Redstate

but you can google plenty of evidence that Rove's comments on how the terrorists should be treated (as a police matter not a military one) and how we should strive to understand them better, I might struggle on the therapy comment.

I think the dems are really mad because Rove was far more clever in his delivery.

If the shoe was on the other foot, so to speak, and the terms in question were conservative and Republican, would you not be outraged?  To many people, liberal = Democrat, and conservative = Republican.  Really, you're referring to the pacifist, left-wing liberal fringe.  How many in Congress voted against going to war in Afghanistan?  Rove was smearing with a broad brush with his comments.  Why defend them on a technicality?

what he said was the truth?

not every democrat is a liberal.

not all liberals are democrats.

who said the stuff that Rove referred to?

liberals.  the fact that they happen to be democrats is something, but Rove is too smart to say democrats.

he should have said "some liberals" rather than just "liberals" but i have a feeling the democrats would be just as angry and up in arms about it.

Liberals may have said the things Rove referred to, but not ALL liberals said such things.  If some extreme right wing group (not sure who to use as an example, but you can fill in the blank) promotes wacky ideas, is it supposed to reflect on all conservatives?

I'm tired of all the political nonsense that's going on, on both sides, and yes, Rove's comments are another example of it.  I'm sure it'll never stop, though....

I'm sure if he had said "some liberals" it wouldn't have gotten quite the press it's been getting.  Even if he had, though, it'd still be an example of politicizing 9/11, helping his team by dumping on the other team.  Bleah.

This day has been a watershed day for me. It's the day the mask came off our present administration (currently enjoying a 44% approval rating).

Here is Karl Rove today:

"Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."

Read it plainly. As a liberal, I'm motivated to harm our troops.

What pathetic cowards.

Rove did not say Democrat. Rove said "liberal." Rove did not say progressive. Rove said liberal."

Semantics...the last refuge of the coward.

A little bit of rhetoric is fine in politics, but sometimes you should think about who you might hurt.  

And hope that they aren't people you'd like to be supporters.

http://www.familiesofseptember11.org/news.aspx?s=5#1352

(link posted in another thread.  But, hey, if we're going to have multiple threads on the same issue, I guess I can have multiple posts on the same topic.)

Rove said "liberals", not "all liberals".

Enough nutso quotes have been pulled to demonstrate there were people saying & acting at the time exactly as Rove said - and every one of them was a liberal.

"All liberals" was never even implied - it was just inferred.

What's amusing is all these Democrats who'd never, ever use the word "liberal" to describe themselves, who head for the hills & run like Hades if anyone attempts to put that label on them, now gladly equate 'liberal' with 'Democrat' if it gives them a chance to kick Rove around.

The're really losing their minds.

Where were you when Howard Dean said "the Republicans were pretty much the party of white Christians.

Who wouldn't read his comments and infer that it was a dig at all liberals?  Come on.  Concoct an example substituting conservatives and "nutso" extreme fundamentalist statements (for example) and see how you feel about someone referring to just "conservatives".

Democrats are upset because whether they would use the term "liberal" to describe themselves or not (and they can't because it's become such a dirty word), Rove's comments were aimed at them.  Yes, I understand he didn't say "all Democrats", but you'd have to be naive to think he wasn't taking a cheap shot at the left for political reasons.

"They all behave the same. They all look the same ..." (empahsis mine, of course)

You can emphasize anything you want to make a point.  

All Republicans look the same?  Taken in an absolute please explain to me how this is offensive.

All Republicans act the same?  Taken in an absolute please explain to me how this is offensive?

Republicans are pretty much white Christians?  Explain to me how this should offend any Republican.

The Democrats now like to call Iraq "Bush's War". Well, if it's Bush's War how come the joint Iraq War Resolution passed the House 296-133 and the Senate 77-23. Now my calculator says that in order to get numbers like that members from both parties have to vote Yes.

So, it appears that it isn't "Bush's War" but is in fact "America's War." Except of course when the going gets rough in which case the left takes a powder.

Liberals aren't willing to fight or do what is necessary.

I read the statement in your link. I would observe that nothing either side has done makes any presumption about views of the direct victims of 9/11. All Americans "own" September 11.

Now, that being said, and with all due respect and sympathy to the survivors, they do not have a patent on September 11, 2001. The September 11 attacks did not just happen to them, it happened to America, to all of us. I wish their loved ones had not been involved, but they are not the only "victims" of that event. I for one object to an apparent attitude that the families of 9/11 are somehow the the sole arbiters of how America memorialize the attack, how we use the sites.

