Posted on 06/24/2005 6:38:07 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
Karl Rove is under fire from Democrats who have demanded he apologize or resign for the his comments at a New York State Conservative Party dinner on Wednesday. Here is some of what Rove said:
LET me now say a few words about the state of liberalism. Perhaps the place to begin is with this stinging indictment:
"Liberalism is at greater risk now than at any time in recent American history. The risk is of political marginality, even irrelevance . . . [L]iberalism risks getting defined, as conservatism once was, entirely in negative terms."
These are not the words of William F. Buckley, Jr. or Sean Hannity; they are the words of Paul Starr, co-editor of The American Prospect, a leading liberal publication.
There is much merit in what Mr. Starr writes — though he and I fundamentally disagree as to why liberalism is edging toward irrelevance. I believe the reason can be seen when comparing conservatism with liberalism.
Conservatives believe in lower taxes; liberals believe in higher taxes. We want few regulations; they want more. Conservatives measure the effectiveness of government programs by results; liberals measure the effectiveness of government programs by inputs. We believe in curbing the size of government; they believe in expanding the size of government. Conservatives believe in making America a less litigious society; liberals believe in making America a more litigious society. We believe in accountability and parental choice in education; they don't. Conservatives believe in advancing what Pope John Paul II called a "culture of life"; liberals believe there is an absolute unlimited right to abortion.
But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. 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. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban.
In the wake of 9/11, the liberals believed it was time to submit a petition. I'm not joking. Submitting a petition was precisely what Moveon.org, then known as 9/11peace.org did. You may have seen it in The New York Times or The Washington Post, the San Francisco Examiner or the L.A. Times. (Funny, I didn't see it in the Amarillo Globe News.)
It was a petition that "implored the powers that be" to "use moderation and restraint in responding to the terrorist attacks against the United States. 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, the side of the Pentagon destroyed and almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble.
Moveon.org and Michael Moore and Howard Dean may dominate the Democratic Party and liberalism — but their moderation and restraint is not what America felt needed to be done, and moderation and restraint was not what was called for. It was a time to summon our national will and to brandish steel.
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. Conservatives see the United States as a great nation involved in a noble cause of self-defense. Liberals are concerned with what our enemies will think of us and whether every government approves of our actions.
Has there ever been a more revealing moment than this year. when the Democratic senator, Democrat Richard Durbin, speaking on the Senate floor, compared what Americans have done to prisoners in our control in Guantanamo with what was done by Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot — three of the most brutal and malevolent figures of the 20th century?
Let me put in this in really simple terms. Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Sen. Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.
The liberals can run from their words and deeds, but they cannot hide. Karl Rove knows where they are and what they stand for.
We have a great deal of ammo just using their own words.
Oh, how I love the Dubya people--Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rove! They know how to put the Dems in their place in a polite, condescending way.
No wonder they got mad. They were bitching about another Rove quote, but this had to be the stake in the heart for them.
Serves them right. They were traitors during Vietnam, causing us to "lose" and costing millions of lives in So. East Asia. They are still traitors.
btt
Listening to Chuckie and I agree. It's beyond the pale to side or express sympathy for the terrorists. You and the Liberals which I suppose you acknowled are all Dems? now have a lot to answer for Chuck.
You won't receive Karl's resignation, btw. What Karl said is true and well documented. The W.H. isn't going to give you your dream and slay your mythical dragon for you.
I do thank you for repeating Rove's comments to the American people because you mistakenly believe they'll react in horror. Truth is they are hearing the truth spoken for the first time, and agreeing with him.
Welcome to rope-a-dope where the administration uses you and your media organ to bypass the propaganda to reach the American people.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Today's Today show: it was arguably provocative.
They actually led with this non-story.
The whole coordinated GITMO assault is really about litiation and increasing the power of lawyers,at the expense of the Pentagon. Coverge has been horrible.
Karl Rove stands accused of the heinous crime of calling Liberals naive. Compare that to statements from Howard Dean, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, et al, who have called our President a liar, suggested that our troops are Nazis, and called upon the Secretary of Defense to resign. If the worst thing the Democrats were accusing Republicans of were naivete, maybe the "political dialogue" wouldn't be so "coarse" these days.
They can run, but they can't hide. Durbin, Kerry, Dean, Kennedy, Boxer, Biden, Clinton, et.al., aren't the only DemocRATS who have provided sound-bites to aid and comfort our enemies.
For one tip-of-the-iceberg instance - before the Iraq war, in 2002:
Excerpts: "...Bonior was until recently the second-ranking Democrat in the House ..
