Of course not. Apologize for what? Telling the truth? Only a backward-thinking fool could come up with something that hare-brained. Karl Rove said what is obviously true: Democrats are soft on terrorism.
Most Democrats, at least the ones in Congress, are opposed to taking a hard line against terrorism simply because George Bush is in the White House. They’re generally anti-military, but military force didn’t seem to bother them when Bill Clinton bombed Serbia in a blatant attempt to deflect attention from his nasty romps with Monica Lewinsky. Unlike Iraq, Serbia posed no threat to the U.S.
And when Slick Willie bombed an aspirin factory (another “wag the dog” scenario) and killed civilians, on the premise that Osama bin Laden was connected to it, which he wasn’t, they had no harsh words for their feckless and faithless master.
I was on the dump-Karl-Rove bandwagon because of Bush’s immigration policy. Not that’s something to be sorry about. But who really cares? It’s all a twisted political game. This is why I couldn’t be a politician or political appointee. I’d tell them all, including the Congressional Black Caucus minstrel show, what they could do with their “demands” for an apology.
————————————————————————————-
Scrappleface: “Just two days after White House political adviser Karl Rove said so-called ‘liberals’ wanted to respond to the 9/11 terror attacks with legal action and psychological counseling, Democrat party chief Howard Dean announced creation of a fund to provide Mr. Rove with anger-management therapy.”
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 106 comments }
“Rove said what was obviously true: Democrats are soft on terrorism. ”
He said other things too. About motivations.
Here, Here! and well said.
No LaShawn, Rove said “LIBERALS” were soft on terrorism. Considering the extensive effort Hillary is undergoing to make herself seem moderate, I find it ironic that she would complain – thus admitting by default that she is liberal. This is a Freudian slip that nobody has picked up on yet.
And your point actus? I still fail to see what he said was in the wrong.
Liberals ARE soft on terror. They DO want to provide therapy and understanding (for our attackers).
But then again, Liberals always seem to put up weather balloons to see where the prevailing winds blow, rather than take a real stance on anything.
You are right on the money La Shawn.
It’s pretty sad how the truth and lies have become one in the same in the name of tolerance and understanding… we are now living at the point of, if you say something someone else does not like APOLOGIZE, all truth is thrown out the window. (But times like these were all revealed to us in divine revelation…to bad we are so stiff necked that we don’t heed it).
Rove is brilliant. He got Hillary to ‘fess up that she is indeed a LIBERAL! A guilty conscience needs no accusing.
Perspective: Kennedy-Byrd-Schumer-Clinton v. Rumsfeld-Rove
Let’s keep things in perspective here. A murdercharge escaping bitter drunk, a Ku Klux Klansman, a liberal wacko socialist and a silly, evil overambitious woman (Clinton) lecturing a seasoned war-steeled Secretary of Defense who has overseen the liberation of 50,000,000 people and an American man who called liberals out for what they are.
The difference between Durbin’s words and those of Karl Rove? What Karl Rove said was TRUE!
So since Hillary responded to Karl Rove’s GENERAL and true statement about liberals, is is NOW safe for the media to go ahead and call the girl what she is? A LIBERAL!!!!
P.S. My bet however, is that the Republicans will blink and punk up like they did with Trent Lott and start calling for Rove to apologize. I’d bet my house on it.
THE GOP AND PRESIDENT BUSH WILL CAVE TO DEMOCRATS ON KARL ROVE’S TRUE COMMENTS!
It would be cool if a poll on the President’s approval was taken first. I bet it went up at LEAST 10 points with Rove’s glove’s off comment. Of course, the Bush administration and the Senate will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
La Shawn,
I thought it was already established that Iraq posed no threat to us.
Well, now they do ever since we entered the country and brought all the terrorists with us. Say what you will about the evil Saddam (and, yes, he’s evil), but at least he ran a tight ship and didn’t put up with any of that fundamentalist hooey that Iraq seems to be heading towards.
And, yes, Rove said “liberals” and not “democrats.”
And, as a registed independent and liberal, I suppose he was talking about me. Was I offended? No. Do I want an apology? No. Just like I could’ve cared less if the right-wing blogosphere was satiated by some dumb apology from Dick Durbin.
I want Osama bin Laden and those who attacked us dead just like every other American citizen. Unfortunately, conservatives like Karl Rove have mistaken our displeasure for the Iraq War as meaning we liberals are clearly soft on terrorists. And not a dumber and less honest statement could be made.
“And your point actus? I still fail to see what he said was in the wrong.”
You think the motivation of durbin and liberals is to kill our soldiers? ie, treason? I understand some people think that is the effect, but motivation? Thats the point.
I was ecstatic to finally see a republican showing some backbone. I even wrote a note of support to Mr. Rove and White House Interactive.
Democrats certainly are quick when it comes to demanding apologies from Republicans who speak the truth. But just try asking them to apologize for their own failings.
Prince George’s County, Maryland, ought to be a paradise if you believe the Democrat’s thetoric. EVERY elected official is a Democrat. The Democrats have had a stranglehold on local and state elected offices for decades. Since they chased the last two elected Republicans out of office in 2002:
* The murder rate has skyrocketed.
* The county now accounts for more care thefts and armed carjackings than all the rest of Maryland put together.
* The schools are the worst in the state.
* The school head, appointed by Democrats has recently resigned while being investigated by the FBI.
* One of his chief assistants has been indicted twice, first for laundering drug money, more recently for witness-tampering.
I’ve written and asked the Democrats to apologize for bringing corruption and violent crime to my county. WIll they? Of course not. All of their requests for apologies are nothing more than a smoke screen to hide their corruption and complete lack of ideas and governing ability.
- Long-time reader, first-time poster, LOVE your blog -
Hannity had a caller into his radio program yesterday who suggested that Karl Rove issue a Durbin-style “non-apology apology” such as “I am sorry if I have offended anybody by the statement I made… ” just to see if he would get the same pass that Durbin received. (Fat chance!)
Pray, actus, what did he say about motivations. Enlighten us. Its a slow day at work, and I could use a chuckle.
“Karl Rove said what is obviously true: Democrats are soft on terrorism.”
Actually, I think he said that “Liberals” are soft on terrorism. It’s just that most dimocrats fall under that umbrella, so they got hot under the collar – Too bad, because my grandpappy used to say “If the truth hurts, maybe it should!”. Heh.
LaShawn,
Forty years ago and more I spent a lot of time in
Prince George’s MD. I communted every day to Un of MD, College Park. Pity that elected officials
have become corrupt. I am older then most of you, and can say that Dirty Dirk Durbin, when Harry Truman was president, would be run out of office for giving aid and comfort to enemies of our troops. Rove said “liberals”, and Democrats jumped on him. Did Washington Police Chief get his Crown Vict stolen recently? Even without markings, everyone knows they are cop cars. An FBI agent lives nearby and has Ford Crown Victoria, every county sheriff
know that is the law car.
JMB
Karl Rove doesn’t need to apologize for ANYTHING. As a whole, Liberals have been soft on terrorism. In days after 9/11 and even up until today, I have seen and heard what Rove is taking about. He’s right.
“Pray, actus, what did he say about motivations. Enlighten us. Its a slow day at work, and I could use a chuckle. ”
He said the motivation is to kill US soldiers. Washingtonmonthly.com has the exact quote.
