« Flag Burning | Main | Who's doing the endangering, guys? »

June 23, 2005

Comments

Jami

ask for rove's resignation here:
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?fireturd

Incertus

The petition is nice, but a better move is to contact your congresspeople and demand that they condemn Rove and distance themselves from his remarks and ask for his resignation.

dmeyers

I'm back, I had to check in considering the Durbin/Rove dust up.

Michael, for once I may agree with you. I agree with what you wrote in the UPDATE. You damn straight Rove said what he said to bait the Dems and it worked like a charm. Considering the Black Hole silence of the Dems regarding Durbin it is hillarious to hear the faux outrage expressed by those silent senators.

"Durbin apologized for something much less offensive"... Did I miss something but I did not hear the words, "What I said was wrong and for that I am sorry". I seemed to remember hearing, "If my words offended you I am sorry". If you cannot understand why Durbins words ON THE SENATE FLOOR were so over the top here is a quick test to apply. If Al-Qeada's media operation, Al-Jazera, runs with your words to rally the terrorists then your words were over the top. Real simple.

The reason this was another Rove trap is because the last thing liberals should want is to debate the best way to fight terrorists, either a Law Enforcement approach or a War Fighting approach and this is exactly what will result from him making such comments. How easy it is to find quote after quote supporting his comments. The first is a quote from Nancy Pelosi THIS WEEK. Let's see, does she believe the Global War on Terror should be a "LAW ENFORCEMENT" effort

From this week, Mrs. Pelosi said ""Many of the detainees have been in U.S. custody since October 2001. Why have they been in custody for nearly four years without being charged? Why has so little been done to resolve the status of the detainees?" HEY PELOSI YOU DO NOT CHARGE/PROSECUTE, TERRORISTS CAPTURED ON THE BATTLE FIELD. Or as Rove said, you do not prepare INDICTMENTS. You hold them until the conflit is over. You interrogate them to get information. Question, how many German's captured on the battlefield where ever charged?

Nancy Pelosi's statement is EXACTLY representative of what Rove said.

Ken Mehlman was ready today with a statement supplying all the quotes supporting Rove. Some samples:

LIBERALS URGING RESTRAINT
Immediately After 9/11, MoveOn.Org Petition Urged “Moderation And Restraint” And Use Of “International Judicial Institutions.”

• “We, The Undersigned, Citizens And Residents Of The United States Of America … Appeal To The President Of The United States, George W. Bush … And To All Leaders Internationally To Use Moderation And Restraint In Responding To The Recent Terrorist Attacks Against The United States.” (MoveOn.Org Website, “MoveOn Peace,” http://web.archive.org/web/20021127190638/peace.moveon.org/petition.php3, Posted 9/13/01, Accessed 6/23/05)

• “We Implore The Powers That Be To Use, Wherever Possible, International Judicial Institutions And International Human Rights Law To Bring To Justice Those Responsible For The Attacks, Rather Than The Instruments Of War, Violence Or Destruction.” (MoveOn.Org Website, “MoveOn Peace,” http://web.archive.org/web/20021127190638/peace.moveon.org/petition.php3, Posted 9/13/01, Accessed 6/23/05)

• “[W]e Demand That There Be No Recourse To Nuclear, Chemical Or Biological Weapons, Or Any Weapons Of Indiscriminate Destruction, And Feel That It Is Our Inalienable Human Right To Live In A World Free Of Such Arms.” (MoveOn.Org Website, “MoveOn Peace,” http://web.archive.org/web/20021127190638/peace.moveon.org/petition.php3, Posted 9/13/01, Accessed 6/23/05)

Just After 9/11, Liberal Filmmaker Michael Moore Derided “Terror And Bloodshed” Committed By Americans. (David Brooks, Op-Ed, “All Hail Moore,” The New York Times, 6/26/04)

Michael Moore Said U.S. Should Not Have Removed Taliban After 9/11. Moore: “Likewise, to bomb Afghanistan – I mean, I’ve never understood this, Tim.” (CNBC’s “Tim Russert,” 10/19/02)

Liberal Donor George Soros Claimed America Should Have Treated 9/11 Attacks As Crime, Responded With Police Work. “War is a false and misleading metaphor in the context of combating terrorism. Treating the attacks of September 11 as crimes against humanity would have been more appropriate. Crimes require police work, not military action. To protect against terrorism, you need precautionary measures, awareness, and intelligence gathering – all of which ultimately depend on the support of the populations among which terrorists operate. Imagine for a moment that September 11 had been treated as a crime. We would have pursued Bin Laden in Afghanistan, but we would not have invaded Iraq. Nor would we have our military struggling to perform police work in full combat gear and getting killed in the process.” (George Soros, The Bubble Of American Supremacy, 2004, p. 18)

Yes GEORGE, TREAT THE GWOT AS A CRIMINAL EFFORT.

