Home / Why Resign on Stating Fact?

Why Resign on Stating Fact?

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Democrats are demanding that Karl Rove resign because of his comments on the way liberals reacted to what happened on 9/11. John Kerry has set up a petition to force him to resign. What did he say? What were these outrageous remarks of his that prompted Democrats to demand his resignation? According to JohnKerry.com he said that “that Americans were offering ‘therapy and understanding to the attackers.'” Now what did he really say?

But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and 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. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to… submit a petition. I am not joking. Submitting a petition is precisely what Moveon.org did. It was a petition imploring the powers that be” to “use moderation and restraint in responding to the… terrorist attacks against the United States.”

Well, what is so upsetting about what he said? He said that moveon.org did something. That is a fact. He said that liberals (not necessarily only, or all Democrats) wanted to exercise moderation instead of dealing with it. Well, then. I see nothing wrong with that. He is simply stating what happened. At least he is not calling the President Hitler, or comparing our troops to the Nazis. Here is an idea to all the Democrats who are crying foul over this: get over it. It happened, guess what? Move On! Whining and screaming for him to resign does not make you look better.

Forcing people to resign for speaking the truth, or for saying a non-insulting opinion that may make you look bad is restricting free speech without using laws. Some of these people are the same people who may plan to vote against the flag-burning amendment, citing “free speech,” but they are restricting speech themselves!

By Abelardo Gonzalez

Powered by

About Abbie Gonzalez

  • Find an example of a handful of Democrats who suggested that the way to deal with terrorism was therapy, and I’ll recant everything I’ve said today on the subject.

    Rove said something ridiculous. Pure fiction. That conservatives would defend it is repulsive.

  • You killed your mother.

    There I said it.

    It’s fact.

    Boy that’s simple. i could do this all day (and it still wouldn’t be true).

    I can understand saying, “Well the other side did it so we shouldn’t have to apologize” (however small and childish that is) but to actually defend what Karl Rove said just proves you don’t really care about America or what it is really about.

    And you’re still a murderer. Child rapist probably too.

    This stating without facts is fun as long as there are people who don’t care either way and take assertions as facts.

    And, of course, you are neither a murder or a child rapist (as far as I know) but you do seem to be highly morally repugnant and an intellectual, dishonest featherweight.

  • David R. Mark: Frankly I don’t buy your bluff (“and I’ll recant everything I’ve said today on the subject.”) but you can chew on these [Dim]ocrat quotes none the less. While the word therapy may not be read in the following quotes the implication is. Sue them! Charge them! Pay for their yoga lessons! Anything BUT kill the freakin bastards before your daughters are wearing burkas.

    If you care for the links to each Email me, they mostly were eaten by the spam defensive measures employed here.

    December 2002: Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) On understanding terrorists more.

    We’ve got to ask, why is this man [Osama bin Laden] so popular around the world? Why are people so supportive of him in many countries … that are riddled with poverty? He’s been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. We haven’t done that. How would they look at us today if we had been there helping them with some of that rather than just being the people who are going to bomb in Iraq and go to Afghanistan?

    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.

    “We, the undersigned, citizens and residents of the United States of America and of countries around the world, appeal to the President of The United States, George W. Bush; to the NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson; to the President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi; and to all leaders internationally to use moderation and restraint in responding to the recent terrorist attacks against the United States. We implore the powers that be to use, wherever possible, international judicial institutions and international human rights law to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks, rather than the instruments of war, violence or destruction.”

    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, its the “feel good” army he desires.

    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 and along with your Party you’re both sitting whimpering like spoiled kids.

  • why resign on stating fact?

    If we can start a war under false pretenses, and nation build with little consequence, regardless of the fact that it runs counter to majority world opinion, and get away with it all scot-free, why do we even care if Rove speaks truth or falsehood anymore? The end result is the same.

  • Randy Case

    Actions speak louder than words.

