For the record

For the record

: Yes, Karl Rove is an ass. But you didn’t need me to tell you that.

This liberal wasn’t calling for therapy. This liberal was calling for bombs.

  • Ethan

    Of course. The most raging leftist I know–a respected academic, how perfect is that–was also the most gung-ho about Afghanistan. “Let’s nuke the bastards,” that sort of thing.

  • On the other hand, why is a little over-the-top red meat permitted for Democrats in a political context and not Republicans?

  • paladin

    It seem like every day some politician or political operative makes an offensive comment, followed by howls of protest by the offended with the obligatory calls for apologies and resignations. Of course, I noticed the press picked up Rove’s comment in light speed time compared to Durbin’s, but what can one expect from our deeply partisan MSM press?

    What’s unique about this Rove frenzy is that Republicans were ready for the Dem/libs/progressives/left/whatevers and their presspals by throwing back all the “offensive” comments the Dem/libs/etc. have made over the years—-and there is plenty of ammo for the Republicans. When Hillary demanded Pataki denounce Rove, Pataki called her a hypocrite and mentioned her comments on the Senate floor when she implied GWB knew about the 9/11 attack in advance.This is great theatre!

    Too bad everyone who makes one of these ill-advised comments isn’t required to actually resign—-it would clean up government pronto!

  • Ethan

    “On the other hand, why is a little over-the-top red meat permitted for Democrats in a political context and not Republicans?
    Posted by Sluggo at June 24, 2005 10:00 AM”
    Example, please.

  • This kind of statement is evidence that the Bush administration’s agenda is in its last throes.

  • franky

    It’s not just red meat for the Republicans but was deliberatly said in order to further alienate Democrats – that’s the republicans entire policy now: polarize the country further and further. How does it feel to support an administration that seeks nothing higher than an irrevocable split in the population?

  • Paw

    It seems as if politicians on both sides of the red/blue line have taken to replacing the actual business of government with name calling and vitriol. It is certainly a convenient way to distract the American public from the sad reality that our current group of elected officials has no real vision relative to solving the true long term problems of this country (health care, job security, economic stability, energy policy). If these people spent as much time on these issues as they did trying to label each other unpatriotic, something might actually get accomplished.

  • franky

    Sullivan is such a dick sometimes. He’s been good on the torture, but that little commissar in him can’t be hidden for long. The man who spoke about fifth columns and now says “I took names at the time” – sounds just like a little KGB informant.

  • Mick

    I’m a liberal as well, but I’ll provide no cover for the anti-war left. I vividly recall Walter Cronkite on David Letterman ascribing 9/11 to the desperation of poor people and the imperialism of the U.S. I recall the whispered conversations during the combat phase of the Iraq war, wishing earnestly for high casualties in order to wean the U.S. from war. I recall the “screw ’em” comment by Markos Moulitsas as “mercenaries” had their dead bodies hung for display in Fallujah.
    Sleep with dogs, get up with fleas.

  • Does Rove realize that he’s not just condemning some political figure, he’s going after people who are doing the administration’s work for them. Never having served I suppose limits one’s vision.
    Actually, as I know some liberals serving in the military, a few in Iraq, it seems a little more than just screwy for some one who depends so heavily on the military to be accusing them of undermining themselves and threatening their own lives.

  • Shorter Karl Rove:
    “What? You want to judge this administration on its merits? 9/11! 9/11! 9/11!”
    Reference to the September 11th attacks as a rhetorical strategy is becoming more and more like Godwin’s Law and name-checking Hitler–a surefire indicator that rational discussion on a political topic has come to a close.
    Funny that the Republicans don’t seem to mind cheapening the tragedy by invoking it to get any and every bit of jackass legislation they can think of passed (e.g., the flag-burning amendment)…

  • Rove’s comments remind me of Dick Armey’s remarks a few years back to a Jewish audience in Florida that there were “two kinds of Jews”–those of deep intellect, who work in the practical arts and sciences and coincidentally tend to vote red; and those of superficial intellect, who study the liberal and fine arts and (surprise surprise!) overwhelmingly vote along blue lines. Complete and utter horseshit.
    But in truth there *are* two kinds of people–those who divide the world into two kinds of people and those who don’t…

  • Mike

    Hey Ethan, your example is in paladin’s post, sheesh, wake up will you!
    If you want examples relating to Rove’s comments, Ankle Biting Pundits has a number of them.
    The Democrats are really falling for this ploy hard. Making a huge stink of this and asking for resignations is just dumb, do you really want some of the comments by prominent liberals brought up again. Think about it.

