Should presidential advisor Karl Rove apologise for remarks he made on Thursday, June 23, at the Conservative Party fundraiser in Middletonwn, New York?

"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 to our attackers," said Rove.

http://premium.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/23/rove.speech.ap/

I'm of two minds on the matter.

Some Democrats are calling for Rove to apologise or resign.  I'd love to see him apologise, but that would only be a good start.  A dream come true would be Rove's resignation, but Rove isn't the man who should resign.  His boss is!

If no Democrats made a stink about Rove's remarks, I wouldn't have thought twice about them.  Of all Rove's misdeeds, this doesn't even warrant a dishonorable mention.  It is rather strange that Dems are only now going after Rove specificall.  When I heard Rove's moronic cconservative vs. liberal comparison, I thought, "But that's just the kind of azzwhole Karl Rove is."  His rhetoric is as glib and specious as right-wing jagoffs like Ann Coulter and P.J. O'Rourke.  It's not what he says at a fascist rally in Middletown that makes Rove so dangerous.  It's that Rove is the amoral director of the Bush strategy and propaganda team.  Rove's role in extra-legal political dirty tricks are what Dems need to investigate.  If every right-winger had to apologise for slanderous rhetoric, they'd be too busy apologising to get anything done!  And that would be a good thing, come to think of it!
::)

Well, if the liberals in a "position of political authority" are prepared to start apologizing for their slanderous remarks against republicans, then I'd say sure, Rove should apologize.

Otherwise, I think he should only apologize if he truly regrets saying what he did.  Otherwise it's just words and is meaningless.

As I often am reminded by liberals, this is America, the land of civil rights.  One of these "rights" is free speech.

There have been remarks made on both sides of the aisle. The difference is, the Reps NEVER appoligize and the Dems seem to back down. The only Dem who isn't backing down is Howard Dean. It really gets me when the Reps keep saying that Dems makes nasty remarks about them. (There was a political commercial I saw yesterday that said that very thing and of course they didn't mention all the nasty things that the Reps said about the Dems.)

It seems to me that Reps started this vicitious attack campaign. I say that the Dems have to fight fire with fire and NOT back down. I know it seems that they have to stoop to that level but I do believe that the Dems have to start playing hardball.





Cat

Rove isn't the man who should resign.  His boss is!

Satan? Resign?...  ;D

Im not what was said there that called for an apology.  As far as I could tell, with the liberals I was talking to, they were saying that we should give the terrorists therapy and try to understand them.  Many of them said that we should let them bomb us again.  now, I see nothing untruthful about Rove's statements. 


But what I love most is how all of those liberals changed their minds when the Iraqi war started saying that they agreed with attacking Afghanistan but not the Iraqi war. 

There have been remarks made on both sides of the aisle. The difference is, the Reps NEVER appoligize and the Dems seem to back down. The only Dem who isn't backing down is Howard Dean. It really gets me when the Reps keep saying that Dems makes nasty remarks about them. (There was a political commercial I saw yesterday that said that very thing and of course they didn't mention all the nasty things that the Reps said about the Dems.)

It seems to me that Reps started this vicitious attack campaign. I say that the Dems have to fight fire with fire and NOT back down. I know it seems that they have to stoop to that level but I do believe that the Dems have to start playing hardball.





Cat


Well, as you probably know in your personal life as well as in the land of politics, an apology that is given because it was "demanded" or "called for" by others is not a real apology anyway.  Phony apologies are annoying.

I do believe that liberals are too easy on terrorists as well as domestic criminals.  IF I ever apologize for saying that, it will be if somehow I have a complete change of heart (not likely, but you never know).

I may apologize for the fact that my statements offend someone, but I will not retract or apologize for my statements themselves unless I personally feel I was wrong, regardless of how much pressure I get.

Well, as you probably know in your personal life as well as in the land of politics, an apology that is given because it was "demanded" or "called for" by others is not a real apology anyway.  Phony apologies are annoying.

I do believe that liberals are too easy on terrorists as well as domestic criminals.  IF I ever apologize for saying that, it will be if somehow I have a complete change of heart (not likely, but you never know).

I may apologize for the fact that my statements offend someone, but I will not retract or apologize for my statements themselves unless I personally feel I was wrong, regardless of how much pressure I get.


You are right that many apoligies are phony. It just really bothers me that one political party attacks all the time without any thought (like telling a senator to f*** off on the Senate floor) while another party calling a spade a spade backs down because of political pressure. I really think that the Dems need to find their b@lls.




