Ryan Henowitz stood in front of Karl Rove and gave an impassioned statement on behalf of thousands of soldiers who saw a generation of their own torn apart and ripped to shreds in an unnecessary and ill-advised war. He described the horrors of that war and took responsibility for his actions while in combat – combat he saw firsthand at the tender young age of 20. He asked Karl Rove to do the same. To once and for all take some responsibility as the “architect” and admit it was a mistake to invade Iraq.
Iraq – a country that didn’t have the WMDs Rove and company said it had. Didn’t have the nuclear capabilities Rove and his buddies said they did and had nothing to do with 9-11 like they tried to sell to the American people.
Rove promptly and smugly refused.
Mr. Rove did go on a tangent making up whole new reasons for invading Iraq. Now supposedly it was all to stop Saddam Hussein’s sons from taking power in a bizarre diatribe that defies explanation.
In the end Rove said he would not apologize for the invasion.
An invasion that cost our country trillions. An invasion that cost the lives of over 200,000 Iraqis. An invasion that cost over 5,000 American lives and thousands more to our allies. An invasion that led to the creation of the terrorist group ISIS who is considered by many to be more dangerous than Al Qaeda ever was. All over their lies.
But Rove would do it all over again. No apology needed. No question about it.
See Rove brush off this soldier HERE:
And if that wasn’t enough, Rove took the opportunity to take a gratuitous shot at Senator Elizabeth Warren, calling her “Pocahontas” when answering another question.
See that HERE:
Kristin Davison, chief of staff for Karl Rove & Company, later “clarified” that the comment about Warren was “simply making light of the fact that Sen. Warren continuously over-embellished her heritage for political benefit during the course of her 2012 campaign.”
Now wait a second. Was it Warren who “constantly” brought up the heritage issue? Or was it Rove’s neoconservative allies who brought it up early and often? Allies who were perhaps ordered to destroy her for daring to step up to Rove’s big bank billionaire allies?
If we go back to that campaign, the answer is obvious:
In large part, the answer is politics. Warren was the leading champion of endowing the new federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with robust powers, making her a hero to progressives and a bête-noire to the Republicans who blocked the possibility of her appointment to head that bureau. Given the high-stakes battle for control of the Senate and the likely role that Warren in particular will play if elected, it is not surprising that Warren’s political opponents would seize on any potentially embarrassing detail of Warren’s past.
Still, the foregoing analysis leaves open the question of why this particular issue appears to have resonance. In this column, I consider but then reject the suggestion of the Brown campaign that Warren’s conduct calls her integrity into question. Instead, I argue that if this story proves to have legs, it will be because it reinforces popular uneasiness about certain features of affirmative action that conservatives have successfully used to drive a wedge between two Democratic constituencies: minority voters and working-class white voters. justia.com
In short, Republicans tried to make this past mention of her heritage (vs. continuous) a big deal because she defied them by taking them on. this was their “revenge.” And they were the only ones continuously mentioning it during that campaign vs GOP darling Scott Brown, who she defeated.
But with Rove and his neoconservative smear machine the lies keep on coming. Iraq was about the eventual takeover of Saddam Hussein’s sons. Elizabeth Warren was the one who made Native American heritage a big deal. And he has nothing to apologize for about invading Iraq.