Liberals are not traitors, they are communists. Just kidding, what a stupid comment for Rove to make. I would like to know what he is trying to accomplish.

Well, it was a stupid remark, but you're mighty trusting to say all he wanted was better treatment at Gitmo.

There are all kinds of things he could have done to accomplish that, instead of going on the worldwide news and lambasting our military. God only knows what he hoped to accomplish politically--maybe raising money from Deaniacs--but political it was.

Mike,
It's pretty irrelevant whether Durbin just wanted to improve the lot of Taliban's illegal combatants. Words have meaning and a senior politician should know better. So he is either an idiot or an enemy sympathizer. In either case not a valuable representative of patriotic liberals.

All the liberals who are so mad at Rove, should insist that Durbin the Turban be removed from all leadership positions. After that, perhaps we can proceed to improve the tone, in an atmosphere of moderation ON BOTH SIDES. With Howard the Ducky as the representative of the Dem Party, with Michael Moore in Jimmy Carter's box at the convention, it is hard to separate the nuts from the rest of the Democratic Salad.

The quote:

"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."

Assuming the motives of all liberals is a stretch, but the problem for liberals is the first part - the enemy does use these kinds of statements against us. We know that the North Vietnamese played tapes of anti-war activists to POWs to demoralize them; we know that the arab media plays comments like those of Durbin to incite people against us.

You can dislike that all you want, but there it is. The difference between what Rove did and what Durbin did? Rove committed hyperbole, but it was "inside baseball" - i.e., any and all effects of his statements are limited to the American body politic. That's simply not the case for Durbin's statements, which continue to do harm even after his non-apology.

But go ahead, be dense and refuse to get it.

Honestly, I think Rove did this deliberately knowing the Dems were aching for a distraction from Dean and Durbin. And the Dems went for it hook, line, and sinker.

Now the GOP gets to ask the question: What DID liberals say after 9/11? And the answer is:

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/20021...g/ 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/20021...g/ 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)

• Just After 9/11, Moore Blamed America’s “Taxpayer-Funded Terrorism” And Bush Administration For Terrorist Attacks. “We abhor terrorism – unless we’re the ones doing the terrorizing. We paid and trained and armed a group of terrorists in Nicaragua in the 1980s who killed over 30,000 civilians. That was OUR work. You and me.…Let’s mourn, let’s grieve, and when it’s appropriate let’s examine our contribution to the unsafe world we live in.” (Michael Moore Website Archive, “Death, Downtown,” Posted 9/12/01, www.michaelmoore.com, Accessed 7/27/04)

• 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. 1

• Soros Said The Execution Of 9/11 Attacks “Could Not Have Been More Spectacular.” “Admittedly, the terrorist attack was a historic event in its own right. Hijacking fully loaded airplanes and using them as suicide bombs was an audacious idea, and the execution could not have been more spectacular.” (George Soros, The Bubble Of American Supremacy, 2004, p. 2)

• Soros Said War On Terror Had Claimed More Innocent Victims Than 9/11 Attack Itself. “This is a very tough thing to say, but the fact is, that the war on terror as conducted by this administration, has claimed more innocent victims that the original attack itself.” (George Soros, Remarks At Take Back America Conference, Washington, DC, 6/3/04)

Ouch.

But there's more! Democrats themselves had this to say:

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), 10/1/01, Roll Call: "I truly believe if we had a Department of Peace, we could have seen [9/11] coming."

Al Sharpton, 12/1/02, New York Times, on the 9/11 attacks: "America is beginning to reap what it has sown."

Rep. Marcy Kaptur, 3/1/2003, Toledo Blade: "One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped cast off the British crown."

You gotta admire Rove, he knows how to pick his fights.

Were Rove only a GOP operative or a consultant being paid by the RNC I'd have no problem with what he said. (Though I disagree with his implication that libs are rooting for US deaths).But you can't be a part of the administration (Deputy Chief of Staff), with your salary being paid by all Americans, and crap all over a whole bunch of them.

You just can't do that from that position. Rove should apologize or leave the administration.

Oh, and I do think you're misinterpreting what Rove said. If you look at the broader context of his speech, clearly by "motives" he means liberals are putting partisanship over national security, not deliberately betraying the United States.

TallDave,

Yes, plenty of nonsense from the left after 9/11, whether it's from the majority or not. But "Liberals=Traitors" are fighting words. My wife is a liberal, as are most of my friends.

But feeding anti-American pathologies was not Dick Durbin’s intention.

Yeah, it was. Mind you, he was looking to feed anti-American pathologies in America.

Michael,

I was still a Democrat back in the 90's, but even then I finally had to accept that the Democratic Party's leaders were, as a whole, less patriotic than the Republicans. It was, and is, simply true.

Now watch how the Democrats respond. There will be no expressions of patriotism or love of country, all you will hear about is how awful it is for the Republicans to say such things. And the Democrats will lose again. I saw the same thing happen back in 1988. This is why the party loses voters: not because the rank and file are unpatriotic, but because the leaders of the party are. When that becomes clear, the patriotic rank and file leave.

"Assuming the motives of all liberals is a stretch, but the problem for liberals is the first part - the enemy does use these kinds of statements against us."

So when Bush called the war on terror a crusade, you were appalled at him giving the enemy such an effective recruiting tool, right? I guess I can go ahead and portray conservatives as Al-Qaida recruiters with their irresponsible comments.

Talk about blowing something out of proportion.

Though I agree with Michael that this particular sentence:

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

Is reprehensible. The motives of the liberals are political gain, not treachery. The problem is that they neither realise nor care what damage they do while pursuing political gain.

If Rove had said,

No more needs to be said about the actions of liberals.

I would have had no argument.

But politically, it's brilliant. When the liberals protest, the conservatives get to throw their words back at them. And this includes large numbers of senior figures among the Democrats.

Many liberals want the United States to lose the war in Iraq. They want a repeat of Vietnam because (1) they perceive the USA as a force for evil in the world that needs to be stopped, (2) becaues such a defeat will deter future military efforts by the USA and (3) because a defeat abroad will allow them to make political gains in the USA. While the people openly saying these things are not usually professional Democrat politicians, the conduct of the politicians has been consistent with this view. They recall the political benefits they obtained by the US defeat in Vietnam, and want to repeat it, by destroying public support for the war, which is the main front in the war. The non-response to Durbin's speech (except by Mayor Daley, whose son is in the Army) shows that the Democrat leadership is not opposed to his kind of rhetoric. Rove is, by and large, correct in his criticism. There is no reason for him to apologize, let alone resign.

Talldave nails it. Rove's comment about liberal motives is in no way his suggestion that they intend to harm our troops, but merely that they disregard the safety of said troops by putting other values (such as political gain) higher on the scale.

That said, arguing from the motive fallacy is always dicey, Karl. Alternative motives might explain liberal comments as well. I do not, however, subscribe to the notion that naivete is a charming and honorable excuse. Sins of the intellect may kill more innocents than do moral evils.

I would like to read the more thoughtful liberal defense of motive

Well, you guys are looking at one paragraph as though it's everything he said; there's more context where he says liberal motives means putting partisanship ahead of national security (I haven't been able to find the full text but I heard some on TV today). In Durbin's case, it's clear he was talking about putting political gain ahead of our troops, not that Durbin deliberately wanted to get U.S. troops killed. Rove wouldn't be that vicious.

He intended to get more humane treatment for prisoners at Gitmo – an honorable objective I happen to sympathize with. That couldn’t be any more obvious than it is.

Maybe in your world. In mine it's not obvious at all. What I see is an obvious ploy to undermine the White House, and a Senator willing the trash the military & the war effort to do it. I see a Senator crying about how hard we are on people who want to kill us. Rove's comments are waaaaaay closer to the truth than Durbin's. But that's just what's obvious to me.

I agree with Rove's comments being over the top. He doesn't even need to do that. If we want to hear someone make idiotic generalisations that reflect badly on the Republican party as a whole, we can just turn on Sean Hannity.

And I agree with everyone who said you give Durbin too much credit. The guy strikes me as just a plain weasel. Better care for prisoners my a**.

Great name Wyman. The "Assistant" takes it from banally amusing to inspired hilarity.

Michael, are you really serious when you write this? "So there it is. Liberals deliberately hope to put our troops in greater danger, according to Rove. In other words, Liberals=Traitors.

Anyone who has liberal friends and family members ought to know exactly how rotten and despicable and indefensible that statement is."

Because I can show you a photo of "protesters" in the US holding up a sign that says, "We Support the Troops, When They Kill Their Officers".

In the light of that, do you think your words were not quite accurate? Granted, "liberals" is a broad brush, but like Rove, when I refer to liberals, I'm referring to people like George Soros, Howard Dean, the people behing A.N.S.W.E.R. and others like them who are on the public record advocating the murder of Americans.

In my dictionary, that is the definition of a traitor.

I think what's needed is a more exacting use of language. If Rove had used the term "leftists" instead of "liberals", he would have been dead on. The motives of the 10%-20% of americans way over there on the far left are definitely suspect (as are the motives of a similar percentage in the conservative camp).

I consider myself a liberal, using the term as it was originally defined, before it became a synonym for socialist. (The only thing liberal about leftists is the way they spend other people's money.)

