Liberals Were Right – Moon of Alabama

June 23, 2005

Liberals Were Right

Missing a run-away Caucasian bride, Mr. Rove yesterday tried his new communication concept to divert the public from the administrations disasters with the Bolton nomination and Social Security legislation, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Rove said:

"Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," […] "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."

Liberals were right.

Diligent criminal investigations and harsh indictments against anybody proven to be connected to 9/11 and other terror incidents would have brought the responsible people to jail by now. How many people were rightfully indicted and convicted for terrorism by the Bush administration? None that I know of.
Therapy for the victims and the nation would have gone a long way to find a rational answer to the attack. Instead of such an answer the Americans did get duct tape, stinking socks at airport gates and a $320 billion bill (and counting) for an unjustifiable war.
Understanding the motives of the attackers, how false these may have been, would have helped to correct the course of future attackers. If there was grievance that these attackers felt the need to avenge, the long term strategy has to be to avoid such grievance and to take away the motives for future attacks.

Rove also said:

"Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said we will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said we must understand our enemies."

Liberals were right.

One can not defeat people who are willing to die for their cause, when each of their death creates two more of such people. One can take away their cause. But that first requires to understand that cause and some willingness to reflect your own attitude and the feeling of others .

So what is all the fuzz about? Liberals were right. And they should say so.

Posted by b on June 23, 2005 at 20:27 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Rove needs to publically apologize for his outrageous libel or step down. This type os public slander is unacceptable in any public official or staff member. Rove deserves the harshest treatment.

Posted by: patience | Jun 23 2005 20:36 utc | 1

I said long ago that 911 was a police matter, not a military one. Does that make me liberal?

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 23 2005 20:48 utc | 2

@patience – that is exactly what Rove wants. Why do you want to give him that gift?

Posted by: b | Jun 23 2005 21:01 utc | 3

So Karl Rove is making his own statements now? He’s come out from behind the curtain and decided to do his own talking?
He hasn’t been elected to anything.
Therefore he doesn’t have congressional, or senatorial, immunity. He’s just a private citizen like the rest of us.
Has anyone considered bringing legal action against him? He can’t be impeached, but he could certainly be sued.

Posted by: boilinfrog | Jun 23 2005 21:20 utc | 4

the only place i’d like to see karl rove is in a public hanging
this animal whose privelege is drenched in the blood of other people

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 23 2005 21:21 utc | 5

you have to know(understand) your enemy to defeat your enemy. not only do you have to know who they are and how they think, you have to know their motives. i know who my enemies are and its not bin laden.
they (rove &co)weren’t interested in defeating the enemy. they were interested in conquering an oil rich country w/ no link to the enemy. they’ve been spending all their time ‘knowing’ us, and perfecting how to lie to us. obviously or they wouldn’t have had to spend so much on PR.
we have become their enemy and they are my enemy. the only way we can get them out of power is to identify them.
not for one minute do i believe rove is doing anything but setting us up. imagine if they found bin laden? zawari? if all of the sudden the iraqi’s just stopped having violence? this would be terrible for the administration. the war needs to continue until the permanent bases are built, the contracts are signed, the infrastructure is up and running.
if all’s fair in love and war, then the rove attack should be seen for what it’s worth. it’s rediculous asking him to apologize and play fair. attack him back. say , hell yes i want to know my enemy, and my enemy is you…

Posted by: annie | Jun 23 2005 21:25 utc | 6

what more can be said of this man who is the spawn of joe mccarthy, roy cohn & lee atwater
these slime who made their careers selling & creating fear. who made of fear their principal ally against the people
riefenstal had her triumph of the will
karl rove has triumph of the willy
their hatred of the people, their utter contempt for their puppets alos is abundantly clear in every way
they delight in a power that is empty – it does not in any way have the grandeur of a machiavel
it is just sordid & sinister but it is small – so small
they are not what they think they are – History – i doubt whether they are even – history – they are pathology & not a particularly interesting pathology at that
they are common criminals – they are johnny dillinger withou the dignity. they are meyer lansky without the mind – they are lucky luciano without the luck. they represent mostly mad dutch schultz – they can barely speak or count – they burp their biographies
what is exceptional – because it has only nazi germany as a real precedent – is the utter complicity of the american population. if principled resistance had been taken against these crooks – they would not be there today & like hitler’s mob – we will have to wait for the final days of the bunker to see them wiped off the face of the earth
i have sd it before & i will say it again – it is their very absence of moderation that will be their downfall. i hope i am alive to see it

