Redstate

I find them kind of humorous, and far more correct than Durbin's "Gitmo is like the Nazi's" meme.

He can easily apologize, Durbinesquely! If he mischaractierized or misstated anyone's views, if anyone doesn't want to provide therapy or foster understanding. If they don't want to prepare indictments.

This "political jujitsu" is so transparent it's almost in slow motion.

If Rove is wrong, the democrats don't want indictments and understanding? Then was Durbin right? Then why did he apologize?

If anything, this is simply bold by Rove, but considering the fat target they've served up, he's obligated to take a whack at it.

Rove's comments must be designed and timed to demonstrate the abject hypocrisy of the lefties.  The timing is perfect after Durbin's dumb comments over which his colleagues barely kicked up a fuss.

Also, Rove's comments are the real "nucular option" to whip out the fact that the liberals, by prior reputation, by current word and deed, are not on-board with the GWOT and everyone knows it.

We really need to hear more of this.  What will be lost?  The Dems are obstructing everything anyway.  At least you can put them back in their place while firing up the base.

is pretty factual.

Rove's remarks were to a Conservative Party gathering in NY. It's tradition to give a little red meat when before such an audience.

Rove's a political hack, not a policy maker and not in elected to anything. Rove only has to start parsing his syllables to avoid offense when James Carville and Paul Begala do the same.

My guess is that some Democrats feel a little beat up over the Durbin affair and feel a need to be offended. Sells to the base better than apologies.

And does anyone care what it is?  His role clearly transcends whatever his paid position is, so forcing him to 'resign' is asinine.

to the President of the USA.

I think those comments were beneath the dignity of an Administration Official. They were the sort of thing that I expect to find in a thread on Little Greeen Footballs. But I've had it about up to here with all this apology tit-for-tat.

Hey national leaders, how about getting some work done?

Rove is Deputy Chief of Staff.

What a rambling knee-jerk post by Tim Saler, bringing out the usual punching bags & boogey men: Dean, Pelosi, Kerry and - look over there! - It's Durbin!

Rove:

"Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."

I read this as plainly as I can: The motives of liberals are to put our troops in danger.

Is this what you right-wingers really believe? I feel like throwing up.

When I was in school, if someone called you a name, the last thing you'd want to do is hold a press conference asking for an apology.

Unfortunately, in politics, these guys basically do two things: talk and write.  And the swing voters seem to be more responsive to the politicians that hurl zingers like Chris Rock rather than those who write legislation like James Madison.

Consequently, we end up with a troupe of bad comedians who have trouble writing laws that are fair and make sense.

From the NYT:

"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," Mr. Rove, the senior political adviser to President Bush, said at a fund-raiser in Midtown for the Conservative Party of New York State.

Citing calls by progressive groups to respond carefully to the attacks, Mr. Rove said to the applause of several hundred audience members, "I don't know about you, but moderation and restraint is not what I felt when I watched the twin towers crumble to the ground, a side of the Pentagon destroyed, and almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble."

Mr. Rove also said American armed forces overseas were in more jeopardy as a result of remarks last week by Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, who compared American mistreatment of detainees to the acts of "Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime - Pol Pot or others."

<snip>

"Has there ever been a more revealing moment this year?" Mr. Rove asked. "Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."

Looks like someone just threw down the gauntlet.

Is this what you right-wingers really believe? I feel like throwing up.

I don't believe that's your motive. I think your intent is to smear them, in the hopes of increasing domestic opposition to the war. I think that because it's the same thing you did last time. Only then it was John Kerry instead of Dick Durbin smearing the troops, and Ghengis Khan instead of Hitler as the Icon of Evil.

I assume you recognize that this tactic emboldens our enemies and gives them hope, and so in that way does contribute indirectly to putting our troops in greater danger; but you accept that outcome as "worth it" to achieve your goals.

Hopefully this explanation will contribute to your understanding of what we 'right wingers' believe.

Rove's remarks are untruthful.

Okay, maybe not the therapy part, but the liberals have done nothing but squall about charging all illegal combatants in the US courts, the ACLU even has a case advocating it.

that worries me.

Durbin didn't think that alJazeera would twist and rebroacast his words?  And that THAT wouldn't hurt our cause overseas.  Especially in the Middle East, where a minor, incorrect story about Quaran flushing CAN lead and HAS led to rioting.

Save us the strawman.  None of thinks that the liberals WANT our troops to suffer.  No, we think that some are so overboard in their hatred of GWB that they're willing to see us lose in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Others are just too dumb to know that words have meaning.

You wrote:

I think your intent is to smear them, in the hopes of increasing domestic opposition to the war.

I assume you recognize that this tactic emboldens our enemies and gives them hope, and so in that way does contribute indirectly to putting our troops in greater danger; but you accept that outcome as "worth it" to achieve your goals.

What you describe is treason. Why not just come out and call it that?

Not from the barracks of VMI, or West Point, or Annapolis.  

No, I think I hear it from NYC.  

Stand to, Redstaters!  I hear guns ahead....

Their immediate reaction was, for the most part, as fierce as was anyone else.  It was only after time that they began to see that the attacks were caused by the Bush Administrations policies.  (Some blame the Israelis, as well, but that element has always existed within the liberal movement.)

Coming from Ann Coulter, I'd call it a zinger.  Coming from Rove... oops.  Now he's drawing criticism from such as Nancy Pelosi, Chuckie Schumer, and Harry Reid.  Yikes!  He should not, politically, have said it.

I'm hoping that there is some sort of strategic, Roveian thinking behind this, because it is a terrible distraction.

"What you describe is treason. Why not just come out and call it that?"

OK, it's treason. Objectively, it is treason to adhere to the enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort. Ya happy now?

At some of the commentary posted on the progressive website CommonDreams.org around the time we started our liberation of Afghanistan:

"Alternatives to War Will Work Best in Long Run" by Gilda Lerner in the Capital Times

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1002-06.htm

"War Fever Hits the World"

by Anthony Howard in the Times of London

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1002-02.htm

"There is Nothing Anti-American About Opposing the Drive to War"

by Mike Marqusee in the London Guardian

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1004-08.htm

"Two Who Voted Against War; 60 Years Apart"

by Theo Lippman, Jr. in the Baltimore Sun

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1007-01.htm

"A World Too Intoxicated by the Wine of War"

by John Balzar in the Los Angeles Times

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1008-07.htm

"Say What You Want, But This War is Illegal"

by Michael Mandel in the Toronto Globe and Mail

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1009-04.htm

In this case, Karl Rove simply told the truth, and there is ample backing among the "progressive" opinion of that time.  I guess the Democrats don't want that to get out.

I thought treason involved taking up arms against the United States. But I am not a lawyer, so I don't know that for sure.

...using facts in your argument. Facts are a archaic form of repression imposed by the racist, sexist, homophobic, imperialist, and warmongering patriarchy.

(c8

that both sides are playing politics.

What's interesting to note however is that the republicans control all 3 branches of government, so why do they need to stoop to behavior as low as what they accuse the dems of?

Nancy answered that question:

Republican charges that Democrats were undermining the war on terror with their criticism of administration policies amounted to an act of desperation.

"The president wanted to go to Iraq in the worst possible way and he did," Pelosi said. "The president is on the ropes."

Its not so much the president that's on the ropes as he cannot be re-elected.  Its the GOP on the ropes.

The war is NOT going well, Hagel and others have come out clearly acknowledging that the war is not going well.  Yet somehow its all the dems fault even though they aren't in control of ANY branch of government.  If the war in Iraq becomes widely recognized as being a mistake and a failure, the GOP will take the vast majority of the heat for it.  Americans can be duped, but not THAT severely.   I.e. if it walks like desperation, and it smells like desperation, guess what?  It IS desperation.

Note, I'm not saying the war IS a failure yet, but its heading that direction.

The crime of Treason requires two witness to an overt act of making war on the US.

An accusation of Treason is not going to be made.

The common definition of treason- giving aid and comfort to the enemy, adhereing to the enemy in armed conflict whatever-- the left are treasonous, but cannot be convicted of treason.

Glenn Reynolds at InstaPundit hit it right on the head the other day.

He said "Really, Bush's ability to drive his opponents stark, raving bonkers is almost supernatural."

Not only is it fun to watch them go around the bend, it has the added value of being true. Who could ask for more.

------------

...Looks like someone just threw down the gauntlet.

What you describe is treason. Why not just come out and call it that?

I'll call it that.  Oh, and here's a book on it.

Resign for calling the it the way it is?

Although no elected Democrat is likely to take up arms against the US, what Rove said is certainly true.  No Democrat save Lieberman wants to fight the terrorist with military force anywhere outside of the US.  No Democrat will admit that terror is not caused by poverty, but is caused by wealth without responsibility, that terror is not caused by the US and our policy but caused by the evil of freedom's enemies.

