Every day that these war criminals crouch in our White House is one day less for America's survival.

[seafan]

November 25, 2007

Rove: "Congress Pushed Bush to War in Iraq Prematurely"

.....

As might have been predicted, Rove raises "historical revisionism" to new depths, what may become known as "hysterical Rovisionism."

* * * * * * * * * * * *


September 19, 2002

President Bush sends the Iraq Resolution to Congress requesting authorization to use military force against Iraq, exactly 6 months before he informed the American people of the invasion of Iraq. This was an illegal invasion of a country that never attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, was an act of aggression based on lies, and is the act of a war criminal.

October 7, 2002

.....

Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.

Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote. I'm confident they will fully consider the facts, and their duties. ---- George W. Bush, 0ctober 7, 2002

Hagel: White House Originally Wanted 2002 Iraq War Resolution to Cover Entire Middle East

.....

In an interview in GQ Magazine, Hagel reveals that the Bush administration tried to get Congress to approve military action anywhere in the Middle East — not just in Iraq — in the fall of 2002. At the time, Hagel says, the Bush administration presented Congress with a resolution that would have authorized the use of force anywhere in the region:

HAGEL: (F)inally, begrudgingly, (the White House) sent over a resolution for Congress to approve. Well, it was astounding. It said they could go anywhere in the region.

GQ: It wasn’t specific to Iraq?

HAGEL: Oh no. It said the whole region! They could go into Greece or anywhere. Is central Asia in the region? I suppose! Sure as hell it was clear they meant the whole Middle East. It was anything. It was literally anything. No boundaries. No restrictions.

GQ: They expected Congress to let them start a war anywhere in the Middle East?

HAGEL: Yes. Yes. Wide open. We had to rewrite it. Joe Biden, Dick Lugar, and I stripped the language that the White House had set up and put our language in it.

Asked about his vote in support of the final Iraq war resolution, Hagel told GQ, “Do I regret that vote? Yes, I do regret that vote.”

October, 2002

"The newly bellicose mood that permeates this White House is unfortunate, all the moreso because it is clearly motivated by campaign politics. Republicans are already running attack ads against Democrats on Iraq. Democrats favor fast approval of a resolution so they can change the subject to domestic economic problems," declared the senior Democratic senator. "Before risking the lives of American troops, all members of Congress -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- must overcome the siren song of political polls and focus strictly on the merits, not the politics, of this most serious issue."

----Senator Robert Byrd, on the rush to vote on Bush's Iraq War Resolution

March 24, 2003, George W. Bush in Time Magazine


"F___ Saddam. we're taking him out." Those were the words of President George W. Bush, who had poked his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

It was March 2002, and Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators, discussing how to deal with Iraq through the United Nations, or perhaps in a coalition with America's Middle East allies. Bush wasn't interested. He waved his hand dismissively, recalls a participant, and neatly summed up his Iraq policy in that short phrase.

The Senators laughed uncomfortably; Rice flashed a knowing smile. The President left the room. A year later, Bush's outburst has been translated into action, as cruise missiles and smart bombs slam into Baghdad.

But the apparent simplicity of his message belies the gravity at hand. Sure, the outcome is certain: America will win the war, and Saddam will be taken out. But what is unfolding in Iraq is far bigger than regime change or even the elimination of dangerous weapons.

The U.S. has launched a war unlike any it has fought in the past. This one is being waged not to defend against an enemy that has attacked the U.S. or its interests but to pre-empt the possibility that one day it might do so. The war has turned much of the world against America. Even in countries that have joined the "coalition of the willing," big majorities view it as the impetuous action of a superpower led by a bully. This divide threatens to emasculate a United Nations that failed to channel a diplomatic settlement or brand the war as legitimate.

The endgame will see the U.S. front and center, attempting to remake not merely Iraq but the entire region. The hope is that the Middle East, a cockpit of instability for decades, will eventually settle into habits of democracy, prosperity and peace. The risks are that Washington's rupture with some of its closest allies will deepen and that the war will become a cause for which a new generation of terrorists can be recruited.

.....

BBC, 18 September, 2003


US President George W Bush has explicitly stated for the first time that there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks.

Mr Bush has never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the attacks on New York and Washington, but he has repeatedly associated the two in keynote addresses delivered since 11 September. Senior members of his administration have similarly conflated the two.

A recent opinion poll suggests that 70% of Americans believe the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks.

Despite his stated rejection of any clear link between Saddam Hussein and the events of that day, Mr Bush continues to assert that the deposed president had ties with al-Qaeda, the terrorist network blamed for the 11 September attacks.

BBC News Online looks at some of the remarks made by Mr Bush and members of his administration both in the run-up to war and after hostilities had officially ended.

.....

Every day that passes with these war criminals crouching in our White House is one day less for America's survival.

[whistle]

1. KKKarl Rove is a lying piece of scum and nothing he says can be taken

...as anything but a lie and a total fabrication. Why is Rove not in prison?

[slipslidingaway]

2. K&R interesting...

"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)...."

from your link
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/rove-congress-pushed-bu_b_74039.html

[driver8]

3. This would be really funny if it wasn't so fucking sad.

KKKarl Rove is a lying piece of shit. I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire.

Jesus H. Kriste -- I know he thinks that the American public is stupid...but are we that stupid??

Fool me once, shame on you...

Fool me twice...won't get fooled again!

[Bitwit1234]

4. Crouch??? Don't you mean squat in the white house.

Squat means illegally.

[seafan]

6. 'Crouch' because The People are coming. And they sense it. n/t

[blm]

5. It's easy for Rove. He sold media on IWR = War and media ran with it making all

Dems as 'for the war' when there were actually guidelines in that IWR that would have prevented war - but by calling IWR a vote for war, the media let Bush off the hook for being in violation of the iWR when he lied to make his 'determination' in the letter to congress.