Redstate

In that you're usually the first to note that conservative /= Republican. I'm intrigued that liberal = Democrat. The Democrat Party is now without a sizable component of moderates? Surely this would be news to some of the dog contingents, and most Dems south of Mason Dixon.

Whenever the news gets too unpleasant, standard operating procedure demands that the government shoot the messenger. (I think that started with the Greeks, if I remember correctly).

Now everyone is talking about Rove, or Dean or Durbin or whoever and not the facts on the ground.

Yesterday General Abizaid basically called Chaney a liar in congressional testimony, yet everyone is focusing on a political speech to a New York party that is locally considered an irrelevant joke.

Stick to the issues.

I would only say that logical correctness and rhetorical meaning are not synonymous.

But let us not pretend that the GOP would leap to the defense of such a broad statement about conservatives; and let us not forget that the venue was not a Republican Party gathering, but a Conservative Party one, and so, just perhaps, the remarks were tailored for an ideological gathering, rather than a Big Party one.

In other words, this is cute and everything, but I suspect Rove is just smart enough to say "Democrats" when he means "Democrats," and "liberals" when he means "liberals." Others may take of it what they will, and let's be honest, they will.

That's what Rove wanted with his comments.  He wanted a media smoke screen of those congresional testimonies.  

I'm not sure why it's OK to say "liberals" wanted to provide therapy to terrorists in the shadow of the Towers, but it's verboten to say that Democrats are.  IOW, the "well, he only mentioned liberals" defense doesn't seem to be anything of a defense.  (And I'm looking forward to Rove going to New York, so that he can explain his remarks to the various "liberals" who lost family members when the Towers fell.)

All that said, the calls for Rove's resignation are silly; though movement Republicans, having done as much as anyone to foster the current politics of outrage,* have little basis to complain.  Y'all decided to put the chicken roost in your living room; it's hardly seemly to complain 'bout the chickens coming home to it.  (Also take note that those of us who live down the street or next door do not appreciate the chicken crap all over our lawns.]

*Wherein every rhetorical overreach requires an apology, which apology is inevitably deemed insufficient or insincere.  

While it's true that pacifist, defeatist leftists such as those at Moveon.org do exist, it's also true that most self-identified liberals heartily supported the invasion of Afghanistan and the goal -- pathetically still unmet after forty-five months -- of capturing or killing Osama bin Laden. It is further true that most liberals gave the President the benefit of the doubt in the invasion of Iraq.

Given the initial approval ratings, I think Trevino has a point here, unless you consider "liberal" to encompass only the extreme left-wing fringe.

In any case, I suspect Rove is even smarter than you think, in that he's quite aware of which party springs to mind when he (unfairly) maligns liberals.

As an initial matter, I'm sure the Democrats can have the 9/11 Survivors, or Whatever They're Calling Themselves Now That Kerry Is Off the Stage, where they need to be on a dime.

The defense is perfectly adequate, to my mind. Were a prominent Democrat to say such things about conservatives before the Liberal Party of Texas, for example, I couldn't care less. (Indeed, in all honesty, as I seem to have to keep repeating, I couldn't care less about most of this, Rove, Durbin, whatever, except for the fact that it suggests that we're so self-absorbed we can't bother to level bad guys any more.) I expect communication-to-the-movement about the other movement to be red meat. I expect Party references to be more polite. Call it old-fashioned etiquette.

You're welcome to move, but you'll get the poo on your lawn wherever you go. We didn't start the fire. It's been burning since... aw, heck.

(1) No, I think it covers about 20% of the population. Maybe 25%. I put conservatives at 25-30%. I make no imputations to anyone else.

(2) His opinion has been noted.

(3) I suspect he was speaking to a minor Party and giving them red meat. More than that, I'm not competent to divine.

And I disagree with your interpretation of how to characterize that disagreement.

Does that mean I'm calling you a liar?  Let the chips fall where they may.

I'm leaving.  And no Journey or Styx, neither.  (I keep up with the RedHot.)*    

Were a prominent Democrat to say such things about conservatives before the Liberal Party of Texas, for example, I couldn't care less.

I wouldn't either.  USDA inspections aren't required for red meat for the base.  

As for the rest:  maybe it's a convincing to you, but I can't see a reasonable difference between Rove's comment regarding "liberals" and Dean's comments regarding the "evil" republicans.  Hackery is hackery, regardless of purported ideological bent or word-splicing of the target.  (And I do mean "purported" because it's unclear to me what ideology, if any, Rove adheres to.)

*I will accept some Skynard.  Some Skynard.

Mehlman provided quite a few examples of liberals urging restraint, understanding, legalisticism. Among these liberals are many prominent Democrats.

RNC statement here. The amassed evidence persuades me that Rove can rely on the truth as his defense.

Count me among those who consider Rove's speech a planned tactical stroke in the broader strategy of portraying liberals as unwilling to defend America. And if the public conflates Democrats and liberals, all for the better.

Well-prepared? The White House sent out copies of Rove's speech to its political appointees and friendly contacts yesterday, and Mehlman's response to the Democrats attack on Rove had the appearance of being prepared in conjunction with the writing of the speech.

Trevino, you may be entirely correct that Rove's comment was inaccurate and all attempts to defend it are intellectually dishonest...

But so what.

Yes, I'm making light of the whole thing. Partisans talk about each other. It happens. They say some nasty, mean things that may or may not be entirely true, may or may not paint with too-broad a brush, may or may not be calculated for a specific effect, etc...  

Rove's single comment was true to an extent: there were liberals (who likely vote Democrat, but I agree with Thomas that you're playing too nice with your wife's part... did you sleep on the couch last night over Rove's comment and this is your attempt to win back the bed?) whose knee-jerk reaction was to "understand what we did to deserve this." There were liberals whose knee-jerk reaction was to claim Bush planned it all to boost his ratings. Not many, but they were there. To my mind, his only error was that he painted with too broad a brush.

So what. So some Democrats (including Hillary "I'm really a moderate" Clinton) took personal offense to it and raced for the microphone. So what.

Here's the question that I think is vital, even if slightly non sequitur: Which is worse, a partisan political appointee making a comment about adherents to an ideology that, in the grand scheme of things, will not have one iota of impact on anything; or an American Senator giving aid and comfort to the enemy (which his comments did do, whether he intended that effect or not) while our troops are still in harm's way, and potentially increasing the danger out troops face?

