Well, we've been through all of this before, GM, so I'll just take a quick stab at a couple of things.

Karl Rove, political genius. Uh huh. Like a little more insight into how he wins elections? Start here:

http://tinyurl.com/978oa

There is a lot more documentation out there. What, you say, there's no proof he spread the slime about McCain in 2000. Well, actually, the smears against him (he's gay, he got preferential treatment by the V.C., he has a black love child) that were leaked out to church going voters, among others, WERE traced back to Bush's campaign staff, of which Rove was head.

Like I said, there is a lot more out there. Start with his college days. I challenge you to do so without coming away with a feeling of disgust.

"They are far better trained, far more educated, and have a far better idea of what the islamo-fascists are up to than our fathers were in WWII."

Now there's a half truth if ever I saw one. Far more educated? Officers have since Vietnam have had the benefit of some of the best education n the country. Noncoms and below are pretty much limited to HS. Not sure where your going with that.

You're talking out of your talking points on the DSM. You've never addressed my posts about the Office of Special Plans (put in place not long after the inauguration), or the extremely well documented efforts by the Bush Administration to fix the intelligence LONG before the invasion.

Another talking point. Please give us a time frame. You guys are so pissed about other countries not being behind the invasion, yet you insist on this strawman of `hey, they believed it too'!

"That has happened in every war!"

Well, I'll just say that Iraq was a war of choice, sold to the American public as a matter of clear and present danger, which we know it wasn't.

Posted by jim hitchcock at August 30, 2005 01:10 AM

"That has happened in every war!"

Should have been preceeded by "Not just ours, but the Brits did, the Germans did, the Russians did, the French did, the Spanish did, maybe even the Greenlanders did."

Posted by jim hitchcock at August 30, 2005 01:13 AM

The LA Weekly, Jim? And you actually believe things written in that? Does that mean you think the National Enquirer is gospel truth, too? Wow. I thought everyone knew those publications were a total fantasy land. It's called ficton, Jim.

So Jim, how did BushRoveHaliburton manage to control the weather to get hurricane Katrina to hit the Gulf of Mexico to raise oil prices? Was that a result of the Office of Special Plans "black budget" and their recently developed weather-control machine?

Posted by Ogre at August 30, 2005 04:39 AM

LA Weekly: "No one ever traced the character assassination to Rove. Yet no one doubts that Rove was behind it. It’s a process on which he holds a patent. Identify your opponent’s strength, and attack it so relentlessly that it becomes a liability. "

Jim, according to the way this is written, it appears that innuendo is also part of LA Weekly's repertoire. While politics can be quite dirty (and if you think St. McCain's hands are clean - you are sadly mistaken) most republicans don't pay much attention to that kind of trash.

Did Rove set this one up? Who knows, but if he did not the LA Weekly sure want's you to think, repeat THINK that he did.

Oh, and while you are at it Jim, ask Kerry what happened to the black preacher who spoke at the Democratic National convention as one of the guys who served with Kerry, then when it turned out that he was wounded BEFORE Kerry came aboard his swift boat, he disappeared from the mixture of vets. You don't suppose that was a dirty trick do you.

You Democrats need to get off the high and mighty kick, politics is a very dirty game. Rove is guilty of playing it better than the other guy, that is all he is guiltyof.

Posted by GM Roper at August 30, 2005 06:00 AM

Try again, Ogre. Lou Dubose is a highly respected writer who pens for the Texas Observer. Need an example? Note, you'll have to do some actual reading:

http://tinyurl.com/73yve

The LA Weekly a fantasy land publication? Fiction? Puh-leeze. Love to see you come over and debate Marc Cooper. Think you could handle it?

And feel free to bone up on the OSP (suggest you start with by reading Karen Kliatowski's writings on the subject. Having worked there, she's a pretty good source. You can find her over at MilitaryWeek.

Then come back and tell me your take on the the OSP, instead of just silly accusations.

Posted by jim hitchcock at August 30, 2005 06:04 AM

GM, read again where I said there's a lot of other documentation out there. I gave you that as a teaser; do you think you might want to do a little investigating on your own before you claim it's just dirty politics, business as usual?