"...What apparently didn't concern the congressmen was the damage their trip might do abroad to any U.S.-led effort to deal with Saddam. Or any difficulties they may have created for U.S. efforts to fashion a friendly post-Saddam Iraq.
EVEN BEFORE the Baghdad boys left Iraq, media outlets throughout the Middle East gleefully highlighted divisions in the U.S. government and the travels by the "antiwar" congressmen.
The Iraq Daily, for example, published by Saddam's Ministry of Information, printed daily updates of the trip and posted them in English on their website. .....
....On September 27, [2002] viewers of Iraqi Satellite Channel Television learned the following (this translation comes from U.S. government sources):
"Three U.S. Congressmen arrived in Baghdad this morning on a visit lasting several days. .... Congressman Jim McDermott told reporters upon arrival at Saddam International Airport that the delegation members reject the policy of aggression dominating the U.S. administration."
The video then showed McDermott talking, with a voiceover translation in Arabic. Here is what Arabic-speaking audiences heard from McDermott:
"We are three veterans of the Vietnam War who came over here because we don't want war.
We assert from here that we do not want the United States to wage war on any peace-loving countries.
As members of Congress, we would like diplomatic efforts to continue so as not to launch any aggression.
We will visit children's hospitals to see the negative impact of the sanctions imposed on Iraq.
We hope that peace will prevail throughout the world."
So how does it feel to be used as a propaganda tool against your own country?
McDermott, who was asked that question by CNN's Jane Arraf when he was still in Baghdad, said it feels fine.
"If being used means that we're highlighting the suffering of Iraqi children, or any children, then, yes, we don't mind being used." ...
...A reporter followed up. "Mr. McDermott implied that the president could not be trusted and Mr. Saddam Hussein could be trusted. That's gotta evoke some sort of feeling within you as to the properness of that comment."
"I don't have all that was said and I'm not here to parse over every word," said Gephardt. ...
...Republicans say they will continue to raise the issue until Democratic leaders speak out against McDermott and Bonior. "Why haven't Democrat leaders denounced McDermott's odious words? Every American is free to speak their mind, but hurling reckless charges from hostile soil strays over the edge," says House Majority Whip Tom DeLay.
...As Election Day [Nov. 2002] approaches, count on hearing more about the Baghdad Democrats. .. ." bttt
Excerpt:
Rush: ".....This is the place, Senator Lott, where three Democrat senators blew up and committed a potential criminal felony by releasing the details of a covert, super-secret satellite spy plan.
This is a criminal felony. Criminal referrals have been handed out to these three, Jay Rockefeller, DURBIN, and Ron Wyden.
Now, if the Republicans in the Senate had any gonads they would be on the prowl here trying to get these guys strung up for what they did, because you want to talk about defense and you want to talk about security, take a look at what's coming out of the U.S. Senate on the Democrat side. ..."
And the treachery never stops, does it?.......
Leni
"...For 7 years, Mr. Speaker, we have heard the rhetoric coming from the White House that the world is safe, there are no problems, our security is intact, and therefore, we can dramatically cut the size of our defense forces and we can, in fact, shift that money over to other purposes...."
Rumsfeld had the gonads to address military problems which not only affect us today but in the long term. Like Bush, he didn't care what was thought of him in his actions, he was a leader doing what needed to be done. Lott was/is attempting to asses blame on his own problems/inabilities to lead on Rumsfeld rather than blaming the liberals for what they are and what they did.
We have their number and are effectively exposing them every day for who and what they are. There's nothing I like any better first thing every morning than the sound of screaming stuck pigs.
In spite of help from traitor RINOS like McCain, the days of them being able to control the flow of information are O-vuuuurrrrr.
More "they can run but they can't hide" memories:
Capitol Hill Blue 3/10/99 Doug Thompson “…Many career intelligence officers consider President Clinton and the White House a security risk and withhold sensitive information whenever possible to prevent it falling into enemy hands, Capitol Hill Blue has learned. Often, information is also withheld from Clinton appointees at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Justice and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), veteran intelligence operatives say. "The White House is not secure when it comes to matters of national security," says one recently-retired intelligence analyst. "Career operatives realize this and place the security of their country above politics." . ”
You're right. I should have included this part of his commentary also, because it makes that point clear:
Rush: "Instead of piling on Rumsfeld, why don't you and the Senate leadership get together and realize it's the Democrats in the Senate who are the enemy, and not Rumsfeld. That it's Al-Qaeda who is the enemy, and not Rumsfeld.
And just because McCain decides to fly off the cliff for personal reasons doesn't mean you have to follow him. ...."
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.