Rove Criticizes Liberals on 9/11 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/23/politics/23rove.html?oref=login By PATRICK D. HEALY Published: June 23, 2005 Karl Rove came to the heart of Manhattan last night to rhapsodize about the decline of liberalism in politics, saying Democrats responded weakly to Sept. 11 and had placed American troops in greater danger by criticizing their actions. "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," Mr. Rove, the senior political adviser to President Bush, said at a fund-raiser in Midtown for the Conservative Party of New York State. Citing calls by progressive groups to respond carefully to the attacks, Mr. Rove said to the applause of several hundred audience members, "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." Told of Mr. Rove's remarks, Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, replied: "In New York, where everyone unified after 9/11, the last thing we need is somebody who seeks to divide us for political purposes." Mr. Rove also said American armed forces overseas were in more jeopardy as a result of remarks last week by Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, who compared American mistreatment of detainees to the acts of "Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime - Pol Pot or others." "Has there ever been a more revealing moment this year?" Mr. Rove asked. "Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals." Gov. George E. Pataki of New York, speaking after Mr. Rove, also touched on the Sept. 11 attacks. He promised that the proposed Freedom Tower, the new building at ground zero, would retain patriotic touches in its architecture, like a height of 1,776 feet, despite the concerns of some observers who fear that it would become a target for terrorists. "We're going to have a Freedom Tower that soars 1,776 feet high, symbolizing our independence," Mr. Pataki said. As for the memorial, he said: "No one is going to turn it into something that is a negative statement about America and our belief in freedom, so long as I am governor of this state." Speaking to reporters afterward, Mr. Pataki disclosed that he did not plan to reveal in the coming days if he will seek a fourth term, contrary to previous statements that he would make an announcement after the State Legislature adjourned today. "I'm going to evaluate the bills that the Legislature has passed at the end of the session and then make a decision at the appropriate time, but not in the next couple of weeks," Mr. Pataki said.
<B>"Has there ever been a more revealing moment this year?" Mr. Rove asked. "Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals." </B> Certainly, words like "Bring in on!" didn't put our troops in greater danger... Republicans really need Rove to stay behind the scenes - that's where he's at his best.
this is being discussed here This is just the opening round of Operation Blame the Liberals you will see more and more of this in the coming weeks and months as public sentiment keeps going against the President and the 2006 elections close in
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." Hot head gut reactions is a good thing? Mr. Rove also said American armed forces overseas were in more jeopardy as a result of remarks last week by Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, who compared American mistreatment of detainees to the acts of "Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime - Pol Pot or others." It was Sen. Dubin who is putting our troops in more danger not the administration who got us involved in an useless war and didn't have a plan to rebuild Iraq once we defeated the Iraqi army? That is like me hitting someone in the mouth for no reason then my friend says "you shouldn't have done that". Then i blame my friend for putting me in danger. "Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals." Here he accuses Democrats of treason because Durbin dares to question an unnecessary war. Basically just trying to do what Rep. do when they feel threatened. If you say anything against us you are unpatriotic. This is old Rep. crap that they do all the time. When will America wake up to this desperate tactic?
I think we see that name calling and politics goes both ways. What is shameful is that Rove used 9/11 for the purpose.
Is there any doubt that public equivocation in front of the media (masquerading as deliberation) is energizing the enemy in this fight? Why don't these "great" men have these monumental dscussions behind closed doors and present a more-or-less united front to the enemy? This newsbite-worthy privilege-of-dissent behavior is hurting us.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/24/rove.speech.ap/index.html I find this amusing... the White House seems utterly confused. <I>It's somewhat puzzling why all these Democrats ... who responded forcefully after 9-11, who voted to support President Bush's pursuit of the war on terror, are now rallying to the defense of Moveon.org, this liberal organization who put out a petition in the days after 9/11 and said that we ought not use military force in responding to 9/11," Bartlett said on NBC's "Today" show. "That is who Karl Rove cited in that speech ... There is no need to apologize." </I> From Rove's speech: <I>"Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals." </I> Is Sen. Dick Durbin the same as MoveOn?
Is there any doubt that public equivocation in front of the media (masquerading as deliberation) is energizing the enemy in this fight? Why don't these "great" men have these monumental dscussions behind closed doors and present a more-or-less united front to the enemy? Because that's not how democracy works. You debate the issues in the open, so the American people can make decisions as to whose leadership they trust. If you are worried about wavering public support, don't get into a controversial war without solid support - don't go to war without their support and then b**** that everyone doesn't fall in line and support you. By the way, Republicans are now bashing the war as well. Mr. Freedom Fries is at the head of the "bring our troops home" movement.