Cat

Im not what was said there that called for an apology.  As far as I could tell, with the liberals I was talking to, they were saying that we should give the terrorists therapy and try to understand them.  Many of them said that we should let them bomb us again.  now, I see nothing untruthful about Rove's statements. 


But what I love most is how all of those liberals changed their minds when the Iraqi war started saying that they agreed with attacking Afghanistan but not the Iraqi war. 


I'm not sure which "liberals" you were talking to, but none that I know never said anything like that.  What I did hear, and what I agree with, is that in order to really stop terrorism, we need to understand its origins and attack its root cause.  Knee-jerk reactions aren't going to to that.  So on balance I don't believe that either your statement or that of "Bush's Brian" are in anyt way accurate, and they imply that liberals are unpatriotic.  That is an insult.  Further, all the "liberals" I know did favor the overthrow of the Taliban, and many were calling for it BEFORE 9/11 because of its human rights record, especially with regard to women.


Well, as you probably know in your personal life as well as in the land of politics, an apology that is given because it was "demanded" or "called for" by others is not a real apology anyway. Phony apologies are annoying.

I do believe that liberals are too easy on terrorists as well as domestic criminals. IF I ever apologize for saying that, it will be if somehow I have a complete change of heart (not likely, but you never know).

I may apologize for the fact that my statements offend someone, but I will not retract or apologize for my statements themselves unless I personally feel I was wrong, regardless of how much pressure I get.


Well, in the old days, a failure to apologize for an afront to someone's honor lead to a duel, but I agree, you should not apologize for your opinions, your interpretation of facts, but only for errors of fact or gratuitous insults.

I'm not sure what you mean by "too easy on terrorists...".  Again, the liberals I know want to see them got, gotten, gone.  In that regard, Why is Osama still on the lose and how about that Al Zirqowi guy, or Mullah Omar?  Seems we keep netting the little fisk, but the sharks keep getting away.  What should we think?  Is this sheer incompetance and stupidity (the Keystone Cops) or is there something else at work.  As to domestic crime, it was a Republican governor (of Ill) who decared a moritorium on executions because too many on death row were being exhonorated by DNA evidance.  Seem to me that the conservative attitude is "we don't care if the suspect is actuall guilty, as long as someone pays for the crime" and the liberal/left attitude is that only the guilty should be deprived of their freedom/lives.  Again, a knee-jerk reaction vrs a thoughtful one.  But then, you pays your money and you takes your choice.

Oh, and I distinguish between "liberal" and "Left" because there are clear and important destinctions.  I am probably the only "leftist" on this board, and I AM NOT a liberal.

Here we go again.  Democrats showing their hypocrisy again.  Just a few weeks ago Illinois democratic senator Durbin makes a comparison between the American military and Nazis and Stalin's hitmen and democrats are silent.  Then comes along Karl Rove, and says something not nearly as outrageous and the same democrats that had nothing to say about Durbin's remarks sure have a lot to say about what Karl Rove said.

Did anyone see American Dad with Karl Rove last week?

The Republicans have realized in the last two elections, that to win all they need is to barely get above 50% of the vote, and then just a little bit more, then they win.

For this reason, it is in the Republicans best intrests to keep the nation divied, conservatives verses liberals, red states versus blue states, men versus women, staight versus gay, South verses North, rich versus poor, rednecks versus hippies.  A united America, would be the last things the Republicans want.

Rove was just feeding into that stratagey he helped create with the remarks he made.  Rove was appealing to his right wing base with this message, and along the way he enflamed both sides.  

Rove, as the evil stratetgist that he is, realizes that the Bush' presidency is crumbling.  Public opinion is turning against the war in Iraq, their Social Security pirate-ization attempts are dead, and the Chimps' approval ratings are in a free fall.

What better way to change the subject than to attack the patriotism of those who do not support this administation?  Rove knows that this strategy buys him some time because he know he can always play the Repbulican voters like a harp from hell.

Here we go again.  Democrats showing their hypocrisy again.  Just a few weeks ago Illinois democratic senator Durbin makes a comparison between the American military and Nazis and Stalin's hitmen and democrats are silent.  Then comes along Karl Rove, and says something not nearly as outrageous and the same democrats that had nothing to say about Durbin's remarks sure have a lot to say about what Karl Rove said.

Durbin did not compare the American military to Nazis.
Durbin did not say Guantanamo was like a nazi concentration camp.
Durbin did say some of the coercive tactics employed at Guantanamo were nazi-like.

Rove implied Democratic policy makers wanted to coddle our attackers.  No Democrat politician said such a thing.  Support for the war in Afghanistan was universal.   It was also a good idea to track down the individual terrorists and bring them to justice as opposed to attacking the entire country of Iraq that had nothing to do with the 9/11 massacres..