MORE URGING RESTRAINT
Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) Said The United States Would “Pay Every Single Hour, Ever Single Day” That Bombs Were Dropped In Afghanistan. “‘How much longer does the bombing campaign continue?’ Biden asked during an Oct. 22 speech at the Council on Foreign Relations. ‘We’re going to pay every single hour, every single day it continues.’” (Miles A. Pomper, "Building Anti-Terrorism Coalition Vaults Ahead Of Other Priorities," Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 10/26/01)

• “The Bombing Campaign, [Biden] Said, Reinforced Existing Stereotypes Of The United States As A ‘High-Tech Bully …’” (Miles A. Pomper, "Building Anti-Terrorism Coalition Vaults Ahead Of Other Priorities," Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 10/26/01)

And the Kicker of all Kickers, treat the GWOT as a law enforcement exercise JUST AS ROVE CHARGED:

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA): “[W]ar On Terror Is Far Less Of A Military Operation And Far More Of An Intelligence-Gathering, Law-Enforcement Operation.” (The Iowa Brown & Black Coalition Presidential Forum, Des Moines, IA, 1/11/04)

• Kerry: “[W]hat We’ve Learned Is That The War On Terror Is Much More Of An Intelligence Operation And A Law Enforcement Operation.” (NPR’s “All Things Considered,” 3/19/03)


You see, the facts back up Rove. He suckered the left into debating how best to fight the GWOT and we have reams and reams of quotes supporting his position.


HWL

dmeyers,

my old friend, good to have you back. i was hoping in your hiatus you would have learned how to make an argument. i see that's not the case.

just a few things now. here's a tactical error that you and your republican friends shouldn't make:

If Al-Qeada's media operation, Al-Jazera, runs with your words to rally the terrorists then your words were over the top. Real simple.

It doesn't seem that Durbin's remarks actually have been widely reported on Al Jazera [sic]. look here. Though I note that Condi Rice's remarks on Egypt apparently have gotten wide play. So that makes you wrong on both the factual and theoretical point.

You say in several places that Karl Rove said that Dems view the "GWOT" as a law enforcement operation. I don't know, because I didn't hear all of his remarks. But if he did that's certainly not what Dems are mad about it. It's the stuff about the the "offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." As for the stuff about indictments, well, if you don't want terrorists indicted, you must not be very smart. Personally, I don't want them running around the streets. I note that both of Bush's attorney generals have arrested numerous members of terrorist cells. Sorry to hear you're against the law enforcement process.

Though of course I didn't talk about ANY of that stuff in my post, which you would know if, *sigh*, you had read it. Please read my posts, dmeyers. Please. Don't send me your republican press releases.

Now, if you can show me some evidence for how it is that Karl Rove knows what the motivations of liberals are, I'll consider it. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

If you really think that what Karl Rove said is within the bounds of civil political discourse, well, I don't want to be a part of that discourse. Let's not mince words here. Karl Rove said very clearly that putting our troops in greater danger was what motivates liberals. Given that I'm a liberal, I take offense to that. And if you agree with him, that I and all liberals have that as our motivation, I truly have nothing to say to you.

If you do choose to respond, in which of course you'll tell me that what Karl Rove said about liberals' motivations is inappropriate, please be sure to address the points made in the post, not what you feel like talking about.

the exile

Rove dropped this bomb deliberately, and we are fighting on his home court if this becomes a huge thing. He gets to rally the dmeyerses in the world and, at least he hopes, the press will foster a huge he-said-she-said that will confuse people and distract from all the real things going wrong (approval ratings, war in Iraq, Downing Street memo, possible new torture photos?, etc.). That said, I think we should and must fight this one because I think Rove miscalculated.

Rove's key motive is to start now fixing the blame on Democrats for the loss of Iraq and for any possible new terrorist attack on the US that might occur. This is the key battle of our age, and we need to fight it with vigor and unity; we can't lose it by default.

In the wake of September 11, the vote to empower Bush to respond was 100-0 in the Senate and had just one dissenting vote in the House. In making that vote, democrats knew they were authorizing a MILITARY response. This point needs to be repeated so that the noise machine does not make people forget it. 1 Dissenting vote. 1.