I do not believe this is a diversionary question on my part. The Democrats kept silent on Durbin until he "apologized" (for us being so obtuse, not for the offensive nature of his comments) and then declared the matter closed, or even, as Schumer did, BLAMED THE REPUBLICANS because "they'll do anything for a diversion." Now that a partisan appointee made a general comment that does have some truth to it -- and far more than Durbin's deplorable comparisn -- the ire is up and heads must roll.

Not to mention the repeated vitriol that issues forth from the mouth of their duly elected party head, Dr. Dean...  I don't think I need to reproduce his comments here to make that point.

All in all, I think the error of conservatives and Republicans in this latest Rove-flap is that any response but "yes, he said it... and?" has been offered. We've developed thick skin on this side of the aisle while our opponents have called us "losers," "liars," lazy, dumb, "white, Christian" (as though it's a perjorative), etc... I think their hide needs a bit of thickening as well.

Good for 'em.

(Oh, and if Hillary is as acidic on the campaign trail as she was in that press conference, she's dead in the water in '08. No one, but the most strident liberals -- and Democrats -- could listen to that long and not feel like a rat-tail file was being drawn through their ears. Her voice and demeanor were ice.)

Trevino.

I despise the politics of outrage regardless of which side is doing it.

What an excellent characterization of what we are faced with in our body politic these days.  I have to admit I am more or less unmoved by Rove's comments - he's not supposed to be on my side - and I know he's both dead wrong about the generalization but relying on enough truth about some members of my political coalition that it's tough to really call him on the mat for it.

We spend all this time battling over whatever latest stupid and unfair thing our political "leadership" said.  I'm not so naive to believe this entirely new, but I do think it has grown exponentially since the start of the Clinton administration.  Despite my cynicism, I'm always pleasantly surprised when a post changes my opinion about something.  In this case, I think it may have been the straw which broke the camel's back with regards to my defense of Dean and others.  If this country is to ever heal from the current idiocy, it will require folks on both sides of the aisle to call spades spades and not keep taking it for the team.

We are living in dramatic times, on top of the pile but facing threats both domestic and internal which, left unsolved, could end or negatively alter the good life and the great nation we currently possess.  The choices we make in the next decade could lay the foundation for another 100 years of pax american, or they could result in the European-style marginalization of our country.  We have to fix our debt, win our fights, keep working on our social differences, and find the common ground to unify when we need to.  This isn't how to do it.

Sorry for the soapbox.  Thanks for the post, Trevino.

Durbin's comments were not based in fact.

Karl Rove's comments are based in fact, as this fact sheet and the links on this comment on another Rove thread will demonstrate.

It's not a matter of opinion when the top general makes an assessment of conditions in the field. Furthermore he was under oath.

Cheney's remarks are an opinion. And what does it say when he disregards his own military commanders?

... not only to eliminate bin Laden but also to remove the Taliban and the Qaeda camps.  We've failed to capture the needle in the haystack, but the we achieved the broader goal of removing the camps from which 9-11 emanated and the regime which let them open.

As for Rove's remark, I'd have been unfazed by something of the sort coming frou an Ann Coulter...

I think this observation is relevant: Bobby Fischer was mad.

Which is worse, a partisan political appointee making a comment about adherents to an ideology that, in the grand scheme of things, will not have one iota of impact on anything; or an American Senator giving aid and comfort to the enemy (which his comments did do, whether he intended that effect or not) while our troops are still in harm's way, and potentially increasing the danger out troops face?

As I asked in a different thread:  what evidence do we really have that this 'gave aid and comfort to the enemy'?

I looked thru Al Jazeerah, Dawn (Pakistan) and Rediff (India) and found little or no mention of Gitmo or Durbin at all.

I still don't understand how a US Senator criticizing actions at Gitmo as something the Nazis may have done gives any more comfort to Al Zarqawi than Peter Goss saying we cannot catch Osama because he is being helped by 'a sovereign nation'

A lot of criticism here. Was Rove hyperbolic - sure. To a large extent, that's his job description.

But "the demagoguery of mediocrity"? That's a mouthful. Recall that Rove's self-stated goal, from before the 2000 election IIRC, is enabling or building the shift of governing party power from democrat to republican. It seems that task is 1/2 done. Commments like these are designed, and intended to split the opposition. It seems they are having that effect, inasmuch as a few are reacting so loudly as to make the rest of wonder whether it was really hyperbole.

While it is discussed in great detail amongst the websites such as this, there is very little general media attention given to the distinction between republicans and conservatives. While generally overlapping, Rove and Bush and certainly building a republican superstructure.

What Rove is doing his positioning the opposition as a liberal force, not a democratic force. It's a distinction worth drawing, since it asks opponents to characterize themselves, and allows republicans to continue picking off democratic support where available.

Try as they might (Chaffee/Shays/McCain/Voinovich/etc....) the democrats are years behind in this effort, and current leadership seems to want to make starker distinctions.

"But this is to give too much credit to a man whose effect on the party, in unmooring it from conservative principle in so many ways, has been a long-term negative."

Who's to say that Rove is actually interested in conservative principles? The Bush administration has long ago detached itself from these principles in order to maintain power, and Rove is the chief operator behind this. Remember, Rove isn't an ideologue or idealist, he's just running a perpetual campaign.

Ignoring for the moment the alleged factual basis of slander--you do know that you linked to the website of a political party, right? That's not a 'fact sheet', it's a press release, and not only does it not defend the original statements made, it often mischaracterizes its own quotes! What's the implication here, that Ken Mehlman needs to work on his basic reading comprehension skills, or that he thinks that the people in his party are too partisan or stupid to notice or care?

I'll give you just one example (but there are many more):

Gov. Howard Dean (D-VT) Said Osama Bin Laden Not Guilty.  Dean: “I Still Have This Old-Fashioned Notion That Even With People Like Osama, Who Is Very Likely To Be Found Guilty, We Should Do Our Best Not To, In Positions Of Executive Power, Not To Prejudge Jury Trials.”

Now, identify the falsehood. On the other hand, if the official position of the GOP is that the entire concept of presumption of innocence doesn't or shouldn't exist anymore, then I suppose that would explain a lot...

"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war. Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," - Karl Rove

Treating the attacks of September 11 as crimes against humanity would have been more appropriate.  Crimes require police work, not military action.  To protect against terrorism, you need precautionary measures, awareness, and intelligence gathering - all of which ultimately depend on the support of the populations among which terrorists operate.  Imagine for a moment that September 11 had been treated as a crime.  We would have pursued Bin Laden in Afghanistan, but we would not have invaded Iraq.  Nor would we have our military struggling to perform police work in full combat gear and getting killed in the process.

That sounds like something Brent Scowcroft or Bush Sr may have said - even Henry Kissinger.

