Here is Karl Rove’s entire speech, and anyone who doubts that when Rove said liberal he meant Democrat should just be ignored:
Let me now say a few words about the state of liberalism. Perhaps the place to begin is with this stinging indictment:
“Liberalism is at greater risk now than at any time in recent American history. The risk is of political marginality, even irrelevance. Liberalism risks getting defined, as conservatism once was, entirely in negative terms.”
These are not the words of William F. Buckley, Jr. or Sean Hannity; they are the words of Paul Starr, co-editor of The American Prospect, a leading liberal publication.
There is much merit in what Mr. Starr writes
BumperStickerist
ummmmmm … yeah.
Joe Lieberman, Republican
Jeff
If the Republican party really stood for what he says it does, i wouldn’t be considering leaving it.
Can he really say, with a straight face, that they still believe in smaller government?
Darrell
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
I don’t get that this is some sort of over-the-top spin. Did or did not moveon.org submit such a petition. Did we, or did we not, see tens to hundreds of thousands of leftists protesting our streets with “No blood for oil” and “BushHitler” signs. These things *really* happened. A large segment of the left really does think our military is no better than our enemies. As Captain’s Quarter’s pointed out, this started long ago, John Kerry being a prominent example, smearing honorable US war veterans as a bunch of baby killers to be compared with Genghis Khan. I mean, this really is how much of the left thinks. They have told us that head chopping terrorists = noble minutemen.
No “spin”. Rove was simply pointing out what leftists have actually said and what they have done
cburke
As a lefty and someone who as always been against the Iraq war, I’ll weigh in:
Most of us were in support of military action agains Afghanistan. There were demonstrable links between Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda. There were not between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. But more concerning to me and those I ahve spoken to was this – an effective war against terrorist tactics almost by necessity has to be black-ops. Terrorists aren’t usually tied to government, or a single geographic country. They move around, training in one country, proliferating propaganda from another, attacking in several. A military campaign against a nation doesn’t make sense when you are trying to fight a group of people who just happen to be in that country at the time. Reference the fact that we still don’t have bin Laden in custody. And also the number of foreign fighters are flocking to Iraq for terrorist training.
But a black-op war does not make for good photo opportunities, and doesn’t make nearly as good a red shirt to wave come election time.
We are losing the war on terror, because we are not fighting the war on terror.
Axien
Darrell, it’s all spin because your holding all liberals responsible for the actions that only a few made. You hate it when it happens about Gitmo, why would it be different because it’s about liberals? How the hell am I responsible for moveon.org as I’ve never sent them money. Michal Morre, although quite fat, does not take up a sisable portion of the liberal block.
Just because they scream at the top of their lungs, doesn’t mean there are alot of them.
Mr.Ortiz
Darrell, please don’t conflate the war in Afghanistan with the war in Iraq. I can’t speak for MoveOn.org, but “moderation and restraint” to me means finishing one war before you start another, and never starting one without a damn good reason. I’m also getting real tired of being told how I should feel about the towers that I watched burn without the aid of a television set by a Texan-by-way-of-Connecticut horse-masturbator and his lackeys (see? I can insult him without saying Hitler! …oops).
SeesThroughIt
Well spoken, cburke. As soon as we started pulling out of Afghanistan to go to Iraq, we stopped fighting the so-called “War on Terror” and, well, invaded a country that had nothing to do with why we were militarily engaged in the first place: 9/11. People like Karl Rove still have no defense for this, which is why they must engage in the semantic sleight of hand that says Iraq is part of the War on Terror.
Rove’s clever. He’s got to be to fit that much bullshit into so few words.
Darrell
Just because they scream at the top of their lungs, doesn’t mean there are alot of them
You raise a fair point, but I disagree with you. I’d say they make up 40%+ of the Dem party, not some tiny fringe. The protests in the streets over Afghanistan (remember many leftists protested that one too, now claiming they originally supported it) and Iraq numbered in the tens to hundreds of thousands. Tell me, if there are not a lot of them, then why did the Dem party choose to place Michael Moore, terrorist = minutemen, in the Presidential Box with full honors and greeting from former prez Jimmy carter? Earlier, MMoore had hosted quite a number of Dem senators for a special film viewing. Given these realities, I think your suggestion that these type of leftists are merely a ‘tiny fringe’ doesn’t hold water. They represent a large, significant portion of the Dem party and that is the problem
Halffasthero
Rove will not resign under any circumstances. He has a gift for taking statements from the other party entirely out of context. His comment about smaller government – and by extension, less intrusuve – is a joke on the face of it. That line alone makes him a liar without shame. His “up-is-down” world would be laughable were it not for the cruel effects it has had on our nation given the fact he has the presidents ear. Probably his soul too. The Republicans own all three branches of government. They hold all the strings and have made all the moves domestically and internationally. They got this because the Americans had put their collective trust in them. Liberals aren’t running up the debt without end. Liberals didn’t squander our reputation and relationship with the rest of the world. Liberals didn’t start this war without a damned exit strategy. Come to think of it, there was no strategy.