Bush had all the authority he needed, and he had a unified country behind him, with a level of patriotic support from Democrats that a President Gore NEVER would have received from Republicans.
If a President Gore had done every single thing exactly the same as Bush has, what do you think dmeyers would be saying? Dmeyers, look into your soul and ask yourself that question, and don't fucking lie.

With that mandate, after a decent start in Afghanistan which won Bush lots of Democratic kudos, Bush decided to embark on the most incompetent and disastrous adventure in American foreign policy history. Whether or not the idea was right or wrong, noble or corrupt (I have my opinions, others have theirs), the fact that the Iraq war plan failed to achieve its objectives, and in the process has weakened our military, is now hardly in dispute by any honest thinking person.

Now Bush et al want to blame liberals for their collosal failure. Bush has always had other people to blame for his fuckups. They might actually succeed in transferring the blame to us. We can't let them.

Forget whiny calls to Rove to apologize. We should be putting moderate Republicans in the spotlight, forcing them to say whether they agree that Democrats are traitors who hate the troops. But mostly, the response of every elected democratic official in the country should be this: "Karl Rove just called me a traitor. I dare him to say that right to my face. I'll be on the Mall at noon tomorrow, and I hope he knows how to use his fists."

dmeyers

"As for the stuff about indictments, well, if you don't want terrorists indicted, you must not be very smart. Personally, I don't want them running around the streets. I note that both of Bush's attorney generals have arrested numerous members of terrorist cells. Sorry to hear you're against the law enforcement process. "

The terrorists captured on the battle field or overseas I do not want indicted and moved into our court system. They were captured on the battlefield and should be considered enemy combatants and interrogated. Once you bring them into the federal court system all interogation must end. Pelosi was the one saying those held at Gitmo should be charged. No, they should be held and interrogated.

what I found hillarious about all the democrat senators whining was Rove made comments about liberals, I believe mentioning MoveOn.org or the petition they circulated. All of a sudden all these supposed centrist, moderate Senator's start to whine. It was clear Rove was talking about liberals thus why was Hillary so offended? I thought she was a moderate and not a liberal.

Once again Rove baited the left and started a dust up regarding the issue of what is the best way to fight the GWOT. Strategically, this is not the issue the Dems should want to be fighting over

HWL

dmeyers,

once again, you don't address the subject of my post. nor do you do as i ask, and condemn rove's remarks. i'll ask you one more time; and this is the last time.

do you believe that it is the motive of liberals to put troops in danger, as karl rove said? because i am a liberal, and so if you agree with what karl said, you must think i am a traitor. furthermore, you should tell us if you think that is appropriate to contemporary political discourse and whether rove should apologize or not. this is specifically about rove's speculation about the motives of liberals.

if you agree with rove and/or think his remarks are appropriate, we can't have a civilized dialogue, and i'd ask you to go away. thanks.

HWL

one more thing, dmeyers:

They were captured on the battlefield and should be considered enemy combatants and interrogated.

why do you hate the Geneva Conventions? I know you don't trust anything that wasn't in the republican party platform, I remind you that treaties to which the US is signatory have the force of US law as well. Let me say that again, louder this time: "U.S. LAW AS WELL." Why, in short, do you hate the rule of law, dmeyers? Seriously, what's your answer to that? Why do you hold the judicial system of this country in so much contempt that you are willing to support something unconstitutional and illegal?

Cheryl
Why do you hold the judicial system of this country in so much contempt that you are willing to support something unconstitutional and illegal?

Because he is a fucking fanatic. Duh.

I do not think that Rove should resign. I think he should be drawn and quartered.

There, that's the kind of thing the goofs at new republic would post. Now I feel much better. Nothing like a good hissy fit to clear your right-wing fanatical sinuses.

dmeyers

Exile, you are such a sucker. Your response is exactly the response Rove wanted to stir up.

I dare you, read every word of Rove's speech and see if you find the word Democrat. It is not there. He was slamming Liberals. Now, if you want to equate all Democrats with Liberals be my guess. Rove purposely said Liberals and specifically referred to MoveOn.org as one of the groups of Liberals.

You are the one that just equated Democrats with the word Liberal by saying, "But mostly, the response of every elected democratic official in the country should be this: "Karl Rove just called me a traitor. I dare him to say that right to my face. I'll be on the Mall at noon tomorrow, and I hope he knows how to use his fists."

So my question is why would democrats be all offended when Rove criticized Liberals? Are the the same???

The problem the Dems have is the fringe wing, the far left groups, MoveOn.org to be specific and George Soros. MoveOn.org is very, very vocal and influential within the Dem. party even though they would be considered far left and their views have support of a very small % of the American electorate. The problem is that so many "so called" moderate Democrats bow at the alter of MoveOn.org sponsored events, including Hillary Rodham Clinton who recently spoke at a MoveOn.org event.