I don't see anything here that offers 'understanding and therapy', do you?  Or litigation?

I would simply add that (a) according to Pew, 'liberals' constitute 19% of Americans, and they are overwhelmingly Democrats, and (b) in the wake of 9/11, the Afghanistan campaign and the WoT had something like 92% public support, and a level of opposition somewhere around the margin of error of the poll. Do the math.

Afterwards, I would urge the rest of you to consider how acceptable you think it is to play politics with 9/11 in this fashion. In the meantime, I'll be expecting Rove's full apology or immediate resignation, and you are all free to join me.

But how is this any different from Dean's comments?

We can argue about who is being more effective with their demogoguery.  But this is no different than Dean's comments.  

If you are going to look at Rove's comments through the prism of cynicism then you should do the same with Dean's comments.

As I have said before, I'm not bothered by Rove's comments or Dean's comments.  I am bothered by the OUTRAGE! generated about them.  We KNOW why they say these things and yet so many people STILL get up in arms about it.  Oftentimes people can't even explain WHY they are OUTRAGED!

This sounds like something that I'd expect to see at that other site...

Substantively, there's absolutely nothing inaccurate about Rove's comments. Many members of the liberal left, especially the Michael Moore/MoveOn.org wing of the party had exactly that reaction to 9/11. And yet the Democratic Party did not only fail to repudiate them, but they've come to embrace that position. The further out from September 11 we get, the more accurate Rove's assessment of the Democrats becomes.

There are two other arguments that instantly struck me as diminishing the overall argument.

First of all, the "War on Terror" is a hell of a lot bigger than Osama bin Laden. If the goal of Enduring Freedom was merely to capture or kill Osama bin Laden then that operation was shooting for the wrong goal. Bin Laden is a symptom. If tomorrow he ends up getting splattered all over some cave wall, this war doesn't end. The only way we can guarantee the long-term safety of this nation is be eliminating the systems that create groups like al-Qaeda. Unless we achieve that goal, we're going to end up playing a game of whack-a-mole that has a strong chance of ending when a nuclear weapon goes off in New York and we're forced to respond in kind.

Furthermore, there's a good chance that bin Laden is in Pakistan, where the value of his capture is completely offset by the risk of having Musharraf fall from power. If that happens, there is a considerable risk of a fundamentalist Islamic government taking control of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. The very real risk of a nuclear exchange over Kashmir or nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists is simply too great a risk to justify the capture of just one man, who is very likely to be trapped in a mountainous area along the Afghan/Pakistan border and is very likely unable to exercise much more than token control over al-Qaeda as an organization. A neutered bin Laden may be more strategically valuable to the United States than a martyr or a prisoner.

The second argument is that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were ineptly run. I won't imply that mistake were not made, but the argument that the planning of this war was "incompetent" is hyperbole at best and slander at worst. The argument that we needed more troops on the ground has some merit, but if one looks at the distribution of casualties on the ground it tells another story. The biggest losses in Iraq are from the logistical end of things - IED attacks along patrol routes and supply trails. The terrorists in Iraq are following a rather sound strategy - disrupt our supply lines to try and keep us off balance. More troops requires more resupplies and a larger logistical tail - which means more targets of opportunity for terrorists.

The arguments that the war is being fought "incompetently" is almost always a criticism that ignores the massive complexities of 21st Century warfare. Has this war been immune from mistakes? Absolutely not. Have we constantly been learning from our mistakes and adapting to the changing considerations of war: absolutely yes. As the old saying goes, no plan survives first contact with the enemy. The measure of military success is rarely in the quality of one's initial plans, but in the ability of a military organization to adapt when that plan goes to hell.

The fact is that the Democratic Party has made a choice. There are many sensible Democrats out there who want us to win this war and are ardent patriots. There are Democrats in uniform serving overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are Democrats who are quite strong on the defense of this nation.

But the Democratic Party has allowed itself to become represented by their far left. Chairman Dean, Sen. Reid, Rep. Pelosi, Michael Moore, etc, are all part of what is sadly now the Democratic "mainstream" despite repeatedly demonstrating policies and attitudes that would harm this nation's ability to defend itself from terrorism. Until the Democratic Party repudiates the activist fringe that now controls it, Rove's comments remain impolitic, but accurate.

I agree that making excuses for Karl Rove's speech is absolutely the wrong thing to do.

I also agree that it would be intellectually dishonest to hang one's hat on a distinction between 'liberals' and 'Democrats.' Given who Karl Rove is, and what position he holds, it's fair to assume that he intended to disparage the opposition political party... not just some vague ideological cluster called "liberals."

I do believe he made the distinction carefully and deliberately, but that was not to aid in subsequent excuse-making. It was done to foment the spectacle — since occurred — of "Democrats" rising in indignation to protest comments directed at "liberals." By their too-much-protesting shalt thou know them.

As for the second business, it is not necessary for Republicans to have a natural advantage in issues of war and defense. It is sufficient that they have a serendipitous one. Which they do: the Democrats positioned themselves for a post-Cold-War Peace Dividend, and instead we got 9/11. They called their own play here; if their guys are standing in the wrong place now, too bad. We still get to take advantage of it.

It is also not necessary that such an advantage be permanent; it is enough that we have it now. Because now is when we're going to run this play.

And that's what this is. This is not Karl Rove shooting his mouth off. This is a called play.

rhetoric such as this is simply unbecoming to a White House that purportedly seeks to lead the whole of America.

It appears that the current occupant of said White House is tired of trying to lead the whole of America. He will now settle for leading the Republicans, who won the election, have majorities in both houses of Congress, and are not getting a single thing done because everybody is busy playing patty-cake with guys who are just not on the team.

So to heck with the Other Guys. They want to call us Nazis, they want to call us brain-head, and here we go into the tank in the polls.

Enough. Let's just grab 'em by the throats, slam them against the wall, put them in their place, and then Move On with the agenda... and every time they stick their heads up to crab about it, we whack 'em again.

There has to come a time when the bi-partisan hoo-hah has to end. And my personal hunch is that the filibuster of Mr. Bolton was that point. From here on in, the Democrats are not going to get George The Uniter. They are going to get George The Hardball Pitcher.

He won't win 'em all; they'll get a few hits off of him. But this doing-nothing stuff is going to stop now.

Mssrs. Frist and Hastert have been provided with every opportunity to demonstrate that either of them has a spine. Alas, they do not. And so someone who does have a spine will have to provide the leadership that they will not provide.

To read the Constitution, you would think that the President was a mere functionary. The legislature is supposed to run this country. But they don't, and they haven't for a long time, and I guess Mr. Bush is tired of waiting to see if they are interested.