This president got himself elected wth part of his promise as being a”uniter”. Someone please point out what, in Rove’s comments constitutes unison? Taking 9/11 and butchering the reputations of a large voting block of Americans? I have friends who are liberals and I don’t like this one damned bit. Rove is just trying to put up smoke instead of trying to improve things. He is a hack and I wish he would crawl back into whatever hole he came from. He isn’t worth the dirt under my shoes.
Axien
We are just going to disagree then. Because I would say that the far left types (the anti-war crowd your harping on) make up less then 20% of the Dem party and only 3% of all liberals themselfs. Why did they place Michael Moore there? Probably to piss of republicans and they thought he could help them politicly. The right does this kinda crap too (which doesn’t make it right, just sad)
Darrell
This president got himself elected wth part of his promise as being a”uniter”.
Not sure President Bush was expecting Senior Democrat Senators to accuse him of “fraud” in the Iraq war, something “cooked up in Texas”.
got any equivalent statements from Repubs which match that bile coming from Dems? yeah, Dems are really sincere about wanting to unite, aren’t they?
Mike S
I urged restraint. Here’s why. My first reaction, as was most probably, was to friggin nuke the entire Middle East. I had that line in my head from Scarface, “I want em dead, I want their families dead.” I pitied any Muslim that I came across because I was ready to kill.
Then I went to my local market. A market I’ve shopped in for years and become friends with the owner. This owner was in tears. He was so embarrassed by what was done is his religions name. Then I watched the Muslim streets reaction. Not just what FOX showed which was the idiots that were praising it. I watched where the majority were appalled by what had happened.
And guess what? We practiced restraint. We identified where the biggest problem was and where the most training went on. Afghanistan and the Taliban. Many of us on the left had been talking about the evils of the Taliban for years, as opposed to some conservatives like Dana Rhorboker(sp?). We gave the Taliban an ultimatum to turn over Bin Laden. When they refused we went to war, not with all the Afghan people but with the Taliban and their supporters.
That was all done with restraint and with the support of 99.9% of the Democrats in this country. It wasn’t until the drumbeat for the war with Iraq started, with flimsy evidence that many of us identified, that many of us became “anti-war.” And it wasn’t “anti-war,” it was anti-Iraq war.
One last thing. The spin right now is that it wasn’t all Dems that Rove was accusing of treason, just liberals. Extending that logic, does that mean that Republicans that don’t id themselves as conservatives, like mod and lib Reps, are traitorous too?
Stormy 70
Both wars are part of the War on Terror, and our military can handle a war on multiple fronts. We are still fighting a war in Afghanistan, and have been this entire time. The media is not covering it, they’re too busy holed up at the Bahgdad Hotel in Iraq. Read the Milblogs for some analysis of the War on Terror.
The benefits of invading Iraq have already been felt across the Middle East. Libya, Lebanon, Israel and the Palestians, Egypt, even Saudi Arabia. People in the Middle East are protesting their governments, and demanding more rights. And with 150,000 American troops sitting smack, dab in the middle of it all. Our presence in Iraq also keeps countries like Syria and Iran on their toes. It just will take time.
cburke
The Taliban is back in power in Afghanistan. The drug trade is growing at a startling rate there. Enlistment in our military is dropping each and every month. The casualty rates in Iraq have doubled in the past three months. Car bombings are on the rise, big time. Iraqi civilians are starving because food deliveries cannot travel safely, and living without electricity for most of the day in blistering temperatures. Most of those civilians are not terrorists.
We have incresing reports that Iraq has been turned into one large training ground for terrorists, where it was not before (http://www.ericumansky.com/2005/06/infiltrators_in.html).
I can’t see these things as a win, or even a step on the road to winning. If you can explain why I should, please do.
Kimmitt
I’d like it if Osama bin Laden could be captured or killed.
Jon H
Stormy writes: “We are still fighting a war in Afghanistan, and have been this entire time.”
Thanks for making our point. Why are we still putting out Taliban fires in Afghanistan after 3 and a half years?
Because we’ve been wasting time, money, and lives in Iraq, and making a half-assed effort in Afghanistan. (Actually, we aren’t really making a full effort in Iraq, either.)
Maybe our military can “handle” a war on multiple fronts, but it’s being stretched to the limit, and it’s questionable whether we can *win* wars on multiple fronts.
Darrell
Thanks for making our point. Why are we still putting out Taliban fires in Afghanistan after 3 and a half years?
What, no utopia in Afghanistan after 3 1/2 years? Sounds like a Quagmire to me. The sky is definitely falling.
Some of us will have to settle for Afghanistan’s democratic elections and the (mostly) eradication of the Taliban and Al Queda.
Mike S
Stormy 70
Yes, we are still fighting in Afg. But we are fighting minus the massive resourses we are using in Iraq.
What would have happened and been happening if we had stayed the course in Afg? If we hadn’t sent the majority of soldiers, money and ngo’s out of Afg and over to Iraq? My belief is that we would have had a far far more stable Afg. Infrastructures would be in better shape. Drug trafficing would be down, not up. Living conditions for the average Afghani’s would be better.
In short, Afghanistan could have been a model for the rest of the Middle East. And those countries that you mention would have seen that we completed what we set out to do.
Wouldn’t those benefits you attribute to Iraq have been the same or even better under those circumstances?
