quote: Rove, in a speech Wednesday evening to the New York state Conservative Party just a few miles north of Ground Zero, said, "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Conservatives, he said, "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."
He added that the Democratic Party made the mistake of calling for "moderation and restraint" after the terrorist attacks.
quote: "The Republican leadership priority is to have our troops hunt down, kill or capture terrorists before they try to attack us again at home," said Ron Bonjean, spokesman for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois.
"The Democratic leadership priority is to actively engage in the politics of division and distraction that can undermine our national security in favor of a left-wing agenda," he said.
I'm beyond angry about this. After the Republicans bitch and complain about what Durbin said, they come right back and support this crap? I think it's hilarious, and anyone with half a wit will realize how ridiculous and incendiary the Republican party has become.
I hope they do stonewall. Just keep flinging mud and then whining whenever the Dems throw it back. In no time at all, the Republicans will be the crybaby party, as if they weren't already.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
*screams at no one in particular*
That is completely uncalled for.
--j_k
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Never underestimate the power of Karl Rove. The Democratic Party has twice. He may very well be the ultimate master of spin and he's an opportunist of the highest level.
But he's a right smart bastich...
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Why do I feel like we're screwed no matter which side we support?
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Well, Rove may be smart, but I'm seriously considering the theory that he is the Antichrist. I'm sorry, but the man is just evil. I don't believe he would know an ethical principle if it came up and bit him on the nose.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you to find that gambling... ohh never mind.
Hobbes Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Puppy: because you're observant! My theory is that we do best when we have the president in one party and the majority of congress in the other. That way they have to at least SORT OF work together to get anything accomplished and neither side can railroad their policy through.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Puppy, I'm with you on that one.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Captain Renault- "I'm shocked! Shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"
Croupier- "Here are your winnings sir."
Captain Renault- "Oh thank you very much!"
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
You all have got to be kidding me. Rove said nothing wrong. He pointed out the truth on what the Democratic Party is doing in today’s political climate. He didn’t say anything about our troops being like Nazi’s and I imagine you’ll be hard pressed to find his comments on Al Jazeera, unless of course it’s some sort of crazy spin about how the Democrats are upset about it. You know what, sometimes the truth hurts. I really think it’s laughable that there is any kind of comparison and know that the only reason it’s been brought up is so they have something to whine about and point at. Ha! How foolish. I love it. Can’t wait to hear Dean whine about it so we’ll have some more great quotes from him. If they keep this up the GOP will pick up so many seats in 06 that we’ll never have to worry about a Democrat filibuster on anything, much less nominees.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
So if I said the Republican approach is to shoot first and ask questions later, that would be okay? (Note: I don't think this)
Because, y'know, if anything its more based in fact, considering most Dems did vote to support the Iraqi war based on assurances about evidence that didn't exist, and pretty much all of them were soundly in favor of invading Afghanistan, which sure doesn't sound like advocating therapy to me.
Not that you've ever let logic and reason get in your way before, Jay.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:So if I said the Republican approach is to shoot first and ask questions later, that would be okay?
Actually, its more like, "they shot at us and therefore we need to shoot back to protect ourselves. Why question when we already know the answer?"
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You really don't get the point of my post, do you?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Really Jay? So tell me, which Democratic Senator or Congressman sponsored the bill calling for terrorist therapy?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Helloooooo, Howard Dean Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Yawn…… Lyrhawn can I get a harder homework assignment?
Most of what they said pans out. Biden said that the bombing in Afghanistan would see us paying daily for the mistake. And daily Americans have died in Iraq. Much of what they said urged the US to use International Justice to instead of what is happening in Gitmo.
They were concerned for America's image today, not so much for the feelings or state of the terrorists. And from the looks of things, at a time when CHINA is favored in opinion polls over America amongst Western European allies, I think they were probably on to something don't you?
But Rove's comments are divisive, just as much, if not more so, than anything the Democrats have said. To blame Democrats of distracting from the cause of freedom is hilarious considering Rove is doing the exact same thing while saying it!
Perhaps there is SOME truth to what Rove was saying. And the parts that are true are extremely good points. Understanding your enemy goes as far back as Sun Tzu, and I'm sure much further back than that. I guess Rove supports the Republican way: Don't Understand, Just Destroy!
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Don't Understand, Just Destroy!"
Actually its, "What is there to understand? you don't have to eat the whole apple to know its rotting."
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Look, not a single call for therapy in all that, Jay. Guess the assignment was harder than you thought.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
That is what happens when you have Rove as your leader...you don't actually have to read anything printed, all you have to do is take his word that they said it.
I guess innocent until proven guilty only counts when they want it to.