I listened to Bush's speeches on Social Security. He thought by calling for reform, he would see proposals. He wanted lots of proposals. "Get the ideas on the table," he urged. He wanted vigorous debate. He was less interested in what they finally came up with than that they fix the darn thing, because it's obviously headed over a cliff.

But what did they do? Nothing. Both sides of the aisle... sitting around twiddling their thumbs in the House. The Senate meanwhile is so bereft of leadership that a spitball fight erupts as if The World's Greatest Deliberative Body is a third-grade classroom with the teacher missing.

So this has to end.

If you have watched Mssrs. Bush and Rove, you know that they play politics the way Bill Walsh or George Siefert play football. They do not have one play called. When they take the field, they know what the first 22 plays are going to be. If the Democrats think the first one was smash-mouth, just wait.

Excuses are for losers. There will be no excuses. There will instead be a second term, not this nonsense we have now.

 I'm hopeful that at some time in the near future the acidity will ratchet down. It's less than likely now, though, since the Party and the White House have decided to protect Rove.

Rove is a federal employee and a prominent member of the presidential administration.  Dean is just some guy who is the chairman of a political party and you don't have to support him financially unless you choose to.  

The difference is I still take Rove seriously generally, while I have trouble taking Dean seriously aside from his trying to rally the base.

Sure, Rove has the advantage in that his party is in power and has to be taken seriously, but his official position is far inferior to those expressing the outrage about him.

Meanwhile - what is Dean doing? It seems his task needs to be increasing the base, or at least stabilizing it and adding some waverers in the center to regain power. Or, to fall back completely and reconsolidate akin to conservatives in the 50's and 60's.

Dean's dilemma is that while the party is shrunken, its power of appearence has not - namely the media, the elite, unions, etc...

Thus, his paradox - the democrats cannot be powerless and powerful simultaneously. Which is it?

But - a big difference in the two is that Rove gives his targets a choice - are they liberal, therapeutic, consoling, legal process oriented, etc... or not? What choices are interlaced in Dean's remarks - evil, working, white, christian, etc....? Just seems starker, and dare I say given this thread, more demagogic?

that both sides can rationalize how THEIR OUTRAGE! is much more justifiable than the other sides.

I'm genuinely curious.  I generally post in opposition to the bulk of the crowd here.

I think I've only had one post get a rating, and that one was given a 4.  What I want to understand is what about pb's post made it a)worthy of being rated one way or another and b)requiring a 1.

If you get a chance, please respond.

Thanks

First, you're the one who equated coverage by Al Jazeera et al. with "aid and comfort to the enemy." Through the miracle of the internet, those aren't the only conduits by which our enemies could get propaganda. ABCNews.com could be used just as easily, since at least a few of our enemies speak English.

But even at that, how long does it have to be on the front page at one of those outlets for it to have the effect of "giving aid and comfort"?

I say as much time as it takes for the enemy to print off a copy and pass it out in leaflet form and incorporate it into talking points at Friday sermons, etc.

Al-Jazeera et al. aren't going to be so clumsy as to do the inciting to violence themselves, they merely "report" what's happening and let the chips fall where they may. The fact that neither of Durbin's (non)apologies was covered by Al-Jazeera (didn't check the others, but I'll make a safe assumption that they also didn't cover those).

The Peter Goss comment doesn't hold a candle to Durbin's. Goss made an assessment, based in fact (a condition notably lacking in Durbin's comment), on the possibility of us accomplishing a strategic goal, present conditions considered. Durbin slandered our troops. Goss used fact, Durbin used hyperbole of the worst stripe. If Zarqawi is aided and comforted by an honest assessment of conditions, that's regretable, and says more about failures to make conditions favorable to catch OBL. But Durbin gave fuel to the fire among those who hate us and already think the worst of us. He gave them a quote, from a top American pol, that "confirms" their worst assumptions about Americans...   but it wasn't true. Durbin's claim wasn't true.

Don't know if that means anything to you, but it does to me, and it should to any American politician looking to score cheap political points.

if Howard Dean's "Old-Fashioned Notion" of "innocent until found guilty" extended to the House Majority Leader - but hey, whatever gets you through the night.

And the implications therein. I try to keep the 1s for trolling only, ot just because I disagree or think the comment is poorly worded.

I disagree.

Rove was factually correct, speaking in a forum where the topic was the decline of liberalism.

He gave excellent examples. the topic was, in other words not moonbat conservatives but rahter moonbat liberals and how they are declining in the public square's influence.

Frankly there is nothing to excuse in his speech.

I do find the microphone rush of democrats reacting against his speech to be less indicative of what they believe than the lack of their rush to the microphone to condemn, say Dean's direct hatred of Republicans, and by implication white Christians, or even the slander of Sen. Durbin.

I think that Rove has, in one small private speech done something the dems could not accomplish with all of their softball MSM interviews: put the other side in shocked defensiveness.

Lincoln during the Civil War was much more direct in communicating his dislike of politicians soft on the war he was dealing with, by the way.

regards,

Treating the attacks of September 11 as crimes against humanity would have been more appropriate.  Crimes require police work, not military action.  To protect against terrorism, you need precautionary measures, awareness, and intelligence gathering - all of which ultimately depend on the support of the populations among which terrorists operate.  Imagine for a moment that September 11 had been treated as a crime.  We would have pursued Bin Laden in Afghanistan, but we would not have invaded Iraq.  Nor would we have our military struggling to perform police work in full combat gear and getting killed in the process.

That comment was made by George Soros, by the way.

The problem with that line of argumentation is that it's fatous, inaccurate, and displays an astonishing lack of understanding of the enemy. Coming from Mr. Soros, that shouldn't be a big shock to anyone.

First of all, this was is bigger than merely Osama bin Laden. If tomorrow bin Laden dies, the war isn't going to magically end. Al-Qaeda is not going to just give up and disperse. Al-Qaeda is the most visible part of an ideology of fanatic Islam that divides the world into the House of War (Dar al-Harb) and the House of Belief (Dar al-Islam). There are only two outcomes to this war: either we smash that ideology and publicly discredit it in the same way that the ideologies of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were discredited, or eventually we will see the use of a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon on American soil and will be forced to respond in kind. The lessons of history are quite clear -- allowing a totalitarian ideology to flourish is beyond idiotic and borders on the suicidal.

Even if we could have some kind of "truce" with al-Qaeda, what would it be? Allow them to oppress the Middle East if they leave us alone? What is the morality of allowing one group to be plunged into nightmarish totalitarianism in the probably futile hope that we're left alone?