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 23 2005 21:36 utc | 7

One thing for sure, Rove has his precursors:

“I hate the mere word liberal because I have never met a single liberal who would not become the most inconsistent man of the world and who would not be willing to defend any tyranny whatsoever, provided he could be the tyrant. Altogether the world is becoming ever bleaker, and hardly anything remains except to cultivate one’s personality as clearly, purely, and powerfully as possible.”—German protofascist Paul de Lagarde, 1853, in a letter to his fiance

The Germans are idealists even in their hatred. We do not hate external matters as do [the French], but in our enemies we hate the profoundest, the most essential that is in them, their thoughts. HEINRICH HEINE

Posted by: slothrop | Jun 23 2005 21:46 utc | 8

“Liberals saw what happened to us and said we must understand our enemies.”
Yeah, I guess it’s always a bad idea to understand your enemy. Better just to go out and find some brown-skinned people who don’t speak English and kill them. Maybe torture them first.
That’ll show ’em.
About what I would expect from the original Mayberry Machiavelli. With Karl Rove setting strategy for the war on terrorism, is it any wonder America is losing?

Posted by: Billmon | Jun 23 2005 21:53 utc | 9

Kind of an odd psychology at work here (not the scapegoating… that is business as usual when the dawning realisation by an oily CEO that their craftiness is coming back to bite them on the only part of their anatomy from which they get any daily use can no longer be credibly dismissed).
The headline (and Rove’s message) is: “Liberals did (and do)not understand the consequences of the 9/11 attacks”. I would say that the consequences have been made clear, even when the Right called us “Henny Pennies” and poo-pooed our concerns as we raised them. What is not clear are the causes of the 9/11 attacks.
What Rove is saying (and not even in doublespeakese) is that by trying to understand and address the cause(s), his political opponents do not grasp the consequence(s). This approach indicates several things:
1.) As outlined above, Rove and his ilk are acknowledging failed policies and politically lost ground with their anger and scapegoating. I find that encouraging.
2.) The “party of personal responsibility” refuses to address or even acknowledge the notion that their actions (past and present) have measurable consequences (present and future). The suggestion is that “terrorists” are spontaneously generated in a vacuum. The internal inconsistency of this ludicrous position is starting to become clear. I find that encouraging.
3.) The militarism that Rove and his ilk employ to any and all problems does more than generate anti-US sentiment (which, in turn, decreases overall US security). It also clearly demonstrates that this administration is inextricably linked to the phenomenon of terrorism itself (using fear and anger at the “other” to get what one wants, as this administration does with their everyday rhetoric {not to mention the “Stoplight of Death” security alerts}, is the very definition of terrorism). By explicitly addressing “consequences”, Rove is implicitly pointing a finger towards “causes”… making those causes increasingly apparent. I find that encouraging.
4.) The ad populum language Rove is using here might seem off-the-cuff… because it is. It is reminiscent of Cheney’s less than statesmanlike “Go fuck yourself!” to Leahy. When the facade itself begins to crumble, we see very clearly that Rove’s tactics are not unassailable works of genius. When these people switch to these personal attacks, they demonstrate that their policies are not the divinely correct approach they are sold to people as being. They show very clearly that unfettered militarism is the approach of angry, confused and impotent human beings. Cheney’s hateful barbs, Rove’s scapegoating ploys, Rice’s overtly hypocritical doublespeak, Rumsfeld’s… well… pretty much anything Rumsfeld has said or done in the past few years… these things are all the Stalingrad for the American people. The message is that the Right does not have the answers they claim to have. And I find that encouraging.

Posted by: Monolycus | Jun 23 2005 21:54 utc | 10

just read this from the press conference w/ mcClellan”And I think you have to look at it in that context. If people want to try to engage in personal attacks instead of defending their philosophy”here
in fact he twice mentioned dems are just stirring things up instead of DEFENDING themselves,oh,excuse me, their PHILOSOPHY. so i guess the appropriate thing for the dems to do is start screaming, hell no, we wanted this war. we stood up and attacked as good as the next guy….. lets just hope we don’t have any (liberal) idiot falling for this bait.

Posted by: annie | Jun 23 2005 22:01 utc | 11

I know I’ve said this before, and I have been accused of making unfounded predictions at times…
but don’t you feel that things are rapidly coming to a boil at last? Shit, even the MSM (WP f’gods sake) is now beginning to admit a coverup (or two, or hundreds).
I’m with Monolycus, somewhat encouraged for a change.