America was attacked September 11. Their loved ones were killed but all of us were attacked.

Frankly, I wasn't really bothered by the White Christian comment - being one myself.

Stupid, braindead and never-worked-a-day-in-my-life on the other hand?  That's another matter.

That said, I'm sure more than a few people I know would be very surprised to know that republicans all look the same and act the same - but hey, keep believing that talking point and you'll likely wake-up on 11/8/2006 having lost your 3rd-straight congressional election and your 6th of the last 7.

I can live with that.

The joint resolutions was not to wage war against Iraq, but instead to give the President the right to use military action if he deemed it necessary to force Iraq to comply with UN resolutions:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

    (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

    (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

So, essentially, the democrats still have a logical hole to walk through, since:

1. The president was charged with making this determination

and,

2. Since we didn't find WMD, it appears that Iraq may not have needed invading after all.  

(I know, I know: what about the Sarin shells?, The weapons programs? etc...  But we're talking public perception here, and I would guess that most (not, obviously, all) Americans don't feel that those were a significant enough trigger for war.)

I agree, the 9/11 survivors don't have exclusive rights to the topic.  But they obviously have strong feelings about the subject, and it's understandable that they would resent having a tragic event that's affected them so deeply used as a cheap political tool.  Especially to those survivors that aren't Bush supporters or who disagree with the way the perpetrators have been pursued.  It's your prerogative to ignore their press releases on such matters, of course.

I ask this with all due respect: What have you done?

But here's the thing.

On Sept 11th 2001 I was working on the 13th floor of  One Libery Plaza.  I had walked out of the World Trade buildings at about 8:30 to go to my office.

I was looking directly at the World Trade Centers when the first plane hit.  

I'm not going to get into a whole story about that day but I can tell you that for me, personaly, it is  unbelievably offensive that someone would suggest that because I am generally a Liberal that means that I don't want to see EVERY SINGLE PERSON INVOLVED with 9/11 dead is a joke.  

So tell me again about how insulted you are about how Dick Durbin made Nazi comparisons to people you don't know(which is really ironic considering that few of the outraged have ever served in our military).  But maybe it's time for YOU to think that our country consists of more than GI Joe.

First off I think you missed my point.  I wasn't criticizing Liberals. I was pointing out that Rove's comment isn't consistent with the support that our various military actions received.

Secondly I joined the military on January 20th of 1991, 2 days after the bombing started.  Served 4 years.  2 years at 32 Sig Btn in Germany.  2 years at 10 Mountaing Dv in Fort Drum.

That's what I did.  

A.) Rove for saying what he said?

B.) Al Jazeera for broadcasting propaganda that certainly puts our troops in greater danger?

or

C.) Durbin for saying what he said?

If you put A above B and C, there's something askew with your priorities.

-TS

Rove did mention many Democrats, by ideology, and at least in one case by name. I'd say he owes a lot of Americans an apology, and an explanation. But since you appear to think that stereotyping large groups is brilliant, I'll appropriately caricature it for you, so you can more readily understand.

Here's a set of remarks that I feel would be unacceptable for a fictional Democratic (liberal?) White House official (to momentarily buy into your 'whimps' (sic) frame, I'll call him 'Dove') to say: "Liberals saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war against Osama bin Laden; conservatives saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to use it as a cynical pretext to invade Iraq. Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Porter Goss refuses to go after bin Laden, while more Saudi Arabian terrorists now use Iraq as a base, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of conservatives."

Now, for the phony defense.

Insert disingenuous party chairman talking points: "Dove did not say Republican. Dove said 'liberal'." etc.

"Dove didn't explicitly say all conservatives, so if one or two or three of them might have misled us into Iraq, well, then it's ok to lump them all together as a group anyhow."

etc.

The fact is, I don't see how directly making false accusations against a large segment of people is somehow more noble than indirectly comparing the alleged actions of a small number of people.

But in any case; I'm sure that at the very least, the vast number of liberals who supported the war in Afghanistan, who fought against terrorism, who lost family members in 9/11 would appreciate a clarification, if not a retraction, an apology, or a resignation.

And unless you enjoy demonizing American citizens, I'd expect that you would agree.

You're obviously quite offended at being lumped in with a bunch of loonies who happen to share your political moniker. Fair enough! You should be.