  • I recall the “screw ’em” comment by Markos Moulitsas as “mercenaries” had their dead bodies hung for display in Fallujah.
    That’s your proof that the Left is against war and/or the troops? Wow. QED, I guess. Never mind that Kos was directing his scorn not at our men and women in uniform but those who sell their loyalties to the highest bidder. But whatever gives you that holier-than-thou sense of moral righteousness…

  • David

    >This liberal was calling for bombs.
    And you had no problem even it if was innocent Iraquis that were being bombed even though they had nothing to do with 9/11.
    If Bush had any guts he’d have gone after the real muderers (The Saudis or the Pakistanis) and there would have not have been even one negative comment from any liberals.
    He knew he couldn’t do that so in order to appease people like you he decided to “liberate” innocent iraquis by bombing the hell out of them.

  • franky

    “The Democrats are really falling for this ploy hard. Making a huge stink of this and asking for resignations is just dumb, do you really want some of the comments by prominent liberals brought up again. Think about it.”
    Jesus, I’ve seen hackery, but you wingnuts just continue to astound. Where does one even begin with such trash as this? Is it the admiring tone when speaking of such a vile political smear? is it the sheer hypocrisy that allows you to see this as a brilliant political move, but get outraged in your so clear on-off way when someone from the opposition says something a fraction as controversial?
    I never really worried for the future of this country as I essentially felt that with few exceptions we probably all shared similar goals for the country and the world. But to see the mainstreaming of such wingnuttery and the little poodles who rush to support it is starting to become creepy.

  • Holding My Breath

    And you had no problem even it if was innocent Iraquis that were being bombed even though they had nothing to do with 9/11.
    I have trouble taking seriously people that posit the notion that Iraq had nothing to do with Qaida prior to our invasion. Given the obvious links that were out in the open, I find it ridiculous to contemplate that they just arrived there magically after we took out Saddam.
    As far as innocent civilians are concerned, only a cold blooded bastard wouldn’t care about them. But the fact is that our only other choice would be to adopt the philosophy of not attacking our enemies if innocent people might also get hurt.
    I prefer attacking our enemies, while ever attempting to develop new tech and strategies that minimize the damage to innocent life. I think we do that, but then, I look at most of our soldiers as heroes and not criminals.
    If Bush had any guts he’d have gone after the real murderers (The Saudis or the Pakistanis) and there would have not have been even one negative comment from any liberals.
    In part, I don’t disagree, but I find your comment interesting. I guess they must all be guilty in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. No innocent life there huh?
    My point is that there is innocent life everywhere. Don’t let that cripple you in the face of a very real threat.

  • Dammit! The liberals are using Rove — who is just calling them on their B.S.!!! — as a smokescreen to DISTRACT the American public from their FASCIST SCOTUS ruling on eminent domain!!!
    [Yes, I’m joking. For the humor impaired on the left, this is how many Democrats reacted to Republican complaints about Howard Dean’s rhetoric]
    And seriously… despite obligatory complaints about Dean, it’s pretty easy for the right to laugh off what he said because it’s so wacky. The Rove comments clearly hurt the left more because they hit closer to home.
    Jeff Jarvis should know better, considering how often he is attacked by Oliver Willis and others for breaking with party orthodoxy on just this very issue. JJ is an exception, not the rule, in a party currently dominated by Michael Moore, MoveOn.Org, and nitwits who post pictures of themselves on the internet holding signs that say “I’m sorry”.

  • Robert

    As a “librul” who server in the Army (according to Rove I am a traiter BTW), I remember, in regards to saluting, “When in doubt, whip it out” – meaning if you aren’t sure – salute anyway.
    For the Bush Administration, salute = 911. When in doubt, whip 911 out.

  • Holding My Breath

    As a “librul” who server in the Army (according to Rove I am a traiter BTW)…
    I’m not defending his statement, but unless you are swing voting liberal, I don’t think he cares.

  • franky

    How would you react if the boss of your company called you a child-molester? I guess you could laugh it off. Now imagine if you react strongly, so a little assisstant to the boss starts to tell others “because they hit closer to home”.
    And your claim that the right laughs off Dean’s comments is pure bullshit. They manufacture their fake outrage because after all that’s all that motivates you – hatred and fear. There’s not much laughter in fear or hatred.

  • Holding My Breath

    Does anyone out there think there is a difference between referring to ‘Liberals’ and referring to Republicans?

