He couldn't even organise a piss up in a Brewery mate lol! He's just a dumb puppet, but a very very dangerous one at that.
I'm confused. Whom will I get my marching orders from now? With Rove gone, I'm a rove-bot without a master.
Come on, we still have Anne Coulter... Oh, and that Mexican dude that no one likes... What was his name now.. Gonzalas or something?
Do some reading Mia (BTW where is GTech? Are you standing in for him bro? ) I never said Bush, I said the corrupt Bush cabal. Start with your other lover Dick Cheney, he's the biggest terrorist in the world, and he pulls your lovers strings.
Heh, at the end of the run, people often move on. I wouldn't be surprised if the conspiracy nuts tried to make more out of it than it is. In fact, it's probably another one of Rove's genius plans to make the dems looks stupid...one more time
They didn't need any help winning congress and the senate either... who looked stupid then? I guess anyone who didn't vote for republicans is stupid huh? Burnt bridges and power grabbing are why the American people won't be trusting a republicans for quite a long time. Thank guys
That sums it up pretty well. The Dems are going to have their turn for a while. I'm looking foward to see what they will do. They have a big job ahead of them trying to clean up the mess that is left.
People that believe all democrats or republicans are always right/wrong are the same people that think there is a difference between drinking Coke or Pepsi.
You have a good point. It is not about the party, it is about the agenda of the individual running for office.
Actually I give Rove a lot of credit. He took a reasonably young man who had been an irresponsable drunk, who had failed in business and politics, who was the priveleged son of a powerful wealthy family with no distinguished accomplishments of his own and made him governor of Texas for 2 terms and President for 2 terms. He took a guy who was trounced in the first real Republican primary in New Hampshire to subsequent universal primary victories in 2000 an extremely narrow presidential victory....and then masterminded a large level of popularity for about 5 years despite engaging in a war without reason, an inability to stem the root of terrorism, a guy who let New Orleans be destroyed. Rove should have been in Hollywood. He is the masterful fantasy creater and solidified the practice of fantasy politics and issues that is the main emphasis of the current Republican party.
We've been under democrat rule for the past 7 years. Democrats wanted war with Iraq. Bush gave it to them. Democrats wanted more troops in Iraq. Bush gave it to them. The only thing Bush hasn't given the democrats is the defeat they so desperately seek.
Earl. Please. Bush doesn't cause hurricanes nor does his weather control device steer them at certain cities. And you know (or maybe you dont) that immediate responders are the state/local responsibility. Nagin was incompetent, yet he was re-elected there. Do you not remember the Nagin memorial bus pool? Blanco wouldn't let federal assistance in fast enough. She was incompetent. Don't pin that on Bush. Errors were made on all levels. But Nagin and the local governments bear the most direct responsibility. Amazing how they are always left out of the mix. I know; everyone else has mastered this. And knows just how to stop terrorism. Until they are actually in office; when those brilliant ideas that they supposedly had are somehow lost in the wind. What's funny is that you repeatedly say that you are against an immediate withdrawal from Iraq; yet call the war without reason. In this sense, you must support the senseless killing of people, right? If there is no reason to be there, surely you cannot support what the troops are doing over there, correct?
Well, its the dems that look stupid now with the "lowest approval rating of any congress" ever....yeah, they sure got it right...
Lorien: Nice catch. Weather destroyed New Orleans-not Bush. My mistake and wrong words. Still with the situation ominous there was that damning video...with Bush not taking emergency measures prior to the storm hitting. The aftermath of New Orleans has been one of the issues that killed public belief in Bush for a wide swath of Americans. IMHO, all political entities have a level of responsability for recovery. But since the Fed government is the lead source for money and the lead source for recovery resources...it takes the burden of responsability to rebuild and reestablish the city. To date the recovery process has been painfully slow. Much of the organized world lives under the threat of fundamental islamic terrorism. The US, Great Britain, and Spain to reference some Western nations have suffered from terrorist attacks. Russia has seen attacks from fundamental Islamists. Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia have all suffered from attacks by Islamic terrorists to name just a few. It is a world-wide phenomena. Clearly, the US should and could be in the lead role in establishing defenses and attacks against world wide fundamental terrorism. We have the resources--like no other nation to uproot and attack fundamentalist terrorist groups anywhere in the world. No other nation has those resources. We aren't close to establishing an inter governmental defense against terrorism nor an ability to mass efforts to attack it on a world wide basis. Much of the world has hated our policies and directions. Poor diplomacy. Poor decisions (attack Iraq--let alone essentially attack Iraq on our own have led to little responsiveness from the rest of the world (with some--but very few-exceptions) It is a war without reason...or a war developed under false pretenses....however you describe it. Yet now that we are there...what next? I certainly don't support senseless killing....It is cruel and horrible whoever engages in it...whether terrorists, the various wars and destruction in Africa or the chaos/anarchy/civil war nature of Iraq. I support our soldiers. I also believe Iraq is such an enormous mess that any subsequent actions in either removing our troops/ diminishing the size of troops/redirecting the focus of our troops will all have potential negative consequences. I also believe that continuing in the direction we are going in Iraq will have further worse consequences. Our fighting forces on the ground are stretched way beyond where they should be. The consequences to soldiers, their families, and the ability to subsequently have a strong fighting force for any subsequent emergencies is horrendous. We neither seem to be winning or losing in my mind. We are in a status quo....where American soldiers die from the hands of Shiites, Sunnies, Anarchists, tribal rivalries, Al-Queda in Iraq...and who knows who