So I suggest, then, that you and your fellow level-headed liberals find better ways to distance yourself from the kook fringe. I know the DLC would love your support; they're probably still smarting from Dean's ascension to party chairman.

My hat's off to your service. Did you join because of Desert Freedom or was it just timing?

you'd have to be naive to think he wasn't taking a cheap shot at the left for political reasons

Of course he was taking a cheap shot at the left for political reasons. It was a really good one, too. Even Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi have complained about it. What is best in life? To crush your enemies. To see them driven before you. And to hear the lamentations of their women.

But most of my issues were created in the last 7 yeasrs.  

The DLC feels that playing the Republican game is the way to go. I don't agree.  First of all the poster child of the DLC was the victim of the greatest political hatchet job in America since the dawn of the 20th century.

I can't stand Michael Moore.  I am indifferent to MoveOn because they are a 527 pit bull.  I think that many on the Right thinks that these people define the majority Left and that is simply false.

with a dash of nationalism.

I really felt it was the right thing to do.  

And truth be told it was a great experience for me.  

After joining I became a huge fan of David Hackworth, a man that all Americans should listen to.

Named John Cole. He speaks for me on this issue:

"My party no longer is merely content selling our bullshit. We are now starting to believe it. I'd say Mr. Rove has an apology to issue.

...[T]o attempt to claim that liberals only want therapy and understanding for terrorists and that the only thing liberals want to do is to put our troops at danger is either an outrageous and indefensible smear or a god damned lie.

Take your pick."

Rational conservatism yet survives in the world--it's just hiding from the nutjobs. I look forward to its return when the radical spin machine collapses under its own mass.

The right wing establishment has been reduced to defending torture and blatant partisan smear tactics. It will, before long, be brought back to reason or down to its knees.

Your call, folks. Rove or Cole? Who do you love?

If I have to pick, Karl Rove.  

And consider this your warning to heed the big bold letters which read "Profanity is not tolerated."

you appear to think that stereotyping large groups is brilliant

The question isn't whether it's brilliant. The question is whether it rises to the level of torture. We have liberals in here screaming like they're being tortured. What up with that? You aren't going to tell us that it's like Rove is running a gulag, are you? Oy! He's a regular Pol Pot, quoting MoveOn like that.

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.

"Therapy" - a lying jibe.  "Understanding for" - try "understanding of".  Understanding could have been useful.  Lack of it gave us the ongoing slow motion train wreck that is Iraq.

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."

Moderation and restraint could have been useful.  We know what world and US polls tell us about the growing recognition of the lack of moderation and restraint that gave us Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Bhagram & Gitmo.

I don't know about you, but moderation and restraint is not what I felt as I watched the Twin Towers crumble to the earth; a side of the Pentagon destroyed; and almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble.

Moderation and restraint is not what I felt -- and moderation and restraint is not what was called for. It was a moment to summon our national will -- and to brandish steel.

Says it all.  Instead of thinking, Bush & Co felt - or say they did.  Not that feeling is a big deal.  A week old baby can feel.  A dog can feel.  But adult humans can also think.  Rove did think as well as feel (if indeed he's capable of feeling).  He thought about how to consolidate power by harnessing what everyone felt and handicapping their thought by fake intelligence and lying propaganda.

MoveOn.Org, Michael Moore and Howard Dean may not have agreed with this, but the American people did.

Perhaps.  But most thought as well as felt.  Problem was their thought was largely predicated on the fake intelligence that Rove & co "fixed".  They thought Itaq had WMD.  They thought it was behind Al Qaida.  They thought the troops would be welcomed with flowers.  No wonder they're 60-40 against the war now when they were better than 70-30 for it to start with.

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.

If undertood, enemies can be defeated.  If not understood you get Iraqs and Vietnams.

Conservatives see the United States as a great nation engaged in a noble cause; liberals see the United States and they see Nazi concentration camps, Soviet gulags, and the killing fields of Cambodia.

Liberals use both eyes.  Conservatives are one-eyed.  And under Rove's baton they exaggerate and holler in lock step.  Sheep with fangs.

Has there been a more revealing moment this year than when Democratic Senator Richard Durbin, speaking on the Senate floor, compared what Americans had done to prisoners in our control at Guantanamo Bay with what was done by Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot -- three of the most brutal and malevolent figures in the 20th century?

