[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 10]
[House]
[Page 14333]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                               KARL ROVE

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, last week the Deputy Chief 
of Staff of the President of the United States, Karl Rove, a man who 
began as a political operator, and was rewarded for his political 
successes by being named to a very high position in the 
administration--indeed, he is clearly as influential in shaping the 
policies of the Bush Administration as anyone other than the President 
himself--made a speech which was harsh, as is his right, but which was 
thoroughly dishonest, which again is his right under the first 
amendment to the Constitution, but ought not to be a right which high 
officials of the Federal Government avail themselves of so freely.
  Mr. Rove lied. The speech consists of a number of conscious, 
deliberate lies, particular ones and general ones. Here is what he said 
in his effort to further the deep polarization of this country from 
which he believes his side will benefit if he is able to shape the way 
in which it is perceived. ``The most important difference between 
conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national 
security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and 
prepared for war. Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and 
wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for 
our attackers.''
  Mr. Speaker, that is a lie. It is a lie consisting of a number of 
lies. I am a liberal, Mr. Speaker. And along with many, many other 
liberals in this Chamber, my response to the savage murders of 
Americans on 9/11 has no resemblance to the political dishonesty that 
Karl Rove put forward.
  I voted for war in Afghanistan. No one who serves here votes for war 
easily. No one who has the responsibility of defending the country can 
be cavalier about sending the young men and women of our country off to 
battle, to kill and be killed. But the vote to go to war in 
Afghanistan, to authorize the President, in effect, to go to war, to 
take whatever measures were necessary, and we knew when we did that 
that we were talking about going after the regime in Afghanistan which 
was sheltering that murderer, Osama bin Laden, that vote was virtually 
unanimous. There was one ``no'' vote here. There were no ``no'' votes 
in the other body.
  There are a lot of liberals here, Mr. Speaker. And virtually 
unanimously we voted to go to war in Afghanistan. Yet Mr. Rove would 
lie to the American people and characterize that decision to go to war 
in defense of the country as indictments and therapy and understanding.
  Shortly after that, on the Judiciary Committee on which I then 
served, we spent a couple of weeks dealing with what should be done to 
increase the law enforcement powers of this country. And we voted out a 
bill by a unanimous vote of 36-to-0. There are a number of liberals on 
that committee: Myself, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the most determined defender 
of civil liberties I have ever served with, the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Watt), the chairman on our side, the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the gentlemen from New York (Mr. 
Nadler).
  Mr. Speaker, there are a number of Members deeply committed to 
liberalism. And we voted unanimously for a bill that enhanced law 
enforcement powers. It was not therapy. It was not understanding. It 
was enhanced law enforcement powers. Now, it is true that many of us 
subsequently voted against a very different bill that came to the 
floor.
  But the version we reported out of our committee was the one of which 
the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), boasted a while ago about his 
bipartisanship, because it provided significantly enhanced law 
enforcement powers.
  Sadly the Republican leadership then decided to kill that bill, and 
with no debate, no chance to read it, substitute a very different bill 
that many of us opposed on procedural as well as substantive grounds.
  But the fact is that the liberals on the Judiciary Committee 
unanimously supported increased law enforcement powers. So the notion 
that we were offering only therapy, that lie, is of course refuted by 
the fact that we voted go to war. We voted for enhanced law enforcement 
powers.
  But then comes the biggest lie of all. What Mr. Rove appears to be 
trying to do is to perpetuate one of the most damaging acts of 
dishonesty we have seen from a President of the United States, the 
argument that part of the reason for invading Iraq was to defend 
ourselves against 9/11. That is, of course, what is implicit in Mr. 
Rove's speech. He would put together the attack of 9/11, and what we 
did in Iraq.
  But, the fact is now very clear, the Iraqi regime, despicable as it 
was, was not involved in the murders of 9/11. The war in Iraq was not 
based on an effort to deal with 9/11. That was the war in Afghanistan, 
which we supported.
  So what you have from Mr. Rove, I would say in conclusion, Mr. 
Speaker, is a couple of specific lies in pursuit of a very big one, a 
big one that tries to get America to forget how dishonestly this 
administration argued for the war in Iraq.

                          ____________________