On June 12, shortly after being let off the hook by Patrick Fitzgerald, Bush team mastermind Karl Rove flew to New Hampshire to launch the opening volleys in the 2006 Congressional elections



http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dl...ITORY/606130360

Though Rove himself never served in the military, he had some tough words for Senator John Kerry and perhaps Rep. John Murtha, who are both combat veterans.

Kerry’s office responded through spokesman, David Wade:



http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=3301

This morning on Meet the Press, Rep. Murthan answered Rove.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13296235/
Note: Part of Murtha's remarks are on page two of the transcript.

Quesations for Debate:

1. Does this exchange involving Rove, Kerry and Murtha signal hard fought, if not down right nasty, 2006 mid-term elections?

2. The strategy employed by Rove worked in 2000, 2002 and 2004. Will it be successful again - in 2006?

3. Before James Moore and Wayne Salter published Bush’s Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential in 2003, Rove worked primarily behind the scenes. With the book, the Plame leak case, and stump speeches, Rove has become a better known public official.

a. Does Rove had the charisma to be an effective stump speaker?

b. Will a high profile by Rove (making stump speeches) help or hinder with the Republican base, and/or moderate and independent voters?

4. Is it appropriate for someone on the government's payroll to make politically charged speeches, like Rove made in New Hampshire?

5. Will quick/hard edged responses, like those of Kerry and Murtha, help Democrats?

1. No doubt the current culture of animosity will continue into 2006 and 2008.

2. Probably. Even those who most oppose his ideas will admit that he is extremely shrewd and effective at his job.

3a. I have no real opinion, except to say that GOP loyalists will cheer him and Democrats will jeer him.

3b. There is no doubt at all that this sort of thing plays very well to the conservative base of the Republican Party, and that they are definitely an important part of the party's votes. I can't imagine that it will attact very many independents or moderates. The same could be said about recent stunts like the meaningless vote on Iraq, or the pointless attempt to create a Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. It's preaching to the choir. In this case, the church seems to be made up, to a great extent, of choir members.

4. Well, Rove's job is inherently a political one. I would certainly not expect him to stop making highly partisan statements. As a general rule, I don't think that a government employee should be restricted from making political statements. (If a particular employee is spending government money which is allocated for other purposes on partisan activites, then we have a problem.)

5. Ah, that is the question, isn't it? How should one respond to attacks? The cynic in me says that votes always go to the candidate with nastier campaign ads.

But we must not sink to that level. One must respond firmly but calmly. In the responses which have been quoted here, remarks about Rove's weight are rude and childish. It is certainly correct to deny, as strongly as possible, charges of cutting and running.

From a purely practical point of view, experience teaches us that the GOP is better at using tough, sometimes questionable language to attack the other side. The Democratic Party can't beat them at that game.

1. Sure. The Dems have had their hopes built up so high anything short of taking control of one or both houses of Congress will be seen as a major defeat. The Repubs don't want to fall flat on their faces less than two years after looking invincible in the 2004 elections. NO WAY does a White House this partisan want to deal with Majority Leader Harry Reid or Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

2. Who can say? Going negative and nasty seems to work well for the GOP. Why change the playbook if it's still generating more wins than losses? Let the pundits wail about it. The political consultants love it.

3a. As long as he's speaking before the party faithful---the "Rangers" who write big checks to the GOP he's extremely effective. Rove is too much of a big shot to be speaking to farmers at county fairs in Iowa.

3b. Helps the base. He beat the rap and the clouds of possible jail time have gone bye-bye. Rove will turn his time and attention to the fall elections. Raising the wedge issues in Congress of banning gay marriage and forcing a on the record of setting up a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq is classic Rove.

4. Oh c'mon. He's the top gun in setting policy in the Bush Administration. His job is to make George W. Bush look good, not try to play kissy-face with the Democrats. Rove is a back alley, knee to the groin, kick 'em where it hurts brawler and he loves his work. But he's smart as evidenced by how he read the tea leaves correctly in 2004 that the mobilized and passionate evangelical Christian vote would turn out in a big way for Bush in Ohio thus putting him over the top. Nobody else predicted that would scuttle Kerry. Nobody else but Karl Rove.

So what does Rove know in 2006 that nobody else has figured out? I don't like Rove any further than I can throw him, but I respect him because all he does well is beat the living crap out of Democrats. Don't doubt that he'll find a way to do it again this fall.

5. I've said if before and I'll say it again: If you don't define yourself, the other side will and always in the worst possible light. Democrats can't beat the Republicans with Republican tactics. They have to find and cultivate their own means of beating Republicans. A quick response to GOP attacks is fine, but Kerry should have used them back in August 04 when the Swift Boat crew cast doubts on his military record. Bona fide war heroes like Murtha and Kerry have nothing to explain to a chickenhawk like Rove, but they're still playing defense. The Republicans are still better at making the Democrats react to what they say instead of vice versa.