It's also a good idea to "understand" those who hate you and why they hate you, rather than just blindly hating them back.  You can hate your enemy.  Most of us do, though Jesus doesn't endorse it.  If you go out and kill those who hate you without understanding why they hate you, you'll only create more of the same kind of enemy and have to go out and kill all over again.
Politicians such and Dennis Kucinich and newspapers such as the "Village Voice" did not suggest we should sentence the Taliban to community service and anger management classes. 

The REAL reason the "understanding" camp is so hated by the Right is it leads to QUESTIONS.  If you don't accept the idiotic proclamation of  Bush that "our enemies are evil and the hate us for our freedom," you might start to look at American foreign policy over the past century.  If you "understand" that the American military-petroleum-industrial complex has always been up to its elbows in covert international violence and paramilitary oppression, you might demand that American corporations and American politicians change their behavior as well.  We can't have that, now can we?

It is much better for greedy interests from Chiquita Banana to ExxonMobil for you, Mrs. and Mrs. America, to say "We're good, they're evil, let's go kill 'em all!"  Better for Chiquita and Exxon, but not for you and your children who have to pay for the empire and die in its wars.
That's really what Karl Rove was getting at.  Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

Right now, FOX News and Newt Gingrich are presenting a special on "American Gangs."  Yet another scapegoat.  Blame poor black and brown people for "international terrorism."  Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!  I am the Great and Powerful Dubya!

http://times.cybercatholics.com/images/man_behind_curtain_180.jpg

I'm not sure what you mean by "too easy on terrorists...".  Again, the liberals I know want to see them got, gotten, gone. 


If I could only quote posts from other threads, I could have a field day answering that question just from this board alone.   In the WWI&WWII/Iraq thread, someone said they had no problem with the insurgents car bombing our troops as they were protecting their country from an illegal invasion.  (I would have a problem with that statement even if it were true.  Although in truth, it is foreign insurgents attacking Americans AND Iraqis.)

Another reason I say they are too easy on terrorists is Clinton's failure to act when we were attacked THREE TIMES.

Then all this fuss about Guantanamo... and being so worried about the terrorist's rights.

I just feel like many liberals express their opinions as "big bad America violating the poor little terrorist" and I get tired of it.

Now, on the other side of the coin.. some of you (particularly Maxwell Smart, Don Carlos & Cat) seem to be very well educated on the subjects you discuss, definitely more so than I am.  And I'm sure you get irritated when people say the Iraqis are just defending themselves by "car bombing" us.  Because you guys know that most of them aren't even Iraqis at all... and the Iraqis too are their victims.  Sure it's a good-sounding way to bash Bush, but it's just not true.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems the insurgents methods of attack are pretty "juvenile" in comparison to the rest of the world.  They are not high-tech, or requiring expensive equipment.  Is it unthinkable to request that Americans, given the high-tech military, billions of dollars being spent on the war, should be able to EASILY defend these attacks without even having to be on the offense?  Let the car bombers drive up to our troops, detonate the bomb, and die... as our troops look at each other and say "Was that supposed to hurt?"  This way, WE wouldn't have to kill ANYONE... we could just sit back and watch them commit suicide.  But you know there are certain liberals who would STILL blame America for the deaths of the insurgents.  

If I could only quote posts from other threads, I could have a field day answering that question just from this board alone.   In the WWI&WWII/Iraq thread, someone said they had no problem with the insurgents car bombing our troops as they were protecting their country from an illegal invasion.  (I would have a problem with that statement even if it were true.  Although in truth, it is foreign insurgents attacking Americans AND Iraqis.)

Another reason I say they are too easy on terrorists is Clinton's failure to act when we were attacked THREE TIMES.

Then all this fuss about Guantanamo... and being so worried about the terrorist's rights.

I just feel like many liberals express their opinions as "big bad America violating the poor little terrorist" and I get tired of it.

Now, on the other side of the coin.. some of you (particularly Maxwell Smart, Don Carlos & Cat) seem to be very well educated on the subjects you discuss, definitely more so than I am.  And I'm sure you get irritated when people say the Iraqis are just defending themselves by "car bombing" us.  Because you guys know that most of them aren't even Iraqis at all... and the Iraqis too are their victims.  Sure it's a good-sounding way to bash Bush, but it's just not true.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems the insurgents methods of attack are pretty "juvenile" in comparison to the rest of the world.  They are not high-tech, or requiring expensive equipment.  Is it unthinkable to request that Americans, given the high-tech military, billions of dollars being spent on the war, should be able to EASILY defend these attacks without even having to be on the offense?  Let the car bombers drive up to our troops, detonate the bomb, and die... as our troops look at each other and say "Was that supposed to hurt?"  This way, WE wouldn't have to kill ANYONE... we could just sit back and watch them commit suicide.  But you know there are certain liberals who would STILL blame America for the deaths of the insurgents.  



