Silent Lies, Unholy Lies: Rove's Big Lie that the Dems Forced the US Into the Iraq War Gets Legs

We all know what Big Lies are. Those are the whoppers that are so huge that no one would dare to tell them unless they were true, right? And if you repeat them over and over again, people start to believe them. Hitler came up with them, blamed them on Jewish people and then used them to take over Germany.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/hitlerlie.html


More recently, Paul Krugman coined the term “Little Lies” for the daily barrage of “Nancy Pelosi wants a big plane, Nancy Pelosi wants this, Nancy Pelosi wants that” which the respectable press reports, usually about Democrats. You know, rumors with no basis in fact. As long as they can claim that they are reporting on what some internet news source has written, they are covered.

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/opinion/09krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

There is a third kind of lie, which we are all familiar with. It even has a name though we do not usually talk about it. It is the Silent Lie. Last week, we witnessed a Silent Lie in conjunction with a Big Lie. I am no astronomer, but when that happens I think it is sign that we are in for rough times.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/22/rove-lies-iraq-war-vote/



Everyone can spot the Big Lie, but how many people can spot the Silent Lie that the corporate media perpetuated as it spun out this story all through the week and into the weekend? Here is a hint, in graphic form.

http://www.grandtheftelectionohio.com/051229.htm

Bush and Bush’s Brain are joined for eternity by bonds which no man (or woman) can tear asunder. Plus, if a Democrat is installed in the White House in 2009, what happens if Bush and Cheney need pardons for the crimes they have committed, like authorizing illegal wiretaps and torture and renditions? What about all those no bid contracts that Halliburton obtained? What if W. forgets a last minute pardon for one of his cabinet members who is later sued and then indicted over a torture scandal? What about all those incriminating papers? And what about the War for Oil in Iraq? Chevron and Exxon are finally about to start pumping crude, but they can not get their operations going without a permanent U.S. military presence.

Rove left his U.S. Government position so that he would no longer have a great big “Kick Me, Congress” sign on his back. However, he is still running the White House 2008 Presidential Election and Republican Congressional Campaign. Only no one is supposed to know it. That is the Silent Lie that no one in the mainstream media mentioned all last week. If they had, they would have been forced into a very different interpretation of his Big Lie. One much more sinister than we heard and read.

Because of the Silent Lie, when they talked about his moment of insanity on Charlie Rose, they said “He must be doing it for W.’s legacy.” “He is rewriting history.” Dudes, Dumbya’s legacy does not start until 2009. Rove is creating history. He is doing so (he hopes) by influencing the Democratic nomination process and by rallying the Republican base, two of the Nixon/Attawater/Buchanan approved Republican dirty trick election strategies. But his Big Lie only works if the corporate media keeps up its Silent Lie, because no one is going to buy anything that snake oil salesman says if they know he is playing election year politics.

Here is how this Big Lie is supposed to play out. Among Democrats, it is meant to help Obama, since he is the front runner who was not around to vote for the war. Edwards and Hillary become as guilty as Bush, once the Big Lie is believed. If you read George Will’s recent column, you will discover by process of elimination that Obama is the candidate that he wants the Democrats to nominate. That is because Republicans are mostly bigoted SOBs and can not imagine a member of a racial minority winning a presidential election in this country.

Anyone who hangs around DU for half a second has seen this Big Lie in operation here already. Plenty of threads call Hillary the same as Bush on the basis of one vote. Not quite as bad for Edwards, but then he is not as high in the polls.

It is even easier where the Republicans are concerned, because they want to believe that the Democrats forced W.'s hand. They are the Americans who will not bother googling to see if the facts confirm Karl’s story. They will say “I never trusted that Daschle.” This will remove an impediment to voting---you can not have a Republican presidential victory if your base sits out the vote in protest over a war that they do not like and which was sold to them by a lying president.

Now, all Rove has to do is repeat the Big Lie and get the press to repeat the Big Lie--oh look! Karl Rove was on Fox News today.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/12/02/karl-rove-blames-tom-daschle-for-2002-iraq-resolution/



Big joke, right? If so, why are the Washington Post and CBS News now reporting that there might be some truth to Rove’s version of things and that Card was not really dismissing Rove’s theory, he just did not understand what he was saying?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113002256.html?hpid=topnews

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/01/politics/washingtonpost/main3561923.shtml



Then there is this at AOL

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2007/11/30/rove-iraq-vote-was-a-mistake/



Did you catch all that? In the course of a few days, the corporate media has gone from “bats in the belfry Rove is re-writing history, what a wild and crazy guy!” to “hmmm, there are two sides to this issue”.