Errr, ummm... Do ya mean more hard fought and nasty than any other election in recent (or past) history?


Real world history and subsequent trends would seem to indicate so...Yes...But maybe not...Well...Probably... )


Is there a question here? Strange...I couldn't find it. I must be a little slow. Oh wait!



I suppose he will be "charismatic" to people who find him "charismatic". It's hard to say. Different people find different personalities to be "charismatic".


I'm not sure exactly what constitutes "high profile" (According to whom?...If asked, what percentage of the population even knows who Karl Rove is?). But I'll go out on a limb and bet that the "Republicans" will vote for "Republicans"...Even considering that, I doubt that most "moderate and/or independent" voters who haven't made up their minds politically, have deeply developed anything about the "charismaticisity" of Karl Rove one way or another. For all I know, it's possible that the deciding factor that "moderate and independent" voters are considering is that the Fair and Vigilant Bi-Partisanly Proclaimed Non-Partisan Prosecutor in that case...Patrick Fitzgerald, has refused to charge Karl Rove with any crime of any kind whatsoever.


Errr...Ummm...Do ya mean like Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid, or Ted Kennedy, or Hillary Clinton, or (name your favorite person on the government payroll making politically charged statements here:).


I'm not a lawyer, but isn't this a classic example of "leading the witness" with "facts not proven".

2. The strategy employed by Rove worked in 2000, 2002 and 2004. Will it be successful again - in 2006?
If you would have asked me this 2 months ago, I would have said no. Today, I'll say yes - Rove will indeed deliver wins in '06. The Democrats apparently can't punch their way out of a paper bag. Murtha and Kerry are delivering the goods for Rove once again. Kerry's cut-and-run amendment got all of 6 votes, and this guy was the Presidential nominee. They are practically writing the campaign commercials for Republicans this fall.

a. Does Rove had the charisma to be an effective stump speaker?

don't know.

b. Will a high profile by Rove (making stump speeches) help or hinder with the Republican base, and/or moderate and independent voters?

Raising his profile will make him less popular I suspect, but I don't know what that means. According to this poll by Democracy Corps, last summer Rove was more popular than gay marriage, less popular than the Iraq war, hovering somewhere below NAFTA and "CEO's" I checked some of their more recent polls, and they don't track Rove any more, but I'd guess it's probably more or less the same.


Hey, Tony Blair was a 65 in that survey, maybe he should do some stump speeches!

4. Is it appropriate for someone on the government's payroll to make politically charged speeches, like Rove made in New Hampshire?

I'm trying to figure out if you are kidding here. Didn't Lincoln make "politically charged"speeches? Jefferson? FDR? Joe Lockhart? James Carville?

5. Will quick/hard edged responses, like those of Kerry and Murtha, help Democrats?

No matter how "quick" and "hard edged" they are, when you have Democrats calling for withdrawal by Christmas (Kerry) or redeploying our troops to Okinawa (Murtha) I think that the American people will see that the Democrats are not to be trusted with our foreign policy. Perhaps they should be less quick and more thoughtful in their responses.


As long as every criticism of the policies of someone who a "bona fide war hero" like Kerry, Murtha or Cleland is met with cries of "chickenhawk" our political discourse will remain in the gutter.

Leaving aside the merit of the Swift Boat charges, Kerry really never seemed capable of quick, effictive reponse throughout the campaign. They were either paralyzed by indecision, or he blurted out something dumb.

[3]b. Will a high profile by Rove (making stump speeches) help or hinder with the Republican base, and/or moderate and independent voters?



I think some of us on pat ourselves on the back too much and assume the public might not know as much as we do. How many times have I heard the expression, "the man on the street"? As much as Rove has been on national TV of late, his profile is certainly higher than it was in 2003. Rove behind the scenes worked. I’m not sure, but my guess is that his impact will diminish with public exposure.

4. Is it appropriate for someone on the government's payroll to make politically charged speeches, like Rove made in New Hampshire?



It seems the trend is to point the finger at what someone else is doing rather than answer the question.

There is a major difference in the people you mention and Rove. Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy and Clinton are elected officials, as well as Bush. It is sort of in the nature of elected politics to make speeches. Rove, however, is an appointed official.

In fact, I hope Rove stays out there making speeches for news media to pick up on. My guess is that the more people see of this guy the less they are going to like him. My fear is that the Republicans leadership finds his public persona is so obnoxious, they’ll ask him to stay home and stick a cork in the tater trap.