Stormy 70
I disagree, I think we are winning. But it takes time. Those terrorists flocking to Iraq are being killed at a higher rate than our soldiers. A much higher rate, and that is how to win a war. You kill the enemy. We just killed one of Saudi Arabia’s most wanted terrorists in Iraq. Not the US, which is exactly where we don’t want these guys flocking to. We want them going up against our military, who are doing a phenonemal job with the lowest casualties in the History of warfare. It is not pretty, but there it is.
I don’t really care about the drugs in Afghanistan, it is not why we are in their country. I think Bin Laden is dead, by the way. Or too scared to pop his head up, and prove he is still alive.
Don
As a leftist moderate I don’t see the issue with the petition that Rove sneers at. As horrified as I was by 911, I didn’t want to see us go on a mad war spree in response. And we got what the petition asked for – a measured, reasonable response that made me proud. One of the things that most disturbed me about the Iraq war was concern we’d follow up an honorable effort that made Afghanistan and the world a better place with a selfish and half-assed effort that would distract us from continuing to improve Afghanistan. Lo and behold….
“We want few regulations; they want more. [snip] We believe in curbing the size of government; they believe in expanding the size of government. Conservatives believe in making America a less litigious society;”
Few regulations unless they’re about private behavior, less litigious if it’s against corporations but more if you want to smoke some pot in your backyard… Smaller government isn’t even worth responding to.
Darrell
MikeS, Afghanistan is not considered “arab”, so unlike Iraq, it would not be perceived in the middle east as a model for other arab states as you suggest. It has less strategic value than Iraq, and I am not referring to oil. Also, in Afghanistan, it makes perfect sense that we shouldn’t expend as many resources, because we have more international support there helping us do the lifting and the rebuilding.. including significant financial and troop contributions made by Germany, France, and Canada, none of whom wanted to help with Iraq.
Jon H
Stormy writes: “Those terrorists flocking to Iraq are being killed at a higher rate than our soldiers.”
And they’re also signing up to fight at a much higher rate than Americans are. And there’s a much larger population for them to recruit from.
“A much higher rate, and that is how to win a war. You kill the enemy.”
Not in this kind of war, where the enemy does not have a limited number of personnel.
Jon H
Darrell writes: “MikeS, Afghanistan is not considered “arab”, so unlike Iraq, it would not be perceived in the middle east as a model for other arab states as you suggest.”
Iran isn’t Arab either. Are you saying that a Democratic Iran wouldn’t be a model for the Middle East?
Afghanistan is Muslim, and tribal, like the Middle East, which are probably far more important than being “Arab”, when it comes to being a model.
You could take a bunch of affluent, Westernized Arabs, raised in the US, and set them up as a model democracy, but they would make a very poor model, being so different from the non-Westernized natives.
Darrell
And they’re also signing up to fight at a much higher rate than Americans are. And there’s a much larger population for them to recruit from.
More sky-is-falling blathering from the left. Would it be too much to ask for you to back up such claims with.. you know, facts and stuff?
I’ve seen lines of Iraqis enlisting to join their police force. How are you sky-is-falling lefties accounting for all those Iraqis signing up for the fight against terrorists? they don’t count according to you, right?
Darrell
Jon H, I should have written that Afghanistan is less of a model for middle east democracy than Iraq because Iraq is considered arab, while Afghanistan is not. Same with Iran.
Don’t get me wrong, every new democracy in the region helps, but establishing a democracy in the heart of the arab middle east is of greater strategic importance, than Afghanistan. that’s all I was trying to say
cburke
Good jumping off point for research:
“Tracking Variables of Reconstruction and Security in Post-Saddam Iraq” 6/20/2005.
Sources are cited in the name Brookings Institution gives you the heebies.
Don
Sorry for the dupe – no idea wtf happened with that.
Mike S
Darrel says; More sky-is-falling blathering from the left.
Here is one of those lefties he’s talking about.
WASHINGTON – The Iraqi insurgency is as active as six months ago and more foreign fighters are flowing in all the time, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East said Thursday, despite Vice President
Dick Cheney’s insistence that the insurgency was “in its last throes.”
Gen. John Abizaid, testifying at a contentious Senate hearing alongside Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, gave his view of the war in response to lawmakers who expressed concern about progress in Iraq and support at home.
Damn that lefty General! How dare he contradict Darrel. Let’s Court Martial him.
Stormy 70
Foreign fighters are coming up against our military to be killed. Better killed than chilling out in their respective countries, only dreaming of Jihad against America. Then acting on it by trying to sneak across our borders to do us harm here in America. Iraq is the frontline in the terror war right now, and better there than here at home.
Darrell
Keeping pounding those straw men MikeS. Trot out Gen Abizaid’s quote and dishonestly infer that was what I was commenting on. Here is the comment I have problems with
And they’re also signing up to fight at a much higher rate than Americans are. And there’s a much larger population for them to recruit from.
Where does Gen. Abizaid say terrorists recruiting is up? Where exactly are those stats? What!? they don’t exist? Terrorists are flockcing into Iraq does not = terrorist recruitment is up by any logic that I can see. Iraqi public opinion has swayed strongly against the the terrorists. What then is your point? Oh that’s right, you don’t have one
cburke, would it be too much to ask what is your point with linking that 39 page document?