Oh dear. That was fast. Once the corporate media establishes that there are two sides to a Big Lie, then that Big Lie stops being a Big Lie and starts being an Topic of Discussion that is going to be everywhere, endlessly debated. Soon, it will not be “Do the Democrats share guilt for the war of choice in Iraq?” but “How much guilt do the Democrats share for the war of choice in Iraq?” Next thing you know, George Will will write to remind us that the NeoCons were originally (gasp) Democrats working with Scoop Jackson. With some innuendos thrown in to let the reader know that they support the state of Israel (and you know what that means).

By next October, they could have Hillary wearing a great big red W. for “I started the War (and I am no different from W. The members of my own party said so)” while John McCain could be running around claiming a change of heart “I’m going to end this war. I have a secret plan! But we will end it with dignity and honor!”

If you come away from this thread with one thing, please let it be this. Karl Rove is actively involved in 2008 national Republican politics. Every word he says from now until swearing in day is designed to influence the election. Every corporate media journalist and pundit knows this. If they do not interpret his Lies (Big or Little) based upon this fact, then they are naive and need a swift kick in the pants, or they are participating in the Silent Lie.

The good news is that Karl Rove really does have a big mouth. Unless they put the GOP sock--the one that they usually keep in Dan Burton's trap---in Rove's pie hole, sooner or later he will start spewing so much election politics rhetoric in public that it will become clear to everyone where his preoccupations lie---and that the Turd(blossom) does not fall far from the Dumbya.

rove and the m$$$$$$$$$$$m will do anything they can to discredit Dems and get a fascist in the chimphouse in 2008.

Fuck rove and Fuck his propoganda machine.

Conservatives understand the importance of controling the media message. Which is why even stupid liberals think the MSM has a liberal bias.

legitimacy to Rove over this absurd claim should have laughed out loud, suggested to Rove to his face that he get help for delusional memory, and minimized Rove by saying something along the lines that it is no wonder that the Iraq situation has been such a mess from the get go with someone who thinks black is white and down is up and that Rove has entered Alice in Wonderland territory with these claims...

But no...

Once again the Dems like Mr Van Hollen think scoring thoughtful debating points gets through to people who watch FAUX News

Going for the jugular in this instance was called for

gullible or they may be complicit. It depends on how much time they spend on "the topic of discussion." So, a pundit can take the "I do not agree with Rove" stance and yet further the Big Lie by giving it lots of air time and having guests who are very attractive or persuasive taking the Pro-Rove stance.

I sort of expect to hear a lot of this particular Big Lie unless the outspoken, intelligent nonBush allied members of the mainstream media put their collective feet down in the next few days and denounce it for what it is. There is a very narrow window of opportunity. I watched with horror the night this story broke as everyone spent their five minutes debunking the facts and no one discussed the motive behind the story---Rove was back on the campaign trail again, spreading lies of GOP political expediency. That was the way to nip it in the bud. It is still the way to nip it in the bud. Otherwise, we are going to have a whole new set of Swiftboat Lies to contend with.

who have always believed Rove. That's not going to change no matter how many objective facts point in the other direction. But it makes those of us who recognize him for the scum-sucking filth that he is even more sure of his scum-sucking filthiness. He's irrelevant and soon his legacy will be cause for a lifetime of public humiliation and bad karma.

:hi:

:toast:

they wanted to get it out of the way so it couldn't be used as a campaign issue.

I surely can't be the only one who remembers that.

Keith Olbermann was on it. Andy Card admitted that it was Bushies who wanted the vote when it happened.

It all looks so fishy. Like last week's sushi.

It was his first response - and it was immediate and extremely clear cut.

Rove's claim is so outrageous -- and its falsehood so provable -- that the only explanation is that they are like kids caught with chocolate on the face.

"I didn't sneak any candy bars mom. That isn;t chocolate on my face. I mean it. I really, really mean it."

I wonder how many of the American people will even question the lies from Rove anymore? The press won't. How you you expect the sheeple to think for themselves. Hasn't happened in two elections yet.

It makes one almost feel like applauding.

:puke: :grr: :nuke:

It is almost worth forming a theater group to follow him around, "Herr Karl's Big Breasted, Big Lie Brigade" six Code Pink women dressed in Lederhosen and blond braids. Every time he repeats the Big Lie twist the bodies to form the words "BIG LIE" and then give him the Heil Hitler salute. Or something similar. Make the whole thing so comical and stupid that everyone knows he is putting them on.

and I wish people in general would be better at recognizing this when it comes to the mass media. Bullshit is bullshit, there is no other side except for complete and utter falsehood. He outright lied, gods damnit, end of story. It's a fact. There is no debate here. The mass media disgusts me for suggesting anything to the contrary.

of this war and marginalized the 'cowardly, terrorist appeasing' Democrats that I just don't think people are going to buy this. I mean, one of the whole points of this war was to rally Americans around republicans.