The only way to end the threat we face is to end the conditions that spawned it.

The Arab world is an honor/shame culture. They admire the strong and despise the weak -- Osama bin Laden understood this concept better than anyone else. The Arab world rightly looks on attempts to curry favor as weakness -- the situation in Iraq has put this war into perspective from the Arab people. The murderers of al-Qaeda aren't fighting for Islam anymore - they're quite content to murder fellow Muslims indescriminately - they're fighting for power and control. The people of the Middle East need to know that democracy can stand up to terrorism.

Staying in Afghanistan would have been foolish - al-Qaeda has no strategic interests in the area other than being a convenient source of training camps, and the force levels there are current adaquate for our goals. By removing the Hussein regime we've given democracy a foothold in the heart of the Arab world itself, empowered the moderate strain of Shi'a Islam represented by Ayatollah Sistani and the Najaf school, and created a situation in which al-Qaeda is forced to make a stand in a place where we have 130,000 troops rather than on the streets of New York or Los Angeles.

If one actually endeavors to understand this war, our enemy, and the long term goals we must achieve to win, the fatuousness and illogic of Soros' position becomes quite clear.

Substantively, there's absolutely nothing inaccurate about Rove's comments. Many members....

Yeah, Jay.  Many.  Not most, and certainly not all, which is what was claimed.  Which is where the inaccuracy lays.

First of all, the "War on Terror" is a hell of a lot bigger than Osama bin Laden.....The only way we can guarantee the long-term safety of this nation is be eliminating the systems that create groups like al-Qaeda.

Sure, I agree completely.  The question is whether the Administration agrees.  I find our policies and actions on Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iraq -- to say nothing of this nonsense -- somewhat contrary to this understanding.

As for your assessment of the situation vis a vis Pakistan, you're thinking just like Musharraf wants Americans to think.  Let's think of American interests, yes?

....the argument that the planning of this war was "incompetent" is hyperbole at best and slander at worst.

Ridiculous.  It is completely accurate.  To say that "the argument that we needed more troops on the ground has some merit" is like saying that Barbarossa was a strategic misstep: it's a euphemism for the cardinal mistake (in this case, coupled with a lack of meaningful postwar planning) of the war.  Incompetence has been the very hallmark of the war's political and strategic (as opposed to operational and tactical, which has been oft-brilliant) execution.  

I won't tell you I'm unbiased: I have friends who are telling me what it's like there, and what they are having to face.  My friend Kim Hampton, an only daughter, was shot down and killed over Fallujah, in no small part because the strategic decision was then in effect to allow that wretched town to be an insurgent haven.  My OBC commander Eric Paliwoda is dead of shrapnel to the heart, because there wasn't manpower around Baqubah to run enough patrols to keep the mortar teams away.

More troops requires more resupplies and a larger logistical tail - which means more targets of opportunity for terrorists.

Good God.  This is such a black-is-white absurdity.  Yes, more troops mean more targets, but it also means more threats to the enemy.

The arguments that the war is being fought "incompetently" is almost always a criticism that ignores the massive complexities of 21st Century warfare.

Sorry, but this is just Rumsfeldian babble.  What's uniquely "21st century" about the present war in Iraq?

There are many sensible Democrats out there who want us to win this war and are ardent patriots. There are Democrats in uniform serving overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are Democrats who are quite strong on the defense of this nation.

Yep.  Thanks.  Now tell me why Karl Rove couldn't make the same distinction.

For the record, the Newsweek "story" about Koran flushing was read, verbatim, from the pages of Newsweek, in Friday sermons.

Muslims who already hated America were affirmed in their hatred. Squishy Muslims who were on the fence, pre-disposed to "hate the infidel" but impressed by those kind, gentle, generous Marines doing all that good stuff for them and their kids, were not helped by that. And it was a lie.

You wanna bet Newsweek's retraction was read the following week at the sermon?

Aid and comfort, my friend. It doesn't take much.

That doesn't make Mehlman any more honest, but it's a nice contradiction to use against Dean.

did RNC Chair Melhman get dragged into this mud-fest?  Or did you mean Rove?

What's uniquely "21st century" about the present war in Iraq?

The media - 24/7 coverage throughout the world, including Jihadistan, in real-time.

As far as I can tell, a 1 rating here often means "you said something that sounds uncomfortably true that I do not wish to address". Kudos for Thomas for at least generally addressing what he found fault with. I may not agree with his analysis, but he's entitled to his opinion, and I think that may be the first time anyone has even bothered to explain or defend a 1 rating on any of my comments. Thank you as well for asking about it, I certainly value the discussion more than the ratings.

(OT: over on slashdot, my sig has long been "Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.", or something to that effect--go figure :))

rate comments?  Is this mechanism reserved to the devoted Red Staters?

Do they mean anything?  

Is there a way I can see the ratings of my posts without going to each post?

Just curious.  Sorry for the offtopic newbie questions.

We actually don't see most of the fighting or operations.  Not nearly to the extent we did in, say, Vietnam.

First let me say that I'm glad you reserve 1s for trolling only, and not for disagreement or poor wording. Naturally we can disagree on what constitutes 'trolling', (this was a specific category that sadly is often greatly expanded these days) but in general I think that's a respectable policy. (I generally reserve 1s for 'crapflooding' or hostility, or perhaps exceptionally bad trolling, but that's just mek, and I don't have any hard-and-fast guidelines)

Fortunately, the last paragraph is pretty short, as is the entire post. So while I have you here... If you don't mind elaborating, specifically, what is it that you dislike.

• Do you think it's acceptable to play politics with 9/11?
  
• Do you disagree that Rove did indeed do that?
  
• Do you not wish to join me in expecting a full apology or immediate resignation? I assure you, you are under no obligation to do so from me.
  
• Other?

... strategy will ultimately be effective -- Republicans need moderates to remain in power -- but a great, well-reasoned post (as reflected in my rating).

I'm guessing that they link the moderation capability to trusted user status. This is not necessarily a bad idea depending on your goals; of course there's the obvious group-think bias that could result, but it does protect against the new account problem. Of course, I'm relatively new here too, so I don't know precisely. I didn't see anything specifically about it in the FAQ, but I certainly could have missed it.

I don't think there is a way of seeing all the ratings without going to each one. But of course you can see the aggregate rating (not who rated you) on your Comments page. If you aren't familiar with Scoop, some of this might require a bit more explaining; the FAQ over on kuro5hin.org might be a good place to start.

when he released the very talking points that we are discussing in this thread.

