Karl Rove recently came to Durham to speak, and beforehand I wrote the moderator asking him to ask about Rove's recent comments that the Democratic Congress forced the war resolution to take place before the '02 election, which resulted in the Bush administration not having enough time to do adequate war planning and diplomatic work. You can check out this diary I wrote a couple of days ago that has Rove's exact words, along with a slew of quotes from the time which debunk his claims. I sent those quotes to the moderator in hopes that he might confront Mr. Rove's dishonesty.
Well, the moderator actually asked my question, and Rove gave more explanation to his creative interpretation of history, even having the gall to accuse Daschle of trying to rewrite history. I transcribed his remarks for you to judge for yourself.
A few audio clips from his talk are available from this blog, which also includes a rundown of the event itself. (Another doozie: Rove lamenting that politics have become too negative and that now it's too personal and nasty.)
Here is a rough transcript of Rove's answer to my question. Check it out:
PF: Let me get to Iraq, and I want to begin with this kerfuffle you created about a week ago by appearing to argue that it was the Democrats who were hastening or shortening the period of time to try the diplomatic option in Iraq and hastening the move to force. I’ve got an avalanche of quotes that show, and if you’re digging for your quotes I’m gonna dig for mine...
KR: You go with yours first. But get the argument right. My point is that there’s a myth that the President is the only guy in America rushing to war and forcing a vote in Congress before the Fall elections in 2002 and that is simply not true. But go ahead with your quotes...
PF: Well doesn’t Daschle say in September that he would like to leave plenty of time to discuss it and the President is pushing us forward?
KR: No, here’s what Dachle says, first of all
PF: I left mine downstairs [the quotes]
KR: Well, good.
[laughter]
KR: I’m arguing with an unarmed man.
Oh, how my heart sank when I heard that. Feaver, the moderator, is a Republican himself, but if he had had the quotes I sent him I honestly don't think he could have resisted swatting Karl down with a couple of them. It would have been too easy!!
KR: Alright, first of all in June Daschle says "there’s broad support for regime change in Iraq, the question is how do we do it and when do we do it?" That’s what he says in June.
On July 31st as Congress gets ready to go out for the August break he’s asked about ‘will the Administration come to Congress for a vote in August or not...’ and in the context of Iraq and the Fall agenda for the Congress he says quote "I would also say that it would be a big mistake for the Administration to act without Congress and without its involvement. I think there has to be a debate, there has to be some good discussion. There has to be some opportunity for the people to be heard and so you’ll find reasons not to provide that opportunity but I think that would be a big mistake."
PF: They definitely wanted you to come to Congress, but did they want to rush it through...
KR: I’m getting there
PF: Ok
Yeah, Karl's talking about Daschle's response to the idea being floated at the time that Bush didn't even need to go to Congress for approval at all. A separate issue entirely.
KR: So at this point it’s clear that they want a vote and we’re hearing behind the scenes that they want it that Fall.
On September 16th Daschle goes on CNN and says quote "I think there will be a vote well before the election and I think it’s important that we work together to achieve it." And he then says he’s going to be meeting with the President on Wednesday the 18th of September.
Now the next night, the 17th of September, Daschle goes on the News Maker Hour [sic?] on PBS in a long interview with Gwen Ifill, and remember this is Tuesday, first of all she asks him "now the President and the Administration have been asking for a resolution that puts in words the kind of support you’ve voiced for them, what do we expect?" And he says "well, actually Gwen they haven’t asked for anything. They talked about the need for the Congress to act but there’s been no formal request. I called the White House yesterday," meaning Monday, "and urged them to work with us so we will have a clear understanding of what exactly their strategy is and what their plans are." He’s complaining that they’re not talking to me. "I don’t know what they’re doing."
And then he complains further. "Well, over the weekend the Administration has said they’ve not made any clear decision with regard to their ultimate strategy and I think they need to tell me" he says, quote. And she says "well if you get any guidance in the next week, say, do you expect there to be a vote before the midterm elections?" she says, Gwen Ifill to Sen. Daschle. Again this is a day before he meets with the President. Quote, "Well, I think that is possible and perhaps likely that there will be a vote sooner rather than later."
PF: That’s not saying he wants it, he’s saying that...
KR: Oh yeah look he already said the day before that, I’ll go back and read it again for you...
PF: No, no, no, no...