Now if I wanted to do that, I would send them off to war.
La Shawn,
Did you catch where Rove said these things? In front of the New York CONSERVATIVE Party.
Things that make you go hmm….
Prince George’s County, Maryland, ought to be a paradise if you believe the Democrat’s thetoric. EVERY elected official is a Democrat. The Democrats have had a stranglehold on local and state elected offices for decades. Since they chased the last two elected Republicans out of office in 2002:…
…* The schools are the worst in the state.
*shudder* Ugh….Ain’t that the truth…
Using the context of the great Michael Barone’s “Hard America vs. Soft America,” Rove is exactly on point. Liberals, when it comes to matters of defense, crime, punishment are decidedly softer than conservatives, by a large measure. Statistics bear out that crime and terrorist activities increase when liberals enact their agenda. To call them “soft” is not disingenuous, it is a statistically proven statement.
Perhaps Rove should have said many liberals motivation is to kill soldiers, since many liberals are on record spewing anti-military venom that literally cheers at the death of one of our own soldiers. Not that he would have been excoriated any less. He’ll be vilified for anything that comes forth from his conservative mouth.
Now, for him to apologize, that would be genuinely Charmin soft.
“Statistics bear out that crime and terrorist activities increase when liberals enact their agenda. To call them “soft†is not disingenuous, it is a statistically proven statement.”
Is that what the state department terrorism reports show?
Does anyone realize that Bush is getting hammered right now on many different things including his lack of vision for anything.
And what is this admin so good at doing when things get a little sticky…bring it back to 9/11. It is the gift that keeps on giving.
Rove should not only refuse to apologize, but he should keep on saying it. He was exactly correct in what he said about liberals and their reaction to 9/11.
Look at the current poster boy for liberal America, Dickie Durbin. How can anyone attribute a positive motive to filthy garbage such as Durbin spewed out the other day? OF COURSE his comments were an encouragement to the enemy. OF COURSE his comments make our job in Iraq harder. OF COURSE his comments add to the danger our troops face. His demented hatred for George Bush, combined with anger and frustration over liberals being out of power, and capped with willful disregard for the harm he was causing, are the reasons he acted as he did. He deliberately spoke, from prepared notes, so he knew precisely what he was going to say, and precisely the effect those words would have. No clearer example of liberal-think could be imagined.
actus, Drum picked that out of context. Did you listen to or read all of Rove’s speech?
Here’s the paragraph preceding what Drum quotes, and what gives it context
Has there ever been a more revealing moment than this year. when the Democratic senator, Democrat Richard Durbin, speaking on the Senate floor, compared what Americans have done to prisoners in our control in Guantanamo with what was done by Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot — three of the most brutal and malevolent figures of the 20th century?
Here is what drum quoted:
Let me put in this in really simple terms. Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Sen. Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.
“actus, Drum picked that out of context. Did you listen to or read all of Rove’s speech?
Here’s the paragraph preceding what Drum quotes, and what gives it context”
Rove is saying that liberals/durbin’s motive is to put our troops in danger. the context is durbin’s words. I don’t understand why you feel that is missing, Drum’s quote refers to them.
“Is that what the state department terrorism reports show?”
Thanks, actus, for allowing me to see the error of my ways. The statement should have been more specific, stating liberal agendas lead to increased crime and terrorism against U.S. properties (i.e. embassies, etc.) or on U.S. soil.
No actus, the motive is to put politics ahead of other concerns, and put pressure on the administrations.
The effect, however, is that it offers aid and comfort to the enemy, and that doesn’t bother the liberalsm which shows us what their priorities in this are.
Rove was “too soft” on calling liberals soft. An apology is not in order but a correction is. Liberals aren’t soft on terrorism. They encourage, support and facilitate it.
“No actus, the motive is to put politics ahead of other concerns, and put pressure on the administrations.”
He really didn’t say anything about politics or pressure. But he did talk about danger. I think you’re misunderstanding rove.
“The effect, however, is that it offers aid and comfort to the enemy, and that doesn’t bother the liberalsm which shows us what their priorities in this are.”
If broadcasting these words are bad, then maybe the GOP should stop drawing attention to them.
“If broadcasting these words are bad, then maybe the GOP should stop drawing attention to them.”
Maybe if we just tuck our heads in the sand the problem will go away, and libs and dems will just leave our poor military alone.
“If broadcasting these words are bad, then maybe the GOP should stop drawing attention to them.”
Good grief, Actus! Did you hurt yourself just then with all the contortions you had to go through to arrive at that thought?
Mike M.
You see, your comments are why we cannot let liberals be in charge of this great nation. You have no vision. Your comments indicate that a problem must be overt and readily seen for it to be a clear and present danger. Well I hate to busht your bubble, but one of the hallmarks of leadership and a leader’s most important attribute is VISION?
He or they must have the ability to see opportunities and problems BEFORE they happen. With that in mine, not only was Saddam a clear and present danger or a gathering threat at the least, he harbored and supported terrorism and ACTUAL terrorist. He supported them in spirit, words and with cash.
Don’t be so politicaly bent that you can’t see the forest for the trees. Maybe breaking it down to this level will make it easier for you to understand. When you see one roach in your house. You kill it right? BUT, is that the only one that was in the house? For every roach you see, there are over 200 in the walls. Now apply this same analogy to terrorists and MAYBE you might just get it.
#7 Mike M. wrote, “I thought it was already established that Iraq posed no threat to us.”
By who and when?
Mike M. wrote, “I want Osama bin Laden and those who attacked us dead just like every other American citizen.”
Who doesn’t? But the war on terror is bigger than the 19 hijackers who attacked us. Bush made that clear in the month of September of 2001 that it was going to be a long war with many battles that didn’t involve just one country. As time has passed folks like you and other Democrats have just torn this country apart and HURT our efforts in the war on terror, ENABLING the terrorists and giving them comfort.
Mike M. wrote, “Unfortunately, conservatives like Karl Rove have mistaken our displeasure for the Iraq War as meaning we liberals are clearly soft on terrorists.
Unfortunately for you, and Michael Moore and John Kerry and Howard Dean and every other liberal you can’t hear our perspective and you think that the only perspective that matters is your own. The world-wide damage that you and your fellow liberals are causing is tremendous. We are in Iraq now. Restating your displeasure for the war in Iraq incessantly is not constructive but destructive. The time for that statement was the 18 long months before the “rush” to war. It was voted on by the Congress and we moved forward. What would you do going forward Mike? Liberals can never answer that question CONSTRUCTIVELY because they only say withdraw. How would that be constructive. It is within that realm that we are able to determine that liberals are soft/unhelpful on the war on terror.
“Good grief, Actus! Did you hurt yourself just then with all the contortions you had to go through to arrive at that thought? ”
The biggest one is the supposition that its a bad idea to use these words. Once you get over that hump, you pretty much don’t want to be repeating them over and over.
“With that in mind, not only was Saddam a clear and present danger or a gathering threat at the least, he harbored and supported terrorism and ACTUAL terrorist. He supported them in spirit, words and with cash.”