Hence, why I used direct quotes in my article. You can make all the accusations you want, but if you have direct quotes to back it up, that makes all the difference.

Wake me up when the Democrats aren't accusing me of never doing an honest day's work, or they and their fellow-travellers aren't calling me a theocratic ne'er-do-well. Then I'll worry about whether or not somebody in this party is maliciously quoting somebody over there to point out that they're a tremendous boob.

Please...you dare talk about strawmen? The only strawman in your post is Al-Jazeera. I remember a time when conservatives could care less what Al-Jazeera said - and rightfully so!

Since when you did you becomes so cowed?

 has Al-Jazeera rebroadcast Durbin's remarks?

 And how many Iraqis have working TV's to hear them?

Remember...this hypocrisy isn't new.  Rush ran the list yesterday...Lott, Dean, Durbin, Teddy K., and on and on.  They're real good at crying foul...

Yeah, we overplay some stuff too but the double standard is obvious.

I'm searching for a word to describe this

Note, I'm not saying the war IS a failure yet, but its heading that direction.

So if it crashes down around our ears then you were right. But if it succeeds then you were also right because someone managed to straighten it out.

But the rules say no profanity so I guess I'll have to continue searching.

Hagel is an idiot, I don't care what side of the aisle he sits on.

How come "everyone" thinks its a failure except 70%+ of the Iraqis, most of the troops, h*ll even Kofi Annan is making nice noises now.

If the press and the Democrats keep at it however they may be able to talk it into failure. God knows they've been trying since the day after the invasion started but for some d*mn reason the troops keep screwing up and succeeding.

Public support for the war is waning. With the press reporting nothing but the bad stuff I'm surprised that it's as high as it is! But strangely there is good news creeping into the reports. Maybe the press has decided they need to get back on the side of the angels.

I don't have the figures handy, but American public support for the Marshall Plan was almost nonexistent. Truman plowed on ahead anyway and guess what, the "public" was wrong (actually the press, I doubt anyone knew what the people actually thought.) It happens sometimes.

Again, Rove's comment:

"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," Mr. Rove, the senior political adviser to President Bush, said...

Defending this kind of blatantly partisan ploy demeans the real conservative movement that the Republican Party is leaving further behind by the day. Spin as you will.

Post-9/11, there wasn't a man or woman alive in this country as didn't want to inflict severe damage upon the persons responsible for the attacks. I myself observed liberals partaking in very intellectual discussions about how nails could best be utilized upon various "private" sectors of Osama bin Laden's body for maximum, ah, effectiveness. Every American was angry; every American was vengeful. To suggest otherwise is to lie. Lying, last I checked, isn't particularly American.

Nancy Pelosi's statement was made on the back of several bombing strikes on Iraqi WMD facilities by the Clinton administration. In short, he had them in 1998, we found them, and we destroyed them. This stands in stark contrast to 2003, when he didn't have them, we didn't find them and we accordingly encountered great difficulty in disarming a disarmed man.

[Howard Dean:] "Every day it becomes clearer that this was the wrong war at the wrong time."

Could that perhaps be demoralizing to our troops and damaging to the war effort?

Here's a better question: Is it true? Could American military and economic power have been better utilized elsewhere in 2003? If not: Could we have better prosecuted the war on Iraq?

If the statement made by Howard Dean is false, you should refute it--knock him over and kick him while he's down. I'll bring my stomping boots--we can make a shindig out of it. But if the statement made by Howard Dean is true, I guess you should probably continue using the troops as a political shield for lack of a better defense. It's a pretty good strategy.

Speaking of a party devoid of ideas, you guys have been playing "rally 'round the flag" for four years. You've got some of the smartest political cookies in American history in Karl Rove and certain other backers of President Bush--could you diversify your portfolio of exploitation, maybe innovate a bit in the field of chicanery?

I'm not suggesting that the Democrats are morally pristine, very far from it, but when it comes to real lies and far-out flimflam in the modern political clime, Republicans like Karl Rove take the cake and shove it whole in their mouths without acknowledging that any such thing as cake ever has been or will be. I know it's going to stun you to learn this, but there are real refutations to liberal talking points that don't involve deception and guile. Could you please make them?

Ok. So your man enough to call it leftists traitors. Lets see if your man enough to follow through on your tough talk.

Who should the state arrest first?

Who has a sense of context.

Get used to a lot more of this.  

This looks like it is going to be the Year of Outrage.  Both sides are going to look for ANYTHING they can stir up trouble about.

It started with Dean.  Then Durbin.  Democrats return the volley with Rove now.  This is far from over.

Of course that doesn't stop the moonbats here from agreeing that the "Liberals" support the terrorist, hate our military, and probably hate America too and would prefer to live in Pakistan.

... And how many Iraqis have working TV's to hear them?

Just about everyone; everyone in the cities certainly. And satellite dishes to go with them.

The left complains that people don't have electricity. Despite the fact that the generating and delivery capacity is at least double the prewar level there are shortages and interruptions, some of them lengthy. Of course the thing the left doesn't like to mention is that demand is now about 10 times the prewar level. Apparently everyone in Iraq is suffering so badly that people have bought every air conditioner, TV, satellite system, microwave, refrigerator, washing machine, etc., that can be imported as fast as they get on the street.

And gasoline lines. My God are there gasoline lines. Of course there are now four times as many vehicles in Baghdad than before the war but don't let facts get in the way of a good complaint.

The next thing we'll hear from the left is that the air pollution in Baghdad has gone out of sight. And, of course, it's all Bush's fault for freeing those people and letting them buy cars and TVs and who knows what else.

about this 70% approval number.  Is this what you're referring to?:

According to a ... Coalition Provisional Authority poll:

68 percent of Iraqis have confidence in the interim Iraqi government.

79 percent of Iraqis think the interim government will make things better for Iraq.

73 percent of Iraqis approve of Prime Minister Iyad Allawi.

84 percent of Iraqis approve of President Ghazi al-Yawar.

70 percent of Iraqis express confidence in the new Iraqi army.

82 percent of Iraqis say they have confidence in today's Iraqi police force.

More than half of Iraqis believe that upcoming elections will be free and fair.

This poll is ONE YEAR old.

No, I'm not hedging my bet on the war being a failure, I'm suggesting that its not going well but I'm not completely convinced that it would be wise to pull out yet.  If I was convinced that we had already lost it, I would be in favor of immediate pullout.

It says a great deal about conservatives that it is taken for granted in conservative circles that a comment from a Democrat a majority of Americans have never heard of does more damage to the war effort than, say, p***-poor planning or a ludicrously determined guerrilla insurgency full of terrorists who will stop at nothing to hurt us.

Liberals are soldiers too.  What happens to their morale when they read Rove?  I say nothing at all - they continue to fight as well as they ever have, without giving Rove a second thought -, but according to your analysis, all they can do is sit in a corner and cry because their feelings are hurt so badly.

As horrible as the losses are, and as frustrating and aimless as the effort sometime seems, what the administration seems loathe to admit (for very sound diplomatic reasons) is that Iraq is a battle, not a war. It's akin to Pea Ridge, or Glorieta Pass (and if those seem unknown or obscure - look them up) - hugely important, but when all is done, perhaps only one of many, many such engagements.

So far, we've had two. And if the Iraq and Afghan campaigns work, there may be no more. Otherwise, consider where the armed forces are best positioned to move next.

Again - what the administration is doing is managing the conflict as best as possible within a far larger war effort, and an even larger diplomatic effort.

Has any democratic leader acknowledged this? I think Biden stumbles into it occassionally, but it would be nice if anyone else at least hinted at it.

As long as they don't, Rove and others are free to wage politics all across the democrats territory. Which seems a fine use of his time.

The left complains that people don't have electricity. Despite the fact that the generating and delivery capacity is at least double the prewar level there are shortages and interruptions, some of them lengthy. Of course the thing the left doesn't like to mention is that demand is now about 10 times the prewar level. Apparently everyone in Iraq is suffering so badly that people have bought every air conditioner, TV, satellite system, microwave, refrigerator, washing machine, etc., that can be imported as fast as they get on the street

How does that jibe with...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june05/iraq_6-08.html

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Al-Sammarae admits, like security, electricity production is worse than it was seven months ago when we last interviewed him. Then, Iraq had 5,500 megawatts of available power.

AIHAM AL-SAMMARAE: Well, I think we are down to 4,500 right now, and that means it is four hours no electricity, two hours electricity right now in Iraq and this is hot summer and it's very bad to have that in Iraq right now.

