Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    15 Jul '10 16:03 / 1 edit
    (it's still July, right?)

    According to Karl Rove, it was Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and co.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704518904575365793062101552.html

    Top Democrats led their party in making the "Bush lied, people died" charge because they wanted to defeat him in 2004. That didn't happen. Several bipartisan commissions would later catalogue the serious errors in the intelligence on which Mr. Bush and Democrats relied. But these commissions, particularly the Silberman-Robb report of March 31, 2005, found that the "Bush lied" charge was false. Still, the attacks hurt: When they began, less than a third of Americans believed the charge. Two years later, polls showed that just over half did.

    The damage extended beyond Mr. Bush's presidency. The attacks on Mr. Bush poisoned America's political discourse. Saying the commander-in-chief intentionally lied America into war is about the most serious accusation that can be leveled at a president. The charge was false—and it opened the way for politicians in both parties to move the debate from differences over issues into ad hominem attacks.


    Now, I say this and post the link NOT to imply that I completely agree with Rove's self-serving plea (though, like most points of view, there's some level of truth to it), but because it's an interesting question and interesting that Rove would try to answer it at this time.

    So, is Rove simply trying to salvage what's left of his own (and his boss' legacy with self-serving nonsense, or is there some validity to the idea that the viscous Dem attacks on Bush during the 2004 campaign poisoned the political discourse in the US?




    Edit: By the way, as a completely irrelevant aside, as those who have been around for more than a year on this board may or may not have any idea what I'm referring to, today is dh09's birthday.
  2. 15 Jul '10 16:09
    Originally posted by sh76


    So, is Rove simply trying to salvage what's left of his own (and his boss' legacy with self-serving nonsense, or is there some validity to the idea that the viscous Dem attacks on Bush during the 2004 campaign poisoned the political discourse in the US?
    )
    viscous?
  3. 15 Jul '10 16:09
    it were the Borkers what started it.
  4. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    15 Jul '10 16:19
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    viscous?
    Yes, the Dem attacks a thick, sticky consistency between solid and liquid. Kind of like the Gulf these days.
  5. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    15 Jul '10 16:21
    Originally posted by sh76
    According to Karl Rove, it was Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and co.
    So Rove decided not to go with Senator Joseph McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee?
  6. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    15 Jul '10 16:23
    Originally posted by sh76
    By the way, as a completely irrelevant aside, as those who have been around for more than a year on this board may or may not have any idea what I'm referring to, today is dh09's birthday.
    Unless you repeat the feat three times in a row, I'm afraid you will have to hand back The Phallus Rampant Award so it can go to 2010 Winner.
  7. 15 Jul '10 17:33 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    (it's still July, right?)

    According to Karl Rove, it was Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and co.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704518904575365793062101552.html

    [i]Top Democrats led their party in making the "Bush lied, people died" charge because they wanted to defeat him in 2004. That didn't happen. Several bipartisan commissions would later c may or may not have any idea what I'm referring to, today is dh09's birthday.
    [/i]Can you poison something that's already polluted beyond recognition?

    I think the political well still reeks from all the "rum, romanism, and rebellion" that was dumped in it back in 1884.
  8. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    15 Jul '10 17:38 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    (it's still July, right?)

    According to Karl Rove, it was Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and co.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704518904575365793062101552.html

    [/i]Top Democrats led their party in making the "Bush lied, people died" charge because they wanted to defeat him in 2004. That didn't happen. Several bipartisan commissions would later c may or may not have any idea what I'm referring to, today is dh09's birthday.
    Bush did lie; he claimed he knew as a fact that Saddam presently possessed WMDs. Saddam did not so Bush couldn't have known this as a "fact". Therefore, he lied when he said he did.

    Karl must have forgot when the Republicans used the impeachment process to try to oust a President for having extra-maritial "sex" while accusing him of trying to start a war to divert attention.
  9. Standard member MacSwain
    Who is John Galt?
    15 Jul '10 17:53
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Karl must have forgot when the Republicans used the impeachment process to try to oust a President for having extra-maritial "sex" while accusing him of trying to start a war to divert attention.
    Thanks for correcting what I had accepted as fact:

    I had read in all legal reports and had seen in news media, the grounds for impeachment of Pres. Clinton was he had been proven to have lied in grand jury testimony and later was disbarred for that crime.

    Now I have you to thank for my learning the truth. "He was not impeached for perjury, he was impeached on grounds of extra-marital sex." THANKS!
  10. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    15 Jul '10 17:56
    NOT Originally posted by FMF
    Unless you repeat the feat three times in a row, I'm afraid you will have to hand back The Phallus Rampant Award so it can go to 2010 Weiner.
    Fix'd
  11. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    15 Jul '10 18:37
    Originally posted by MacSwain
    Thanks for correcting what I had accepted as fact:

    I had read in all legal reports and had seen in news media, the grounds for impeachment of Pres. Clinton was he had been proven to have lied in grand jury testimony and later was disbarred for that crime.

    Now I have you to thank for my learning the truth. "He was not impeached for perjury, he was impeached on grounds of extra-marital sex." THANKS!
    Neither statement is true.
  12. Standard member MacSwain
    Who is John Galt?
    15 Jul '10 18:44
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Neither statement is true.
    So .. Now I don't have to correct what I previously thought of as true???

    To enable my being sure of this please repeat the statements you are saying are false. THANKS.
  13. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    15 Jul '10 18:45 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by MacSwain
    So .. Now I don't have to correct what I previously thought of as true???

    To enable my being sure of this please repeat the statements you are saying are false. THANKS.
    " I had read in all legal reports and had seen in news media, the grounds for impeachment of Pres. Clinton was he had been proven to have lied in grand jury testimony and later was disbarred for that crime."

    He was not "proven" to have lied in Grand Jury testimony.

    He was not "disbarred".
  14. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    15 Jul '10 18:47
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Fix'd
    Unless you repeat the feat three times in a night, I'm afraid you will have to hand back The Phallus Rampant Award so it can go to 2010 Weiner.

    Fix'd.
  15. 15 Jul '10 18:54
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton

    Law license suspension

    In 2000 the Arkansas Supreme Court's Committee on Professional Conduct called for Clinton's disbarment, saying he lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

    In January 2001 Clinton reached an agreement under which he was ordered to pay $25,000 in fines to Arkansas state's bar officials and his Arkansas law license was suspended for five years.[69] The agreement came on the condition that Whitewater prosecutors would not pursue federal perjury charges against him.[70] Clinton was suspended by the Supreme Court in October 2001, and, facing disbarment from that court, Clinton resigned from the Supreme Court bar in November.[71]