Oh, man, go tell it to Don Rumsfeld.  You should go work for the American Enterprise Institute.  You sound about as bright as most of them! 

Is car bombing juvenile because it is not "high tech"?  Are you more mature because you kill fifty people with the latest gadget from the Pentagon rather than killing fifty people with an old Jeep packed with dynamite?  Does war represent the more primitive or the more evolved side of humanity?

Oh, man, go tell it to Don Rumsfeld.  You should go work for the American Enterprise Institute.  You sound about as bright as most of them! 

Is car bombing juvenile because it is not "high tech"?  Are you more mature because you kill fifty people with the latest gadget from the Pentagon rather than killing fifty people with an old Jeep packed with dynamite?  Does war represent the more primitive or the more evolved side of humanity?


This is not a matter of MATURITY!!  This is a matter of how difficult it should be to PROTECT OUR TROOPS from these attacks WITHOUT our troops having to fight back!

The only way to keep troops safe is keep them away from fighting. Which means they can't be where they are not wanted. Physical fighting is not safe, and as more technologically advanced weapons are used it will become increasingly dangerous. Asking for our troops to be safe without fighting back is like playing a baseball game where only the home team gets to bat. And we're not the home team anyway.

Rove implied Democratic policy makers wanted to coddle our attackers.  No Democrat politician said such a thing.  Support for the war in Afghanistan was universal

The vote for war in Afghanistan was 400-something to one.  I don't know who that one congressmen was, but I have a feeling he/she is a democrat.

The vote for war in Afghanistan was 400-something to one.  I don't know who that one congressmen was, but I have a feeling he/she is a democrat.

You bet!  It was Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA, 9th district), and God bless her courage and bravery.  Even though I personally thought military action was necessary in Afghanistan, I have utmost respect for Rep. Lee for standing up for her principles.  After all, what's the point of having a vote if you can't vote contrary to popularity?  Piling on for approval doesn't take any guts!
If I had a daughter, I might name her Barbara Lee.
8)

http://www.house.gov/lee/

Of course, your right-wing brethren who talk ad nauseam about "freedom," "liberty," and "individual rights," were the ones calling Lee "traitor" and sending her death threats!
::)

Here we go again.  Democrats showing their hypocrisy again.  Just a few weeks ago Illinois democratic senator Durbin makes a comparison between the American military and Nazis and Stalin's hitmen and democrats are silent.  Then comes along Karl Rove, and says something not nearly as outrageous and the same democrats that had nothing to say about Durbin's remarks sure have a lot to say about what Karl Rove said.


Sorry, but the FIB report cited by Durbin could VERY WELL have been a description of Nazi interogation techniques, or those used by any rogue state you want to mention.  If we, as a nation, want to claim the moral high ground, than we need toearn that position, not by torturing our enemis, certainly.  We might also want to stop teaching others the most effective techiques, as we HAVE DONE in the pasty - not that those are hard to figure out.  Electrodes to the genitals, fire and ice, the barrel, the back-lift, we know - and at the very least, have taught and encouraged the use of all of them and more.

NOT IN MY NAME

Stop the torture, stop the hypocracy, stop the misdirection.  Durbin was right, and should not have backed down.

I'm not sure which "liberals" you were talking to, but none that I know never said anything like that.  What I did hear, and what I agree with, is that in order to really stop terrorism, we need to understand its origins and attack its root cause.  Knee-jerk reactions aren't going to to that.  So on balance I don't believe that either your statement or that of "Bush's Brian" are in anyt way accurate, and they imply that liberals are unpatriotic.  That is an insult.  Further, all the "liberals" I know did favor the overthrow of the Taliban, and many were calling for it BEFORE 9/11 because of its human rights record, especially with regard to women.




when 9/11 happened I was a senior in high school.  Right after it all of the self-proclaimed liberals in the school started crying the exact things I said.  A year later when I went to college, and the Iraqi War had yet to start the liberals there were still claiming those exact things.  THings only changed and everyone seemed to forget when the Iraqi War started. 

I agree.  Being in IL, this has been story numero uno on the news almost every day since it happened.

Now, this may label me as a liberal but there IS something called the "Geneva Convention" that covers how POWs can/cannot be treated.  It seems to me that some of the things occurring down in Gitmo HAVE violated the GC.



