So Karl Rove suggested that liberals and some Democrats treat the War on Terror as a law enforcement action and they demand a resignation. They equate Dick Durbin's stunt and subsequent non-apology ("I'm sorry if you misunderstood me") and say Karl Rove should go through the wringer.
The problem is he was just telling it like it is. The following is the list of senators that demand trials that are illegal under the Geneva Conventions:
And of course, Hillary, Bill, Kennedy, and others. When you talk about how we need to try these guys in the criminal system when we caught them on the field of battle, you might just have to forgive them for thinking you view this as you wanting to treat this as a criminal action.
They cry foul when Rove suggested their concerns are at understanding the terrorists, yet their OWN 2004 party platform says that is what they want. Quote: Increasing public diplomacy to promote understanding and prevent terrorist recruitment. At the core of this conflict is a fundamental struggle of ideas: democracy and tolerance against those who would use any means and attack any target to impose their narrow views.
The fact of the matter is, Rove was 100% spot-on, and the Democrats know it's a loser to face their views head on.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Pete Blackwell
No, Rove stood right next to ground zero and said that liberals had a weak response to 9/11. It's b.s. (as you well know) and it's reprehensible political grandstanding.
2 - RJ
On the morning of 9-11, I was just getting off work (night shift) and relaxing at home. My roomie alerted me to the attacks that were being broadcast on the radio.
For the next several hours, I was attached to the TV as I called my loved ones.
So, at some point, I fell asleep, because I had to work that night.
And that night I was glued to the TV.
One thing I recall, was watching MSNBC and listening to the Leftist Jon Alter whine about how this attack might actually result in the US being on a war-footing.
He WHINED, folks. He truly lamented the possibility that the US might use its military against these monstrous terrorists.
Karl Rove was right. Many on the Left were not so much appalled about the attacks and the American deaths as they were at the thougt that we might actually go on the offensive.
3 - Marc
Hey Pete Blackwell, here is your "BS" and "reprehensible political grandstanding."
Here is the leftist mantra in the form of a petition as wrtten by the leftist moonbats otherwise known as Moveon.org 48 hours after the twin towers fell.Here is more proof leftists are limp wristed pussies:December 2002: Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) On understanding terrorists more.
Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), 10/1/01, Roll Call: "I truly believe if we had a Department of Peace, we could have seen [9/11] coming."
Al Sharpton, 12/1/02, New York Times, on the 9/11 attacks: "America is beginning to reap what it has sown."
Rep. Marcy Kaptur, 3/1/2003, Toledo Blade: "One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped cast off the British crown."
Here are a couple more from the Democrats who now claim that Rove has gone beyond the pale:
Senator Joe Biden, 10/22/01: How much longer does the bombing campaign continue? Biden asked during an Oct. 22 speech at the Council on Foreign Relations. Were going to pay every single hour, every single day it continues. (Miles A. Pomper, "Building Anti-Terrorism Coalition Vaults Ahead Of Other Priorities," Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 10/26/01, no link)
Senator Joe Biden, 10/22/01: The Bombing Campaign, [Biden] Said, Reinforced Existing Stereotypes Of The United States As A High-Tech Bully ... (Ibid.)
Representative Dennis Kucinich, 9/30/01: Sitting In His Capitol Hill Office Last Week, Near A Window Where He Could See The Smoke Rising From The Pentagon On Sept. 11, Kucinich Insisted He Is More Optimistic Than Ever That People Worldwide Are Ready To Embrace The Cause Of Nonviolence. ... Afghanistan May Be An Incubator Of Terrorism But It Doesnt Follow That We Bomb Afghanistan ... (Elizabeth Auster, Offer The Hand Of Peace, [Cleveland, OH] Plain Dealer, 9/30/01)
And here is why John "The Baroque Candidate" Kerry got his ass handed to him and is now relegated to sniping from the sidelines:
Senator John Kerry, 4/19/04: "I will use our military when necessary, but it is not primarily a military operation. It's an intelligence-gathering, law-enforcement, public-diplomacy effort," he said. "And we're putting far more money into the war on the battlefield than we are into the war of ideas. We need to get it straight." (Washington Times, 4/19/04)
Yea well... the majority did get it straight Kerry. Along with your Party I might add.