George Soros is another way far lefty but the Democrats are addicted to his money. Funny how it is a far lefty that is the single biggest contributor of soft money. I thought you lefties were against soft money.

The Dems lose if they are linked to the far left fringe groups like MoveOn.org and George Soros. What Rove did was set the trap by blasting the extreme lefty groups and sure enough the Dems went for the bait and threw themselves into the camp with MoveOn.org and Soros.

EXCILE, YOU ARE THE PERFECT EXAMPLE OF FALLING FOR THE TRAP.

dmeyers

HWL,

Rove's speech covered many subjects and the main thrust of his speech, to a Conservative organization, was to compare and contrast his view of the differences between Liberals and Conservatives. He mentioned many public policies, with the approach to fighting the GWOT being one of the issues.

The one point I do not agree with Rove was when he said the sentence about the "motives" of liberals. I always try to shy away from discussing motives, which does not mean that motives do not ever creep into my posts but when I do feel free to slap me down over it. I believe one of the problems with the left is they often times inject what they believe the "motives" are from those on the right when their simply is a disagreement in approach. Bringing up someone's motive has not place in political policy debates and Rove made an error in doing it. He should not have raised the issue of motive and should take it back.

I think he could have stuck to the point that certain words do play into the hands of our enemy and thus can harm our troops. I do think in times of war that public officials have to watch the way they criticize the war effort because that criticism can be seen to give aid and comfort to the enemy.

I would not question Durbin's motive of being to harm our soldiers but I would say his comments did have a negative effect on our soldiers and put them in additional harms way.

Bet you didn't think I would blast Rove's attacking the motives of the liberals did you??

Everytime the right/conservatives are called bigots, homophobes, racitsts because of the policy approach we take our motives are being questioned instead of the left debating the policy approach.

dmeyers

why do you hate the Geneva Conventions?

That is the main question isn't it? The Geneva Convention clearly spells out the definition of prisoners of war and most everyone agrees that terrorists associated with Al Qaeda or any other terrorists organization, not alligned with a Country, do not meet the criteria of POW's. The fall under the classification of enemy combatants. Enemy combatants are not thus accorded POW status and treatment under the Geneva Convention.

So the main issue is by what standard are enemy combatants, not covered by the Geneva Convention, to be held and treated?

If I understand you correctly, you believe the enemy combatant/terrorists held at Gitmo should be afforded Geneva Convention protection. If that is true then ALL INTEROGATION is not allowed. No interrogation is allowed for POWs. I would encourage the left to push for POW treatment of the terrorists at Gitmo because you would then be saying that we would not be allowed to interrogate them... That will fly real well with the American people.

Cheryl

Here we see a classic case of Fox Syndrome. dmeyers appears in all honesty to be sincere in his remarks. We must therefore conclude that he is delusional.

Until dmeyers unplugs himself from right-wing media he will continue in his delusions. If you doubt that right-wing media induces delusions, read THE PIPA/KNOWLEDGE NETWORKS POLL
THE AMERICAN PUBLIC ON INTERNATIONAL ISSUES
MISPERCEPTIONS, THE MEDIA
AND THE IRAQ WAR

If Al-Qeada's media operation, Al-Jazera, runs with your words to rally the terrorists then your words were over the top. Real simple.

dmeyers, please quote the original source for your claim that Al-Qaeda funds, directs, or otherwise has any control over Al Jazeera, or vice-versa?

So my question is why would democrats be all offended when Rove criticized Liberals? Are the the same???

I am not aware that all democrats were offended. I am sure that some agreed with Rove. In some ways, even I agree with Rove, but not for the reasons he would want me to.

dmeyers, my question to you is how many Republicans were offended by Rove's remarks? Were you offended? I am not even a Democrat or even a liberal but I am still offended when anyone calls liberals traitors. Liberals are not traitors. This is cognitive distortion, a clinical sign of a mental disorder, calling liberals traitors.

The problem the Dems have is the fringe wing, the far left groups, MoveOn.org to be specific and George Soros. MoveOn.org is very, very vocal and influential within the Dem. party even though they would be considered far left and their views have support of a very small % of the American electorate.

Unfortunately, this is another cognitive distortion. If you wish to call me a radical leftist, please do so; I regularly listen to Pacifica radio and I participate in boycotts, things that most liberals do not do. I never turn on any of the commercial news, something that most liberals and democrats do regularly. I also regularly read progressive and leftist material and practice ancient pagan religious traditions, again something that most liberals and demofarts shy away from.

