Via Sullivan, this Santorum gem:
Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical leadership. Unlike most, I have been visited by the gift of hope; for I see in this fall an opportunity for ecclesial rebirth and a new evangelization of America. This “new evangelization,” advocated strenuously by Pope John Paul II, has the potential for restoring confidence in the priesthood while empowering all American Catholics.
The most obvious change must occur within American seminaries, many of which demonstrate the same brand of cultural liberalism plaguing our secular universities. My hope was rekindled last week as our American Cardinals proposed from Rome an “apostolic visitation” of seminaries emphasizing “the need for fidelity to the Church’s teaching, especially in the area of morality.” It is an arduous task. However, the Pope made it clear last week that he expects the strong appeal of the Cardinals to be followed by decisive Episcopal action.
It is startling that those in the media and academia appear most disturbed by this aberrant behavior, since they have zealously promoted moral relativism by sanctioning “private” moral matters such as alternative lifestyles. Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.
Evil liberals, besides being traitors, are objectively pro-pedophilia. And you thought I was joking when I wrote this about Santorum stepping back from Rove’s smear:
Rove may not speak for him because he merely hinted liberals are traitors- Santorum might want to throw in ‘non-believing sodomites.’
These guys never cease to amaze me. At least they are predictable. More here.
Stormy70
Sullivan is dead to me. If you post things found through Sullivan’s site, I treat it like you would treat me referring you to an article through Dobson’s site. Not pretty, but there it is. Ace of Spades does a great job taking on that quack-a-doodle-do, Sullivan.
John Cole
Well- since you hate Sullivan, I guess Santorum didn’t say that stuff.
I like Ace, too, and you could just as easily go through my archives and find as many things said about leftists. But the difference between me an Rove, is I was talking about the fringe left who needs to be beat down. Rove was pretty clearly (to me, at least) tarring all Democrats.
Rick
Rove was pretty clearly (to me, at least) tarring all Democrats.
John,
In spite of you being P.O.’d today about something or other, you’ve actually cooled off/backed away. And, of course, much of the fun over the Rovian episode was the debate over whether his characterization was “tarring,” or just twitting the sensitive, sophisticated, encounter group nuance of the portsiders.
Have we heard from Sens. Collins, Chaffee & Snow?
Cordially…
Mike S
I had no idea there were so many libruls in Kentucky.
As an Ex-Catholic I’ll say that had the Church sounded anything like Bishop Foys I may still be a practicing Catholic. What happened was horrific and made worse by the cover ups and the way the Church has reacted ever since.
Stormy70
Well, Rove mentioned Move On in the next sentence, and I took it to mean the liberals who were piping up with their,”Why do they hate us” Schtick.
I wasn’t clear above, but Santorum has never been that bright a bulb to me. I have a very dim view of most Senators, of either party. I expect them to say stupid things on a daily basis. It is like saying water is wet, or Ted Kennedy is drunk. Why do you jump on Santorum, but find excuses for Durbin?
Rick
Or just keep the mic open next to Pelosi or Byrd. {{{{{SHUDDER}}}}}
Cordially…
mr stupid head
I seem to remember signing the Moveon petition urging a measured response following 9/11, as I also remember wondering why the hijackers did what they did. I also supported the invasion of Afghanistan as it was clear the Taliban were harboring and financially supporting Al Qaeda. Still trying to figure out why the two responses are supposed to be mutually exclusive.
Sam Hutcheson
Stormy says: Well, Rove mentioned Move On in the next sentence, and I took it to mean the liberals who were piping up with their,”Why do they hate us” Schtick.
Maybe. But that doesn’t mean he wasn’t being Karl Rove, nonetheless. His next sentence:
“Submitting a petition was precisely what Moveon.org, then known as 9-11peace.org did. You may have seen it in The New York Times or The Washington Post, the San Francisco Examiner or the L.A. Times.
The obvious question is where, exactly, Rove gets the information that 9-11peace.org became MoveOn.org. It is my understanding that MoveOn.org was founded during the height and fallout of the Lewinsky scandal. “Move On” is the advice suggested for the partisans frothing to impeach, etc. As such, that organization in all likelihood long predates any 9-11peace.org.