Or how bout this.....

http://timlambert.org/2005/05/gnfi/

Due to lack of maintenance, electricity production fell from 9000 MW in 1991 to 4400 MW before the war. Since then, there have been many announcements of improved generating capacity and production has fallen further to 3560 MW.

when they don't believe that Iraq IS part of the larger "war" effort, or at least that it neeeded to be?

"Ok. So your man enough to call it leftists traitors. Lets see if your man enough to follow through on your tough talk. Who should the state arrest first?"

Oh, how about staring off with your buddies who carried signs saying "We support the troops when they shoot their officers?"

Then, let's move to Durbin the Turban, Nancy Pelosi, Walter Jones, and every other worthless gobshite holding elective office who seeks to force termination of this war on terms favorable to the enemies of the United States, just to score political points.

After that...well, let's see what we shake out of the trees, eh? Once treason doth not prosper, none dare engage in treason...

some links to claims by Durbin or Pelosi that we shoudl withdraw from Iraq.

No need to acknowledge, in which case politics is the answer, and Rove is the man. And what exactly is objectionable about his statements? Understanding, therapy and rights analysis is the correct approach. I think that's the debate he's framing, and rightfully so.

If we were to withdraw from Iraq tomorrow what would be our losses other than political loss of face?

Ok good. Just so we're clear: you are calling for the arrest of Sen. Durbin and Minority Leader Pelosi under charges of treason.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Now the customary penalty for treason is death. Do you also advocate the death penalty for Sen. Durbin and Minority Leader Pelosi?

"Please provide some links to claims by Durbin or Pelosi that we shoudl withdraw from Iraq."

Please provide some links claiming that I was talking about withdrawal from Iraq in the comment you replied to.

You get such a wide swath of opinions on dkos.

But there are a few issues where they tend to accept one of two positions: either tolerate it or hate it but don't say you love it.

The pope is one example.  You can hate him or tolerate him on dkos, but be careful if you post that you love the Pope.  That kind of thing will get you 1's, 0's, and bans.

The same thing with the constitutional amendment to ban desecrating the flag.  Many liberals are against the amendment.  But you don't have to be against it to post on dkos.  Just don't say that you think that people who desecrate the flag ought to go to jail.  That will get you low-ratings and bans.

Guess they were awfully inconvenient facts, too...

DailyKos the benchmark for Liberalism?  I rarely go there because they are pretty shrill in their beliefs of just about anything.

I have no idea if what you say is correct but I have NO IDEA how it is relevant.

are why I despise politics. Have you taken the time to find out EVERY democrat's position? I don't just mean the one in the House and the Senate, I mean EVERY single ONE.

Stick to talking about people whose views you can confirm.

controls Iraq?

Kurdistan?

Syria?

Saudi Arabia?

Iran?

Lebanon?

Pakistan?

Somalia?

Sudan?

Egypt?

And does our effort in Iraq have anything to do with any of that?

I think so, in various ways in various places, and our rolling back in Iraq allows the enemy to roll up more easily in all those places, and many more. And if they do, will they continue to attack us wherever and however possible - it seems they do so in relation to their capacity to do so.

Don't know Durbin, do they know Rove?

White House adviser Karl Rove should either apologize or resign for saying liberals responded to the Sept. 11 terrorist strikes by wanting to "prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," Democrats said Thursday.

Liberals wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding to our attackers?

On November 15th 2001, during the Afghanistan War, Bush's approval rating was 86%.  Only one in 10 disapproved of his performance as president.  That's about as united as a country can be headed into war.  A war that was to kill terrorists, not offer therapy.

What a joke.

For years the Republican's made special use of the political character assasination of opponents and enjoyed wide ranging success at it. It seems that now the Democrats have learned to do the same thing, with both sides going after every single little thing that can be found, and relentlessly exploiting it.

What it actually has to do with the issue of the Iraq war is beyond my inderstanding. We are in Iraq, like it or not. We have no choice but to see it through. I cannot say being critical of the war policy would actually result in harming any troops, that's a stretch. But, I also do not see the end of the Democrats using the war increasingly as a podium to launch criticism onto the president, those associated with him and those who support his methode of war. They will undoubtedly have their own methode of conducting the war that they will introduce as the proper way to do it along any lines of critical review.

This other name calling, pointing and posturing is just all part of the new game of eye for an eye everytime.

"If we were to withdraw from Iraq tomorrow what would be our losses other than political loss of face?"

Islamist terrorists and their supporters would conclude--for the second time--that America had no staying power, and they would proceed to plan greater attacks on America.

The road to 9/11 began with your hero Clinton's cowardice in Mogadishu.

All the Islamists demand is "Leave 20% of the world's population to be forever bereft of freedom and opportunity, just to keep us happy, and we will leave you alone--until population pressure forces us to invade your lands and convert you by fire and sword." Your proposal would embolden a 7th-century ideology that seeks to acquire AND USE 21st-century weapons.

It's one thing to sell your soul to the devil.

It's another to want to sell 1.2 billion present and an infinite number of future souls to the devil's henchmen (henchpersons? Persons of hench?)

To quote Samuel Adams:

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

Speculation informed by history.

You ask: If we were to withdraw from Iraq tomorrow what would be our losses other than political loss of face?

Political loss of face has consequences, diplomatically and domestically.

In the wake of the U.S. defeat in Vietnam, an emboldened Soviet Union embarked on a new wave of expansionism-via-proxy that saw Communists slaughters hundreds of thousands in Ethiopia, seize a foothold in Nicaragua used to foment civil war in Central America, and send Cuban troops to Angola. Elsewhere, North Vietnam extended its totalitarian control over the south, lead to the imprisonment of hundreds of thousands, the executions of thousands, and the vast flood of refugees.

Replace Communists with "radical Islamists" and ponder the possibilities.

P.S. Oh yes, Cambodia and Pol Pot.

And what exactly is objectionable about his statements?

Discarding everything aside from that line--

I thought this was transparently obvious to any learned political observer. Rove is framing the Democrats as a party that feared to take action against the enemies of America even in the wake of a tragedy as poignant as 9/11.

Reality's rebuttal: the Democrats sided with Republicans in giving Bush a (Constitutionally questionable, mind you) blank check to prosecute his war on terror by any means necessary within weeks of the attacks. The public split between left and right in the appropriateness of America's direction in the war on terror didn't even show as a crack until the war in Iraq came up as an issue. No liberal has ever questioned that al-Qaeda deserves a good military-style smashing when such can be delivered. Rove states outright that the opposite is the case.

Ergo: what is objectionable about what Rove said is that it is a patent and fairly blatant attempt to smear the opposition party with a notion that is false--with a lie. I mean, if you find that kind of thing objectionable. Your mileage may vary, but I don't think it does.

1. PBS News Hour with or without Jim Lehrer is not my idea of a reputable source but let's ignore my feelings for now. The interview is with the "former" minister. Does he know? I can't say but he is the "former" minister.
   
2. Tim's figures stop in 2004.
   
3. The Coalition Provisional Authority web site stopped updating in 2004 so there is no recent data there either.

I can't find anything more recent than late 2004 right now. And I can't remember when/where I saw the estimates on the TV news. As a result I withdraw my assertion for lack of information to support it.

The anecdotal evidence of the TV situation, and the estimate of power production, is based on some FoxNews reports from Iraq about satellite dishes sprouting on every rooftop and balcony in Baghdad and reports of sales of appliances, etc. (I know, it's FoxNews, that bastion of right wing lies. But what can I say, I don't watch ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN --- I like my facts plain without BS.)

This by the way constitutes wrong by lack of information or incorrect information, not "fixing" the intel to support my view. Thus it is not an impeachable offense.

"Now the customary penalty for treason is death. Do you also advocate the death penalty for Sen. Durbin and Minority Leader Pelosi?"

That's an issue for the jury to decide. Unlike liberals, who think that all wisdom comes from whatever a deranged guy in black robes banging a gavel thinks (unless they disagree with him), I am comfortable in leaving that decision to a jury of my peers.

The death penalty is not the sole penalty for treason. Historically, exile has been a frequently-exercised option, as has life imprisonment. I favor forfeiture of all assets, revocation of citizenship, and permanent exile for these cretins. A jury may or may not agree with me; so be it.

Post-9/11, there wasn't a man or woman alive in this country as didn't want to inflict severe damage upon the persons responsible for the attacks... Every American was angry; every American was vengeful.

I have asked The Google about this. The Google says you are wrong. The Google says a petition calling for "moderation and restraint" (Karl knows The Google, too) in our reaction to this attack was circulating no later than 9/15, and probably a little earlier. That same petition also called for a judicial (i.e. involving indictments and trials) response. The petition was hosted on MoveOn.org, where it would swiftly collect 600,000 signatures.

And then there was this ugly mess, posted the very next day.

You, too, can ask The Google about some of the words and phrases Karl Rove claims were said. It's very clear that Karl did.