Darrell
According to cburke’s linked Brookings study, the number of foreign fighters in the insurgency is up slightly from 6 months ago, but 1/3 of the number back in November 2004.
But don’t let these details (from your own linked sources) stop you from whining like little bitches about how Iraq is going to hell in a handbasket
cburke
Darrell – you asked for facts to back up points. They’re out there. Go read them. That was my point. We are not, as you have asserted, demanding an instant utopia in Afghanistan. We are not discounting Iraqi citizens joining in the defense of their country.
A lot of us on the left see things not adding up as they are presented by the media or the administration. It looks like so much “one step forward, two steps back” to me.
Now, I could quote parts of the document I linked to, but you’d claim I was quoting out of context. So I thought I’d link you to one of the sources I’ve read, so you could read for yourself if you really want to know what facts and sources I’m drawing from.
cburke
And also, Darrell, I’ve not insulted you personally once in this thread, or been rude. So please keep that in mind before you accuse posters of “whining like little bitches”. mmkay?
Darrell
We are not, as you have asserted, demanding an instant utopia in Afghanistan
Oh really? Earlier you wrote:The Taliban is back in power in Afghanistan. The drug trade is growing at a startling rate there. Enlistment in our military is dropping each and every month…We have incresing reports that Iraq has been turned into one large training ground for terrorists, where it was not before
Well, Salman Pak notwithstanding regarding Iraqi terrorist training camps, you damn sure are spouting a sky-is-falling scenario. A view held by virtually all of the left as far as I can see. If you are not demanding an instant utopia, then what is your point? Please clarify
Geek, Esq.
Karl Rove is telling the truth.
That is, if one believes that Michael Moore was representative of liberal opinion at the time.
Which, of course, he was. As much as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell were representative of conservative opinion.
cburke
The point is I don’t live in a black and white world. This isn’t a world where Afghanistan is either a terrorist hotspot needing military action or a utopia. There is a hell of a lot of ground between those two points. The job in Afghanistan was not finished, in my view, and the war in Iraq was only tangentially, at best, actually related to fighting terrorism.
I’ve never said the sky is falling. Do I think things are going well? No, not especially. Does that mean I’m waiting for the end of the world and huddling in a bomb shelter? Hardly.
There are points in between extreme views. I can be against the war in Iraq without supporting terrorism, I can speak out against mistreatment of prisoners without being against our troops, I can think Karl Rove’s statements were out of line without frothing at the mouth and screaming for resignation.
So far in your arguments, if I disagree with you, you imply I must be spouting the opposite extreme view. Not so. The world is not an episode of Crossfire.
Darrell
Darrell – you asked for facts to back up points. They’re out there
I asked specifically for evidence that terrorist recruitment is up. If you have specifics, cite them without providing a book and saying “read it” without pointing out to specific citations. Even your own Brookings report indicates the number of foreign terrorists in Iraq is only 1/3 the number as only 8 months ago. So again, where are the stats to back up these claims from the left that terrorist recruitment is up? Because if there are no such stats, that would mean that leftists are lying their asses off about terrorist recruiting rates to undermine our war efforts, would it not?
Tim F
When Clinton invaded Kosovo the entire GOP ran around like terrified little chickens making pronouncements of defeat and doom. It is pure hypocrisy to pretend now that there is nothing whatsoever wrong with George W. Christ’s glorious war and that everybody who says so hates America and wants the terrorists to win.
Darrell
Karl Rove is telling the truth.
That is, if one believes that Michael Moore was representative of liberal opinion at the time
funny, I didn’t see Rev. Falwell or Dobsen in the Presidential box at the Republican convention like Mikey Moore. I didn’t see them given special meetings with large numbers of Republican senators, as was the case with Moore throwing a special F911 screening party for Dem Senators, congressmen and the head of the DNC.
So yes, Karl Rove does appear to be telling the truth
cburke
Just the Numbers factsheet (2 pages):
summation of number of insurgents in Iraq: December 2003 5,000. December 2004 40,000.
Jon H
Darrell writes: “I asked specifically for evidence that terrorist recruitment is up.”
Terrorist recruitment needn’t be “up”, for what I said to be true.
*Our* recruitment is falling.
From what you write above, it seems that the level of foreign insurgent action has increased in recent months.
We also know that US Army and Marine recruits have been dropping steadily this year.
And as I said, their recruiting base is much larger than ours. And easier to motivate, seeing as how it’s easier to recruit someone who’s dirt poor than someone who’s living a comfortable American life.
hadenoughofthisyet
I asked specifically for evidence that terrorist recruitment is up. If you have specifics, cite them without providing a book and saying “read it” without pointing out to specific citations.
I remember reading this report last year:
Occupation made world less safe, pro-war institute says
‘The US and British occupation of Iraq has accelerated recruitment to the ranks of Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network and made the world a less safe place, according to a leading London-based think-tank. The assessment, by the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS), states that the occupation has become “a potent global recruitment pretext” for al-Qa’ida, which now has more than 18,000 militants ready to strike Western targets.’
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=524939
Unfortunatly you can’t access the whole article without being a subscriber and I don’t know if they have a new report this year.
