Karl Must Go! Posted by: Dale Franks
on Thursday, June 23, 2005
Democrats are taking exception to a speech given by presidential advisor Karl Rove last night.
White House adviser Karl Rove should either apologize or resign for saying liberals responded to the Sept. 11 terrorist strikes by wanting to "prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," Democrats said Thursday...
Rove, Bush's chief political adviser, said in a speech Wednesday that "liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Conservatives, he told the New York state Conservative Party just a few miles north of Ground Zero, "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."
Rove said the Democratic Party made the mistake of calling for "moderation and restraint" after the terrorist attacks.
Democrats were quick to respond and in growing numbers.
"Karl Rove should immediately and fully apologize for his remarks or he should resign," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a statement. "I hope the president will join me in repudiating these remarks."
I hope the president doesn't. Why should he, when MoveOn.Org's post-911 web petition indicates that Mr.Rove's statement was simply an accurate characterization? In fact, it was a quote.
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.
*Emphasis mine—Ed.
Unless you're going to somehow make the argument that MoveOn.Org is a Republican 527 organization, then I think the charge is perfectly valid.
I will build alliances and ooperation. I will make America safer. But 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, 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.
Now, I actually agree with him. Moreover, based on the fact that we're engaged in active military operations in two countries and diplomatic and intelligence-gathering activities in most others, I'd say the Bush administration agrees with him, too. Finally, it's worth noting that the Democrats were squarely behind the war in Afghanistan.
But that seems to be where they stopped. The Democrats were prepared to use the military to prosecute the War on Bin Laden, but beyond that they...ah, wanted to prepare indictments. For many—not all!—of them, the War on Terror began and ended with Afghanistan, with Bin Laden, and with an attack on the symptom (Al Qaeda) rather than the problem (a tyrannical region that facilitates militant Islamic Fundamentalism).
That's a fair thing on which we can disagree, but let's at least admit that there was a point at which the Right thought military solutions were appropriate, while the Left thought non-military solutions were appropriate. That's clearly the case.
On the other hand, the statement that "No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals", with the implication that a citation on Al-Jazeera is [what exactly is it?] is troublesome.
If there's anything for which Rove should apologize, it's the implicit question he raised with that statement. We question the Left's conception of the War on Terror, not their motives.
I'd agree with Baseball Crank who said in the comments: "Rove, like Dean, severely overgeneralized."
[NOTE] Good points made elsewhere:
Tom Maguire notes that the "therapy and understanding" statement was preceded in the NYTimes story by: "Citing calls by progressive groups to respond carefully to the attacks, Mr. Rove said..."
So, again, he didn't exactly make it up out of thin air and our citations here are not post hoc justifications.
Joe Katzman at Winds of Change has many more, including this statement from a pretty prominent liberal...
Liberal Donor George Soros Claimed America Should Have Treated 9/11 Attacks As Crime, Responded With Police Work.
"War is a false and misleading metaphor in the context of combating terrorism. Treating the attacks of September 11 as crimes against humanity would have been more appropriate. Crimes require police work, not military action.
I know several people who responded to 9/11 exactly as Rove described and continue reacting to the Terror War this way even today. But let’s not forget that regime-change in Afghanistan polled at 90 percent support levels at the time. Assuming every single person who opposed that war is on the left (which is probably close to the truth) somewhere in the ballpark of 80 percent of those who voted for Al Gore or Ralph Nader supported the violent overthrow of the Taliban.
The 10 percent who didn’t support it do not count as “the liberals.” They are the loudmouth activistas, Hollywood celebrities, campus intellectuals who live in unreality bubbles, and reactionary far-leftists. There was, however, so much wailing and gnashing of teeth from that ten percent that I can hardly blame conservatives for forgetting about the silent majority of hawkish Democrats at the time.
Would this be the same Harry Reid who called George Bush a loser and a liar, and later said that he would only retract the "loser" comment? Could this be the same party that has its chairman calling Republicans people who never did an honest day's work in their lives, the party of "unfriendly ... white Christians" and who "hates Republicans and everything they stand for"? Surely the party that has stood up and demanded civil trials for captured terrorists instead of the military detention they require and bemoaned the loss os sympathy that the world had for us on 9/11 cannot have taken offense at Rove's assertion that "liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."