Perhaps, as MoveOn morphed into the juggernaut uber-site for web activism on the left, the (assumed) 9-11peace.org merged with MoveOn? Or perhaps it was simply another URL ran by the MoveOn collective? We don’t really know. At least, I don’t really know, and if all I have is Karl Rove’s word on the matter to suggest that the two are in fact one, color me far from convinced.
Sam Hutcheson
Stormy says: Well, Rove mentioned Move On in the next sentence, and I took it to mean the liberals who were piping up with their,”Why do they hate us” Schtick.
Maybe. But that doesn’t mean he wasn’t being Karl Rove, nonetheless. His next sentence:
“Submitting a petition was precisely what Moveon.org, then known as 9-11peace.org did. You may have seen it in The New York Times or The Washington Post, the San Francisco Examiner or the L.A. Times.
The obvious question is where, exactly, Rove gets the information that 9-11peace.org became MoveOn.org. It is my understanding that MoveOn.org was founded during the height and fallout of the Lewinsky scandal. “Move On” is the advice suggested for the partisans frothing to impeach, etc. As such, that organization in all likelihood long predates any 9-11peace.org.
Perhaps, as MoveOn morphed into the juggernaut uber-site for web activism on the left, the (assumed) 9-11peace.org merged with MoveOn? Or perhaps it was simply another URL ran by the MoveOn collective? We don’t really know. At least, I don’t really know, and if all I have is Karl Rove’s word on the matter to suggest that the two are in fact one, color me far from convinced.
JPS
Disgusting. The bolded part of Santorum’s statement is no different than someone who hates the U.S. military seizing on its worst abuse, gloating over it, then saying,”Well, what do you expect? They’re the military.”
Who was the genius who on this site, some weeks ago, posted the Best Comment Anywhere, Ever?
“In Santorum’s defense, he is really, really stupid.”
JPS
On further thought, my analogy really doesn’t work. The failure to make distinctions, and the willingness to slander a large mass of people to score rhetorical points (or to try), is what I was comparing. Sorry. Should think more carefully when pissed off, rather than type in haste.
ppgaz
JPS, please don’t start a trend. I only reach a state of High Dudgeon once or twice a week, as it is. Take pity on an old man.
Tim F
where, exactly, Rove gets the information that 9-11peace.org became MoveOn.org.
In government circles that’s known as, ‘making shit up.’
Tim F
Why do you jump on Santorum, but find excuses for Durbin?
When I say ‘unreachable,’ this is what I mean.
Pug
The obvious question is where, exactly, Rove gets the information that 9-11peace.org became MoveOn.org. It is my understanding that MoveOn.org was founded during the height and fallout of the Lewinsky scandal. “Move On” is the advice suggested for the partisans frothing to impeach, etc
That was my understanding also and I think you are right. MoveOn.org was around before 9-11. Maybe this other website was somehow affiliated with MoveOn, but I’d never heard of it.
Santorum and Rove and the guys must have a whole list of things liberals endorse. I know terrorism and child molesting are two things liberals support enthusiastically.
I especially like the “Republicans prepared for war” part. How? They all rushed out and bought yellow ribbons to put on the back of their SUV’s? Karl makes ’em sound like a bunch of badass mofos (hat tip to Rick Perry) who immediately took steps to mobilize to personally fight the enemy.
Hell, even Karl probably laughs at the thought of Karl in a uniform toting a gun. That’s almost as laughable as Jenna and Barbara joining the Marines. Or George P. in the real 101st Airborne. You know, Jimi Hendrix’ old outfit.
ppgaz
My favorite line of the day, by far.
CalDevil
Don’t really want to rehash Rove in a thread that should rightfully be devoted to the idiocy and misguided hate that are Santorum’s slander, but want to clear up the confusion about MoveOn and 9-11Peace.
