Remarks of Karl Rove at the New York Conservative Party (FULL TEXT)

Washington Post ^ | June 22, 2005 | Karl Rove

[QQQQQ]

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 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. 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, liberals believed it was time to… submit a petition. I am not joking. Submitting a petition is precisely what Moveon.org did. It was a petition imploring the powers that be" to "use moderation and restraint in responding to the… terrorist attacks against the United States."

[QQQQQ]

The full text at the link.

This is a "must read". He doesn't mince any words, tells it like it is.

[QQQQQ]

Question: Since this is a full text of Karl Rove's speech, as released by the White House, it shouldn't have any copywrite issues, right?

Can I post the full text?

( I tried to find it somewhere other than the WP, so we won't even have to address this issue, but this is the only place I found it.)

But it still not a WP copywrite article.

It would be great to post it, so everyone can read it.

Thanks.

[Just A Nobody]

Bump for later. Off to FReep!

[EagleUSA]

Compared to ANY DEMORAT, Rove is a giant. He has it right. I hope he does not quit working for Bush...

[QQQQQ]

ROVE: "Has there been a more revealing moment this year than when Democratic Senator Richard Durbin, speaking on the Senate floor, compared what Americans had done to prisoners in our control at Guantanamo Bay with what was done by Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot - three of the most brutal and malevolent figures in the 20th century?

Let me put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts to the region the words of Senator Durbin, certainly putting America's men and women in uniform in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."

[QQQQQ]

Good quotes. Here is more:

Howard Dean, replying to a question that if bin Laden should be caught, whether to put him to death: "I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found. I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials." (Some days later, under criticism, Dr. Dean shifted his position, saying "as an American I want to see he gets what he deserves, which is the death penalty.")

Richard Gephardt: "I never felt it was inevitable that we had to go to war."

John Kerry: President George W. Bush wrongly "rushed into battle."

George Soros: "the war on terrorism cannot be won by waging war. … Crime requires police work, not military action."

William Sloan Coffin: After 9/11, the U.S. government should have vowed "to see justice done, but by the force of law only, never by the law of force."

Harold Hongju Koh, Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law, Yale Law School: "[Bush] could have supported the International Criminal Court as a way of bringing the Osama bin Ladens and Saddam Husseins of the world to justice." (The Economist, October 30, 2003)

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1430

---

To Combat Terrorism We Must Understand It: The Need For A National Commission On The Causes And Prevention Of Terrorism

Richard E. Rubenstein
Prof. of Conflict Resolution and Public Affairs
Op-Ed Piece, September 15, 2001

George Mason University

To combat terrorism we must understand it. To understand it we must study it.

Now it is time to consider creating a similar body to study and make recommendations with regard to the causes and prevention of terrorism

Racial disorders, police riots, and violent protests could not be "stamped out" by rhetorical declarations or acts of force. What was needed was the sort of understanding that is in short supply when people are reacting out of fear, grief, or rage. Then, as now, effective long-range policies to combat violence required a deeper comprehension of the reasons people engage in violent acts and the full range of policy options available to prevent the violence from continuing or escalating.

When it comes to understanding the psychology of terrorism, the relationship between violence and religious ideology, the politics of anti-Western movements, or the deeper social and economic causes of terrorist violence, our knowledge is fragmentary and incomplete.

What we need in this time of crisis and confusion is a new national conversation about the terrorist threat and how to deal with it.


http://www.gmu.edu/departments/ICAR/sept11/article2.html

---

"But the end game is not eliminating terrorism. The end game is using our new global coalition to fight poverty and give hope to kids all around the world so the only option they have isn't joining some fanatical group," said Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif.

"We need a systematic approach that helps everyone in the world … not only by catching terrorists but by addressing the root causes of terrorism, like resolving conflicts in the Middle East, addressing poverty," said William Ury of Harvard Law School.

"To prevent terrorism, we must make war against poverty," proclaimed playwright Harold Pinter.

http://slate.msn.com/id/116422/

---

[Bush gal in LA]

Everything, this great man said was the absolute truth! Liberals do want to coddle the enemy. I still remember Richard Gere [self described liberal and Buddist] days after 911 happened jumping on stage at a concert for the victims of 911 pleading with the audience to try and understand and have'' compassion'' for the terrorists that blew our people away. The audience would have none of it and he got booed off the stage after saying under his breath ''Well I guess its too early for compassion''! And I could give 20 more examples if the RATS want them. Why are they so angry to learn the truth about themselves!?

[Blzbba]

"We believe in curbing the size of government; they believe in expanding the size of government. "


LMAO! Is that why the Bush Admin has created massive amounts of gov't in the last 5 years? Is that the reason for the horrid, socialist, Bush-led expansion of the doomed Medicare entitlement program? Is that why the first response to 9-11 was the creation of more gov't i.e. Dept of Homeland Security?

Who does he think he's fooling with this "anti creation of gov't" crap? No argument on his terror points, nor taxation issues, but that line of crap was just that.

[jer2911tx]

this speech will be one of the most effective and defining speeches in history....hopefully.

[QQQQQ]

Would you have preferred if Gore had been president or Kerry?

By bashing President Bush, you are giving ammunition to the Dems.

One of their tactics is the divide and conquer strategy, and looks like you are playing right into their hands.

I am sure Howard Dean is delighted with you.

[Admin Moderator]

If the only source is the Washington Post, please post an excerpt only.
Thanks.

[QQQQQ]

OK. Thanks. That's why I asked first.

[Straight8]

Hungry trolls are best left unfed.

[Blzbba]

"Would you have preferred if Gore had been president or Kerry? "


Strawman question. Who cares about liberals/Dumbocrats? Let's discuss what the Repubs are and should be doing, as we both know who we aren't (I.E. useless liberals). I'm so tired of this "Well, at least we're not Dems" crap, as if that excuses completely NON-conservative behavior from elected Republicans.

Example - "Bush expanded Medicare to historical highs....but at least he's not a Democrat!!!" (No, I know you didn't say this, QQQQQ, it's just an example of how stupid the "we're not Clinton" crap is.


"By bashing President Bush, you are giving ammunition to the Dems. "


By stating fact? Don't be so blinded by this administration of gov't-creating, fiscal liberals.



"I am sure Howard Dean is delighted with you."


YEEEEEEEEEARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[BTHOtu]

Let me put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts to the region the words of Senator Durbin, certainly putting America's men and women in uniform in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.

Ouch! I wonder why they didn't complain about this section of his speech?

[marylandrepub1]

Very good research. Randi Rhodes is on AA claiming that 'all' democrats were for invading Afganistan and that Rove was lying. Her info source? She said she called MoveOn.org and asked them. They told her they never took out any ads in 2001, so it must be true.


Thanks Karl !

[WOSG]

"Very good research. Randi Rhodes is on AA claiming that 'all' democrats were for invading Afganistan and that Rove was lying. Her info source? She said she called MoveOn.org and asked them. They told her they never took out any ads in 2001, so it must be true."

Debunked by the facts listed in post #5 by Baynative.
They circulated a petition to ask for 'moderation' ... didn't want to be too harsh on the enemy that just killed 3,000 of us, ya know.

It sucks to be a lying Liberal Democrat in the internet age!
What a bunch of losers, trying to run away from what they did!