Rove is playing politics, though, so what does he want with moderation or exactness. He's just poking the beast in the cage with a pointy stick. When it snarls and slathers, he can go, "Whew! Vicious ain't it? Good thing we've got it in that cage!" It's unlikely to backfire on him because the leadership of the Democratic party has lost the ability to respond in a measured and rational way. They all learned in college that reason is impotent, and what's important is how you feel, so they no longer think, they just emote.

It's a shame too, because we could really use a sound opposition to the theocratic leanings of the conservatives. The Democrats are in no way capable of providing it though. It's the People of Faith vs. the People of Emotion. Given that faith is just a fancy way of saying, "it's true because I feel it," there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the two. We need a party for the People of Reason.

I was just rereading emails I received shortly after 9/11. I guess all my friends are in that 10% fringe because I got such a bunch of "if it was Osama Bin Laden, which is by no means certain" and "Bush and his oil company buddies couldn't benefit more if they'd planned it, hint hint" and "it's understandable payback for Nicaragua" and "war doesn't solve anything" and copies of simpering Barbara Kingsolver and Arundhati Roy horseshit and so on. About the only thing I didn't get from ANYBODY was support for the president in doing what was necessary to stop another attack (since they mostly believed he'd done it anyway, or as good as since he's such a buddy of the Saudis). But, sure, whatever you say. Nobody really thinks like that and Karl Rove is off his rocker.

Assistant Village Idiot: I would like to read the more thoughtful liberal defense of motive

Liberals (and plenty of other people) are genuinely and sincerely horrified by prisoner abuse. It really isn't any more complicated than that. Some of them go over the top. Welcome to politics. I'm sure that conservatives who think of liberals as traitors aren't being fascists, they're just mad.

It's always a bad idea to assume the worst possible motive in your political opponents. Genuinely sinister people (like Ward Churchill, for instance) are usually incapable of concealing it for very long.

Rove spoke the truth, pure and simple.

If you gave the liberals the choice between 1) America losing the war on terror and 2) the Republicans continuing control of the government, they overwhelmingly would vote for #1.

Mike, you need to understand. If you personally come to me and call me a lazy, overpaid Christer who's just as bad as Nazis or the Pol Pot, I'm not going to attribute to you the absolute highest of motives. And I'm not going to trust your claims of purest patroitism. And that type of speech is exactly what liberals and Democractic party leaders diret towards me on a daily basis.

I'm on Karl Rove's side.

Another phony Liberal "scandal".

They're still smarting from Turban Durbin's traitorous remarks, so the Dems figure going on the offense is the best defense and distraction. Are you going to get suckered by this, Michael?

Libs ARE soft on terror. That's all Rove basically said. Apologize? In a pig's eye.

fire karl:
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?fireturd&1101

Narniaman: Mike, you need to understand. If you personally come to me and call me a lazy, overpaid Christer who's just as bad as Nazis or the Pol Pot, I'm not going to attribute to you the absolute highest of motives.

I get that. I've been arguing against that kind of crap ever since I started this blog.

But you need to understand something, also. My wife is a liberal. (I'm not, I voted for Bush.) If you personally come up to her and call her a traitor, I'm not going to attribute to you the absolute highest of motives either. You would never dare say that if you knew her in any case. She's more patriotic than I am, in part because of her experience of living abroad for several years. She has exactly zero patience for people who run down this country. And her response to Karl Rove is "Fuck You."

She has exactly zero patience for people who run down this country.

Then she's not a very good Liberal.

"Libs ARE soft on terror. That's all Rove basically said. Apologize? In a pig's eye."--Spaniard

Gee. Once again you save me a multitude of unnecessary verbiage. This comment by someone in the administration is LONG OVERDUE. And now we will get the ' he is dividing the country for political reasons, when we need to be united against our enemies',meme.

NUTS. It is already devided,and it is the LIBERAL wing of the Democratic Party which has done its best to make that so, AND endanger the campaign in Iraq in the process.

Good for you Karl. Liberal 'friends' or no.

I feel like I'm listening to a bloody madhouse here.For the record,Arabs and the rest of us foreigners do not wait for a signal from Senator whats-his-name,or the American political class in general, to make up our minds about American policies,or Gitmo.

For the record,everyone in the rest of the world has pretty much made up their minds,based on the reports in their own media.Do these media often have an bias against the US?Yes.Can you do shit about it?No.

Note to Americans:this is not a family feud and we're not your children - if you'd watched the BBC (watched by just about everyone who understands English and isn't American) or any other foreign media for the last two years you'd understand why the Durbin affair was completely fucking irrelevant.

Too much mind reading.
You don't know Durbin's intention.

Too much loose interpretation of Rove's words.

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

This could just as easily mean that when liberals politicize the war their motive is to topple their political opponents while utterly disregarding other consequences.
Tunnel vision is bad but it's not treason.

Getting your back up in defense of your wife and friends is noble, but I don't think they've been called traitors. I think they've been called so bloody minded in their hatred for Bush that they've become dangerously sanguine about the collateral damage they do while thrashing about in blind thought-free rage.

And her response to Karl Rove is "Fuck You."

Some day she will begin to question her membership in a party that puts her in such an embarassing position. She can defend herself, defending the leadership is something else. That is why there are Neo-Cons.

Karl Rove conveniently forgets that Jerry Falwell informed his viewers a few days after 9/11 that God let the terror attacks happen as our punishment for Roe vs. Wade, feminism, and popular acceptance of homosexuality. And Jerry Falwell is way more influential on the Republican party than George Soros is on the Democrats. It's true that Moveon.org, Michael Moore, et. al. are a fetid film on the soul of FDR's party, but Karl Rove must be the absolute worse person in the world to make that point. It's like watching a leper challenge a hemophiliac to full contact karate.

"But feeding anti-American pathologies was not Dick Durbin’s intention. He intended to get more humane treatment for prisoners at Gitmo"

If you truly believe that Michael, then there's this bridge I've been trying to sell......also, more humane than what? Just how humanely would you treat someone holding a gun to your head? There's the divide.

So maybe Durbin wasn't enough - let's bring back the big man himself - Michael Moore.Are there any people on this thread who believe that Fahrenheit 911 smeared the United States in the eyes of the world?

Heh-fucking-heh.

To the Europeans,Michael Moore is a guy who makes movies to educate Americans of what the rest of the world already knows,or think they know.

In no sense do people outside the USA look to Americans for guidance on matters of opinion about the US - maybe Chomsky can claim some influence among the far-left set - but not more.

It's true that Moveon.org, Michael Moore, et. al. are a fetid film on the soul of FDR's party,

Like Michael, I have friends and family members who are liberal Democrats. Moveon.org and Michael Moore are the soul of the party. FDR's party is dead and gone.

"And Jerry Falwell is way more influential on the Republican party than George Soros is on the Democrats"

Ridiculous assertion totally lacking in empirical data. Falwell was forced to apologise almost at once for his lunacy,and Move-On.cluelessness has publicly stated that it OWNS the Democratic Party. AND IT DOES

It is a crime for Durbin to complain about Gitmo (for what he thought would be political gain) by using the comparisions he made. If you think that Durbin wanted more humane treatment for the skum at Gitmo, not personal gain, then you should really hate this guy for not caring about AMERICANS in Cook County who are raped and murdered for crimes far, far less than those at Gitmo are accussed of. Your logic is wrong Michael: If Durban cared about people suffering in detention he would clean up his own state first without harming America's reputation, he wouldn't make PREPARED statements destined to put him in the spotlight while damaging the Bush administration. Are you so naive you think Durban was trying to help detainees, with no ulterior motives (you didn't mention any other motives in your statement of how obvious Durban was being), really?

ROVE: [[[ liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments ]]]

I found myself wondering WHEREVER Karl Rove got that idea. And then I recalled the FIRST attack on the WTC, back in 1993.

February 1993.

President Clinton in the White House.

Democrats control the House -- did they control the Senate too?

Foreign Nationals detonate a 1500 POUND TRUCK BOMB in the parking garage of one of the Towers.

The Democrat-controlled Fed response?

What Mr. Rove said.

Jussi,

You are a fool. Instead of proclaiming that nothing a Senator says matters to anyone outside America, try to think about why so many people claim that jihadists will be able to use this propaganda in a useful way. Just think for awhile. Hmmm. How could jihadists use a Senator's remarks comparing the U.S. treatment of prisnors to Nazis etc. to spread propaganda that has the potential to harm America? Not too tough smart guy.

Note to Americans:this is not a family feud and we're not your children - if you'd watched the BBC (watched by just about everyone who understands English and isn't American) or any other foreign media for the last two years you'd understand why the Durbin affair was completely fucking irrelevant.

Jussi,

With all due respect, I doubt if many Americans care whether the non-American, BBC-watching crowd found any relevance in Durbin's remark. Durbin is an American senator who made a remark that was highly sensitive to many Americans. The backlash it created couldn't be muted simply because Joe Europe doesn't find it interesting or relevant. It's about American politicians answering to the voters.

p.s.
Who is "we"?

Jussi Hämäläinen said: For the record,everyone in the rest of the world has pretty much made up their minds,based on the reports in their own media.Do these media often have an bias against the US?Yes.Can you do shit about it?No.

So what are you doing here? Go back to the BBC. Enjoy. Their propaganda is tailor made for your consumption.

