#12 by Zoomba Friday, June 24, 2005 As a Democrat,

Exactly wrong. he said Liberals. He did not mention democrats.

Zoomba, please compare the following statements:

"Guantanamo Bay is like the Gulags."
"Conservatives are like Nazis."
"Liberals want to be nicer to terrorists than conservatives do."

The third statement is much less extreme than the first two. Also, by being much less extreme, it actually falls into the realm of reasonable comparison. Finally, unlike the first two statements, the third is amply supported by public written and spoken opinion. Liberals really are on record, multiple times, as having the general attitude which Rove describes.

Not only are liberals making outrageous comparisons between conservatives and Nazis, but now they're also trying to make equallly outrageous comparisons between their own behavior and Rove's behavior.

The day Rove says that because liberals want to coddle terrorists, they're just like Saddam Hussein, that is the day he'll have something to apologize for.

Why? Because while liberals who want to coddle terrorists are misguided fools, that doesn't put them in the same league as megalomaniacal tyrants with a Hitler fetish and a knack for mass-murdering their own citizens. Even though Saddam Hussein also coddled terrorists.

You can't refute the Nazi comparison, because anybody nutty enough to make that comparison isn't going to listen to reason.

But I guarantee you, if the liberals were to make a reasonable case that they're just as tough--or tougher!--on terrorism than conservatives are, I promise you we conservatives will happily retract our opinion of your weaksauce ways, and welcome you with open arms in a spirit of bipartisan optimism.

just another case of someone on the left "SEEING" what they want to see, so they can piss and moan.

big difference between Liberal and democrat,

"ummmm...Durbin did apologize. And Democrats said he was out of line. Karl Rove hasn't apologized, in fact, the White House backed him"
Ha. Someone's been skimming the papers a little too quickly. Not that the papers were saying anything important.

#21 by Reiki-House Friday, June 24, 2005 "ummmm...Durbin did apologize. And Democrats said he was out of line. Karl Rove hasn't apologized, in fact, the White House backed him" Ha. Someone's been skimming the papers a little too quickly. Not that the papers were saying anything important.

Hey RH why don't you try doing a little lite reading becaues your suppositions are misguided at best!Because in all actuallity Durbin did NOT apologize! And just and FYI give me the names of those dems tahat hagecalled him to task, that is if you can.

Durbin did apologize No, he did not. If you think that is an appology, then I have a bridger in Brooklyn to sell you! "If I offended anyone" is not the same as "I was wrong to call them Nazis". Learn the difference. You might be able to pass an english comprehension test if you do.

What Rove said was true, what Dean and Durbin said wasn't. That's the difference. Democrats have focused on blaming SOMEONE here for 9-11 since it happened. We have spent millions investigating and laying blame. Then, we hear that we should have known it would happen because of how we treat the poor Arabs. We should have known because we're all 'little eichman's' and fair game because we take part in a successful capitalist society. Rove was right. The reaction of the Democratic party was sympathetic to the victims, but totally opportunistic dragging people in front of subcommittees trying to glue a target to someone's, anyone's head.

considering we're all sooooo much safer now than we were on 9/11/01 thanks in no small part to karl rove's unyielding single-minded campaign to decimate the enemy--those americans on the other side of the political divide--while the candidates for whom he battled so fiercely have prosecuted the real war with real terrorists far less effectively, perhaps he should be apologizing to the entire country for having the nerve to make such an arrogant, empty divisive statement.

in a perfect world, someone would put karl's fat lil ass in charge of catching bin laden.

oh, that's right. pretty difficult to get around in a limousine--even one with an outcall boy escort crew--way out in the tribal boonies along the afghan/pakistan border.

hmmm.....interesting, sounds like a tennis match....back and forth, back and forth......(can't stand tennis,more of a golf person myself)


--doc b

" considering we're all sooooo much safer now than we were on 9/11/01 thanks in no small part to karl rove's unyielding single-minded campaign to decimate the enemy-"

The lack of single-mindedness is the problem. In reality it has been a long, drawn-out, half-assed campaign to kill the enemy as long as we don't have to offend anyone by overt use of force. Much better to pacify them by giving them lots of soldiers to shoot at.