This article from Mother Jones indicates that the now infamous “moderation & restraint” petition originated with 9-11peace.org, but was then adopted by MoveOn via its founder Wes Boyd.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1329/is_3_28/ai_100879480
Relevant text:
“So in the immediate aftermath of September 11, when he wanted to protest the president’s demand for vengeance, Pariser created an online petition, 9-11peace.org, which urged “moderation and restraint.” In what would prove a powerful lesson in online organizing, Pariser emailed the link to 30 friends. They did likewise, and so did their friends. “A few days later I got a call saying the site was crashing because too many people were logging on,” Pariser recalls. Within two weeks, more than half a million people had signed the petition, and Pariser was fielding calls from the BBC and the South China Morning Post.
He also heard from Wes Boyd, the founder of MoveOn. Boyd’s Internet activist group had gotten its start during the Monica Lewinsky scandal–calling on Congress to censure the president and “move on”–and had since thrown its weight behind progressive candidates. A former software exec who made a small fortune off flying-toaster screensavers, Boyd offered Pariser both tactical and financial support. “Eli was in the same place as we were when we got started,” he says. “We got in touch and said, `Can we help?'”
The two soon merged their websites.”
By the way, did I mention how ridiculously stupid Santorum’s statement is?
Stormy70
I guess if you are not in the military, then you can have no opinion on the war? Last I checked, this is not a military dictatorship, and America is run by a civilian government. Let’s ask the troops if they prefer people showing their support with magnets, or do they prefer the anti-war lefties, who accuse our troops of torturing the poor, misunderstood terrorist. Your arguments are bankrupt if you have to resort to the old “chickenhawk” argument. Instead you slander people who put magnets on their cars, and I bet you drive around sneering at them. How do you know that the owner of the SUV with the magnet doesn’t have a relative in the military. The military knows which party supports them, and which party is full of left wing loons that despise them.
For example.
Jess
Hey Stormy-
While you’re doing a poll of the troops, why not ask them how they feel about their lack of proper equipment (body-armor, etc.) and difficulties getting sufficient medical benefits? And if you’re so determined to support our troups, what are you doing about this problem? Are you supporting our troops if you don’t speak up about this situation? Are you a traitor if you do? Criticizing how this war is being managed is a far cry from “despising” the troops or hating America.
Jess
Hey Stormy-
While you’re doing a poll of the troops, why not ask them how they feel about their lack of proper equipment (body-armor, etc.) and difficulties getting sufficient medical benefits? And if you’re so determined to support our troups, what are you doing about this problem? Are you supporting our troops if you don’t speak up about this situation? Are you a traitor if you do? Criticizing how this war is being managed is a far cry from “despising” the troops or hating America.
albedo
“The military knows which party supports them, and which party is full of left wing loons that despise them.”
If, by support, you mean send them to an optional war under false pretenses with no viable exit/occupational strategy, then absolutely, I’m sure they do know. Those stickers do spruce up the old Hummer, though…
hadenoughofthisyet
Since feedback tells me a clear majority of bartcop.com readers believe our soldiers are
Stormy70
I’m just saying you don’t know what those people with the magnets on their car are actually doing to support the troops, but you make fun of them. I can opine on the war and support the war without having to justify myself to the likes of the “chickenhawk” criers. Have you ever worn an Aids Awareness ribbon? But unless you have Aids, then how dare you wear the ribbon. It’s a lameass argument, period. I don’t have to give you my military bonifides to make an argument in support of the war, and I will not. Then that means I can’t critisize the government unless I run for office or I’m a hypocrite. See, dumb arguing technique. One can be against the war, and we will debate it back and forth in a quasi-reasonable manor (hi ppqaz, my beer drinking buddy!), but don’t throw that “chickenhawk” type argument around. I want to like you left types, really, I do.
Sam Hutcheson
By the way, did I mention how ridiculously stupid Santorum’s statement is?
I find pointing out the obvious about Santorum to be tedious at this point. I mean, there just aren’t that many to say “Rick Santorum is an idiot, and evil, evil idiot, and anyone who supports him is a mindless poopy head.”