Jon H
Darrell writes: “I didn’t see Rev. Falwell or Dobsen in the Presidential box at the Republican convention like Mikey Moore. I didn’t see them given special meetings with large numbers of Republican senators, as was the case with Moore throwing a special F911 screening party for Dem Senators, congressmen and the head of the DNC.”
No, Dobson just participates in a conference call with the White House leadership every single week, along with other evangelicals.
Sorry, but they have a lot more power with the RNC than Moore has with the DNC.
Darrell
The point is I don’t live in a black and white world. This isn’t a world where Afghanistan is either a terrorist hotspot needing military action or a utopia. There is a hell of a lot of ground between those two points
Oh really? Then why do you and your side only point at and dwell on the negatives to the point of exaggerating and even lying about the bad while never mentioning the good? It would be most useful if you could direct me to your ‘nuanced’ posts in which you write about some of the successes in Afghanistan
TimF, Repubs, with good reason, were suspicious of Clinton’s motives ala Wag the Dog. I do not recall any significant number of Repubs whining like Democrats about doom and gloom, but I’m sure you have quotes to back up that claim of yours. Don’t you?
cburke
Darrell, I don’t bitch about and try to change things I think are positive.
Why don’t you post me some links to papers/studies that show the good things happening? I’d love to read them. Seriously. Ranting rarely if ever changes my mind, but information can.
Darrell
Jon H, as a typical doom and gloom leftist, you are not acknowledging that re-enlistment rates of active military personnel (you know, the ones with the most 1st hand experience) is at all time highs.
Also, regarding your statement (lie?): No, Dobson just participates in a conference call with the White House leadership every single week, along with other evangelicals. Do you have evidence that Dobson participates in a conference call every week with the White House leadership? And define ‘White House leadership’. Because since your making these claims, I’m sure you can back them up, right?
Kimmitt
you are not acknowledging that re-enlistment rates of active military personnel (you know, the ones with the most 1st hand experience) is at all time highs.
Um, aren’t they operating under the threat of stop-loss orders, so they may as well get the bonuses?
Darrell
Why don’t you post me some links to papers/studies that show the good things happening?
Oh I don’t know.. off the top of my head, Afghanistan had their first Democratic elections, elimination of most of the Al Queda from their country, women and girls no able to attend school and participate in govt., rebuilding efforts. Is that enough for now?
Tim F
* “The Kosovo operation is different and oxymoronic. It is a ‘peace war’ waged by ‘peace hawks’ pursuing a dovish social agenda. Peace hawks are global idealists and former anti-war activists, including the youthful Bill Clinton.” DeLay Floor Statement, 4/15/99
* “Doing good on a worldwide scale appeals to peace hawks, who are motivated by altruism, not patriotism.” DeLay Floor Statement, 4/15/99
* “There’s no national interest of the United States in Kosovo. It’s flawed policy and it was flawed to go in. I think this president is one of the least effective presidents of my life time. He’s hollowed out our forces while running round the world with these adventures.” DeLay in The Guardian, 5/17/99
* “American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy.” DeLay Floor Statement on Resolution on Peacekeeping Operations in Kosovo, 3/11/99
* “Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly. We must stop giving the appearance that our foreign policy is formulated by the Unabomber.” DeLay Floor Statement on Resolution on Peacekeeping Operations in Kosovo, 3/11/99
* “So what they are doing here is they are voting to continue an unplanned war by an administration that is incompetent of [sic] carrying it out. I hope my colleagues will vote against this resolution.” DeLay Floor Statement on S. Con. Res. 21, 4/15/99
* “For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce.” DeLay Floor Statement opposing resolution commending America’s successful campaign in Kosovo, 7/1/99
Tim F
“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
-Governor (and now President) George W. Bush (R-TX), 1999.
“This has been an unmitigated disaster
SeesThroughIt
One last thing. The spin right now is that it wasn’t all Dems that Rove was accusing of treason, just liberals. Extending that logic, does that mean that Republicans that don’t id themselves as conservatives, like mod and lib Reps, are traitorous too?
Of course they’re traitorous. Haven’t you been reading the Minutes from the Asylum known as blogsforbush.com? Not marching lockstep with Bush = Benedict Arnold.
Of course, out here in the real world, neither liberals nor moderate Republicans nor centrists are traitors.
Though if we further follow Rove’s twisted version of “logic,” we see an administration that has thrown troops into a poorly planned war with no exit strategy, has cut troop pay while extending service commitments, has failed to provide adequate armor or even adequate rudimentary supplies, and is now at least $1 billion short of the necessary funds for veteran health care (perhaps those warhounds who are loving their upper-bracket tax cut would like to hold off purchasing that next luxury item and pay for a veteran’s surgery?). So, Mr. Rove, according to your style of thinking, one can only divine that this administartion–including you–not only wants to kill American troops, it wants to kill them for cheap.
Also, I agree that anytime we could actually capture Osama Bin Laden–you know, the guy responsible for those 3000 deaths Mr. Rove sees fit to pimp for political gain–that would be great. Oh, I forgot, according to Bush, he’s “not a priority.” Oof.
p.lukasiak
Calls for Rove to resign are clearly insane,
your right. He should be fired….not allowed the dignity of a resignation.
you keep forgetting that Rove’s statements were premeditated and deliberately designed to impugn the patriotism of everyone who did not march in lockstep with Bush. Durbin may have offended some people, but any sane person who read Durbin’s full remarks knows that in no way, shape or form was he trying to insult the troops.