Unfortunately, libs don’t think his cash to homicide bombers in Israel amounts to support for terrorists because they weren’t blowing up the WTC or the USS Cole or our embassies. And they see the Palestinian cause as a worthy endeavor, even at the expense of tearing down the only previously flourishing democracy in the Middle East Zarqawi doesn’t count in their book either, even though he bombed the U.S. Embassy in Jordan.
#24 Actus,
Rove didn’t state what the motives of liberals were. He said “no more needs to be said”.
He left it up to you to think about it. So what do we think about it? What do we think about the fact that “Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words [inaccurate ones] of Sen. Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger.” I tell you what I think. I don’t know Durbin’s motives and neither does anyone else. But I do know that he has with inaccurate comparisons given terrorists ammunition and propoganda material. What would Durbin’s or other liberals who keep doing this motives be? Hm. Really irrelevant.
” I don’t know Durbin’s motives and neither does anyone else.”
No more needs to be said then.
You were the one Actus who was saying (inaccurately) that Rove attributed motives to liberals…..
We demand an apology for being inaccurate !
“You were the one Actus who was saying (inaccurately) that Rove attributed motives to liberals”
And I’m not the one saying that I don’t know about motives. I do. I know they weren’t to put troops in danger. That’s the opposite of what Rove said.
But since you don’t know, its probably best for you to stay out of the discussion.
Chris you are on the money.
Actus,
Durbin’s motives are VERY clear. He is simply one of the deep plant operative whom Sen. Joseph McCarthy warned America about in the 50’s. he is a member of the left-wing cicada-like 5th column now executing there plan to destroy America as a free state.
Lead by soviet-styled operatives like Clinton, Schumer, Kennedy, Sen. “Sheets-Half-Dead”, Durbin, and of course Kennedy, the Democrats are seeking to divide and conquer. The are operating from their “cut-and-run” playbook. They know that in order for them not to be marginalized FOREVER they cannot allow an American (conservative) victory in Iraq and for President Bush and the GOP.
Democrat Liberals are doing what they do best when it is time to knuckle up and fight…..RUN IN A COWARDLY fashion.
They cut and run from ‘Nam. They cut and ran from Somalia (so much so that the name Clinton is not allowed to be spoken in the 75th Ranger Regiment). And now they are trying to cut and run from this war. Anytime the situation calls for organs identifying one as a male, the Democrats try to run and hide and then attack the bravery of those wo use the bathroom standing up as somehow stupid.
America isn’t buying it, but President Bush MUST stand up and ATTACK!!!!
No. Inaccurate again. Rove didn’t say that he knew they were to put troops in danger. False. Apologize.
Rove didn’t say the opposite of what you said Actus. Stop lying.
RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman’s statement
————————————————–
Liberal Third Party Groups Urged Restraint, Blamed America:
Immediately After 9/11, MoveOn.Org Petition Urged “Moderation And Restraint†And Use Of “International Judicial Institutions.â€
“We, The Undersigned, Citizens And Residents Of The United States Of America … Appeal To The President Of The United States, George W. Bush … And To All Leaders Internationally To Use Moderation And Restraint In Responding To The Recent Terrorist Attacks Against The United States.†(MoveOn.Org Website, “MoveOn Peace,†http://web.archive.org/web/20021127190638/peace.moveon.org/petition.php3, Posted 9/13/01, Accessed 6/23/05)
“We Implore The Powers That Be To Use, Wherever Possible, International Judicial Institutions And International Human Rights Law To Bring To Justice Those Responsible For The Attacks, Rather Than The Instruments Of War, Violence Or Destruction.†(MoveOn.Org Website, “MoveOn Peace,†http://web.archive.org/web/20021127190638/peace.moveon.org/petition.php3, Posted 9/13/01, Accessed 6/23/05)
Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI): “Only Now Are We Trying To Figure Out What Is Islam. Maybe If There Was A Department Of Peace, They Would Be Able To Say, ‘Uh-Oh, We’ve Got Some Problems With These People,’ … I Truly Believe That If We Had A Department Of Peace, We Would Have Seen [9/11] Coming.†(Ethan Wallison, “War A Challenge For Peace Caucus,†Roll Call, 10/1/01)
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA): “I Am Convinced That Military Action Will Not Prevent Further Acts Of International Terrorism Against The United States.†(Eddy Ramirez, “Calif. Congresswoman Alone In Vote Against War Powers Resolution,†[University Of California-Berkeley] Daily Californian, 9/17/01)
Al Sharpton (D-NY) Said That The Attacks On The World Trade Center Are Evidence That “America Is Beginning To Reap What It Has Sown.†(Adam Nagourney, “Say It Loud,†The New York Times, 12/1/02)
Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) Claimed Osama Bin Laden Could Be Compared To “Revolutionaries That Helped To Cast Off The British Crown.†“‘One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped to cast off the British crown,’ Kaptur told an Ohio newspaper, The (Toledo) Blade.†(Malie Rulon, “Lawmaker Compares Osama, U.S. Patriots,†The Associated Press, 3/6/03)
Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) Said The United States Would “Pay Every Single Hour, Ever Single Day†That Bombs Were Dropped In Afghanistan. “‘How much longer does the bombing campaign continue?’ Biden asked during an Oct. 22 speech at the Council on Foreign Relations. ‘We’re going to pay every single hour, every single day it continues.’†(Miles A. Pomper, “Building Anti-Terrorism Coalition Vaults Ahead Of Other Priorities,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 10/26/01)
“The Bombing Campaign, [Biden] Said, Reinforced Existing Stereotypes Of The United States As A ‘High-Tech Bully …’†(Miles A. Pomper, “Building Anti-Terrorism Coalition Vaults Ahead Of Other Priorities,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 10/26/01)
Facts. Gott a love ‘em.
Actus,
Baklava is eating your lunch AND your dessert AND appears poised to make you get him some chicken and beer money from an ATM.
“No. Inaccurate again. Rove didn’t say that he knew they were to put troops in danger. False. Apologize.”
There is not such thing as apologizing to right wingers. Dick Durbin knows that. I know that.
“Calif. Congresswoman Alone In Vote Against War Powers Resolution”
Yup. Alone. “liberals” indeed.
Actus,
You trying to sell us on your version of history is like Hillary trying to seel herself as a conservative or even moderate to America. Especially the red states.
You remind me of the blind guy on the corner selling pencils. No one needs a pencil, but the buy them because they feel sorry for the guy. In other words, you are being entertained simply because you are here. You remind me of Nancy Grace or a train wreck. You have to watch because you just can’t believe what you are seeing.
How about this. Do you think a jury would convict on your hyperbole or would they more likely convict on Baklava’s facts? See the MJ verdict for an example of that which I speak.
Senator Dick Turban knew exactly what he was saying (from prepared notes)> If he didn’t understand the impact of his words, the man is a fool. So, he’s either a traitor or a fool. Which is it?
Rove saw that Turban was getting a pass from the MSM so he made comments certain to stir the story back to the public’s attention. He succeeded only because the Dems are so defensive (and so reactionary) that the usual suspects (Kopechne’s murderer, Shrillary, Sheets, et al) fell all over themselves taking the bait and mugging for the cameras.
If the situation weren’t so serious, I’d be tempted to feel sorry for the ntire pathetic Dem lot.
