I forgot to post this earlier.
This Rover guy is surely overprescribed. Talked about DERANGED. Take him off his meds immediately.
He makes the rest of us traumatized nutz, look totally sane no matter what we get up to.
If anyone knows a good psychiatrist in Texas, I think we have the basis for a sound commitment process and it should definitely be pursued. This guy qualifies for an R. D. Liang type of treatment. Follow THIS insane logic.
But as I said, once upon a time on here, REALLY, he ONLY retired to be of further use to the RNC (Republican National Committee, the White House and othere cabal members), judging he could be of more use OUTSIDE the White House. And here's the proof of that conjecture.
Is this pysops, or WHAT ?? Why is this item suddenly sprung just AFTER the Anapolis psyop/photo op ??
I think a few people are feeling their backs with Republican middle names are getting pushed against a WALL of outrage to get THIS far out .
Such a tasty morsel for us mortals publishing on the internet, doncha think?? I don't even want to post it, it's PLAYING HIS GAME.
Thankfully, the item is tastefully written by Paul Abrams. Otherwise as a press release, this item would carefully be wadded up if it were on paper, and tossed into a garbage can after a good deal of muttering.
Give ME a break.
As reported in the Huffington Post ..
He makes the rest of us traumatized nutz, look totally sane no matter what we get up to.
If anyone knows a good psychiatrist in Texas, I think we have the basis for a sound commitment process and it should definitely be pursued. This guy qualifies for an R. D. Liang type of treatment. Follow THIS insane logic.
But as I said, once upon a time on here, REALLY, he ONLY retired to be of further use to the RNC (Republican National Committee, the White House and othere cabal members), judging he could be of more use OUTSIDE the White House. And here's the proof of that conjecture.
Is this pysops, or WHAT ?? Why is this item suddenly sprung just AFTER the Anapolis psyop/photo op ??
I think a few people are feeling their backs with Republican middle names are getting pushed against a WALL of outrage to get THIS far out .
Such a tasty morsel for us mortals publishing on the internet, doncha think?? I don't even want to post it, it's PLAYING HIS GAME.
Thankfully, the item is tastefully written by Paul Abrams. Otherwise as a press release, this item would carefully be wadded up if it were on paper, and tossed into a garbage can after a good deal of muttering.
Give ME a break.
As reported in the Huffington Post ..
Rove: "Congress Pushed Bush to War in Iraq Prematurely"
You are not going to believe this, well, actually you will... According to Karl Rove (on Charlie Rose), the Bush Administration did not want Congress to vote on the Iraq War resolution in the fall of 2002, because they thought it should not be done within the context of an election. Rove, you see, did not think the war vote should be "political".
Moreover, according to Rove, that "premature vote" led to many of the problems that cropped up in the Iraq War. Had Congress not pushed, he says, Bush could have spent more time assembling a coalition, and provided more time to the inspectors.
If you are like me, you have stopped reading/listening, and are rushing to get your anti-emetic.
It is worth remembering that the Senate in the fall of 2002 was controlled, barely, by Democrats. Get it? George Bush, we are being told, wanted to delay, wanted to hold back, wanted to take the time to build a coalition and let the inspectors finish their job, but that damn Congress just pushed him into it. George Bush, you see, is a careful, prudent, leader, deeply concerned about the consequences of premature.
Get it? If Biden, Clinton, Dodd or Edwards is part of the Democratic ticket, the Republicans will run a campaign charging the Senate Democrats with rushing to judgment, of pushing the poor President to premature...(well, you fill in the blank)....
Not that Iraq is that big of an issue. Rove claims that, if Iraq had been a big issue, that Joe Lieberman, who was pro-war, could not have won in Connecticut, defeating receiving more Democratic, Independent and Republican votes than any of his opponents.
I have purposefully NOT provided the (obvious) answers to his claims because to answer is to give him control of the argument. That's Rove's tactic, and I have written about that many times in these pages.
Instead, this should be used as a trigger to talk about Rove's history of dissembling, how that is reflected in the Bush Administration's entire approach to public policy and public information. Bush, through Rove, should be attacked for trying to escape responsibility and accountability. And, it will help to make some historical references to rulers whose tenure was so dismal that they could not allow historians to provide objective analyses, and thus try to write the history themselves.
As might have been predicted, Rove raises "historical revisionism" to new depths, what may become known as "hysterical Rovisionism."
If you are like me, you have stopped reading/listening, and are rushing to get your anti-emetic.
It is worth remembering that the Senate in the fall of 2002 was controlled, barely, by Democrats. Get it? George Bush, we are being told, wanted to delay, wanted to hold back, wanted to take the time to build a coalition and let the inspectors finish their job, but that damn Congress just pushed him into it. George Bush, you see, is a careful, prudent, leader, deeply concerned about the consequences of premature.
Get it? If Biden, Clinton, Dodd or Edwards is part of the Democratic ticket, the Republicans will run a campaign charging the Senate Democrats with rushing to judgment, of pushing the poor President to premature...(well, you fill in the blank)....
Not that Iraq is that big of an issue. Rove claims that, if Iraq had been a big issue, that Joe Lieberman, who was pro-war, could not have won in Connecticut, defeating receiving more Democratic, Independent and Republican votes than any of his opponents.
I have purposefully NOT provided the (obvious) answers to his claims because to answer is to give him control of the argument. That's Rove's tactic, and I have written about that many times in these pages.
Instead, this should be used as a trigger to talk about Rove's history of dissembling, how that is reflected in the Bush Administration's entire approach to public policy and public information. Bush, through Rove, should be attacked for trying to escape responsibility and accountability. And, it will help to make some historical references to rulers whose tenure was so dismal that they could not allow historians to provide objective analyses, and thus try to write the history themselves.
As might have been predicted, Rove raises "historical revisionism" to new depths, what may become known as "hysterical Rovisionism."
Thus are only this part of the interview is on view at youtube. I think someone SHOULD make a video that shows just how DERANGED this interview was. Watch and see how his eye blink like hell when the lies start and sets up Richard Armitage. How CRAFTY!!!
Posted November 25, 2007 | 08:56 PM (EST)