| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
ROVE CRITICIZES LIBERALS ON 9/11:
“Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers,” Mr. Rove, the senior political adviser to President Bush, said at a fund-raiser in Midtown for the Conservative Party of New York State.
...”Has there ever been a more revealing moment this year?” Mr. Rove asked. “Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.”
Bingo.
#2I agree that government policy should be analyzed on observable facts, rather than on speculation about people's motives. However, it was the Libs that made such a big deal out of GWB's motives in the war on Iraq, often questioning them (e.g. statements that the true motive of the war is for oil, etc.). Rove is just giving the Libs a taste of their own medicine.
Otherwise, I don't see that Rove is mischaracterizing Liberals. His statements are perfectly accurate.
We stood shoulder to shoulder with Bush as he fought the Taliban
I have no doubt that you did; but Liberals in general made a huge noise that the war in Afghanistan was unwinnable, citing the Soviet Union's failed efforts to fight in that area, and saying that it would be impossible to ferret the Taliban out of their network of mountain caves.
#3His statements are perfectly accurate.
Can you offer a couple of examples of liberals who "offered therapy for our attackers" immediately after 9/11?
#4Surely. Links (via Instapundit) are here, here, and here.
All of the following is quoted from Captain's Quarters:
Why did Rove say the liberal response was to beg for moderation and restraint? Perhaps it has to do with MoveOn.org and its petition drive less than 48 hours after the collapse of the Twin Towers (emphases mine):
Petition 1: "We, the undersigned, citizens and residents of the United States of America and of countries around the world, appeal to the President of The United States, George W. Bush; to the NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson; to the President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi; and to all leaders internationally to use moderation and restraint in responding to the recent terrorist attacks against the United States. 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."
It could also have been these quotes:
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."
Have the Democrats actually retracted any of these statements? It sounds to me like truth is an absolute defense for Rove.
#5Vik, I asked for examples of liberals who "offered therapy for our attackers." You responded with a whole bunch of quotes, but not a single one makes the slightest reference to "offering therapy for our attackers."
You argued that Karl Rove's "statements are perfectly accurate." Rove accused liberals of "offering therapy for our attackers." Can you provide actual examples of liberals doing this?
I'll also add that I agree with most of those "liberal" statements. But remember also that when it came time to attack our enemies (state-sanctioned terrorism in Afghanistan), Democrats voted overwhelmingly to go. If you can't understand our position, at least do us the courtesy of not calling us ineffectual cowards (basically what Rove is saying)... we'd be happy to explain our hard-line defense position in more detail.
When you launched this blog, you asked people to steer clear of name calling. But I guess it's okay when Rove does it, hmm?
The only hint of truth in what Rove says is the line about "indictments." There was a thought to capture and put on trial the perpetrators of the attack. But hey, Bush wanted to do that too! He wanted Bin Laden captured and tried. So how is this a liberal position?
Anyway, Bush can't even catch Bin Laden since he's too busy in Iraq. I wonder if, like he says he does for Iraq, Bush thinks about Bin Laden "every single day."
"I asked for examples of liberals who 'offered therapy for our attackers.' . . . Can you provide actual examples of liberals doing this?"
Okay, how about this, from a Georgetown prof who fairly well represents the thinking of the academic left:
"Among psychologists there is an agreement that terrorists do not fit into defined 'stereotypes,' such as being ill educated or economically deprived," he said. "They are more likely to arise out of conditions where there is a strong sense of injustice and a feeling that fundamental rights have been denied."
The psychological importance is not whether this perceived injustice is accurate or not, but how discontent can be channeled into peaceful avenues to bring about constructive consequences. For this channeling to take place Moghaddam believes that peaceful and democratic avenues must be made available.
"This is a great challenge in regions such as the Middle East where the continuation of dictatorships means the continued threat of terrorism in New York and Washington, D.C. That's how real the global village has become," he said.
According to Moghaddam, proceeds from [his] book will benefit a peace prize to be awarded annually to a psychologist who contributes to world peace efforts. Psychologists for Social Responsibility, a Washington, D.C.-based group that uses psychological knowledge and skills to promote peace with social justice at the community, national and international levels, will administer the award.
For more quotes on this subject, see Adeimantus Blog.
"I asked for examples of liberals who ‘offered therapy for our attackers.’ . . . Can you provide actual examples of liberals doing this?"