Actus wrote, “There is not such thing as apologizing to right wingers. Dick Durbin knows that. I know that.”
Well. If you were incorrect you may want to reconsider that policy. I’ll accept it. I won’t accept an apology thought that apologizes for “my” being offended as Durbin did. It needs to be about what you stated being incorrect. I think others here would welcome your affirmation that you realized you were stating something incorrect also. Rove didn’t state what you stated he said and you apologize for stating it. Simple.
Actus wrote, “Yup. Alone. “liberals†indeed.”
More than one (alone) quote above. You want more?
Raymond: “Do you think a jury would convict on your hyperbole or would they more likely convict on Baklava’s facts?”
You’re going to have to expand on this analogy, because it’s very unclear what you’re talking about
“More than one (alone) quote above. You want more? ”
More votes against the war powers in afghanistan? I don’t think those exist.
“Well. If you were incorrect you may want to reconsider that policy. I’ll accept it. ”
Well, I should reconsider what i said: i hope dick durbin now knows it. He certainly didn’t before.
All of this discussion is nice, but we can agree that the GOP has no spine and Rove will eventually be forced to cave and apologize. I look for his apology any day now and will be flabbergasted if he never gives one
Watching Hillary react to this makes me wonder if she is going to be able to pull off projecting her new “centrist” or “center-left” image.
Call her a Liberal and she denies it. Call Liberals something bad and she screams, “You’re slandering me!”
Baklava
You forgot Sen. Patty Murray who, in effect, told a group of school children that Osama bin Laden was the Mother Theresa of the Middle East.
Rove has rallied the troops and spoken for MILLIONS of Americans wondering when the pink panty wearing GOP leadership was going to fight back.
In order to keep the momentum going, someone needs to round up the RINOS (McCain, Collins, Chafee, Specter, Snowe, Voinovich and Hagel) and place them in a closet until Rove and the REAL conservatives complete their counterattack. It may even be nice to send them down to Gitmo for a little R&R until we can regain control of the bully pulpit. We’ll send for the RINOS when we rebuild the morale of our boyz in desert camouflage.
Now is the perfect time for TRUE conservatives willing to execute the will of those they are elected to serve as opposed to themselves is now. I will not be voting for ANY GOP incumbents in the next election. Even if it means that my lack of a vote puts a Democrat in office. Don’t fret whereas the GOP yellow-backs we have in office now are indistinguishable from Democrats.
“Why are people so supportive of him [Osama bin Laden] in many countries? He’s been out in these countries for decades building roads, building schools, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful.”
Can I ask something? *raising hand*
Why are we debating and/or talking to this “Actus” person? I have read through all of these comments and I have yet to find ONE coherent or fact-based thought come from his/her keyboard.
I mean, I admire your patience and everything, but can’t our time be better spent discussing it amongst ourselves and not entertaining and stooping to Actus’ level? I’m more interested in what people like LaShawn, Baklava and Raymond have to say…
But that’s just me.
Commenters complain about actus, but they keep responding to him. I tell them to ignore him if they want to, but nobody seems to want to.
Actus is simply a catalyst. Gets things going, but ACTually is an inert and insignificant player in the outcome of the process.
Actus is also a window into the belly of the Beast. To defeat them, you must know them.
I was picking up Andy’s slack today.
Check’s in the mail michigan!
See, this is why I love this blog so much. Smart people.
You rock, Baklava. I was enjoying the royal smackdown going on up above.
I’ll keep checking back.
I can’t seem to ignore a car wreck, either. Just gotta look.
The coolest benefit from the Rove comments was that it flushed out the Hilldabeast. She has been once again exposed as a liberal. She is now on record as being “offended” at Karl Rove’s comments which were directed at liberals and not necessarily Democrats.
I am sure Sen. Zell Miller didn’t flinch at Rove’s comments. The fact that the “Arkansas Death Witch” did react let’s the electorate know exactly what they will be getting if they ever bump their heads and then vote for her.
Liberals like Durbin and Kennedy act like they are more interested in the future welfare of detainees at gitmo than they are about the future of social security for the American worker.
I said that, I’m not apologizing.
Andrew Sullivan wrote: [my comments in brackets]
ROVE: It seems to me that Karl Rove’s sickening generalization about “liberals” in the war on terror is revealing in ways not obviously apparent. Sure, there were some on the hard left who really did jump to blame America for the evil perpetrated by the monsters of 9/11. I took names at the time. But all “liberals”[he didn't say ALL Andrew]? The New Republic? Joe Lieberman? Hitch? Paul Berman? The Washington Post editorial page? Tom Friedman? Almost every Democrat in the Congress who endorsed the war in Afghanistan? You expect that kind of moronic extremism from a Michelle Malkin[name calling again],
My question for Andrew [hopefully he starts reading La Shawn's view]. Who was protesting in the streets asking for an end to the war and taking out ads in the paper and making the above statements in posts 42 and #43? Was it liberals or conservatives? Yes. That’s the nature of generalizations. You make them too Andrew. But who were those people generally?
# 57 He’s like that little nephew that gets worked up so easily, you do it just to watch him spin like a top. That, and he consistently illustrates the point that liberalism is bereft of logic or consistency. Every so often, I think he is Andy in disguise, pretending to be a thick cool aid guzzler, just so he can make his points. Then baklava arived on the scene, and I can’t believe all 3 are one person. To many postings in one day, spread over too much time.
The perfect antidote for liberalism in ‘08…Rep. Tom Tancredo for President. He WILL defend America and call out liberals.
He can think select Steve Spurrier to oversee the war in Iraq. At least he knows offense and how to put an opponent down quickly.
“Rep. Tom Tancredo for President. He WILL defend America and call out liberals.”
I support this.
Has anyone in the Democratic Party or the MSM compared Rove to Hitler yet? That’s the acid test of whether or not the Democrats feel like they took a full broadside from his comments. It has to be a Hitler comparison – references to other figure from the Third Reich, Stalin, Pol Pot, accusations of racism, homophobe, etc. denote mere irritation or discomfort. But a Hitler comparison – now that signifies genuine, unhinged rage on the part of Democrats.
#43 – good post, Baklava!
SCSI, you’re right about spinning Actus like a bey-blade and watching it caroom all over the bowl. One never knows; what he’ll hit, quit or just blow apart.
Bak, thanks for picking up my slack — real busy these days.
La Shawn, Rove apologize? Only if he does so using Turban Durbin’s script and weeping act. You know the moonbats won’t be able to leave that alone and will go on and on about how insincere that non-apology was.
In fact, he ought to do it today before the evening news so the talking heads can chew on it and chew some more Sunday morning. Won’t that be fun!!!
“La Shawn, Rove apologize? Only if he does so using Turban Durbin’s script and weeping act. You know the moonbats won’t be able to leave that alone and will go on and on about how insincere that non-apology was”
I don’t care about sincerity from Rove, so I would like to see this sort of act from him though.
I find the Democrats’ anger hilarious.
Here their own DNC chief spouts hate speech every single week, yet he has never apologized, let alone offered to resign. (I do remember he apologized once over something a long time ago that barely made the news).
Calling for his resignation? My god! What a bunch of over sensitive ninnies!
