T1B

Karl Rove came to the heart of Manhattan last night to rhapsodize about the decline of liberalism in politics, saying Democrats responded weakly to Sept. 11 and had placed American troops in greater danger by criticizing their actions.

"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," Mr. Rove, the senior political adviser to President Bush, said at a fund-raiser in Midtown for the Conservative Party of New York State.

Citing calls by progressive groups to respond carefully to the attacks, Mr. Rove said to the applause of several hundred audience members, "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, a side of the Pentagon destroyed, and almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble."

Told of Mr. Rove's remarks, Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, replied: "In New York, where everyone unified after 9/11, the last thing we need is somebody who seeks to divide us for political purposes."

Mr. Rove also said American armed forces overseas were in more jeopardy as a result of remarks last week by Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, who compared American mistreatment of detainees to the acts of "Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime - Pol Pot or others."

"Has there ever been a more revealing moment this year?" Mr. Rove asked. "Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."

Gov. George E. Pataki of New York, speaking after Mr. Rove, also touched on the Sept. 11 attacks. He promised that the proposed Freedom Tower, the new building at ground zero, would retain patriotic touches in its architecture, like a height of 1,776 feet, despite the concerns of some observers who fear that it would become a target for terrorists.

"We're going to have a Freedom Tower that soars 1,776 feet high, symbolizing our independence," Mr. Pataki said. As for the memorial, he said: "No one is going to turn it into something that is a negative statement about America and our belief in freedom, so long as I am governor of this state."

Speaking to reporters afterward, Mr. Pataki disclosed that he did not plan to reveal in the coming days if he will seek a fourth term, contrary to previous statements that he would make an announcement after the State Legislature adjourned today.

"I'm going to evaluate the bills that the Legislature has passed at the end of the session and then make a decision at the appropriate time, but not in the next couple of weeks," Mr. Pataki said.

Can the Democrats stop with this unity bullshit for just a moment??

RACK Rove.

He is absolutely correct that the Democrats wanted to treat this kids gloves and go the law enforcement angle rather than confronting this with force.

This is rich, apparently the Dems are demanding an apology for Rove's remarks...

Where were they when their party chair was calling Republicans "evil?" Where were they when he was racially stereotyping Republicans? Where were they when he was telling us that Republicans didn't work honest jobs?

DrDetroit wrote:This is rich, apparently the Dems are demanding an apology for Rove's remarks...

Where were they when their party chair was calling Republicans "evil?" Where were they when he was racially stereotyping Republicans? Where were they when he was telling us that Republicans didn't work honest jobs?

Well? If Dean is over the line, then so is Rove.

Deal with it.

Where were the Democrats and their demand for an apology after their second-in-line slandered our troops??

B, explain that one...Are the Democrats not the ones pushing the policy that terrorism is a law enforcement issue?

Well?

They're not? Surprise, surprise, eh?

:roll:

Did we not see liberal like Chomsky blaming America for the 9/11 attack and suggesting that the US look at itself before going after terrorists?

Haven't liberals, for years, been blaming America for Islamic terror??

No?

Idiot.

Speaking the truth is not going over the line. Ever.

White House adviser Karl Rove should either apologize or resign for saying liberals responded to the September 11 terrorist strikes by wanting to "prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," Democrats said Thursday.

Adding to the rancor, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, suggested that Republican charges that Democrats were undermining the war on terror with their criticism of administration policies amounted to an act of desperation.

"The president wanted to go to Iraq in the worst possible way and he did," Pelosi said. "The president is on the ropes."

Bush's chief political adviser, Rove said in a speech Wednesday that "liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Conservatives, he told the New York state Conservative Party just a few miles north of Ground Zero, "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."

Rove said the Democratic Party made the mistake of calling for "moderation and restraint" after the terrorist attacks.

Democrats respond
Democrats were quick to respond -- and in growing numbers.

"Karl Rove should immediately and fully apologize for his remarks or he should resign," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said in a statement. "I hope the president will join me in repudiating these remarks."

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean called on Bush to "show some leadership and unequivocally repudiate Rove's divisive and damaging political rhetoric."

