Karl Rove will be coming to Durham to speak at Duke University's Page Auditorium Monday, Dec. 3. Our local weekly paper had an interview with Peter Feaver, who set up the event. Feaver used to serve in the Bush Administration himself, under National Security Adviser Steve Hadley. Here is an exchange from that interview that caught my eye:
I decided to take up this offer, and just sent an email with what I would like him to ask Rove.
Hello,
I read in the Independent Weekly that you would welcome any questions they would like to have asked of Karl Rove when he comes to speak at Duke. I am taking up your offer and I hope you will consider inquiring about some recent statements Rove has been making...
Recently on Charlie Rose Rove stated the following (YouTube link- starts at 00:45):
... one of the untold stories about the war is why did the United States Congress, the United States Senate, vote on the war resolution in the fall of 2002?
[snip]
... we didn't think it belonged in the confines of the election. We thought it made it too political. We wanted it outside the confines of the election. It seemed it make things move too fast. There were things that needed to be done to bring along allies and potential allies abroad and yet–
Since making this statement numerous people on both sides of the aisle have made statements to the effect that Rove is either mistaken or lying. Rove himself, however, is refusing to back down and has repeated the claim.
Yet what he is saying is demonstrably false. Rove is trying to pin the blame for Iraq on the then Democratic Congress. But this line of argument doesn't square with this Washington Post article from 9/11/02 (link):
Congressional Democrats said yesterday that classified briefings by President Bush's top advisers have failed to make a compelling case for quick military action against Iraq, and several leaders said Congress should wait until after the November elections before voting to authorize a strike against Saddam Hussein's regime.
"I know of no information that the threat is so imminent from Iraq" that Congress cannot wait until January to vote on a resolution, said Minority Whip Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee. "I did not hear anything today that was different about [Hussein's] capabilities," save a few "embellishments."
The White House, after originally suggesting it might act against Iraq without congressional approval, has called on Congress to pass a resolution of support before adjourning in October.
After attending a classified briefing by national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and CIA Director George J. Tenet yesterday, Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said: "It would be a severe mistake for us to vote on Iraq with as little information as we have. This would be a rash and hasty decision" because the administration has provided "no groundbreaking news" on Iraq's ability to strike the United States or other enemies with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Senate Majority Whip Harry M. Reid (Nev.), the chamber's second-ranking Democrat, also advocates delaying the vote, according to Democratic aides.
Because Democrats narrowly control the Senate, they could keep an Iraq resolution from reaching a vote this fall. Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.), however, left the door open to a possible vote in the next few weeks if Bush meets several criteria, including obtaining more international support for a military campaign and providing senators a more detailed explanation of how the war would be conducted and how Iraq would be rebuilt.
If a resolution does reach the Senate floor before the Nov. 5 elections, it is doubtful that Democrats could muster enough votes to defeat a popular president's request, according to lawmakers in both parties.
While most congressional Republicans seem to support Bush's anti-Iraq campaign, one prominent member - House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) - has said any resolution vote should be delayed. Such comments are complicating Bush's campaign to win public support for striking Hussein at a critical moment for the administration. In a major speech to the United Nations Thursday, Bush plans to appeal to world leaders to help depose the Iraqi president and dismantle his chemical and biological weapons programs. Bush's aides had hoped lawmakers would fall into line quickly, even as they anticipated possible resistance from some Democrats.
[snip]
"Daschle will want to delay this and he can make a credible case for delay," the Republican leader said.
Pressing lawmakers to act quickly, Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) called Rice on Monday night and asked her to submit to Congress a specific war resolution the week of Sept. 23, so lawmakers can make changes and try to vote on it before adjournment, tentatively set for early October.
Democrats believe there is a strong precedent for delaying a final vote until after the elections, so lawmakers will not feel pressured to back the president just before voters go to the polls. In 1990, George H.W. Bush, the current president's father, agreed to postpone a vote on going to war with Iraq until after the congressional elections.
In yesterday's briefing, Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), who backs a military campaign to depose Hussein, called for a special session of Congress after Nov. 5 to debate a war resolution. "I do not believe the decision should be made in the frenzy of an election year," said Lantos.
Most Republicans, and some Democrats, however, feel Congress should heed Bush's request and vote on the resolution in the next month.
"People are going to want to know, before the elections, where their representatives stand," said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (Va.), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. "This could be the vote of the decade, so why wait?"
It is also contradicted by President Bush himself. On 9/19/02 Bush said the following at a press conference (link):
QUESTION: Mr. President, are you going to send Congress your proposed resolution today? And are you asking for a blank check, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: I am sending suggested language for a resolution. I want -- I've asked for Congress' support to enable the administration to keep the peace. And we look forward to a good, constructive debate in Congress. I appreciate the fact that the leadership recognizes we've got to move before the elections. I appreciate the strong support we're getting from both Republicans and Democrats, and look forward to working with them.
That same day Donald Rumsfeld said the following (link):
"Delaying a vote in Congress would send the wrong message, in my view, just as we are asking the international community to take a stand and as we are cautioning the Iraqi regime to respond and consider its options."
The Los Angeles Times reported that in September of 2002 Senator Tom Daschle personally met with Bush and Cheney to ask the vote be delayed until after the election. According to Daschle (link):
"I asked directly if we could delay this so we could depoliticize it. I said: 'Mr. President, I know this is urgent, but why the rush? Why do we have to do this now?' He looked at Cheney and he looked at me, and there was a half-smile on his face. And he said: 'We just have to do this now.'"
Yet in today Washington Post Rove repeated his assertions, saying (link):
"For Democrats to suggest they didn't want to vote on it before the election is disingenuous"
Personally I think "disingenuous" would be a kind way of describing Rove's current argument. I hope you will ask him to square his statements with the voluminous evidence to the contrary. Of course I don't expect you to go through everything I have listed above, but you could certainly summarize it to get the basic point across.
Most of all, I hope you do not dismiss this as some kind of "smack down." I am as interested in civil discourse as anyone else, but when someone makes false statements they need to be called on it. I hardly see how avoiding such dishonesty would serve to educate the public. Of course Rove may have some twisted strain of logic to rationalize his statements, and if so he should elaborate for the audience and the country to consider for themselves.
I am not asking you to slam Mr. Rove, or to somehow 'take him down.' I am asking you to ask a tough question which addresses blatant dishonesty on his part. I believe that to fail to do so would be an abdication of your responsibility to the public. I have no reason, however, to think you are interested in anything other than a thoughtful and frank dialog, so I remain hopeful that you will ask the tough questions, including this one.
Thank you for taking the time to read this letter, and the best of luck to you as you put on this event.
Sincerely,
Considering Mr. Feaver is not only a Republican, but actually served in the Bush Administration, I am actually far less optimistic than my letter suggests that this question, or any tough questions, will be asked. But my hope is a more respectful approach might have a chance of actually working. (Certainly more chance than an angry and dismissive letter)
I'm trying to decide if I should actually go to this event. It's free, so that's good. And on some level it would be interesting... I mean, if Hitler came to speak in your town you'd probably go, right? Just to see. But at the same time I have a feeling that once under way I would just want to be anywhere else. To politely sit there and listen to someone who has done so much harm to this country would be hard to bear.