The Way It Wasn't

NEWSWEEK!! Have you no decency? I have subscribed to Newsweek for over 40 years, and have enjoyed it immensely. However, hiring Karl Rove, the "Architect" of an immoral, arrogant, incompetent, and divisive Administration which chooses to deny human rights at home and conduct war-mongering abroad is something I will not condone.
Since we just renewed on 3 December for another year, please refund my full subscription price.

ok..so we have democrats lying, we have republicans lying, blah, blah. It's six to one and half a dozen to the other. I have no faith in any of them. And the idiots that write on these comment boards who are so sure their side is the cleaner dirt bag just makes me crack up. Here's to Randy Newman..Let's Drop The Big One!!

gtntz :Read Paul Oneills book Clinton had the plans in place for Iraq and Saddam. Bush's team was just more interested in missing keyboard keys and ruining the surplus and with the world support between 9/11and this war a monkey could have built a true coalition like Bush's father did. Of course he would have to be a little less blatantly self serving monkey. Perhaps if Repupblicans hadn't been so interested in Clintons sex life they could have seen the writing on the wall, but it would have probably been a bathroom wall and they would have been busy soliciting same gender relations. Come to think of it if I had posters of Nancy Reagan on my wall I would be vwery interested in someone elses sex life. Bush was also gutting evironmental policy , Kyoto, water pollution standards, healthy forrests, before all this began. The only people this administration has kicked in the nuts are the American people.

I used to like Bill, his star has fallen recently. (I'll still take one Clinton to a dozen Bush's) Rove has always been a pathological liar. I saw excerpts from the interview with Charlie Rose and was open jawed listening to Karl and his new spin on the war. If anyone could think for a minute you could trust either one you would get screwed badly. I'm beginning to think that of all politicians.

It is very fair and balanced how they devout 2-3 paragraphs to Clinton's self serving remarks, but devote 10 to Rove's pre-book propaganda. Rove is happy though, because it will increase his book sales.

Any suport and agreement the Bush administration received in the early days of Iraq war have to considered tainted because of its deception and fabrications. This is a mitigating factor in Bill Clinton's defense but rather the opposite for Rove since he was one of the players that launched the war.

And as far as your assumption of a love for Bill Clinton on my part, I have always felt both him AND his carpet bagging bride where national disgraces. They, like our current administration, have a tendency to undermine our society by shifting power to the executive branch and assuming a far more important role than either common sense or legal precedent could justify.

Hey...do you guys smell that smell? It's called woodrot. Woodrot is called by a fungus that eats away at dead and decaying timber and if it is allowed to fester it will bring a structure down. Newsweek has Karl Rove as a columnist? tNewsweek is taking information from the CERA (Cambridge Energy Research Institute) about energy projections. You guys stay up late watching Charlie Rose for news. Get a life!

If you think you have journalistic integrity while you're surrounded with rot you're delusional. Newsweek as a source of information is on par with US and People, only less entertaining.

William, I think you and Ron Paul may be the only ones who think the Constitution requires a formal declaration of war. Most believe the congressional authorization, that was passed overwhelmingly in the Senate (75-25?) and the House (300-150?) was a constitutional authorization to go to war. It was even challenged in court and upheld as constitutional by one of our most liberal circuit courts. Same thing happened in the Vietnam Conflict.

And both Rove and Clinton are are at liars and revisionists. But don't let your blind love for Bill get in the way of the facts.

The Rove revisionism is of a whole different order and should not be compared to B. Clinton's comment. The press, and Newsweek in particular, bears real responsibility for not challenging Republican sophism, deception, spin and doublespeak. Even the frame for this article- starting with the Clinton comment and foolishness is an effort to give the Republicans one more break.

I hate to sound like a grade school teacher scolding Newsweek but for the sake of posterity I think someone needs to have the courage to speak the truth. The media are just as guilty or more so than anyone else. War is a LEGAL term and does not apply to what we are engaging in at the moment. You can call it an immoral invasion, or even a glorious defense of our national principles depending upon your perspective, but if you call it a war you are factually, legally, constitutionally, and morally wrong. The media was foolish (and possibly treasonous) in blindly adopting the term and failing to educate the ill informed of its formal definition. Any attempt on it's part to question others who use the same sleight of tongue technique is disingenuous. By tolerating the use of the term war, while not expecting the formal declaration, the media permitted our administration to mislead it's citizens and kill hundreds of thousands of human beings while avoiding the legal and moral obligations it has in conducting war. Ironically, fighting a war without a deceleration of war is in fact considered in and of itself a war crime.

Since when does America "allow" former presidents to criticize a sitting president? Look at the criticism Jimmy Carter took earlier this year when he took "W" to task over the Iraq debacle. Clinton took pains not to step on "W's" Iraq decisions in 2002 and 2003 because of: a) 9/11 and b) the fact that the current administration had access to intelligence that outsiders wouldn't. Who really knew at that time that Cheny, Rove and Company were "cooking the books" to reinforce their nefarious goals? Did the press object to what was going on? I think not! So why are you members of the press picking on Clinton when you did nothing to expose the administration's deeds at that time? Another thing sticks out too: tell me why Clinton's comments this week are taking precedent over Rove's comments on the "Charlie Rose Show". Don't you really feel that Rove's comments are much more important, considering that he's revising history now when he was actually responsible for pushing the US into invading Iraq in the first place! I have a hard time believing any members of the press when they are still allowing this administration to get away with turning this country into a second world nation! You people are still so concerned with Hillary clapping her hands too much and using a "strident" voice that the real news comes in a distant second. Why not concentrate on how we're going to make it through this next 14 months as a viable nation with the current set of overwhelming problems we have, combined with the truly abominable Republican administration that we're stuck with until Inauguration Day of January, 2009?

Another biuased lefty slant and some protection for Clinton. How can Rove's comments be revisionists? Were these reporters in the room? Did they have conversation with the President about Iraq and the vote? NO!! But Bill changes his story more often than he changes condoms! That's a fact.

You would think Republicans would have learned their lesson about listening to Carl Rove from the Last Congressional elections. Any that take his advise in the upcoming election get what they deserve.