...it's not dark yet, but it's gettin' there...
A diabolical genius. i'm glad he's on our side.
Ralph Bristol of SCHeadlines.com theorizes that the controversy surrounding Rove's recent anti-liberal comments was the result of a well played trick. If so, i love it. If not, the furor over what Rove said is still laughable.
Whether it was an intentional trap or not, and we all know that Rove is evil and maniacal, the Democrats fell into it, one after another.i'm hesitant to even blog about what Karl Rove said, since its truth should be self-evident to everyone. That's what makes it so objectionable to liberals, i guess. Professor Hewitt has the rundown on why Rove need not apologize for speaking the truth. Let's hope he doesn't.Even before the dust had settled on Sen. Dick Durbin’s potentially treasonous assertion that our military guards at the Guantanamo Bay terrorist prison camp were acting like Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot, followed by his tearful apology to himself for attracting the wrath of friend and foe alike, Rove offered Democrats the opportunity to stand out as uniquely hypocritical.
In the world of politics, where hypocrisy is an art form, to be uniquely hypocritical is indeed a remarkable accomplishment.
Back to the Ralph Bristol piece. Here are the differences between the Rove and Durbin comments:
Liberals might argue that while Schumer, Clinton and others are in fact hypocritical for attacking Rove and defending Durbin, conservatives are similarly hypocritical for attacking Durbin, but not Rove. That argument would have merit only if the two men’s statements were similarly outrageous.That difference cannot be overstated, in my opinion. Even if only one soldier, or one marine, or one Iraqi policeman dies as a result of Durbin's disgusting statments from the Senate floor, isn't that reason enough for him to leave politics in disgrace? And who can say that Durbin's stupidity didn't lengthen our military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan at the very least?Here are the differences.
First, What Durbin stated was demonstrably fallacious. Anyone with even a modicum of historical knowledge and perspective would not seriously equate the alleged mistreatment of Gitmo prisoners, cited by Durbin, (uncomfortable heat and cold; loud rap music) with the inhumane murder of millions of innocent civilians at the hands of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot.
What Rove said is largely factual. Liberals, specifically the group Moveon.org, did in fact counsel “moderation and restraint” after 9/11. While many Democrats voted for the war on terror, it is true that some liberals reacted exactly as Rove described. He could have been more accurate if he had said “some liberals,” but that’s a miniscule rhetorical error compared to Durbin’s slander of the guards at Gitmo.
Second, Rove served up his remarks at a setting that is accepted as a 'red meat banquet,' a gathering of the New York Conservative Party. Durbin’s comments came on the floor of what is supposed to be 'the world’s most deliberative body.'
Finally, and most important, Durbin’s allegations can and will be repeatedly broadcast by America’s enemy as a tool to reinforce the fury in the Jihad soldiers and inspire others to join the battle. His comments will be a useful and enduring propaganda tool in the hands of the enemy.
By contrast, the worst you can say about Rove's comments are that they were
an inaccurate rendering of some Democrats’ support for the war, which could harm their electoral chances in the future.But i wouldn't even go that far. i think what Rove said about liberals [as Dan Patrick pointed out this morning on Laura Ingraham's show, Rove never mentioned "Democrats"] was entirely and demonstrably accurate.
Bill Quick said it best, "As long as Durbin is in the Senate, the Republicans need not apologize to the Democrats for anything."
Here is another way Rove is a genius. MSM would never report a speech by Rove and he knows it. By saying something controversial (but true), he got a big reaction from the left and the MSM.
Now his speech is now being spread all across the nation and the vast majority of Americans agrees with him.
Posted by: Jake on Jun. 24, 2005Not answering liberal democrats and the MSM hurt Nixon, Reagan 2nd term, and Bush 41.
Bush/Rove/Mehlman know that you must fire back. There is no "take the high road" option in politics.
The fact that they did it in a way that damages the Dems in their weak spot is beautiful...but guess what, fuckfaces? You let Dean/Reid/Durbin do a lot of talking recently, and here comes a big overhand right in return.
Posted by: Jason O. on Jun. 24, 2005Karl Rove is "Boy Genius".
Bush may be termed out, but Rove isn't.
Four more years!!!
Posted by: shelly on Jun. 25, 2005Yes, I find it amusing that the people who are most exercised by Rove's remarks seem to discern no differentiation between "liberals" and "Democrats". That fact alone makes an audacious point--one that Rove himself, being the evil genius he is, didn't have to.
Posted by: Bernard on Jun. 25, 2005Evidently, Preston is on vacation or AWOL.