Very revelatory about Rove's administration - both its torture policy and its domestic propaganda techniques.  True, Bush ain't a patch on Hitler but Rove could give Goebbels a run for his money as a propagandist.

Let me put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts to the region the words of Senator Durbin, certainly putting America's men and women in uniform in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.

The region already thinks that the US under Rove & Bush is evil - not without some justification.  The best hope for any captured US soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan is to be believed when that soldier professes to be a Durbin-minded American.

I feel Rove should be parachuted unarmed into western Iraq with his name tattooed on his forehead.  But I'm not like the chumps he mistakenly calls conservatives who can feel but lack higher brain function.  I just think he should be impeached, prosecuted and jailed.

Porter Goss says he knows where Bin Laden is.  Maybe Rove should be appraised of this and asked what he's getting Bush to do about it - since he's so hot about 9/11 n'all.

I'm new here (and, um, obviously trying to make up for lost time!), so maybe I don't understand how things work.  Is there some reason you've rated several reasonable posts a 1?  Just because you disagree?

I think others will have the cojones to stand up and stop your ship before your captain steers it into the rocks. Morality is more than a buzzword to some in your party. Cole's one of the first to start distancing himself from your shameful behavior and most out-of-line rhetoric. He will not be the last.

I considered editing out the phrase in question (having been warned about coarse language in the past for far more and yet still dubiously legitimate reasons), but upon brief reflection at the time, the statement didn't strike me as per se profane and lent strongly to the reader's ability to feel Cole's utter rage at people like yourself. As you can see, I opted to let it slide. Just for you, I'd edit it out if I could, but it's a bit late for that, so if someone else wants to strike it from my post they're more than welcome to.

So who would you consider as defining the majority Left?

-TS

You're right, I'm not going to tell you that. It isn't torture, it is slander, and it is definitely inhumane. He's a regular Joe McCarthy, demonizing Americans like that.

The region already thinks that the US under Rove & Bush is evil - not without some justification.  The best hope for any captured US soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan is to be believed when that soldier professes to be a Durbin-minded American.

Which side does this put Durbin on?

-TS

Is there some reason you've rated several reasonable posts a 1? Just because you disagree?

It's a bug in the system. Sometimes when the same guy calls the statement the only thing liberals want to do is to put our troops at danger an "outrage" or a "lie," but then asserts The right wing establishment has been reduced to defending torture as if it were a "fact," the test for "reasonable" will fail. We're looking into it.

I appreciate that.  Do you have a bugzilla system where I can report other similar bugs?

I think others will have the cojones to stand up and stop your ship before your captain steers it into the rocks.

Yeah, we'd been trying to do that for a few weeks now with that Dean fellow you got over there. But all we got back was an even nastier creep talking about Nazis and gulags. I guess Rove figured he'd try the shot across the bow, and see if that got your attention. It does seem to have done that. So far you guys have used up white, dishonest, christian, nazi, gulags, and Pol Pot. We've spent therapy, understanding, and wimp. You wanna keep goin'?

About outrage and lies is a major front-page contributor to this site and a strong conservative voice. Perhaps you should go home and rethink your platform.

Sometimes when the same guy calls the statement the only thing liberals want to do is to put our troops at danger an "outrage" or a "lie," but then asserts The right wing establishment has been reduced to defending torture as if it were a "fact," the test for "reasonable" will fail.

If only because the test for reasonable exploded in confusion as you reframed the contents of Durbin's FBI memo (men shackled hand to foot and left to roll in their own waste in rooms heated to 100+ degrees for twenty-four hours at a go) as trials and tribulations not dissimilar to high school gym class--oh yes, the test for "reasonable" has been rather badly abused lately, and we can permit it a certain degree of perplexion in this scenario.

The person who wrote that bit about outrage and lies is a major front-page contributor to this site and a strong conservative voice. Perhaps you should go home and rethink your platform.

There is always disagreement in every company between engineering and marketing. It is the nature of the beast. The engineers always think the products should sell themselves, and the marketers always think the products should design themselves. But that's never how it really works. That's why most companies have both, and strive to keep the internecine warfare down to a dull roar.

Then compare the number of that individual's comments and diary entries or stories with most of the regulars here or some other distinguisable feature to show how this particular individual somehow qualifies as a "strong conservative voice."

I'm quite familiar with my party's platform having done a nine-part analysis on Tacitus that went through it plank-by-plank.