The inaccuracy is one of categorization; it is with the word "liberals". It wasn't liberals—even the Teddy Chappaquiddicks of the world —who were signing onto MoveOn.org petitions and rallying for "restraint" in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. The movers and shakers there were a rather motley collection of Greens, socialists, and anarchists, and to the extent that they shared a common ideological taxonomy they were simply "leftists", not "liberals". [...] Now, I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that the leftists arguing for peace, love, and understanding were not merely the lunatic fringe: at least a one Democrat congresscritter is on record in that manner, and it's clear that the MoveOn.org and DU constituencies are more and more (and more and more disturbingly) the Democrat mainstream. But "liberal", I think, is a misaimed spear—it hits guys like Michael Totten and Christopher Hitchens, rather than Michael Moore and Cynthia McKinney. The former are people I'd want in my foxhole regardless of our ideological differences; the latter are, er, not.
But Dale, as I’ve found in my perambulations around the blogosphere:
Moveon.org, Professor De Genova, Cynthia McKinney, Howard Dean, the various protestors holding signs saying "We support our troops when they shoot their officers," Barbara Lee, none of these folks actually speak for liberals!
Whereas Karl Rove speaks for conservatives, and the actions of a handful of soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq (while absolutely deplorable and who should be punished) evokes images of gulags and Nazi einsatzgruppen for the US military as a whole. (Let me be specific here: Where there have been instances of violence to prisoners, the perpetrators should be found out and prosecuted. But unless someone provides evidence that there is a policy for this, the comparison to gulags, death camps or Pol Pot is simply ludicrous.)
In short, "group guilt for thee, but not for me" seems to be the order of the day.
Small wonder, I guess, that no one thinks Howard Dean should apologize for maligning Republicans (who’ve never worked an honest day in their lives), since it’s actually true, but holding Democrats to the words of one of their largest fund-raisers is dirty pool.
I’m not sure Crank ... wasn’t it John Kerry who offered that terrorism was really a legal and criminal problem (thus indictments would be the appropriate way to go)?
John Kerry spoke out at the time against the way the Bush Administration policies failed to capture UBL at Tora Bora; using surrogates instead of US troops.
Bush wasn’t so concerned about terrorism when he took a long vacation in August 2001 after repeated warnings that an attack was coming.
Are you a moron? Do you think for a nanosecond (if you think at all) that the POTUS goes on vacation without any communications? Do you? Do you believe that if the President isn’t in town the entire fucking US government takes a day off while tumbleweeds blow through the DC streets?
I really love the comments from people who don’t seem to know very much about anything.
It’s a sign of weakness - W’s poil numbers are bottoming out, Iraq is a loser, oil prices are sky high - along with home prices. The deficit is ballooing, the Bolton nomination seems dead, Bush’s domestic agenda is going nowhere, OBL is still on the loose, and W doesn’t even know what "disassemble" means. Rove plays the "Dems are Traitors" card. It’s the only one he’s got. He certainly isn’t getting by on his looks, you know.
Karl knows the light at the end of the tunnel is another train.
Kind of makes Dean’s (true) remark that the GOP is a white Christian party look tame by comparison.
Conservatives, he told the New York state Conservative Party just a few miles north of Ground Zero, "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."
On 911 America was attacked by terrorists from a third world country, following a leader from the same third world country, funded by wealthy fanatics from the same third world country and adhering to the state religion of the same third world country.
Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11, assessed the strength of the opposing third world country and decided to attack a couple of fourth world failed states instead. Yay Conservatives, bravely defending America.
You are living proof of the Left’s coddling of terrorists. Its hard to understand those who support people who behead people in their spare time and conduct massacres of kindergarden students in the same fashion other people attend the Rotary. But thanks for demonstrating the mind set of the Left.
The really sad thing is after Durbin once again demonstrated the Left’s idea of patriotism we saw how many Democrats attack him for his slanders? Now we get to hear their whinning when they are depicted for what they are. People who can’t graps reality; people who will always excuse the excesses and brutality of the evil of the world while castigating the US at every opportunity for forcing lemon chicken on said child killers.
Every day we see evidence of terrorist cells being uncovered in the US. Those who believe as you do are always noted by history to be the foolish and ignorant, but then I repeat myself.
Calling for moderation and restraint in no way implies advocating "offer therapy and understanding for our attackers", as much as Rove and others might like to charachterize it.
Many people on the left (and from all over, to be entirely fair) were afraid that we would lash out and do things that we may later regret, because of the outrage and fear that we all felt from 9/11.
If you remember this in the context of the many people who were advocating turning the middle-east into a "nuclear parking lot" and some who were even advocating genocide... its not at all hard to wonder why some would call for moderation and restraint.
That does not neccesarily imply the gross mischaractherization offered up by Rove. As some of you may recall, the post 9-11 invasion of Afghanistan was a bi-partisan and multi-national effort. While there are those on the left that oppose any use of American force on principal, that hardly charachterizes all who have come to oppose the war in Iraq.