Where do I go to find the "sensible liberals"?

If we pulled out of Iraq tomorrow our losses would be similar to the losses we would have faced had we not attacked Saddam in the first place.

Iraq would not become the democracy we hope it can become.  Libya would assume we were not serious about fighting terrorists and would again start rebuilding their WMD arsenal.  Syria would jump at the chance to occupy Lebanon again.  Iran's unelected theocrats would assume we didn't care about them rigging their elections.  The new Iranian Caliphate would proceed with their plans to obtain nuclear weapons with impunity.  North Korea would have no reason to ever return to the bargaining table.

You may worry only about political loss of face or maybe you're accusing President Bush of that, but the reality is just what Karl Rove said last night.  We are facing an enemy in a war we must win.  Wake up and help us win.

"For years the Republican's made special use of the political character assasination of opponents"

Please recall the verb, and its origin, which describes these tactics.

http://lawandpolitics.blogspot.com/

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

that would be a start.

I have several economics and legal blogs if you're interested as well.

Ok, good. Just so I understand you..so exile it is for Senator Durbin and Minority Leader Pelosi.

By the way, you used the word "deranged" in your post. Thats a nice good word.

We shouldn't be in Iraq, except to pursue criminals, gain a greater understanding of potential adversaries, or provide therapy to those who need it?

I don't follow your question? Verb?

They should not ask him to resign but keep on advertising what they think is beleaguered position.

To bork, to have been borked, to be borking.

So our occupation is what caused Libya's change of heart.  I guess the years they spent trying to normalize realtions with the west, including their agreement to pay reparations for PanAm 103 don't count?

Syria left Lebanon because the Lebanonese government TOLD THEM TO.  

Iran obviously doesn't care what we think about their internal elections since they just rigged them.  

Your North Korea theory is bordering on the bizarre.  

Has it ever occurred to other people may feel that we are fighting that the WRONG BATTLE?  What is GOING to happen is that sooner rather than later the Iraqi government is going to kick us out.  They will do this because the Kurds and Sunnis will want to WIELD their power.  

You want to talk about enemies but you CAN'T even IDENTIFY who the enemy is, other than with broad stroke ajectives like "terrorist".  

"Where do I go to find the "sensible liberals"?"

Check with whoever manages the Endangered Species List.

I suppose it also could have been to Fortas, or to Nixon, or even to Vallandingham, but alas, it's not.

The road to 9/11 began with your hero Clinton's cowardice in Mogadishu.

First off Bill Clinton is FAR FAR FAR from my hero.  Secondly your selective memory seems to have forgotten YOUR HERO'S responsibility in this namely allowing 283 American Marines to die at the hands of  Muslim terrorists with absolutely NO REPRISAL and ARMING Muslim terrorists in both Afghanistan and Iran.

Thank you. Then "Borking" it is. Yes I think we'll see alot more of it from both sides now.

Google is like statistics--you can use it to "prove" anything you like. That doesn't make you right.

Karl Rove stated that all liberals wanted to prepare indictments and take a judicial response after 9/11. It is impossible to spin your way out of a lie this blatant, though I see that you're trying pretty hard.

The fact remains that public approval of President Bush's approach to the war on terror hovered at ~90-95% for months after 9/11 as we went into Afghanistan. His disapproval ratings were at 6% as of September 21st when he talked about smashing senseless any country that dared to harbor terrorists. A measure of public opinion is a far better way to determine the direction of public opinion after the 9/11 attacks than one loaded far-leftist Internet petition (and it's not like signatures could be forged on those things), don't you think?

It is additionally not contrary that the American public should simultaneously desire moderation and the destruction of safe havens for terrorists wherever they should be around the globe. Go forth and study these simple psychological tenets, grasshopper.

Your belief that Noam Chomsky is a mainstream American liberal is somewhere between Confounding and Astounding, just off of Misguided Road. I will accordingly ignore it.

Daily Kos, Atrios, and Kevin Drum were ticked off about the way nobody defended Durbin.

The other thing that is key is this - the DailyKos/MoveOn/DU base of the party wants them to fight.  But that fighting alienates the center, which lets the Republicans move in.

Karl Rove's eye for political terrain is simply awesome.  With the Dems fighting back (as their base demands), this is going to keep the focus on them and the fact that they are essentially dovish.

There's another 80% of my post that you either haven't read or don't have a response to. As your ability and willingness to make noise at or over anything is readily apparent, I'd be vastly appreciative if you'd take a gander at it while you're nitpicking my syntax. Thanks!

That the DuNCe is reacting this hotly means Rove has drawn blood.

The polls indicate the people are much more in tune with this message than the demohack message of whining and capitulaiton and obsession over prisoners at the expense of our troops and the war.

Just remember where Michael Moore sat, and who he sat with, at the DNC convention.

It is way past time to stand up to the slanderous attacks andloser mentality of the left in this war.

We are much closer to victory than defeat, and we don't need one of our major political parties aiding the enemy to keep that victory elusive.

I find this comepletely humorous. The dems have officially come unhinged from reality and solified their place that they are not to be trusted on anything related to national security.

Which takes us to http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200504070810.asp >this article</a:&gt

The next day, Pickering put his thoughts into writing. He drafted a petition imploring President George W. Bush and other world leaders to show "moderation and restraint" in responding to the attacks. He asked Bush "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. "

That evening, September 12, Pickering sent the petition to about thirty friends, asking that they "sign" the document -- electronically, of course -- and send it on to others. By the next morning, he told me, there were between 3,000 and 4,000 signatures. Then a friend from the University of Chicago posted the petition on the school's student server. A couple of days later, there were nearly 30,000 signatures.

One of the people who saw the petition was a young liberal activist named Eli Pariser. A 2000 graduate of Simon's Rock College of Bard in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, Pariser was working for More Than Money, a left-leaning Cambridge-based nonprofit educational organization. He, too, opposed military retaliation for the terrorist attacks, and he had set up his own website on September 12 -- he called it 9-11peace.org -- with a message similar to Pickering's. Looking for a way to attract attention, Pariser e-mailed Pickering to suggest they combine their efforts. Pickering quickly agreed.

That's when the project took off. Within a month, about 500,000 people, perhaps half of them in the United States and the rest around the world, had signed the petition. Nearly every day, Pariser came up with new statements, and new petitions, to send out, and each of them managed to attract thousands of signatures. A born political rabble-rouser -- the child of Vietnam War protesters, he is said to have started his picketing-and-demonstrating career at the age of seven -- Pariser aggressively promoted the cause in ways that hadn't occurred to the introspective Pickering.

The rest of the article talks about the details as to how they then linked up with the founders of MoveOn.org (perhaps you've heard of them?) and revitalized that organization as leaders of the anti-war movement.

If this were just the opinions of one or two people, I'd agree it was a stretch but (as many on the Left loved to point out) there were over 500,000 people on their side of the aisle who signed onto demanding "moderation and restraint" and treating this as a criminal rather than a military matter and this was a significant factor of what launched MoveOn.org into becoming a staple of Democratic Party politics.

Looks like Karl Rove nailed this one on the head.  

slandering our troops and helping our enemies.

Rove is exactly on target.

deal with the sickness by stopping those who are making you sick: Durbin et al.

Gimme me a break. Finally someone calls them out and like a good MSM, they are all over McClellan. He spoke the truth and let them yell it from the rooftops.

"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers,"

Someone should put that up on a billboard right infront of Berkley.

I think they are seditious not tresonous.

President Lincoln would have likely had them arrested and held through the end of hostilities.

Pelosi, by the way, declared the war in Afghanistan over.

That would be a surprise to the American soldiers engaged in a major fire fight even as she declared peace.

MoveOn's virtual primary was "won" by Howard Dean (who won a plurality of the votes).  He was endorsed by them in the race to become Chairman of the DNC.

And the Democrats clearly are trying to toss them red meat on occasion.  The problem is, it ain't the media environment it was back then.

"No liberal has ever questioned that al-Qaeda deserves a good military-style smashing when such can be delivered."

President Bush never said that al Qaida was the be-all end-all of the WOT, we never declared war on AQ, we said we would root out terrorists wherever we find them, and we will make no difference with nations that harbor them.

Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terrorists and terrorism, and right now it remains the global frontline.

in to play is that for the most part, when a dem makes a gaff, the other democrats either defend or ignore or change the subject.

Often with the GOP, they end up condemning the action (sometimes they have to be brought kicking and screaming to that point, but in the end they do it).

Lott is probably the best example of this.

It isn't so much that both parties aren't equal opportunity bomb throwers, but generally the GOP doesn't rally around the bomb throwers to the same extent that the DNC does, and eventually that gets noticed.