Kwea
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Cheney just likes to be inflammatory and bombastic. It's entertaining and sad at the same time.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Well, they might not say therapy directly, but the blame America crowd certainly implies it and wants us to be more understanding of them. Unreal. Getting along with pure evil is not possible or should be tried. We don’t negotiate with terrorists. And yes, terrorists are pure evil.
And Cheney was referring to the primaries, yes his comment could be taken that way, but he did start talking about the primaries right then. But keep digging. If this is all you can get, big deal.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Jay. It's not that simple. There is no such thing as pure evil... That is how these sort of things begin. Dehumanize the enemy and it makes it easier to kill them then become like them.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What blame America crowd? Did you actually read the statements on your own website?
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
Adam, no, no no...you forget the cardinal rule of internet discussions--you can't have a discussion once you say the word 'nazi', unless it's a discussion of world war two.
Much as I dislike most Republicans, the president and his lackeys among them, they aren't Nazis, not even close. At least give them that much respect.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I do wish there would be more reporting on the good things we have done in Iraq, and on the good we have done in Afghanistan. Yes, there are definitely deaths on both sides and that needs to be reported too. I just think it would help if we have positive and negative stories leading the news instead of just shock news all the time.
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
No, I don't think so. We haven't done well at all as far as human rights are concerned, especially in the prisons and Gitmo, but...the government isn't endorsing wholesale elimination of all Muslims. We aren't trying to eliminate an entire culture. The comparison doesn't stick.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think they are Nazis either.
Though a case could be made for a comparison to Leni Riefenstahl.
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
Yes, but Jay is one person with some rather extreme views--not the entire country or it's administration. The other thing is that we've not yet descended to the point of naming George Bush president-for-life, or to the point of declaring Americans a 'superior race'.
But I think I'm actually proving my own orignal point, which was this: Once you say the word 'nazi', it's no longer a discussion about the orignal topic, it becomes a debate about whether someone's a nazi or not.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Thanks Adam, it just seems from reading several of the headlines and several of the stories that news has become more Info-tainment than anything else.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
If thinking the people who killed over 3,000 innocent Americans are pure evil is wrong and wanting to make sure that they can’t do it again is so bad, oh well. I sleep better knowing we’re doing something to win the war on terrorism.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:If thinking the people who killed over 3,000 innocent Americans are pure evil is wrong and wanting to make sure that they can’t do it again is so bad, oh well.
You know, you shouldn't make generalizations like that. I'm wondering if Korea, Vietnam, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Iraq, and Germany agree with you.
From that judgement, America ranks up there with the definition of pure evil.
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
Jay, you cannot win a war on terrorism for one reason--it's a CONCEPT. There are Christian terrorists. There are Muslim ones, there are communist ones, there are atheist ones...you cannot wipe out a concept, except by killing everyone who has that idea.
What we can do, is wipe out the REASONS there are terrorists--poverty, hunger, intolerance. I just haven't figured out how, quite yet.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yep, we've certainly killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians at various times.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Human: Jay, you cannot win a war on terrorism for one reason--it's a CONCEPT. There are Christian terrorists. There are Muslim ones, there are communist ones, there are atheist ones...you cannot wipe out a concept, except by killing everyone who has that idea.
What we can do, is wipe out the REASONS there are terrorists--poverty, hunger, intolerance. I just haven't figured out how, quite yet.
Yes! Thank you!
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: America ranks up there with the definition of pure evil.
Guess you’re one of those blame America first crowd. Sigh……
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
How do you defeat terror? Spread freedom! Thank God for George W. Bush! He is spreading freedom and has planted the seeds in the middle east.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
He's merely applying your standard. Are you retracting it?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay: How do you defeat terror? Spread freedom! Thank God for George W. Bush! He is spreading freedom and has planted the seeds in the middle east.
Please tell me how waging war on people equals spreading freedom? Gods, I hate such symplistic language.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Well, they might not say therapy directly, but the blame America crowd certainly implies it and wants us to be more understanding of them. Unreal. Getting along with pure evil is not possible or should be tried. We don’t negotiate with terrorists. And yes, terrorists are pure evil.
This paragraph stands as one of the better examples of logical fallacy that I've seen in some time. Let me break it down.
1) Calls his political opponents members of the "blame America crowd," without substantiation. 2) Admits that they have not said what he's alleged they've said, but claims that it's "implied." 3) Equates recommending therapy to "being more understanding," and suggests that both are equivalently flawed viewpoints. 4) Calls these viewpoints "unreal" without recognizing the irony. 5) Makes a universal value statement -- "getting along with pure evil...should not be tried" -- without substantiation. 6) Makes a specific value statement -- "terrorists are pure evil" -- without substantiation. 7) Uses this paradigm to justify another claim that is demonstrably false -- that we do not negotiate with terrorists.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: Guess you’re one of those blame America first crowd. Sigh……
I guess that makes you part of the ignore what the other person is saying crowd.
