squery=%2BVideoAsset:pbsnh092502

  • Pingback: 02e8047943bd
  • Comments are closed.