Well then, here's another offer of "liberal therapy," quoted from a letter a lefty academic outfit, Psychologists for Social Responsibility, sent to the 9-11 Commission:
What attempts have been made to talk to militant leaders, either directly or through intermediaries, to see what might prevent further acts of terror? Why do our leaders seem to rule out trying to talk with them?
. . . .
How do the foreign policy and the security programs of the United States government need to be altered in order to avoid planting seeds of terrorism?
Among our members and associates are numerous experts on the psychology of terrorism. We would be happy to help the Commission access their knowledge. As a profession, we are ready to do all we can to deter future terrorism.
There's plenty more and similar leftist nonsense on Psychologists for Social Responsibility's web site.
#9Interesting response.
First, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel in using some obscure professor and advocacy group in your examples. Rove named some heavy hitters in his speech: Howard Dean, Dick Durbin, Michael Moore, and MoveOn.org. When you resort to naming people hardly anyone has ever heard of, I can only assume you can't come up with any stronger examples.
Second, both of your examples are from 2004. I specified in my original query that the examples should be from "immediately after 9/11." This was key to Rove's argument. He claimed to offer a contrast between how conservatives and liberals reacted to 9/11: the conservatives who "prepared for war" versus the liberals who "wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." By 2004, we were well past the "preparing for war" stage.
Third, neither of your examples actually has liberals "offering therapy for our attackers." The first example doesn't even come close. The second is at least in the general vicinity of the subject, but it still falls far short of "offering therapy for our attackers."
Sorry, a. You'll have to find somebody else to pick your nits for you, or else pick them for yourself.
And while you're busy picking those liberal nits, perhaps you'll find time to show us the place in the transcript wherein Rove calls liberals "ineffectual cowards," which is what your fellow liberal commenter, bellman, claims Rove "basically" said. (Geez, before you know it, you liberals will be accusing us of "questioning your patriotisim.") On a whiney and utterly trivial point (viz, Did a liberal actually offer bin Laden a free hour on the couch?), you liberals insist upon applying principles of "strict literal construction" to Rove's words and argument and to mine. But then you are quite happy to pass right over a fellow liberal's specious interpretation of what Rove "basically" said.
So, if we accept that liberal standard of interpretation, then what Rove "basically" said about liberals' preference for a theraputic and legalistic approach to terrorism is more than sufficiently well illustrated by the examples I've given. Indeed, Rove's rather obvious point is so clearly established that, to distract from their well-earned embarrassment, liberals are reduced to self-righteously indignant nit-picking.
#11I have applied a strictly literal reading to Rove's argument in response to Vik's claim that Rove's "statements are perfectly accurate."
I have not applied a strictly literal reading to Bellman's interpretation of what Rove "basically" said.
That is the difference between "perfectly" and "basically." Vik is explicitly standing by Rove's every word, while Bellman has acknowledged the imprecision of his interpretation.
In your roundabout way, you have already acknowledged that Rove's statements are not, in fact, "perfectly accurate." I am curious whether Vik will do the same.
#12a, are you requesting a quote that a Dem wanted terrorists to sit on a psychologist's couch? Balthus has already responded to that, citing that request as an example of "nitpicking" and as "an utterly trivial point." If that's your contribution to this thread, it appears you have no objection to Rove's remarks in and of themselves.
#13I have a number of objections to Rove's complete remarks, but in this forum I am only interested in addressing the two short passages you quoted along with your one-word comment of "bingo":
“Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers,” Mr. Rove, the senior political adviser to President Bush, said at a fund-raiser in Midtown for the Conservative Party of New York State.
...”Has there ever been a more revealing moment this year?” Mr. Rove asked. “Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.”
Bellman already addressed Rove's mischaracterization of liberals' motives. I addressed Rove's fantasy of liberals offering therapy for our attackers. You have dismissed our objections as trivial but have not actually argued that we are incorrect.
Which of Rove's previously quoted remarks do you think still deserve the "bingo"?
In your roundabout way, you have already acknowledged that Rove’s statements are not, in fact, "perfectly accurate."
Yes, if Rove had been "perfectly accurate," he would have said, "After 9-11, liberals blamed America for the attack, said we deserved it, called our attackers 'courageous,' and attempted to hinder our war effort." (I'm sure there's a nit in there somewhere that you can pick, so please be sure to let me know if you are unable to recall examples substantiating these points.)
The only response I can generate without saying something awfully rude is that Rove radically mischaracterizes liberals and their motives. We stood shoulder to shoulder with Bush as he fought the Taliban. Rove's comments are incredibly offensive, the more so for being completely baseless. You do yourself no credit for reprinting them.