»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
McCarthyism: On The Rebound?
| The Alley |
|
McCarthyism: On The Rebound? |
|
Mistletoe Angel 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8324598/ On Wednesday, Karl Rove, White House advisor, in a speech at the New York Conservative Party headquarters, said the following: "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war.Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said we will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said we must understand our enemies." First, I must say to some degree, he's right, and I'll tell you why. For over two years now I've been wanting to understand why our administration, rather than keeping their eye on Al-Qaeda, went off to war in Iraq, a country that didn't attack us on 9/11. I've been wanting to understand what Iraq ever had to do with 9/11! Instead of focusing all our attention on the attackers themselves, our administration took us to war against Saddam. Why did they lie? Why is the war still going? Why are we no closer to progress now since after Bush said "mission accomplished"? Why won't those who passionately believe in this war willing to make the sacrifice on the fields and rather count on low-income youth who desire going to college and the mlitary is their only available outlet to earn the money expect to do so? Yes, I want to understand that! I wish Rove and others would tell us why. * The bottom line here is, I don't think Rove should apologize for what he said himself. He is right about that we want to understand. As far as what he said about understanding our enemies, I believe our enemies must be jailed and punished as much as the next person over on the other side of the aisle, but the bottom line is, I believe fighting fire with fire only scatters the flames around, and to understand why there is such hate in the world, we need to recognize the origins and events that generated these terrorist instincts. Rather, I think Rove should apologize for deliberately exploiting 9/11 to purposely divide our nation further, continuing to attempt to force the ridiculous notion that "liberals hate America" when all I call for is understanding and results. To add to that, I certainly was saddened to hear O'Reilly's comments earlier this week on Monday: "And any American that undermines that war, with our soldiers in the field, or undermines the war on terror, with 3,000 dead on 9-11, is a traitor. Everybody got it? Dissent, fine; undermining, you're a traitor. Got it? So, all those clowns over at the liberal radio network, we could incarcerate them immediately. Will you have that done, please? Send over the FBI and just put them in chains, because they, you know, they're undermining everything and they don't care, couldn't care less." * Is McCarthyism making a comeback...or taking a new form? If Rove apologizes, I will accept it, but if not, I truly can't help but feel it is. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
| © Copyright 2005 Nadia Lockheart - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Is it not true that moveon.org had an online petition shortly after 9/11 for a peaceful, non-military response to the terrorists? Is it not true that several Democratic Senators insisted that we respond peacefully to the terrorists of 9/11? Is it not true that there were many political marches shortly after 9/11 calling for a peaceful, non-military response to the terrorists? Define for me, if you would, what exactly peaceful, non-military responses are. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
I believe you're really twisting the language of those three examples, replacing "attacks" with "terrorists". Anyway, that's correct. Nonetheless, this isn't the point here. It's not what he said that Rove should apologize for. It's the intent of his message that he should apologize for. It's not really what he said about liberals and conservatives particularly that he should apologize for; it's purposely addressing his views in nothing other than an inflammatory form in the effort to further divide America. I don't feel this is a coincidence either, because this comes right on the heels of an interview with David Gregory on MSNBC the day before, when he said Bush's effort to reverse the diminishing support of the war in Iraq was to say that criticizing his plan would be supporting the insurgency (more of that "Either you're with us or against us" dividing rhetoric) You know what he said when asked about the dwindling support? He said this: "We need to remember, that's part of the goal of the insurgents. Their goal is to weaken our resolve by being so violent and so dangerous and so ugly that they hope that we will turn tail and run." I have condemned the war from the beginning because I believe war just mirrors all that hatred and angst and only scatters their flames about. It only just seems to reciprocate the conflict. But others whose opinion of the war has recently shifted did so because they realize that Bush has no plan for victory in Iraq. There was no exit strategy to begin with, they realize this war can't be won, etc. Rove's words are nothing but inflammatory. This administration is desperate to defend this war we're losing and would rather work to divide America rather than re-unite it. A very tiny minority of Americans believe that 9/11 was a good thing or think that the attackers were justified in their assault on our nation. But, many more believe the war in Iraq is pointless and has cost us many many soldiers brainwashed into believing they were fighting the 9/11 attackers. We have not brought vengeance on those who attacked us, but instead preemptively attacked a dangerous nation on a different matter. What everyone needs to remember is when Bush's approval ratings were at their peak; right after 9/11. I had a positive view of Bush in the weeks following 9/11 because I truly trusted him in that perhaps together we would take the message of 9/11 in that we must remain firmly united and come together to decide in how we keep this great nation alive and well without getting too carried away. And it comes to no surprise to me how Bush's approval ratings have been virtually sliced in half since then. Instead of answering criticism, his administration chooses to silence his critics instead. Rather than desiring to keep this unity solid, some in this administration actually want to divide us. There are even some (and note I am not saying all here) just can't stand dissent, period, and are making many efforts to stamp out voices of dissent. I wish just as much as everyone else just following 9/11 that this unity could have lasted much longer. But war is something I just can't accept and rally around, and I cannot respect someone who has committed treason on many Americans in purposely playing with their hearts. In final response to your question, Alicat, if minds like mine were trusted and offered patience to seek a peaceful, non-miltary response to 9/11, I indeed believe we'd find a successful solution. The answer is, it can be broadly defined among many, just as the values of justice and freedom are. But if minds like mine had the opportunity and time to organize, I believe a desirable conclusion would be reached. Rove owes not just liberals, but America an apology for what he has said, and if he stands firmly behind how he's expressed himself, it'll only reveal the true nature of this administration's leadership in that they're more about dividing than they are uniting. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