I see Rove’s comments in the same light as Dean’s. (And Byrd’s for that matter). You can act like an ignoramus and say whatever you want and if the Democrats are not going to apologize for their own people doing it then the Republicans should not either.
Durbin’s comments have NOTHING to do with it. He attacked the military with unfounded accusations during a time of war. that is much more serious and not the partisan sniping at each other that Dean and Rove are doing. Durbin needs to be punished for what he said.
But there is no reason to punish Rove while Dean is still running around spouting hate speech.
Gov. Pataki has shown some spunk, as well. Good for him. Left-wing screamers like Hillary Clinton need to be called on their ridiculous comments, and Pataki did a pretty good job of it here:
http://cbsnewyork.com/nynews/NY–Clinton-Pataki-on/resources_news_html
Link not good Redbeard
Bak, I don’t get it. I cut-’n-pasted that link directly from the page at CBS New York. I even copied it manually, and it still won’t work. What geekish protocol have I forgotten?
Hmmmm….. must be Hillary, conspiring against me.
Baklava and Raymond,
Show me your evidence supporting the fact that Saddam Hussein supported terrorists related to 9/11. In your warped ward, it would be acceptable to go after EVERY Muslim country because each of those countries OBVIOUSLY has a couple terrorists.
My opinions are supported by the Bush Administration, which has stated (after the invasion, of course) that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. I remember one quote in particular from Donald Rumsfeld.
And, Raymond, You say I have “no vision.” Well, what kind of tunnelvision do you have to use your pathetic excuse as a means to discredit my original post? I want the terrorists who attacked us DEAD. Saddam Hussein and his pitiful excuse for a country were not part of the group that harmed us. In invading that country we’ve bred a war against the West that will likely be waged for decades to come. Our arrogance will cost us most in the long run. Take that one to the bank.
#78 Mike M. wrote, “Show me your evidence supporting the fact that Saddam Hussein supported terrorists related to 9/11.”
Why should we? You and John Kerry and all the other liberals that keep repeating the line that Iraq didn’t do 9/11 is like saying paper is made from wood. We’ve heard your perspective. Now for once listen to ours. This is a war on terror. It isn’t a war on Bin Laden or a war on Afghanistan or a war on the Taliban. Now again. We are in Iraq. During the 18 month long (rush to war) debate BEFORE Iraq you had your chance to make your points. We are there now and it behooves everyone to put all of our efforts and rhetoric TOWARDS winning the war. Durbin’s rhetoric falls WAY short of that. Talk of leaving Iraq falls short of that.
Mike M. ludicrously wrote, “My opinions are supported by the Bush Administration, which has stated (after the invasion, of course) that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. ”
He stated that Mike because people like you and John Kerry kept saying it. It’s like saying COrrect – paper is made from wood. NOBODY Mike was asserting otherwise. John Kerry lied during the campaign and stated that Bush was asserting otherwise and so therefore stated it. He shoudn’t have had to.
Mike M. wrote, “I want the terrorists who attacked us DEAD.”
Mike, the terrorists who attacked us perished in the planes. They are DEAD. And I addressed your post in post #32 but you didn’t move forward with the discussion one bit.
Mike M. wrote, “In invading that country we’ve bred a war against the West that will likely be waged for decades to come.”
Mike, this war was started against us in 1979. We’ve only finally engaged. We’ve been attacked many times by the Islamic fundamentalists. They are engaged presently in conflicts in 26 countries around the world. The only conflicts (all 26 of them) around the world are because of Islamic extremists. This conflict has existed for decades. One thing liberals have correct is that we need to understand the terrorists/enemy/extremists. Once you understand them you’ll realize what they are saying every day is that we should not exist. There is no compromise. They want us dead. Understand that.
Mike M. wrote, “Our arrogance will cost us most in the long run.”
Mike what would be your solution from this day forward. I have failed to extract that from you previously. You simply are prone to attacking with inaccurate accusations. Back to the point. What would your solution be from this day forward?
THis is only part of a Daniel Pipes article (it’s too long for this post.)
Death to America
by Daniel Pipes, New York Post, September 8, 2002
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/460
America’s war on terrorism did not begin in September 2001. It began in November 1979.
That was shortly after Ayatollah Khomeini had seized power in Iran, riding the slogan “Death to America” – and sure enough, the attacks on Americans soon began. In November 1979, a militant Islamic mob took over the U.S. embassy in Tehran, the Iranian capital, and held 52 Americans hostage for the next 444 days.
The rescue team sent to free those hostages in April 1980 suffered eight fatalities, making them the first of militant Islam’s many American casualties. Others included:
April 1983: 17 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut.
October 1983: 241 dead at the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut.
December 1983: five dead at the U.S. embassy in Kuwait.
January 1984: the president of the American University of Beirut killed.
April 1984: 18 dead near a U.S. airbase in Spain.
September 1984: 16 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut (again).
December 1984: Two dead on a plane hijacked to Tehran.
June 1985: One dead on a plane hijacked to Beirut.
After a let-up, the attacks then restarted: Five and 19 dead in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996, 224 dead at the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998 and 17 dead on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000.
Simultaneously, the murderous assault of militant Islam also took place on U.S. soil:
July 1980: an Iranian dissident killed in the Washington, D.C. area.
August 1983: a leader of the Ahmadiyya sect of Islam killed in Canton, Mich.
August 1984: three Indians killed in a suburb of Tacoma, Wash.
September 1986: a doctor killed in Augusta, Ga.
January 1990: an Egyptian freethinker killed in Tucson, Ariz.
November 1990: a Jewish leader killed in New York.
February 1991: an Egyptian Islamist killed in New York.
January 1993: two CIA staff killed outside agency headquarters in Langley, Va.
February 1993: Six people killed at the World Trade Center.
March 1994: an Orthodox Jewish boy killed on the Brooklyn Bridge.
February 1997: a Danish tourist killed on the Empire State building.
October 1999: 217 passengers killed on an EgyptAir flight near New York City.
In all, 800 persons lost their lives in the course of attacks by militant Islam on Americans before September 2001 – more than killed by any other enemy since the Vietnam War. (Further, this listing does not include the dozens more Americans in Israel killed by militant Islamic terrorists.)
And yet, these murders hardly registered. Only with the events of a year ago did Americans finally realize that “Death to America” truly is the battle cry of this era’s most dangerous foe, militant Islam.
So, Baklava, in reading through your delicious meme I’d read a hundred times before, I have one question you didn’t address in my previous post:
Do you advocate invading every country with a Muslim majority? Because, by your logic, this would seem the only reasonable answer to confronting the world’s terrorism problem. At least be consistent. Come out and advocate war against Saudi Arabia, Iran, Indonesia, Morocco, Egypt, Libya, Malaysia, UAE, Syria, Lebanon, Qatar, Yemen, Bahrain, Algeria. Why Iraq? WHY IRAQ? That’s a FAIR ENOUGH question.
If your excuse for the Iraq War is to pounce on terrorists before they get us, then we’d better hop to. Because these Islamic fanatics only multiply when we take action against them. Yes, we need to take action against them, but it doesn’t seem at all helpful to go after a country we know wasn’t involved in attacking us and at the same time saying said country did attack us.
