Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Clinton Demands For Pataki to Repudiate Rove

Politics Karl Rove Senator Clinton Gov. Pataki New York Liberal Mis-Characterization

  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#41 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 25 June 2005 - 10:54 AM

You can find the transcript of Rove's entire speech here:

http://www.btcnews.c...index.php?p=983

I'll reprint the entire relevant portion where he talks about "Liberalism":


Let me now say a few words about the state of liberalism. Perhaps the place to begin is with this stinging indictment:

“Liberalism is at greater risk now than at any time in recent American history. The risk is of political marginality, even irrelevance.? [L]iberalism risks getting defined, as conservatism once was, entirely in negative terms.”

These are not the words of William F. Buckley, Jr. or Sean Hannity; they are the words of Paul Starr, co-editor of The American Prospect, a leading liberal publication.

There is much merit in what Mr. Starr writes – though he and I fundamentally disagree as to why liberalism is edging toward irrelevance. I believe the reason can be seen when comparing conservatism with liberalism.

Conservatives believe in lower taxes; liberals believe in higher taxes. We want few regulations; they want more. Conservatives measure the effectiveness of government programs by results; liberals measure the effectiveness of government programs by inputs. We believe in curbing the size of government; they believe in expanding the size of government. Conservatives believe in making America a less litigious society; liberals believe in making America a more litigious society. We believe in accountability and parental choice in education; they don?t. Conservatives believe in advancing what Pope John Paul II called a “culture of life"; liberals believe there is an absolute unlimited right to abortion.

But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and 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. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to… submit a petition. I am not joking. Submitting a petition is precisely what Moveon.org did. It was a petition imploring the “powers that be” to “use moderation and restraint in responding to the… terrorist attacks against the United States.”

I don’t know about you, but moderation and restraint is not what I felt as I watched the Twin Towers crumble to the earth; a side of the Pentagon destroyed; and almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble.

Moderation and restraint is not what I felt – and moderation and restraint is not what was called for. It was a moment to summon our national will – and to brandish steel.

MoveOn.Org, Michael Moore and Howard Dean may not have agreed with this, but the American people did.

Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said: we will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said: we must understand our enemies. Conservatives see the United States as a great nation engaged in a noble cause; liberals see the United States and they see … Nazi concentration camps, Soviet gulags, and the killing fields of Cambodia.

Has there been a more revealing moment this year than when Democratic Senator Richard Durbin, speaking on the Senate floor, compared what Americans had done to prisoners in our control at Guantanamo Bay with what was done by Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot – three of the most brutal and malevolent figures in the 20th century?

Let me put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts to the region the words of Senator Durbin, certainly putting America’s men and women in uniform in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.


The portion at the end where he effectively accuses a sitting United States senator, and by proxy "liberals" in general (not MoveOn or Michael Moore), of treason is particularly lovely...


P.S.  Oh, and a question for Mr. Calgary:  since nobody except for you has mentioned him here, what in the world does Ogami have to do with this thread?

Edited by MuseZack, 25 June 2005 - 11:10 AM.

"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#42 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 25 June 2005 - 11:20 AM

Question is, MuseZack, is what Rove said untrue?

Did Sen. Durbin compare Guantanamo Bay to what was done by Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot?  Did Al Jazeera broadcast Sen. Durbin's words?  Have these stories of American's abusing prisoners not increased the danger to America's military men and women?

Didn't Hezbollah support showing Michael Moore's video Farenheight 9/11 in the UAE?

However, I do disagree with Rove.  Both Durbin and Moore have the world's ear and need to explain their motives for consciously being inflammatory and divisive in a world-wide venue.

Is Rove accusing Durbin of treason?  Did Durbin wage war against his country?  Did Durbin consciously act to aid his country's enemies?

#43 Eskaminzim

Eskaminzim

    Head eggs and butt toast

  • Islander
  • 559 posts

Posted 25 June 2005 - 11:25 AM

Mr Calgary writes:

>>My view is that one of the major characteristics of modern Liberalism is a gleeful willingness to dish it out, but when it comes back at them, its "how dare you say those about us".<<

You know, it's funny...I see the exact same on the other side of the coin as well--meaning that I agree with your statement, with the proviso that it goes on on the Republican side of the fence as well.