I opposed the war in Iraq prior to its occuring for various reasons... I knew that the WMD claims and implied terrorist ties where unsubstantiated, and I knew that Iraq posed no direct or credible threat to the United States. Yet now I tend to find myself agreeing with the posters on this blog who advocate that there is real measured progress in Iraq and that it would be irresponsible to leave at this point. Whats done is done, and we have a responsibility to see it through?
Does that make me "soft on terror" lefty or does that make me a "stick to your guns" conservative? I dont know, and honestly I dont care.
I’m sick of liberals whining that their patriotism is being attacked. But how ironic that all of these Dems, who broke the sound barrier in their quest to find a microphone to speak on these remarks had NOTHING to say when Durbin broke Godwins law (and do we need to expand that law to include Gulags and Killing Fields references now?)
It’s very telling that the Dems rush to defend themselves but don’t give shit 1 about the troops.
How so? Given my comments above, how does a call for moderation and restraint translate into
offer therapy and understanding for our attackers
? How does this appeasement liberal mindset explain the near unanimous decision, Republicans and Democrats, Europeans and Americans, about the legitimacy of the invasion of Afghanistan?
It’s very telling that the Dems rush to defend themselves but don’t give shit 1 about the troops.
Your justification for this generalization is....?
So by calling for the overthrow (by any means neccessary) of a tyrannical dictatorship that is breeding terrorists I am "living proof of the Left’s coddling of terrorists"?
You support a President who’s idea of a hard response to tyranny and terrorism is to walk along hand-in-hand with the dictator of a terrorist sponsoring state. A President advocates slow & gradual change of this tyranny achieved through diplomacy in alliance with the tyrant.
John Kerry spoke out at the time against the way the Bush Administration policies failed to capture UBL at Tora Bora; using surrogates instead of US troops.
John Kerry said Friday he would put Osama bin Laden on trial in U.S. courts rather than an international tribunal to ensure the "fastest, surest route" to a murder conviction if the terrorist mastermind is captured while he is president.
"I want him tried for murder in New York City, and in Virginia and in Pennsylvania," where planes hijacked by al-Qaida operatives crashed Sept. 11, 2001, Kerry said in his first interview as the Democratic presidential nominee
.
Sounds like a "legal approach" to me. You’d certainly need an indictment to try him for murder in NY wouldn’t you?
But how ironic that all of these Dems, who broke the sound barrier in their quest to find a microphone to speak on these remarks had NOTHING to say when Durbin broke Godwins law (and do we need to expand that law to include Gulags and Killing Fields references now?)
He didn’t McQ. I merely pointed out that the Dems rushed to condem THESE comments but had very little to say regarding Durbin—and that is very revealing.
Including the fact that they obviously thought the shoe fit.
It’s very telling that the Dems rush to defend themselves but don’t give shit 1 about the troops.........Your justification for this generalization is....? .
LOL have you been paying attention? If not, see my above post
LOL have you been paying attention? If not, see my above post
You assume that Democrats unwillingness to criticize Durbin implies that they "dont give two shits about the troops". I thought that Durbins comments were inflammatory and over the line, but I never deluded myself into thinking that he was attempting to malign our troops.
Of course since you see them that way through your idealogical lens, you assume that everyone else sees them that way too.. so that anyone who dosent immediately step out to condemn your imagined offense must automatically be complicit in said offense.
Actor James Woods told Jay Leno: "I love George Bush right now" because he’s handling terrorism in a "very deliberate, very careful" manner. Woods maintained on NBC’s October 12 Tonight Show: "... It’s a good thing I’m not President because I would have just [motioned hand to press a button launching missiles] launched. Okay, I’m sorry, I just would have. But our President and I just, I love George Bush right now and I always have. I’m the only guy in LA who voted for him [audience applauded]. And I have to tell you the way he’s handling it is very deliberate, very careful and so on and doing the right thing."
What we have now IS the moderate and restrained reaction.
The "just launch" option is still there, though. If the war in Iraq (with proxies from Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc) starts, in future, to seem to conservatives to be going as badly as it now seems to be going and have gone to liberals, then we have room to escalate—to win at any price.
Is that REALLY what peace-lovers want? Do they really think we wouldn’t, if provoked? More to the point, do they want to bet Shrub wouldn’t?
Bush may have the "just launch" option removed from his arsenal before he has a chance to use it.
