Skip to comments.Rove admits to error on Iraq as Bush strategist
Posted on 03/02/2010 3:54:57 PM PST by ButThreeLeftsDo
click here to read article
“Oh really? Please enjoy this video of GW admitting that “the main reason we went into Iraq was WMD. Turns out they didn’t have any.”
Look I can’t help it if the dolt can’t even get the history of his own Administration right.
He just stupidly helps further the anti-war propaganda of the Left. Those of us that were actually paying attention remember the litany of valid reasons given for the take-down of Saddam’s regime, of which the presence of WMDs was just one.
LOL!! What a knee slapper...
Thanks for the laugh, I needed that.
Am I wrong to argue that Bush was concerned about the threat of imminent danger, and not actual imminent danger?
The new tone approach was a disaster, leaving a void in political discourse the left drove several trucks through. Rove is finally getting around to accepting my criticism of W.
The complicit dweebs at the UN fully bear the blame for letting those weapons vanish.
Bush should have at least yelled long and loud all over the news over that one, or just ignored the UN and gone after him, as you suggest.
There's where the debate is, Lakeshark.
President Bush defended his Iraq strategy in countless speeches and statements, but it was only heard by those of us who were looking and listening.
While it is definitely arguable that Bush should have fought back harder (I certainly wanted him to), I don't think that his doing so would have overcome the media-culture-political leftists' incessant, screaming lies.
Perhaps it really was best for him to just stay strong and WIN the war, and let history be the judge. I'm pretty sure that's what he still thinks.
But if we take Reagan as example, the left and the media did the same garbage truck dumping on him, and the Reagan approach worked a whole lot better than the new tone approach, wouldn't you agree?
But if you remember, public opinon of Reagan wasn't very good at the end of his 2nd term. It's taken time to correct that.
And the left has gotten much more rabid and open about their hatred for all things conservative.
Not really a fair parallel, methinks.
The left may be a bit more rabid, but I remember the criticism of Reagan was non stop from the democrats and the media starting about 1982. It was pretty screechy, from "amiable dunce" to "he falls asleep in all the meetings", etc. ad nauseum.
"Amiable dunce" is a heck of a lot different than "Hitler," "Baby killer," "Liar," "Village idiot."
I remember those days well, Lakeshark. It was not the same. The leftist media at least attempted to hide its ideology. There were no Keith Olbermanns and Chris Matthews. The NYTimes wasn't 100% anti-American.
It wasn't the same. The viciousness against President Bush was unprecendented and vile.
(The only thing perhaps worse was the treatment of Sarah Palin).
Bottom line - even if President Bush had done more to "defend himself" he couldn't have swayed public opinion against a media that lied about Iraq, that used our military deaths as a bludgeon against the President. Even if he had done what we wanted him to do, I don't think those poll numbers would have budged.
The biggest ‘mistake’, if you wish to call it that, by Rove was pushing Grover Norquist to head up policy making in the Bush Administration, with amnesty and out reach to muslims as the ROP. Rove bringing Abramoff into the white house, especially as a transition leader in the Interior Dept. was not a good move.
The rhetoric was the same as it is now, it's just that Reagan engaged the public and went over the heads of media rather than leaving the public square to the rhetoric. I'm not a Bush hater at all, but his idea not to engage because of "the new tone" should have been thrown out some time in 2002 when it was obvious it didn't work. No matter what he did, they were going to go to the garbage dump, not responding just left the public undefended from their lies.
As to the media, there was Walter Cronkite, about to be replaced by Dan Rather, and the other anchors were all libs, and there was no Fox yet. It wasn't a lack of bias, there was no Rush Limbaugh to point out the bias, no talk radio. It was hardly civil.
Bush never pushed back, and it was a mistake. McCain followed in his footsteps in 2008, and now that Sarah Palin is no longer in his shadow, she is pushing back, and it's working.
Bottom line - We'll never know cause Bush didn't try, but looking at what Reagan accomplished agsinst the same monsters of the left might show us a better way.
The rhetoric was not the same. There were books and movies about assassinating President Bush.
I maintain that even without the "new tone" President Bush wouldn't have been effective.
I don't think McCain followed in Bush's footsteps at all. He campaigned very hard......against Bush. And that's why he lost.
I like Sarah's pushing, btw. I just don't think you can or should insist that someone do something he doesn't believe is the appropriate behavior. I would have been screaming in self-defense if I were President Bush, but that's not what he thought was the right thing to do.
I think you are admitting he didn't: I would have been screaming in self-defense if I were President Bush, but that's not what he thought was the right thing to do.
Btw, I thought McCain lost it for a whole host of reasons, mostly because he was a poor candidate.
I mean, how is one to respond to a play or book calling for your assassination? The rhetoric was far worse.
Oh.......and campaigning against Bush was only one reason McCain lost. Certainly not the only reason.
He was a horrible candidate. NO disagreement there.
I think Karl Rove is admitting it in the article.
Truce for now? I think we beat this very dead horse even more dead than it was.
That horse is more than dead, Lakeshark. It’s mutilated! ;*)