  • Ethan

    “Hey Ethan, your example is in paladin’s post, sheesh, wake up will you!”
    Paladin’s post is supported by nothing. No facts. No evidence. And the ankle-biter is so amateurish it’s embarrasing.
    You guys are losing. $20 says the GOP has lost the House and Senate, and the Presidency is no longer in their control, by 2010.

  • Dammit!!! Franky’s just calling me on my B.S.!!! As a smokescreen to distract the American public from the fact that Rove was right!!!
    Rove quite accurately described the blame-America-first movement that currently controls the megaphone on the left. Jeff Jarvis is clearly an exception, just as many other Democrats and liberals are; but is the fact that the fringe is driving the party’s agenda Karl Rove’s fault, or the fault of the party that allows the fringe to run amuck?
    I hold many liberal views myself, believe it or not. The liberal in me was not offended by Karl Rove’s remarks, because I don’t consider doing things like comparing the behavior of US troops to the behavior of Nazis as “liberal” (and spare me the semantical defenses). There is clearly — *clearly* — a faction on the left, loud and strident, working against the war effort, and they have done a great job of infecting the more vitriolic leaders of the Democratic party. Blaming “right wingnuts” for speaking on this uncomfortable truth is not going to make this very real dilemma for Democrats go away.
    Even if Rove had not uttered a word, this would continue to be an obstacle for Democrats seeking to regain control of government. Contrary to Ethan’s prediction, it is this faction that has allowed the Republicans greater opportunities. And Rove probably would not have uttered a word, save for the odd dynamic of that very fringe growing louder and more powerful in the face of such criticism — and for the left to help him underscore what many Americans across the board recognize to be a problem in the Democratic party.

  • franky

    the only hope is that the supporters of the administration have got to such a point of hubris that they’re no longer trying (see as the most minor example your outright lie that the right laughed off Dean’s comments – so confident in your hand you don’t even feel the need to even approximate the truth) – and as the greeks taught us hubris is the arrogance before the fall.
    You mention the comparison to Nazis. It was a question – if you heard the FBI testimony about what was occurring to those prisoners (who let’s remember are not guilty of anything so far – now surely there’s some guilty in there, but until any sort of judicial process we have no idea how many are guilty and how many innocents are undergoing torture) and didn’t know where it was occurring, what country would you say was responsible? Further, could you imagine hearing of this in an American prison even three years ago?
    Reasonable questions and of course as we all know the wingnuts answer reason with froth and gas.
    And don’t bother with the “I’m a liberal myself” routine – you support torture or even more weasely excuse it away, you lost any claim to being a liberal.

  • EverKarl

    I think that with some reflection, you might conclude that people on the left and right are both capable of having both real and manufactured outrage. And that the automatic, categorical imputation of bad motive to those with whom you disagree puts one in the same box with Dean and Rove.
    As Ollie has not done his drive-by yet, it falls to me to remind you that you are not a liberal; you are a fifth columnist for the VRWC. I demand you resign from something.

  • Aren’t Liberals and Soci-alists the same thing? Democrats lean a little less left. Jeff, if I wasn’t aware of your self professed Liberalism I’d guess your were Neo-libertarian.
    Maybe you are a Liberal except in the classical sense of the word.
    PS. The word soci-alist is blocked by your swear defense software.

  • Geez! There’s that “H” word, again. Dean came unglued early in the Democratic primaries, and it’s “hubris” to consider him not much of a threat?
    No question he’s the current red-meat guy for Democrats. But the diff between him and Rove is that Rove is a deft politico who has been instrumental in keeping Dean’s party out of power, whereas Dean… well, Dean’s got a job.
    And no serious Republican that I know of has called for his resignation in the same passionate tones that the left has now called for Rove’s resignation. That’s the other diff. You want Rove out because he’s effective; Republicans want Dean right where he is because he’s not.
    Ooh, hubris will be my undoing!
    BTW, what treatment of prisoners is considered *not* torture by the left right now? At the moment, the left is presenting the American public with the dual standard (and I’m not being facetious about this) that even holding terrorists/enemies of the US is somehow evil and wrong, while the wholesale butchering of Halliburton employees is a cause for celebration, or at least snarky disregard (“screw ’em”).
    And this stance is *exactly* why Rove’s comments will ring true for most people (whereas Dean’s charges of racism ring hollow lodged against an administration in which Condoleeza Rice is one of its most powerful and influential players and a party that is likewise influenced by her)
    This is all part of the Democratic conundrum of the moment, one of the reasons that the last two elections have been especially disastrous for them. If Democrats feel like they have nothing to explain or justify before the next midterms, that’s fine. Keep harping about the same irrational things that were harped about the last two times around; keep demanding that everybody else account for things that simply need not be accounted for (such as indefinitely detaining belligerents in the midst of war); and you will guarantee more Republican encroachment, not less.