4 - Nancy
Yeah, but the big problem is Bush screwed up, too, by not using enough force, either in Afghanistan or Iraq. If he'd have employed the nuclear option right off, there would most definitely been a lot fewer insurgents around to insurge. Y'can't be a base for terrorist training et al when you've been reduced to a sheet of molten glass.
5 - Shark
Bush.
Iraq.
ahahaha.
WMDs.
Nada.
Flowers and kisses.
Nada.
Liberators.
Huh? Occupiers, maybe.
Going on three years.
THREE YEARS after "Mission Accomplished"
No end in sight.
Quagmire.
"...insurgency is in its last throes..."
No end in sight.
Five female soldiers died today, June 24.
Americans KILLED SO FAR IN the 24 DAYS OF JUNE: 61
Average: 2.67 dead Americans per day
But the day is young.
Thanks, George!
Historical Note: Clinton was impeached for getting a hummer in the Oval Office. G. W. Bush was reelected.
6 - td
I'm a liberal, but i'm also the first to admit that the Democrats were useless after 9/11. America wanted a responce to 9/11, and Bush provided a policy to fulfill America's need for a responce. The democrats didn't provide an alternative responce, and so america followed Bush into Iraq. Not because it was the right responce, but because it was the only one on the table.
It disturbs me that America went with the easy solution. That it went after the syndrome (Iraq) of the problem and not the cause (Saudi Arabia), just because the syndrome was something they could blow up.
But I don't blame the republicans. I expect them to push the military option because that's what they're voters believe is the cure-all.
I blame the democrats for not having the balls to stand up and tell the people what it will actually take to reduce islamic terrorism. IE: Reduce oil consumption. Until this is done you don't have the ability to apply political pressure on Saudi Arabia and other countries that both breed the ideology and fund it.
And this is why Iraq is such a mistake. Because the longer the war goes, the more support for anti-western ideology grows. But I don't blame bush. I blame the democrats.
7 - Jake
China, North Korea, have at us -- our "conservatives" have spent all our defense budget on Iraq. And just to help military recruiting, they've just dissed the patriotism of ever liberal family in America.
8 - John Bambenek
Jake:
As opposed to the Left, with Dick Durbin calling our soldiers Nazis? Al Queda doesn't even need propaganda anymore... the Democrats in the Senate are doing the job for them.
It isn't the right that has been consistently demoralizing and attacking the military.
9 - Scott
"As opposed to the Left, with Dick Durbin calling our soldiers Nazis"
Strange, he never said that. Stop making stuff up, ya loony.
10 - John Bambenek
If A=B and B=C then A=C...
If the interrogations being described at Gitmo would make you think Nazis were responsible, and the military runs Gitmo and the interrogations, then the military is a bunch of Nazis...
Do the math.
11 - Steve S
If A=B and B=C then A=C...
wrong.
If the Dixie Chicks = A and country music = B and radio airplay = C, then we have this:
A=B so The Dixie Chicks = country music.
B=C so country music gets radio airplay
But The Dixie Chicks don't necessarily get radio airplay, so A doesn't necessarily = C.
12 - John Bambenek
Yeah... great analogy. And the Dixie Chicks ARE getting radio airplay last I checked... despite their seditious behavior.
13 - Eric Berlin
I think John's equation and rationale are an exquisite insight into much of the partisan hackery that passes for political analysis nowadays.
14 - Scott
John, show me where Dick Durbin said "Our soldiers are Nazis" and I will believe and agree with you.
15 - John Bambenek
I've done this before, let me repeat...