Posted by: rapt | Jun 23 2005 22:14 utc | 12

Hence the saying: If you know the enemy
and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a
hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy,
for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.
If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will
succumb in every battle.
IV. TACTICAL DISPOSITIONS
1. Sun Tzu said: The good fighters of old first put
themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then
waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy.
2. To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our
own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy
is provided by the enemy himself.
18. All warfare is based on deception.
19. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable;
when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we
are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away;
when far away, we must make him believe we are near.
20. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder,
and crush him.
21. If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him.
If he is in superior strength, evade him.
22. If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to
irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.
23. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest.
If his forces are united, separate them.
24. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where
you are not expected.
25. These military devices, leading to victory,
must not be divulged
26. Now the general who wins a battle makes many
calculations in his temple ere the battle is fought.
The general who loses a battle makes but few
calculations beforehand. Thus do many calculations
lead to victory, and few calculations to defeat:
how much more no calculation at all! It is by attention
to this point that I can foresee who is likely to win or lose.
There is no instance of a country having benefited
from prolonged warfare

Posted by: annie | Jun 23 2005 22:23 utc | 13

Yes, conservatives did prepare for war: they went into their private jets and bunkers and said – “Y’all are on your own. Later!”
So while people were digging and dying in New York and Pennsylvania and D.C., Karl Rove was [according to even the complimentary Telegraph story] “going nowhere… flying in big slow circles” over Sarasota Florida.
Since then the preparations for war have included:
• sending all the evidence from the crashed towers to a foreign coutry where no one could investigate them
• releasing Bin Laden clan members from their horse-country gathering point in Kentucky and preventing the FBI from questioning them
•stifling investigations into FBI “do not investigate” orders, and
• quietly putting back into effect all the national security measures that had been disabled for the summer of 2001.
Yup, if I were Rove and I’d spent all the critical moments of the War on Terror “going nowhere… flying in big, slow circles”, I’d do my best to whoop up the war, because I damn sure wouldn’t want anyone looking close enough to find out who let this happen.

Posted by: citizen | Jun 23 2005 22:31 utc | 14

Whoever coined the term Mayberry Machiavelli’s got it wrong. It should have been Mayberry Mussolini’s. Obviously Rove & Bush ain’t Nazi’s, but Il Duce seems a perfect model for these twits who cater to the daydreams of would be bullies across America.

Posted by: Porco Rosso | Jun 23 2005 22:37 utc | 15

“Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war.”
Damned most amusing preparations and execution I’ve ever seen.

Posted by: FlashHarry | Jun 23 2005 22:48 utc | 16

@citizen, Sun Tzu’s tactical positions sound alot more like the plannings of the ‘insurgents’!

Posted by: annie | Jun 23 2005 22:50 utc | 17

annie
for all the macho know-it-all of american strategic thinkers – they have not taken the slightest notice of sun tzu – they are bove & beyond that – yet the simple truth is that they do not possess the subtlety of mind to comprehend him
comprehending sun tzu requires two things the american armies do not possess – stillness – nor any ability to be nourished the natural contradictions of experience
guerrilla armies, armies of national liberation, national insurrections always draw from local experience in the firts instance & they are obliged to understand the wealth of stillness
american armies are like american culture – agitated. going from one big thing to another. fixing on the nexxt thing. never reconciling. not remembering. everything is new. it is spectacle of the worst order like some down & out circus
you only have to read how the viet cong enter khe sahn how they won dien ben phu to be aghast at the truly chilling nature of strategy – one american soldier at khe sahn sd he was overwhelmed by ghosts. the french defeated at dien bien phu were destabilised for the rest of their lives by that campaign & their presumptions
what is clear – is the resistance in iraq understand & are nourished by local conditions. they really understand their sun tzu & a list of arab & persian military strategist since the beginning of time. they cannot afford to forget. it is both their patrimoine & their strategic strength
& like the vietnamese – they possess stillness – they are watching constantly – they are rarely if ever – watched
rove is like some fat schoolboy who cannot get rid of his erection & so covers it all the time with a murdoch newspaper announcing all his forthsoming victories & telling tales of his political mastery
animals like him can only have significance if a country & its culture have already become significantly impoverished – where compoass & anchors have been thrown to the winds
what i am reminded of all the time of the war itself & its supporters in the pig press – is the symbiosis of their constant agitation. the never ending awful crunch of the rhythms they use to sell their ideas are unbearable even to the strongest constitutions
only pigs at a trough could sit in front of fox news & feel calmed – it would drive better minds to gunstores or off the cliff
their terrible agitation. their total absnce of concentration. their inability to pay attention. to concentrate. i do not think they have learned one lesson from their terrible conflicts & the run through of their repertoire from the fifties to now in iraq is a testimony to that.
except that because it is not remembered it can only be vaudeville – but who is laughing?

