Flashback: Minutes before 9/11 attacks, Carville said he hoped Bush wouldn’t succeed

posted at 2:40 pm on March 11, 2009 by Allahpundit

Even more enjoyable than that 2006 poll Patterico dug up showing 51 percent of Democrats hoping Bush would fail — two raging wars notwithstanding.

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: “I certainly hope he doesn’t succeed.”…

Minutes later, as news of the terrorist attacks reached the hotel conference room where the Democrats were having breakfast with the reporters, Carville announced: “Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!”

The press followed Carville’s orders, never reporting his or Greenberg’s desire for Bush to fail. The omission was understandable at first, as reporters were consumed with chronicling the new war on terror. But months and even years later, the mainstream media chose to never resurrect those controversial sentiments, voiced by the Democratic Party’s top strategists, that Bush should fail…

“The difference between Carville and his ilk and me is that I care about what happens to my country,” Limbaugh told Fox on Wednesday. “I am not saying what I say for political advantage. I oppose actions, such as Obama’s socialist agenda, that hurt my country.

Two potential points of distinction for the left here. One is that Carville changed his mind instantly once the country shifted to a crisis footing whereas Rush keeps hoping for failure even as the economy disintegrates. Is that really the point liberals have been making in attacking him, though — that it’s A-OK to root for the president to cock things up so long as nothing really important’s at stake? Watch those goalposts move! (Subsidiary question: Did Carville really instantly change his mind or, rather, did he instantly realize that it was no longer politically safe to wish aloud for the president’s failure?) The second point is the one Patterico hits on in this post, i.e. the difference between hoping Obama fails at implementing his agenda and hoping that his agenda fails after it’s implemented. Hard to tell from the tiny bit quoted in the Fox piece which was true in Carville’s case vis-a-vis Bush. Given that we were already more than seven months into his term at the time, it’s safe to say he wasn’t speaking wholly prospectively.

I wish I could promise you video when he’s asked about this, but since he’s a CNN contributor he probably won’t be asked about it. Quick, someone send up the bat signal for Jason Mattera.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Okay, so you’re actively trying to say that Limbaugh is the conservative version of Carville?

No.

Carville is a moron.

Yes.

Progressives tend to ignore the nonsense that Carville spews.

Tell that to every news outlet in the country.

This is not a particularly good defense of Limbaugh. “He’s every bit as stupid as Carville!”

You’re not very good at this.

Jim Treacher on March 11, 2009 at 4:03 PM

One is that Carville changed his mind instantly once the country shifted to a crisis footing whereas Rush keeps hoping for failure even as the economy disintegrates.

The former was a threat from an external entity; whereas, many would argue that the latter is in response to mismanagement by the current administration, as well as a consequence of bad lending policies promoted by Congress.

Y-not on March 11, 2009 at 4:05 PM

You’re not very good at this.

Jim Treacher on March 11, 2009 at 4:03 PM

But you are, Jim. Thanks for the laugh.

notropis on March 11, 2009 at 4:05 PM

Rush isn’t hoping the economy disintegrates. He wants Obama’s policies to disintegrate, and so do I.

You can’t spend your way out of debt.

Martin on March 11, 2009 at 4:09 PM

Here’s a thought:

Carville changed his tune right after 9/11 because his testicular fortitude is less than Limbaugh’s.

jimmy the notable on March 11, 2009 at 4:13 PM

Prior to WWII, during the 1930′s American culture was still traditional. The trust that our citizens held in FDR was because he was our president. But that trust was a mere extension of the devoted respect that citizens had for our nation. We identified ourselves as Americans with honor, not with shame.

The Democrat Party has since made certain to destroy tradition and national sensibility. At this point, Democrats are recognizing themselves as Democrats first, not as Americans. They are intolerant.