Maybe 500,000 people, maybe half of them American, are reported to have signed onto this electronic petition as it was circulated around the Internet. I'll give you that. You get a cookie.

And yet, using your friend and mine, "The Google", we find this nifty page. Going by the ABC News/Washington Post Polls, two sources that I assume (assume!) you believe (believe) to be part of a vast left-wing conspiracy to take down President Bush:

Approval rating for the war on terror as of October 2001: 92%

Approval rating for the war on terror as of December 2001: 89%

Approval rating for the war on terror as of March 2002: 88%

These numbers that I have uncovered through strategic use of your own tools make Karl Rove's claims of mass liberal dissatisfaction with the war on terror as it unfolded in the months after 9/11 look fairly--I will not quite say stupid, but I will say inaccurate. Thanks, "The Google"!

People could have said they approved of the job Bush was doing at the same time disagreeing that military action was the answer. Job approval % is probably not the best evidence to be used here.

offer therapy to the terrorists who hit us on 9/11.  The majority of liberals wanted the terrorists killed and supported the war in Afghanistan.  I provide the link in post #55 of this thread.  Bush had an 86% approval rating in Afghanistan.  A war that we conducted to kill the people responsible for 9/11.  He only had a 10% disapproval rating at that time (Nov. 15, 2001).

Saying that liberals wanted to 'offer therapy' to the terrorists who hit us on 9/11 is like saying conservatives believe the US deserved 9/11.  See Robertson and Falwell's comments.  It's outrageous to suggest that conservatives believe the US deserved 9/11 just because two conservative leaders said it.

Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terrorists and terrorism

An unfounded assertion. Saddam Hussein posed no threat to anyone outside of his own country's borders. Not that he wasn't a right bastard and the head of an oppressive regime, but he wasn't a threat to our security or anyone else's.

No significant army, no WMDs, no danger. We ran over the Baath Party in three days over two years ago and now we're trying to cast it as a global menace? An exaggerated notion at best.

By the way, China can nuke Los Angeles now. I thought you might like to know that.

That's not job approval. That's war on terror approval rating. Period. End of line.

apparant that liberals don't want the GOP to tell the truth about them either.

Glad to see you along for that ride.

By the way: They've been able to do that for years now. Just thought you might like to know that.

And: $25,000 payments to suicide bombers outside of Iraq's borders might qualify as "state support of terrorism." I'm a hopeless pedant, though.

Karl Rove stated that all liberals wanted to prepare indictments and take a judicial response after 9/11

I don't believe you will find the word "all" in his statement. However, I would concede that Mr. Rove was seeking to characterize liberals-in-general as a bunch of Kumbaya-singing peacenik idealists of long standing who were caught flat-flooted by the events of 9/11 and who reacted by performing autorectalcranial inversion.

In doing this Mr. Rove was trading on a stereotype, similar to the one Mr. Dean invoked when he characterized the GOP as a party of white Christians. To the extent these stereotypes ring true with the public, they are effective, and hence help win elections, which is the job of professionals such as Mssrs. Dean and Rove.

His disapproval ratings were at 6%

Statistics are like Google -- you can use them to prove anything.

There's another 80% of my post that you either haven't read or don't have a response to

No response. It all sounded to me like the squealing of a stuck pig. I'm not a 'farm' kind of guy.

of some dead Israelis would disagree with you.

Hussein was funding terrorism, and he was paying cash (probably pilfered from the oil for food program) to the families of suicide bombers.  But I guess a few dead Israeli's don't count.

He also had several known Palestinian terrorists hiding in his country.  But hey they don't count, since their targets are just a bunch of Israeli's.

has been funding terrorism for years.  Quite openly.

But instead of attacking them we're giving them F-16s.  

what's particularly troubling is when the GOP'ers don't rally around a W bomb.  I'm increasingly troubled by the lack of support for the President (and I mean cheerleading support) from our fellow Republicans lately, and it seems to be worse since we gained majority status in the halls of Congress.  Isn't it just a tad too ealy to be distancing themselves from the President just because he's not running for reelection?

Our political heroes up there are not acting like a team, and not acting like they are in charge, and subsequently not acting like they enjoy the majority position very much(or at least don't know what to do with that position).

All the media babble about '06 and '08 aside, I have real fears that they are going to blow this for us redstaters, merely by the lack of majority behavior, and by the lack of ability to get real agenda stuff accomplished.  Everyone is falling for the game of keeping score and keeping even, and they aren't getting things done.

Right now, as distasteful as this is to say, the Libs are accomplishing everything they planned...obstruction and distraction(buying time til '06/'08), and making it (with generous helpings from many media outlets) look like it's OUR fault.  We're gonna wake up in '06 very confused...and in '08 very depressed...and scratching our heads unless they start waking up now before it's too late.

...Syria left Lebanon because the Lebanonese government TOLD THEM TO.

Have you heard the one about the drunk who goes into the bar with a duck under his arm? He sits down at the bar and the bartender...

The Lebanese "government" told the Syrians to leave? You mean the Syrian puppet "government" of Lebanon told Syria to leave. That Lebanese "government"? You mean the Lebanese "government" with a military that stood something approaching zero chance of prevailing against Syrian forces? That Lebanese "government"? Is that the one you mean?

you can ignore Saddam's terrorists links if you want, but you would be wrong.

"The hall was packed and the intake of breath was audible as a special announcement was made to the war widows of the West Bank - Saddam Hussein would pay $US25,000 ($47,000) to the family of each suicide bomber as an enticement for others to volunteer for martyrdom in the name of the Palestinian people.

The men at the top table then opened Saddam's chequebook and, as the names of 47 martyrs were called, family representatives went up to sign for cheques written in US dollars.

Those of two suicide bombers were the first to be paid the new rate of $US25,000 and those whose relatives had died in other clashes with the Israeli military were given $US10,000 each.

The $US500,000 doled out in this impoverished community yesterday means that the besieged Iraqi leader now has contributed more than $US10 million to grieving Palestinian families since the new intifada began 18 months ago."

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/25/1017004766310.html?oneclick=true

"In addition to funds, Saddam Hussein's government provided diplomatic help to Islamic extremists. This is Abu Abbas, former secretary general of the Palestine Liberation Front.  He masterminded the October 7-9, 1985 hijacking of an Italian cruise ship whose name, sadly, is now synonymous with terrorism.  The Achille Lauro was on a voyage across the Mediterranean when four Palestinian terrorists seized it on the high seas.  They held some 400 passengers hostage for 44 hours.

The hijackers surrendered to Egyptian authorities in exchange for safe passage to Tunisia. Abu Abbas then joined them on a flight to freedom aboard an Egypt Air jet. However, four U.S. fighter planes forced the airliner to land at a NATO base in Sicily. Italian officials took the hijackers into custody. But Abbas possessed the ultimate get-out-of-jail card: An Iraqi diplomatic passport.

How do we know this?  

The source for this information is not Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh. It is none other than this man, Bettino Craxi. At that time, he was Italy's prime minister. As Craxi explained in an October 14, 1985 UPI story: "Abu Abbas was the holder of an Iraqi diplomatic passport...The plane was on an official mission, considered covered by diplomatic immunity and extra-territorial status in the air and on the ground." Seeing that this terrorist traveled as a credentialed Iraqi diplomat, the Italian authorities let Abbas flee to Yugoslavia. After political parties furiously withdrew from Craxi's coalition, the Italian government collapsed."

**

"Hisham al Hussein, the former second secretary at Iraq's embassy in Manila. The Philippine government expelled him on February 13, 2003, just five weeks before the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Cell phone records indicate he had spoken with Abu Madja and Hamsiraji Sali, two leaders of Abu Sayyaf, al-Qaeda's de facto franchise for the Philippines. The timing was particularly suspicious, as he had been in contact with the Abu Sayyaf terrorists just before and after they conducted an attack in Zamboanga City. Abu Sayyaf's nail-filled bomb exploded on October 2, 2002, injuring 23 individuals and killing two Filipinos and one American. That American was U.S. Special Forces Sergeant First Class Mark Wayne Jackson, age 40. "

**

Abbas' Baghdad sojourn was not an isolated incident. Saddam Hussein granted avowed international terrorists refuge in Baathist Iraq. Terror mastermind Abu Nidal also enjoyed his hospitality. Nidal lived comfortably in Iraq between 1999 and August 2002.  As the Associated Press reported on August 21, 2002,  Nidal's Beirut office said he entered Iraq "with the full knowledge and preparations of the Iraqi authorities."  13  Prior to his relocation, he ran the eponymous Abu Nidal Organization -- a Palestinian terror network behind attacks in 20 countries, at least 407 confirmed murders, and some 788 other terror-related injuries.  Among other savage acts, Nidal's group used guns and grenades to attack a ticket counter at Rome's Leonardo da Vinci airport on December 27, 1985. Another cell in Austria simultaneously assaulted Vienna's airport, killing 19 people.    Enter Abdul Rahman Yasin,this Indiana-born, Iraqi-reared terrorist remains wanted by the FBI for his role in the February 26, 1993 World Trade Center attack.  President Bill Clinton's Justice Department indicted Yasin for mixing the chemicals in the bomb that exploded in the parking garage beneath the Twin Towers, killing six and injuring 1,042 people in New York.Soon after the smoke cleared, Yasin returned to Iraq. Coalition forces have discovered documents that show he enjoyed housing and a monthly government salary.