Yes, when Rove spouts his sh!t, the liberals/Democrats/whathave you are all "boo hoo, take it back!"....

AND when Dean and Durbin and whomever spout THEIR sh!t, the conservatives/Republicans/whathave you are ALSO all "boo hoo, take it back! You're killing our soldiers in Iraq! Boo hoo!"

Same thing is going on on both sides of the ideological fence.

It's a slightly distorted funhouse mirror each side is looking into.  They're mirror images of each other.

The only difference I can see is that--with Dean being the exception, the liberals/Democrats/whatever, when asked to 'take it back' usually do.

The conservatives/Republicans/whatever rarely, if ever, do.

And at this point in time, with our country so deeply divided, the second is perceived, IMHO, as stronger than the first.  If you apologize for something wrong you said, you're seen, by many, as a wimp.  If you stand behind your words, actions, or deeds, no matter how offensive they may be for some, you're seen as staying the course, staying true to your truth and your moral beliefs.

And I think that is why Dean is getting some of the grassroots support he is, because he's acting just like the Republicans in making his statements and refusing to back down from them, unlike most of the others, who will turn belly up at the drop of a hat.

#44 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 25 June 2005 - 11:47 AM

My problem with both sides is that they are constantly opening their mouths to deliberately say something that is going to be the subject of a "to take it back or not" screamfest.  Where in the arguments over whomever is doing the name calling at the moment is there anything constructive happening?  Talk about getting sidetracked from the issues!

#45 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 25 June 2005 - 12:39 PM

Rove used Moveon and Moore as examples to support his smear of liberals in general. That's no more fair than if I used something Michael Savage or Jerry Falwell said to represent the views of all conservatives.

Again, Rove is rewriting history. Liberals were largely supportive of the actions taken immediately after 9/11. It is flat wrong to state otherwise.

Joe Conason is pretty steamed about this, and he offers some examples of liberal responses to 9/11.

http://www.salon.com...6/24/karl_rove/



Quote

As a New Yorker who stood on my street and watched the Twin Towers fall, I take strong personal exception to Rove's ugly slander against "liberals." According to him, liberals "saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." That broad-brush smear is false, and Rove knows it.

The truth is that liberal New York -- and the vast majority of American liberals and progressives -- stood with the president in his decision to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban. On the day of the attacks, I wrote a column that endorsed "hunting down and punishing" those responsible because the dead deserved justice -- and noted that when the culpability of Osama bin Laden and the Taliban was established, the United States "is fully capable of dealing with them."

Six weeks after 9/11 and two weeks after the United States started bombing the terrorist camps in Afghanistan, I appeared on CBS's "Early Show" to support the Bush administration's actions. Correspondent Lisa Birnbach made the point that liberals and Democrats who had once opposed the war in Vietnam were standing shoulder to shoulder with a president they didn't much like (and, although she didn't mention it, whose legitimacy they continued to doubt).

Noting the ubiquitous presence of American flags as we walked around the very liberal neighborhood where I live, Birnbach said, "This old lefty [Conason] is suddenly siding with the White House."

Responding to her question about the U.S. war against al-Qaida and the Taliban, I told Birnbach: "I'm not going to say I agree with every policy this administration will pursue, but so far, so good." Although she sounded surprised, the fact is that I was scarcely alone on the liberal left in expressing those sentiments.

In the aftermath of 9/11, liberal Democrats on Capitol Hill stood proudly with conservative Republicans to pledge their support for military action against al-Qaida and the Taliban. The wobbly weakness of George W. Bush's initial response to the terror strikes went unmentioned, as did anything else that might hint at dissension at a moment of crisis. When Bush delivered his powerful speech to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, 2001, he won standing applause across the bitter divide left by the 2000 election. For the first time in memory, Democratic congressional leaders declined free airtime to answer a Republican presidential address.

"We want America to speak with one voice tonight and we want enemies and the whole world and all of our citizens to know that America speaks tonight with one voice," said Rep. Richard Gephardt, then the House Democratic leader. "We have faith in [Bush] and his colleagues in the executive branch to do this in the right way."