Jon H
Regarding Dobson:
From Slate:
“And during the campaign he joined Ralph Reed and born-again Watergate conspirator Charles Colson in regular conference calls with Karl Rove and other senior White House officials.”
And this from DallasNews.com:
” But who are the values lobbyists, and how have they been able to root themselves so deeply into national affairs?
Some, like Colorado author and radio personality James Dobson, are nationally recognized figures. Others are less well-known but have strong ties to the Bush administration and the Republican leadership in Congress.
Among them, the Rev. Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition, an organization of 43,000 churches; the Rev. Ted Haggard of the National Association of Evangelicals; conservative Catholic leader Richard Doerflinger; and Texas Republican vice chairman David Barton, whose organization WallBuilders actively challenges the separation of church and state.
Every week, the White House conducts regular conference calls with religious leaders. The conversations are led by Tim Goeglein, a top aide to Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove. ”
Or the Washington Post:
“According to religious leaders, the conference calls with White House officials started early in the Bush administration and became a weekly ritual as the campaign heated up. Usually, the participants were Rove or Tim Goeglein, head of the White House Office of Public Liaison. Later, Bush campaign chairman Ken Mehlman and Ralph Reed, former executive director of the Christian Coalition and the campaign’s southeast regional coordinator, were often on the line.
The religious leaders varied, but frequent participants included the Rev. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, psychologist James C. Dobson or others from the Colorado-based Focus on the Family, and Colson. “
Darrell
TimF, thank you for the quotes.. although virtually all the quotes are from 1 congressman, point taken, although I see nothing on the level of Dem accusations hurled at Bush of creating a “fraud” for war which was “cooked up in Texas”. The Balkans war, unlike our current war on terror, did not affect US security in any way that I can see. Clinton did the right thing, even if he may have done it for the wrong reasons. Repubs, thanks to Bob Dole, finally backed Clinton
Darrell
Kimmitt, the stop loss you mention does not apply to active units already deployed, so it looks as if you don’t have a point regarding re-enlistment rates. Source
Darrell
From JonH’s linked WaPost article:
The Bush campaign enlisted thousands of religious “team leaders” in its canvassing efforts.
During the campaign only. this seems quite a bit different than “Dobson making weekly calls” to the White house sr. officials as was claimed. As for taking ‘marching orders’ from the religious right, the article makes clear that the White House was resisting their advice on gay marriage.
So here we have thousands of religious leaders being listened to by the White House during the campaign, Dobson one among many, and the White House still bucks them on their advice re gay marriage.
Mikey Moore, on the other hand, was embraced by Dems and given prominent seating in the Presidential Box at the DNC convention.
Tim F
Darrell, thank you for the thoughtful reply. It seems to me that we need to make a distinction between the runup to a war and its aftermath. Leading into the Iraq war you will have a hard time finding elected Democrats making noises any shriller than the GOP leading into Kosovo.
Kosovo largely accomplished its mission with a minimum of fuss so even if the GOP wanted to it didn’t have much political cover to go to nuts with the criticism. even so you have to give Santorum for trying.
When the Iraq war went sour and public opinion began turning against it, Democrats who had bit their tongue early in the wae had all the cover they needed to lay it on. Now that public opinion has turned against the Iraq war 60-40 you simply can’t possibly expect Democrats to let a giant hanging curveball float on past. If Kosovo had gone this sour there should be no doubt that GOP hysteria would have made Santorum’s remarks sound like sunday school.
Tim F
Correxion:
“Even so you have to give Santorum credit for trying.”
Jon H
Darrell, read it again. It was not during the campaign only.
From the Washington Post:
” the conference calls with White House officials started early in the Bush administration”
From DallasNews.com’s story from March of this year:
“Every week, the White House conducts regular conference calls with religious leaders.”
And when you say “So here we have thousands of religious leaders”, from whence are you pulling the “thousands”?
Jon H
“Mikey Moore, on the other hand, was embraced by Dems and given prominent seating in the Presidential Box at the DNC convention.”
Compared to weekly consultation on policy issues, seating at what is essentially a one-time party event is rather small beer.
Darrell
And when you say “So here we have thousands of religious leaders”, from whence are you pulling the “thousands”?
From the Washington Post article you linked to. My point is that “Dobson” himself does not have a hotline directly to Bush, they meet with a number of different religious leaders.. and according to the article you linked to, the White House is willing to buck the religious leaders on one of their most important issues, gay marriage. So claims that the White house is taking marching orders from Dobson are complete bullshit
TimF, I can’t say I disagree with anything you wrote in your last post. The Repubs you quoted were wrong just as many Dems are wrong now. My only comment would be that the war on terror is a hell of a lot more important for us to win than the Balkans war. The stakes are much higher
Jon H
Darrell writes: “So claims that the White house is taking marching orders from Dobson are complete bullshit”
No, the bullshit is that you’re trying to put words in my mouth. I never said anything about “marching orders”.
cburke
Aside and not quite relevant to the current discussion:
Darrell, you mention that Bush is bucking religious right wishes on gay marriage – can you point me in the direction of the story?