Former ABC News correspondent Sheila MacVicar looked for Yasin, and here is what she reported on July 27, 1994: "Last week, [television program] Day One confirmed [Yasin] is in Baghdad...Just a few days ago, he was seen at [his father's] house by ABC News. Neighbors told us Yasin comes and goes freely."

**

According to dissidents, journalists who have visited, and even United Nations weapons inspectors, Saddam Hussein appears to have offered training to terrorists, in addition to funding, diplomatic help, safe haven and medical care.

The Associated Press reports that Coalition forces shut down at least three terrorist training camps in Iraq. The most notorious of these was the base at Salman Pak, about 15 miles southeast of Baghdad. Before the war, numerous Iraqi defectors said the camp featured a passenger jet on which terrorists sharpened their air piracy skills.

**

Then there is the interesting case of Ahmad Hikmat Shakir -- an Iraqi VIP facilitator who worked at the international airport in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Citing "a foreign government service," page 340 of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on pre-Iraq-War intelligence indicates that, "Shakir claimed he got this job through Ra'ad al-Mudaris, an Iraqi Embassy employee" in Malaysia. On January 5, 2000, Shakir greeted Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi at Kuala Lampur's airport. He then escorted them to a local hotel where these September 11 hijackers met with 9/11 conspirators Ramzi bin al Shibh and Tawfiz al Atash. Five days later, according to The Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes, Shakir disappeared. Shakir, the Iraqi airport greeter, was arrested in Qatar on September 17, 2001.  On his person and in his apartment, authorities discovered documents connecting him to the 1993 WTC bomb plot and "Operation Bojinka," al-Qaeda's 1995 plan to blow up 12 jets simultaneously over the Pacific.  Interestingly enough, as a May 27, 2004 Wall Street Journal   editorial reported, Ahmed Hikmat Shakir's name appears on three different rosters of the late Uday Hussein's prestigious paramilitary group, the Saddam Fedayeen. A government source told the Journal that the papers identify Shakir as a lieutenant colonel in the Saddam Fedayeen."

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

President Lincoln would have likely had them arrested and held through the end of hostilities

Would you advocate that the state arrest Durbin, Pelosi and other liberals who critize the condcut of the state?

A man with nothing to say.

No response.

The DEMOCRATICALLY elected Lebanese government that unfortunately kowtows to Hamas far too often.  That's the one.  

Flyerhawk

I have read other posts of yours. I know they contain some good arguments.  I know they have some logic to them.

However, your response is just silly and you know it.

Give me something logical I can respond to.

80% of the GOP is Christian-caucasian.

10% of Democrats opposed the war on terror after 9/11. (This is at the outside; we're assuming that only Democrats opposed it, disregarding conservative voters who strongly supported Bush's anti-nation building stance in the 2000 elections.)

I guess Dean is at the minimum 800% more truthful than Karl Rove! If he really is the "Karl Rove of Democratic politics", I know which party I'm going to have to support in 2006 based solely on my "who's less full of crap" qualifier.

There's a major difference between a stereotype mirrored by reality and a stereotype founded in fantasy. That schism is guile, deceit and a blind hatred of the opposition.

"The Google" is like statistics: when used and applied correctly, it will reveal the truth. The truth makes me right. A nifty notion.

but the American-centric view of the world is naive.  I realize that many Americans believe that the world reacts to us in everything.  I also realize that some people want to give this administration for every positive event that has occurred in the Middle East due to their own biases.

But it is simply not realistic.  Certainly our actions contribute to the actions of others, sometimes positively and sometimes negatively.

After the Iraqi elections the entire region was a buzz with the sweet smell of Democracy.  Lebanon apparently became a Democracy, eventhough it had been since the late 70s.  Egypt claimed it was going to be a Democracy, although not much has occurred then.

Honestly my entire argument against the war in Iraq would take more than one response.  Perhaps I will write a diary about it.  But let me just say that my reasons are very realpolitik and have been since day 1 and I feel that many of my fears of 2002 have been realized.

10% of Democrats.... no one is talking about Dems... But the 10% of the country that opposed attack Afghanistan were probably liberals and since "liberal" is identified by 15-25% of Americans, I must say that it looks like a good portion were weak on that issue.  In addition, their standard bearers like MoveOn.org and Michael Moore also pushed for "understanding" over confrontation.  There are some hawkish Dems, but I don't see many hawkish liberals.

The government that was just elected AFTER the Syrian departure? That government? The government that was elected after the demonstrations in the streets thanking President Bush? Youy mean that government?

Or the democratically elected "government" in place for the past 20 years? Democratically elected just like the democratically elected government of Iran or Egypt or ...

Or the famous democratically elected governments of the Soviet Union. Or maybe Saddam's Iraq. Afterall he was elected by an overwhelming 99% of the voters. A true democrat if I ever saw one.

Get serious, prior to the departure of the Syrians there were elections but that doesn't make the government democratically elected.

"We have democracy. You can vote for any candidate you want from this approved list of candidates."

The truth makes me right.

That's right, sir. You're right, we're wrong, and besides that we're full of guile, deceit and blind hatred. Have a nice day.

How could I leave those out? So kind of you to remind me!

[Your fire is returned in kind!]

It's a mirror image of dkos.

The other two I'm not familiar with.

I may go there if I get time.

I'd have to learn who everyone is, though.  That takes a long time.

You're right about the $25k payments. I've spent too much time on DailyKOS and have partaken of the pox of far-left imbecility, which is assuredly no better in my esteem than that of the far-right. Accordingly: The statement was my error. Iraq was a minor state sponsor of Middle Eastern terrorism. I put my idiocy in bold, just for you. Think of it as recompensation for the generous score of two you applied to one of my above posts, which so strongly outweighed the ones that followed.

The fact remains that Iraq posed no threat to America, having possessed no WMDs at the time of our invasion (if I may believe the CIA), and had no plausible ties to the al-Qaeda organization that attacked us in 2001 (if I may believe the CIA and the 9/11 Commission Report). Ergo: Saddam remains a right bastard who deserved what he got, and the foundations of the war remain BS.

By the way, I am really greatful for your signature line.  Thank you.

Because I feared ones and the number more dreaded than one were coming, and didn't want your comment to vanish into the aether. In other words: You're welcome.

The rest of your comment is addressed adequately elsewhere. I note only that your last clause is completely correct if you ignore most of what was said before the war.

No Democrat save Lieberman wants to fight the terrorist with military force anywhere outside of the US.

Pardon me for bursting your bubble, but almost every single Democrat voted for the war in Afghanistan.

Sticking up for my right to post here, eh? I love you too, man.

Most of what was said before the war was saber-rattling and omens of 9/11 repeats, and you're going to have a lot of difficulty disproving that, because gosh darn it, it's true. I give you that it's pesky, though. Cursed pesky facts.

At the end of the day, you're going to have a hell of a lot of trouble finding a mainstream liberal, Democrat, or anyone else as directly opposed the invasion of Afghanistan (not just "pushing for "understanding" over confrontation"--directly opposing the invasion) in late 2001. Why? Because no major political player opposed it. The predominant worry among liberals was that the invasion of Afghanistan, which was executed on more or less legitimate grounds, was naturally seguing into a series of incursions into greater countries who posed no threat to America. Here's looking at you, Iraq.

Ergo: Rove is full of crap. I guess it's his job to be full of crap, though, so that's a little more in his paycheck next month.

yes.

It worked pretty well in the Civil War.

It worked pretty well in WWII.

If they keep it up and keep putting our troops at risk and aiding the enemy, yes.

I have finally decided that RedState is the best of all blogs.  I want to help it out now so that it gets the kind of funding that will allow it to stay great.

^insert ^Almost no elected democrat^ vice democrat stet

is while we can't seem to get a handle on being the majority party, is that the dems keep stepping in the doo doo, and they seem to be stepping in the biggest piles at the moment.

a pet theory of mine, so I'll trot it out. Assume that our political dispositions distribute us along a normal bell curve. I'd identify the fist and last 30% (both right and left) as virtually unpersuadable in terms of party affiliation. I'd describe the last 10% as extremists with a high concentration of kooks. You'll find Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore in this category on the left. It's easy to label these fruits as luny lefties, and it's common practice to make them the posterboys for liberalism.