I don’t have anything against him making political speeches, as long as he travels on a private air carrier and at the expense of someone other than taxpayers – the R.N.C., for example. If Rove traveled at party expense on a plane ticket paid for by the party, I have no problem. He may have even done this.

carlitoswhey I would give you the same answer. Except for Carville and Lockhart, the people you mentioned were office holders, not appointed officials. I would also lay down the same rules for Carville and Lockhart that I have for Rove, that is, that he travel by private carrier and at non-taxpayer expense.

5. Will quick/hard edged responses, like those of Kerry and Murtha, help Democrats?]



It’s probably a good thing you are not a lawyer.

There are a number of ways Democrats could respond. Kerry was roundly criticized within the Democratic Party for not responding to swift boat attacks soon enough. Should Murtha and Kerry do the same thing this time?

The question was pretty straight forward. Like the Republicans, Democrats want to win. Is it better as a tactic to bite your tongue or fire back.

If our political discourse is in the gutter, Carlitoswhey look no further than the smear tactics of Karl Rove and how Republicans have raised the politics of personal destruction to an art form. If Democrats had used similar tactics against John McCain or Chuck Hegel, Republicans would be screaming about it loud and long. It is beneath contempt when guys who declined to fight and defend their country are the first to rip into guys who did.

Trying to insult Rove is like trying to call a gorilla ugly. Chickenhawk is a accurate description of how he chose to serve his country---he didn't. Like most of his fellow neo-cons they never met a war they didn't like (as long as somebody else goes off to fight it). There's a word for guys like that. Chickenhawk is just the most polite one.

And accusing Kerry and Murtha of trying to "cut and run" just sounds like Republican talking points being regurgitated. As polls clearly demonstrate, the American public has turned against this war. Murtha and Kerry just reached this conclusion ahead of the people. A few good weeks in Iraq isn't going to dramatically change those sentiments.

Your point is a reasonable one. So, why do we have political officials on the government payroll? For example, Carville, like Rove, was a Senior Political Advisor to the President. That's his job. I'm guessing that in order to do the people's business, you need to work the political system. Hence, a political advisor. Just like other advisors, they advise you during your campaign, and if you win, you appoint them to whatever. If Kerry would have won, Mary Beth Cahill or someone would have been rewarded with a similar role. Maybe we don't need political advisors, but if we are going to have them, it seems that they, if anybody, are entitled to make political speeches.

I think it might be tough to draw the line as to who's doing what on the people's dime, and that there are probably already rules to follow. Even so, it always bugs me when the President is in California or wherever to "make an important policy speech" and that night he's speaking at a $3000-a-plate dinner. That goes for both parties. Same for Senators or Representatives who miss votes because they are campaigning or fundraising.

edit -responding to nighttimer's post


We are debating what actually took place between Rove, Kerry and Murtha, and you want to debate hypotheticals regarding unnamed Democrats and John McCain. It’s hard for me to respond to this, as I don’t know who these Democrats are, what they said, or how they said it. I don’t think that most Americans want the Vietnam posturing anyway. See elections 1992 and 1996 where “draft dodger” beats “war hero.”


Or going deer hunting without your accordion. Whatever.


The chickenhawk argument is the very definition of ad hominem. Rove is serving his country now in a capacity you don’t like, so you have to go back 30 years and call him names. If you don't like his arguments, just try to refute them.


Guilty as charged. Murtha doesn’t want to “cut and run” – he wants to “redeploy” and “change direction.” He actually said that Clinton “changed direction” in Somalia – the very “direction change” that convinced Bin Laden we were a paper tiger, leading to bombing and deaths in the USS Cole, african embassies, World Trade Center, etc. And Murtha wants rapid reaction in the middle east based in Okinawa? Besides being 5,000 miles from Iraq, our Marines aren’t winning any popularity contests there either. I say this with much trepidation, because I have never served in the military, therefore have no right to an opinion…


Let's see - By 1972, the American public had turned against the Vietnam war. Therefore, Karl Rove wasn’t really a draft dodger in 1971. He was just “ahead of the people.”

More importantly, you seem to be suggesting that we should make important foreign policy decisions, like whether to withdraw from Iraq, based on what the polls demonstrate? I’d have to go with Colin Powell’s Pottery Barn analysis – we break it, we bought it. Since you are listening to veterans, here is a website for you http://vets4irey.com/ . I think you’ll agree that we should all support Ms. Irey because veterans support her, right?

Well, it's a tough game to find the truth among the smoke and mirrors.

I believe that the smear tactics are on both sides of the aisle, NT, as we don't need to bring up the previous elections, etc. Senator McCain is a moderate that many Democrats agree with, of whom doesn't have a problem releasing his military records and hasn't made absurd statements referring to deploying troops from Okinawa. These are things Mr. Murtha cannot claim... no military records, and troops in Okinawa? Huh?

