Type to search

WATCH: Democratic SuperPAC Hits Back At Rove For Benghazi Attack

Memo Pad Politics

WATCH: Democratic SuperPAC Hits Back At Rove For Benghazi Attack


Days after American Crossroads released an ad accusing former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of participating in a “cover-up” with regards to the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, a Democratic SuperPAC has fired back with an ad blasting Crossroads’ co-founder Karl Rove.

The ad, produced by liberal SuperPAC American Bridge 21st Century, invokes Rove’s roles in building the case for the Iraq War and outing CIA agent Valerie Plame. Over news reports of various pundits and politicians criticizing Rove and typically threatening music, a narrator warns that “For more than a decade, Karl Rove has misled the American people on national security issues.”

“If Karl Rove couldn’t be trusted then,” the ad concludes, “why should he be trusted now?”

While it remains unclear whether or not American Crossroads or American Bridge will win this SuperPAC proxy battle, there is reason to believe that the Democratic group has the upper hand. Recent polling suggests that Americans are predisposed to side with Clinton over her Republican foes when it comes to Benghazi. And when it comes to electoral results, American Bridge — which spent over $6 million trying to defeat Mitt Romney in the 2012 election — blows Rove’s startlingly ineffective SuperPAC out of the water.

Henry Decker

Henry Decker was formerly the Managing Editor of The National Memo. He is currently an Online Associate at MRCampaigns.

  • 1


  1. Dominick Vila May 15, 2013

    I am delighted to see Democrats finally responding in kind to the demonization, distortions, and hyperbole that characterize Tea Party discourse on almost every issue they raise. The Benghazi tragedy is being used by cynics for political gain, while ignoring the way a dozen similar terrorist attacks were handled when they were in control of the White House and Congress. We live in a dangerous world, where attacks against our institutions, values and interests are the norm. If the GOP suddenly learned how to prevent terrorist attacks, perhaps they should share their newly acquired wisdom with the rest of us so that effective measures can be put in place to prevent future attacks against the United States and our interests at home and abroad.

    1. Lovefacts May 15, 2013

      Well said, Dominick. I doubt one of these individuals have any understanding of how the US Embassies and Consulates and facilities function. Nor have most of them served in the military or the CIA or the Dept. of State. They give lip-service to supporting the people in these organizations, yet willingly destroy individuals in them if it supports their political agenda.

      Case in point: Valerie Plame. Her rank was a senior intelligence service–SIS, that means she was above a GS-15. She was a top WMD intelligence officer. She worked as a NOC–non-official cover. NOCs are treated with the same care as a high-profile asset. She worked for an American company. When her cover was blown–she was slatted to go back overseas the next summer–it also blew the cover of all her assets and anyone she had ever talked to, no to mention those of the company’s actual employees. Given where she had served, I think it’s safe to say a number of those assets are dead.

      Result of blowing Valerie Plame’s cover, dead assets and difficulty in recruiting new ones because who can trust an American administration not to expose another intelligence officer. Oh, and Valerie’s only crime was being married to a retired Ambassador–career diplomat–who was sent to Africa to investigate the yellow cake story. He found it was untrue and when the administration refused to accept it and invaded Iraq, he went public. Their punishment was to denigrate Valerie, opened her up to ridicule, and destroy all her assets. IMO, it was treason.

      1. Dominick Vila May 15, 2013

        The Valerie Plame fiasco was more than just an embarrassment, like you said, it compromised our ability to gather information overseas, it compromised our resources abroad, and it endangered the lives of the people we rely upon to get the information we need to protect our national security and interests.
        Incredibly, with the exception of a few articles in newspapers, there were no calls for impeachment, nobody was disciplined for it, and our politicians, including Democrats, ignored the damage done to our intelligence capabilities and the credibility of our government.
        Every time I hear Rep. Issa talk about omissions in the testimonies given I feel like puking. Either he is an idiot, a traitor, or a cynical politician focused strictly on political gain regardless of how much damage he does to our country.

        1. Sand_Cat May 16, 2013

          Well, Issa is probably all three and much more, except not a traitor by the constitutional definition.

      2. Dominick Vila May 15, 2013

        BTW, I believe Iran-Contra was also an act of treason. Negotiating with the Ayatollahs, when we did not even have diplomatic relations with Iran and after we were embarrassed by the hostage taking, was shameful. Planning to use the proceeds to fund death squads to overthrow the government of a country with whom we had diplomatic relations made us look like a bunch of duplicitous fools. And when the whole scam became public, a Marine Lt. Colonel was held responsible for some of the most damaging foreign policy decisions in history. Incredible!

        1. Sand_Cat May 16, 2013

          I’ve got news for you: those who did Iran-Contra, and the operations in Chile and elsewhere, and who got us into Iraq, etc., were and are duplicitous fools, and more than deserve to be outed as such. The fact that people continued to vote for them, and still vote for their idealogical heirs in considerable numbers shows that we as a country don’t really want to stop them, either.

    2. mandinka May 15, 2013

      How did they get their tax exempt status??

  2. Joe WallStreet May 15, 2013

    Nice job!!

  3. JDavidS May 15, 2013

    Listening to Rove on national security would be like taking marital advice from Larry King.

    1. Allan Richardson May 15, 2013

      Or Newt Gingrich, Donald Trump or Mark Sanford.

    2. mandinka May 15, 2013

      Yea it would be like listening to Barak or Hilary

  4. Landsende May 15, 2013

    Karl Rove was called Bush’s brain which explains why the economy was in such dire straits when President Obama took office since between the of them they have a brain the size of a pea.

    1. mandinka May 15, 2013

      The economy was better under W than under barak. There are fewer Americans working today than at anytime during W’s 2nd term

      1. cheeriogirl May 16, 2013

        Or you could go with facts.

        Unemployment down to 7.5% , the stock market has doubled, war in Iraq ended. If a GOP president had EVER done anything like this, they would have put him up for sainthood!

  5. Pi_Boson May 15, 2013

    Karl Rove is just an evil person.

  6. tobyspeeks May 15, 2013

    Bill “the war monger” Kristol surprised the hell out of me.

  7. mandinka May 15, 2013

    Hmmm I checked and this is a 401C3 identified organization Hmmm

  8. Sand_Cat May 16, 2013

    We all lose so long as “super” PACs, or -for that matter – PACS, and the hundreds of other shady groups now legalized and subsidized by tax-exemptions continue to spread lies and the media picks them up and repeats them endlessly.

    We’re practically at the point where we’d be better off if political speech was outright banned from television and radio and other public forums except for a few weeks immediately before elections, and then only by the candidates themselves: every cowardly smear or deception has to be seen issuing from the candidate’s mouth.

    My own opinion is that the Republicans are by far the more dishonest currently, but there’s no way to distinguish on a legal basis that cannot become a means for further abuse. The old ad showing the leaders of two countries, both old and debilitated, being forced to have a fist fight on camera instead of having a war, points the way. Sounds like a good campaign tool if they both want to lie: let them say the things face-to-face, and if it comes to blows, so much the better. And no more exemption of anyone from the laws they pass.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Next Up