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 23 2005 22:53 utc | 18

yes , it is true r’giap. the ‘reality’ created for our troops over there is totally divorced from the truth. they are simply holding down the fort for an administration who has no intention of ever leaving. it is all subterfugue/non existent smokescreen. it is impossible for us ever to ‘win’ in this situation because it would require an iraqi society completely docile. the agitation you speak of reminds me of a hornets nest . the rumblings today about syria, how now the ‘insurgents’ are escalating because they are coming across the border. the admin/isreal has a limited time to draw enough angst to justify the iran/syria attack, and this downing street memo,howard dean, and soldiers getting the word out is completely out of the time frame they were banking on.plus, the idiots. did they really think because they ‘disbanded’ their army , puff, so it would be?all the news sic was posting about the retaliation once we ‘turned over’ the gov’t, did they really think because it wasn’t in the msm here it would go unnoticed? face it, our society has raised a youth so separated from basic human instincts as to loose the ability for our natural sense to function. all the amunition in the world cannot replace a mind . we have no tribes here for one thing. top it off we have an army comprised of the least of us, the weakest, brutest, uneducated.ahhhhh. i could go on and on..its so crude

Posted by: annie | Jun 23 2005 23:52 utc | 19

As Billmon and others have predicted, liberals are now being scapegoated. Suprise, suprise, suprise as Gomer would say.
Rove and the Bushies see the wheels falling off, so in their great wisdom, they want to pull the old bate and switch. But, I believe the public is catching on. The WH, Senate and House is controled by one party and the MSM has been their lackys, so how else can you shift the blame. Their in control.
But remember, the sheeple are easily distracted and a “hey, look over there,” go’s a long way in this life.

Posted by: jdp | Jun 24 2005 0:24 utc | 20

Ok, so conservatives saw the 9/11 attacks and prepared for war. But what war? What about that famous conservative battle cry: Osama – wanted dead or alive? They don’t seem to have prepared very well for that war.

Posted by: maxcrat | Jun 24 2005 0:35 utc | 21

Chris Hedges on various aspects of the criminal fiasco.
rgiap appears to be suggesting that US culture — both media and military — is infected with a kind of ADD, an addiction to the jump-cut and the quick fix, an inability to think coherently or consecutively or to exercise patience. if this is true — and if it is, as some have claimed, a byproduct of the replacement of literacy with video entertainment, or of a generation raised with instant gratification and unparallelled affluence — then it would seem to be a rot in the whole fabric of the society (like alcoholism and sabotage in Soviet industry?), undermining every effort from research to teaching to political life. sounds like an empire-killing flaw to me.
furthermore, if the MTV/jumpcut culture has been exported so successfully to the rest of the world, might we not expect a similar dumbing-down and loss of attention span in other populations? it is an alarming thought, to wonder whether in late capitalist patterns of entertainment, affluence and consumption we have created a kind of mental virus that could disable or erode much of human intellect and ability. will the Chinese for example, become drugged with TVs and cars and designer chocolates, and lose their momentum as an emerging power?
I speculate wildly… certainly it seems that the rhythm of movies or (worse) TV shows has infected the thinking of people at all levels of government: they want simple plots that resolve quickly, without any troubling moral ambiguities. they want boom, bang, bad guys all blown up, handsome hero gets pretty girl, all in 60 or 90 minutes.