  • And I second EverKarl’s call for JJ to resign from something! Oliver Willis will just have to take a back seat on this one.

  • franky

    Absolutely some on the left can manufacture their outrage on cue (most notably and mind-numbling boringly on the topics of gender or race). But look at the left and right-wing media. Rush Lmbaugh’s entire show is made up of outrage, as is that certifiable moron Hannity. Now, admittedly just two examples, but i think reflective that now outrage is the staple of the right-wing diet.
    And really I’m trying not to impute bad motive, but I can’t see any other motive when people are selectively outraged or justify torture.
    “BTW, what treatment of prisoners is considered *not* torture by the left right now?” yeah and then claim you’re not “being facetious”. Does that FBI testimony sound like torture or not?

  • Rove’s comments might describe the attitude that the radical left has about terrorism. But to say that liberals in general are “soft” on terrorism is a hideous distortion.
    Yet practically all mainstream liberals supported the war in Afghanistan. How does Rover explain that?

  • Aren’t these your friends, Jeff?

  • In short Karl Rove was completely off base and, in the least should have limited his accusations to specific people. He should apologise and correct his statement.
    He should not be forced to resign anymore than Durbin should be forced out of his leadership spot.
    By sticking to the high road either side will be all the more believable the next time they condemn their oposition.

  • Liberals wanted action against the Taliban when they were executing women for adultery and blowing up Buddhas, while the conservatives were busy cutting the bastards checks for being good allies in the “War on Drugs”. And if it wasn’t for Tony Blair’s insistence, this administration would have hop-scotched Afghanistan entirely after 9/11 and immediately invaded Iraq. So enough with the revisionist history a la Karl Rove…

  • Remember, the conservatives blamed 911 on abortion rights and homosexuals.
    And I can quote Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson to prove it!

  • Liberals are in league with the devil! I can quote a satanist who votes Democratic to prove it!
    [Another joke! I have to point that out because I have a terrible feeling that some people *aren’t* joking when they say things like this]
    Liberals wanted action against the Taliban when they were executing women for adultery and blowing up Buddhas, while the conservatives were busy cutting the bastards checks for being good allies in the “War on Drugs”.
    So it’s OK to enter a country just because we find their domestic policy offensive? But to enter a country whose leader indulges in genocide and other atrocities, invades his neighbors, violates peace treaties, acts evasive about weapons programs, and holds a grudge against the US to the extent that he attempts to have a President assassinated — *that* action by comparison is “pre-emptive” and “illegal”?
    At what point were liberals hamstrung on their Afghanistan invasion, btw? During the short pre-9/11 period when Bush had pledged to concentrate on domestic matters? During the much longer eight-year Democratic administration that preceded his? During the previous 40 years of Democratic control of the house? Since you’re referencing the War on Drugs, do you maybe mean the 80s, under Reagan? Wouldn’t the Soviet presence during that entire time have been problematic? But, no… if the war was to be over Buddhas, you’re looking at March 2001. The same crowd that wants to put Bush on trial for ousting Saddam says they would have been right there shoulder to shoulder with him if we invaded Afghanistan simply because we were *peeved*.
    I’d love to see these liberal war plans on this one.

  • Linda Edwards

    “You guys are losing. $20 says the GOP has lost the House and Senate, and the Presidency is no longer in their control, by 2010.”
    The price of oil is on its way up again. If this continues, I’d have to agree with you Ethan. Nothing pisses off Americans more than the high price of gasoline, not even being told lies as a reasn for going to war.

  • Ptolemy

    If the Dems would stop hating the country or at least large sections of it they could have both houses today. Do you care enough about your fellow Americans to understand what we want and respect what we believe? That is what keeps you out of power now. It doesn’t have to be a struggle. We don’t need or want a self-titled aristocracy telling us what is best. Respect who we are and the battle is over.