Tom Daschle, then the Senate Democratic leader, stood with his Republican counterpart, Trent Lott, to show bipartisan support for the president. "Tonight there is no opposition party," said Lott. "We stand here united, not as Republicans and Democrats, not as Southerners or Westerners or Midwesterners or Easterners, but as Americans." Daschle echoed Lott: "We want President Bush to know -- we want the world to know -- that he can depend on us."

Even Rep. Maxine Waters, the liberal Los Angeles Democrat who at the time was among Bush's toughest critics on the left, praised him without reservation. "He hit a home run," she said. "We may disagree later, but now is not the time."

Among the other liberal journalists who backed Bush was Jacob Weisberg, now editor of Slate magazine, who has published several volumes mocking Bush's difficulties with the English language.

Weisberg said then, "He was very shaky at first, but I resisted the urge to write a piece saying that, because I didn't think it was appropriate ... Bush deserves the benefit of the doubt to an enormous degree. He needs to rally the nation. I want to contribute to that effort to the extent that I can."

"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#46 Mr.Calgary

Mr.Calgary

    Has left.

  • Islander
  • 1,348 posts

Posted 25 June 2005 - 03:19 PM

MuseZack, on Jun 25 2005, 08:54 AM, said:

P.S.  Oh, and a question for Mr. Calgary:  since nobody except for you has mentioned him here, what in the world does Ogami have to do with this thread?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No obiligation to agree, but I observe that they're components of the same all encompassing discussion.  

I was going to say more originally, I decided to hold back and self-edit.
Favourite Coda thread quotes.....

(1)  Yes. Bad Trance! Wicked, Evil Trance!

(2)  Stayed purple.   (3)  Bad, bad Trance!

(4)  Love and Blowing Things Up continue forever. The universe wins

#47 Nonprofit

Nonprofit
  • Islander
  • 2,163 posts

Posted 25 June 2005 - 09:38 PM

left blank  :)

Edited by RuReddy1, 27 July 2005 - 10:22 PM.


#48 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 26 June 2005 - 04:31 AM

Spectacles, on Jun 25 2005, 05:39 PM, said:

Rove used Moveon and Moore as examples to support his smear of liberals in general. That's no more fair than if I used something Michael Savage or Jerry Falwell said to represent the views of all conservatives.

Again, Rove is rewriting history. Liberals were largely supportive of the actions taken immediately after 9/11. It is flat wrong to state otherwise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As we're discussing all around the board in different threads, Democrat doesn't necessarily equal Liberal, probably doesn't have much of anything to do with Christian Left, and Republican doesn't necessarily equal Christian Right or Conservative.  So, the question now is, can a person who is pro-war claim to have a "Liberal" point of view on war?  If they can, then how is a pro-war liberal different from a pro-war conservative?

Edited by eloisel, 26 June 2005 - 04:32 AM.


#49 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 26 June 2005 - 06:57 AM

Quote

Eloisel: So, the question now is, can a person who is pro-war claim to have a "Liberal" point of view on war? If they can, then how is a pro-war liberal different from a pro-war conservative?

I'm not sure I'm following the question.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#50 Zwolf

Zwolf
  • Islander
  • 3,683 posts

Posted 26 June 2005 - 08:42 AM

Quote

Delvo sez:
Why do liberals keep making this claim? We were there at the time too, and we saw for ourselves the resistance you keep saying wasn't there. Do you just think nobody else can remember past a couple of years?

****** Could be you had some political version of "beer goggles" on, where one dissenter turns into ten thousand?  I was all for going into Afghanistan, and so was every "leftie" I know of, aside from about two whiney putzes who were actually America-hater types... who got their asses verbally handed to them by the rest of the "lefties" around them.  If somebody just sees what they want to see, 1% can be made into something more like 68%.  In all honesty, I only remember a very few extremists who were against going into Afghanistan, and they didn't fare too well.  


Quote

Mr. Calgary sez:
My view is that one of the major characteristics of modern Liberalism is a gleeful willingness to dish it out, but when it comes back at them, its "how dare you say those things about us".