As far as Rove's remarks, they were obviously intended to serve as a shot across the opposition party's bow in response to the last several weeks in which we've had to listen to the second-highest ranking Democrat in the Senate smear Americans by comparing them to the Nazis, Soviets and Khemer Rouge and before that, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee saying that our Iraq policy was just as bad as 6 million jews being killed during the Holocaust.

By all means, let the same Democrats who found those remarks acceptable enough not to distance themselves from them now fall all over each other because Big Bad Karl Rove essentially called them a bunch of "wimps."

But if you enjoy it so much, we'll ride this ride again. Only one more time, though, because we've only got so much of it:

Is the Republican party largely comprised of white Christians? Yes. 80% of Republicans are white Christians. Virtually all (we're talking all but three, here) elected Republican officials at the national level are white Christians. This clearly isn't a label that bothers you, so why throw up such a fuss about it? Embrace your cultural monolith--take pride in it!

Are Republicans largely dishonest? No, but their leadership is, and that leadership runs a spin machine based entirely on such brazen displays of scammery as earns its own special branding of villainous.

Nazis, gulags and Pol Pot: I direct you again to John Cole. Was the statement poorly worded, over the top or both? Certainly one of those--yeah. Was your massive national-level overreaction to that statement and your subsequent sustained assault on Senator Durbin's patriotism a partisan ploy and a blatant display of right-wing hackery? Hells yeah.

The heat coming at Rove comes not from simple indignation.  If Rove wants to call Liberals pansies (and by Liberals he means left wingers and by left wingers he means progressives and by progressives he means Democrats, as though you could honestly make a mistake on the issue) he has every right as protected by the First Amendment.  If he wants to burn a flag in protest to the liberal/progressive/Democrat pansies, he has that right too.

That said, he and his ilk have been outspoken in their critizism of left leaning spokesmen for stating their beliefs - that Gitmo and Abu Garab hold a frightenly similar resembalance to some of the more horrible prison camps of our most hated historical foes, or that the Republican Party is composed largely of white collar criminals and Caucasian Evangelicals.

So if Rove can call half the nation a bunch of wimps and softies, that's fine.  He should be no more apologetic than Durbin for his Nazi comments or Dean for his Republicans-are-fat-white-lazy-redneck-bible-thumper remarks.

But if being PC really is the name of the game, then Rove has stepped over the line and owes us all an apology if for no other reason than his intense hypocrasy.  You cannot cry foul and shout slander in the same breath without drawing some raised eyebrows.

I mean quality, not quantity.

For the third time in half an hour, I'm going to direct you back to John Cole's remarks, as you clearly find great difficulty in refuting them.

The problem with America right now is not Dick Durbin. The problem is abuse. The problem is torture. And your stout refusal to attack or even acknowledge the above problems in the name of your partisan politics--that's a problem too, and a deeper one that will need to be addressed before this administration can make any progress on any non-political battlefield.

"You have to do more than just tell me to shut up and go along. You have to do more than just call half the country traitors and accuse them of wanting to help terrorists at every opportunity.

In short, you have to lead. Why is that so hard to fathom?"

Rove lumped the Democrats in with his comments. See this:

"Moderation and restraint is not what I felt -- and moderation and restraint is not what was called for. It was a moment to summon our national will -- and to brandish steel. MoveOn.org, Michael Moore and Howard Dean may not have agreed with this, but the American people did."

The DNC chair is a Democrat, and not a liberal, I might add.

Of course, I forgot to mention that Howard Dean supported the 1991 Gulf War, as well as action in Afghanistan. That's why he's objecting to this, he's being strawmanned.

difficulty in refuting them

What is this "refute" nonsense? Mr. Cole has opinions. One can agree or disagree with opinions, but I'm not aware that 'refute' is a method that can be invoked on an opinion.

He is entitled to his opinions. But so far as I know, he is not the Delphic Oracle and his opinions do not waft to the Earth as facts.

The problem with America right now is not Dick Durbin. The problem is abuse. The problem is torture.

So you see the brilliance of Karl Rove. In one stroke, he has changed the noise in the media from your meme to our meme. Oh, it was just horrible of him to characterize you guys as wimps. He should be roast on a spit for saying you guys are wimps. Who could even think that you guys are wimps? Or that once the going got tough, you would wimp out? It's just rotten of him to even mention all the wimps you guys got over there... the MoveOns, the Deaniacs, those ANSWER creeps, Nancy Pelosi, Chairman Conyers, The Tedster. Hey, you bought 'em, they're yours.