Jussi,

I talked to two people in Lebanon (one an engineer and the other a lawyer) who truly believe the United States is as oppressive as Syria. They were, therefore, extremely suspicious of the US call for Syria to leave Lebanon. They were genuinely worried that one oppressive overlord would be replaced with another.

Of course they were nuts. But Dick Durbin's comments were, as some of us like to say, not helpful. They hear that from him and think I'm nuts for saying otherwise.

"Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack." -- George S. Patton

Anybody ever see liberals talking about patriotism cynically? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

Durbin's intention may not have been to feed anti-American pathologies -- instead, his obvious intention was to feed anti-Bush pathologies -- but, regardless, his behavior reinforces Ann Coulter's penetrating observation: “Liberals have a preternatural gift for always striking a position on the side of treason.” But at least they don't intend to be treasonous. So I guess that makes it OK to act without any consideration for the consequences of your behavior -- even if it means American soldiers getting killed.

Does anyone think that Rove's comments will get any Americans killed? Think about that, and then tell me why so many Democrats are insisting that he apologize despite giving Durbin a free pass. Oh, I almost forgot. I already know why. "Liberals have a preternatural gift..."

Engram: tell me why so many Democrats are insisting that he apologize despite giving Durbin a free pass.

I'm not giving either of them a free pass. You're going to have to argue with me as well as "the Democrats." I am not a Democrat. John Cole, who agrees with me and who I linked in my post, is a Republican.

The Dems have already succeeded in taking Durbin out of the spotlight-- as this thread so aptly demonstrates. Mission accomplished. Their faux calls for Rove to "resign" had no other purpose than this.

Sorry, Michael, methinks thou dost protest too much. Mehlman's press release post-Rove provided innumerable quotes from prominent liberal groups/individuals that are right in line with Rove's critique. You may not like your wife being painted with the broad brush of treason, but that should encourage you to support your wife in taking back her party. Play it right, and Democrats might eventually thank Rove. Instead, so far, they're giving the Republicans every excuse to trot out the many execrable things that have been said by liberals over the past four years, things that paint them, accurately IMHO, as pro-Democrat/anti-Bush at the expense of the US of A.

Michael Totten:Al Jazeera did pick up Dick Durbin’s commentary, which only makes anti-American propaganda in the Middle East seem all the more plausible.

Here,Michael,is what really bugs me:it is not that Senator whats-his-name's comparison wasn't off the mark.It is this solipsistic expectation by Americans like you,conservatives and liberals alike,that the world revolves around your navel.

No,the rest of the world doesn't wait for the Big-White-Man-From-Washington to come and tell them that,yes,it does happen:BEARS REALLY DO SHIT IN THE WOODS.

"Wow,thanks,Big-White-Man-From-Washington!"

"Nevermind what Amnesty International,Human Rights Watch or our own press have reported over the years!"

"We really needed the Big-White-Man-From-Washington to validate our opinions!"

"Next week,Congressman Bonzo will come and lecture us natives about the Gold Standard and the Lesbian plot to undermine the youth.Don't make a move until you hear from him!"

Most BBC/al-Jazeera viewers know they're being sold a bunch of lies and propaganda. They accept this because they've been emotionally programed (mosques/koran) to want nothing else. If the arab language BBC didn't exist, it would be invented. Ergo al-Jazeera.

Jussi,

you do revolve around our navel. That's pretty much why you're on this blog right now.

Uh...Jussi, it was us "Big-White-Man-From-Washington" that bailed your European ass out of two World Wars, and we'll likely have to do it again when the Islamists take it over. But, you're right, you guys are FAR smarter than we are...you handle it this time. We're tired of this one-way friendship.

Jabber: that should encourage you to support your wife in taking back her party.

I tried that and it simply was not going to happen. I needed help, and I got precious little of it. There are only so many times I could be called a Bush apologist before I finally just decided to vote for him and be done with it. The Democrats outside Dissent and The New Republic magazines have little interest in fixing what ails them.

I made that last comment before reading you response.In the light of it,I really should have toned down the sarcasm.Sorry.

However,my point still stands:you guys in America really do think too often that the whole world hangs on your word.

That was the point,not Durbin's silliness.

Michael,

OK, I'll argue with you, then. Rove's sin was that he exaggerated the truth in order get a rise out of Democrats who he knew would be calling for an apology from him even though they gave the Durbin a free pass. He knew that when the dust settled, the politics surrounding his exaggerated characterization of liberals would benefit Republicans. In addition, no Americans would die because of his exaggeration.

In your post, you (an apparent non-Democrat) imply that Rove is deranged for making his relatively innocuous comment. At the same time, you go to great lengths to argue that Durbin's intention was to "to get more humane treatment for prisoners at Gitmo." You go on to say that his intentions were honorable.

Are you kidding? Do you actually believe that his intention had nothing whatsoever to do with casting Bush in a negative light (without any consideration for the attendant consequences)? Durbin only had honorable intentions, yet Rove is deranged?

That's not a credible position.

Jussi - Exactly who elected you to speak for "the world"?

Couldn't have put it better, Mike. Indeed, after 9-11, I could find no one opposing the war in Afghanistan, but the most hardened rdaicals, and the most deluded of peaceniks. Rove is a disgrace, and this is simply another episode in his plan to exploit the tragedy of 9/11 for political gain.

As far as Durbin goes, clearly his intent wasn't to harm the troops, but in letting his passions get the better of him, he made a stupid error, and deserved to take a hit for it. He rightly apologized, and that should be the end of it. Rove continues to defend his statements, and the White House does as well. I guess this is what we should expect from the Republicans these days.

Durbin provided a standard issue, non-apology apology. It is not the end of it.

Rove continues to defend his statements, and the White House does as well. I guess this is what we should expect from the Republicans these days.

He called you Libs wimps-- not Nazis. It hurt your feelings? You'll get over it.

I was an anti-war liberal back in
the 70s and we definitely rooted
against the US.
I hear the same words.
I feel the same vibe coming from the Left.
I don't hear the Dems speaking up (sure, Joe Lieberman and Zell excepted).
Rove's words were on target.
Sorry to break the truth to you. As one commenter put it "if the Dems spent half the time defeating Al Queda that they've spent defeated Bolton, they'd start to win elections."

Is it unreasonable to hold the left accountable for their behavior?

It's fine to oppose the war. It's fine to oppose just about anything. We can debate. But - while doing so, can't these people behave in a responsible and sensitive manner? Don't they realize that their actions have consqeuences - that we are at war?

I don't give a damn what Durbin's intentions were. The bottom line is by being such an ass, he gave more fuel to the enemy. And if he's too stupid to realize the effect his comments would have, then does he really deserve to be making these proclamations from the senate floor? Is a man so tonedeaf really a good pick for the Dems #2 man?

The image of the left is well-deserved. When the NYT and the rest of the liberal MSM cover damaging stories to teh USA day after day after day, blowing things way out of context, giving minor issues huge amounts of play, versus not covering the many positives of our side, and ignoring the REAL and MUCH GREATER atrocities of the enemy - then what other conclusion can you draw?

There is no question in my mind that a vast amount of people ont eh LEft in AMerica want to see Bush fail so badly, and want to be "right" so badly, that they are cheering on our enemy, and want to see America lose. That is despicable.

Here's a hint, liberals. Maybe if you just spent a little time talking about what GOOD America stands for, and how evil the enemy is, instead of attacking America 100:1, people wouldnt' question your patriotism or think you're so anti-American.

Last, there is something very creepy and strange about a Left that cannot evcen bring itself to use the word "enemy" rather than "insurgent".

JABBER,you've been reading too much Mark Steyn.The Islamists in Europe are a minority of a minority,and we'll elect Jean-Marie Le Pen President of Europe before they'll get close to "taking over".Europe has its own,dirty history in dealing with minorities,and we could see something like that happen again.

And yes,I'm grateful for what the Americans have done for Europe during the last 100 years - all the more reason to try and point out when you're fucking up - not because you'll fuck up as big as the Europeans did (no matter what Durbin said) - but because that's what friends do.

And yes,I do hope you'll succeed in winning in Iraq.

He would have been better off if he'd simply stated that the majority of the Left mollycoddled the terrorists.

What ever happened to The Commenter?

Moderate liberals do not possess real power within the national Democratic Party. The hard Left runs the show. Please note that Joseph Lieberman and the other so-called centrists seem like wimps. They apparently don’t dare take the extremists to task. I’ve got to pay attention to facts and not wishful thinking. The national Democratic Party died last November 2nd. Who is going to bury the carcass?

"... feeding anti-American pathologies was not Dick Durbin?s intention."

I agree with you. If it was his intention, it would imply that Mr. Durbin was capable of thinking.

Unfortunately, a lot of liberals (not all, certainly) are traitors, in the sense that they put the fortunes of their party/their dislike of Pres Bush above the fortunes of the country. And, like it or not, that is costing the lives of American troops. THere is no way that you can honestly deny that.

I think we have a failure of communication, here.

Liberals and the rest of America have a different understanding of what the word "Patriotic" means.

To conservatives the words means something along the lines of America is the greatest nation the world has ever known, we have more freedom and opportunity than anywhere else in the world in anytime in the world's history, past American leaders are without parallel, and that being willing to die for your country is a sign of honor and courage.