If you’ve read my blog, you’d know I frequently denounce these Islamic loons for what they are–crazed thugs out to kill everyone who doesn’t believe in what they believe in. For a liberal, I’d say I’ve been downright harsh in my rhetoric. But, it still doesn’t excuse this war.
Baklava, how about we put down a bet and come back in a year to see how things are going in the Muslim world in general and Iraq in particular. Wanna put some money down? I’m poor and all, but I should be able to pluck down a $20.
MIke M,
Check out the coverage of the Jordanian gas suspects. Take note of where they were hiding out after leaving Afghanistan.
Baklava,
Just another liberal chiming in here. Your list from Daniel Pipes is interesting. It shows that 14 of 26 incidents listed occurred during REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATIONS.
That’s more than half for those keeping score.
What is terrifying about this whole thread is that “conservatives” seem to think that war is the only solution for terrorism, and people like Karl Rove can declare that the quagmires the Bush Adminstration has created in Iraq and Afghanistan (that’s right, Afghanistan is far from the glowing success than right wingers want you to believe)
But what else has been created?
>>>Iraq is now a terrorist training ground: CIA
By Tariq Naqash
Thursday June 23, 2005, WASHINGTON: The CIA believes the Iraq situation poses an international threat and may produce better-trained terrorists than the 1980s Afghanistan war, a US Counter-terrorism official said on Wednesday.
A classified report from the US spy agency says Iraqi and foreign fighters are developing a broad range of deadly skills, from car bombings and assassinations to tightly coordinated conventional attacks on police and military targets, the official said.
Once Iraq returns to normality, militants are likely to disperse as highly organized battle-hardened combatants capable of operating throughout the Arab-speaking world and in other regions, including Europe.
Fighters leaving Iraq would primarily pose a challenge for their countries of origin, including Saudi Arabia and Jordan.
But the May report, which has been widely circulated in the intelligence community, also cites a potential threat to the United States.
“You have people coming to the action with anti-US sentiment … And since they’re Iraqi or foreign Arabs or to some degree Kurds, they have more communities they can blend into outside Iraq,†said the official.”
http://indiamonitor.com/news/readNews.jsp?ni=7742
Anymore bright ideas, Karl?
–Cobra
Baklava:
I have been reading some of the comments made about your posts today. The Left has already forgotten the purple finger revolution (the Iraq election). They have forgotten Saddam’s torture chambers. They have forgotten Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait. They have forgotten Saddam’s gassing of the Kurds. No, in their eyes, all evil in the world began when we ganged up on poor lil’ ol’ Saddam (or maybe it was when George W. Bush was elected).
Baklava, what you see is a hankering by some to return to the world of September 10, 2001. You cannot fight this nostalgia with facts and reason – I’ve tried, and lost.
Mwalimu Daudi
Instead of forgetfulness I suspect it is a strategy of the Left to pretend the war on terror is unnecessary. The Left knows the nation will never trust them with national security so they pretend that national security is a given so they have a chance to be elected.
That is why the emphasis on the fiction of US torture of prisoners. The Left wants to pretend that the response to terrorism belongs in the legal/criminal arena and put the ACLU in charge.
So, if I understand the liberal solution to a quarter-century of Islamic extremist terror, we should stand down, do nothing aggressive, make nice, grovel and ask forgiveness for daring to be prosperous and free, and all will be well. Peace will reign supreme, and the murderous Islamic jihadists will all stop, melt down their rocket launchers, plant daisies, and sing Kum-ba-ya and We Are The World with us.
Good grief.
“So, if I understand”
ya. if.
Come sing kumbaya with Michael Moore, Durbin, Kennedy et al. You’d think these lovey-doveys would at least come up with a solution, any solution for mitigation.
Heck even suggesteding putting prozac in the the jihadi water supply would be better than what they’re ‘proposing’ — nada.
But all we get is static from the moonbatic noise machine.
Cobra wrote (this applies to you to Mike), ” What is terrifying about this whole thread is that “conservatives†seem to think that war is the only solution for terrorism, ”
It’s funny how liberals are full of accusations. This is not what conservatives believe. I’ll try once to set the record straight. I only agree with Bush 70% of the time but Bush has said it repeatedly that there are many fronts on the war on terror. There are diplomatic, financial and military and others that we don’t even know about. We are squeezing them financially. We are working diplomatically with other governments (not so newsworthy by the big media so the left is free to accuse).
Mike M. asks me to be consistent. I am consistent. I want this war on terror to continue with much GREATER fervor and I wish for the liberals to stop giving aid and comfort to the enemy by tearing this country apart. The war on terror is waged on many fronts and it does NOT require (as Mike M. wants to believe) that we invade every country. Diplomatic efforts were exhausted with Iraq and I do believe that it is a domino. There cannot stand a democracy next to Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia with women having rights and people having a better standard of living without some affect in our favor on the surrounding countries.
Cobra and Mike, I like your passion but it’ll serve you well to understand the conservative position before you attack it. Attacking individuals in the “administration” does nothing to further debate on policy and issues. We all have our problems with every person at some point in time.
It is ok to have qualms about being in Iraq. We are there. Now what do we do moving forward? I haven’t had that question answered. It can’t be pulling out now because that would be worse failure than if we never went in. What is not ok is to make false allegations during a time of war about our military, and the war, and America’s actions in a time of war. It gives propoganda to the enemy and emboldens them to kill more of us.
Mwalimu wrote, “Baklava, what you see is a hankering by some to return to the world of September 10, 2001. You cannot fight this nostalgia with facts and reason – I’ve tried, and lost.”
I like the debate. And furthermore, while I know folks like Cobra, Actus and Mike M. are entrenched and may never change, I continue on because there are those who don’t comment or maybe even do comment that by reading the arguments may be swayed/educated.
I was a liberal in 1991 and converted. First to a pretty radical right winger (read libertarianism – they want 80% cut in government. Then second to a common sense, realist, centrist conservative. Saying centrist and conservative is redundant but necessary because people on the left think of conservatives as extreme right wingers. On the political scale of -10 to +10. Here is where I view things.
-10 = Communism
-5 through -9 = Socialism and the Democrat party and liberals
+2 through -5 = The Republican party
+4 through -4 = Conservatives
+8 through +5 = Libertarians and some conservatives
+10 = Anarchy
-10 is the most government and +10 is the least.
For over 65 years the federal government has spent more every year and grown every year. As a centrist conservative I’d like to see the federal government for the first time in over 65 years stop growing. We could have an expenditure amount freeze while we reprioritize what is spent on. If we do that for 10 years, revenues into the government can finally be more than expenditures and we can start paying off debt and do wonders for our standing financially.
Unfortunately the shift from the 54 year long span of Democrat control to Republican control (in 1994) has not commenced with a stoppage of government expansion. Yet the liberals and Democrats go on and on with their extremist rhetoric and accusation galore.
We can’t even establish facts to build a foundation of relevant items to argue issues and policy.
Cobra: “Iraq is now a terrorist training ground: CIA
By Tariq Naqash…”
So which is it? The CIA knows intelligence or they don’t know it? Or is it whichever suits your bent?