Was your massive national-level overreaction to that statement and your subsequent sustained assault on Senator Durbin's patriotism a partisan ploy and a blatant display of right-wing hackery?

Pretty much. Its purpose was to generate lots of noise so that as many voters as possible would learn that the Minority Whip had done 'the Hitler thing'. We think this will add to the overall impression that Democrats have gone berserk.

Are you going to stage a massive national-level overreaction to Rove's statement and a subsequent sustained assault on Rove's character as a partisan ploy and a blatant display of left-wing hackery? We hope so. We think this will remind people that when bad stuff happens, liberals always want us to stand in a circle and sing Kumbaya.

He has so stepped over the line. And he probably did that without even asking his boss. Now you tell one.

the "white Christian" in and of itself isn't all that bothersome, but on the heels of "evil" "braindead" "never worked an honest day in their lives" and I probably missed a few, it was one more pile of doo that Dean happily stepped into.

especially is about taking cheap political shots at the other team.  It is just that you have to be careful that you don't totally step in the doo when doing it.

Durbin stepped in the doo.

Dean stepped in the doo, one too many times.

Rove just got a little splashed on his feet.  As much as you want to whine, the problem here is that the statement has  pretty loud ring of truth to it.  The Dems would have done much better to have ignored it, and it would have gone away-and the only people who knew of it, would have been the GOP he tossed the raw meat to.

Now on the heels of Durbin and Dean's various gaffs, you just look like a bunch of whiners.

for liberal.

Why can't you guys learn to embrace the label.

Shoot I will even let you put "right wing" "Christian Conservative" and in the classic sense fundamentalist applies.  

for the most part the party leadership is being dovish.  

Now I realize there are some little guy liberals out there who are for the war, and a few in congress (although other than Lieberman and Bayh their faces don't get brought forward much), but for the most part, every time a liberal democrat gets on the screen it is all about how Bush lied, the war is bad, and we should shut down Gitmo and put all the guys there on trial or set them free.

The ACLU has a case that wants to put all these guys in the US court system.

The problem is that too much of your leadership fits the stereotype, so from my POV Rove's remarks just aren't that far off the mark.

and conservatives were actually required to march in lock step with each other.

You know disagreement is tolerated-as long as you make your case.

complaining about what Dean said.

He was throwing red meat to his partisans, which is about all he's good at, and I was all for it.

Why?  Because all he was doing was demonstrating what a loon he is, and I'm all for that, too.

To think about the forum at which he spoke: A forum of conservatives talking about the decline of liberals. It was not a Republican forum talking about the decline of the democrats.

Frankly they should rethink their knee jerk reactions: Where Dean specifically talks about his hatred of Republicans, and by implication the white Christians he says all are, Rove did not talk about democrats at all.

I bet Rove figured they would react just as they are doing.

This is turning into a good game, where the dems fulminate freely in the MSM for weeks and then Rove makes one little speech that blows them out of the water.

As a conservative Republican I would have a hard time getting upset by the quote in your example. After all, aren't these the very points the Democrats and MSM who oppose the Iraq war have been making for several years?  Isn't this the point of the liberals drooling over the meaningless DSM?

Karl Rove expressed what a lot of conservatives believe about a lot of liberal's views and motives.  If you don't want to be included with those liberals, distance yourself from them, refute their insipid comments, and applaud Karl Rove for helping you to put distance between you and them.

Conservatives seem to self-govern conservatives. Liberals allow the most liberal people to become their voice.  Encourage Jimmy Carter to sit by someone more appropriate at your next convention.  Don't elect Howard Dean to lead your party (but don't drop him before 2008, we really need him). Don't let George Soros be such a major player. Get rid of your wacko fringe and then Karl Rove will not have such an easy target.

made me somewhat angry, but made my wife who is Asian-American pretty ticked off.

The man isn't fully connected to our world. It's not his fault. We should offer compassion and electoral trouncings.

Hrm, given his history of, shall we say, ethically dubious political stunts, I don't think any assault would be all that sustained. But, as with DeLay, who never did anything wrong in his whole entire life, if y'all wanna stand by your guy no matter the political consequences that works fine with us.

Perhaps it's worth mentioning, as well, that Durbin and Dean have both apologized for their questionable choice of wording. Will Rove?

It's too bad you think politics is about taking cheap shots.