****** That hasn't been my experience at all.  I restrain my rhetoric around here, ‘cuz it's not that kind of forum, but I've also been on other forums with less restraints (Yahoo boards, for instance), and I've happily gone toe-to-toe with some of the nastiest, most vicious "Democrat haters" the ‘net can dredge up.  I don't mind the getting slammed, or I wouldn't go there in the first place.  But much of the time that I start to give them back a little of what they're slinging, they go all bitch on me, tuck their tails, and then just rabbit over the next hill crying about what that mean mean man said to ‘em.  So, nope, this doesn't stick with my experience, as far as overall percentage goes.


Now, to something that really cracked me up.  Karl Rove said:

Quote

Conservatives measure the effectiveness of government programs by results; liberals measure the effectiveness of government programs by inputs.

Then also said:

Quote

We believe in curbing the size of government; they believe in expanding the size of government. ... We believe in accountability and parental choice in education; they don?t.

Oh, god.  He's working for an administration that's expanded the size of the government more than any administration - Democrat or Republican - in decades.   And he talks about "choice in education" while shoving all this "no child left behind" stuff down the throats of all the schools.  They're for parental choice in education... as long as your choice is to have "Creationism" taught as being equal to actual science.  "Results-based" means you check what they do rather than just listening to what they say.  I wish he'd added some of the other tenants of conservatism into his rant, such as fiscal responsibility or freedom for the individual, while he was talking up the "results-based" greatness of his administration.   I could've gotten a week's worth of laughing at that one. :)   Republicans in general may be for those things, but  if you're looking at results, Bush/Rove isn't.

Cheers,

Zwolf
"I've moved on and I'm feeling fine
And I'll feel even better
When your life has nothing to do with mine."
-Pittbull, "No Love Lost"

"There are things that I'd like to say
But I'm never talking to you again
There's things I'd like to phrase some way
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'd put you down where you belong
But I'm never talking to you again
I'd show you everywhere you're wrong
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you."
- Husker Du, "Never Talking To You Again"

#51 Chipper

Chipper

    Give it up

  • Islander
  • 5,202 posts

Posted 26 June 2005 - 09:50 AM

What Zwolf said.  Rove is lying out of his teeth here.

And lumping all liberals with Moveon.org, Dean and Moore?  Wow, that's quite a group, and I think the fact that Dean imploded shows that people weren't for him so much as they were for a revival of the grassroots movement.
"Courtesy is how we got civilized. The blind assertion of rights is what threatens to decivilize us. Everybody's got lots of rights that are set out legally. Responsibilities are not enumerated, for good reason, but they are set into the social fabric. Is it such a sacrifice to not be an a**hole?"

- Jenny Smith on Usenet, via Jid, via Kathy

#52 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 26 June 2005 - 09:55 AM

Rove, as it turns out was lying enthusiastically about Move On as well as a number of other matters.  The "Move On petition" was sponsored by another group altogether, well before Eli Pariser joined Move On.  The average reader can't be blamed for being confused, but someone whose job is to know the facts, as Roves' is, certainly can be blamed for lying.

Quote

MOVEON CLARIFIES ITSELF ON THE AFGHAN WAR -- BUT IS THE DAMAGE ALREADY DONE? So I just got a press release from MoveOn.org that I've been expecting the group to issue ever since Peter Beinart attacked MoveOn.org in his New Republic article "A Fighting Faith" last December. It only took six months, but the group has finally got around to clarifying its position on the U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan and now declines to take responsibility for MoveOn leader Eli Pariser's post–September 11 petition conducted through a different group, 9-11Peace.org, and which predated his joining MoveOn. According to a statement MoveOn sent out today:
“[Karl Rove] and [Dan] Bartlett are lying about MoveOn’s record. The organization never opposed the attack on Afghanistan post 9/11. In urging a multi-pronged approach to fighting terrorism, the organization has always supported measured military action as part of the mix,” Pariser continued.
“My own then-unaffiliated web site, which I started prior to joining MoveOn, said U.S. response should be ‘moderate and restrained,’ to avoid provoking more terrorism and enmity against the U.S.,” he went on. “Only two days after the attack on the towers, with no proof of who was responsible, urging care was appropriate. Of course I believe the attack on the camps in Afghanistan, which came weeks later, was appropriate, as was other military action against Al Qaeda,” Pariser said.