You can rank comments once you have acquired sufficient mojo, which is a function of the value your comments have been rated and the number of times you post, I believe.  Thus, if you get enough 5s without 1s, and you show up regularly, you will eventually get to rate.  Much harder for oppo posters to achieve, because predictably, you probably aren't posting things the majority of posters will agree with.

Alas, I lost my mojo awhile back.  But that's probably a better - I don't have any business rating comments or trying to screen trolls when I have a pretty substantial ideological difference with the hosts.  It is a nice feedback mechanism, though, when used properly.

here

This is clearly a divisive issue both parties will exploit.  You can google all day/night to prove one point or another. Or seek both party's talking points on their websites.

But facts are the GWOT is not being prosecuted as effectively as Americans want.  Work is not getting done in DC, with the republican party in control.  And I sense Americans are getting grumpy with republicans.  Rove may be a distraction this week, but not for long.

To briefly focus on an enemy: Al Qaeda (in Iraq) has been complaining about Al Jazeerah's bias ("All the American army statements are carried and accepted but no one carries the mujahideen's side."), while Al Jazeerah insists that they offer even-handed coverage.  Go figure.

A better question might be, what news do they get/watch over there? Newsweek? Fox News? An even better question might be, should our news media and our political officials censor themselves so as not to offend terrorists? My personal opinion is that no, they should not, they should instead have a responsibility to speak and report the truth as they see fit.

While I get irritated with the Bush/Hitler/Nazi comparisons, there is a difference between some columnist in a leftwing (or even mainstream newspaper) saying these things, and a senator on the senate floor, during a debate (on an energy bill for that matter) and entered into the official record.

Dean's comments bother me, and I find them offensive, but not a single time have I demanded his resignation or felt that he should apologize for them (although I think his cummulative generalizations in the long run harm the party with the swing voters and red staters).  But they were intended to be red meat for his base, and those comments all probably played quite well with his base.

Rove's comments are pretty similar to Deans in comparison, more so than Durbin's, because Rove and Dean were trying to accomplish the same thing from different sides of the political spectrum-you expect that.  I mean honestly do we think that every partisan political meeting doesn't toss red meat around?  I think the difference is that Dean's red meat just doesn't come out right-he generally steps in the doo doo everytime-I think his problem is more the delivery than the message.

Calls for resignations are ridiculous-for one thing we could probably find Rove saying worse than these comments, which frankly can be supported with some evidence.

I think the Dems would have done far better to have ignored the comments, and then they wouldn't have to deal with looking so petty.

Yes petty, after defending Durbin's comments comparing our troops to Nazi's (and frankly if you are going to argue that liberal means democrat then don't give me anymore of this "he wasn't comparing them to Nazi's" crap), they really don't have a leg to stand on here.

is the right one.

Durbin's comments were on the floor of the senate during a debate.

Rove's comments were made to a conservative group (probably in an attempt to get some money from them for the party).

Rove's comments should be compared to Dean's various foot in mouth speeches.  Rove's is probably comparable in that sense.  Just as we can find some fact to back up several of Dean's comments (although I think the "evil" one was out of line, and I think the "never worked an honest day in their lives" is probably unsupportable), but essentially all these comments were made by a party spokesman to some degree, in front of a partisan group, and most likely with the intention of firing them up enough to pull out their checkbooks to start writing some checks.

that Mehlman produced a list of "facts" so support Rove's claims.

So I imagine that is how he got dragged into it.

This all hinges on what you think the purpose of comment ratings actually is. Originally (on kuro5hin) it was never supposed to be about agreement, it was supposed to be about quality (but you can bet that didn't last long). The Redstate.org posting rules don't really cover comment ratings (I don't know if they have trusted user guidelines), but I'd imagine that (from the mission statement) they have more to do with this being "a Republican community weblog" than "a gathering place of responsible voices, stimulating debate, and constructive action". So be it, I'll work towards the latter goals regardless, which I'd imagine can only help the first goal.

conservatives (or war supporters) and liberals (war opposers or at least to some degree war restrictors).

The first group views the WOT as more of a big picture thing-more of a stop the Islamofascist thugs whoever they are wherever they are, and the countries that help support them (granted I think we should be more proactive with that last one, we play footsy entirely too much with  Saudi Arabia on this issue).  

More often than not I get the impression from the second group that they view this as more of a war on Al Queda, and to some extent Osama Bin Laden.  And on the part of SOME an unwillingness to recognize that many of these terrorist groups work together and support and cross train with each other, a sort of NATO of the terrorist world.  

It is this difference in vision on the WOT that is more at the heart of the debate than neccessarily an anitwar/prowar debate.  This is why conservatives (pro war) often view/understand Iraq as being an extension of this war, while liberals (anti war) think of Iraq as a distraction.

Also, the fact that I keep seeing people from the other side talking about trials and constitutional rights that I think Rove is dead on in regards to his "writing indictments" criticism-even the "pro war" liberals seem to think of it almost as military action in order to capture the bad guys to try them in the US court system with all the constitutional rights that entails.

Republicans need moderates to remain in power

Right now the polls are telling us that the Republicans need to do something to remain in power. The ratings of Congress-in-general are tanking, and the Republicans are being blamed for it. And probably rightly so, because they do have majorities and they aren't getting anything done.

Yesterday they threw this Flag Amendment over the transom at us. Feh. Where's the Social Security reform? Where's the Tax Reform? What about all these illegal guys coming over the border? Ask the average guy on the street what his top three concerns are, and all three of 'em are "gasoline prices." We know that Congress can't actually do anything about that, but let's at least see some arm-waving. Let's clear away all this litigation brush that keeps us from building refineries and power plants... preferably nuclear ones, because the oil-rich part of the world is getting crazier by the minute.

Instead of any of that, the Democrats are sitting in a circle shooting spitballs, and the Republicans are milling around like the 55 Stooges, unable to even get a frigging UN Ambassador confirmed.

The public doesn't want to hear about how it's all the Democrats' fault. They want to hear about the tax reform and the social security reform. And they'd better start hearing some of it soon, or they are going to start tuning the Pubbies out. "You had your chance, you blew it." That's what's going to happen in 2006 if nothing gets done in 2005.

The moderates know that the Democrats have been over-the-top with their rhetoric. So they will forgive a certain amount of it from the R's. But that had better not be the strategy. It's good to establish a ground game, but let's not have that be the whole thing. But I don't believe that is the whole thing.

the better one over the Durbin/Rove one.

Even if Rove is not the leader of the RNC, his speech was essentially serving the same purpose that Dean's speeches (to fire up the base and get the checks coming).