Liberals, on the other hand, feel that America certainly has the potential to be a great nation -- if it would only change. And so liberals, because they love the country so much, will do everything they can to change it. And they feel the greatest challenge to America is all those dumb red-state bozos running around in Jaysus land. And they also feel that if they could clean up the constitution (like get rid of the 2nd amendment) and do a few other things like take the right to vote away from the Christers and make sure the US always met the global test than life would just be ducky in liberal land.

In fact, some liberals are so patriotic that they want the US to experience a humiliating defeat all over the world because it would make the US a more humble and better world citizen. In their minds it takes real courage to root for your nation to lose to the Islamofascists.

And oh yeah, I almost forgot -- America would be a much better place if our guests at Gitmo just have more reliable air conditioning.

Hey jussi,

Go ask Oriana Fallaci, being prosecuted for saying some controversial things about Muslims, how much Muslims are a "minority of a minority". They're such a minority, that they were able to get lawmakers and a judge to disregard freedom of speech in favour of being PC toward that "minority of a minority". Hmmm....

And that's happening in many countries in Europe. God forbid the Europeans offended anyone. Liberalism run amock.

As they stand, the remarks apply to about 15-20% (IMO) of the left. If they were altered slightly, to say "Beginning in 2003, " instead of "After 9/11" they would apply to 60-70% of the left.

Jussi,
YOur posts would be more believable if the Arab presses didn't consistently quote from the anti-war factions in the U.S.

Yeah,and sorry about some of those comments again - I get overheated sometimes and then regret it later.You're right,I am an Americophile:-),that's exactly why I thought the brouhaha over some fool politician's Nazi comments was overblown.

The fact is the US freedom of speech is an asset,not a liability.The Soviets had great message discipline,and look what it brought them.

Democracies are supposed to be free-speech zones,even to the point of absurdity.It is when the dissent stops in a country that people outside start muttering about brown boots - and stop taking official statements seriously.

In that light,the correct response to the Durbin affair would have been:"Well,I think you're nuts,Senator,but hey,it's a free country."

Mike -- Rove is right, sadly. There is NO ONE in the Democratic Party willing to use military force to defend America. You might think Iraq was a mistake, or that troops should have been used elsewhere, or that we need a lot MORE troops, but nowhere do Democrats:

*Denouce Muslims in NYC burning flags and stomping on them in "celebration" of the 9/11 attacks and in protest of the "Koran Desecrations."

*Denouce attempts to blame the troops for a few drops of pee on a Koran.

*Denounce foreigners who espouse the "moneychangers were responsible for 9/11" oh wait that was the Journalists Guild.

*Denounce "our grief is not a cry for war" rallies DAYS after 9/11.

*Denounce the anti-semitism linked with anti-Bush stuff in the DNC (fliers blaming Israel for 9/11), the anti-semitism in the John Conyers "fantasy" impeachment hearings, etc.

*Take positive steps to win back patriotic Americans like Zell Miller, instead of demonizing them as lumpen-proletariat knuckle draggers for liking the Flag, America, and freedom.

*Support unilateral action at least in theory, instead of the UN, Global Test, and permission from the French.

*Fight against Bush's court nominees instead of saving all the firepower for John Bolton who yelled at people and once put his hands on his hips! Horrors!

Things like that. Rove was right. Liberals are NOT patriotic, they went from pay any price, bear any burden, to it's all our fault and we need to understand our enemies anger. I say this as a Dem who voted for Clinton twice and defended the guy against impeachment and campaigned for Dukakis. I'm in favor of gay marriage, stem cell research, medical marijuana, raising taxes if need be to feed hungry kids (no kid in the US should EVER go hungry) and PBS, Amtrak, and pretty much all the "liberal" touchstones. But even I concede this.

Liberals just aren't patriotic, they love the troops when they shoot their officers. That's it.

The problem: where are the supposed grownups in the Democratic Party? The ones who would put Dean in his place? The ones who tell Hollywood, Michael Moore, and International ANSWER to go away please, with friends like you, we don't need enemies? The ones who actually turn down Soros' cash? If they exist, they're pretty damn silent.

Rove's attack worked so well because it hits home: there are plenty of lefties out there who do wish the US ill in Iraq, but for what they'd perceive as a higher, even patriotic purpose: getting that evil man and his evil party out of government and getting their kind, caring, peace-loving soulmates into power.

"Conservatives are fascists."

What the hell else would you call the mindset that lies underneath both Rove's statements and the man's supporters here? Ultranationalist, check. Eliminationist, check. Scapegoating "weak" liberalism, check. Blind faith in the state as exemplified by a charismatic leader, check.

Fan those flames, Karl. Let's get this crap out in the open where the fundamental decency of the American people can finally be brought to bear against the wingnuts.

Jussi,

It is this solipsistic expectation by Americans like you,conservatives and liberals alike,that the world revolves around your navel.

Americans, by and large, don't give a damn about the "world". What I can't figure is why the world spends so much time gazing at our navel instead of their own. Don't you folks have anything better to do?

Mike,
Have you read some of the quotes made by major Democrats in the months just after 9/11? (Instapundit has links to several sites if you haven't seen them yet.) I'm assuming you haven't read them yet, because if you have, I don't see how you could be calling ROve's comments inaccurate. (Unless you are merely complaining that he should have said "most liberals" or "a very significant percentage of liberals" instead of just "liberals." In that case, I would agree with you.)

Michael,

A couple of important points. Durbin's comments were not "intended to get more humane treatment for prisoners at Gitmo", as you say. It was a cynical attempt to score political points and hurt Bush and the GOP. THAT, is what is obvious. If his motives had been sincere I think he could have easily accomplished his goal without the hyperbole.

It would have been normal, mud slinging fare had it been directed solely at Bush and the GOP. But Durbin's comments unquestioningly undermined our war efforts both in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and disparaged our soldiers.

Rove's comments hit his political opponents spot on, with no collateral damage. Does he paint Democrats with a broad brush? Absolutely. It's a fair characterization of some. Not so accurate of others. But it only targets the political opposition, and is clearly in line with the current level of discourse.

I have no doubt, that the American public will see the distinction. It won't only be GOP activists who agree with Rove's statement. He's just crystallized the opinion of the majority of this country.

slickvguy,about Oriana Fallaci:

The fact that officials in some European countries have gone overboard in PC-dom does not reflect on the people here.In the US,an immigrant that swears allegiance to the flag is generally accepted as "one of us."

In my country,not in a lifetime.Oh yeah,if you're white,your children may be fully accepted.In Holland of all places,some vandals recently torched a school for Muslim kids - something that just doesn't happen in the US.

All EU happy talk aside,my gut feeling is that Le Pen and Haider and Vlaams Blok are the future of European politics.Call it Fascism lite - you'll be surprised at how fast the winds can change.

I don't see this as an option really;it is practically inevitable.Hopefully things won't get as ugly as the last time though.

Jussi, where are you right now?

The comment section sucks right now. If you follow party line on every issue you are a dumb mother-fucker. If you define people as right or left you are probably a dumb mother-fucker. Everyone in the States needs to get their shit square and put our Republic ahead of pointless bullshit. We have a fraction on both sides of the political divide controlling the conversation and we need to ditch them.

I suggest a comeback from the Anti-Masonic party.

Counter Column weighs in.

All EU happy talk aside,my gut feeling is that Le Pen and Haider and Vlaams Blok are the future of European politics.Call it Fascism lite - you'll be surprised at how fast the winds can change.

Yeah, I've been predicting this for a couple of years. Nothing here for the US but more trouble, the fascists don't like us, pretty much for the same reasons that the conventional left doesn't like us. Thank God that the current variant doesn't seem imbued with the spirit of militarism. Hopefully that doesn't change anytime soon. I think the current usefulness of NATO is to keep the Europeans from doing each other harm.

IIRC, 90% of the Democrats during the Democratic National Convention did not support the Iraq war.

Durbin's comments, taken as a whole, do not really support the notion that Durbin's goal was merely to obtain better treatment for Gitmo detainees. In particular, Durbin explicitly argued that it was wrong for the US to keep detainees without charging them (presumably without charging them with a crime). Others, including Amnesty International, have recently voiced the same objection.

Obviously, considering the circumstances, the pretend outraged from Democrats concerning Rove's "outrageous" comments with respect to this exact point are especially ironic. However, my reason for raising this issue is to point out that this really cannot have been a "good faith" contention. No one (other than the jihadists themselves) can really believe that a "catch and release" program for al-queda members is an acceptable outcome. If 500 terrorists come up for criminal trials my estimate is that a good 450 (including some of the very worst) are going to walk.

Since I reject the notion that even Dick Durbin is dim-witted enough to really believe jihadists should be treated as criminals (actually better than criminals if I understand Chicago police procedure), I infer that the motive for his speach had nothing to do with the nominal issues raised but was merely another opportunity to attack the Bush administration.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with attacking the Bush administration per se but, somehow, Durbin failed to notice that calling American soldiers Nazis will increase the chance that American Soldiers will be killed by people who may choose to believe him. If Mike's wife, and other liberals (including, by the way, my own wife and friends) were as upset about Durbin's unfortunate choice of words, as they were about Rove's impolite but absolutely accurate comments, I would be more inclined to listen to their outrage. But, as far as I am aware, the only Democrat in the whole wide world who objected to Durbin's comments was the Mayor of Chicago. The word "traitor" may not apply, but there ought to be a word for people so consumed with hatred for the President that they really don't care about the probable effect of their words and actions. Over to you Mike. What word is more appropriate than "traitor"?