Oh, and most Republicans don't pay attention to this sort of trash? That's not entorely true, my friend. McCain's polling numbers were way up in South Carolina, the Bush camp was in a panic, and do you know how this information was spread? By inundating church parking lots with pamphlets, for one bright shining example.

What about Karl Rove bugging his own office, and blaming it on the democratic opponent. Politics as usual? Maybe, for fans of Richard Nixon.

Seriously, GM, you need to read `Bush's Brain'. Or see the documentary; it's out on DVD. I'll even use my Barnes and Noble gift card and send it to you free!

And then come back and tell me it's politics as usual, and to get off my high horse. Remember, this is a White House that espouses all these absolute, moral values.

Posted by jim hitchcock at August 30, 2005 06:27 AM

Okay, now for something completely different...

Did you read about the President's early response to Katrina? He said he was opposed to evacuating New Orleans, as it "sends the wrong message to all the other hurricanes..."

Posted by jim hitchcock at August 30, 2005 06:34 AM

Oh my Jim, 5 of the 7 comments are from you on this post. Two observations if you please and one request. First the request, the gift card is for YOU, thanks but I'll pick the books I read just as I want you to do the same. First observation, and this is not about you in particular. One of the ways that I can tell that I've hit a raw nerve is the extent that the left responds. Let's see if other liberal types also respond as you have. The second observation is this: You are a good friend, I truly enjoy your comments and your willingness to be a regular reader in spite of the fact that neither Woody nor myself subscribe to your political beliefs. You are always fair in your comments, even when you are wrong - which is most of the time according to how I see things. Gotta love ya!

Lastly, I saw your comment in Marc's column re: Hurricaine Katrina. Funny, but for this blog? LOL, just kidding, it was funny.

Cheers, and keep commenting, it keeps me honest.

Posted by GM Roper at August 30, 2005 07:11 AM

Well, you know what they say, GM...I can lead you to water... :)

_________________

LOL Jim. LOL!
GM

Posted by jim hitchcock at August 30, 2005 07:46 AM

Actually Jim, I believe the full quote is "You can Lead a Democrat to Truth, but You Can't Make Him Think."

;-)

Posted by GM Roper at August 30, 2005 07:53 AM

I posted on a similar topic back in June. If anyone is interested in looking at a few revealing quotes, please stop by: http://socialsense.blogspot.com/2005/06/bush-lied.html

Posted by Mustang at August 30, 2005 09:29 AM

JH: "The LA Weekly a fantasy land publication? Fiction? Puh-leeze. Love to see you come over and debate Marc Cooper. Think you could handle it?"

Jim, if you want G.M. to debate the self-appointed lieutenants at Marc's site, G.M. does quite well. If you want debate about a truth, Marc and G.M. will agree, so there is no debate. When it comes to views about economic policy or forms of government, capitalism and democracy will win based on history. When it comes to credibility about liberal publications, it is easy to sort out speculation and opinion from verified facts and show that many liberal publications blur that distinction--probably intentionally. (We don't.) But, I'll grant Marc one thing--when it comes to criticizing the left, he might do a lot better job than us.

P.S. I just checked the L.A. Weekly article that you linked. Here's a quote, so you decide if it is reporting fact or speculation.
"No one ever traced the character assassination to Rove. Yet no one doubts that Rove was behind it."

Seems like a lot of speculation. By the way, I can disprove the statement because I found at least one person who does not think that Rove was behind the deed--so, "no one doubts" is now wrong. Actually, that article seems like very unprofessional writing to me, and I'm sayiing that without any regard to the side taken.

Posted by Woody at August 30, 2005 11:22 AM

That was directed at Ogre, Woody.

And you are aware that Marc writes a weekly column at the Weekly, aren't you? As well as acting as senior editor? And let's not forget Rosedog.

The rest of your post is a little weird. I know it's tongue in cheek, but it doesn't make much sense ;)

Posted by jim hitchcock at August 30, 2005 11:41 AM

Woody, on the P.S. : REad what I said about it being a teaser, and then read about my recommendation for Bush's Brain. It has a lot more info on the subject.