I understand there are biases at a site like this.  Minimze your guy's gaffes and maximize the other guy's.  Rove also "stepped in the doo", hence all the coverage.  A strong argument could be made that Durbin's comments had a pretty loud ring of truth, too, and that he just made a poor choice of words that were easily twisted.  Or should I say the right "whined" about it, when they could have just ignored it and let it go away.  ("Whine" is such a childish word in this context.)

Durbin and Dean have both apologized for their questionable choice of wording. Will Rove?

You don't get it, do you? This was not Karl Rove randomly shooting off his mouth, like Dean does. And it's not one guy going off the reservation to score a headline, like Durbin. This is a called play, from deep inside the White House. They got all the windows open over there, and they are shooting out of every one of 'em. Cheney, Card, McClellan, Mehlman... they were all behind the shades with rocket launchers, and as soon as the Democrats opened their mouths about it... out they came, firing away.

Apology? No, you're not gonna get one. You're going to get the media war you asked for.

Karl still has the ball... is it play-action, or is that Bush coming around for a reverse?

You'll have to wait and see.

I did try to make my example sound a bit more fact-based, while still slandering large groups. The fact is that as far as I know, after 9/11, 'conservatives' in general weren't pushing to invade Iraq--instead, they wanted to hit back against whoever attacked us (al Qaeda), as did liberals, and in fact Americans in general (including, amongst other Americans, Howard Dean; go reconcile that with the talking points). As to whether a few people in Washington wanted to go after Iraq instead, that is a different question. But it isn't fair to tar conservatives in general with that label, because it simply isn't true.

As for your notion about conservatives 'self-governing' each other--that's not quite how I'd put it. The fact is, Republicans support their 'whacko fringe' a great deal--and they disavow them when they become inconvenient. That fringe is why you hear such ridiculous attacks against the likes of George Soros and Howard Dean in the first place. You do hear the occasional official attack by Cheney, and now Rove. However, the even more absurd ones come from media groups run or supported by wealthy whacko-fringe pandering conservatives such as Richard Mellon Scaife, David Horowitz, Sun Myung Moon, and Rupert Murdoch, often following talking points developed by the Republican National Committee. Which makes it particularly ironic when they attack Soros for donating his money in support of his politics--I guess he should have just bought a newspaper, a cable TV station, a radio station, or a think tank?

Let us please have that as a plank in the 2008 GOP Platform!

"To see our Representatives drive the Democrats before us. And to hear the lamentations of their significant others without regard to age, religion, race, sexual orientation, or gender."

Cause the MSM was always so determined to point out the venue where Dean made most of his OUTRAGE! remarks.  

As long as it was intentional it's ok to say whatever obnoxious things you would like.

Apparently it's much worse if your comments are off the cuff.

As an anti-American bigot.

Be proud.

There comes a point where you run out of cheeks to turn.

Did you see where some model punched Cameron Diaz in the face? Scandalous. What has happened to women these days?

either at democrat party activities, in the course of his job, or during softball interviews.

Rove is an advisor; Dean allegedly runs a party organization.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff.

His authority includes;

the oversight of all White House policy development and coordination of the Domestic Policy Council, the National Economic Council, the National Security Council and the Homeland Security Council, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. AP

comments had a ring of truth to them.

Sorry, just do.

Also, he entered those comments into the record on the senate floor during a debate on the energy bill (he also previously introduced the same email in February during another non germaine debate, but that time he left out the Nazi comparison-he was after the national attention, he just didn't get the attention he expected).

Roves' comment were to a conservative group, and meant to fire up the base.

Dean's comments have all been to liberal/DNC/similar groups for the same purpose.  The problem for Dean is that he regularly steps in the doo doo at these events, and he probably wouldn't get so much heat, if he had better delivery (Reagan often had some real zingers while he was in office, but he had good delivery, so it didn't come across so badly).

The fact is that as far as I know, after 9/11, 'conservatives' in general weren't pushing to invade Iraq--instead, they wanted to hit back against whoever attacked us (al Qaeda), as did liberals, and in fact Americans in general (including, amongst other Americans, Howard Dean; go reconcile that with the talking points).

I remember talk of invading Iraq being bandied about almost before we invaded Afghanistan.

Also, in Rove's defense, I remember several liberals advocating that we cease fire during the month of Ramadan to avoid offending any Muslims (think that would be good fact to back up that "understanding" portion of his comment).