Their greatest political opposition resides in the GOP, because within the Republican Party, national conservatism is rallying. And the harder the Democrats squeeze our economy through hell’s gates, the stronger the surge to oppose Obama.

maverick muse on March 11, 2009 at 4:14 PM

jimmy the notable on March 11, 2009 at 4:13 PM

Carville changed his attitude right after 9/11 because he knew that Bush would do the right thing. If the idiot messiah had been in office on 9/11, he would not have done the right thing afterwards (as he would have done what he is doing now, which is allying with the arab/persian/muslim enemies who want to destroy us). Had the idiot messiah been in office on 9/11 and reacted to that the same way he’s reacting to the financial crisis, he would have met the same fate as Mussolini.

progressoverpeace on March 11, 2009 at 4:17 PM

Carville’s 9/11 testicular fortitude never was.

maverick muse on March 11, 2009 at 4:18 PM

AllahPundit misrepresents what Rush says…why can’t a conservative blog be accurate?

Rush clearly states ad nauseam that he wants Obama’s destructive, socialist policies to fail..knowing that Obama’s policies will end the USA as a capitalist country.

The economy is disintegrating AP BECAUSE of Obama’s reckless policies. AP not only misrepresents what Rush says but creates a ’straw man’ argument (economy disintegrates) that has NO RELATION to what Rush ever said.

daytrader on March 11, 2009 at 3:08 PM

+100 I think your comment needs to be reposted.

Keep in mind that HotAir has many conservative writers… but AllahPundit isn’t one of them. AP is a moderate at best.

I’ve gotten to where I can read the title of a HotAir article and know instantly who posted it. AP is biased against conservatives, especially Christians. His bias on the selection of articles, and their titles, are especially telling.

dominigan on March 11, 2009 at 4:18 PM

You can’t spend your way out of debt.

Martin

Can’t borrow your way out of debt, either.

maverick muse on March 11, 2009 at 4:19 PM

Just when did ‘protest’ become ‘unpatriotic’?

GarandFan on March 11, 2009 at 4:19 PM

The Germans reference debt as the “tick” and I imagine there’s the time bomb reference.

maverick muse on March 11, 2009 at 4:20 PM

dominigan on March 11, 2009 at 4:18 PM

I think you’re exaggerating quite a bit. But yes, you can tell the articles apart from their titles. I should hope that were possible, and Allahpundit and Ed weren’t just being mirrors for what they were talking about. I come for the opinions, not the source articles from which those opinions are derived. If you don’t like AP, skip the articles.

jimmy the notable on March 11, 2009 at 4:23 PM

I wish someone would/could find the video during the 2000 presidential election night coverage when Carville guaranteed a Gore win. When it didn’t happen Carville put a trashcan on his head and finished the show talking into the trashcan.PLEASE, PLEASE someone find that video. The image has always been on my mind and I wish it would surface again everytime that moron opens his piehole.

lasertex on March 11, 2009 at 2:58 PM

Here’s the image.

carbon_footprint on March 11, 2009 at 4:24 PM

Rush knows better, he seems to want Republican minorities because it helps his business.

LevStrauss on March 11, 2009 at 3:00 PM

The only ones helped by that are squishy snipers looking for targets.

ddrintn on March 11, 2009 at 4:36 PM

Carville only crawled under that trash can because he couldn’t find a mossy rock.

Jim Treacher on March 11, 2009 at 4:41 PM

Carville, not as ugly as Richard Belzer, but damn close.

rollthedice on March 11, 2009 at 4:45 PM

Rush clearly states ad nauseam that he wants Obama’s destructive, socialist policies to fail..knowing that Obama’s policies will end the USA as a capitalist country.

We live in a soundbite society and this is why Rush is complicit. It doesn’t matter what the long qualifying monologue beforehand was, “hoping he fails” is just like Kerry’s “voted for it before I voted against it” except Kerry is less of a rhetorical expert. Kerry the whole time attributed his vote against as a protest vote. When Kerry said his famous line the next thing he said was “and let me tell you why” How many commercials and TV shows aired that part of the response? So did the actual reason even matter? Rush is the king of Talk Radio, he knows how this stuff plays works, that is why I think he is complicit, the converted see it one way and the nonconverted see it another. The partisan barking over superficial soundbites is what keeps tempers flaring and butters the bread on both sides. Rush and Obama are merely dancing partners, neither really gives a damn about Conservatives winning, his ratings are always higher when they lose. Rush made a killing off of Clinton and he aims for the same with Obama.