Posted by: DeAnander | Jun 24 2005 0:39 utc | 22

I reckon Monolycus is correct that Rove’s verbal meanderings “are not unassailable works of genius.”
The sheeple as someone above was cruel enough to call Agnew’s “Silent Majority” didn’t get where they are today by accident. The bourgois have a few skills that enable them to float above the hoi polloi and one of them is the ability to smell blood in the water.
The BushCo mob are bleeding and the rats are swimming.
That senator or whatever from California that has been a shill for the militarists and who went gung-ho for the war (I’m sorry I can’t remember his wispy waspy name they all sound the same after a bit) has the inconvienience of having a few major bases in his electorate.
After a period of fence sitting where he stuck photos of his recently deceased constituents on his office wall, he has come out against the invasion. This after being one of its most vocal proponents.
He claims a road to Damascus conversion, based on the thought of all those dead americans, but lets face it you don’t get to be a repug heavy hitter if yer weighed down with ideals. We can safely assume that his epiphany is self serving. This means he has read the signs and decided to jump before he gets pushed.
The same shiver will be running down the spine of every $1000 a plate contributor to the BushCo trough and from there to every half assed god botherer and crumb picker that ever gave one for the Gipper or two for the chinless, half-witted sociopath currently occupying the Oval Office.
We should always remember that this is a band of thieves whose abiding motivation has never been loyalty, however they may like to drag the last refuge of the scoundrel out when the going gets tough.
We can expect the very strengths they saw in W ie his desertion, drug addiction, and cowardice being ‘saved’ by jesus to become the fatal flaw. Not the sign of jesus but the mark of the devil.
I can see the MSM essays now. About how true character will always out. Ole “W’ did his best but lets face it he was born behind the 8 ball, so in the end his fatal flaws resurfaced when “the heat was on”.
That old bloke that used to write tripe about “The Presidency” in Time; is he still about? He would do that little piece standin on hs head if the money was right. I think he invented that ‘Crazy Brave’ ‘Phony Tough’ analogy to rationalise Watergate to the unwashed. If he has shuffled off this mortal coil I’m sure the MSM will be able to find another hooker prepared to decapitate BushCo whilst excusing themselves.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Jun 24 2005 1:20 utc | 23

@Debs:
I was thinking about starting a news Empire.
Do you have more trenchant thoughts like the above?
I really liked your analysis.
It’s a golden business model.

Posted by: FlashHarry | Jun 24 2005 1:57 utc | 24

@FlashHarry
I dunno. Is there a dollar in it?

Posted by: Debs is dead | Jun 24 2005 2:01 utc | 25

I was snarking a bit, but you hit a home run, with that one.

Posted by: FlashHarry | Jun 24 2005 2:02 utc | 26

Rove lives and dies by the polls he conducts–the numbers we never hear about–and when he freaks out, the numbers are going where they shouldn’t. And when he steps out of the shadows to give this kind of pep-talk to his own (and strongest) base, then the numbers must be truly awful. I suppose he’s worried about 2006. Well, he’s run out of time (as has Rumsfeld, as has Cheney, as has–remember this guy?–John Bolton). They’ve spent our blood, our treasure, our time and our patience, and now the price of oil has risen to $60 a barrel. So I think we should just let ourselves be encouraged, as Monolycus suggests.

Posted by: alabama | Jun 24 2005 2:07 utc | 27

dea i am surprised that you are so ready to blame the dumbed down populace for the crimes of the reptiles>>i do understand that the propaganda machine is unnervingly effective but lets keep the faith and support with our voices the holdouts _ there are many of us>
i hope you are right debs dead in your contention that whatsisname is wising up and that all_most of the rest of the sheep will follow as soon as they feel the heat>> i am not quite so optimistic but still i hope you are right>

Posted by: rapt | Jun 24 2005 2:27 utc | 28

The Cunning Realist says it Best:
http://cunningrealist.blogspot.com/

Posted by: dd | Jun 24 2005 2:29 utc | 29

sorry about the shitty_looking post above _ it ain”t my fault< honest>

Posted by: rapt | Jun 24 2005 2:31 utc | 30

@dd:
cunningrealism is probably a felony in the South.
I dare not peruse it.

Posted by: FlashHarry | Jun 24 2005 2:45 utc | 31

I think, De, your are echoing what the most severe critics of TV have been saying for some time. Add to this the (maybe not so mythical) findings of the MK Ultra project, that TV was the most powerful mind control drug they could come up with, and I say your wild speculation is right on.
The irony is that not just the masses have been lulled and placated but the elite and the “leaders” are probably the most severely infected because they have the greatest resources for indulging themselves in the …late capitalist patterns of entertainment, affluence and consumption….
I agree with you, rapt, that there are many of we holdouts. I am curious as to possible reasons why so many here seem to have escaped the virus.
On a personal note, I consider myself quite lucky that I was weaned before a Television was in every home. I never saw one until I was 10 and haven’t had one im my home for over 25 years.
b,
As you probably have surmised from the rapid fire feedback here, your post was superb.