    There are a lot of quotes from liberals taken out of context here. The Patty Murray one for instance. That was used on her before. But it turns out she was talking about what a challenge the U.S. was up against in the “hearts and minds” campaign in Muslim countries. PsyOps.

    There actions are in the Congressional Record. Liberals led the charge to take on the terrorists…even when W wanted to quit and go to Iraq.

    Tom Daschle sponsored the bill to go to war against the terrorists.

  • Denny Hix

    Osama bin Laden has to be proud of his boy Karl Rove tonight!

    Karl attacked half the American people, called them in cahoots with terrorists.

    He only served to divide the country and that’s what the terrorists want. Karl needs to apologize, resign, and beg forgivness of the troops he’s put in danger by making our enemies think we’re divided.

  • Patty Murray doesn’t know what she was talking about. Osama bin Laden never did anything positive for anyone in his life. He reaps death and destruction wherever he goes.

  • “use moderation and restraint in responding to the… terrorist attacks against the United States.”

    What does this mean exactly? I guess we have to ask ourselves, what IS a terrorist? What made Osama bin Laden a terrorist and not just a political leader with views we disagree with? Isn’t Osama’s goal of a religiously governed world fairly similar to the goals of many of our American Right Wing religious leaders? Laws based on some particular religions precepts? Religion trumping secular laws and beliefs? Restriction of abortion due to religious beliefs(they have that in Iran also). Why isn’t Pat Robertson a terrorist? It’s because Pat Robertson shows SOME “moderation and restraint” in spreading his beliefs.

    Osama bin Laden shows NO “moderation and restraint” in spreading his beliefs and thus finds it justified to kill 3000 civilians in NYC. I believe it is the LACK of moderation and restraint that DEFINES Osama as a terrorist.

    If America does NOT show “moderation and restraint” in responding to terrorists, what DOES separate us from the terrorists? Is it just OUR terrorists, versus THEIR terrorists? This is not a rhetorical question, this is a specific question. Just saying “if you don’t know the difference, you’re hopeless” is NOT the answer to this question. Prove to me that YOU know the difference between a terrorist and an American.

    “Moderation and restraint” is not a surrender. You know what this statement means? It means attacking and defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan and then putting SUFFICIENT RESOURCES to actually rebuild that country. It means NOT attacking another country in the middle east with no particular connection to the people who attacked us on 9-11 and thus CREATING thousands of terrorists and CREATING a worldwide anomosity to the United States where only a narrow range of anomosity existed before.

    That is what happens with an “immoderate and un-restrained” response to terrorism. Are you saying that conservatives are the party of “immoderation and lack of restraint”? Is letting yourself strike back wildly in a method that gives you some personal satisfaction but is NOT effective a conservative trait? Sounds like conservatives in this vein are pretty much living in a self-centered world. Time to grow up and try and actually address the problems of America instead of responding like a 4th grader in a school yard scuffle.

  • ApathyOnline:

    Not only is Karl Rove absolutely fucking full of shit, causing another huge divide in this country’s politics, he’s also doing something that I find absolutely vile and despicable in any polititian: exploiting 9/11. I’m sick of these execrable neo-conservative scumbags (and yes, it is almost always the neo-conservatives who play this card) exploiting a NON-PARTISAN NATIONAL TRAGEDY in which most assuredly both liberals and conservatives alike lost their lives for a purely PARTISAN AND DIVISIVE purpose.

    Of course, you’ve already proved the extraordinary subjectivity of your view by referencing Durbin’s remarks. Anyone who really took the time to pay attention to what he said would know that he wasn’t actually comparing Bush to Hitler or America’s troops to Nazis. On the other hand, any idiot with half a brain can see the Rove’s statements are partisan bullshit.

    And by the way, I would hardly say this piece qualifies as “News.” I’d argue that is should probably be classified under the “Opinion” category, but I think it actually serves as quite an effective “Satire” of your neo-conservative ilk.