By being a veteran, I believe that I bring a certain level of insight, albeit not expertise. I believe that Karl Rove's face probably won't be a part of any real campaign, and that the GOP won't have him as a posterchild to garner votes. Mr. Murtha is in Washington... whatever that says for Democrats. Same guy that consistently makes horrific mistakes in nearly everything he says.... here is a great article.



I find error in the notion that someone that hasn't fought for his country shouldn't make military decisions, as that is exactly what happens in the US. Frankly, if we allowed the military to make the decisions, we'd be FAR better off... but politicians begin wars. That's how it always has worked. Making "neo-con" comments is fine and dandy if you're pointing fingers and attempting to be degrading... but I don't personally believe it makes a point.

The fallacy in your logic is that you believe because a man was in the military, he/she has insight as to whether military action will be effective or not, what strategy will be deployed, and whether is should be taken? Is that what you're insinuating? Because I don't believe that you really want us to break down the history of War in the US and who initiated these conflicts... do you? It surely wasn't a "neo-con" in all of these cases ...

I personally don't believe that my limited military experience isn't nearly as worthy as a team full of men/women who have years worth of foreign policy experience, seasoned politicians who have been abroad, and experts in their respective fields. I believe that the history of war in the United States SHOULD have included a vote from military experts, possibly the top brass of all respective branches. However... that's not the way we roll...



Where's the line? What if someone was in supply? Did you have to carry a gun? What if you were a sailor and told elaborate lies about your experience?? (*tongue in cheek*)
What if you drove a truck? Then would you have the capacity to make these statements? What if you were in the Coast Guard? What if you never made it overseas?, etc, etc, etc...

I do hold men like Oliver North or Colin Powell in high esteem, and believe that combat changes a man permanently in many ways that brings perspective. However, the issue that I have is that if a politician hasn't been in the military... does that make him exempt from discussing the topic? Because someone did have experience... does that make him an expert???

I believe if you're making ridiculous comments... that you should be held accountable for explaining the logic. Good luck w/ Mr. Murtha... some of those statements were pretty far out in left field...

Is it the job of a political adviser to go out and question the patriotism, this is what he’s really doing, of two men who served their country in battle when he, in fact did not.

Rove has done this so many times it’s pitiful. Perhaps the worst case was the trashing of Max Cleland, a Vietnam vet who lost three limbs in combat, in his 2002 senate race in Georgia.



http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13367209/site/newsweek/

Are you not totally appalled at what Rove did to Cleland? Are the American people not astute enough to see through this crap?

Rove’s “sliming” people has extended beyond Democrats.

Here’s what the Bush/Rove machine did to fellow Republican John McCain in the 2000 South Carolina Primary.



http://www.bartcopnation.com/dc/dcboard.ph...=8&topic_id=522



Newsweek also used the word “chikenhawk.” I would suggest that if ever there was anyone, Ann Coulter being the exception, who most invites ad hominem attacks it is Rove.



See Newsweek link above.

Rove is serving his country? Good god carlito. Rove is performing a disservice to his country.
He has trashed, questioned the patriotism of, triple amputee Max Cleland, John Mc Cain and John Kerry.

He’s trying the same old trick with John Murtha. He may get away with it again, but not if I can help it. I plan to write a letter to the Fort Worth Star Telegram, call my Representative, Kay Granger, both Senators, and raise hell about Rove’s neo-McCarthyism.

Karl Rove’s predecessor and mentor was Lee Atwater. Here’s an interesting tidbit:



http://www.freepress.org/columns.php?strFu...003&strAuthor=7


Although Atwater repented his dirty deeds before death, don’t expect the same from Rove. I will suggest that he enjoys his work, which he practices in the most sadistic ways. He will continue until he stops. Karl Rove is the political equivalent of a serial killer - combat vets, Cleland, McCain, Kerry, and Murtha. Who will be his next victim?

Bof, the question of pulling our troops out of Iraq at this juncture is a political question, not a military one. It is your opinion that he is questioning the patriotism of Kerry and Murtha. It may well be the opinion of others that he is questioning their sense, logic or political motives. All of which are fair game.

That all underscores that fact that veterans are not irreproachable. They can in fact be wrong or mistaken. I find it every bit as reprehensible to insinuate that Murtha and Kerry's opinions must be taken as gospel concerning political decisions simply because they served in the military.

Rove's history as I've outlined it speaks for itself. He may say "cut and run" but it is really questioning their loyalty. This is the subtle, or not so subtle, undercurrent to his pronouncements. Rove could also be wrong, and I will suggest that he's been both consistently wrong and mean for years.

