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.”