The lack of single-mindedness is the problem

more like a lack of substance (in several senses of the term), focus, historical perspective and, most of all, any kinda real plan. i'm gonna guess you're talking bout iraq, but things were going south before anyone hadda chance not to offend anyone there. nearly 4 years later, afghanistan is a long way from being stable (except, perhaps, in kabul) and there's still a significant taliban presence. if anyone shoulda been aware of the mistakes we made in walking away from afghanistan after the ussr imploded and also been determined not to repeat them, it shoulda been the very people who wound up pretty much doing the same thing again in 2002. we certainly haven't allowed bin laden to remain at large because we were worried bout offending anyone.

nor does that have anything to do with north korea's nukes.
or with iran's nukes.

as far as domestic security goes, checking passesngers' shoes before allowing them to board planes and confiscating lighters is certainly visible and aggravating as hell, but it's all show. i live less than a mile from about a square mile of fuel and chemical containers located a couple blocks away from the main channel of the biggest port on the west coast. despite all the money that's supposed to be spent bolstering security in the harbor, there's nobody available to investigate supposedly empty containers being returned to the port (something the longshoremen did until relatively recently) and there's nothing--literally nothing--available to stop a supertanker from plowing thru the outer breakwater and down the channel til it smacks into something at 30 knots (no brakes on ships) and sets off the whole tank farm.

the same thing on a slightly smaller scale--using 18-wheelers or trains--is possible just about anywhere on the continent. it's pitifully easy to gain access to chemical plants. nuclear facilities are hardly more secure than most banks.

i'm not even scratching the surface--and i'm sure you know that as well as anyone (actually i'd bet you're far more aware of the problem than 99% of the population, myself included).

rove is either delusional or he's convinced the rest of us are dumb as fuckin rocks.

if anyone shoulda been aware of the mistakes we made in walking away from afghanistan after the ussr imploded and also been determined not to repeat them, it shoulda been the very people who wound up pretty much doing the same thing again in 2002. we certainly haven't allowed bin laden to remain at large because we were worried bout offending anyone.

Kingbee

You do know that it was John Kerry that headed up a Sub-committee and hearings at the end of the USSR pull out, that was hunting down any CIA operations continuing in Afghanistan? These operations were conducted by CIA operatives that requested repeatedly assistance to support a pro-US Government there. But Kerry's committee effectively shut down these operations (i.e. helping bring the Taliban to power); just as he lead the committees hunting CIA operations in Central America after the communist had been crushed. These later South American operations were mostly influence missions to bring about democratic change. But of course Kerry's committees did not distinguish between the good operations and the by then concluded bad ones.

In Kerry’s great zeal to make a name for himself off the backs of the CIA (just as he did to the soldier’s of Vietnam), he has caused more international problems for the US then he wants to admit. He wants to point the finger of blame on the US for not doing anything, when he should be pointing to himself first.

Sorry for getting off topic here.

Last I checked, Rove is merely an advisor to the president. He represents no one but himself. The Traitor Durbin (D, IL) on the other hand, is a U.S. Senator. When he speaks in his official capacity, he is speaking for the State of Illinois.

Furthermore, what Karl Rove said may have been insensitive and maybe even unwarranted, but The Traitor Durbin commited Slander against the troops at Guantanimo Bay at best and Treason agianst the U.S. at worst. His lies have bolstered the terrorists war effort and emboldened them in their fight against U.S. troops.

In other words, Rove may be an insensitive boor, but Durbin has committed a capital offense. Any comparison of the two is pointless drivel.

As a Republican, I'll apologize for Rove's comments: "I'm sorry if any of you were offended."

There! That's a true and authentic apology!

#29 by Enigmatic Jester Saturday, June 25, 2005

As a Republican, I'll apologize for Rove's comments: "I'm sorry if any of you were offended." There! That's a true and authentic apology!

and I will add my heart felt apoligy too, If anything karl rove said was MISINTERETED and sounded offensive to anyone , well them I am also sorry you were offended { a dick durbin apoligy} forom me to you.

#29 by Enigmatic Jester Saturday, June 25, 2005

As a Republican, I'll apologize for Rove's comments: "I'm sorry if any of you were offended." There! That's a true and authentic apology!

and I will add my heart felt apoligy too, If anything karl rove said was MISINTERETED and sounded offensive to anyone , well them I am also sorry you were offended { a dick durbin apoligy} from me to you.

You do know that it was John Kerry that headed up a Sub-committee and hearings at the end of the USSR pull out, that was hunting down any CIA operations continuing in Afghanistan? These operations were conducted by CIA operatives that requested repeatedly assistance to support a pro-US Government there. But Kerry's committee effectively shut down these operations (i.e. helping bring the Taliban to power); just as he lead the committees hunting CIA operations in Central America after the communist had been crushed. These later South American operations were mostly influence missions to bring about democratic change

i don't mean to take this any further off topic but...what was needed in afghanistan after the ussr pulled out wasn't more cia manipulation. looked at in its most positive light, afghanistan may be the only successful cia operation in the agency's history (or the only one about which there exists enough information to make a determination). the downside was our complete abandonment of a very badly broken nation we used as our proxy. considering the benefit we received as a consequence, we should have openly initiated and participated in clearing mines, repossessing arms and rebuilding the infrastructure.

don't even get me started on central and south america