LevStrauss on March 11, 2009 at 4:45 PM

Two potential points of distinction for the left here. One is that Carville changed his mind instantly once the country shifted to a crisis footing whereas Rush keeps hoping for failure even as the economy disintegrates.

Even that isn’t really fair, AP… Rush hopes that Obama fails because Obama’s success is the country’s failure, which we are seeing on a daily basis.

RightWinged on March 11, 2009 at 4:55 PM

We live in a soundbite society and this is why Rush is complicit.

So it’s his fault for saying what he thinks, because somebody else took it out of context. I’m not sure that’s a standard that would hold up if applied to all. (Not that there’s any danger of that.)

Jim Treacher on March 11, 2009 at 5:01 PM

One is that Carville changed his mind instantly once the country shifted to a crisis footing whereas Rush keeps hoping for failure even as the economy disintegrates.

One could argue that obama failing would be good for the economy in the long run.

sonofdy on March 11, 2009 at 5:07 PM

It doesn’t matter what the long qualifying monologue beforehand was, “hoping he fails” is just like Kerry’s “voted for it before I voted against it” except Kerry is less of a rhetorical expert.

No, the relevant difference is that Kerry was accountable to the citizens of his state for his vote. Rush is — at best — accountable to his listeners and his advertisers (and really that’s in the loosest sense of the word). Thus far, nothing he has said has damaged his radio show, despite the coordinated efforts of what can best be described as a Nixonian White House.

If what Rush has been saying is so outrageous, why isn’t he relegated to RFD-TV with Don Imus?

Y-not on March 11, 2009 at 5:09 PM

Rush and Obama are merely dancing partners, neither really gives a damn about Conservatives winning, his ratings are always higher when they lose. Rush made a killing off of Clinton and he aims for the same with Obama.

LevStrauss on March 11, 2009 at 4:45 PM

Were you around in ’94? Limbaugh played a big role in the mid-terms that year. But how easily we forget.

ddrintn on March 11, 2009 at 5:12 PM

Progressives tend to ignore the nonsense that Carville spews.
Tell that to every news outlet in the country.

Fine with me. Carville does not belong on TV.

This is not a particularly good defense of Limbaugh. “He’s every bit as stupid as Carville!”
You’re not very good at this.

Jim Treacher on March 11, 2009 at 4:03 PM

How so? The point here is that Carville did the same thing Limbaugh did. That’s why this is being brought up. We all agree Carville is stupid. If Limbaugh did the same stupid thing, it does little to defend him.

orange on March 11, 2009 at 5:22 PM

Just when did ‘protest’ become ‘unpatriotic’?

GarandFan on March 11, 2009 at 4:19 PM

1-20-09

soundingboard on March 11, 2009 at 5:24 PM

I am glad to see this information given to the rest of us who don’t have the search capabilities of people like Hot Air.

I don’t know if any of you followed the Politico link of the Mike Allen article at Politico but this bastard thinks it is unfair to remind people that we had 55 consecutive quarters of growth under Bush to counter the lie that the last 8 years under Bush were and economic failure lie spread by Dems.

That article pissed me off. We need MORE THAN EVER to revisit the past and prevent these people from rewriting history and ignoring behavior THEY HAD that they condemn now.

If we don’t you know the sheep in this country, which you only need to observe, who believe every Bush/Republican rewrite they read.

PUSH BACK I SAY!!!

PS How do you do paragraph breaks for a new guy.

Conan on March 11, 2009 at 5:29 PM

Carville does not belong on TV.

How about on daily conference calls with the White House Chief of Staff? Does he belong there?

How so?

There’s not enough time in the human lifespan.

The point here is that Carville did the same thing Limbaugh did.

And then criticized Limbaugh for doing it. And helped whip up this media frenzy over it. That doesn’t seem to be registering with you.

