(it's still July, right?)
According to Karl Rove, it was Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and co.
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.