Thanks for the clarification on the 9-11peace/MoveOn connection. I can trust Mother Jones, more or less. Less than 100%, much more than Karl Rove.
albedo
“Have you ever worn an Aids Awareness ribbon? But unless you have Aids, then how dare you wear the ribbon. It’s a lameass argument, period. I don’t have to give you my military bonifides to make an argument in support of the war, and I will not. Then that means I can’t critisize the government unless I run for office or I’m a hypocrite. See, dumb arguing technique.”
The difference being, there’s not a shortage of people with AIDS, and if there were, it would be a good thing. 25 perecent recruiting shortfall, troop shortages, etc. I think it’s fair to point out to vocal hawks, that, you know, there might be something a little chicken about cheerleading an (undermanned) war they refuse to participate in.
brenda
Santorum
Katherine
that quote is two or three years old…funny that it’s getting noticed now instead of during the original man-on-dog controversy. But yes, pretty disgusting.
I don’t think he’s getting reelected.
Stormy70
The war is not undermanned, and they dropped the troop levels since January. Recruitment is down in the guard, but the active duty guys are reupping. But latch onto a specious argument about recruitment, instead of listening to the Generals who just told Congress that troop levels were fine in Iraq. How do you know what level of participation one has in the war? That kind of rhetoric tells me you don’t know what you are talking about. Typical of a leftist, you know jack about actual military matters. Why would anyone take what you say seriously?
Sojourner
Uh, Stormy, did you have too many beers over the weekend?
If the war is not understaffed, why are there so many parts of Iraq where it is not safe to go?
I’ll believe there is no staffing problem when it’s possible for reporters to actually move around in Iraq.
Stormy70
Reporters are pansies. They hang around one hotel in Baghdad, and I’m supposed to believe they know what the hell is happening in the rest of Iraq? No way! I can read the many blogs being written by the Iraqis or the soldiers and marines themselves. There are four provinces with an active insurgency, out of fourteen provinces. The reporters only want the news that bleeds, because they are mostly against the war. No way do I trust hotel reporters who are ignorant and afraid to go out to the rest of the country. Sorry, I’d rather get my reporting from an Austin Bay who knows what the hell he’s talking about. The hotel reporters can go back to their cocktail parties and reporting on the next celebrity trial. They certainly don’t know the first thing about war reporting. I read the embedded reporters because they have the balls to get out with the troops and report on battle specifics, not whine about car bombs specifically set off around their hotel.
Sojourner
And how many reporters have died in Iraq?
Stormy, you are absolutely shameless.
Stormy70
Why? Because I don’t think reporters holed up in a hotel know what is happening in a country the size of Cailfornia? Those reporters can’t ask to be embedded with the troops in other parts of the country? War reporting is dangerous. War reporters are worthy of respect and are extremely brave. Reporters sitting around the hotel in Baghdad paying for info from some anonymous Iraqi source, are not on the level of an actual war reporter. There are great stories going on around the country that are not reported because reporters are not doing their jobs.
Sojourner
Tough words from a girl who calls people pansies who live with death threats while sitting on her ass in front of a computer.
albedo
“The war is not undermanned, and they dropped the troop levels since January. Recruitment is down in the guard, but the active duty guys are reupping. But latch onto a specious argument about recruitment, instead of listening to the Generals who just told Congress that troop levels were fine in Iraq.”
Hmmm. Okay, I’ve got one:
WaPo
The former U.S. official who governed Iraq after the invasion said yesterday that the United States made two major mistakes: not deploying enough troops in Iraq and then not containing the violence and looting immediately after the ouster of Saddam Hussein.
Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, administrator for the U.S.-led occupation government until the handover of political power on June 28, said he still supports the decision to intervene in Iraq but said a lack of adequate forces hampered the occupation and efforts to end the looting early on.
“We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness,” he said yesterday in a speech at an insurance conference in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va. “We never had enough troops on the ground.”
I could dig around and find fifty thousand more that back this up, but since you haven’t done me the courtesy of attributing word one, I think I’ll leave it there. It’s common knowledge that the war has been generally undermanned from the get-go. But I guess I’ll just take your expert word for it.