Posted by: d-rod on Jun. 25, 2005Hey, kids! Are you wondering, like Karl Rove was lately, what the difference(1) between liberals and conservatives is? Neither am I, but then you and I are not as stupid as a Republican official. Still, in case you come across an acqaintance or relative who is interested in discussing that difference, here’s a handy quiz to help them through the quandry.
Kookie Karl Quiz
1) "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war" said Karl. What was the most important part of that preparation?
a) Sitting motionlessly to listen to schoolchildren read "My Pet Goat"before sprinting for a bunker in Nebraska to hide for the rest of the day.
b) Preventing Dixie Chicks records from being played on the radio.
c) Re-naming fried potatoes and fried, egg-dipped bread so that France doesn't get credit for them.
d) Making officers who point out what was actually needed for war resign from the Pentagon.
e) All of the above.
2) "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war" said Karl. What was the SECOND most important part of that preparation?
a) Trying to get the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge opened for drilling because otherwise the terrorists would win(1).
b) Trying to get a massive tax break for the richest 1% of Americans(3).
c) Letting the guy who masterminded that 9/11 savagery stroll unimpeded into Pakistan(4).
d) Destroying evidence in the anthrax attack case(5).
e) All of the above.
3) "I don't know about you, but moderation and restraint is not what I felt when I watched the twin towers crumble to the ground, a side of the Pentagon destroyed, and almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble." Karl told his conservative audience. Which of these noted young conservatives felt just like Karl, threw moderation and restraint aside, and joined the military immediately?
a) George P. Bush, nephew of the current White House occupant.
b) Jeb Bush Junior, nephew of the current White House occupant.
c) Billy Bush, cousin of the current White House occupant.
d) Andrew M. Rove, son of Karl Rove.
e) None of the above.
4) "I don't know about you, but moderation and restraint is not what I felt when I watched the twin towers crumble to the ground, a side of the Pentagon destroyed, and almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble." Karl told his conservative audience. Which of these was the most valuable result of conservatives not being moderate or restrained?
a) We invaded a country that had nothing at all to do with the 9/11 attacks, and now 135,000 American troops are bogged down in a futile occupation.
b) Osama Bin Laden, the architect of the 9/11 savagery, remains at large, with his criminal organization much larger and more powerful than before the attacks.
c) Virtually every ally we had in the world is estranged, and this country, which was a beacon of human rights, human rights is now synonymous with torture.
d) Our troops are fighting alone while the White House pretends that countries like Eritrea and the Solomon Islands are helping the war effort.
e) All of the above.
5) Rove fretted aloud to his audience about the danger to our troops. Which of these actions is least likely to increase this danger?
a) Claiming that war is a cakewalk and refusing to adequately prepare for the effort needed(6).
b) Failing to secure weapons depots and ammuntions dumps after the invasion. (7)
c) Equipping the troops with inadequate and antiquated gear and publicly sneering at their concerns(8).
d) Keeping battle-weary troops on the front lines indefinitely. (9)
e) Pointing out that the torture currently being inflicted in the GOP’s concentration camp at Guantanimo was pretty much like the torture dished out in totalitarian regimes.
6) Rove also said "liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," What would have been the drawbacks of that approach?
a) Osama Bin Laden and his gang might have been indicted, captured, tried and punished due to the cooperation of nearly every law enforcement organization on the planet.
b) Al Qaeda might have been disgraced and destroyed.
c) Americans might have understood who had attacked us and why they had done so.
d) Mental illness of the sort publicly exhibited by Karl Rove and his audience might get treated through therapy.
e) All of the above.
If your friend guessed "e" was the correct answer, tell him "congratulations." If he didn’t get them all right, try this bonus question!
How long will Americans be stuck in Iraq?
a) Major combat operations ended more than a year ago(10).
b) Just a few weeks(11).
c) Less than six months (12).
d) Not long after the elections (13)
e) For generations to come. (14)
Footnotes:
Here’s 1
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/23/politics/23rove.html ?
Here’s (2)
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA451.html
Here’s (3)
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/12/09/GOP.dasc... /
Here’s (4)
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0304/p01s03-wosc.html
Here’s (5)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/...
Here’s (6)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1996-2002Feb1...
Here’s (7)
http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1
Here’s (8)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46508-20...
Here’s (9)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4072467.stm
Here’s (10)
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/01/bush.carrier.... /
Here’s 11
http://www.usatoday.com/educate/war28-article.htm
Here’s 12
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2738089.stm
Here’s 13
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/12/powell.troops.iraq /
Here’s 14
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160008,00.html
"Al Qaeda might have been disgraced and destroyed."
By offering therapy and understanding for our attackers?
I'd have given long odds on that one.
Posted by: Bernard on Jun. 26, 2005