I just read about Karl Rove's (Whitehouse deputy chief of staff, AKA Bush's brain) public comments about the supposed "liberal" response to 9/11. He was talking to New York Republicans. I wonder what the liberals, the Democrats in New York who were counting their dead feel about this...let alone the rest of the country.

That is some ugly shit, meant to demonize all liberals as unwilling to defend the nation. To mock any analysis of the situation as pansy ass and whoop up the polarization. He's a master.
He's ugly.

Hmm - this one is stupid and wrong, and pretty transparently so... I think the master has fallen, I think this one will have some legs.

Hope springs eternal...

I don't think so. Its not like Rove holds an elective office and lets face it Republicans do believe that Democrats are unAmerican. Hillary vs Rove? That's business as usual. I don't think the mushy middle voters will vote on this issue next go around. They'll be too busy getting lead around by the media on some other non-issue by then.

I agree with Griff. As an official flunkie, Rove is free to get his hands dirty, as long as his boss doesn't get sucked into endorsing his opinion.

I don't think he does anything by accident. The fact that he picked himself as point man to make such an inflammatory statement reflects the fact that he is very worried at Bush's dismal performance and is trying to spin 9/11 back into the news however he can. If the only way he can do so is by making lame and unsupported statements that will get hammered in the press, he will do it. This was not a stupid act, this was a desperate one. Karl is taking one for the team.

Not that I think they are smart enough to pick up the ball, but all the Dems have to say is 'We took 9/11 seriously enough that we backed the President's invasion of Iraq on his word as Commander in Chief that there was an imminent threat to the United States. If we had acted with more restraint, we would have saved thousands of additional lives and hundreds of billions of dollars being poured into Iraq'.

wow, rove's lost the plot.
I'd still prefer a shallow grave in the desert but public implosion will do.

Ya know how Jag hates America/Americans? Well, I'm finding myself agreeing with him more and more these days.

I have no doubt that Rove's statement was strategic. It whoops the polarization, bring back 9/11, and basically challenges everyone who does not blindly follow the hammer-neocon agenda to prove him "wrong", show their toughness by restating their war support. The subtlties of Afghanistan war vs Iraq war are lost, again...
When things in Iraq are redirected, as it seems they must be, he can plead that it was all the liberals fault, and has a ready hammer for whatever new strategy or shift is laid out. Its setting up the blame. You're with us or against America. and a wimp. He's counting on the American regard for muscle over brains and ignoring the reality that we need both.

You know, the phrase "unjustified war against Iraq" drives me to wrath. Recall that Iraq was a tyranny, and that it now shows considerable hope of becoming a representative democracy. Any war conducted against a tyranny to replace it with a more liberal form of government is justified by that fact alone. The only people moved to object to assaults on tyranny are tyrants and tyrants' lackeys.

Do any such exist here? -- and how would you like your impalement? Regular, hot-poker, or Vlad Tepes style?

Well, Warch, what are we to make of Islamoterrorism's close relationship with Islamotyrannies -- and of certain Americans' reluctance to raise the sword against tyrannies? Sounds to me like the damned dorks want us to lose -- to the likes of Osama?! Where are their heads?!

I'm a Libertarian; tyrannies must go. Whether with blood spilled neck deep or not at all, tyrannies must go if you want a good world.

No, you are a liberventionist, someone who doesn't trust people in other countries to sort out their own messes.

Bush has provided the first step in driving a somewhat secular country into the arms of islamic tyranny. Your position gives aid and comfort to the enemies of freedom.

So we are now obligated to take out the governments of half the third world?

Not obligated, I think he meant morally permitted.

Quite.

After all, is there a more easily discernible evil on Earth's face than that of tyranny, totalitarianism, and all their variations and degrees of oppression? Ever notice just how much of the world's garbage happens in places that aren't democracies, but are democracy's opposite?

Remove the lot!

And it'll take more than calm, reasoned explanation of why representative democracy is really better all around to shift these buggers. That's human nature: people will fight like mad dogs to attain or retain power. You want freedom? -- be prepared to shoot mad dogs, and don't just confine yourself to shooting. You know they'd just as soon bomb you; be prepared to bomb.

When the last dictator is hanged on the guts of the last national chief of secret police, how much of the world's misery will have fled?

It's not that I don't trust them. It's that I recognize the value of military effort by the free peoples in removing the obstacles presented by anti-libertarian states. This can be very difficult to achieve by internal rebellion only. Indeed, it is usually not the case that these succeed. It was certainly not the case with the Revolutionary War.

You, Griff, have either told me at least one lie in that post, or you suffer from muddy thinking. You can do better.