“Typical of a leftist, you know jack about actual military matters. Why would anyone take what you say seriously?”
You’re right. Democrats have never participated or won any
wars, right? Anyway, how can you take someone who doesn’t have a giant W sticker on the back of their Canyonero seriously?
ARROW
“It’s common knowledge that the war has been generally undermanned from the get-go. But I guess I’ll just take your expert word for it.”
If you won’t take Stormy70’s word, how about taking the word of the generals in charge of the war. I can get all kinds of quotes from has-beens, and never-will-bes, saying that Iraq was not staffed or planned correctly. None of these “testimonials” mean dick.
The people in charge are getting what they say they need! At least that the testimony that they recently gave to Congress. You’ve been listening too much to Swimmin’ Ted “it’s a quagmire” Kennedy. He hasn’t even been to Iraq… 57 other Senators have. However, if want to know a good Scotch, I’m sure the he could be of assistance.
Mike S
From the liberal pansy Tacitus.
I always love the way the apoligists and happy talkers bring up the “generals say there are enough troops” line. As if the generals have much of a choice in the matter. President Bush and Rumsfld say there are enough troops and no general is going to dispute them. But since it’s obvious to anyone watching what’s been happening the happy talkers fall right in line and defend them to the end.
But the truth keeps coming out.
link
Now why would this officer be worried? You can use all the happy talk you want but when you get right down to it you are being dishonest. Supporting the troops requires honesty. Not happy talk.
stickler
Arrow wrote this, though hard to say with a straight face:
Yeah, the generals in DC sure have a habit of hewing the party line, don’t they. While guys on the ground — and obvious facts like the total lack of security in the capital — say otherwise.
What might have happened to cause this behavior? You might ask General Shinseki about that. He was bracingly honest in 2002 about the troop level requirements for postwar Iraq. He told the Congress what he thought would be needed. He was humiliated and fired by Rumsfeld.
Message received.
ARROW
Nothing you have posted changes the fact that the generals om the ground in Iraq, and in charge, have said they have the troop levels they need. You can quote all the commentators you want, and it still won’t change that FACT.
General Shinseki was never in charge of the current Iraq war.
Mike S
Capitalizing FACT only makes them saying it a FACT. But keep up the happy talk. That’s about all you’ve got left.
stickler
Oh, Arrow, your enthusiasm is admirable but your comprehension leaves something to be desired.
Yeah, that’s true. And I’m typing very slowly here so you can keep up: he wasn’t put in charge of the “current Iraq war” because
A) He defied Rumsfeld and Bush and told the truth: we’d need a hell of a lot more men than Rumsfeld had promised.
and
B) Even if Shinseki had publicly defied common sense and his own professional integrity to agree with the neocons, the President is Commander in Chief and is, therefore, in charge of “the current Iraq war.”
The FACT you ought to pay attention to is not the wind generated by diddling factotums in Washington DC — even if they’re wearing lots of pretty medals. No, the fact you should pay attention to is the cost of a taxi ride from the Green Zone to Baghdad International Airport. When that dips down below $5000 each way, you’ll know we’ve made some progress.
You know, you could actually travel to Baghdad and find out firsthand. Let us know what things are like, won’t you?
Stormy70
Is that supposed to be your argument? I explained why I don’t trust reporters who can’t leave their hotels to report accurately on the situation in the entire country. Funny how some of you guys replace an argument with this:
Stormy70
I know you guys like polls, so here’s one:
Sojourner
Reporters can’t leave their hotels in Iraq because of a reasonable fear that they will be shot or beheaded. Ask Danny Pearl. And you wonder about the state of the war in Iraq? And call them pussies? I love your sense of entitlement. You demand that they travel around and risk getting killed so you can trust what they are telling you. All demanded from the safety of your home.
As to your poll, it’s no surprise that people feel we need to stay – Colin Powell’s you break it, you own it. As to the second number, that contradicts several other polls claiming that the war was a mistake.