Dean's evil, and "didn't do an honest days work" comments bothered me.  The white Christian wasn't really wrong, but we all realize that it wasn't meant as an observation, but as a back door slam against the Christian Right (and I find more and more a hostility within the GOP to this same group, so he isn't unique in that slam).

Yeah, Jay.  Many.  Not most, and certainly not all, which is what was claimed.  Which is where the inaccuracy lays.

Which means that Rove was guilty of hyperbole, which is hardly a cardinal sin for a politician.

Again, the Democrats have opened themselves up for these charges. Had they repudiated the far left wing of their party rather than embrace Dean, Moore, et al Rove's attack wouldn't have had the resonance it had. Looking at this politically, the Democrats are making a major mistake by going after Rove rather than simply letting it be another example of a politician throwing a large helping of red meat to the base.

Sure, I agree completely.  The question is whether the Administration agrees.  I find our policies and actions on Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iraq -- to say nothing of this nonsense -- somewhat contrary to this understanding.

I'd love for nothing more than to see the House of Saud end up on the ashheap of history, but we have to proceed in a pragmatic way. As loathsome as the Saudis are, what are our options? We know that bin Laden hates the Saudis and would love for them to fall. Unless we can absolutely guarantee that a better regime will take their place, there's damned little we can do other than harsh words.

As for your assessment of the situation vis a vis Pakistan, you're thinking just like Musharraf wants Americans to think.  Let's think of American interests, yes?

And what are American interests vis à vis Pakistan? Musharraf has helped reduce the tensions over Kashmir which not all that long ago threatened to ignite World War III. We know that the ISI remains very powerful and is sympathetic to al-Qaeda. We know that Shawaz, Bhutto, and the rest of the former Pakistani leadership are too weak to credibly stand against the Islamists. We know that as undemocratic as Musharraf is, he's a far site better than the alternatives.

Where is the gain in alienating Pakistan? Do the benefits outweigh the risks? Again, as much as I'd love to see Pakistan crack down on militants and start transitioning to a functional democracy, that's several years down the road at best. Anything we do now has a far, far greater chance of making the situation worse than it does making it better.

The US should support moderate democratic groups and strengthen them until they can credibly control both the Islamists and Musharraf. Until that time, we simply can't risk destabilizing the devil we know in favor something that might be better but runs an unacceptable risk of having Islamic radicals obtain nuclear weapons and the systems needed to deliver them.

Ridiculous.  It is completely accurate.  To say that "the argument that we needed more troops on the ground has some merit" is like saying that Barbarossa was a strategic misstep: it's a euphemism for the cardinal mistake (in this case, coupled with a lack of meaningful postwar planning) of the war.  Incompetence has been the very hallmark of the war's political and strategic (as opposed to operational and tactical, which has been oft-brilliant) execution.

...

Good God.  This is such a black-is-white absurdity.  Yes, more troops mean more targets, but it also means more threats to the enemy.

The only way more troops would be useful to us is if we can have those troops be more focused on combat operations. The problem we're facing isn't that our combat troops can't do the job - our operational tempo has been increasing despite the fact that we're drawing down troop strength in Iraq. The majority of casualties are coming from rear-guard troops getting caught up in IED explosions and car bombings. We could add more security to convoys, but security forces don't help when you're dealing with mortars and tank rounds buried into the asphault of a road and detonated remotely. More threats to the enemy requires more bullets, fuel, food, and supplies being delivered to the front lines, and that gives the enemy more opportunities to strike at our weak points.

Sorry, but this is just Rumsfeldian babble.  What's uniquely "21st century" about the present war in Iraq?

As someone's already noted, this is a media war. We're fighting a war in which when some soldier makes a mistake, it ends up all over every newspaper in the country.

We're fighting in a war where we have to be able to not only kill the enemy, but spare the life of the person living next to him, and if we screw it up, it's all over CNN.

Not to mention the use of UAVs, network-centric warfare, JSTARS, etc, all of which are part of the ongoing transformation of the military from dealing with the Soviet threat to dealing with non-state actors who don't play by the normal rules of warfare.

Yep.  Thanks.  Now tell me why Karl Rove couldn't make the same distinction.

Because the far left has coopted the term "liberal." When the left is represented by people like Howard Dean and Michael Moore, Rove's comparisons have a hell of a lot of truth to them.   If the Democratic Party wants to disprove Mr. Rove and demonstrate their not weak on national defense, they need to ensure that their leadership isn't comprised largely of people whose views are antithetical to a strong national defense.

"A critique of an ideology does not constitute a critique of the single principle vehicle of that ideology in American public life. "

This premise assumes that the public accepts that the Democrats are the single principle vehicle of liberalism. However, the Democrats have worked very hard over the past two or three decades to distance themselves from the liberal label.

That they are liberal does not matter. They are perceived, by many Americans, to not necessarily be liberal.

I can't beleeeeeve we're arguing over stupid comments by pols leveled at political opponents, whether they come from Dean or Rove.

Durbin's comment, since it deals with the war, is different, and deserves the outrage it has caused. But Rove and Dean are partisan hacks, whose job descriptions pretty well demand they toss bombs like this.

The entire furor over this, and over Dean's coments, are little more than a grown-up version of the old "I'm rubber, you're glue...," "sticks and stones" arguments that get so many kids in trouble with Dad as they bicker in the back seat on the way to church. It usually ends with tongues protruding, huffs, arms folded, and then forgotten. Until someone invades the other's "side of the seat" -- at which point Dad threatens to not give some treat after church.

The proper response from the Dems is: "Okay, fine, we'll use that in the midterm elections to show how mean you are...," which is also the proper response by Republicans to Dean's comments.

Let's be adults (Trevino, weren't you concerned about this a while back?) and MOVE ON!

2 Marines or sailors were killed and 4 are unaccounted for in Fallujah today. Slightly more important than what Rove and Dean are saying today.

The SCOTUS dealt a near-death blow to private property rights yesterday.

Social Security is still withering and no one but Bush is credibly talking about fixing it.

Oil hit $60 a barrel, sending the Dow tumbling 166 points.

Violence continues in Afghanistan despite Ms. Pelosi's declarations to the contrary.

A U.S. Senator slandered our troops and still hasn't owed up to the offensive nature of his comments.

There are real, problematic things happening. This is not worth the brain power already expended on it.

Awful post.

MOVE ON!

I tend to agree that I really don't feel a need to rate people's posts, given my generally contrary view to this site's stated purpose.  I was just curious about this feature.

I haven't much paid attention to the ratings thing in general.  I did go to my comments page and discovered that my posts are largely treated in a ho-hum fashion from a ratings perspective which I guess is the best option for me since I suspect that any ratings I am likely to receive won't be favorable, given my ideology.