So, you really want to advance your belief that Rove, as the campaign chief knew nothing about this? Strains credibility, that.

Karl Rove has a career long history of lying, slandering, and cheating that is fully documented...it started when he ran for student body president in college. Do you seriously claim that all this stuff is made up, without even reading about it?

Posted by jim hitchcock at August 30, 2005 11:55 AM

Sorry for my mix-up, Jim. Because of time, I read through too fast and was just picking up highlights without connecting the entire thread. So, forget whatever I said that made no sense, which could be all of it.

I'm aware that Marc and rosedog write for the LA Weekly, and I read three of rosedog's articles this weekend. They have fantastic writing abilities and styles. I honestly am amazed at the way they can weave words. It's just that I don't agree with many of their points. For instance, if someone is having problems, it's rarely, if ever, their own fault for bad decisions but it might be that of a policeman or society. That's a general statement, but you can see what I mean. So, "being bright doesn't always make you right." (c)

[(c) so that Jesse Jackson doesn't steal my phrase.]

Posted by Woody at August 30, 2005 12:57 PM

Woody, Marc wrote a particularly good reply (#16) in today's post that I think you'll appreciate. It's one of those things that I totally agree with and can relate to (I'm talking about the second paragraph).

And, yes, THE one thing about Coop's site is that he doesn't mince words...he is as scathingly critical of the left as he is of the right. Maybe it's because, at core, I could no more be characterized as a creature of the left as of the right, and therefore find that his honest take on things immensely resonates with me.

Posted by jim hitchcock at August 30, 2005 01:24 PM

"Well, I'll just say that Iraq was a war of choice, sold to the American public as a matter of clear and present danger, which we know it wasn't."

Which is what the left would have said if George W. had come forward and said the Al Qaeda is trainging terrorists in Afghanistan to then fly planes into our buildings. The threat would not be "clear and present" until the morning of 9/11/01. By then it was too little too late. The threat was clear and present. The left loves to say NO WMDs as some sorta mantra to be repeated over and over ad nauseum. Disregarding regarding GM's point that everyone thought Saddam had them, and with proof that Saddam was ready to restart many of his WMD programs once the sanctions were lifted, tell me that they were a clear and present danger to the security of the United States. The onle problem is that there are many nations over there (Syria and Iran) that have similar programs in the works and are dangers to national security. But lets just wait until more American civilians die before we act shall we? When Manhattan is vaporized by a nuclear weapon then perhaps the danger will be clear and present?

Posted by Duncan Avatar at August 30, 2005 02:04 PM

"Now there's a half truth if ever I saw one. Far more educated? Officers have since Vietnam have had the benefit of some of the best education n the country. Noncoms and below are pretty much limited to HS. Not sure where your going with that."

Yeppers. Them poor dumb enlisted fellas. They just neva get a break ya know? I mean, with all of them rich white educated officers and all. What a load of bunk! The minimum education for enlisted is indeed a high school diploma or GED, but many, and I do mean many, enlisted have the minimum of a Bachelors degree and many of the noncoms have Masters degrees. Alot of guys and gals join the military, not just because they have no where else to go with this nations horrible economy (according to N.Y. Rep Charlie "Bring Back the Draft" Rangel) but because of the opportunity to serve their country AND get money for college.

And GMs point was that the left like to paint our soldiers as bumbling idiot children being led to the slaughter by Bush and his Rovian Neocon Handlers. Yet this is not the case because our soldiers are indeed benefit from the best education in the world, especially when you look at the typical grunt in WW II.

I believe that is where GM was going...

Posted by Duncan Avatar at August 30, 2005 02:12 PM

"Which is what the left would have said if George W. had come forward and said the Al Qaeda is trainging terrorists in Afghanistan to then fly planes into our buildings."

Really, Duncan? I seem to remember Clinton taking out a couple of Al Qaeda training camps when in office. I'm no card carrying leftist, but I certainly had np problem with that.

And then there's the matter of intelligence on Al Qaeda being passed on to the Bush administration (including the threat of planes being hijacked and being used to to ram buildings) and being ignored. George W. had that report in his hands while vacationing in Crawford a few months shy of 9/11.