We all agree Carville is stupid.

“We” must not include the media and the Democratic Party.

Jim Treacher on March 11, 2009 at 5:30 PM

Limbaugh is stupid. Carville is stupid. That doesnt seem to be registering with you.

orange on March 11, 2009 at 5:33 PM

Limbaugh is stupid. Carville is stupid. That doesnt seem to be registering with you.

I’d like to amend my previous statement: You’re truly awful at this.

Jim Treacher on March 11, 2009 at 5:35 PM

orange on March 11, 2009 at 5:33 PM

Get a clue. The point of the Carville quote is only to illuminate the great hypocrisy of the left, feigning offense at Rush’s words when it’s clear that they’re not offended by them.

Added to that is the fact that Carville wanted failure for his side’s petty political gain while Limbaugh wants failure for the country’s continued existence.

This is not that difficult to understand.

progressoverpeace on March 11, 2009 at 5:38 PM

Carville = Walking Pregnancy Prevention….

Hog Wild on March 11, 2009 at 5:43 PM

Carville was just on CNN’s Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer. Boy did he squirm. He doesn’t remember what he said minutes before 9/11 but he does remember telling reporters after the planes hit to forget whatever he did say. Hilarious!

technopeasant on March 11, 2009 at 5:47 PM

Turd.

SouthernGent on March 11, 2009 at 5:57 PM

orange on March 11, 2009 at 5:22 PM

The point here is that Carville did the same thing Limbaugh did.

And then criticized Limbaugh for doing it. And helped whip up this media frenzy over it. That doesn’t seem to be registering with you.

We all agree Carville is stupid.

“We” must not include the media and the Democratic Party.

Jim Treacher on March 11, 2009 at 5:30 PM

I hate to be too “nuanced,” but the other key difference is that Rush is a radio show host, not a political operative for the GOP. Carville is a “Democratic strategist” who happens to appear on tv. Of the two, I’d say Carville is much closer to being a leader of his political party than is Rush. (In fact, I actually don’t even know for a fact that Rush is a registered Republican. I just know that he said he didn’t contribute to the RNC.)

Y-not on March 11, 2009 at 5:57 PM

Limbaugh is stupid. Carville is stupid. That doesnt seem to be registering with you.

orange on March 11, 2009 at 5:33 PM

You are in the wrong place to try and take Rush out of context.

To many loyal listeners that HEAR the whole message.

Conan on March 11, 2009 at 5:59 PM

If this was Republican who said this just before high casualties from Vietnam were reported by Cronkite, that person would have been vilified and accused of being a traitor.

But because it’s a Democrat he’s allowed to get away with it by saying he doesn’t remember what he said but he does remember telling reporters to forget whatever he did say.

technopeasant on March 11, 2009 at 6:13 PM

Limbaugh is stupid. Carville is stupid. That doesnt seem to be registering with you.

orange on March 11, 2009 at 5:33 PM

No, no, no. You’re looking at it wrong. Limbaugh is merely saying what is natural for one sympathetic with the party out of power. Carville and the Democrats in and out of the MSM are hypocritical.

ddrintn on March 11, 2009 at 6:13 PM

^To spell it out more clearly, it isn’t that Carville was “stupid” in saying he wanted Bush to fail. It’s that he doesn’t really have any room for righteous indignation when Limbaugh says it, does he? Nor does anyone else in the media who’ve made a brouhaha over nothing.

To tell you the truth, I think there’s a subtle racism charge in all the “Limbaugh wants Obama to fail!!!” crap. “Limbaugh wants Obama to fail because Obama is black!!!!!!!!!” THAT’S what’s being said without being said.

ddrintn on March 11, 2009 at 6:17 PM

I cannot believe autopsies are still being performed on Rush’s “I hope he fails” comment. Is the simple, basically straightforward comment, really that hard to understand? People continue to twist and turn and rehash his intent ad nauseum. What is so difficult to understand about Rush not wanting Obama’s socialist policies to fail?!! If that is indeed Obama’s intent, and I believe it’s pretty darn clear at this point that it is indeed his intent- then I too hope he fails. I believe in the free market and limited government, as does Rush Limbaugh, so why on earth would we want Obama to succeed?