But if other nations violate the Geneva Convention, you can bet your @$$ that the U.S. will be yelling on top of their lungs.




Cat

when 9/11 happened I was a senior in high school.  Right after it all of the self-proclaimed liberals in the school started crying the exact things I said.  A year later when I went to college, and the Iraqi War had yet to start the liberals there were still claiming those exact things.  THings only changed and everyone seemed to forget when the Iraqi War started. 


wow, that's amazing.  because until Rove said it last week, I had never seen that opinion expressed anywhere in print, or by anyone I know, and I live in "liberal-land" Massachusetts.  It's a Republican tatic, tried and true. Just look up Regan's welfare mother statement from the mid-80s to see history repeat itself.

Almost every single Democrat voted for the war resolutions, so his claim that "Democrats" had made this statement, still rings very, very hollow to me.  I guess if you look hard enough though, you can find a looney far enough to the left that belongs to the party that made this statement.  Of course that's a far cry from saying "Democrats" (inplying a part position) and saying "someone on the left said". 

It's a typical Rove tatic.  Paint all your opponents with the same broad brush, in order to negate all their opinions. 

Cheney is now slandering Senator Chuck Hagel, by stating that Hagel opposed the war in Afghanistan.  Not only is Hagel a Republican, but the vote for war in Afghanistan had no dissent votes.  Not sure how voting for the war can be considered dissent.  I'm sure this will get even less notice than the "Nazi" comments two weeks ago.

wow, that's amazing.  because until Rove said it last week, I had never seen that opinion expressed anywhere in print, or by anyone I know, and I live in "liberal-land" Massachusetts.  It's a Republican tatic, tried and true. Just look up Regan's welfare mother statement from the mid-80s to see history repeat itself.

Almost every single Democrat voted for the war resolutions, so his claim that "Democrats" had made this statement, still rings very, very hollow to me.  I guess if you look hard enough though, you can find a looney far enough to the left that belongs to the party that made this statement.  Of course that's a far cry from saying "Democrats" (inplying a part position) and saying "someone on the left said". 

It's a typical Rove tatic.  Paint all your opponents with the same broad brush, in order to negate all their opinions. 

well it happened where I was.  Cohorts of mine while in high school and college were quite liberal.  And on a college campus you can find a group to support any point of view.  Just last semester an Anarchy club was formed on campus...now, of course this is completely hypocritical, considering that they are an anarchy club and they went through the Student Government system to form, but alright. 


Cheney is now slandering Senator Chuck Hagel, by stating that Hagel opposed the war in Afghanistan.  Not only is Hagel a Republican, but the vote for war in Afghanistan had no dissent votes.  Not sure how voting for the war can be considered dissent.  I'm sure this will get even less notice than the "Nazi" comments two weeks ago.


there was one dissenter....Representitive Barbara Lee from CA

well it happened where I was.  Cohorts of mine while in high school and college were quite liberal.  And on a college campus you can find a group to support any point of view.  Just last semester an Anarchy club was formed on campus...now, of course this is completely hypocritical, considering that they are an anarchy club and they went through the Student Government system to form, but alright. 

so I guess Karl Rove has been gettings his opinion of the Democrats stance on issues from High School students?  Certainly there has to be a source he can claim on this.  Hasn't Rush begun parading one yet?  He usually just makes crap up, so I'm sure he can at least do that.


there was one dissenter....Representitive Barbara Lee from CA


wow!  That must mean all the Democrats wanted counseling.  I guess Karl is vindicated in his statements after all.  Did she offer to buy the terrorists flowers? Oh wait, she urged restraint.  The monster!

when 9/11 happened I was a senior in high school.  Right after it all of the self-proclaimed liberals in the school started crying the exact things I said.  A year later when I went to college, and the Iraqi War had yet to start the liberals there were still claiming those exact things.  THings only changed and everyone seemed to forget when the Iraqi War started. 


So a few misguided high school students represent "liberals" in general, assuming that you heard them right.  The fact remains that what Durbin said was absolutely ture, according to the FBI investigation he cited, and killing the messanger did not negate the message.


I agree. Being in IL, this has been story numero uno on the news almost every day since it happened.

Now, this may label me as a liberal but there IS something called the "Geneva Convention" that covers how POWs can/cannot be treated. It seems to me that some of the things occurring down in Gitmo HAVE violated the GC.


But you forget, by proclamation of that person in the oval office, they are not "prisoners of war" protected by the "quaint" Geneva Conventions, but "enemy combatants" and therefore not covered.  Convienient, no?