Posted by: Juannie | Jun 24 2005 2:57 utc | 32

some of us can just see thru the bullshit _ still always surprised that others cannot< but there is still hope<< i see it>

Posted by: rapt | Jun 24 2005 3:03 utc | 33

some of us can just see thru the bullshit _ still always surprised that others cannot< but there is still hope<< i see it>

Posted by: rapt | Jun 24 2005 3:04 utc | 34

There’s some evidence tv stock narratives are more paddy chayevsky complex now than ever. Also, multitasking skills are a benefit to intelligence.
But, tv is still crap.

Posted by: slothrop | Jun 24 2005 3:12 utc | 35

A modest proposal on how to deal efficiently and effectively with this crap…..
Divide and conquer the newscycle by pre-assigning specific themes to the big heavyweight left-sided bloggodomers such that other important offensive stuff is not drowned out by the necessary defensive/counterpunching responses (ie. Abramoff should also have been a front burner offensive/lefthook theme today).
____
And I’m not talking about the free-agents here. This is kind of an elliptical response to Billmon’s LA Times piece from the dark days about how to give the big guys purpose as they outgrow the grassroots.

Posted by: RossK | Jun 24 2005 3:22 utc | 36

Thanks dd:
Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
-Hermann Goering 4/18/46, when the gig was up

Posted by: doug r | Jun 24 2005 3:27 utc | 37

Krugman
He wrote tomorrow’s column for this thread, but I guess he forgot to post it. Here it is.

Posted by: alabama | Jun 24 2005 3:33 utc | 38

One Hell of a Krugman piece there!

Posted by: FlashHarry | Jun 24 2005 3:52 utc | 39

WaPo
Very strong piece about conditions in Baghdad. It gives the lie to…..

Posted by: alabama | Jun 24 2005 3:55 utc | 40

I don’t know what Rove means by “liberals”, but if he means Democrats, then his statement is not just nonsense, it is nonsense on stilts. Does he think we don’t remember the Democrats falling to their knees to support the cheerleader from Yale, made suddenly “wartime president”?
On the most charitable interpretation of the events of 9/11, the Cheney administration was guilty of criminal incompetance, and yet the “liberals” cheered as Georgie did his war dance. And a short time later the Democrats abdicated their constitutional powers setting up our current generational visit to Iraq.
Liberals want to hold hands and have therapy seesions with Osama and his buddies? The Reagan people were doing that to the tune of billions back in the 80’s.
The “liberals” rolled over for these guys, and of course it is not enough. I think there is a lesson there – but I seriously doubt that it is one that the Democrats are capable of learning.

Posted by: tgs | Jun 24 2005 4:19 utc | 41

slightly OT, but this is the first time i’ve seen the press use the proper term for the US action in Iraq…
“WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States’ image is so tattered overseas two years after the Iraq invasion…”

Posted by: esme | Jun 24 2005 4:54 utc | 42

Posted by: esme | Jun 24 2005 4:55 utc | 43

exactly tgs, hell, Some think Democrats were primarily responsible for McCarrthyism in the 50’s. Nonetheless,the Democrats believe any harm done to the country so can be repaired by them, once they are in office.I think the Democrats are perfectly happy losing. The alternative is changing their way of doing business. The gnashing of teeth and howls of dismay from the party leadership are perception management nothing more nothing less.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 24 2005 5:13 utc | 44

Grown up with tv, computer games and Dungeons and Dragons (and other more interesting games in the roleplaying genre) I have developed a bit of sensitivity to statements of “tv/computer games/Dungeons and Dragons destroying the youth”. Somehow it looked odd that the most antisocietal behaviour you could engage in as a youth was listening to stories, be part of storytelling or (shudder) tell your own stories, instead of more traditional youth activities including drinking and fighting. Maybe it is just because I am dumbed down by tv 🙂
Anyway, getting people in a collective state of mind where they can be led is nothing uniquely american or contemporary. And I remember some mass litterature before (and after) the advent of tv with rather simplistic plotlines and with black and white (not to seldom literary) morals. Guess the germans listened to much to radio. 😛
I will not be around to reply to replies to this the next couple of days as I will be away from the computer for some pagan swedish midsummer rituals. Happy midsummer eve everyboby!