Pay attention for once, I'm not blaming America. But that doesn't mean I think America is perfect or without fault in the current situation. What I'm saying, is that you can't pick out an event like 9/11 and declare it some higher form of evil, your criteria is innocent civilians, America has killed more than 3,000 innocent civilians in a single day, in a single moment for that matter. So I'm not blaming America, I'm telling you to dial back your rhetoric.
The supposition you make is that evil is correlated to innocents killed, by your own definition, America is a higher evil. So before making wild claims about my affiliation, check your own words.
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
Spreading 'freedom' is an almost pathetically vague catchphrase. You could make the case that the British thought they were spreading 'freedom' to India, during their imperial years.
My point is...you need something more concrete, and something definitely more productive than invading and taking over a country. Yes, Saddam was bad, yadda yadda. But so far, the only seeds we've sown, to my knowledge, are those of hate and divisiveness. But maybe that's just me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Wait Human, you can't use logic on the RadCon agenda. Freedom yadda yadda yadda is all they have. When you start getting into the heart of the matter, their argument falls apart. And we can't have that.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm bothered by the idea that understanding the enemy equals being soft on them. That's almost unspeakably stupid. As I said on another thread, most of what Sun Tzu said in The Art of War doesn't sound profound until you look at the history of warfare. In this case, throwing the evil label around in place of understanding why these people do the things they do nets us nothing.
The two magic words in a terrorist campaign are recruitment and funding. Pure military force isn't going to do the job. We're not fightign a static army. It's not kill X people and the war will be over. A successful terrorist organization, especially one that relies on suicide tactics has to constantly be bringing in new members. It's nigh impossible to stop that with troops and tanks and guns. If it comes down to it, the only solution we're going to have left is going to be as close to genocide as to make no difference. Terrorism depends on PR. If we can win that war as well as cut off their supply lines, we win.
I actually agree with the "spreading freedom" thing being good for us in general, except much of that region sees us as the bad guys, some of which they've got legitimate reasons for. It'll take a complex understanding of the dynamics of the region to really win out.
The Bush people tried the simplistic "People love freedom." thing and it really, really didn't work out for them. They planned for there to be an Iraq populace greeting us with open arms with only a very few hold out from the old regime resistors. The simplicity of their thinking and the lack of adequate planning cost many soldiers their lives. And even when it was clear that their original projections were absurdly optimistic, they held to that line, claiming that the only resistance they were seeing in Iraq were from a few members of Saddam's regime. Forget about not understanding your enemy. They weren't even able to admit who they were fighting.
We need complexity and an understanding of who are the people we are fighting, who could be on our side or at least against our enemies, and what we can do to shift the dynamics in our favor. Simplistic name calling and appeals to "freedom" may play well on the home front, but they suck as actual things to rely on in the real world.
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
Well, that's why I intend to keep throwing out logic. Again, and again. Maybe someday, somehow, someone will listen. I will not go quietly into the night, as the poem says. But...as my original post states, I also intend to give them the respect they deserve. Or else I'm no better than a flamer myself.
Edit: To Lyrhawn
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That's exactly it, McSquicky. That is what has been bothering me about this whole war. Lack of research, no understanding, just the word freedom thrown around like smacking a bandaid on a gaping wound.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Amen Human, amen.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Geoff, Welcome to my world. I figured you get here eventually.
THe scary thing is that while either side seems more concerned about beating each other or on their fantasy of how the world is supposed to be, we're in a very scary situation. Let's be clear, it's only a matter of time until the terrorists get themselves a nuclear warhead or two and detonate them in an American city. It's going to happen, unless our efforts are successful.
This is not a case where the government that governs least, governs best. We need people who are going to be active, who are going to have to do things that they can't necessarily tell us about. But do you trust the people that either side would put in charge? What we need is not what they're offering.
Honestly, I think it's the very inadequacy of the Bush administration for this task that makes many people defend them so strongly, what with the cognitive dissonance and all that. If they allowed themselves to doubt, if they ever considered that the most positive spin they can put on something is likely not true, they'd lose a whole boatload of confidence and security. So we get people who prefer to be lied to, as long as the lies fit the worldview that they want. I think it's insane that a President in a position like this can win a campaign where he was unable to run on his record and that people are okay with that.
And I'm thinking, is it going to take another 9/11 before we start demanding trustworthiness and accountability from our government, before we demand and enforce unity centered on this threat, instead of people trying to score political points?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)