If electorate begins to think that Bush does not have an option that will allow the war to be won. The point where Bushiites will see the war as going badly is well past the point where swing voters see the war as going badly. If this happens before midterm elections then the Republicans could lose one or both houses to a Democratic Party set on withdrawing troops.
A lame duck President attempting to escalate a war against the wishes of Congress?
Durbin’s comments were unnecessary rhetoric that is being used as propoganda for the enemy. I don’t think he did this on purpose either, but that doesn’t change the result. Some things shouldn’t be politicized. He crossed the line and no one in his party publically spoke out against it. Where are the reasonable Dems? I really want to see one because the Republicans being the default/only option is just wrong.
I would’ve been much more impressed with the Dems had they said Durbin went too far, but unfortunatley that doesn’t fit their agenda of getting back into power at whatever the cost.
Durbin’s comments were unnecessary rhetoric that is being used as propoganda for the enemy. I don’t think he did this on purpose either, but that doesn’t change the result. Some things shouldn’t be politicized. He crossed the line and no one in his party publically spoke out against it. Where are the reasonable Dems? I really want to see one because the Republicans being the default/only option is just wrong.
I would’ve been much more impressed with the Dems had they said Durbin went too far, but unfortunatley that doesn’t fit their agenda of getting back into power at whatever the cost.
Rove has read the situation just right. Exhibit A: the lame comments of the lefties on this blog. They are lost in the “it depends on what the meaning of “is” “is” debate which amounts to “if the world was like it should be instead of like it is, we would be right”. Rove has pointed out that when the Democrats stood in the station and had to either take the train to Albuquerque or the one to Houston, they chose Albuquerque. Now that the thinking portion of America is headed for Houston, the lefties don’t have a clue what to do about it except to howl bad things about Houston and how the overcrowding on the Houston train is taxing the air conditioning, and maybe they were wrong to take the Albuquerque train, but it would still be the best choice if only everyone would abandon Houston and quit saying bad things about Albuquerque and come to Albuquerque. However, no Democrat can answer why we should go to Albuquerque, just what is wrong with going to Houston. Rove has the right of it and the Democrats must own it. Rove is just pointing out that the Democrat emperor has no clothes (and is getting mighty cold in the air conditioning on the train to…, oh well.)
You assume that Democrats unwillingness to criticize Durbin implies that they "dont give two shits about the troops". I thought that Durbins comments were inflammatory and over the line, but I never deluded myself into thinking that he was attempting to malign our troops
Of course he wasn’t. He just didn’t give a shit who he may have damaged in his zeal to score a cheap point against the Administration. And once the damage was done, he never even bothered to retract his statement. Go ahead- read his "apology". He’s sorry IF someone thought his remarks went over the line. Some apology. And I didn’t hear peep one out of Dean, Reid, Schumer, Kennedy Pelosi or Clinton.
So what if the troops were the ones who will suffer because of his remarks? They were between him and Bush dammit! He didn’t care, the Democrat leadership didn’t care. Barack Obama? Nothing to say. When Mayor Daly is the one who has to snap Durbin back to reality, you’re scraping bottom of the barrel.
But darned if the Dems couldn’t find something to say about these comments though.
Defame the troops: ZERO RESPONSE Defame "liberals" : MASSIVE COORDINATED ATTACK RESPONSE.
Got it. Priorities have been revealed for all to see.
Ah, Shark, me boy, and you’ve put the truth to it now, haven’t ye. And all that’s left is to watch the lefties faunch and twitter and decry the lack of WMD’s and "hey, let’s hope the casualties went up today, else we’ll have naught to say". Rove put the lie to them, didn’t he? Lack of WMD’s plus casualties adds up to an alternate foreign policy ...just where, does it?
Rove is talking about a specific point in time and general trends of opinion among public figures at that time.
By October of 2001 Hollywood, most prominently, had portrayed the distinctions between those opinions. James Wood, cited above, was on one side—and acknowledged that in Hollywood his was a distinctly minority view. On the other side we had Ed Asner, Mike Farrell, and others of "Not In Our Name".
Conservatives took one view of how to carry on the work of the passengers of Flight 93. Liberals took another.
If anybody has taken offense at Karl Rove’s hastily proffered remarks regarding that time and division, I’m sure he wishes that he’d chosen his words more precisely. With direct quotes and attributations, perhaps.
GEORGE BUSH IS NOW THE MOST POWERFUL MAN IN THE WORLD: People always say that about Presidents, of course, but usually it’s only notionally true. Now, if he wants to nuke Baghdad, there is nobody to say him nay—and damned few who would want to. That’s a danger if he goes off half-cocked, but I don’t think there’s much risk of that.