Most who self identify as "liberal" fall in the lefty 30, but the right has done such a good job of demonizing the term, my sense is that many even in the lefty 30 shun the label--especially politicians, which makes it even easier to identify the lunatic fringe with mainstream liberalism. That's what Rove did.

Moreover, if we read your poll numbers in this light, only the nuts did not suppor the war after 9/11, and there were a lot of nuts. Thus, all the links to quotes supporting Rove's position. Is it fair to smear Liberalism with the words of its kookiest constituents? You be the judge. Regardless, it's standard political fare on both sides of the aisle. Rove's just a lot better at it than Turban Durbin.

Kashmir in 2007.  Jammu in 2008.  China, India, and Pakistan be damned.  Your repeated cries for consistency have been answered.  Enjoy.

But Khartoum in March 1973.

Nixon was paralyzed by the raidical left's attacks and terrorism flourished ever since.

Cleo Noel and George Moore were the first victims in this war.

at oppositino to war, I think most liberals did and do support the invastion, but it is really hard to deny that they still think of it more as a police matter.

The fact that the ACLU has filed suit to argue that is excellent evidence of his point.

About the only thing he said that google may have a hard time with is the "therapy" part, because I know I can find article after article about trying to "understand why" the Islamic terrorists want to blow up.

but Pakistan was giving us something we needed in order to prosecute the war on terror-ain't perfect, but it was more than Saddam gave us.

Rove gets paid by you and me.  To the tune of nearly $160,000 per year last I checked.  He is a senior analyst and a Federal employee.  Unlike Howard Dean who's every word you all seem to be hanging on.

Frankly, anyone who has been whining about Durbin over the past week and who is now apologizing for these shameless insults is a hypocrite.  

I am not calling you a hypocrite mind you.  I haven't checked to see whether you were on the bash Durbin train or not.  I am assuming you have not been.  'Cause if you were, then you'd too be a hypocrite.  But of course you aren't, so I don't need to check.

hostilities with Pakistan.

But to say that we invaded Iraq because of their ties to terrorism against Israel seems, at best, dubious.  

who is now apologizing for these shameless insults

I see no reason to apologize for these shameless insults. As shameless insults go, these are among the best we've seen. Drudge's front page is chock full of links from Democrats howling like stuck pigs. There is no need to do anything but brag about these insults. This is like watching one of those smart bombs go right down the chimney. Any second, the Democrats are going to turn into static. It doesn't get any better than this.

from the past, we might as well shove the Iran hostage crisis in there.

Although I do think terrorism was one issue Reagan didn't do well, but then he had a lot on his plate with the whole cold war.

But we can all agree that these issue didn't come out of nowhere in the 1990's.

Awesome! Your a good American.

Could you please post some references to instances where politicians were arrested by the state during WWII?

It'd be a twelve. I disagree strongly with some of your inductions at the end, but that doesn't change the fact that your post is rampantly logical even in the face of my own borderline-flaming, which I appreciate more than any noises of agreement or dissent.

I split from you the most where you claim that "there were a lot of [liberal] nuts" right after 9/11 who opposed the war on Afghanistan. The words "a lot" are key, and I don't think they really applies here. You're falling into the same trap as Rove to suggest that such is the case.

President Bush's approval rating in the war on terror was 92% in October 2001, but only 5% of the populace actually/actively disapproved of his handling of the war. Ergo, assuming that Bush had done nothing wrong up to that point that could be disapproved of, only 5% of respondents were incorrigibly far-left liberals--so about one in twenty Americans could be fairly described as "far-left". The far right is much more powerfully represented in America than the far left--the estimate that I've been going on by the polls (which I'll have to make sure to document from now on) is that that three in twenty Americans will consistently support hyperconservative sentiments in the vein of Ann Coulter's greatest diatribes. The notion that I'm getting at is that it's far fairer (albeit still underhanded) to "smear" the right with the notions of people like Ann Coulter, whose word is gospel to at least a third of the Republican Party, than it is to brand the Democratic Party with people like Moore and Chomsky, who are regarded as extremists even among the leftist rank-and-file.

In short, Chomsky and Coulter are both nutjobs in my view, but Coulter is widely respected on the right whereas nobody on the left could give a jot less about their little linguist. It strikes me as accordingly fairer to assault the right for what comes out of Coulter's mouth than it does to chase after the left for the Moore and Chomsky Show. The figures for loonie-lovers on both sides, though there are loonie-lovers on both sides, have never been equal in my eyes. If there is a bell curve, I think someone's shifted it a few inches to the right.

Thanks again for the polite response. It's a novelty to be able to respond to someone around here whose head I don't want to bite off and spit out!

about approval ratings or even support to invade Afghanistan.

Go reread them, he didn't really say "they don't believe in war" but that they believed it was better prosecuted in the court system with indictments.

Well shoot go read some of the comments about Durbin, I don't know how many times I saw a liberal advocating that the detainees be given full constitional rights to a trial.

The ACLU has a case demanding just that.

Go read around the web, and you find some pretty mainstream voices advocating the WOT as being more of a criminal justice matter than a military one.  Shoot the president of the DNC-Howard Dean believes that the WOT should be a police matter, remember Dean saying that he wouldn't make a judgement on Osama until he was caught and convicted?

It just isn't that hard to make the case that liberals as a whole are far more dovish than conservatives, and that they mostly distrust the military aspect of the wot.

The American-centric view of the world is no more naive than the "America in a vacuum" view of the world.  And it is certainly more reasonable than the "Bush can do no good" view.

I do not want to give this administration credit for every positive event that has occurred in the Middle East.  Nor should you deny them credit for the many good things that have happened.

By virtue of the size and wealth of America, our actions regularly contribute to the actions of others. I agree that sometimes that contribution is positive and sometimes negative.  I just happen to differ from you in believing that the positives of the Iraq war outweigh the negatives.

We should leave Iraq as soon as the Iraqi government asks us to (I do not believe they will tell us to leave).  Until their emerging democracy is secure, we should be there to support them, just as we stayed in Japan until their democracy was secure.  

They will likely ask us to continue to maintain some military bases there for many years and we should oblige them, just as we did in Japan.

My hope is that Iraq will one day be a secure democracy, contributing to the order of the world and an inspiration to other Middle East and Muslim countries.  That wouldn't have just spontaneously happened without our invasion and occupation of Iraq.  It still may not, but that is my hope.

You do get the sense that for a party that controls Congress and the Executive Branch that there ain't a whole lot getting done, and I tend to agree.  They need to put the onus on the Dems in the Senate.  I say, make those buggers actually put on a filibuster!  Make them stand up and actively waste the people's time.

I have a lot of concerns about it happening but it is my hope.

I am most certainly not part of the Bush can do no right crowd.  But I think that he made a number of crucial errors dealing with the region.

Was 9/11. Again: "...[L]iberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."

This is obviously untrue. Cheney knows it and everyone present knows it. Liberals reacted, as almost an entire body, with vengeful outrage and calls for al-Qaeda blood after 9/11. We signed on to Bush's gung-ho approach to terror just as fast as conservatives did. We only tried to scratch our names off of that list when and where President Bush used that publicly-endorsed blank check to take us into conflicts with dubious ties to the national security we had ostensibly been promoting.

When we need to bomb an apparent terrorist training camp or invade a country that harbors those who would plot to directly attack America or American interests, no Democrat opposes such activity, but I, as most liberals, do support wherever it is possible the capture of these people we believe to be terrorists and their conviction in the American legal system. It strikes me as patently un-American to blast suspected terrorist strongholds with the biggest bombs possible and pray that our intelligence is correct and that no civilians get in our way. A fundamental disrespect for human life is a terroristic trait, and if we bomb out southwest Asia just to get at the rotten apples, we'll have done wrong by my moral compass.

In that sense, I support the war on terror as a matter that is primarily a police action, picking the evildoers and evilplanners out from their urban environments and taking them into custody if they won't resist arrest. The military should only come into play when we're fighting huge strongholds of folks who are unquestionably terrorists, as we did in Afghanistan. With that out of the way, there's no easy target in the WOT, and we're going to have to go over the planet with a fine-toothed comb in order to get at the enemies of America. If that's the only way we can prosecute the WOT without stepping on tens of thousands of innocent foreigners (see the Lancet study), then AFAIC, that's the only way, period, and let's do it as best we can.

This post feels sort of disjoint, but I'm going to post it up and hope it gets the sentiment across. Liberals are only naturally wary of using the military to fight a shadow enemy that is particularly resilient to military measures--see Iraq, or see Vietnam. It can cause more problems than it cures.