In Holland of all places,some vandals recently torched a school for Muslim kids - something that just doesn't happen in the US.

tick,.. tick,.. tick,.. tick,..

Rove overreached, but with all due respect, Mr. Totten, your wife is a minority within her party, and although I sincerely wish there were more like her, there aren't.

Howard Dean winning the Democratic chair is like Jerry Falwell winning control of the RNC.

What would it say about us Republicans if we put Falwell in power? Could there even be a "we" after Falwell? I'd have real trouble with that, myself.

As the very idea makes me cringe, I have deep sympathy both for your wife and your liberal friends. It is as difficult in its own way to live day after day in the House of Usher as it is to pack up and move the second you realize the folks you're living with are a little nuts.

And here's what they're teaching muslim kids. I couldn't make this stuff up even if I tried:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=16354

It's true that conservatives believe liberals are trators. I know this because I am a conservative. I'm not trying to be smarmy just to point out a major difference of opinion. It would be useful for you to write something (rational) explaining why are really liberals are patriots when they seem to conservatives as traitors. Oh, yeah that's another stereotyps conservatives have about liberals: that they are not rational. Conservatives think that liberals are not terribly logical in their martialling facts and drawing conclusions, prefering to resort to character assassination like "Bush=Hitler" without examining the facts ie Saddam murdered his own people with posion gas like hitler did and invaded other countries like hitler did and therefor Bush is a liberator like FDR and not a hitler himself.

Howard Dean winning the Democratic chair is like Jerry Falwell winning control of the RNC.

Like these are remotely comparable except in the opium-drenched fever dreams of the psychotic wingnut right.

Dean is a doctor and a 11-year successful governor who faced challengers from both the left and the right. Get a grip.

"The Democrats outside Dissent and The New Republic magazines have little interest in fixing what ails them"--MJT

"I talked to two people in Lebanon (one an engineer and the other a lawyer) who truly believe the United States is as oppressive as Syria. They were, therefore, extremely suspicious of the US call for Syria to leave Lebanon. They were genuinely worried that one oppressive overlord would be replaced with another.
Of course they were nuts. But Dick Durbin's comments were, as some of us like to say, not helpful. They hear that from him and think I'm nuts for saying otherwise."--MJT

Rove's statement was intended to drive a stake through the heart of the mess that was once the Democratic Party. And it did. It is long past time that the dance around the obvious elephant in the room stopped and things got SERIOUS.

That the 'liberal' movement in the West has lost its way and is now (objectively) reactionary is not the fault of KR. The worst of which he can be accused is using that fact to take political advantage. Well I guess he might plead guilty to that,and SO WHAT ?

Not everyone can be a saint in politics(surprise!!) and things needed to be said. Things continue to need to be said until poisonous cretins such as Ted Kennedy are exposed completely for the creatures they truly are.

If 'liberals' don't like hearing unpleasant things, then perhaps instead of blaming the messenger they might consider looking more closely at the real problem. Real 'liberals' would understand where KR is coming from.

The Democratic Party which is the 'vehicle' for this aberrant strain of 'liberalism' MUST go. This is hardly a novel thought on my part or a NEW one. I said the same things 2 years ago.

KR is 100& right; his motivations may be somewhat base BUT that does not alter the objective rightness of what he said or the objective reasons why someone had to say it.

Jussi: All EU happy talk aside,my gut feeling is that Le Pen and Haider and Vlaams Blok are the future of European politics.Call it Fascism lite - you'll be surprised at how fast the winds can change.

I'm afraid you may be right, and I really hope you're wrong. I do love Amsterdam. Yet the ferocity of anti-Muslim rage after one man was killed exceeded the ferocity in America after 3000 were killed.

What if the 19 muzzie skyjackers were American?

Rove was spot on. Don't get your undies in a munch just because he spoke the truth.

I wonder if the fact that Mayor Daley has a son in the military (if I remember correctly) has caused him to take his somewhat non-"normal for a Democrat" stance on Senator Durbin?

>>Oh, and I do think you're misinterpreting what
>>Rove said. If you look at the broader context
>>of his speech, clearly by "motives" he means
>>liberals are putting partisanship over
>>national security, not deliberately betraying
>>the United States.

> Yes, plenty of nonsense from the left after
> 9/11, whether it's from the majority or not.
> But "Liberals=Traitors" are fighting words. My
> wife is a liberal, as are most of my friends.

Liberals=Traitors may be fighting words, but what seems to be escaping your cronies here, is that THEY ARE YOUR WORDS, NOT KARL ROVE'S.

And your point about most americans supporting the war in Afgahnistan is well taken, but you take your conclusions several steps further than the evidence warrants.

• The 10% that opposed even that commonsense step MOST CERTAINLY ARE liberals... especially the organizations that objected, which reads like a who's who of liberal politics. Like, ahem, Amnesty International. Nope, no liberals here!

• Toppling the Taliban and then going home and hoping 9/11 never happens again is the foreign-policy equivelant of cruise-missiling an asprin factory... all symbolism, no substance. So many liberals supported going after one Al-Queda branch in a fifth-world country as long as France didn't object. Whooo Hoooo.

Rove was perfectly right: that's not liberals 'preparing for war' against Al-Queda, that's liberals demanding a gesture to make them feel safe, then breaking out the indictments and the therepy, guilty as charged.

Let the record show that when the going got tough, the tough got A.N.S.W.E.R., Michael Moore, and Howard Dean.

Spaniard wrote:

"He called you Libs wimps-- not Nazis. It hurt your feelings? You'll get over it."

OK, if you say so, friend. Frankly, I'm already over it.

Michael,

Ryan Waxx is right. Do not become one of those Dowdy re-write-the-words-to-accommodate-the- agenda-of-the-message, you lose credibility.

I'd like to know how your liberal wife and friends will respond when the day arrives in which American infidel gays are thrown off roof-tops for being gay and American infidel females are buried in a hole in the ground up to their necks then stoned to death for having shamed Islam by being raped by holy men?

Will Western Liberalization call for military action to defend Liberal's high standards of 'morality' or will Western Liberalization bend over and appease Islamic Jihadism?

Based on current behavior is would appear Western Liberalization would choose the latter just to spite America.

By the way, mainland Europe's political correctness for tolerating Islamic Jihad Fascism is what is driving the decline of European Liberalism. Do American Liberals really wish to follow Eurabia's path?

I love Rove's comments.

I love the sight of liberal terrorist-appeasing limp-wristed pansy traitor Democrats (oops--that last one was redundant) struggling to assert that, yeah, despite everything they have said over the past few years, they are really pro-freedom, pro-military, America-loving patriots who clearly see the enemy and want to get the enemy as badly--no, even more!--than Republicans do.

The sight is funnier than watching Durbin try to weasel out of--I mean explain--his remarks.

I love the "outrage" over Rove's remarks. Quick--get the liberals a fainting couch! Yeah, they are a tough bunch, all right.

I hope the "outrage" over Rove's remarks is on the front page of evey newspaper in America through the 2008 elections.

LOL.
________________

The insurgents, or 'terrorists', in Iraq are not likely to hate and attack american soldiers more on the account of someone having compared bad behavior of those soldiers to the behavior of nazis.

On the contrary, by using this overdriven analogy, some Americans have shown that they very much care about not even remotely approaching the ways of nazi's.

If anything, that will ring positively among the insurgents and among the rest of the population in Iraq.

If America, with all its power and civilization, doesn't show will to self discipline and restraint, then why should her enemies? And what exactly is won by mistreating prisoners of war?

Calling people 'traitors' for not supporting torture, war and mistreatment of prisoners is nothing but highly hysterical and utterly stupid.

The USA is somehow politically involved into all countries of the world, like Aurora's long pink fingers reaching into every corner of the world. That involvment is in many cases a negative one. The general policy of the US seems to be like the one of the ancient Mongols. To hinder other nations growing economically, politically and culturally. This is usually achieved by supporting the most reactionary and dumbest party/guerilla/movement in every region. No matter be it left, right, muslim, or atheist.

Re that the US was 'saving Europe's ass' during WW2, not so fast. The Soviets killed about 3.5 million german soldiers, while the british and american forces together killed 0.2 million.

So yes, there was some 'saving', but not as much as some would have it. Not all Europeans were as paralyzed as the French.

>If even one of those political hallucinations really were true, if liberals really were traitors, if conservatives really were fascists, the United States would explode in a convulsion of civil war.

Nah. The Internet spares the type of candy-ass right-wing toads who are currently clotting your comments box from having to stand up, speak their odious opinions to real live liberals, and get their teeth kicked down their throats for it. If there were no blogs, there would probably be a lot more violence in American streets. But people are lazy (me included), and they're only interested in preaching to the converted - just like Rove, who only vomits this stuff out when he's safely among his people, or like the president, who makes sure there are no dissenters in the audience when he makes one of his pathetic attempts at public speech. The reason this country doesn't erupt is not that we're all fundamentally decent at heart - we aren't. We just never actually encounter one another. If someone said to me, on a public street corner, what Karl Rove said to that audience, I'd punch them in the throat without a second thought. But it won't happen. We're all Americans. We support our causes through blog posts, not through direct action. That's why young Republicans get so freaked out when people ask them how come they haven't enlisted to fight the war they're so hot on. And it's why sensible people concerned with the future of their country aren't going house to house murdering right-wing scum in their beds.