  • EverKarl

    I’m glad that we agree about manufactured outrage. I note that you refer to “left and right-wing media,” but the only examples you gave were right-wing. I’ll assume you are aware of left-wing examples; if not, I’ll be glad to point to a steady diet of outrage on the left, inside and outside the media.
    And since you referred to the justification of torture, I think you may have not fully understood the reaction to Sen. Durbin’s speech. I grant you that there may be those who simply don’t care about the treatment of the detainees in Cuba. But others were were offended by Durbin because: (1) no matter how you slice it, Camp X-Ray is not a Nazi death camp or a gulag — making the comparison cheapens the victims and survivors of those systems; (2) the statement tended to broadbrush all personnel at Camp X-Ray; (3) the fact that it was the number two Democrat in the Senate making this exaggerated claim means it will probably turn up on Al Qaeda recruitment videos and marginally increase the risks to people who have nothing to do with Camp X-Ray; and (4) the flap makes it more difficult to actually discuss the torture issue (I’ve heard the “raising awareness” claim, but raising the issue in this way strikes me as destroying the village to save it). You may or (more likely) may not agree with some or any of the above, but there is a segment of the public that does agree with them who do not justify torture. I guess I would caution you against assuming that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity speak for everyone who generally supports the war.
    I don’t know who Jeff’s friends are. I do know that friends can have disagreements and remain friends. In fact, that can be the test of true friendship. Unfortunately, there is a class of people who cannot tolerate any disagreement with their worldview. Such people generally have few friends. Those people tend to end up alone and seething with bitterness.

  • franky

    Everkarl, I can see the points you laid out and while not agreeing with most of them, understand them. One thing i would question though is the criticism of the messenger. If our standing goes down in the world it will be because of those who tortured and those who facilitated torture. We can never get in to a situation where we blame those who tell us of the torture.
    I understand those who were upset about the Nazi comparisons and I don’t think that they’re appropriate either (but that’s simply because having studied history retarded historical analogies of any stripe annoy me), however I think Durbin raised the point in the right way – reading testimony and then asking in which country do you think it occurred? I believe many of us are simply staggered that whole swathes of the population are simply excusing, if not outright supporting, torture (and then of course there’s the scum like powerline selling gitmo t-shirts – what a bunch of classy guys). So hyperbole is what is being used in an effort to draw Americans attention to it. And the fact is that unfortunately, these things did occur in the KGB prisons, they do occur in North Korea and they do occur in Zimbabwae. And they occur in a little legal limbo that we are administering.
    And a final point – these people may be innocent. What the hell are we supposed to say to innocent people tortured by us? That type of stain is not easily removed from a nation’s conscience.

  • Linda Edwards

    Ptolemy, if dems would stop hating large segments of the country? After what Rove said? Just who is it that hates large segments of the country?
    I’m a social liberal (damned proud of it too), and I stood behind Bush after 9/11. I strongly supported the war in Afghanistan. But I was mortified when I realized Bush was abandoning the real war on terror in order to pursue his illegal venture in Iraq for his own personal, vengeful, ideological reasons. And look where’s it’s gotten us. Over 1700 soldiers killed (and counting), over 12,000 injured (counting again), thousands and thousands of innocent Iraqis killed, over 322 billion dollars appropriated (as a fiscal conservative, that one hurts), terrorists abound, loss of international credibility (fyi, you can’t fight a global war on terrorism if you have little credibility), homeland security is a joke, borders more poreous than ever, an FBI computer system that doesn’t work (millions of dollars down the drain there), etc, etc. We were the Patriotic Americans that realized the folly and tried to warn the rest because we love our country and knew Iraq would be a ridiculous waste. To have that imbecile Rove throw out insults now for political purposes is vile and despicable. Of course, I wouldn’t have expected anything less from that creep.
    It’s great now that the country is finally awakening from it’s 9/11-induced coma. It’s hard to think clearly and logically when you live in constant and often irrational fear, especially when that fear is perpetuated by your own government. That’s the difference between Bush and the great Presidents we’ve had who worked hard to calm the citizenry during times of crisis (be afraid, be very afraid).
    Still, watch out for those oil prices!

  • Ptolemy

    Liberal is not really geographic. The Copperheads Rove is discussing are not a large section of the population, thank God. Southern is geographic and many a loving liberal poster on this site has had many “not nice” things to say about 50 million of their own fellow Americans who happen to live south of Mason-Dixon. If just 20% of that disrespect could be projected outwards towards real enemies the Dems wouldn’t have lost the last three national elections.