Proof that Saddam was ready to restart his WMD's as soon as sanctions were lifted? Do tell. There is plenty of clear and compelling evidence that Saddam's ability to make WMD's was had been eradicated. You might choose not to believe that, but you'd have to ignore the consensus of the intelligence community to do so.

And, "when sanctions were lifted"? Well, that's one of the main points made by people who didn't buy into the mantra pushed by Bush, that the sanctions were actually working to keep Saddam contained. Hey, see Colin Powell. And when you do, be sure to ask him how he feels now about the bogus intelligence singulary sourced to `Curveball'.

And please tell us what you mean by threatening the security of the United States. Please expand on that statement.

So, clear and present danger? Sorry, but you're are increasingly isolate in that position.

Posted by jim hitchcock at August 30, 2005 08:21 PM

That was a thoughtful rebuttal of Dick G__'s letter, GM. It does raise two issues for me.

1) I continue to hold against Karl Rove his orchestration of the unconscionable attack on Sen. Max Cleland in the 2002 campaign, accusing this triple amputee Vietnam veteran of being unpatriotic for his position on Iraq. It would have been fair to criticize Sen. Cleland for opposing the President's position, but calling him unpatriotic for his dissent was beyond the pale. If I am wrong about attributing the responsibility to Rove, please let me know.

2) Regardless of whether one supports the Iraq War or not, war profiteering is an act of moral reprobation deserving of Dante's lowest circle of Hell. There has been a fair amount of smoke about Halliburton actions regarding its Iraq contracts, and I await the repercussions of the recent firing of Bunnatine Greenhouse from the Army Corps of Engineers. We should not prematurely rush to judgment, but I would hope you would agree that any person(s) (individuals and/or corporate) demonstrated to be involved in corruption/profiteering at the expense of our soldiers and our war effort, regardless of political party or office, should receive the fullest sanction of the law and utter disdain by the American people.

Posted by civil truth at August 31, 2005 12:30 AM

Civil wrote: "I continue to hold against Karl Rove his orchestration of the unconscionable attack on Sen. Max Cleland in the 2002 campaign, accusing this triple amputee Vietnam veteran of being unpatriotic ...."

Civil, what you hold against Karl Rove is Democratic slander and talking points. Try to find where Rove or the Republicans accused Cleland of being unpatriotic. The only place that you will find references is from the left-wing rumor mill. They are the ones who are guilty of something similar to that for Rove is accused.

Cleland used to be my senator, and I was so glad when he was defeated. He rarely voted for Gerogians because his first loyalty was to the Democratic Party and the government position he expected to receive from the Democrats had they won.

Re-check and re-think this Rove issue. It's a false claim.

Posted by Woody at August 31, 2005 08:33 AM

Very interesting, Woody. When I investigated the Cleland 2002 campaign in more detail. I found various commentaries and a clip of the controversial attack ad that contained pictures of Ben Laden and Saddam. I have to agree that this ad was not an direct attack on Cleland's patriotism; rather the emphasis was on Cleland's not supporting President Bush by his votes on the Homeland Security bill.

Though it was a very nasty ad, by the standards of my earlier comment, the ad was within the bounds of political discourse. I thus will stop holding this ad against Rove and company as evidence of their having committed an unforgivable foul.

Incidentally, I found an interesting analysis of the Georgia 2002 races in the following reference from the University of Georgia: Negative Campaigning in the Georgia 2002 Elections: An Analysis of Scholarly Research in the Context of Real Campaigns. Page 3 details the Chambliss-Cleland campaign.

Thanks for your information.

Posted by civil truth at August 31, 2005 03:45 PM

Thank you, Civil. Knowing that you gained something from this site and that it helped correct a misconception means a lot to me. There are a lot of false accusations in politics. It's important that we analyze the substance of the claims before we accept them. That was a very good link that your provided. Thanks for sharing your findings.

Regarding the negative ads in campaigns, the problem isn't with the politicians as much as it is with the voters. The politicians wouldn't go negative if the negative ads didn't work with the voters.

Posted by Woody at August 31, 2005 08:25 PM