else. Ultimately Bush is lying to the American public about "winning" the war in Iraq. Winning means wiping out all forces with weapons who are killing American troops. We simply don't have the numbers of troops to do this. Why are American military and civilian leaders continuing to complain about Iranian armour piercing weapons, primarily used by Shiites, which are among the most deadly weapons we face? Why don't they just block the borders with Iran and stop the importation of these weapons? We don't have the troop levels. Easy answer. Instead of solving the problem....we complain. What kind of a way is that to fight a war? How can someone call for "victory" if he can't supply the resources for victory? That is one example. Why are we currently spending billions on rebuilding Iraq when much of what we rebuild is being destroyed by the on-going chaos? What a waste. Why are we continuing to do this? That isn't about winning...it is about wasting. I see the current situation as weakening and sapping America's capabilities...all under a series of lies. @ Gtech: This is simply more politically fantasy partisanship that simply has nothing to do with reality. That is too ludicrous to answer. It is a typical partisan untrue statement. During the 90's many Americans spoke about fighting Saddam Hussein. Republicans and Democrats. By the way...since you seem to miss this GTech. Nobody declared war in the 90's. Despite your many efforts to quote yourself (a heck of an original source-) Neo-Con republicans set up an organization to specifically outline a foreign policy that would would reflect their visions. The Project for the New American Century(PNAC) was established in the late 1990's to reflect this perspective. Co-founder William Kristol, called for Iraq regime change in 1998. This was just one of a number of calls for regime change by this group. Members of the PNAC who ultimately were part of the Bush administration include the following: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfewitz, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Elliot Abrams and Lewis (Scooter) Libby. These were the guys in power who went to war against Iraq in 2003. Please...quit telling half truths....and quit trying to rewrite history. Prior to the start of the war in Iraq, General Shinesky, in testimony to Congress, stated that the war in Iraq would, in his opinion, require hundreds of thousands of more troops than what the US was dedicating to the fight. While, he was not cited at the time, one would believe that Colin Powell would have agreed with that assessment...as he was the architect of a much larger military force in 1991 during the Gulf War in Kuwait. Upon citing troop levels which were at dramatic odds with what Rumsfeld wanted....Shinesky was essentially removed from any position of responsability within the military and resigned shortly thereafter. What could be a stronger sign to generals not to disagree with Rumsfeld (and the Bush Administration). Kerry and many others, including Republicans subsequently have brought these specifics up in questioning the implementation and strategy of the Bush administration. now since the original thread was about Karl Rove..... He obviously was brilliant in masterminding a series of campaigns going back into the 1990's to elevate George Bush to Governor of Texas and President. Unfortunately, his legacy, IMHO, will be that focusing on partisanship all the time and focusing on Republicanism before Americanism will have long term negative impacts on the country.
See, now you got EP pwning all of you and eating up his precious time writing to you...lol Just kidding I think Bush would like to groom his property. After all, tumbleweeds mess up the looks of a good ranch fence. I bet his golf cart has a rocket launcher, Rove will be missed. D
It's very much reality. Democrats were calling for war with Iraq long before Bush ever got into office. Probably the only reason democrats didn't go was because Clinton was spending all of his time and resources lying and trying to cover up his affair. In fact, during that same time period, was one of the times Clinton refused to take bin laden from a country that had him imprisoned. When you look at it, Bush has been doing exactly what democrats have been calling for. War with Iraq, more troops in Iraq, take on social security, he caved into that monstrous disaster of a border plan with Kennedy. Incorrect. You are afraid to admit the striking resemblances. For untrue partisan statements, refer to your comments to Lorien above. Actually, bin laden declared war in the 90s. Democrats didn't take it seriously. As for quoting myself, I'm not surprised you would try to make that an issue, instead of all the comments democrats made about saddam's wmd long before Bush was in office. Did someone say partisan? Let's review: http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/ As you can clearly see, Bush has just taken over for democrats and given them what they wanted. Clinton's official policy regarding saddam was "regime change." Let's review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act Can I get a "partisan" in here? I believe that is a standard you need to hold yourself to. I've corrected your rewriting of history and partisan half truths with solid sources, as usual. You mean General Shinseki? Le'ts see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Shinseki And when democrats called for more troops, Bush obliged them. What did democrats do in return? You know the answer EP, go ahead! Powell has disagreed often. Again, Bush has given the democrats what they want, and they still complain. This is common practice when Generals step outside of their role and responsibilities. Rumsfeld is gone. Some still complain about him. More troops were sent. What did democrats do? Kerry called for more troops. Bush gave Kerry what he asked for. After doing so, Kerry flip/flopped yet again and was suddenly against sending more troops. Pretty much a general position for most democrats. Whatever they want, Bush gives them, then they decide they don't want it, because Bush now wants it. Reminds me of schoolyard games when we were kids. Democrats have caused more partisanship and harm to this country than any Republican could ever imagine. People like kerry, murtha, harry reid, pelosi, durbin and many others have made some of the most damaging untruthful statements to our country. They should be brought up on charges of treason. Murtha, with his public conviction of Marines, who just last week had all charges against them dropped. In all my years, I have never seen democrats sell our country out and cause so much divide within this country. They have a lower approval rating than Bush. That says all we need to know.