Wow, this topic sure seems to have touched a nerve or two. I just skimmed most comments (no time) so perhaps the points I'm making have already been made.

First, expect the stridency to get worse. American public support for the war is dropping. The Republicans will be pushing every red, white and blue emotional button they can think of to rally folks to the cause. I wonder how long before we start hearing about the "Silent Majority"?

Second, Rove said "liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Now I'm not sure exactly what he meant, other than to push emotional buttons. But think back - do you remember what it was like on September 11, 2001? I do. There was widespread talk of turning Afghanistan into a nuclear wasteland. I remember listening to a US talk radio show. The commentator was raving: "We should do to them what we did to the Japanese! Sure, we let them live, but they don't smile any more! We burned the smiles off their faces!"

There was some silly talk by leftists that somehow America deserved it. But I don't think that anybody who preached reason and measured reaction on that day has anything to be ashamed of.

Ahhh, I guess the old saying, "Know the truth and the truth will set you free" has crashed on the rocks of those with short term memory problems, eh?

Note the following comment from the Anchoress who doesn't suffer from that malady: "Let’s start here with Moveon.org’s ‘demands’ some 48 hours after the attack of 9/11/01: ”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.”"

The Anchoress also reminds us of Katha Pollitt and her, "PUT OUT NO FLAGS" witless, whining, and spineless rant in the Nation magazine...

The GOP Vixen also doesn't suffer from the malady that Totten and other exhibit, short term memory problems with her: Appeaser Memory Lane...

So just what was Karl Rove's supposedly "Extremists and Their Hallucinations" words?

Reminders of the homegrown sedition we have to deal with from the leftie/liberal parasites and their lap dogs, the dim-witted Dems?

Then again if someone like Totten considers the New York Times as a credible source of information and news then I ask you, who is really an extremist with hallucinations?

Karl Rove's statements were political. Rational
is to political as knife is to gun. Youse guys are
wanting Karl to take a knife to a gun fight.

> Democracies are supposed to be free-speech zones,even to the point of absurdity.It is when the dissent stops in a country that people outside start muttering about brown boots - and stop taking official statements seriously.

> In that light,the correct response to the Durbin affair would have been:"Well,I think you're nuts,Senator,but hey,it's a free country."

There's a strong point to be made here, but this isn't taking the meme far enough.

If the appropriate response to Durbin is "hey, it's a free country," doesn't that imply that the appropriate response to Rove is the same? Or rather, that Rove's response is no worse, and if we legitimize the one, then we must legitimize the other?

Which is to say that I agree with Mr. Totten and Mr. Cole right up until the point where they start demanding that Rove needs to issue an apology. Rove has a right to say what he did, just as Durbin had a right to his words.

Durbin's words were despicable, and Rove's reply did nothing to help matters. But freedom of speech is a more important concern than the impolitic of any given comment. This constant harping for apologies serves only to limit the scope of public discourse to what is considered "acceptable."

We've already seen the harm that political correctness can do. Why make it worse?

Hey pdf, what public street do you hang out on?

Quite blowing smoke, you silly little middle-class white-bread wanna-be Che'

You're a poseur and you know it.

"Conservatives saw ... ; liberals saw ..."

Could someone please explain to me why the Democrats are up in arms about this? Rove did not say "Republicans saw" and "Democrats saw"!!! I suppose if the label fits...

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't think a few insane statements from Durbin or Rove make them innately insane.
Nor do I think Trent Lott should have been removed from office for his comments. If racism and insanity are alive in America, they are not going to be fixed by oppressing the racists and insane.
In Lebanon, we must deal with everyone since we don't have the power to overthrow them. That means people can actually assassinate the ones they don't like and get away with it. But that leads to a stream of perpetual assassinations. No side wins, all lose.
Let it be, guys. Smack Rove and Durbin around. Let Lott know racism will not be tolerated. But let's not pretend that everything a politicians says is a testament to his true feelings. They get caught up in rhetorical argument just as much as anyone.
For crying out loud, we all know that George Steinbrenner is the modern day Molotov and Dusty Baker is a moder Patten. :)

Michael,

This is something that's been building for a long time. It's been the Democrats strategy for a long time now to push all the negatives in the War on Terror and to continue to ratchet up the hyperbole in order to drive down support for Bush, the War on Terror, and the mission in Iraq. It's been a clear, coodinated campaign. With Durbin's remarks, and his quasi apology, they got caught pushing the hyperbole a little too far. With the Dem's on their heels because of the Durbin remarks, Rove was presented with a brilliant opportunity to take maximum advantage of the situation by exposing all the over the top political speech that the Democrats have been able to get away with up until now.

I would agree with you on the point that, on their face, Rove's remarks are an unfairly broad characterization of liberals. I think you would, perhaps reluctantly, agree that if he used the qualifier 'some', when referring to liberals, then the remarks would be completely accurrate. The real problem, though, is that there is a serious disconnect between what liberals and conservatives consider what acceptable political speech is, what's over the top, and what's more over the top.
A couple of weeks ago, Joan Venoochi of the Boston Globe, wrote a column called "Dean's not the Problem". In the column she says that Dean shouldn't back down from making his imflammatory 'Republicans are white Christian' remarks because it helps energize and build the Democratic Party. I sent her an email saying that I'm glad her and other Dem's feel that way because it shows that Dem's still just don't get it. Ms Venoochi responded to me by saying that she agrees that Dean's rhetoric is a little harsh but that it's ok because, she wrote, "George Bush won re-election via a very mean, nasty campaign that accused John Kerry of being a cowardly, unpatriotic lying flip-flopper." Huh? Naturally, I was stunned. She actually thouht the Republican campaign was meaner and nastier than the Democrats. Maybe it's unfair, but I think that's the view of many Democrats. They're so blinded in they're hatred for Bush that they don't see the hate that many of their leaders spew out in their attacks on Bush. The fact is that Kerry did lie about his Cambodia service, and he did flip flop on the vote for funding the Iraq war. That's just pointing out the record. No national Republican figure that I know of actually called Kerry unpatriotic or a coward - although it was definitely implied. Oooh! Republicans implied Kerry was weak on national defense - by pointing out his voting record in the Senate. What killed Kerry were his own words: the Swiftboat commercials playing his own anti-Vietnam war testimony before Congress; and his statement that if he could vote again now he'd still vote for the war in Iraq. So liberals think that's mean, uncalled for, and over the top political speech. Conservatives point out the record of liberals and it's over the top. I don't get it. From a conservative's perspective, it seems like that ever since Iraq began as an issue, it's been a case of 'Dem's Gone Wild' as far as what's considered acceptable political speech. The examples are legion; many already have been mentioned here by previous posters. I know it's not necessary to mention others in order to make the point but I will anyway. Remember the: "screw them" post by Kos about the charred American bodies hanging from the bridge in Fallajuh; NY professor who hoped for a thousand Mogadishu's; "Bush is venal" remark by Chevy Chase; episode of MoveOn.org sponsoring a Bush=Hitler cartoon; lies of Fahrenheit 911; Dean on NPR advancing the theories that Bush knew about 911 ahead of time; Dean saying "Republicans are evil", "I hate Republicans", and the Republicans are the "white Christian party"; Moore's comments that Bush was a coward and was AWOL; Senator Harkin's comments on the floor of the Senate basically saying that Bush was a "chicken hawk"; Senator Kennedy's comments on the floor of the Senate saying that the prisoner abuse at Abu Grahib has not changed since Sadam left but has merely been taken over by new management; the million repititions of the chant 'BUSH LIED'; and Charles Rangel equating the war in Iraq with the Holocaust just to name a few. This is mean, hateful, and over the top rhetoric that deserved to be repudiated. Maybe I'm blinded myself, but I just didn't see anything close to this type of hate coming from Republicans during the campaign. And yet, after each one of these instances, there would only be a handful of Democrats, at best, repudiating these types of remarks. The overwhelming majority would remain silent - indicating their tacit approval of such rhetoric. Then the Gitmo hearings came up. Just like last year when the Dem's tried to incessantly pound away on the Abu Grahib story, the Dem's (with the help of some of their friends in the media) decided to pound away on Gitmo. What do you know? Sure enough Thomas Friedman comes out saying Gitmo should be closed. Then Jimmy Carter does do. Amnesty International calls Gitmo a gulag. Then during Senate hearings Senator Leahy, Reid and Feingold call Gitmo a disgrace and an embarassment to the country, blah, blah, blah. And then, finally, Senator Durbin, on the floor of the Senate compares American practices at Gitmo to the Nazis and the Communists in the Gulags and the Killing Fields of Cambodia. Here's where the Democrats just went too far as far as hyperbole goes. Here's where, like others who have responded already to your post, I think you're way off in your characterization of Durbin's remarks as merely being unintentional in their total effect. Let's be serious here. Let's not do another Newsweek and claim that we didn't know this could be inflammatory in other parts of the world. Clearly Durbin's remarks were intentional; they were intended to wound Bush. If the remarks were bad for America as far as the War on Terror goes, so be it. That, to me, is what was obvious. The comparisons Durbin made were disgusting and offensive. Having a prisoner get a little cold, and then a little hot - all under the close supervision of Doctors - doesn't even come close to camps where millions were tortured and killed; claiming otherwise, essentially saying that Bush and the US Military=Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot combined, in prepared remarks on the floor of the Senate, and then refusing to retract or apologize for the comments, only gives aid and comfort to the enemy and borders on treason. What's worse is that almost all the major Democratic figures were silent in the face of these remarks. In light of the seriousness of the remarks, their silence only makes their conduct equally shameful. So there you have it. Democrats saw Durbin's remarks as no big deal. Republicans saw it as a possibly powerful, unjust, uncalled for propaganda attack in the international public relations campaign to win support for the War on Terror. That's a major difference in outlook. So the Republicans simply saw it as Democrats being able to get away with going too far for too damn long and decided they needed to counter attack. Hence Rove's remarks. So, were Rove's remarks inflamatory? Yes. Were they unfair? Yeah, probably a little bit. Again, how many major Democratic politicians criticized Durbin's remarks, especially after it became known they were broadcast on Al Jazeera? The fact is that almost all the major liberals and Democratic figures in the country were silent even after Durbin's remarks were broadcast on Al Jazeera. That's inexcusable. Where at least was the Joe Liberman who once said that Dean was stuck in a spider hole of denial if he didn't think that capturing Sadamm Hussein made us safer? He was silent. No matter whether you agree with it or not, no matter whether they would admit it or not, the silence of all those Democrats communicated volumes visa vis their opinion on Durbin's remarks. So when Rove associated "liberals" to Durbin's remarks that were broadcast on Al Jazeera there is some connection. Bottom line: Rove may have been a little over the top but not nearly as over the top as the Dem's have been for a long time now - and that will be born out during the fallout and chatter process that will take place over the next few days as a result of this story.