  • Ptolemy

    I know you are being honest to yourself with what you say Linda. Thank you for just laying it out clearly as you see it. I just don’t see it at all like you and Franky see it. I don’t think there is common ground from even the beginning and thats why I am very confused with the Left today. I can’t believe I used to be a part of it.
    My support for Iraq falters at times but I still believe it is better to smash the hateful cultures that spawned these terrorists to begin with.
    The terrorism going on in Iraq goes on in every country with a significant Muslim population and there is no need to pretend that the wanton murder being performed on Iraqis is America’s fault. We could have already been gone if the animals would accept a better future. They kill because they are comfortable with it and it is their only way of expressing themselves. Get mad at the terrorists not the victims.
    How does the Left mock the death of fellow Americans who go to Iraq for a job opportunity that will help Iraqis rebuild their nation and yet worry and fret over the savages locked up in Cuba? I know not every Leftist is as souless as Kos but I doubt he received much heat from his side of the political spectrum. The contractors deserved what they got but the terrorists deserve freedom and our support? You’ll just have to slander me and count me among the cross-burners I guess. I’m not buying that BS.
    Why won’t the left stand up in righteous anger over terrorist tactics in Iraq right now and state for the BBC and Al Jezeera that we will not back down from their depravity. Why must all the energy be spent taking America down. Why is unilateral disarmament always the choice of the Left in any of America’s conflicts?

  • This is funny: the Dallas Morning News declares “Karl Rove saw the savagery of the 9-11 attacks and exploited it for political gain.”
    See Applause, applause.

  • Jane

    In case you haven’t noticed, in many places you are not welcomed as a “liberal” if you are a hawk on the war. I’m called a “fascist” and a “neocon” for my position, but never ever ever a “liberal” or a “moderate”.
    Which brings me to your post about moderates taking back the night – or day if you prefer. I’m willing to go there, but we need some leaders. More than that we need to infuse some tolerance back into the system.

  • Ptolemy

    Dallas won’t be the only place journalists will rise up in defence of their masters. When will the first reports on Rove’s private life make front page news?

  • Kat

    Karl Rove is one smart man–he wasn’t talking about you, Jeff. He was talking about your lunatic fringe–the guys you’d call leftwing nutjobs.

  • If memory serves, it was not liberals, but Karl Rove’s own boss who introduced diagnoses of mental illness into the war debate. One of George Bush’s post-facto explanations for deciding to invade Iraq rather than believe Saddam Hussein’s assertions that Iraq possessed no Weapons of Mass Destruction, was that he, Bush, could not “take the word of a madman.” Maybe Saddam will use Bush as a witness for an insanity defense at his war crimes trial.
    Speaking of trials, what is Rove’s attitude about the proecution and conviction of Zacarias Moussaoui by his administration’s Justice Department? Rove believes that using indictments in the War on Terrorism is something liberals do. Rove is the first to insinuate that John Ashcroft deserves the L-word.

  • franky
    Is everyone here defending Rove’s remarks also drunk?

  • Kat

    Actions or inactions speak louder than words. What did the Democrats do all the times that muslim fanatics attacked Americans under Clinton–they appeased, they covered up, they played coochie coo with the terrorists. Rove is right. Had Democrats been in power on 911 we’d have proclaimed a handful of terrorists did the dirty deed and then we’d chant islam is peace and send more money to help oppressed muslim terrorists build dirtier bombs. And we’d have built a memorial at Ground Zero proclaiming our faults and singing the praises of those wonderful terrorist citizens among us who danced in our streets on that day.

  • Tony

    “Had Democrats been in power on 911…”
    These kind of assertions are such bullshit….its amazing that they’re considered acceptable forms of discourse. Worse than the worst straw-man arguements….