Pakistan because.....?

said this....

Hussein was funding terrorism, and he was paying cash (probably pilfered from the oil for food program) to the families of suicide bombers.  But I guess a few dead Israeli's don't count

to Hussein....?

None of the lefty moonbats are worth the time of one US Marshal, District Attorney or DOJ paralegal.

Let them prattle like fools.  Listening to the Democrat leadership, and MoveOn, and Kos, and Michael Moore, is better than watching "Cops".

Watching the liberal leadership in action is watching the real-life "Stupid Human Tricks".

Our law enforcement agencies and judiciary have better things to do.

Just wondering.

:)

:)

How does it feel to belong to an increasingly batty and irrelevant political movement--liberalism?

was not arrested; she was just moved out of the way.

I was referring to the Civil War for the politicos. In WWII, it was just the commie scum,like founder of Paicifica who were locked up.

I'm getting that feeling at least.

My point was that using the moral justification that he was supporting terrorists who were not threatening us is a specious argument BECAUSE our track record is that we generally don't care about them.  

I don't believe that we need to invade every country that supports terrorism. But to say that we attacked  Iraq because of their support of terrorism against Israel suggests that our standard regarding this matter is COMPLETELY arbitrary.

Point is the most outspoken anti war activists are liberals. If the liberal feel that they are misrepresented by these activists, how come they don't come out and try to deny this misrepresentation?

You ready to stand by the extreme right's positions?  

but I think that your response holds a hint of why the Dems are losing elections. I'm a man of the right and so I've got my biases, but I'll try to keep my analysis political and not ideological.

Your sense is that Ann Coulter is equivalent on the nut scale to Noam or Michael. No doubt she's over the top, but my sense is that she's perceived as somewhat less nutty and extreme. Here's my speculation.

I think that the country has moved slightly right over the last few decades. I'd like to think (and do) that that's because of better ideas, but it's probably as much if not more due to (gulp) Ronald Reagan, especially in contrast to the midgets who were put up against him.

Regardless of what we might think about his policies and achievements, he lead a political landslide right. And another righty bogey man (Newt Gingrich) solidified and consolidated those gains. The right has been inching forward ever since.

What the left needs is a lefty Ronald Reagan (we'd like another one, too.) Reagan's genius was that he could nurture his base and reach out to the middle and left middle at the same time. Hence the Reagan Democrats.

W won for lots of reasons, not the least of which that John Kerry was a lousy candidate. The war killed Kerry because more Dem's in the middle believed that W was better than Repubs  in the middle were sick of him.

What you guys need is not Hillary. Even if she wins in '08 she'll hurt you in the long run. You need a 2008 version of JFK, especially in the charisma department, but I'd look for a western/ midwesterner, and not a Senator, probably a governor. He/she will need to run toward the middle, and the lefty base will need to get some discipline and fall in line (as opposed to the Howard Dean suicide plan).

Then, something really good for the country might happen--two viable parties with competing visions. I'd like that, too. I really miss the days when I could oppose but respect my political opponents. That's the key to winning elections. Howling Howie, Barbara, Teddy, and the rest of the lefty zoo have there uses, but they shouldn't be the face of your party. You might take Bill Richardson for a test drive. Sure he's a little sleazy, but not bad as pols go.

generally the GOP marginalizes its truly loony righties.

Case in point I didn't see an of our loony righties in the box with former president Bush at our convention.  Where was Michael Moore sitting?

that Michael Moore has influence in the Party because he happened to sit next to someone prominent once?

Ok.  Whatever floats your boat.

I'm guessing you don't find guys like Gary Bauer to be extreme.  

I stand by Karl Rove's. As I have said before, if Al Gore were President we would still be negotiating with the Taliban.

#1. Noone said anything about the Democratic Party, I didn't, Karl Rove didn't.

#2. I'm not gonna demand apology if you start insulting the extreme right.

#3. I just noticed how much you all loved the high approval rating for President Bush. That doesn't happen very often :)

Yet many on the Right demanded apology when Howard Dean called the Republican party the party of white Christians which, given 84% of Republicans identify themselves as white and Christian, is pretty much true.

When people play the game of outrage they need to accept that is cuts both ways.

Wow, I can hear your robotic mono-tone voice even as I read your post. Amazing.

as it should be.  Baby steps, flyerhawk.  Pretty soon you'll understand completely what "national interests" mean.

I am VERY familiar with national interests.

So explain to me this.  How was stopping Saddam Hussein's support of terrorism against ISRAEL an AMERICAN national interest?

state sponsor of terrorism served our national interest.  Iraq was the easiest target.

Now would you mind tying Pakistan's government to Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah, or any other group killing people in Israel?  I'm still trying to figure out why you brought up Pakistan in response to Just Me's post.

Let's start off by being clear on a few points.

The Pakistan intelligence agency, the ISI, were the ACTIVE supporters of the Taliban up until 9/11.  The ISI propped them up in SPITE of American concerns repeatedly.  

Pakistan has been an ACTIVE sponsor of terrorism in Kasmir.  They have promoted the EXACT actions that we ostensible abhor.

Do dead Indians mean less than dead Israelis?

And, ftr, I am fully aware of the national interest matters involved.  But if our reasons for going into Iraq are based on national interest than it's time to drop the moral perogative argument that some are making.

...It was only after time that they began to see that the attacks were caused by the Bush Administrations policies.

I for one eagerly await your explanation of how Bush's policies from January 21, 2001 up to September 10, 2001 constitute the proximate cause of the attacks of September 11, 2001?

80% of the GOP is Christian-caucasian.

I think you may find that probably 80% of the GOP is Christian and/or caucasion. But then again probably 80% of America is Christian and/or caucasian.

The numbers sound about right; check out Pew's typology groups if you haven't already. Of course it's important to realize that in the Pew typologies, probably each typology has its share of nuts, they're just nuts that hold views that differ somewhat from the views of other nuts. (that is to say, there are distinct groups of nuts on the left, on the right, etc...)

As for the rest... when talking about the reactions of Americans to 9/11, it is not appropriate to divide them into two groups of pro-war conservatives and anti-war liberals... because that is in fact manifestly not what happened--for months, Americans rallied around their President, against the newfound terrorist threat. It wasn't until the focus shifted away from bin Laden and onto Saddam that there was any real war opposition (and, incidentally, the record for the largest mass protest movement in history was set). So condemn Rove or praise him for his smearing ability; that doesn't make his comments one iota less false or reprehensible.

P.S. "Turban Durbin"? Please. Welcome to the growing 10% of the extremist kook wing of the right...

... that is not factual?

Prior to 9/11, terrorist acts were treated as law enforcement issues.

Does anybody assert that Abu Ghraib, "Koran Abuse", and now Sen. Durbin's remarks are not feeding the anti-America propaganda machine?

And now Ted Kennedy is demanding Sec. Rumsfeld's resignation? How do you think that's playing in the Middle East?

Insurgents and terorist groups in Iraq are stepping up their operations tempo because they believe they are winning the propaganda war. In that sense, Iraq is Vietnam all over again.

I hope Rove is indeed throwing down the gauntlet. I hope the Dems are going to get a robust Donkey Punch. But the GOP seems pretty weak lately; they may just blow it.

Actually, there was talk of even more -- things like democracy and international law and American commitments and Saddam being, as you say, a right bastard.

But, given that someone else has already drawn your attention to The Google, it would be needlessly piling on for me to add my exhortation to the list.

Oops.

in the WOT (granted they still have some internal problems) the Kashmir situation has majorly improved.

Pakistan and Indian were all but at war with each other, and things have settled down.

So in a since, while Pakistan is not the most perfect of allies, just as Russia was not the most perfect of allies during WWII, they both serve a purpose.  Hopefully as we work with Pakistan in the WOT we can use diplomacy (the favorite word of liberals) to get Pakistan on track without an invasion.

to do with Just Me's post.  Thanks but I had already figured as much.  Sorry but pedant that I am I assume a topic in a post runs into replies unless otherwise stated.

I'll say it--yes, dead Israelis mean more than dead Indians.  Atleast as far as foreign policy and national interests are concerned.  I have absolutely no qualms saying that despite being a huge fan of Singh and Indian reformers.

Why should it be dropped?  Morality(which I'm not a big fan of being an affirmed kafir) and national interests can conflate.  I don't see why it must be one exclusively.

Flyerhawk,

It appears you were right about Iran.  Their unelected theocracy thumbed its nose at the United States and the rest of the world.

Our presence and influence in Iraq was not sufficient to overcome the theocratic power-grab.

I hope there are enough people in Iran who not only see this election-rigging for what it is, but who are willing to protest until they get the democratic election they deserve.

It will be interesting to see if Ahmadinejad takes Iran back to the dark ages of Islam.