The White House defended Rove's remarks and accused Democrats of engaging in partisan attacks. Rove, said spokesman Scott McClellan, "was talking about the different philosophies and our different approaches when it comes to winning the war on terrorism."

During a Senate hearing on Iraq in which Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other military leaders testified, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, read Rove's statement and urged them to reject the remarks.

"I would hope that you and other members of the administration would immediately repudiate such an insulting comment from a high-ranking official in the president's inner circle," Clinton said.

Earlier in the day, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said New York has had unity since September 11. "To inject politics into this and to defame a large number of people" is outrageous, he said. "It's not what New York and America is all about."

Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-New York, said nearly 3,000 Americans died on September 11 and "we should not dishonor their memory by using that tragic day for political trash talk."

After the attacks
Three days after the terrorist attacks, the Senate voted 98-0 and the House voted 420-1 for a resolution authorizing Bush to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against those responsible for the terrorism. After the votes, Bush said in a statement: "I am gratified that the Congress has united so powerfully by taking this action. It sends a clear message -- our people are together, and we will prevail."

During the 2004 campaign, Bush dismissed the notion of negotiating with terrorists and said, "You can't sit back and hope that somehow therapy will work and they will change their ways."

On Wednesday, Rove also denounced Sen. Dick Durbin's comments comparing interrogation at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp to the methods of Nazis and other repressive regimes. He said the statements have been broadcast throughout the Middle East, putting U.S. troops in greater danger. The Illinois Democrat has since apologized for the remarks.

"No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals," Rove said.

Seven House Republicans also wrote Pelosi saying they were shocked by a statement in which she said the war in Afghanistan was over. "Messages like yours could demoralize our troops and undermine our efforts to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and around the world," they wrote.

Pelosi, who made the comment at a news conference where Democrats called for an investigation into detainee abuses at Guantanamo Bay, said Thursday that she was referring to the campaign to drive the Taliban from power in 2001. Fighting continues, she said, because the administration decided to divert its attention from Afghanistan to the war in Iraq.

From: Variable
To: DrDetroit
Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 12:04 pm
Subject: STFU....LMAO

You can post as many 3rd grade STFU posts as you want...I'll just delete them. No biggie.

DrDetroit wrote:From: Variable
To: DrDetroit
Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 12:04 pm
Subject: STFU....LMAO

You can post as many 3rd grade STFU posts as you want...I'll just delete them. No biggie.

Rack the Emu Lover.

Oh, and to keep this on topic, the White House is doing the politically correct thing. They should not apologize. Neither should Howard Dean or Dick Durbin. People need to thicken their skins or, as Detard would say, STFU.

I would expect an apology if the DNC smeared 50,000,000+ Americans.

I would expect an apology for comparing US troops to Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot.

That you don't demonstrates that you have no respect for critical, reasonable dialogue.

Just for the record, I only deleted Detroit's "STFU" post. The rest was moved to a new thread.

DrDetroit wrote:I would expect an apology if the DNC smeared 50,000,000+ Americans. I would expect an apology for comparing US troops to Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot. That you don't demonstrates that you have no respect for critical, reasonable dialogue.

My point is the same people who think Dean and Durbin were "over the line" are perfectly OK with Rove saying that liberals wanted to "offer therapy and understanding for our attackers".

Either you think Rove, Dean and Durbin were within their rights to use their rhetoric, or you believe all 3 should offer an apology.

B, the problem for you guys is that liberals did call for therapy, i.e., demanded that the US not do anything that could construed as aggressive in response so as not to further offend the sensibilities of Arabs.

So the problem is that what Rove stated was, in fact, true.

On the other hand, Dean and Durbin were just plain stupid and succeeded in slandering tens of millions of Americans and our US troops.

Don't recall anyone from either side suggesting we enroll OBL in "therapy." Last I checked, Bubba tried to Cruise Missile him and his aspirin factory into next week, and Bush was trying to Daisy-Cutter him to the same place. Accusations by either side that try to portray it otherwise are just plain silly.