  • Linda Edwards

    Ptolemy, I don’t understand why you and yours can’t see that this is a result of alot of frustration. You know as well as I that 9/11 was just the excuse Bush was looking for to justify going into Iraq. No shred of credible evidence exists supporting Bush’s allegations of WMD and al-Qaeda connections, which were the two main reasons Americans supported the war (sorry, no matter how hard you try, humanitarian reasons were not it).
    I was against going into Iraq, 100%. However, once our boots were on the ground there, I and just about every like-minded individual I persoanlly said, Ok, now that we’re there and we’re powerless to stop it, let’s just get this done and get our soldiers of there in one piece. Little did anyone know the disasterous lack of post-invasion planning. Time after time this administration bungled. Repeatedly this adminstration showed its incompetance. But they simply would not listen to anyone (how dare you question us, you insignificant flea), not even their own State Department. As a result, the insurgency spawned (they were warned it would happen), and now our soldiers are getting killed at an alarming rate and our treasury is being looted to support Bush’s folly. Every report that comes from the CIA, FBI, etc are telling us we’re in big trouble. Rumsfeld himself opined, “Are we creating more terrorists that we’re killing?” That was a very interesting and telling question, because it has now turned out to be the truth. Our questioning Bush about his tactics did not cause this to happen. So we’re not safer, there is no Iraqi oil flowing, our country is more divided than ever, etc. Heaven forbid that anyone should dare to disagree or try to point out that something has gone terribly wrong, because they are automatically shouted down and branded a traitor (we screwed up and it’s all your fault).
    Personally, I’m rather sick and tired of being blamed for the mess that we tried to avoid. The problem won’t get fixed as long your side is in denial, because emotion and ideology always trumps logic and common sense. Wishful thinking is in abundance, and wisdom is SORELY lacking.
    It’s interesting to me that you single out democrats to despise for what you say (erroneously, I might add) was the lack of proper outrage after 9/11. Libetarians, closely related to Republicans, were split on this subject:
    Where is your outrage against the likes of Pat Buchanan when he says, “the reason the terrorists are over here is because we are over there”.
    “My support for Iraq falters at times but I still believe it is better to smash the hateful cultures that spawned these terrorists to begin with.”
    Ptolemy, please think about it, it’s simply not reasonable. First, we’re never going to “smash” their culture. There’s billions of Muslims in the world. Besides, isn’t it within our own culture that the likes of the terrorist Timothy McVeigh was produced? While we’re at it, it’s the same mentality with serial killers, and we’ve had plenty of those. We have lots of violent behavior in this country, we just don’t always label it terroristm. I don’t know about you, but I rather love my country and my culture. I’d hate to see it smashed because of these animals. As McVeigh & Co. proves, it’s not our culture, it’s the individual (personal responsibility).
    Excuse me, but I don’t know of any American, left or right, that mocked the death of the contractors killed in Iraq. It was sickening. Here’s a morbid reality for you. I’m sure you remember when Nick Berg was beheaded and the gruesome act was splashed all over the internet? The link to that page was emailed to someone in my office. The two people in the office that supported the invasion the most rabidly, two people that personally insulted me and my patriotism because of my opposition, were the first two people who scrambled, and I mean falling over each other, to the computer where the video was playing so they could watch. Watching our own guy being beheaded! Those two morons did exactly what the terrorists wanted. That’s the reality Ptolemy. More people than you’d like to admit on your side support this war for no other reason than they’re full of hate and bile, because it’s part of their personality.
    FYI, my grandson, an army reservist, was in Iraq last year (he calls it “a good war”, we just smile). We expect that he’ll be going back again next year. Why in God’s green acres do you think we’d be supporting the terrorists? We just want Bush to take his head out of his ass, conduct this effort with some intelligence and show real leadership. He’s not showing leadership if he allows his chief political advisor to deliberately alienate half the country (what an imbecile!). That’s just not the mark of a good President.
    Whew, I’m done now (finally).

  • Rootbeer

    I was especially disappointed by Rove’s followup remarks, wherein he suggested that conservatives drive their cars like THIS while liberals drive their cars like THIS.

  • Ptolemy

    To Linda:
    Thanks again for your clear response. I’m not a sensitive writer so my words are often much harsher than my regular feelings.
    The cultures to be smashed are the present political cultures in these countries. I did not make that clear.
    I’ve hated Buchanan, Falwell, and the Religious Right since 6th grade and will never be put in a position of defending them.
    The humanitarian cause was often used to throw into the faces of Liberals since you are the party that cares for people’s suffering unlike Conservatives and your arguments made you sound indifferent to Saddam’s crimes.
    You didn’t support the war and you feel Bush has been to indifferent to strategy failures and the lives lost – fair enough. I don’t see it that way, but I won’t mock your feelings on that particular issue.
    Kos most definately mocked the death of those contractors and as you know, his is a very popular website with the Left:
    “Never mind that Kos was directing his scorn not at our men and women in uniform but those who sell their loyalties to the highest bidder.” – Jersey Exile – the Left of Rove’s speech (incarnate)
    What does Bush need to do differently? All I hear Dems screaming is “Withdraw! Withdraw! Halliburton!” You want to be taken seriously? Get serious.
    I don’t doubt one minute you care for your grandson and you do not personally cheer for American death and defeat. You have allies in the anti-war movement that feel differently and some of them are in our Congress.
    McVeigh was not a hero to any but the most inbred freaks. I had no problem seeing the one American example (so precious to Leftists arguments) executed for his actions. There were not thousands of Americans marching and cheering for McVeigh as there were Muslims (Mexicans and Chinese too, I read once-not proven) marching and cheering for Osama.
    You want equivalence so you can avoid being the racist bigot you feel your fellow Americans are. We have an ugly enough history for sure but your nation deserves better from you in evaluation.