KR: "I think there will be a vote well before the election and I think it’s important that we work together to achieve it."
Alright, what do you all make of this? My take is Daschle has accepted that Bush is going to get his vote, because (to his thinking) if Dems said "no, our National Security has to wait until after the election, no matter what our Commander in Chief says" it would be electoral suicide. That being said, Daschle wants to time the bill so that he can try to put some more Democratic-friendly issues up for vote before the election break.
Also, this was a period of time when the Democrats were deathly afraid of doing anything that might upset Republicans for fear of being called weak and cowardly. (the irony...) But the fact remains that the Bush Administration was the engine pushing the war vote before the election.
PF: What’s he saying in October?
KR: Well I’m listening to what he’s saying in September, and that’s my point. I’m listening to the guy in September saying "I want to vote." He opposes, in October, he opposes the resolution itself, but he in September is calling for it to be held before the election.
In fact, he then meets on the 18th with the President, the following week The Nation magazine, on the left of the politics, attacks him in the following way, quote "many Democrats," said David Corn, "are dealing with the war in a politics first manner, with Gephardt and Daschle pushing for a fast vote on Bush’s war resolution in order to address other subjects prior to the November 5th Congressional election."
Doncha just love how now David Corn is the authority on the matter? Can we expect Rove to continue to treat Corn's opinions which such regard in the future? Anyway, Corn was right, Daschle et al were refusing to stand up to the Administration to demand the vote be delayed until after the election for fear it would hurt them at the polls. That is not the same thing as saying they were the ones pushing to speed up the vote.
KR (cont'd): Now, my point is, the myth is the only guy in America who was insisting on a vote before the November 2002 election was George W. Bush. The record shows something different. It shows that the leader of the Democrat [sic] Senate, the Senate at this point has a Democrat [sic] majority, 51-49, is insisting on, on September 16th and again on the 17th, of a vote sooner rather than later and before the election. And signals as such at the end of July.
Now I understand that Senator Daschle is now saying that he told the President that he wanted to have it held after the election, but on the 16th and the 17th, the days before he meets with the President he says he wants it before the election and I want it sooner rather than later. So either he went on then the morning of the 18th and said "don’t listen to what I said on the 16th and 17th I want it before the election, or maybe he’s rewriting history to try to fit the myth.
I also love how Bush is just a passive victim to the Dems pushiness. He just has to go along with whatever the Dems say, afterall, they're the boss! He certainly could never speak out and request the vote be delayed! That would be overstepping his bounds, and separation of powers is very important to this administration.
PF: But you also wanted it before the election too. Not you but the Administration. Or you, maybe, did you want it?
KR: No, no, no, look, look... in July there was an academic discussion about this, because I frankly had some concerns about it being held before the election. I wasn’t certain that was good for the country. But guess what? That was an academic discussion that lasted for about a day or two because it was clear from Daschle’s comments on July 31st that there A) would be a vote, and B) what we were getting from the Hill was he wanted it to be before the election.
Now, why he wanted it to be before the election, that’s for him to... what we were hearing is he wanted to have the vote before the election so people could take into consideration when they went to the polls. But he goes out and explicitly says on both the 16th and the 17th both, "I want it sooner rather than later and I want it before the election," and it’s amazing to me that people will say "well the Democrats never wanted it when you’ve got a record as clear and as explicit as that.
As some other blogger said (can't remember who), this kind of story feels kind of like the arguments of Holocaust deniers. They piece together a few things that taken in isolation seem to make some kind of point, until you consider them in the larger context. When you step back for a moment and consider the big picture you realize there's mountains of evidence to disprove the theory. But the denier wants to suck you in to the minutiae of some irrelevant detail. Rove has a couple quotes whose significance we can ponder, but he's so obviously wrong, so obviously full of shit, that there's little point.
But I mean, I got to hand it to the guy for just sheer balls. This is just such an obvious lie. Anyone who was even passingly following the news at that time knows it. But, as usual, Karl's not in this argument to win it. He's in it to tie it, or create a stalemate. He knows all too well that the press is deathly afraid of calling out liars. That just wouldn't be objective. No, they must present both sides and let the reader decide. If they do that, and the public starts to feel like "some people say it was the Republicans, some say the Democrats, the truth is probably in the middle," well then Karl has just shifted the debate to the Republicans advantage.
Will it work this time?