It's not difficult but I realize some here may be products of public education.
If Gitmo is run like a facility that would be confused with Nazis, Pol Pot, with no regard for human life, and our military is the ones running Gitmo...
Then the military apparently has no regard for human life and can easily pass for Nazis if you don't check the flag on their uniforms.
It's not a stretch. It's exactly what he said.
16 - Steve S
and our military is the ones
should be 'and our military is the one'. Sorry, thought I should point that out, some here may be the product of homeskooling.
Do a check, John, on the number of times that Republicans have used Nazi or Hitler references in the context of terrorism and 9/11 for political gain. John Stewart has a great running thread in his show about it. Starting with Rush's 'feminazi's, conservatives have pretty well watered down any Hitler references to have no real significance to people anymore anyway.
17 - Shark
td: "I'm a liberal, but i'm also the first to admit that the Democrats were useless after 9/11."
Oh man, even the "liberals" are being hypnotized my the Bush Marketing Machine into accepting this blatant bullshit.
Karl Rove, 6/23/05, in a bit of marketing spin meant to counter the anti-war-in-iraq polls among Americans: "...liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers..."
"The elected branches of our government, and both political parties, are united in our resolve to fight and stop and punish those who would do harm to the American people." -- October 26, 2001, President Bush
(Wake up, America, you *somnambulent motards.)
18 - Eric Berlin
How about this math:
Durbin apologized for what he said.
Rove (who basically called anyone who didn't vote for Bush a terrorist sympathizer/appeaser)...
Still waiting.
19 - John Bambenek
No, should be "are the ones". And I wasn't homeskrooled either.
As opposed to Democrats who use Nazis references and really mean it...
20 - John Bambenek
Eric Berlin:
Saying "I'm sorry if you misunderstood" is not an apology. It's saying you are too stupid because you got offended at me calling you Nazis... You should take your kick in the ass and move on.
An apology would be, "I'm sorry for what I said. I was wrong in my choice of words and should not have analogized our military to the likes of the Nazis, Pol Pot and others."
21 - Eric Berlin
There's actually a litany of times that conservatives have busted out the Nazi Card in making comparisons about various things.
I don't think Rove should resign, but I do think he owes an apology, even if it's of the wishy-washy Washington variety.
As a native New Yorker, what he said angered me.
22 - John Bambenek
I'm sorry you are angered by the truth but Rove didn't need to resort to Nazi references, he simply resorted to the actions of liberals on 9/11.
It's a 100% true statement. When the towers came down liberals were clamoring with "why do they hate us", we shouldn't "rush to war", and heck, some started the outright sedition campaigns we've all come to know and hate.
23 - Daryl McCullough
John Bambenek wrote: I'm sorry you are angered by the truth but Rove didn't need to resort to Nazi references, he simply resorted to the actions of liberals on 9/11.
Let me read you a quote from Rove: "Let me put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts to the region the words of Sen. Durbin, certainly putting America's men and women in uniform in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals," Rove said.
That doesn't sound like to me that Rove is saying that liberals are soft on terrorism, it sounds to me that he is saying that their motive is to endanger the troups. He specifically said motives. So he's not just complaining about Democratic ineffectiveness, he's accusing them of treason.
24 - Daryl McCullough
John Bambenek wrote: If the interrogations being described at Gitmo would make you think Nazis were responsible, and the military runs Gitmo and the interrogations, then the military is a bunch of Nazis...
No. How ridiculous. Durbin's point is not "We behave like this, therefore we are Nazis", it is "We are not Nazis, therefore we shouldn't behave like this." Durbin was exhorting us to live up to our own standards.
25 - John Bambenek
Daryl:
And I think that sentiment is 100% accurate. You DO put them in danger with the incessant (and incorrect) scandals you keep beating on until something sticks.
Al Queda doesn't need to produce propaganda, they just broadcast the DNC.
Is it treason? Maybe... sedition is more accurate.