Please, feel free to ridicule me as being on the far left fringe all you want, but spare me nausea and refrain from calling moveon a far left fringe group. That bunch of namby-pamby spineless liberals would not recognize a leftist if she bit them on the ass, and neither would you.

Everyone, take note. The problem with dmeyers is that my remarks will not impinge on his consciousness. He might throw a stone or two at me if he is feeling frisky, but he will not address or even acknowledge the substance of what I am saying. Indeed, dmeyers has regularly ignored my posts here, for one very simple reason.

What I say does not compute in his frame of reference. To dmeyers, all liberals are on the extreme, and all moderates are too. His brain is currently incapable of processing the information that indicates otherwise. Whenever facts arise that cause cognitive dissonance with his paradigm, dmeyers ignores the facts, just as he regularly ignores the substance of what Michael posts.

It is a form of self-preservation. dmeyers runs his life based on his beliefs, not based on facts. This is the difference between the faith-based community and the reality-based community. The faith-based community begins with a belief, as my conservative Muslim friend and colleague puts it an axiom, something that is generally accepted by the group to be a fact without proof.

From this so-called 'fact' springs a whole river of half-truths, quarter-truths, and outright lies to protect the core belief. In this case the core belief is that being a strong, tough person is better than being flexible. Immediately, the obvious fact that it is necessary to be tough in some ways and flexible in others becomes compromised by the belief that flexibility is a sign of weakness. This compromised belief system then immediately becomes a liability, since it effectively dismantles half of the full range of motion that is available, much in the same way that severing a tendon on one side of a joint will make it impossible to use the joint normally since the force of opposition that the full range of motion depends upon is now gone.

In Latin America, the women endearingly refer to this trait as 'machismo', while they fetch their cheating chauvinistic husbands another beer.

The end result of this 'toughness' paradigm is rigidity. Pumped on steroids and beefed up to the max, the belief system becomes muscle-bound as our grossly overfed military-industrial complex demonstrates. It springs directly from the patriarchal religions that subverted and conquered the matrilineal religions of old. Anyone who has ever eaten a tough old rooster from a real farm knows just how tough they can be. Shoe leather is preferable. Testosterone has a way of turning muscle into stone. Now you know why men do not ask for directions. Testosterone tends to do the same thing to brains.

Now, just to keep things straight, it is actually good to have some tough men around. They come in handy, especially when we are under attack. Unfortunately they are better at gunning down marauding conquerors than they are at forming sane policy, yet by virtue of their toughness (and the inflexibility that goes with it) they tend to force the rest of civilization to pirouette around their own pet agendas, like fetching their beer for them while the polar ice caps melt.

Anyway, to get back to the main point, the reason that dmeyers ignores the substance of the debate and concentrates on the radical fringe (or invents it if it is not there) is that the substance of the remarks Michael and Heather post generate cognitive dissonance with the Fox world view. Michael and Heather concentrate on observable, verifiable facts, supported by court precedent, science, and common sense. Facts have a nasty habit of compromising beliefs. To the faith-based community, nothing is more frightening than an inconvenient fact.

You see, if any single core belief of a reality-based community is called into question, the person, being flexible, re-aligns the belief system to match the facts, or if the facts smell funny the reality-based community proves the facts to be in error through an extensive process of verification. This is what is known in more rigorous forums as 'science', that mental discipline of flexibility i.e. intellectual yoga that Clinton and Gore were so facile with but which completely eludes small decorative greenery.

In contrast, if any single core belief of a faith-based community is called into question, there is no flexibility and no pretense of re-alignment of the belief system. The fact must be disregarded. If it will not go away, the messenger delivering the fact must be trounced via character assassination, which is exactly what Rove is trying to do with his attacks on them smarmy libruls who keep pointing out the inconvenient parallels between the far christian right and nazis.

For you see, in the faith-based community, all good people are tough: tough love for the kids, tough prison time for the criminals, tough economic order for the (lazy) poor, and tough torture for the terrorists. End of story. We are better because we are tough, and nothing is too tough even if we end up torturing people to death. Go team! Gime a 'T'! Gimme a 'U'! Gimme an 'F". Whaddya got? ROVE!

Love them biceps. Here's your beer dear.

The key to understanding cognitive dissonance is that it is unpleasant to experience. The stronger and more rigid the belief system, the more intense the dissonance that arises when challenged with facts and the greater the discomfort. You really cannot blame dmeyers for being wilfully blind. He is just avoiding pain, poor thing. As anyone who has ever stretched a tight muscle too far knows, the result can be disastrous.

The comments to this entry are closed.