I have a hard time supressing my dislike of Rove. His getting off on perjury charges was like going to a public hanging in the old west and having the rope break.

In your topic posting, you list this quote from Karl Rove:

What exactly did he say that "questioned the patriotism" of those guys? He's questioning their commitment, their lack of consistency, and their commitment to stay a sometimes-difficult course.

Perhaps his military symbolism is inappropriate in your mind (since he's a 'chickenhawk') but Murtha and Kerry, along with many other Democrats (and some Republicans) voted "FOR" the Iraq war resolution, then almost immediately were against it. Ted Kennedy was calling "Bush's War" mindless, needless, senseless, reckless and unwinnable even as the Saddam statue was tumbling down. Murtha's position changed more quickly than Kerry's. Murtha responds by calling Rove "fat" on meet the press. Spare me the indignation.


Let me be crystal clear here - SO WHAT? He lost three limbs (in a "routine training exercise," not in combat, but I don't see how that matters anyway) and that entitles him to what special treatment? I respect the sacrifice that he gave for this country, but that in no way entitles Cleland to any sort of break in political campaigning. None. If you don't like the campaign ads that ran against him, fine. Debate them on the merits.


You don't like the job Rove is doing as political advisor. Got it. Thanks for your opinion. He won in 2000, 2002 and 2004. Bob Schrum is what - 0 for 8? I think Rove is a more-than-adequate political advisor.


Again with the 'amputee' reference. Cleland may resent the ad, and I'm sure he resented losing the election, but if you asked him whether he wanted us treating him with kid gloves because he lost limbs, he would say hell no.
Call your Senators, by all means. Murtha wants to REDEPLOY OUR TROOPS TO OKINAWA! They are fighting "Al Qaeda in Iraq," 5,000 miles away. And he, an ex-Marine, seems completely unaware that the Marines are already "redeploying" out of Okinawa to Guam, because they kept having traffic accidents and raping schoolgirls. Do you not get this? Murtha is wrong. To observe this is not to question his patriotism. He has no lifetime immunity on security matters due to his military service. His judgement on the key issue of the day is flawed and would make America weaker not stronger if it were followed.


Sadistic. Neo-McCarthyism. Serial Killer. I see that the Republicans have a monopoly on the "politics of personal destruction."

edited - quotes...

Rove has to be judged on his history. Here are some remarks he made about a year ago from the Washington Post.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5062300945.html

Intent? Sounds like neo-McCarthyism to me.



Where did I say that Rove wasn’t doing his job as a political advisor. My point was that he’s doing a disservice to the country in the methods he uses to accomplish his missions. The means do not always justify the ends.



I didn't call Rove a serial killer. I said he was the political equivalent of one. Let's see, he's knocked off Cleland, McCain, Kerry and he's trying to do it with Murtha.

Some of my liberals colleagues don't think we can or should out Rove Karl Rove. I'm not sure we can or should, either, but if Rove is going to make public pronouncements like the one from the Washington Post, and last week in New Hampshire, then he had better get use to people firing back. Kerry lay dormant for much of the swift boat attacks. That didn't work. Perhaps a counter attack is warranted.

"Except for a lapse of several months, Selective Service records show presidential adviser Karl Rove escaped the draft for nearly three years at the height of the Vietnam War using student deferments. " [Walsh, Salt Lake Tribune, 9/18/2004]

Karl Rove is not serving his country now. He is serving his lord and master, George W. Bush because that's his job as a political adviser. Dick Morris and James Carville didn't serve the interests of the nation. They served the interests of Bill Clinton. Let's not confuse things by presuming the interests of politicians and the country are one and the same.

I'm calling Rove what he is. A draft-dodger. Someone who weaseled his out of fighting for his country the way better men than he did. Men like John Murtha and John Kerry. Rove can talk the talk, but he NEVER walked the walk.

That makes him a fraud. A fake. A couch potato commando. A chickenhawk.

Let me make this plain so there's no mistaking the meaning of the words. Not all whom are called go on to serve. There were thousands of legitimate, righteous and honorable reasons that eligible men did not serve in the armed forces during the Vietnam War.

BUT...

When you could have gone and didn't because you sought a deferment as Rove, Cheney and others in the Bush Administration did because they "had better things to do" as Cheney explained it, then you totally forfeit the right to question the patriotism, courage and commitment of those who did. Or to put it even more plainly: because he stayed behind while Kerry and Murtha went ahead, Rove lacks the moral standing to criticize their military service.