Posted by: A swedish kind of death | Jun 24 2005 11:59 utc | 45

SWKOD: You forget what were the traditional activities of the youth for the past centuries:
– slave labor by sending them to work on the fields or at the sweatshop for all day long
– paramilitary activities (yeah, sports and outdoor activities are good for you, son), the boy scouts being one of the most obvious example (going from there to the Hitler Jugend wasn’t much of a stretch)

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Jun 24 2005 13:29 utc | 46

Bernhard,
Liberals were right?
How many people were rightfully indicted and convicted for terrorism by the Bush administration? Not many. We killed them instead. Thousands were killed or captured in Afghanistan, including forty-five of the top fifty Al Qeada leaders. 500 other sweethearts are at Gitmo. You wanted to put them on tiral? Pah-leeze. You just don’t get it. We’re at war.
Therapy for the victims and the nation would have gone a long way to find a rational answer to the attack? You want a rational answer? They’re religious extremists and cold-blooded killers. Wake up and smell yourself.
Understanding the motives of the attackers? See above.
And If you’re going use Rove’s quote, why not try getting it right? He said, “Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war. Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.” (as you’re still advocating) He added that groups linked to the Democratic Party made the mistake of calling for “moderation and restraint” after the terrorist attacks.
Liberals are now calling for us to abandon Iraq (which would become another Afghanistan terrorist state if we did) and to close down Gitmo (because we are treating prisoners like Nazis). Guess what? Rove was right. 100% right.

Posted by: Bill Karl | Jun 24 2005 14:27 utc | 47

They’re religious extremists and cold-blooded killers.

I’m sorry, but I can’t quite parse your posting. Did you mean the US regime or the Taliban?

Posted by: Colman | Jun 24 2005 14:37 utc | 48

bill, that quote from rove actually reads:
“Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11…but revealed their criminal incompetence in failing to heed warnings in advance of it…”
notice rove never refers to the pre 9/11 timeline. it’s always post. wouldn’t want to get into touchy territory would we? where the macho bushites were exposed as being impotent in the face of advancing attacks.

Posted by: hello | Jun 24 2005 14:40 utc | 49

no Bill Karl, the rational answer, which you purposely left out, is that it is the u.s. which best fits the description of religious extremists and cold-blooded killers. do the math.

Posted by: b real | Jun 24 2005 14:41 utc | 50

@Colman
Well, given the requirements of International law, the Geneva Conventions, the Constitution, the Torture Act and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and that they’ve been wilfully and unlawfully breached repeatedly as demonstrated by published declassified documents, one must assume he’s referring to the current US administration …

Posted by: Outraged | Jun 24 2005 14:43 utc | 51

I’m going back to my blog now. At least there’s a sense of humor there. Best of luck to you all and nice chatting with you.

Posted by: Bill Karl | Jun 24 2005 14:52 utc | 52

Rove’s argument that only liberals try to “understand” the terrorist enemy is a red herring. The Bush Administration’s chosen strategy to win and champion the War on Terra presupposes and has embedded its own “understanding” what makes terrorists tick. GWB, for example, has said ad nauseum some variant of:

People say, well, why — and I know a lot of kids are probably asking, well, why America? And you’ve just got to understand that the enemy hates us because of what we love. We love freedom. We love the idea of people — (applause). We love the fact that, in this great country, people can worship an almighty God any way they see fit. That’s what we love. (Applause.)

To be intellectually honest, Rove ought to have said that the Libs and Cons have different understandings of why terrorism occurs, and the War has shown the the Con understanding too be more accurate insofar as it, supposedly, is getting better results than the Libs’ plan would have.

Posted by: MontyCantsinNYC | Jun 24 2005 16:21 utc | 53

Journalist: “Hey Karl, have you gone clamming?”
KR: “No, why?”
J: “I thought not. You see,
Clammers used to cut starfish in half because they kill and eat clams. Then the next year, their would be twice as many starfish because they just regenerated, but now with twice the appetite. Well, the clammers would get worried and spend even more time cutting starfish in two. And of course that made more starfish.
One day, some (surely liberal) clammer looked into the matter and discovered that starfish don’t usually die from being chopped in two. They do not say thank you sir may I have another, but they do get on with the business of multiplying.
Not only would Karl Rove not stop to figure out how to actually solve the problem, he wouldn’t listen to anyone who did know either.

Posted by: citizen | Jun 24 2005 17:47 utc | 54

Back to Main