Yes, plenty of nonsense from the left after 9/11, whether it's from the majority or not. But "Liberals=Traitors" are fighting words. My wife is a liberal, as are most of my friends.

For Durbin to say that our soldiers are traitors to the Geneva Conventions, to say that our men and women in uniform are the equal to Pol Pot, Hitler or Stalin seems to rise a bit more the the bar of righteous indignation. Talk about your broad brush. Besides, to dismiss Durbin's comments as anything less than traitorous is to assume that he is an ass, a fool, an idiot. His carefully-worded non-apology proves that he is not.

The silence from liberal leadership was deafening, and I would believe the context of any political speech is aimed at leadership; Rove doesn't know your wife and no one seriously would argue that he believes EVERY SINGLE LIBERAL is a traitor. For you to wrap your indignant soul in that sort of playground cant is just silly.

To state that liberals in power have an approach to the problem of terrorism that smacks of new-age-feel-good,who-amongst-us-is-pure, RodneyKing-can't-we-all-just-get-alongism is well, pretty easily defended. Just look at the WTC memorial process.

I'm sure Karl Rove's dim view of liberal hand-wringing makes the Al-Q a bit more nervous than all the liberal leaders lying about Gitmo ever will.

Michael, you make some reasonable points but the fact remains that the tone of the left is set by the far left appeasement faction. During the few months after 9/11 the public’s mood was such that moderate Democrats could say reasonable things and dominate the liberal wing. Other Democrats, such as Tom Daschle, used to complain about “censorship” because the mood was such that blame-America rhetoric was taboo. As soon as that wore off, the American-bashing left drowned out the moderate Democrats. You have to distance yourself from the hate-America types as much as the Republicans have distance themselves from David Duke.

By the way, a good book to recall the mode of the post-911 left is Paul Berman’s “Terror and Liberalism.” It’s also a good example of a man of the left who can face the Islamist problem. And let’s remember, England’s Tony Blair. There’s no reason the left can’t play a strong roll in the war on terror – just marginalize the Michael Moores instead of allow them to sit in the seat of honor at the Democratic convention.

Rove is playing the Left like a fiddle. Now he gets to regurgitate all the anti-American and anti-war stuff the Left has said since 9/11.

And those concerned with national security will move Right again.

The guy is a freakin' genius.

You guys are confusing patriotism with fascism. again.
My point: Pols sent us soldiers into Iraq to kill and die in order to neutralise the WMD threat from Saddam.
Now we know that there was no threat.
So why are soldiers killing and dying in Iraq?
How do they justify their actions?
Why doesn't some commanding officer stand up and ask, on behalf of his men:
The rational for this war is no longer valid. We lack a rational. We cannot continue with this occupation.
We need an answer to this question.
And above all, the men and women in uniform deserve one.
Would that be unpatriotic?

There’s no reason the left can’t play a strong roll in the war on terror – just marginalize the Michael Moores instead of allow them to sit in the seat of honor at the Democratic convention.

Amen. If they'd taken your advice in 2004, Bush would be out of office.

But the Dems have a very serious problem - they are allowing the party donors to control the party at the expense of the party constituents. And it's not just national security -- teachers' unions and educrats are destroying our public schools, environmentalism is costing people's jobs, lax crime laws pushed by the Soros crowd have turned too many minority neighborhoods into hellholes... the list goes on and on.

Pols sent us soldiers into Iraq to kill and die in order to neutralise the WMD threat from Saddam.

No, we sent them because Saddam was a brutal dictator who supported terrorists, flouted int'l law, broke the ceasefire terms, and refused to adequately explain what he had done with his WMD.

This kind of ex post facto reasoning re WMD ignores the fact that all decisions are necessarily made under some level of uncertainty.

Geez TallDave, everything on your list is pretty much demonstrably wrong:
"teachers' unions and educrats are destroying our public schools," - no, non-involved parents are destroying our schools. For some reason children of Asian immigrants do just fine in those very same schools. It may be parents are lazy, it may be that in too many families the parents are too busy working two jobs to worry about their kids education. But put the blame where it really belongs.

"environmentalism is costing people's jobs,"
Let's see some statistics. I work as a management consultant to troubled businesses on the verge of bankruptcy. In 100 engagements in a variety of industries environmental regulation is rarely a major problem - healthcare costs are the biggest problem underming our competitiveness.

" lax crime laws pushed by the Soros crowd have turned too many minority neighborhoods into hellholes... " Now you've gone insane. George Soros is pushing lax crime laws? It's ironic how the right has demonized a man who has done more to address the harm caused by Communism than 1000 rightwing bloggers and the US Government put together.

There are blinkered ignoramuses on the right and left, but it is clear the greatest danger to the US today comes from the right. The reason is simple - the right-wing controls every branch of government and is dictating the agenda. Blaming the left or the media for what's wrong with America at this point is a cop-out.

I do want to agree with those who say Rove is a political genius. He obviously made these remarks to deflect attention away from General Abizaid's remarks to Congress yesterday that Cheney is wrong and the insurgency is not showing any signs of weakening. In the big picture I think we are slowly winning the war on terror, and slowly winning in Iraq, but it is also clear that by Rove's benchmarks Bush is failing miserably. The war on Iraq was supposed to be easy, and Bush/Rove refuse to go to America and tell the people to be patient. Why? If Bush is 80% right on the War on Terror and 20% wrong, why can't he admit that he was 20% wrong? This just gives ammunition to the people who think he was 100% wrong. Rove continues to use the War on Terror as a political weapon to drive every other part of his agenda, all Americans should be disgusted by that.

No, everything on my list is demonstrably correct. Catholic schools spend a third of what public schools do with far better results. Teacher's unions oppose vouchers, accountability, and everything else that could make schools better.

Statistics on environmentalism costing jobs? OK, do a search on Kyoto; the estimated cost to world GDP ranges from hundreds of billions to trillions. That's before we start talking about ANWR drilling, logging, land development, etc.

Apparently you don't know much about George Soros and crime laws. I suggect you read up on his "Open Society" initiative.

I was going to make a comment about how, with Rove's nonsensical rant and that loony flag burning amendment, the Republicans are becoming just as crazy as the Deaniac Dems.

I was going to whine about the state of American democracy (as I did on my site), but Jussi's comment stopped me.

All EU happy talk aside,my gut feeling is that Le Pen and Haider and Vlaams Blok are the future of European politics.Call it Fascism lite - you'll be surprised at how fast the winds can change.

I don't see this as an option really;it is practically inevitable.Hopefully things won't get as ugly as the last time though.

The European left and right have always seemed to be more extreme than the American, wobbling between outright Marxism and anti-immigrant fascism. Despite their ability to vote, people there seem to think that solutions are only found through the government, not themselves.

If a resurgence of fascism seems "practically inevitable", wouldn't it be a good idea to speak out against it? Other people out there are probably worried about the same thing. I've lived over there, and I find it hard to believe that the majority supports Le Pen style fascism.

Hopefully things won't get as ugly as the last time?? People should do a little more than hope.

There are blinkered ignoramuses on the right and left, but it is clear the greatest danger to the US today comes from the right. The reason is simple - the right-wing controls every branch of government and is dictating the agenda.

So when the Right dictates the agenda, that's a danger to America. Gotcha.