But I remember Iraq being on the table within a few months of 9-11.

things.

Just read any liberal website (especially the tinfoil hat leaning ones) and you will discover that Rove is behind everything.  

What were your impressions--are we talking mostly or just inside the administration, or amongst the general (conservative) populace? I know some people out there wanted to attack Iraq (or Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, The Middle East, you name it) but I'd imagine that at the time they were very much on the fringe compared to the vast numbers who wanted to specifically go after those responsible (bin Laden and his network).

You're right, this site allows conservatives to disagree and even (gasp) moderates and liberals to disagree.  Try that on DailyKos or DU and you'll be banned.  On this site profanity is not tolerated. On those sites, a difference of opinion is not tolerated.

Freedom of speech to many has become "You have to listen to me. I have a right to an audience."  Al Franken even recently pulled that one on the liberal group giving him an award.

There is a reason why you moderates and liberals come to this site (besides being allowed). It is because the level of discussion is higher.  It is because if you always just hear your own thoughts parroted back to you, you never realize some REAL people are having differing thoughts. And sometimes their thoughts changes yours, a little.  I know my stance on some positions has softened or changed from reading what other people have to say.

It is counter-productive to limit input to one viewpoint.

I enjoy the banter between the various groups on this site.  It is mostly cordial.  It is mostly profanity-free. And we are mostly adults about our differences.

I welcome the differences of opinion. They keep this site interesting.

That is why I tend to go to Rightward leaning sites to discuss issues more than Leftward leaning.  

I don't need join a mutual appreciation society.  I prefer that my beliefs be challenged because then I feel that they can survive scrutiny.

link

Washington has for the first time acknowledged to the United Nations that prisoners have been tortured at US detention centres in Guantanamo Bay, as well as Afghanistan and Iraq, a UN source said.  

The acknowledgement was made in a report submitted to the UN Committee against Torture, said a member of the ten-person panel, speaking on on condition of anonymity.

But of course Durbin was just on crack, nobody could ever legitimately accuse the US of torturing prisoners.  Even when we ADMIT it!

The acknowledgement was made in a report submitted to the UN Committee against Torture, said a member of the ten-person panel, speaking on on condition of anonymity.

I think you should wait to see the report first before you start celebrating. Maybe this anonymous source defines torture in a far more expansive way than the average non-Left-Wing American.

They said it was a question of isolated cases, that there was nothing systematic and that the guilty were in the process of being punished."

The US report said that those involved were low-ranking members of the military and that their acts were not approved by their superiors, the member added.

I haven't ever made the claim that no abuse has gone on, I have just said I doubted that there was systematic administration approved and encouraged torture going on.

The Nazi's were a government party, whose leader was in charge of the country, and who acted with his blessing.  The Nazi's did not investigate, charge or try the torturers, but instead promoted them and celebrated them.  

But I also admit I am curious as to what is being called torture-some things obviously fit the bill, but other things (like the koran stuff, the ac thing-just don't amount to torture IMO).

If you had read the entire thing you would have found that the incidents were isolated and were being investigated and or punished.

Or more likely you did read the entire thing and, like Durbin, decided to quote only the part that fit your prejudice.

And fortunately for you someone leaked it in violation of their won rules (and I think we know why they did that), because if it were my call I wouldn't give the characters at the UN the time of day. If the UN found that we did the right thing that report would be buried so far in the basement that it would take an archaeologist to find it.

So I assume you are offended that Durbin alledged that your brothers-in-arms, and by extention you and every other vet, are little better than the SS, or Khymer Rouge?

The Nazi's did not investigate, charge or try the torturers, but instead promoted them and celebrated them.  

Gonzales spent a lot of effort essentially trying to define the administration out of torture so that we could implement torture but we'd call it something else or just simply claim it wasn't illegal.

If I'm not mistaken, he was promoted.

Twice, Rumsfeld has tried to resign but bush wouldn't accept it.  That's effectively a promotion.  

Bolton is also being promoted, although he didn't torture people under him, he was very belligerant and threatened them with job-loss.

As I posted elsewhere, the FBI report that durbin read which was pretty severe abuse, all of those conditions fit within allowed administration parameters for treatment.

In other words, the abuse IS systematic.  We've had soldiers abusing prisoners in VERY similar methods across 3 continents.   But instead of stepping up to the plate and taking the heat for  the bad policy which led to that abuse, top administration and military officials simply let the grunts get sent to prison for following orders.