MoveOn was founded in September 1998 but Pariser did not join the organization until the fall of 2002. A 2003 Mother Jones story on Pariser presents a muddled picture of his involvement until then:
[A]s the showdown with Iraq started heating up, Boyd hired Pariser to direct MoveOn's international campaigns. Working 18-hour days, Pariser organized 9,000 activists to meet with their representatives in Congress last November. He also helped raise more than $400,000 for anti-war advertising. The lanky, 6-foot-3-inch Pariser has since found himself in the company of some of the world's leading peaceniks. At February's rally he shared the podium with Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu and Martin Luther King III. His speech lacked the fiery idealism you'd expect from the youngest man onstage. "I don't want to be part of the Great Left Martyrdom story," Pariser explains, "where we simply say, 'We fought the good fight and we lost.' I don't want to be on the losing side."
If Pariser wants to avoid not just being part of, but actively contributing to, the Great Left Martyrdom story, however, he and MoveOn will have to do a much better -- and, frankly, less arrogant -- job of press management in the future. If MoveOn was going to clarify its position on the intervention in Afghanistan and distance itself from Pariser's pre-MoveOn activities, it should have done so cleanly and definitively last fall, when the issue first came up and it had an opportunity to respond in the pages of TNR, instead of waiting until the middle of a full-scale Republican attack to slowly dribble out a walk-back. And I do mean dribble: The first release the group send out yesterday said nothing about all of this; then Pariser made some remarks in The Washington Post this morning, where he "disputed Rove's characterization of the petition calling for moderation and restraint, saying that the petition was a personal project before he was affiliated with MoveOn and that it was not on the group's Web site at the time of the Afghanistan war;" then the group issued his clarifying statement.
You wouldn't know any of this if you went to the group's Web site, however. The last press release there that I can find is dated February 4, 2005, and the latest release, which I received by e-mail, is nowhere to be found. Further, over at MoveOn PAC, now the main vehicle for the group's activities, there isn't even a list of releases, or a press contact phone number.

My sense is that MoveOn has grown to the point that it needs a full-time, in-house communications person who knows Washington media, knows the brutal political power game, and can make sure its idealistic, energetic young leaders aren't unintentionally making unnecessary tactical mistakes that will redound to the harm of every elected Democratic leader on Capitol Hill. MoveOn is, as it has long aspired to be, now a player in Washington. It should start acting like it knows it, and realizing that every opportunity it gives the Republicans to attack it -- by, for example, failing to get its own house in order -- is going to be used against Democratic elected officials over time.

UPDATE: Whoops -- turns out MoveOn just hired an in-house communications director, their first, three weeks ago. Jennifer Lindenauer, formerly of Lindenauer Communications and GMMB, has worked on and run political campaigns in Michigan, Colorado, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. My apologies for the error.

The broader issue remains, however. The Republican Party has three central political targets -- Howard Dean, MoveOn, and Michael Moore -- that it's actively seeking to completely discredit and make ridiculous, in order to then tie every elected Democratic official and left/liberal thinker to them (rendering them discredited, in turn). That's part of the long-term strategy, and something MoveOn is going to have to learn how to deal with effectively on an ongoing basis. It won't be easy.

--Garance Franke-Ruta

The so-called "Move On petition"
Posted Image

#53 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 26 June 2005 - 06:55 PM

http://www.mysterypo...YT_ideology.pdf


If you have trouble opening the pdf file, here's a summary of the poll taken 9/20-23 by CBS/NYT:

Quote

Do you think the U.S. SHOULD take military action against whoever is responsible for the attacks?  Yes: 84% of liberals, 93% of moderates, 95% of conservatives.

Do you think the U.S. SHOULD take military action against whoever is responsible for the attacks, even if it means that innocent people are killed? Yes vs. No: liberals 60% to 19%, moderates 64% to 21%, conservatives 76% to 14%.