Stormy70
The poll is current, and read this site for some real war reporting. Yes, it is dangerous, so why did the networks send reporters who usually cover celebrity trials, and missing people to a cover a war? And why would I want ananlysis from liberal reporters, who are against the war to begin with, and who don’t know the first thing about military history? Those reporters can embed with the military, and find out what is happening in the rest of the country, just like the real War reporters are doing. But they might not get their daily latte.
Danny Pearl was a brave reporter following Al Qeda’s trail in Pakistan. I have the utmost respect for him. Hell, Charlie Daniels has seen more of Iraq, than some hotel reporters.
Sam Hutcheson
Stormy: The poll is current, and read this site for some real war reporting. Yes, it is dangerous, so why did the networks send reporters who usually cover celebrity trials, and missing people to a cover a war?
Perhaps because there aren’t a lot of veteran journalists of WWII hanging around the office? You go to war with the reporting staff you have and all that…
Sojourner
Reports from a few soldiers and an occasional embedded reporter hardly gives us an understanding of what’s going on in Iraq. It may tell us what the military are doing but it tells us nothing about the Iraqis and what they’re up to. Remember, there’s at least two parties in this war as well as a bunch of civilians. Hearing from one side does not qualify as comprehensive coverage of the war.
I have no idea what you mean about celebrity reporters covering the war. They’re not the ones over there. Your biases have little to do with reality.
The bottom line is you just want to hear the Bush party line on the war. You’re not interested in a balanced view. Hence your reliance on just the military’s perspective. It’s that narrow mindedness that got us in this disastrous war to start with.
Your comment about Charlie Daniels is simply ignorant.
Stormy70
Hah! Good one. On that note, I have to leave for work.
Geek, Esq.
Shouldn’t John Kerry challenge him to a duel or something?
Uncle Kvetch
“So in the immediate aftermath of September 11, when he wanted to protest the president’s demand for vengeance, Pariser created an online petition, 9-11peace.org, which urged “moderation and restraint.”
Disgusting. They should be ashamed. Moderation and restraint have no place in American foreign policy.
Good thing the administration rejected this call and stuck with true American values: bloodlust, massive tax cuts, and an avalanche of fear-mongering bullshit designed to dupe the people into an unrelated war. The results speak for themselves! Imagine the shit we’d be in if we’d exercised moderation and restraint instead!
albedo
“If you won’t take Stormy70’s word, how about taking the word of the generals in charge of the war.”
Well, since they’re completely beholden to the administration and toe the line for fear of reprisals (see Gen. Shinseki), no thanks. I’ll stick with what common sense and word from the ground tell me, that the troop numbers were not adequate going in, and remain inadequate. The sheer fact that the insurgency rages on tells me, ipso facto, we don’t have enough of a troop presence on the ground. If we did, wouldn’t the insurgency have been handled by now? Oh, I forgot, it’s in its last throes or something.
“I can get all kinds of quotes from has-beens, and never-will-bes, saying that Iraq was not staffed or planned correctly. None of these “testimonials” mean dick.”
Indeed there are a mountain of testimonials from “has beens” (like Paul Bremer – what a loser) saying Iraq was bungled. It may pay to examine why they’re no longer involved over there. Largely because they either couldn’t stand being part of the bungling any more, or they were excused by the administration for rank competence. BTW, if it suited your fancy, you could get plenty of quotes from servicemen still involved who claim they’re undermanned. (To say nothing of under-body-armored and under-insured). But I guess they wouldn’t mean dick, since they don’t agree with you, right? Agreement with you being the current gold standard in dick-meaning.
“The people in charge are getting what they say they need! ”
No doubt. It’s the fighting men and women on the ground that have been screwed at every possible turn.
ARROW
“No doubt. It’s the fighting men and women on the ground that have been screwed at every possible turn. ”
How would you know??? That aside, keep up the unhappy talk and spin away my friend!
albedo
From the extremely liberal Army Times. But, yeah, I’m just spinning. Plenty of body armor, insurance, and benefits to go around.
albedo
Supposed to be a link there.
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292259-1989240.php