June 24, 2005
DO DEMOCRATS REALLY WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS?:
White House Stands Behind Rove Comments (JIM ABRAMS, 6/24/05, Associated Press)
A White House official said Friday the administration finds it "somewhat puzzling" that Democrats are demanding presidential adviser Karl Rove's apology or resignation for implying that liberals are soft on terrorism."I think Karl was very specific, very accurate, in who he was pointing out," communications director Dan Bartlett said. "It's touched a chord with these Democrats. I'm not sure why."
Congressional Republicans earlier joined the White House in standing solidly behind Rove, saying he shouldn't apologize and that he was outlining a philosophical divide between a president who sought to win the war on terrorism by taking the fight to the enemy and Democrats who questioned that approach.
Karl Rove more and more resembles Abe Saperstein.
MORE:
WHY THE LEFT IS LOSING (KARL ROVE, June 24, 2005, NY Post)
Below are excerpts of a speech delivered by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove at the New York State Conservative Party dinner on Wednesday. Most of the talk focused on changes on the right that have led to the Republicans' recent national success. But it is these comments on the left that have generated controversy. — THE EDITORS [...]Posted by Orrin Judd at June 24, 2005 10:36 AM[P]erhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in 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, the liberals believed it was time to submit a petition. I'm not joking. Submitting a petition was precisely what Moveon.org, then known as 9/11peace.org did. You may have seen it in The New York Times or The Washington Post, the San Francisco Examiner or the L.A. Times. (Funny, I didn't see it in the Amarillo Globe News.)
It was a petition that "implored the powers that be" to "use moderation and restraint in responding to the terrorist attacks against the United States. I don't know about you but moderation and restraint is not what I felt when I watched the Twin Towers crumble to the ground, the side of the Pentagon destroyed and almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble.
Moveon.org and Michael Moore and Howard Dean may dominate the Democratic Party and liberalism — but their moderation and restraint is not what America felt needed to be done, and moderation and restraint was not what was called for. It was a time to summon our national will and to brandish steel.
Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said we will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said we must understand our enemies. Conservatives see the United States as a great nation involved in a noble cause of self-defense. Liberals are concerned with what our enemies will think of us and whether every government approves of our actions.
Has there ever been a more revealing moment than this year. when the Democratic senator, Democrat Richard Durbin, speaking on the Senate floor, compared what Americans have done to prisoners in our control in Guantanamo with what was done by Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot — three of the most brutal and malevolent figures of the 20th century?
Let me put in this in really simple terms. Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Sen. Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.
Sweet Georgia Brown by Brother Bones
Posted by: h-man at June 24, 2005 11:13 AMAre the Democrats the Washington Generals?
Posted by: jdkelly at June 24, 2005 12:43 PMNo - they are the 1962 Mets.
Posted by: ratbert at June 24, 2005 01:22 PMNot bad, but Mr. Rove will have to work harder if he wants to match the spittle-flecked invective of Dean, Reid, Kennedy, Pelosi, and the other denizens of the fever swamps of the left. Which reminds me, why haven't any of them apologized, resigned, or committed seppuku (preferably all three)?
Posted by: Axel Kassel at June 24, 2005 01:48 PMHmmm, I don't think Mr. Rove mentioned Democrats and from what I've read the Democrats don't like to be called liberals. So why are they upset??
Posted by: Rick T. at June 24, 2005 03:11 PMI think Rove was dead on, except for the "motives of liberals" crack. It sounds like he's saying that the motive of liberals is to put our troops in danger, which is going too far. I have no doubt some not-insignificant fraction of the American left wants that, but not the average liberal.
It would have been better and more accurate to say "short-sightedness" or "poor judgment" or "confusion" or something.
Posted by: PapayaSF at June 24, 2005 04:55 PMDead Americans is good politics if you oppose the war.
Posted by: oj at June 24, 2005 05:24 PMoj:
Why? I thought Bush was immune to public pressure.
Posted by: at June 24, 2005 06:07 PMAnon: weak GOP senators aren't immune
Posted by: Bob at June 24, 2005 07:53 PMBlasted decentralized power!
Posted by: at June 24, 2005 08:17 PManon:
It's not about changing Bush's mind, but defeating him.
Posted by: oj at June 24, 2005 08:57 PMYes, and he's certainly vulnerable. He stretched his executive tether as far as it would go with Iraq, and that hasn't quite gone according to script. That's why your global freedom crusade fantasies will remain just that.
Posted by: at June 24, 2005 09:52 PMIt's pretty precisely to script--Iraq has a sovereign elected government. Peace is re-established between Israel and palestine with de facto statehood for the latter and de jure to follow. Palestine and Lebanon elected governments. Libya gave up its WMD program. Egypt, the Sa'uds, the Kuwaitis, etc. are having elections and election reform. And so forth and so on.
We should have left Iraq much sooner, but the President is stubborn that way.
Posted by: oj at June 24, 2005 10:43 PMvulnerable to what, a kancho attack ?
Posted by: cjm at June 24, 2005 11:14 PMYou neglected to mention the big wrinkle called insurgency. Two years of Humvees getting blown up has cost him all his capital (not to mention his forces) for a second preemptive attack. Had the war ended cleanly in '03, different story. If we leave a civil war in our wake, worse still and his Wilsonian rhetoric looks more foolish. The next big military gamble (if Americans haven't lost their stomach for such things) will fall to President Hillary. Remember, the impetus for all this will be 4 years away soon.
Posted by: at June 25, 2005 01:31 AMHe doesn't need any capital for pre-emption--it's his military.
Posted by: oj at June 25, 2005 07:44 AMThese comments seem to be a pretty clever move on Rove's part. Democrat leaders are getting incensed and taking to the talk shows where they are being asked by commentators if, therefore, they reject Moveon.org and Michael Moore as I saw on Fox last night. Nice to see Democrats in a squeeze like this.
Posted by: L. Rogers at June 25, 2005 09:41 AMThen why did He bother with all the WMD talk before the last war? Why make the case for it at all? Why tell the public their sons are dying for a worthy cause?
Where did you get this oddball notion that the president is Riechschancellor?
Posted by: at June 25, 2005 01:57 PMTony Blair felt that he needed another UN resolution in order to get Parliament to follow him. He figured WMD was the issue that might get one. W told him to give it a try.
Every war we've fought in the 20th and 21st century was based on trumped up circumstances. You can't stop a president who wants a war.
Posted by: oj at June 25, 2005 02:08 PMThe circumstances are "trumped up" in order to convince the public. Even if we allow your paranoid theory, the president never gets more than one war. Bush had his. His hands are tied for the remainder of his term.
It's still government by the people, not a person. And becoming ever more so. The closest thing we ever had to a dictator was FDR, and even he had popular backing.
Posted by: at June 25, 2005 02:39 PMNo President has ever been denied a war, and Bush has already had two.
Posted by: David Cohen at June 25, 2005 05:13 PMNot our public--it was trumped up for the British public.
Posted by: oj at June 25, 2005 08:35 PM