"They may be with you for the first few bullets but they won't be there for the last tough battles."
-- Karl Rove, on John Kerry and John Murtha, Reuters, 6/13

How would Karl Rove know ANYTHING about bullets or tough battles? Hearing war stories from Dubya? Short answer: He doesn't. He should stick to talking about things he knows something about. If I want a flabby political operatative to come up with a smear campaign, I'll look up Rove. When I want someone that knows a thing or two about courage under fire, Rove wouldn't be on my short list of experts.

Rove, flush with victory as he escaped prosecution, is in full attack dog mode. Goody for him. However, he's not suggesting there should be any dialogue or discussion about how the Bush Administration is waging the war in Iraq. It's campaign season and Rove wants to boil the position of the Democrats down to three words: "Cut and Run."

Murtha has it right. Instead of "Cut and Run" the Republicans want to "Stay and Pay." Continue spending $8 billion a month. Continue funding the war off-budget through emergency appropriations. Continue adding another 2500 dead U.S. troops. All to prop up a "government" that can't venture out beyond The Green Zone.

Rove wants to distill the issue into a lack of guts by Democrats. If he thinks it's gonna be that easy that indicates a lack of brains by Republicans.

Meanwhile, Karl can continue to caw loudly and strut proudly. That's what chickenhawks do best.

The hens they all cackle, the roosters all beg,
But I will not hatch, I will not hatch.
For I hear all the talk of pollution and war
As the people all shout and the airplane roar,
So I'm staying in here where it's safe and it's warm,
And I WILL NOT HATCH!

- Shel Silverstein

You pasted no remarks from Karl Rove above. You took a reporter's words characterizing Rove's words as "here are some remarks he (Rove) made," then you label that characterization as evidence of Rove's "neo-McCarthyism." That is making several logical and semantic leaps.

From the article you referenced. For those following along, Rove's words are the ones in quotes.

I wouldn't have phrased it the way Rove did, but I myself wrote Dick Durbin when I heard him comparing A/C and rap music at Gitmo to the Russian gulags and the killing fields of Pol Pot. Call me crazy, but that was slandering the troops and our country and demeaning to the victims of actual genocide. Ironically, the Khmer Rouge genocide and the mass deaths in Laos and Vietnam next door took place after the last time we pulled our troops out of a war we could have won. Why that lesson is lost on Durbin, beats me. Gitmo saw its first three deaths in four years a few weeks ago due to suicide, which hardly bears relation to the millions worked to death or summarily executed in the gulags or the horrors of Pol Pot.


This is a silly and pedantic argument. See how easy this is?

I never said that James Carville was a headhunter. Besides snuffing out the credibility and womanhood of alleged rape victim Juanita Broderick, his trophy wall proudly displays the heads of war heroes Bob Dole and George Bush.

That kind of rhetoric does nothing to bolster your argument.


Fine. Despite the way you phrased the debate questions, I thought that the topic of paid political operatives in the federal government was an interesting one to debate. You apparently just want to rail on Karl Rove, call people names and plot Democratic dirty tricks. It could have been an interesting discussion.

nighttimer, you and I disagree on the ‘chickenhawk’ argument, so I’ll just leave it there. If you think that kind of discourse is helpful for Democrats, carry on. Just remember, there are Democrats in power who got deferments in Vietnam, and at some point, they are going to have to make foreign policy calls, including the potential of sending troops into harms way.

Democrats bringing up the spectre of Vietnam every time there is military action is misunderestimation of Rove and the Republicans every time. Murtha is just one-upping them by bringing up Somalia as another example to emulate. Americans don't like to lose. At some point, they may start to re-think how and why we lost the last few conflicts, and this may not be the story that Democrats want to tell.

Bully for your attempt at trying to "appear" on moral high ground, but when you are defending years of Rove's practices, it's really pretty shaky ground.

I haven't plotted "Democratic dirty tricks." Is a counter attack on Rove dirty tricks? Considering a possible counter attacks on Rove's dirty tricks by Democrats is simply trying to determine how best to responds. Kerry's delayed rsponse in 2004 didn't work well, did it? Should we do something else this time or roll over and play dead doggie again? Are we to let Rove do whatever he wants and as the saying goes, "fight with one hand tied behind our backs"?

You seen to want Democrats in the "damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't" box.



Uh, carlitos, congratulations on getting your new George W. Bush Dictionary.

You have misquoted Rove, called him names, misstated the war record of Max Cleland, completely avoided Jack Murtha's lack of touch with reality or the issue of every single president paying a political advisor. Now you state that I have "defended years of Rove's practices." My arguments are above for your reference, and you will see no such thing.


Apparently, that is for you to figure out. I fail to see the daily vicious verbal assaults and mis-statements of the record by Pelosi, Murtha, Kennedy, Kerry, Dean et all as 'holding one hand behind your back' but as you've already stated, you have a hard time suppressing your dislike of Rove. Which seems to be coloring your perception of my arguments.