Is there any doubt that public equivocation in front of the media (masquerading as deliberation) is energizing the enemy in this fight? giddyup what your saying makes since on a certain level. But that is a very very dangerous road to go down. To say that we should not question our leaders because they have gotten us involved in a situation that we didn't support to begin is not how america works. Questioning our government is the job of every american. It is the ultimate check and balance regardless of the party that is in power. And when the media stops doing it we are lost. OT: That's what makes Fox News so scary.
I have no problem with the idea ofquestioning anybody. I have a problem with the practical implications of public grand-standing that is is selfishly pursued in the name of name-recognition. Remarks like Durbin's broadcast throughout the Middle East might embolden another thousand wackos to take bomb-wearing lessons. Our open democracy is visible on the Senate floor and in our public elections. Is anybody saying we didn't have open democracy before C-Span and cable news shows? That's not the key. Just because you have the right to say it doesn't mean you have to say it. And just because you want to say it doesn't mean that everyone has to hear it. Those are juvenile attitudes. There is a greater good and sanctity that needs to be thought of in my opinion.
The heavy hitters are out, Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld. The amount of controversy they're deflecting and the rampant lying must mean Bush's pollsters are ****ting in their pants right now.
So people should keep quiet with their beliefs because "it might embloden wackos"? Just because you have the right to say it doesn't mean you have to say it. And just because you want to say it doesn't mean that everyone has to hear it. Those are juvenile attitudes. This America and this is 2005. The president, Rove, Chaney, Rumsfeld, they are on TV promoting their views. So only the republicans have the right to go on tv and try to drum up support for their side? This is an issue. Over 1700 americans, and over 100,000 iraqis are dead because we invaded iraq. There is no end insight. Keep Quiet!? Just trust the administration!? That would be juvenile.
Once again it is attacking the messenger. Remarks like Durbin would only encourage the enemy a fraction of the amount that holding prisoners without trials, chaining them up, forcing them to lie on the ground while they defocate, and urinate on themselves and are faced to lay in it, would. There is away to avoid remarks like Durbin's and it would be totally American to do it. It doesn't have to do with shutting people up, or bashing people with different opinions and attacking the messengers even when they make stupid comparisons. And much of it would do less to encourage terrorists and would be terrorists as attacking a non threatening nation.
What is the value of expressing your beliefs? Does it impact any process here or does it just make you feel like a participant? Bottomline, what is the real value? The problem with the public protest (whether civilian or public servant) is that it reaches our enemy as readily as it reaches our own law- and decision-makers and our enemy uses it against us. Again I have to ask: is there any doubt that comments like Durbin's or earlier TK's "Viet Namese quagmire" comparisons do anything but benefit our enemy?
Who told the enemy that their prisoners were being held without trial? FB, is there any time when it is appropriate for people to "shut up" as you put it? You try to make me sound un-American. I have no problem with people voicing their dissenting opinions <b>except</b> when their is a serious downside. This is one of those cases. I'm not advocating shutting people up; I'm advocating people shutting themselves up for a greater good. It happens all the time in life.
Remarks like Durbin's broadcast throughout the Middle East might embolden another thousand wackos to take bomb-wearing lessons. Background noice as compared to Abu Ghraib. Words will be forgotten. Those pictures will not be.
There is never a time when people should shut up about issues as serious as being held without trial, or violations of human rights. Every single person who is capable should shout about those issues as loudly as possible. The downside isn't about discussing and reporting those issues. The downside comes when the press, and citizens don't voice their opinions, and lay down while letting human rights abuses occur, or people don't make noise when their pursuit of liberty is being interfered with. The pursuit of liberty is one of the things that the declaration of independence claims comes from our creator, and is an 'unalienable' right. So it only seems logical that people who believe our declaration of independence believe that those rights come not from our government, but by a higher power. Our govt. was created with the idea that we would follow that higher power if not in all things, at least with those rights.
Enemy? Who's enemy? I didn't really have any beef with the Iraqi people. Saddam was bad but he never bothered me..and is America better off now? Now that we lost 1,600 American lives and 100,000 Iraqi lives? What is evil? Murder? Who caused more deaths? The enemy or America? Besides, since when do Republicans care what other people think of them? They don't care what the French or Russians think of America...why should they care what the "enemy" thinks?
Don't you kind of find it ironic that they send us pictures of their de-capitating young Nick Berg and it works for them and against us while a few pictures of Abu Grahb do the same thing? Does that mean we are all wrong and they are all right?
Does that mean we are all wrong and they are all right? One would expect a different code of conduct from terrorists as compared to a developed, democratic nation.