What if that meant going to war with a nation that is harboring those responsible for the attacks, then do you think the United States should take military action against whoever is responsible for the attacks?  Yes vs. No: liberals 75% to 6%, moderates 83% to 6%, conservatives 89% to 3%

What if that meant that many thousands of innocent civilians may be killed, then do you think the United States should take military action against whoever is responsible for the attacks? Yes vs. No: liberals 62% to 17%, moderates 69% to 18%, conservatives 73% to 15%.

This and lots of other liberal reactions immediately after 9/11 are from here:

http://www.mysterypo...id_liberal.html

Edited by Spectacles, 26 June 2005 - 07:00 PM.

"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#54 Call Me Robin

Call Me Robin

    red-haired and proud

  • Islander
  • 970 posts

Posted 26 June 2005 - 09:52 PM

Hey Zack!  Remember when you said that liberals should quit demanding apologies and tell Rove to come out and fight like a man?  Well, it seems that Rove has ticked off a lot of liberals in the US military--as well as military families.

Let's read a sample response, shall we?

Quote

I'm writing you from [Location Withheld] Iraq, about 35 miles NW of Baghdad.. And I'm too tired to give Karl the verbal beating he deserves for his insults. I'm too tired because we're jsut a bit shorthanded over here, fighting his war for him. A war taht has made nearly every country in the world fear and distrust America, a war fought for a knowing lie dreamed up by Karl and his buddies, none of whom have ever heard a shot fired in anger, or helped pick up the parts of another human being after an IED blast.

I enlisted after the war beganm and after I'd gotten my degree. I could easily have stayed home and watched the war on TV, and Karl does. I do not support this war in the slightest, but I will not sit at home and lecture others on their insufficient patriotism when the nation is in need. I joined because I believe in giving back some measure of service and devotion to my country.

To hear a man like Karl insinuate that only conservatives are really patriotic is a knife in the back to every man and woman in Iraq who serves here. At least a third of us voted against Bush and pals. The number increases every day that we stay here, forced to make bricks without straw for months on end.

We've been here for 6 months. We're going to be here for at least 6 more. And next week we're moving to a more 'active' sector because the unit there is rotating home and the are is still too hot to entrust to the IA or IP, most of whom are still not fit to guard a traffic light, despite two years of efforts on our part. For some of us, this is our second tour through Iraq. My unit, [Withheld] was the tip of the spear in OIF I. At least half of us are combat veterans of a major battle and liberals. Can any of your gang say that, Karl?

Never insult me and my fellow liberals again, Karl. Watching a fat, hateful thing like you that has never faced any greater danger in your life than a long golf shot denigrate every liberal who has put on a uniform is more demoralizing than ten thousand speeches that uphold America's highest ideals from Sen. Biden or Byrd.

[Name Withheld]

Oh.  Dear.  It looks like Rove has put his foot in his mouth.   :lol:

Edited by Call Me Robin, 26 June 2005 - 09:57 PM.

Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved.
--Aristotle

The fanatic is not really a stickler to principle. He embraces a cause not primarily because of its justness or holiness but because of his desperate need for something to hold onto.
--Eric Hoffer

#55 Chipper

Chipper

    Give it up

  • Islander
  • 5,202 posts

Posted 27 June 2005 - 09:59 AM

And yet somehow the neocons in the administration will spin all the responses as the histrionics of those opposed to them, and there will be people who eat it up.

has politics ever been so dirty?
"Courtesy is how we got civilized. The blind assertion of rights is what threatens to decivilize us. Everybody's got lots of rights that are set out legally. Responsibilities are not enumerated, for good reason, but they are set into the social fabric. Is it such a sacrifice to not be an a**hole?"

- Jenny Smith on Usenet, via Jid, via Kathy

#56 Jid

Jid

    Mad Prophet of Funk

  • Islander
  • 12,554 posts

Posted 27 June 2005 - 10:01 AM

^In my opinion, politics has always been this dirty, it's just it's gotten more publically so, recently.
cervisiam tene rem specta



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Politics, Karl Rove, Senator Clinton, Gov. Pataki, New York, Liberal Mis-Characterization

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users