I think voting to authorize a war, then opposing it, then being for it, then not funding it, etc., puts you in that box, yes.


I knew there was a sense of humor lurking there! Those two have been misunderestimated through 3 election cycles. With the economy humming along, they are now making the pie higher.

You are getting us off track, but why wouldn't one's position on the war change as the administration's resons for going to war have changed. Let's see, we were first looking for WMD. We didn't find any. Now our reason is building a Democracy in Iraq. There were several reasons given between these two.

It seems to me that there is a time to change one's mind.

While the reporters words may have been a paraphrase of what Rove said, I don’t think there’s much difference in tone.



I wondered why you didn’t provide a link to your “information” on Cleland. Now I know. It came from Ann Coulter.



http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/an...2/12/10725.html



http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=42979

So, it seems Coulter’s definition of “combat” injury is not the absolute you presumed.



Yeah, there’s a lot of humor here. Using Ann Coulter, without due “credit” is part of it.



http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13367209/site/newsweek/

Again, can you justify the treatment afforded Cleland at the hands of Rove?

I hope I’m not summing you up wrong carlitoswhey, but it seems throughout this thread you have been saying that whatever Rove does is ok, but that Democrats shouldn’t be able to do the same.

I don’t know what you would call it, but I think Rove is long over due a little poetic justice.

BoF, I got my info on Max Cleland from wikipedia. I did read that Ann Coulter column, and I agree that she tends to go over the top (see my signature as of late).



You continue to argue against things I'm not saying. So I'll stop.

When the happy day comes that it is a Democrat making the foreign policy calls for the United States, I am very hopeful that they will do so without stooping to question the patriotism of the opposition party. That tactic has been employed by Rove and the Republicans to stifle dissent and promote the ridiculous idea that criticizing the policy decisons of the President is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

I don't see where there's anything to argue about regarding "chickenhawks" Carlitoswhey. I lean to the belief that the opinions of two decorated war heroes is far superior to some guy who sat on the sidelines when the deal went down, but now wants to pipe up and question the courage of those who served.

No matter how anyone tries to rewrite history there's no getting around the fact that when their country called, Kerry and Murtha responded. Calls to Karl Rove only got a busy signal.

I don't blame Rove or his chickenhawk crew for being smart enough and/or well-connected enough to game the system. Most of have an adverse reaction to getting shot. Just don't come around 30 years after the fact born again hard and full of blood and guts, because I'm not believing the hype. In the battle between guys who went to war and guys who went to a war movie, I side with the real deal.



Americans don't like to lose? Maybe they should start and re-think how and why they let nation-building, neo-con Republicans dupe them into fights without a clear, identifiable end.

This is amusing considering it's the Democratic Party that throws around the term 'Hitler', 'Nazi', 'Fascist', 'Chickenhawk', etc with anyone who doesn't agree with them.

Pot meet the kettle.



Good for them - doesn't mean they're immune from criticism because they served in a war forty years ago.

By the way - all the Marines I know, do not agree with Murtha in the least. The language is rather harsh and vulgar in describing him.



No you don't. You side with them if they've got a 'D' next to their name on the voting slip.

Murtha and Kerry have a vested interest in seeing the current administration fail in it's policy - it's all politics, neither gives a rats-arse 'bout the troops in harm's way, they're more concerned with their political futures.



There is a clear, definable end. It's just not the end you wish (the cut and run away with our tail between our legs route).

jleavy

Before the advent of compact disks we had 78 rpm records, 45s and 33 1/3 vinyl lps. If someone got chewing gum or some other foreign material in the grooves, then the needle or the stylus would get stuck and the recording would repeat the same partial line over and over until someone stopped it.

Just from yesterday, I heard three references to cut and run from Republicans Bill Frist, Texas finest embarrassment, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (oops, I forgot about John Cornyn, but it's a close race to the bottom) and Ken Mehlman.

I was hoping you would come up with something a little more creative from you than just parroting what these people picked up from Rove’s New Hampshire speech, but apparently not. Are we going to hear this tired old broken record crap from now until November?

Here are some examples of the inspiration for your current “brilliant analysis" on this thread.



http://frist.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseActi...p;Speech_id=420



<snip>



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13459398/



This is rather inflammatory rhetoric, bordering on some you gave us on another thread a week or so. Isn’t it possible that Kerry and Murtha love and have the best interest of this country at heart just as much as you think Rove and Bush do?



I would guess military personnel might be a bit more hawkish than the population at large. You say “all the Marines I know.” How big is your random sampling of Marines. Are they active duty or retired? Did they or have they served in Iraq? The Gulf War? Vietnam? Korea? World War II? How many jleavy - how many?