Catholic schools do better because the parents are more motivated. It's self-selecting. The public schools weren't that great before teachers' unions either. I'm not a big fan of educrats or teachers' unions either, but they are a symptom, not the cause of the problem.

Kyoto is just one example of environmental regulation. You're ignoring the costs to society of environmental degradation which can also run to trillions of dollars. In the US poor air and water quality translate directly into higher health costs that employers are forced to bear. China will be paying dearly in the future for destroying its agricultural land and polluting its water table. The Soviet Union is paying a heavy price today for not having any real environmental regulation.

I'll read up on Soros - but the way you made your argument is prima facie ridiculous. Those minority neighborhoods have been hellholes for 30 years, Soros can hardly be blamed for that no matter what he's pushing today. In fact, in Boston and New York the minority neighborhoods are in much better shape today than 30 years ago.

> The European left and right have always seemed to be more extreme than the American, wobbling between outright Marxism and anti-immigrant fascism. Despite their ability to vote, people there seem to think that solutions are only found through the government, not themselves.

It's a misnomer to call said extremists either left or right.

The political ideologies and methods of the Marxists and the Fascists have always been remarkably similar - it's just a matter of which group they choose to scapegoat during their ascent to power. Likewise, they seem to attract the same types of followers - self-righteous, self-deluded idiots all too willing to get taken in by the charms of whichever sociopath they've chosen to lead them. An activist is an activist, no matter which delusion he's acquired.

In any event, it's always the same principle that applies - the Jews, the Muslims, the Capitalists, the Red-Headed-People-Of-Indeterminant-Parentage, or whoever, are evil, and something must be done about them! Of course, they entirely disregard the fact that "doing something" is usually what got them into the mess in the first place.

Marx's only innovation was in picking a relatively abstract principle, rather than any tangible ethnic or religious group, to use as his scapegoat.

OT, the Dutch have chosen Pym Fortuyn as the greatest Netherlander.

http://www.jsonline.com/enter/tvradio/jun05/336006.asp

Spaniard,

Any time a minority of the population tries to force its absolute will on the majority and demonize a third of the population in the bargain, clearly that's a danger to America. That danger used to come from the Left in the 1970s, now that danger clearly comes from the Right. While libertarians are starting to get a little hysterical the threat is probably not too grave, since the minority seems once again to be failing at creating a brave new world. But since the Right continues to try to undermine the constitutional checks and balances put in place by our Founding Fathers, any patriotic American should have serious reservations about supporting the current Republican leadership.

Mike,

Don't agree with your take on the substance of Rove's remarks - I think that there's abundant evidence of their accuracy (the web's a wonderful thing, ain't it?).

But I do agree with postings elsewhere and some of the commenters here that the Dems and the MSM in their relentless, Wile E. Coyote like zeal to play gotcha, have fallen right into another Rove trap.

Just look at the Post's front page coverage today compared to the way they attempted to bury the Durbin story. Same deal with the Times. As I predicted yesterday, as of this morning, they've already devoted more space and reporting resources to the Rove comments in 2 days than they had with Durbin for 2 weeks.

Then look at Mehlman's press release and all the links and citations now floating around the web to remind Americans of "liberal" reaction to 9/11.

Agree that many liberals, especially those who shun the label in public, reacted strongly to 9/11. However when you can readily remind Americans that the de facto DNC, Moveon.org, carried a peace petition using the very same words that Rove stated, then the fishin' is just too easy.

Now with an assist from those self-denying liberals in the Senate and the MSM, Rove has gotten the whole country focused again on why they have rejected the Dems in the last 2 election cycles.

BTW, kudos to you (and the posters) for hosting one of the most lively, yet relatively respectful commenting sessions on this topic.

Vanya,

filibusters are a Senate tradition, but they were NOT put in place by the Founding Fathers. Moreover, the filibuster has traditionally been used for legislation, not judges. It's Dems who are bucking tradition.

Conveniently, you leap to a conclusion:

...Liberals deliberately hope to put our troops in greater danger... Liberals=Traitors....

Another possibility would be:

Liberals value political machinations over troop saftey: Liberals=Machiavellian

> The public schools weren't that great before teachers' unions either.

Actually, that's untrue. Public school performance has declined sharply since the 1960's. Unsurprisingly, this coincides with the increase in government regulation regarding education.

Vanya,
"the right-wing controls every branch of government and is dictating the agenda.

Not sure how you can be saying that: let's see now, Social Security reform; John Bolton; federal judges; yep, the right sure has total control of everything!!

This is better than a steel cage match! _

Vanya,
The biggest problems with the public schools are that the system is extremely hesitant to take disciplinary action, and that they consistently let unqualified students pass. Those are the direct results of the school district administrations. Of course, the admin staffs are virtually all former teachers, and thus have an extremely strong liberal bent. Lack of parental involvement is also an issue, but not as damaging as the above two.

Vanya,
Now it's the right that is demonizing? Have you listened to the anti-Christian rhetoric from the left for the past 10 years?

"But since the Right continues to try to undermine the constitutional checks and balances put in place by our Founding Fathers"

Interesting you would say that today, after yesterday's USSC decision re property rights. Look at how the judges voted.

tee-hee!

In 1959, American students had the highest test scores in the world. After 40 years of liberal control of education, we spend 3 times as much (even adj for inflation) and they're nearly last among industrialized countries, somewhere below Latvia.

Meanwhile, students at Catholic schools, free of liberal meddling, career educrats, and teacher's unions, continue to perform far better for the same amount we spent in 1959.

Catholic schools do better because the parents are more motivated. It's self-selecting

Sorry, that tired old argument has been proven wrong by statistical analysis. Even adjusted for all factors, they simply do a better job teaching.

Vanya,

"but it is also clear that by Rove's benchmarks Bush is failing miserably."

Oh, really. How is that?

"The war on Iraq was supposed to be easy"

Who ever said it was going to be easy? Remember all the scary predictions before the war from people who were mostly agaisnt the idea - the millions of refugees, the tens of thousands of American dead,all the economic and environmental damage that was going to take place etc., etc.. And that was just supposed to be in the beginning of the war. Of course none of that panned out. So it was just another case of the left using blown up scary scenarios to scare people into not supporting the war and then after the war does in fact begin switch over to having the highest possible expectations for the enterprise - with minimal costs in blood and treasure tolerated over the shortest period time. Blah, blah, blah. Go back and read some of the early press reports of the war. After five days the NY Times was calling it a quaqmire. Rougly two weeks later the statue was coming down. Yes there were, and continue to be, problems. But the bottom line is that the left, and their lackeys in the MSM have done nothing but carp, complain and preach doom and gloom since day 1 of the war - except for a few days after the election last January. But no one ever said it was going to be easy - except lefties like you when they go into their carping mode.

"and Bush/Rove refuse to go to America and tell the people to be patient. Why? If Bush is 80% right on the War on Terror and 20% wrong, why can't he admit that he was 20% wrong?"

Ah, the old 'why won't he admit he was wrong refrain'. This is when libs sound like little pouting babies. Every time Bush doesn't admit that it was wrong libs sound like they're about to stomp their feet and cry. C'mon. Let's be honest. Libs want Bush to say he was wrong just for the gotcha, just for the political capital it would give them against Bush. For the millionth time, we did not go into Iraq just for the WMD. We went in for several reasons; one being for the purpose to fundementally change the ME by installing a democracy there. Even the limitted results of the Arab spring so far seem to indicate that our efforts in the region are fundementally changing the ME for the better. Moreover, as time goes by it becomes more clear that no amount of international diplomacy by itself would have achieved the results that we've achieved so far. So it wasn't a mistake to go into Iraq. And, no, we did not find any WMD. BFD. Get over it. It was the right thing to go in. That's all that matters. Admitting surprises and mistakes is wanted for fodder for future Democratic campaign commercials. I actually agree that a few updates and reminders from time to time by the President regarding the WOT - to stay the course, etc. - would be a good thing. But not for the purposes of any apologies.

"This just gives ammunition to the people who think he was 100% wrong."

No it doesn't. The people who think he was 100% wrong will always think he was 100% wrong. By the way, the President has already admitted that mistakes have been made and that prewar intelligence on the WMD has since shown to be wrong etc. But that's not what the libs want to hear. The libs want to hear Bush say that "I was wrong", or that "It was wrong to go into Iraq". Blah, blah, blah.

"Rove continues to use the War on Terror as a political weapon to drive every other part of his agenda, all Americans should be disgusted by that."

This is just lame. How is he using WOT to drive the Social Security bill or the bankruptcy law that was recently passed?

Exhelodrvr, I agree with you 100% on the property rights decision. It is good to know that the Conservatives on the court have a little libertarian backbone. Is the Republican congress going to do anything to redress this wrong?

I haven't listened to the anti-Christian rhetoric because I haven't really heard any. I can't say that I've heard a single American politician say that Christianity is a bad religion, that Christian values are wrong, that the Bible teaches immorality or that we should all worship Satan. The only public figure I know of who is reliably and publicly anti-Christian is Christopher Hitchens, and he's not American. Can you cite any quotes?

Does Karl Rove watch Al-jazeera? How does he know what they are broadcasting? If he does, is that treasonous? Were Durbin's comments actually broadcasted on Al-Jazeera? Abuaardvark's blog looks into it and finds otherwise. It seems that Condi Rice's