It’s obvious Naqash hasn’t been paying attention to the ongoing trial in Jordan of the terrorists that were caught before they could set off a hugh chemical truck bomb that would have suceeded in killing 80,000 Ammanites. The ringleader trained under Zarqawi in Afghanistan under the Taliban. When the Talban fell in 2001, Zarqawi went to Iraq. His leutenant went on to Jordan and per Zarqawi’s instructions and assistance of a Syrian money man, proceeded to build his bomb.
It’s obvious Naqash hasn’t been paying attention to the recent reports released by the Iraqi government about the tip of the iceberg that was Al Qaida operating in Iraq long before 9/11. Or that Saddam hosted an international conference of Terrorists Inc. in 1999. Or that members of FARC (Columbia), PIRA (Ireland) and other paramilitary terrorist groups have been active in Syria & Iraq giving hands-on training to the ‘insurgents’ and imparting their lessons learned in the art of terror back home.
It’s obvious Naqash hasn’t been paying attention to the significance of Salman Park. No Beavis, it’s not a park where Iraqi kids go to clamber around airplanes, to play tag & hide-n-seek amongst other vehicles and empty buildings. Salman Park was where PLO, Fatah, Red Faction Army and other terroists go to practice taking over an airplane and learn the art of urban fighting amongst other nasty deeds. They also practiced with live victims ‘borrowed’ from Saddam’s prisons in order to keep it real.
It’s obvious Naqash has forgotton who Abu Nidal was. A Palestinian guerrilla leader whose group ANO has been blamed for attacks in more than 20 countries that have killed hundreds. When things got too hot for him being on the run all the time, Saddam invited him and his ideological spawn to make themselves at hme in Iraq. Unfortunately, we won’t be able to do justice to him, since he committed suicide with two bullets to the head.
So Cobra, what is your suggestion for dealing with terrorists?
Cobra wrote: “ust another liberal chiming in here. Your list from Daniel Pipes is interesting. It shows that 14 of 26 incidents listed occurred during REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATIONS.
That’s more than half for those keeping score.”
During the period of 1979-2001 Democrats were president 36% of those years. Yet their administrations account for 46% of the incidents reported. That is an inordinately large number of terrorist incidents for democrat administrations, for those keeping score.
Nardo Wrote:
“During the period of 1979-2001 Democrats were president 36% of those years. Yet their administrations account for 46% of the incidents reported. That is an inordinately large number of terrorist incidents for democrat administrations, for those keeping score.”
Yes, but it was on the watch of George Bush that 3000 American’s died needlessly. You either take responsibility for what happens on your watch, or you don’t. The incompetance of this administration was shown on the day of the attacks when nothing was done to stop these attacks.
Tom, my math was in answer to a silly comment that was not even valid if you accepted the silly premise. I was humoring the smallminded approach which you and Cobra take with regard to terrorist incidents. I do not blame Clinton for the criminal actions of others. Likewise I do not blame Bush or FDR for the criminal acts of others that took place while they presided. Their responses and actions are that for which we should hold them responsible. Criminals are solely responsible for their acts. I do not expect our elected officials to prevent crime. It has always been there and always will be. To expect otherwise flies in the face of history and common sense. Not to worry, there are many other reasons to hit Bush with the incompetent stick.
Andy writes:
>>>So Cobra, what is your suggestion for dealing with terrorists?”
First, attacking the messenger, in this case, journalist Tariq Naqash accomplishes absoluetly nothing. He is simply telling the public about a report GENERATED BY OUR OWN CIA. Need more proof?
>>>Iraq New Terror Breeding Ground
War Created Haven, CIA Advisers Report
By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 14, 2005; Page A01
Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of “professionalized” terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director’s think tank.
Iraq provides terrorists with “a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills,” said David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats. “There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7460-2005Jan13.html
This is where the disconnect is. You can blame me, as a liberal for any sort of thing you like. Call me everything under the sun–godless, touchy-feely, oversensitive…yadda yadda yadda. But this report comes from the CIA under the BUSH ADMINISTRATION. Are you going to accuse the CIA of being “too liberal?”
I respect your position, and those of other hawks who believe in millitary force uber alles, but look at the situation first. The radical Islamic fundamentalism that many claim is the heart of the terrorism we fight is being bred in SAUDI ARABIA, which just happens to be the largest oil supplier in the world. While our President is holding hands with the Crown Prince (ranked the number #5 worst dictator in the world by Parade Magazine)
>>>5. Crown Prince Abdullah, Saudi Arabia.
Age 81. In power since 1995.
Last year’s rank: 5
Bending under strong international pressure, Crown Prince Abdullah and his family, who have absolute power, are holding Saudi Arabia’s first elections in 40 years—municipal elections, that is. Women may not vote or run for office, owing to “technical difficultiesâ€: Most Saudi women don’t have the photo IDs needed to register; there aren’t enough female officials to register those who do; and men may not register women, because the sexes are forbidden to mingle in public. Worldwide, the royal family promotes an extreme form of Islam called Wahhabism, which considers all followers of other religions—even other Muslims—“infidels.†In 2004, the U.S. State Department added Saudi Arabia to its list of nations in which religious liberty is severely violated.”
http://archive.parade.com/2005/0213/0213_dictator.html
If you look down that Parade list, you’ll see other familiar names of dictators the American Government is in bed with from the Sudan, to Libya, and Pakistan. If you look at the Daniel Pipes story, above, you must also note that we were in bed with the Shah of Iran, which many researchers believe is the motivation behind the hostage crisis.
But this is what happens when we allow corporations to so greatly influence our foreign policy. Corporation don’t give a rat’s tail about people. They are only concerned with profit. Terrorism will always be around as long as there is tyranny and oppression. If you support oppressive dictators, Kings and Sultans, the people under the boot of those dictators, Kings and Sultans will view you as an equal enemy. There are far more of “them” than there are “us.”
And if you think that’s not true, why aren’t terrorists attacking Switzerland?
–Cobra
Nardo writes:
>>>I was humoring the smallminded approach which you and Cobra take with regard to terrorist incidents.”
“Smallminded?” According to the listing, the worst terrorist attack on our millitary during that period with the truck bombing in Lebanon under Reagan in 1983. Reagan’s response to 241 dead Marines was to “cut and run”–he pulled forces OUT of Beirut. (He invaded the imminently more threatening island of Grenada shortly thereafter.)
Reagan being the godfather and patron saint of today’s conservative movement surely can’t be the model of “conservative response to terrorism” that Karl Rove is talking about, can he?
–Cobra
Baklava,
I was sort of kidding you with that Patty Murray comment. I’m impressed. How do you find those quotes?
A while back I was trying to find a comment I remember Senator Kennedy making about what he was thinking while sitting on the bank at Chappaquiddick. He said that he thought, “This can’t be happening to ME (emphasis mine).” Seeing as how a young woman’s life was ending in the water in the car he had been driving, I wanted to make sure I remembered the “ME” part correctly. I cannot find that quote.
While you continue to attack individuals, you continue to give aid and comfort to the enemy and you continue to fail to give ideas and solutions for the future.
The conservatives recognize that terrorists attacked in the past and we’ve finally engaged in light of the terrorists ability to plan and bring mass destruction. Instead of that recognition liberals want to quantify how many were carried out in the past and how much cutting and running was done. You can find errors in the way every one of the past attacks have been met. How does that move us forward? It seems liberals just have a desire to try to put conservatives on the defensive (or answer for things) that need no answer. They happened. Now how do we move forward?