  • Linda Edwards

    Ptolemy, I’ve never read Kos, never heard of him, except on this blog. I do alot of reading, but never bothered to check him out. So I have to question just how many of us “lefties” (I prefer “sensibles”) follow him.
    Glad to hear you have issues with the religious right, they were the main reason I turned off on the National Republican Party back in 1980. I said that as soon as the Republicans stop selling their souls to this group, I will consider voting for them on the national level again. FYI, we have had moderate Republicans in my state that I’ve still voted for, as long as they’re socially liberal, but fiscally conservative.
    I’m always interested, often passionate, about humanitarian causes. However, you have to be smart about it and you can’t put yourself into the middle of the hornet’s nest, especially without broad international support (Global War on Terrorism). You have to measure the cost vs the reasonable (stress reasonable) expectation of success/reward. And you also have to question motives. This war wasn’t sold to us as a humanitarian cause. We were supposed to be afraid, very afraid, of WMD and links to al-Qaeda, while the real reasons were ideology, revenge and oil.
    Only a lunatic would cheer for our failure. Thinking that an increase in violence and death in Iraq would somehow benefit the Dems is not substantiated by the facts. If you’ve noticed, at least until the last couple of months, when things were going badly over there, Bush’s approval ratings were higher. But when things were quieter in Iraq, like the period from the Jan elections until March/April, Bush’s approval ratings went down, because people were more focused on domestic issues, which are Bush’s weaknesses.
    OK I won’t use McVeigh anymore. But then I’ll have to use Bundy, Son of Sam, BTK, Hillside Strangler, etc. This has only been to point out that many cultures are prone to violence, even our own. That may be the price to pay for our freedoms.
    I curious about why you think the Dems are the ones responsible for getting us out of this mess, when it was Bush that got us into it. Though I want to be hopeful, in reality I don’t see this is going to have any kind of good resolution. In the end, I think we’re going to take our lumps. My point is that Bush has already proven his incompetence several times over, so why continue trusting that he’s going to do any better in the future, considering that he won’t even acknowledge that there are major problems.
    Last week, I heard Joe Biden list off at least five things that the adm could do to try to resolve some of our problems. But the adm won’t listen, as usual. It’s their way, period. Doesn’t matter how valid the suggestions are. They … won’t … listen!
    My last point is this. Our misadventures in Iraq have left us vulnerable, and not just because our military is overstretched. The rest of the world, most notably our enemies (which there are more and more of them all the time), have seen that we are not invincible. The mystic has evaporated. After the fall of the Soviet Union, we were seen as the only remaining superpower, literally feared by all, at least respected by most. No one would ever go up against us without paying severe consequences. But we’ve shown that indeed you can attack us, and get away with it. If we had used our full military machine and manpower to go after bin Laden, we wouldn’t have the terrorist production line that we have now in Iraq. It would have been a significant symbolic victory, and in the Middle East, symbolism is very powerful.
    Now we’re seen as incompetent and reckless. We can’t get a grip on a country of only about 25 million, in spite of our military superiority. It was Republican Chuck Hagel last week said we’re losing the war. We’re not feared as we once were, and that will create obstacles for us in the future, economically, politically, militarily.
    BTW, my nation deserves the best. That’s why I can’t understand why Bush was re-elected. He’s who I’m evaluating, not my nation. My nation is the most fantastic place on the globe, and its founding principles must be cherished and defended. And that’s what I’m doing.

  • Ptolemy

    I found many things to agree with on your latest post. If Dems could end their speeches the same way you ended this post, Rove’s speech would have been a true lead balloon. As it is, they are squwaking and fretting because they are so easy to attack these days. I hated the Reps in the 90s and I very much hate the Dems today.

  • Linda Edwards

    I’ve been disgusted by the Dems, so many of whom acted spineless when they should have stood up for principal, and were waaaay too concerned about polical pandering. That wasn’t very smart, was it? You see how far that got them, eh?
    I found the MSM to have acted just as cowardly.
    However, in my opinion, I find the Reps in DC (with notable exceptions like McCain) to be far, far scarier. Power-trippin’, dangerously scarier.
    I wish we could have a more choices, but the political system has been deliberately set up to restrict competition. Perhaps someday, someone with vision and charisma, along with millions who are fed up and determined enough, avoiding the in-fighting that sunk the Reform Party, will form viable alternative.
    So we agree and disagree, and that’s cool. So glad to be able to discuss without going off the deep-end (I’ve occassional been guilty of that).