Thanks to PB as well for his comments.

Gee I am sorry if you misunderstood me apology?  That is basically what we got from Durbin.

btw have you called for Durbin's resignation yet?

I agree with most of it.

However I think that the Social Security issue is one he should stay away from.  

What he COULD be talking about is reforming the AMT tax.  This would really appeal to his base and to moderates.

And of course he could always mention the 800 pound gorilla sitting in the love seat, Medicare.  But I think just about EVERY politician is deathly afraid of even mentioning that beast.

I might; I suppose that would depend on the apology, but at the least it would be a good start.

If Durbin had said something equivalent to this, I'd be calling for the same response--so, no.

Except for the inhabitants of really fringe Left-Wing environments, i.e. the average Humanities Department in an Ivy League University, the New York Times and Nation readers, practically everybody else percieves them as liberals.

Which is why, despite their attempts to run away from the label, they are still stung when liberals are derided. If not, why all the fuss?

would have done it better?

I think the problem with 20/20 critiqueing of a war, is that you can lay out 100 plans, and at some point all of them may end up going down in flames.  YOu can't predict for every outcome.  I think we do need to learn from mistakes, but the "gee we are doing such a horrible job there is nothing right we are doing" is just ridiculous.  I think we are doing way too much of the latter and not enough of the former.

I think the administratoin made two huge mistakes-#1 they were overly optimistic about the occupation phase and #2 I think it was  a mistake to turn the occupation over to the state department.  But we can't go back and undo them, you have the war you have and you prosecute it to the best of your abilities.

War is never pretty, and people always die-that is the ugly truth about war, and you can prosecute a war perfectly and there are still goig to be dead and injured people.

Shoot WWII had some massively huge mistakes in it-should we have taken our toys and given up?  900 people died in a training accident for the Normandy invasion during WWII, should the Brits and US army given up and gone home?

the families of 9/11 victims: "9/11 Survivors, or Whatever They're Calling Themselves Now That Kerry Is Off the Stage, where they need to be on a dime."

Your tone is really telling about what type of person is a Bush supporter nowadays.

I never understand why those in, like, Wyoming or Utah, are so much more worried about terrorism than those in NY.  We were actually affected.  They saw it on their TVs.  And obviously, New Yorkers still hold this to be a sacred subject, one which we appreciate Rove to not use to score political points.

There is a large group of folks who are the survivors of the various deceased from September 11, who are Republicans, Democrats, whatever, and who aren't leveraging their status for political ends.

There are smaller subgroups who have aligned themselves with political causes for one reason or another.

I was referring to the latter -- the most prominent being a group of lefty survivors who played cutesy with Kerry-Hair in 2004, and were always available for lamenting sound-bites. Google is your friend.

I'm not sure an object not touched by God, or blessed by his priests, can ever be sacred, but whatever weird little faith you follow, I commend you to it.

Your post and your comments are nothing more than a diatribe on why you hate Bush and his administration, and clearly illustrate why you are one of the liberals Rove was talking about. Lots of whining and no solutions.  To quote you, "Incompetence has been the very hallmark of the war's political and strategic... execution."  Nothing to back up this generalized statement.  "My friend Kim Hampton, an only daughter, was shot down and killed over Fallujah, in no small part because the strategic decision was then in effect to allow that wretched town to be an insurgent haven."   "My OBC commander Eric Paliwoda is dead of shrapnel to the heart, because there wasn't manpower around Baqubah to run enough patrols to keep the mortar teams away".

So you know more than our generals on the ground.  Why don't you go over there and lend them a hand then? It seems to me that you are letting your emotional losses dictate your thought process.  What say you to those brave soldiers who have lost limbs, returned home for treatment and rehabilitation, and then asked to return (as many have) to the battlefield, prosthetic legs, arms, and all?  Tell them its all "Rumsfeldian babble".  Your service to your country is commendable.  Just don't make it harder now for those in harm's way.

You think you can credibly comment on something that happened in NYC...  how cute.

;-)

(Hey maren, I was four miles from the Pentagon that morning, driving to the Capitol when the Pentagon was hit, and my office was evacuated due to our proximity to another military installation that was identified as a potential target of the United 93 before it crashed in PA. Non-NYers can talk about it, too. In fact, by the power vested in me, as One Who Was Near To The Attacks, I hereby vest Thomas with the solemn ability to talk about 9/11...  Of course, as an American, he had that right anyhow.)

Trevino is no liberal.

said.

He apologized that I misunderstood his statement, then he sort of backed off and just apologized that I did understand him, but not for the words he said.

So, are you willing to accept that kind of apology for Rove?

Also, while we are at it, were you calling for Durbin to apologize?

Trust me, trevino is no liberal. He's a very well regarded blogger, and also one of the founders of this site.

I think he's wrong on this one, but he's not the sort of person whose arguments should be simply brushed aside.

I posted a diary entry with the full context of his remarks as well as the examples that he gave.  

and he even has the right to be completely and totally insensitive and condescending about it, as he was with the name he made up for the 9/11 families.  

But he will be judged, as will Rove, for his statement.

My "weird little" Catholic faith - LOL!!

Because apparently the democratic party isn't the party for them.

May it be so.

maligning liberals on "not understanding" 9/11.  My God, NYC is a LIBERAL city with a lot of liberals and he dares to imply that HE understands better the consequences of 9/11?  Its amazing he can imply this.

And apparently liberals "motivation" is to see US soldiers die and for us to lose to the terrorists is his implication.  Tell me, how would YOU feel if this man, a large portion of a opposing movement continually said that to you?  To continually have your patriotism questioned, to be called a traitor just because you disagree with starting and/or the prosecution of the Iraq War and how the War on Terror is being prosecuted.  To be told that your dissent=undermining the war on terror like Bill O'Reilly.  

Sure they may say "I understand dissent is OK, but not undermining the war on terror", but it seems any questioning of motives or means or facts of leaders (disent) IS "undermining" it. We got nothing.

I'll end this angry rant here.  I'm just a little pissed at Karl Rove statement and similar (and worse ones) found on the internet, and by Bill O'Reilly and his fake "dissent is fine" crap.

Feels better...Now I'm off to do something about constructive.

It's a mistake to see the anti-war movement as pacifist.  That's not really the point made in the post, but at times the assumption is made if not by the writer then I'd think many readers, that this is the case.  MoveOn is neither pacifist nor defeatist.  I'm on the left, mind you, and solidly anti-war.  I absolutely have pacifist leanings, which have developed as I've grown religiously.  But tha