It has been asked from you what do we do from this point forward. Can you answer or will you continue to attack (act like the enemy within)?
Wup. You slipped in there.
I have a library of documents that I’ve saved on my home server categorized by things like economy, education, environment, etc. While I don’t pull from that bag too often, it comes in handy.
I don’t have that quote and I’m heading out to the parade with the kids. Talk to you all Monday/Tuesday!
Cobra,
Your criticism of Reagan is quite valid. The smallminded part is to blame whomever is president for any attack itself, though with Reagan you do have a point as he was responsible for the Marine presence in Lebanon. I don’t think it sensible to blame Bush, Clinton, FDR, or Carter fot the terrorist acts against us when they were president. I may have inadvertently lumped you in with Tom. If so, I apologize.
Evon check here, at 1:40 AM.: http://www.ytedk.com/chapter3.htm
Great site for the real story on “The Swimmer”
No apology necessary. The only thing he did wrong was tell the truth about liberals, something they CANNOT have told about them. It tends to cause people to tune them out. So anyone who tells the truth MUST be attacked, in their eyes.
No whimpy apologies. Howard Dean certainly isn’t feeling the need to apologize for his luny comments. And Karl Rove’s made more sense.
Michele,
Rove’s comments and the reaction to them remind me of Sen. Robert Dole’s old line, “We tried to make a deal with the Democarats. If they’d quit lying about us, we’d quit telling the truth about them.”
Don
Thanks.
Lashawn writes:
>>>And when Slick Willie bombed an aspirin factory (another “wag the dog†scenario) and killed civilians, on the premise that Osama bin Laden was connected to it, which he wasn’t, they had no harsh words for their feckless and faithless master.”
Reading from the article you cite from CNN in 2000–
>>>Of course, the U.S. doesn’t glibly fire cruise missiles at a factory in a far-off country. The decision was taken against the backdrop of the pressure to retaliate for the embassy strike, very real concerns that bin Laden might be planning further attacks using chemical weapons, Sudan’s history as a haven for terrorists (including bin Laden) and evidence that bin Laden had sought to develop chemical weapons there. All of that, and a soil sample showing traces of a nerve gas building block…
The administration’s position was summed up a month after the missile strike by National Security Adviser Sandy Berger: “With the knowledge that we had… had we not hit that target and had bin Laden used chemical weapons in a terrorist attack, I don’t know how we could have looked the American people in the face.”
http://edition.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/africa/07/28/factory7_28.a.tm/
And this from the BIPARTISAN 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT.
>>>Considerable debate went to the question of whether to strike targets outside of Afghanistan, including two facilities in Sudan. One was a tannery believed to belong to Bin Ladin.The other was al Shifa, a Khartoum pharmaceutical plant, which intelligence reports said was manufacturing a precursor ingredient for nerve gas with Bin Ladin’s financial support.The argument for hitting the tannery was that it could hurt Bin Ladin financially. The argument for hitting al Shifa was that it would lessen the chance of Bin Ladin’s having nerve gas for a later attack.42 Ever since March 1995, American officials had had in the backs of their minds Aum Shinrikyo’s release of sarin nerve gas in the Tokyo subway. President Clinton himself had expressed great concern about chemical and biological terrorism in the United States. Bin Ladin had reportedly been heard to speak of wanting a “Hiroshimaâ€and at least 10,000 casualties.The CIA reported 116 THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT that a soil sample from the vicinity of the al Shifa plant had tested positive for EMPTA, a precursor chemical for VX,a nerve gas whose lone use was for mass killing.Two days before the embassy bombings, Clarke’s staff wrote that Bin Ladin “has invested in and almost certainly has access to VX produced at a plant in Sudan.â€43 Senior State Department officials believed that they had received a similar verdict independently, though they and Clarke’s staff were probably relying on the same report. Mary McCarthy, the NSC senior director responsible for intelligence programs, initially cautioned Berger that the “bottom line†was that “we will need much better intelligence on this facility before we seriously consider any options.†She added that the link between Bin Ladin and al Shifa was “rather uncertain at this point.†Berger has told us that he thought about what might happen if the decision went against hitting al Shifa, and nerve gas was used in a New York subway two weeks later.44 By the early hours of the morning of August 20, President Clinton and all his principal advisers had agreed to strike Bin Ladin camps in Afghanistan near Khowst, as well as hitting al Shifa.The President took the Sudanese tannery off the target list because he saw little point in killing uninvolved people without doing significant harm to Bin Ladin. The principal with the most qualms regarding al Shifa was Attorney General Reno. She expressed concern about attacking two Muslim countries at the same time. Looking back, she said that she felt the “premise kept shifting.â€45 Later on August 20, Navy vessels in the Arabian Sea fired their cruise missiles. Though most of them hit their intended targets, neither Bin Ladin nor any other terrorist leader was killed. Berger told us that an after-action review by Director Tenet concluded that the strikes had killed 20–30 people in the camps but probably missed Bin Ladin by a few hours.”
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:bQBb21RoKI8J:wikisource.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report/Chapter_4+9/11+Commission+Report,+al+Shifa&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Just so we get the record STRAIGHT. You SUPPORT a war based upon “fixed intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction” and a connection to Al Qaeda in Iraq which turned out to be FALSE, resulting in the deaths of 1,734 American sevicemen, tens of thousands wounded and evacuated, estimates between 26,000 to 112,000 DEAD IRAQI CITIZENS and $300 BILLION in American taxpayer costs and counting, with no end in sight, or solution to the current violence available.
And you are maligning President Clinton for a missile strike on a chemical facillity in the SLAVE STATE of Sudan (remember, they’re the ones conducting GENOCIDE on BLACK CHRISTIANS like you and me) after a POSITIVE SOIL TEST ON VX GAS COMPONENTS? A missile strike meant to PREVENT a POSSIBLE chemical terrorist attack on the US?
You’re allowed to say anything you like. Hey, it’s your blog. I’m an American before I’m a Democrat or Liberal.
–Cobra
Rove has done nothing wrong from a political context or otherwise. Democrats are not necessarily soft on terror, but some liberals most definitely are soft. And why? Because they are at heart anti-America. America represents free-markets and free-minds and a modern liberal is nine times out of ten a socialist which is on paper about equality and common good, but in practice is coercive and partisan. Notice how liberals only preach tolerance about the issue they represent. Rove may have struck a nerve and hurt some feelings, but truth hurts.
Karl Rove put a lot of Liberals/leftists/Democrats feet to the fire. They like political correctness and he gave them both barrels of TRUTH!!! They cannot take it. Talk about whinners!
Cobra, you’re a Black Christian? It’s not evident from your works of art — fruits and all.
Andy writes:
>>>Cobra, you’re a Black Christian? It’s not evident from your works of art — fruits and all.”
In what chapter and verse did Jesus give his opinion on editorial cartoonists? And exactly what is “anti-Christian” about my cartoons? Anti-conservative? Well…I can’t say I’m TOTALLY unbiased.
http://www.thecobraslair.com/National%20Issues7.html
Heck, I even smack around Democrats every now and then.
http://www.thecobraslair.com/National%20Issues8.html
–Cobra
Comments on this entry are closed.