I read a story Tuesday that Bush was calling for an anti-same sex marriage amendment again, but haven’t seen anything since. If I missed something, I’d like to catch up on it.
Darrell
Jon H, would you agree that George soros and moveon.org were acting as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat party? including former Dem staffers working over at moveon?
Darrell
No, the bullshit is that you’re trying to put words in my mouth. I never said anything about “marching orders”.
Oh my bad. what you actually wrote was:
No, Dobson just participates in a conference call with the White House leadership every single week, along with other evangelicals.
Every single week? Dobson himself? talk about bullshit
Tim F
I’m sure the Democrats would love it if MoveOn’org really did work as a subsidiary. If only left-wing groups had the kind of issue discipline that the right-wing succeeds in imposing on itself. Sadly, no.
Sojourner
moveon.org is not a Democratic organization. It’s an independent group.
Doug Purdie
I doubt that Rove meant Democrats.
Show a little courage and offer an explaination of why you think he did.
cburke
He never mentions either Republicans or Democrats. He mentions conservatives and liberals. And we are to interpret that how? It’s not like conservative is ever used synonymously with Republican, or liberal used synonymously with Democrat, or anything.
Unless he didn’t mean Republicans when he said conservatives, either?
Jon H
“Show a little courage and offer an explaination of why you think he did.”
He went on to talk about Durbin, a Democratic Senator.
Kimmitt
He never mentions either Republicans or Democrats.
Um.
ppgaz
Yes, and a cautionary tale about what happens when established power becomes in love with …. established power. The Bidenazation and Lieberfacation of the Democratic Party has damn near killed us.
cburke
Kimmitt:
Bad wording on my part. I was talking about the paragraph that is in such dispute today. Mr. Cole dissects the semantics in his post made a few after this one, and I really have nothing to add to what he said about it.
I am of the opinion that arguing over what Rove had to say, however insulting (and it is) is less important than what I believe he was trying to distract us from.
The Senate Armed Forces Committee yesterday announced that the US is losing approximately a battalion a month in Iraq to death and casualties. A battalion can be anywhere between 300 and 1000 a month. That’s about 1800 US casualties. With the comments at the speech, the media are completely ignoring this.
Way to go, Karl.
Tim F
Darell, all I can say in reply to your comment in reply to my comment, is that the two parties had clear platforms in the 2000 election. You can look them up. One platform explicitly warns about the danger of islamic non-state-based terrorism and mentions Osama bin Laden by name, and one mentions neither. Democrats were arguing about the importance of this war on terror while the NSA, Condi Rice, toured the country arguing that we should worry about Iraq.
To put it less contentiously, the importance of the war on terror makes it more critical, not less, that people agitate that it be done right.
Darrell
Democrats were arguing about the importance of this war on terror while the NSA, Condi Rice, toured the country arguing that we should worry about Iraq
Actually, that’s not true. Republicans campaigned that the war on terror is not limited to Afghanistan or the capture of OBL, which I believe is an important distinction between Repub and Dem outlook on the WOT. The Dem candidate actually said he would like terrorism to go back to being merely a ‘nuisance’.. a comment which demonstrated, to me at least, that he was unfit to lead any fight against terrorism
When you say ‘agitate’ to make sure the WOT is done right, what constructive criticism are the Dems providing? That invading Iraq was based on a “fraud cooked up in Texas”? Scaring younger voters and their parents with lies that Bush, if elected, would initiate a draft? Dem Senators calling Bush a “chickenhawk”? Please. Those were not constructive, nor were they honest agitations.
So tell me, what are some of the big picture constructive ideas and criticisms coming from the Dems on the WOT in your opinion?
Kimmitt
I was talking about the paragraph that is in such dispute today.
Pretending that it’s not part of a larger speech — or that its meaning is not clear from context — is absurd.
cburke
Sure, no prob, said it was a bad choice of words, I wasn’t pretending anything. Chill.
Kimmitt
Chilling, as requested. :)
ppgaz
Terrorism was a nuisance … when it was only the British and French that had to deal with it. IRA bombings hardly got noticed here. Americans ignored the Algerian terrorist “crisis” for the most part. Americans mostly snoozed through Palestinian violence in the Middle East. They drooled and changed the channel to avoid watching that boring endless terrorism in Northern Ireland.
Americans were shocked and saddened by Oklahoma City, but if you will recall, nobody called it “terrorism” although that’s exactly what it was. Just some nuts with a truck full of fertilizer.
Even when the Muslim terrorists tried to blow up the World Trade Center … and might have done a better job if they had gotten their truck closer to the core of a tower … people were not exactly demanding action.
Your grasp of history is underwhelming, Darrell.
Helena Montana
“Conservatives believe in lower taxes; liberals believe in higher taxes. We want few regulations; they want more. Conservatives measure the effectiveness of government programs by results; liberals measure the effectiveness of government programs by inputs. We believe in curbing the size of government; they believe in expanding the size of government. Conservatives believe in making America a less litigious society; liberals believe in making America a more litigious society. We believe in accountability and parental choice in education; they don’t. Conservatives believe in advancing what Pope John Paul II called a “culture of life”; liberals believe there is an absolute unlimited right to abortion.”
