My other headline would’ve been, “And in other news, Karl Rove continues to lie through his teeth.”

Apparently, his latest idiotic lie is to rewrite the history of the 2002 vote on the AUMF. His new lie is that Congress, not the White House, pushed for a pre-election vote. If you remember, the vote on this bill happened right before the 2002 midterm elections, putting a lot of (at least imagined) pressure on Democrats to authorize the war.

This is the worst sort of lie, brazenly false and key to understanding the history of 2002 and of this war. The war vote and the election are inextricably tied. In fact, this is a key aspect of the Bush White House. Major policy initiatives have ALWAYS been lined up against federal elections. It’s all they know how to do, win elections. Actually governing is a secondary concern to this administration.

Credit where it’s due, though. At least some former White House staffers are disputing Rove’s lie. This could mark some of the first honest moments for these people. Hopefully, these corrections will make it easier for the press to show Rove’s lie for what it is.

It’s amazing Rove would even consider trying this out. For example, all of this recent “well, I opposed the war, but didn’t say it out loud” stuff going on is really a reaction to the central reality of that vote: No one wanted to go into an election year on the losing side of a war vote that was a) going to pass anyway, and b) enjoyed at least lukewarm support (~45%) among the American voters. Rightly or wrongly (I believe wrongly), Democrats and some Republicans believed that not voting for this bill could cost the Democrats seats in that election.

Of course, we’ve already forgotten how unpopular the war was in 2002. It’s hard for me to forget the size and number of protests at the time, especially since several happened just outside my window.

Let’s not let a liar like Karl Rove rewrite history, please.

Think Progress has the audio of this gem from Karl Rove:

In his interview with Rush Limbaugh this afternoon, Karl Rove claimed that the people criticizing Bush are “sort of elite, effete snobs who can’t hold a candle to this guy. What they don’t like about him is that he is common sense, that he is Middle America.” Limbaugh suggest that Bush critics are frustrated the the President “outsmarts ‘em.” Rove argued Bush is far more intelligent than people give him credit for, and is “one of the best-read people I’ve ever met” whose “passion is history.”

At least we now know why he quit… he’s lost complete touch with reality.

On a serious note, do you get the sense that White House officials, specifically Rove and Cheney, are talking about themselves when they talk about the President? That even they realize they supported a hollow suit so they could run the country? I’m being serious here, because there’s no way they could legitimately believe the stuff they say about Mr. Bushism himself.

Karl Rove is a jackass.

I think at some point it becomes a question of why people want to win elections. To win? Or to do something?

For some, it’s about some level of patriotism or idealism that starts the ball rolling. For others it’s about dealing with a particular issue, whether it be high taxes, an environmental disaster, or dealing with a foreign threat. Then, I think, there is the craven lot that simply craves power and craves winning for it’s own sake. It is this lot that believes that winning divisively is no worse than winning on ideas. It’s a member of this lot that would denigrate the patriotism or loyalty of half of our country simply because they disagree with his policy. It’s a selfish, short-sighted politician who just wants to win with no concern about how his actions affect the nation at large.

Karl Rove, in my opinion is one of those selfish, craven, short-sighted politicians who could care less about the long tern health of our nation in order to win the next election. His recent comments were beyond the pale for a person in government. On top of that, they were hateful and ignorant. Numerous bloggers have pointed out that New York City is a relatively liberal town. It’s a Democratic city. To claim that a majority of the residents of that city wanted to “offer therapy and understanding for our attackers” after 9/11 insults all Americans.

But the sad thing is that this isn’t about “different philosophies and our different approaches” to the war on terror. There’s nothing illustrative about Rove’s comments or his candidates’ tactics. They don’t inform you. They don’t enlighten you. They aren’t about actually convincing anyone of anything. Instead, it’s simply about winning the election just to win. Not because they actually think they have a better plan for the problems of the day, but simply because winning is fun.

It makes me sad that this is all modern politics is about. It saddens me more that Rove and the Republicans have perfected this to the point that they can get away with claiming that 48% of the country hates America. That people that opposed going to war in Iraq are sympathizers with the terrorists that attacked our nation. There has to be line, right? I mean, at what point is the cost of winning by dividing America not worth paying? I wish we had a government that actually tried to improve voter approval by improving their policies or their execution. Instead, we get these idiots who simply fan the flames of division in order to distract people from their mistakes.

In a weird twist, but one that fits the pattern I’m describing here, it looks like the RNC and the White House may have planned this little firestorm knowing the controversy it would kick up. It’s sketchy, but it’s interesting to see the Republicans responding to this.

This was probably incoherent because I’m tired and annoyed. So, I’ll finish with some thoughts from the folks that are better writers than me.

From the Daou Report:

I’m devoting much of today’s report to Karl Rove’s vile comments denigrating half of the American public. My office overlooks Ground Zero, and I’m looking at the gaping footprint as I write this. My wife and I were in New York that day, on our way to the WTC for a morning meeting. A chance phone call dragged on a few minutes too long and most likely saved our lives. I lost friends in the towers, and when I walk past the site, as I do almost every evening, the pain is as real as it was on September 11th, 2001.

I spent my youth in Beirut during the height of Lebanon’s civil war, and I fought the Syrian presence in Lebanon long before the “Cedar Revolution.” I watched young boys give their lives and mothers cradle their dying children in blood-soaked arms. I’ve seen more bloodshed, war, and violence, and shot more guns than most of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists combined. I wouldn’t presume to question the strength or dignity of a stranger, and I pity those who blithely push the right=strong, left=weak rhetoric. It says far more about their inadequacies than it does about the target of their scorn. Today, Karl Rove took that rhetoric to a new, filthy low.

and, appropriately snarky from Atrios:

For the record, my motives aren’t to get more troops killed. If those were my motives I’d ship them off to a war on false pretenses without sufficient equipment to keep them safe.

(thx to Atrios and AmericaBlog for most of the links above)