This has been dissected enough and it’s playing right into the hands of the left to continue twisting in the wind over this. I’m done with it.

alwaysright43 on March 11, 2009 at 6:20 PM

Carville was just on CNN’s Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer. Boy did he squirm. He doesn’t remember what he said minutes before 9/11 but he does remember telling reporters after the planes hit to forget whatever he did say. Hilarious!

technopeasant on March 11, 2009 at 5:47 PM

Here’s a report on his appearance…

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/11/carville-lashes-limbaugh/

Del Dolemonte on March 11, 2009 at 9:02 PM

Bill Sammon 1st highlighted this in his 1st book about the Bush Administration. I’m surprised he didn’t bring it up again before this…

Anyway, good work as always, Bill–& I hope Carville & his ilk FAIL!

youngTXcon on March 11, 2009 at 9:48 PM

(Subsidiary question: Did Carville really instantly change his mind or, rather, did he instantly realize that it was no longer politically safe to wish aloud for the president’s failure?)

1st thing that came mind

NY Conservative on March 11, 2009 at 10:18 PM

Your worse than Michael Steele at defending points of view. Sometimes I wonder why I open your stories. It is precisely the state of the economy is in and the course of action that Obama is taking. This is why Rush wants Obama to fail. He wants the tried and true course of action to get the country back on track rather then known doomed to fail policies being enacted to go through. I know we are supposed be more open to others within the GOP (AP), but that doesn’t mean we have to ignore history and head down a path we know leads us over a cliff.

lwssdd on March 11, 2009 at 10:35 PM

Waste management should contact Carville to be their spokesman.

lasertex on March 11, 2009 at 11:29 PM

It’s pretty damned simple: if Obama fails, America wins.

Has Obama ever said anything substantial (of course this eliminates every one of his Seinfeldian oratories, i.e. speeches about nothing) that convinces anyone here that he really has any genuine affection at all for the United States? Ever? Anything?

His aim is to quite clearly to destroy everything about America that makes her the greatest nation the world has ever seen; everything that makes her so unique and so f***ing successful.

Placed in this context–the proper context–to advocate for Obama’s success is basically treason.

DrZin on March 12, 2009 at 6:08 AM

“Unlike Mr. Limbaugh,” he added, who “kept insisting that he wanted the president to fail at a time of war.”

Quoted from the recently link article on Fox News.

Is this guy really this dumb? Limbaugh repeatedly kicks his ass and he comes back for more of a beating. It’s like he enjoys it when he embarrasses himself. I just dont get it.

What function does Carville fulfill?

What good does he do for the country?

What is his reason for existence?

rollthedice on March 12, 2009 at 10:25 AM

I’m sure that AP – as a dogged pursuer of truth over partisanship – will update this post to include the full text of Carville’s comments that has come out.

People basically like this president as a person and they want him to succeed, but they have some pretty serious doubts that have not crept in but are sort of there. You have almost half the country saying he is in over his head. Over half the country saying he is for the powerful. And as much as I would like for it or wish for it, they are not going to pull away completely from him months into his administration.

I don’t care if people like him or not, just so they don’t vote for him and his party. That is all I care about. I hope he doesn’t succeed, but I am a partisan democrat. But the average person wants him to succeed. It is his country, his life or their lives. So he has that going for him. There is a lot that is going to happen between now and next November. It is not that people don’t like him. It is not that people don’t want him to succeed but it is also not that he doesn’t have some serious underlying problems.

Hmm, doesnt sound quite as bombastic as Rush’s comments when you actually read the whole thing.

(that said, I still think both Limbaugh and Carville are useless)

orange on March 12, 2009 at 1:07 PM

Hmm, doesnt sound quite as bombastic as Rush’s comments when you actually read the whole thing.

How is the perceived level of bombast relevant?

Y-not on March 12, 2009 at 1:28 PM

Comment pages: 1 2