Speaking as a liberal, I really wish you’d stop making declarations about what I believe in, because you are mostly wrong. That paragraph is a really oversimplified recitation of liberal and conservative traits. I think very few of us are wholly liberal or conservative, we just lean one way or the other. I lean liberal, you lean conservative. However, my beliefs are not wholly liberal, nor are yours wholly conservative, if your blog is anything to judge by.
And by the way, conservatives most definitely DO NOT have a monopoly on belief in accountability. When I screw up (and I do screw up regularly), I take responsibility for my stupidities. What about accountability from Bush, Cheney, Rumsfled, Perle, Wolfowitz, Libby, DeLay, Abramoff, Scanlon, et al? We haven’t seen any of them jumping up to take responsibility for their actions. Although, to be fair, I must admit, I really don’t regard any of the those people as conservatives. As far as I’m concerned, they’re rabid, foaming at the mouth radicals and the farthest thing I can imagine from being conservative, at least as I understand the word.
I think liberals and conservatives should try to respect each other’s beliefs and attempt to refrain from engaging in open displays of contempt. There’s way too much of that particular commodity floating around the American political landscape.
There you have it: a rant from a mushy liberal (and proud of it, by the way).
John Cole
Umm. I didn’t say that- Rove did.
jurassicpork
The bloated fetus that is Karl Rove so often makes insane pronouncements, as at this GOP fundraiser last wednesday, that it’s not worth expending the electrical energy to parse through said bile-spewage and pick out the hypocrisies, such as Republicans wanting lower taxes (tell that to the vets who now have to pay a $230 fee to get VA assistance) or smaller government (it’s bloated beyond the size the government was at the time Clinton left) or (ha ha ha) less intrusive government (PATRIOT Act, Real ID act and other classic pieces of Republican stealth legislation).
But this is different and stands apart as perhaps the stupidest thing ever said by Rove or perhaps any Repug this year, which is saying a lot, considering who our “President” is. Because not only is what Rove said stupid, it’s downright cruel, to use the 3000 or so deaths on 9/11 for partisan political gain and pillorying Durbin AFTER HE’D ALREADY APOLOGIZED (unnecessarily) ON THE FLOOR OF THE FUCKING SENATE. It seems to me that the liberals and places like NEWSWEEK are apologizing when they don’t need to when it’s the GOP, who’s controlling and orchestrating this Mr. Bill Show of a war on terror, have a helluva lot more apologizing to do.
cminus
Regarding Michael Moore:
Compared to weekly consultation on policy issues, seating at what is essentially a one-time party event is rather small beer.
Especially when one considers he was there with USA Today and not by the invitation of the Democrats at all. Remember? USA Today gave Michael Moore and Ann Coulter press passes to attend the conferences and write up duelling pieces, although they spiked Coulter’s DNC effort as essentially unreadable.
Even the laughably-Orwellian Accuracy in Media remembered that when they needed material to bash USA Today, although they conceded that Coulter’s piece was confusing while Moore’s was, regardless of what they thought of the content, “readable.”
Jeanne Duffy
I don’t support MoveOn.org most of the time, but they’re a valuable organization and fundraising tool for the Democrats. They have every right to exist and to speak their minds, without having to fall in lockstep with any one set of thoughts. I mean, is this still America or what?
Rove attacks them for a very simple reason – the Republican modus operandi is to undermine and destroy the two party system. Democrats can exist so long as they’re “good Democrats”, i.e. Republicans lite. I believe Americans deserve to have all points of view represented.
Otherwise, all we’d have is Rove who in the above referenced speech LIED about a lot of other things – like Repubs reducing the size of government or having more effective programs. He also failed to mention their penchant for driving America into debt and dependency on Communist and Islamist foreign investors.
If urging moderation is treason, what the hell is lying to your cuntry about the reasons you are taking them to war?
Darrell
Especially when one considers he was there with USA Today and not by the invitation of the Democrats at all. Remember?
Mikey Moore was invited by the DNC, not by USA Today, to sit in the Presidential Box with Jimmah Carter. Again, DNC decision to do this, unless USA Today has authority to issue Presidential Box passes and tell JCarter what to do. What’s more/Moore, a special screening of F911 was organized for Dem congressmen, the DNC chairman, and various Dem higher ups to pay homage to the ‘O great one’ Michael Moore during the DNC convention. Nice attendence of Dem leadership at that event
So cut the dishonest crap that Michael Moore was not pandered to and exalted by the DNC and other Dems during their convention. It’s who the Dems really are, hence MM’s exalted VIP status at their convention. Note that Dobson and the Rev Falwell were not in the RNC Presidential Box, nor were they given an opportunity to speak at the convention.
Sojourner
Of course Dobson and Falwell weren’t spotlighted at the RNC convention. The Repubs were quite clear in their desire to showcase their moderates. They didn’t want to scare off the middle-of-the-road voters like they did in ’92 when Buchanan went bursurk. But this means nothing. After all, the right-wingnuts have a hot line to Karl Rove so they don’t have to crawl out from under their rocks to impose their views.