Huffington Post "Daschle Calls Rove's War Accusations 'a Joke'"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/03/daschle-calls-roves-iraq_n_75079.html



NewsCorps WSJ OnLine "Rove Claims Congress Determined Iraq Invasion Timing"

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/12/02/rove-claims-congress-determined-iraq-invasion-timing/



Be sure to check out the comments following the WSJ post.

What is missing from the Huffington Post article? A meaningful discussion of why Rove is running around lying.

Now listen! This is important! The whole reason a Big Lie works is because people think "Wow! That is so unbelievable! No one would possibly say that unless they thought it was true. There is no reason to say that otherwise, because anyone who said it would just be called a liar, and for what?"

To battle the Big Lie, you have to tell people the for whatIf you just say "Rove is acting crazy", they will be thinking in the back of their minds Rove's not crazy. There must be some other reason. Does Rove really believe it? I hear he is smart..

The "for what" in this case is Republican election year political propaganda. Tell people that and they will go "Yes! Rove is always spouting political propaganda!" And then, it will all make sense.

Now, I know that some Dems are afraid of tipping off Republicans that this is political propaganda. Forget it. That cow's done left the barn. (See the posts at the end of the WSJ article). The truth is meant for fellow Democrats, Independents and apoliticals.

The current paternalist "what they don't know won't hurt them" method sure as hell ain't working. If you wait too long to tell the truth, the GOP is going to counter "You just made that up, because we are winning the war of words."

Remember, the truth will set you free.

is that Congress's vote was NOT a vote for war. Specifically, the relevant portion of the IWR said:


He was authorized to use military action as he determines to be necessary...

There is no way on Earth that that can be seen as forcing him into war. It was his choice and his choice alone, no matter when the resolution was voted on.

Still doesn't make it a good vote.

It was a stupid vote, mainly because it gave the responsibility for war to George W. Bush, and it should have been evident to anyone who was paying attention that he couldn't handle that responsibility responsibly. But still, it was his decision to go to war, and his decision alone -- except for Cheney.

to point out that the vote was in October, before the election - but the decision to go to war was in March 2003.

Even if they could prove that the Democrats pushed the vote, it does not mean they pushed the decision to go to war in March 2003. Gore, Dean, and Kerry were all on record saying NOT to go war then. We need to demand that he find prominent Democrats in the interval from October 2002 - March 2003 demanding that Bush get on with an invasion.

If done right - it could re-frame the decision to go to war from Oct 2002 to the President's decision in 2003.

If you recall, the "IWR", as it's now referred to, was originally called the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

In other words, it was an authorization for use of military force, NOT a declaration of war against Iraq.

Congress probably believed it was authorizing some bombing runs similar to what Clinton had done several times.

The original resolution mentioned NOTHING about WAR.

Nope, this WAR is all Bush's idea.

...but no one can possibly think that the dems (or at very least certain dems) bear no responsibility for the war.

when to hold the vote seems to me to be relatively inconsequential when compared to how the voting goes. what sense does it make to argue for a vote before the elections if you're going to vote in favor of war anyway. if you vote in favor of the war you can't use it to your advantage in the election.

if rove's bottom line is to shift some of the responsibility for the war to the dems, he's right.

that could well spell GOP presidential victory next fall--and it is exactly the kind of response that Rove is trying to encourage among Democrats with his Big Lie. I realize that some Dems already felt this way before Rove started his latest propaganda campaign, but many more may find themselves drinking the Kool Aid if the corporate media has its way. And how do we know that all of those posting on DU claiming to be Dems are really what they seem? Divide and Conquer politics is anathema to most Democrats. Solidarity comes more naturally to the party that embraces diversity of ethnicty, religion and ideas.

when i posted i was completely aware of what rove was trying to do. i don't see anything to indicate that he is telling the truth, or "the whole truth". but the democrats have proven themselves not only incapable of effectively opposing the repubs, but even at times of assisting them.

imagine if lieberman were vying for the nomination. would you still be calling for solidarity? blind support for party is not the way to go.

what if he's right? what if the dems plan was to cynically allow the vote, vote for it, and not have to address the issue head on in the election? not only would that have been morally wrong, but it didn't work. wanna get behind that?

From today, a highly flattering summary of Rove's performance on Fox yesterday:



Note that Rove "stands firm" and cites Daschle. His opponent only cites a former press secretary, whom Rove dismisses as a petty underling. (The article portrays Rove as so puffed up with importance it is a wonder he does not explode, taking out half the galaxy).

This from the newspaper that gave us "The Good Lie."



http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-talk/2007/12/rove_stands_firm_on_democrats.html

The Silent Majority morphs into the Silent Lie. Karl Rove. Liar extreme. Joe Wilson said it best when he stated that he (Joe) and his wife (Valerie) have spent their lives in service of their country while Rove has spent his serving up dirty political tricks. And let's not forget that Rove is a traitor. He has got to go, we do not need to put up with him anymore!