Rove vs. Durbin: A False Parallel, Dems Giving Durbin A Pass-(proof, and more proof; Rove is right!)

Once more we are having to listen to the black is white, up is down Dem-speak we’ve been subjected to for the last forty years.

The Democrats, and their allies in the extremist lobbying organizations know how wrong Durbin’s comments were and that his “apology” on Wednesday was anything but a legitimate apology. They know that such a comment could be damaging to their election hopes in 2006 so they are running to cover Durbin’s egregious statements by trumping up a comparison between Durbin’s comments and those made by Carl Rove at a conservative fund raiser. Okay, I know that you Liberals don’t care about the facts, or about truth in general, but I am going to lay out the differences between the two speeches anyway.

Carl Rove, as I said, was speaking at a fundraiser in his capacity as a politician; politics from a politician. Dick Durbin was speaking from the well of the Senate in his official capacity as a Senator and as the number two Democrat Leader in the Senate. One was leveling criticism on his political opponents, Liberal organizations; the other was denigrating the actions of our troops in Guantanamo without regard to the damage such a statement could do both to the morale of our troops, and to the propaganda value for our enemies.

Senator Durbin was providing our enemies with propaganda from an official source within our government by falsely accusing American soldiers, performing their official duties, of war crimes, even as he knew it was not true. There is and was absolutely no evidence of systematic prisoner abuse at GTMO and it was inappropriate for Dick Durbin to have made a comparison between GTMO and the Gulags of the former Soviet Union, the death camps of NAZI Germany, and the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge, from the e-mail of one FBI agent regarding one report about one prisoner, especially in the face of General Hood’s report on the SouthCom Koran Inquiry, which was published two weeks before Durbin’s rant. General Hood’s report in fact shows that prisoners and their Korans were and are being treated with great deference to their religion and their customs. Meticulous records are being kept on all prisoner complaints and the investigations thereof. Any mistreatment allegations are investigated thoroughly and if any finding of fact occurs, the guard is appropriately punished.

The Democrats have been hyperventilating over what Rove said, calling not just for an apology, but for his resignation. What was it that was so heinous that Carl Rove said? It was a dead factual examination of Liberals reactions to the 9/11 attack.

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

Every word of it is true and that is what the Democrats are screaming about. Democrats hate it when you throw their words back in their faces. They much prefer for us to conveniently forget what they said so that they can change the “facts” to fit the circumstance. Don’t believe me? Well all we have to do is go back and look at what the Left said at the time.

“We the undersigned citizens and residents of the United States of America, appeal to the President of the United States, George Bush, and to all leaders internationally to use moderation and restraint in response to the recent terrorist attacks.”

“What I do know is that all day long I have heard everything about this bin Laden guy except this one fact — WE created the monster known as Osama bin Laden...We abhor terrorism-unless we’re the ones doing the terrorizing...We paid and trained and armed a group of terrorists in Nicaragua in the1980’s who killed 30,000 civilians that’s our work you and me. Thirty thousand murdered civilians and who the hell even remembers!...Will we ever get to the point that we realize we will be more secure when the rest of the world isn’t living in poverty so we can have nice running shoes?...let’s mourn and grieve and when it’s appropriate let’s examine our contribution to the unsafe world we live in.”

“First of all terror, the killing of non-combatants for economic political or religious reasons has a very long history. Those of us who come from various European lineages are not blameless.”

4. Susan Sontag wrote on 24, September 2001 in an article in the New Yorker, A Mature Democracy:

"Where is the acknowledgment that this was not a 'cowardly' attack on 'civilization' or 'liberty' or 'humanity' or 'the free world' but an attack on the world's self-proclaimed superpower, undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions... [I]f the word "cowardly" is to be used, it might be more aptly applied to those who kill from beyond the range of retaliation, high in the sky, than to those willing to die themselves in order to kill others. In the matter of courage (a morally neutral virtue): Whatever may be said of the perpetrators of Tuesday's slaughter, they were not cowards."

5. Robert Wright in Slate Magazine September 20, 2001 in an article titled: Feels So Good asked us to examine our motives:

“Why does pretty much everyone feel that it's good to punish terrorists? Obviously, there are sound practical reasons to punish people who do bad things, and all of us, pressed to articulate our retributive urge, can list them. Still, the urge precedes the articulation. It is an emotional reflex, a part of human nature no less than the feelings of hunger or lust.”

“People will say things like, "Anyone who kills 5,000 people deserves to die!"—as if this statement were self-evident. And, of course, it does seem self-evident, but the reason it seems that way is that we generally trust our retributive instinct. And the whole point of this column is that this instinct is just an instinct. It is here only because of its success in getting the genes of our ancestors into subsequent generations. Its inherent moral status is no higher than that of other such instincts—the desire to sleep with your neighbor's spouse or stuff your face with junk food. (The sweet tooth, actually, seems to be another evolved impulse that was once good for us—back when the sweetest available thing was fruit—but is bad for us if exercised without discretion in a modern environment.)

"Granted, the retributive impulse, though a mere instinct, is often justified in practice by its consequences. And it may be that killing Osama Bin Laden—depending on how it was done—would have on balance positive consequences. But that's a separate question, and it should be the only question that governs U.S. policy.”

7. Michael Kinsley in an article entitled Defining Terrorism: It’s Necessary, It’s Also Impossible. October 5th 2001 ponders a difficult (for him) question:

“Now may seem like an odd moment to be worrying that one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter... Nevertheless, the definition of the word terrorism is a problem in what we'd better start calling the war effort. It's a problem for journalists: Reuters has banned the word in reference to Sept. 11, making an admirable concern for the safety of their reporters look like an idiotic moral relativism.”

Looks to me like typical Liberal soul searching as to how bad America is and how wrong we are to want to strike back at the terrorists. Shame on us! We should know better. We probably deserved to be attacked anyway.

One thing I find fascinating is that Democrats, especially those who are most vocal about being offended by Mr. Rove’s comments, are the same ones who are so determined not to identify themselves as Liberals. They eschew the word as if it was the Black Death. Now however, their sensibilities are offended. Well Hillary, Orca, Hateful Harry, and the rest of you, which is it? Are you Liberals, or are you not? If you’re not Liberals, then you couldn’t possibly be offended by Carl Rove’s statement, because it was not directed at you. Hmmm, quite a quandary isn’t it. How do you take offense at a statement which was quite clearly directed at you without revealing your true nature? My, my, my, such a difficult dilemma for you. You could of course simply tell the truth and admit that you are all extremely Liberal and “out of the mainstream” (now where have I heard that phrase before?), but we know that telling the truth is just not in you. Well, I’m glad I’m not in your shoes. As a proud conservative, I don’t have to hide my true nature and I can revel in your discomfiture.

re: lefties thinking MSM is conservative?!?

I was reading Coulter's book 'Slander" last night, in it she lists reporters, editors and bureau chiefs that worked in partisan politics before their journalistic careers. Surprise, surprise, almost all of them worked for Democratic politicians and were praised by the MSM for their diverse careers ignoring potential conflicts of interest. Whereas the few that worked for Republicans were raked over the coals in the press and limited from getting high visibility jobs. Except of course their poster child, Diane Sawyer, who worked for Nixon in some low level position. The MSM claims she is an example of multi-partisanship in media. What a croc, we know she is a full-blown lib! I love Ann, she really does her research! Also she pointed out that in the 1992 election, 89% of Washington bureau chiefs and reporters voted for Clinton, while 7% voted for Bush(41). 43% of the public voted for Clinton. Anyone claiming right wing control of the MSM is completely out of their minds! Even those that say there is no liberal bias are blind or working for the libs.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.