All active-duty, number abit over a dozen (give or take a few every month that have arrived for short periods before advanced training). 'bout half have served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and some are fresh out of SOI/BC.

And not a single one of them has ever had a 'pleasant' thing to say about Murtha.

Even recently there was a Democrat who's prior service who challenged Murtha on the crap he spews - and yes, all this crud coming out of Murtha and Kerry is all for political gain in order to further the power of the Democratic party and their own fortunes at the expense of the country itself.

So I'm sure I interact on a daily basis with more Marines then you meet in a year, so don't give me this crud of 'how many Jleavy - how many'.

For example, Lance Corporal Martinez (based outa Camp Pendleton who's on leave for a few months and who I PT with three - four times a week) was injured in an IED attack in Ramallah (wasn't close enough to be seriously injured and who recieved a Purple Heart)... when he talks about Murtha, it's with pure hatred of the man. He views Murtha as little more than scum. Or Top (ie: Master Sergeant) - get him talking about Murtha (and Democrats in general) and every other word is a curse word to describe them. So, don't give me this crap that the Marines love or even like Murtha, every Marine I know despises the man.

As to Rove - it's freakin' hilarious the reaction of Democrats (such as on these boards). They've played the smear game for years and are now whining because the Republicans have outplayed them in their very own game. The Democrats behave as if Rove is the instigator, the cause of all the recent smear politics, while ignoring the very same tactics that Democrats have used for decades. Plain and simple, Rove is just better at it than Carville, Trippy, and other Democratic political strategists.

So, how does a sampling of a dozen or so Marines mean much of anything? How is that relevant to this thread?

One of the tactics of the Bush/Rove machine is to keep repeating statements to the point to where something gives the illusion to the public that it is true, even if, in fact, it isn’t true. If, for example, enough Republicans are out on the stump parroting Rove's phrase, "cut-and-run," will not part of this stick? Well, at least they hope it does.

From yesterday



From today 6-23-06



It seems from saying the same thing again you have learned well from Republican propaganda tactics.

Did you ever consider that Bush and Rove might have just as much, or more, political interest in this subject as you claim Kerry and Murtha do?

They've made it quite clear they don't.

From equating troops to terrorists (Kerry) to practically proclaiming the Marines at Haditha guilty without the investigation even being completed (Murtha) - they've shown a decided lack of care for the troops and a keen interest in advancing their own political fortunes and those of their increasingly far-Left dominated party.

By the way - I thought this was interesting:

http://www.whoserved.com/

Again you just keep on saying the same thing. Are you debating or spreading propaganda? Again what you are saying comes right out of the Karl Rove/Ken Mehlman playbook. You do not provide corroborative links, just an inane, pointless poem - itself propaganda. In a mere thirteen lines, Province broadsides the media, protesters, lawyers, and oddly enough poets - all part of a constitutional democracy. I'm not trying to lessen the importance of soldiers, but the poem exageates their contribution at the expense of others who also contribute. Salute the flag? Don't school kids do that? I hate to tell you this, but some Middle School kids could write a poem of this quality.

The Democratic Party, for your information, is every bit as much in the mainstream as the Republicans. Far left? Thank you RNC, thank you the party of Karl Rove.

I provided a poem?

Where?

I've absolutely no idea what you're talking about now.

As to Kerry referring to our troops as no better then terrorists terrorizing the Iraqi women/children - he said this on Meet the Press, and Murtha's words are in Nighttimer's Haditha thread. But you already know that they said these things as you've posted in the threads where these quotes are found, you're just purposely being obtuse.

Edit:

I see what poem you're talking about. No - I didn't even take notice of the poem in it, the purpose of the link is in the options on the left hand side of the screen where it breaks down the percentage of politicians who have served in the Armed Forces. Point being that you single out Democratic politicians who're veterans and give them this almost divine status (because they're vets who oppose the war in Iraq) - seeing if you give the same due respect and consideration to the Republican politicians who're vets who do support the war.

jleavy,

The first thing we see when we open the link is the “poem.” I don’t think anyone here is a mind reader. So, if you wanted us to look at specific, you should have said so instead of, “I thought this was interesting.”

Divine status? Just a touch of hyperbole there, don't you think? Contrary to your protests, though, I do consider the opinions of a John McCain, Chuck Hegel, John Murtha, and John Kerry to be higher when it comes to considerations of war, because they've experienced it. That doesn't make their opinions infallible, or untouchable, but they do initially have far greater ethos than those who did not have that experience.

Though I have yet to see you point out where anyone is failing to respect the opinions of McCain and others who support the war. Care to provide some examples?

3. Before James Moore