Caught in another lie...yet righties slurp it up and defend it. I will never understand this. People are so desperate to be on the "winning side," that they throw out all common sense and make excuses for people who are undermining their well-being.

THAT is the true meaning of being a moron.

What "lie," Dins?

Could the therapy part not have been directed at therapy for the American people?

Could Rove not be suggesting that rather than get aggressive, the US should prepare indictments, get Americans the therapy they might need to cope with this attack, and started in with their usual blame America first shit?

Now I know that I read Rove wrong. He was not saying that liberals wanted to offer OBL therapy....

DrDetroit wrote:Could the therapy part not have been directed at therapy for the American people?

"offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."

Was it the word "for" that threw you off, or was it "attackers" that out-Webstered you?

Dinsdale wrote:Caught in another lie...yet righties slurp it up and defend it.

Thanks for proving my point. I guess realizing that government officials are LYING to you might knock the rose-colored glasses off your face, which would inevitably result in your suicide the first time you saw a mirror.

Don't recall anyone from either side suggesting we enroll OBL in "therapy." Last I checked, Bubba tried to Cruise Missile him and his aspirin factory into next week, and Bush was trying to Daisy-Cutter him to the same place. Accusations by either side that try to portray it otherwise are just plain silly.

I realize this is a political forum and all, but I'd like to think we could still poke fun and make a joke now and then.

Ohh, jokes. I get jokes. - Dinsdale

It appears that the word "for" is confusing you, Dins.

To read as you guys are interpreting it, Rove would have to had said that liberals "offer[ed] therapy and understanding to our attackers.

The way Rove said it means that liberals were intent on consoling Americans to cope with the attack and offering to educate us re: our attackers (i.e., they attacked America because our policies have impoverished them, yadda, yadda...).


Again, what "lies" are you referencing here, Dins??

I guess whatever lies they told you in English class, assuming you actually took any.

Think about that....you're struggling with the word "for."

Sad part is, it's not the only single-syllable word you've struggled with this week.

If someone's defense is based upon your interperetation of the language, they're in trouble.

No, I am not struggling with the word "for." I am merely interpreting it differently than you.

The fact is that we are drawing two different meanings from this statement.

BTW - your posting is not perfect either. I just don't stoop to that level to "smack" you for it. The fact that this is your only way to smack me kinda says something about your self-identified elitism...

DrDetroit wrote:The way Rove said it means that liberals were intent on consoling Americans to cope with the attack

Maybe to you. Not to anyone who has a grasp of English, or to rove himself(we'll assume he actually passed an English class).

See if you can follow --

"liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers"


Your whole (wrong) assumption is that Rove is just as ignorant with the English language as you are. News for you -- he didn't get where he is today by being barely-literate. The indictments were to be prepared for our attackers. The "understanding" in this statement was intended for our attackers.

So how, in your mind, did the participle in between two very specificly aimed statements suddenly become about an entirely different subject....in your mind?

Trust me on this one -- Rove has a MUCH better grasp of English than you do. Your whole premise of being a GOP apologist is based on "that's not what he meant....he just used reallyreallyreallyREALLY bad grammar." Might be time to rethink your apologist stance, when you've been reduced to that, huh?

DrDetroit wrote: I am merely interpreting it differently than you.

Since I'm giving you English lessons today....

it's "different FROM."

Not "than"......"from."

Similar TO, different FROM. "To" and "than" are not opposites.

Basic English.....kinda like "for."

At least you've upgraded to screwing up 4 letter words instead of 3 letter words. Keep on reaching for the stars, dude.

Maybe you shouldn't nominate yourself as Rove's grammar spokesman, eh?

Nice "smack," douche.

For means something else when Karl Rove is saying it about liberals.

sin

The Downing Street Memo

Oh fuck....I didn't realize Rove was in England when he said it......my bad.

Than is a conjunction introducing a dependent clause of comparison you dumbass.

For example: The compulsory retirement age is higher now than it was then.

They asserted that Park Place was a better forum than Main Street.

Get it?

English lesson what, motherfucker?

Please un-anal this thread. Thanks.