I don't believe Rove was speaking for Bush's Administration the same way I don't believe Durbin was speaking for the Democratic party. His words, like Durbin's words, are his and his alone. Keep in mind, my friend, that there were 700,000 signatures on that petiton from moveon.org, and I can't help but feel that the overwhelming majority of those signatures were from non-conservative, non-Republican peoples. As for replacing 'attacks' with 'terrorists', well, those attacks weren't perpetrated by girl scouts or nuns. Not even by the KKK or American Nazi Party (though I personally consider them terrorists). They were committed by known terrorists from terrorist training camps. And there was one in Iraq, south of Baghdad on a penisula where Saddam had an army training ground. Half was for Iraqis, the other half were for 'guests'. Consorting was punishible by death, and the 'guests' had a complete 747 fusilage to play with. Though I originally read about this on MSNBC, when I went back to look for it a few months back, the only place which referenced it was Matthew Drudge's Drudge Report. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Yes, and the current difference is that Durbin has apologized and Rove hasn't yet. McClellan's opinions are also his own, but the fact he's allowing the White House to defend his inflammatory remarks is just absolutely saddening. Just for the record, had I known of that petition at the time just after 9/11, I would have signed it too. I haven't always agreed with MoveOn and I'm not a frequent visiter to the site, but I believe they've had just the right idea in responding to 9/11 in my view. Their Peace Campaign Founder Eli Pariser founded that site 9-11Peace.org and started a petition calling for a "peaceful response to break the cycle of violence." I absolutely agree and see nothing wrong with that, as, like I said, war just reciprocates the raw emotions and hatred of conflicts in the world. There was another petition I learned that called on world leaders to "use moderation and restraint" in responding to attacks. It specifically said in the petition, "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." I absolutely agree with that response too, as I both believe terrorists should be punished as much as the next person, but war shouldn't be a way to do so. * Now back to the real issue here. http://www.familiesofseptember11.org/news.aspx?s=5#1352 Rove's words are not merely hurting liberals...they're hurting 9/11 families too in the fact that he has chosen to exploit the tragedies of 9/11 for his own political gain, to draw attention away from the war we're losing in Iraq by blaming liberals and critics on why we're losing, and to deliberately polarize this nation. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Having read through your prior responses again, I had to remark upon the 'mission accomplished' remark. In context, that remark was aimed at the sailors returning from a tour of duty. To them: mission accomplished. And despite the carnage in Iraq by true babykillers, I don't think we're losing the war. The first commercial flight from Baghdad to Basra took place. The Iraqi government is working on their Constitution. The infrastructure would be a lot better if those damn non-Iraqies coming in from Syria would stop blowing up water treatment plants, schools, hospitals, refineries, electricity generating stations. And that's the thing: those fellers ain't Iraqi. They don't live in Iraq, and most of em don't even like Iraq. And tell me please, if you can, how do you reason with someone who would willingly send others to blow up a school which allowed women? Who would willingly send someone to kill infants? What crime have those children committed? Apparently, according to some radical Muslim views, women who are heard and seen, who aren't baby factories, who aren't property, are abominations and worthy of death. For one so vocal about civil rights for all, does the line suddenly stop in the face of supposed 'societal norms'? Tell me true, would you prefer Saddam and his sadistic sons to still be in power? Just like my reasons for enlisting are many and layered, so too were the reasons for taking out Saddam's Iraq. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
The debate on Saddam Hussein is juxtaposed from 9/11, my friend. Last time I checked, it was fifteen Saudis linked to al-Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11, not fifteen Iraqis linked to Saddam Hussein. And regardless of your own views of Iraq, Islam Karimov is still dictating in Uzbekistan and allowing violence on its own citizens and throwing innocent people into tubs of boiling hot water. Women still can't vote in Saudi Arabia among other brutally undemocratic things. Violence continues to happen in Afghanistan. And I don't see these human rights and violence issues anywhere on the scope to the level of Iraq among the administration. A near unanimous majority of the world, including myself, believes Saddam shouldn't be in power! I say the same for Karimov, Nepal's king and other brutal dictators across the world. That's not even the issue here, the issue is of 9/11 and its response. We're losing this war, losing badly. Our image internationally has been dampened, in putting our own intentions over international law and treaty. The issue of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib isn't being disciplined and is really what is encouraging further violence in the Arab world. Many people still are getting blown up each day. Water and electricity still isn't reaching many. And one of the great intents long before the war began, in privatizing the services across Iraq, is something more and more are learning about and will not stand for. We're losing there. I already believe its Vietnam II. Others may not, but Hagel, Mister Freedom Fries and 59% of latest Americans in a national poll I believe have most justified reasons for believing we're losing also. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
It seems others may be playing up to Rove's shameful words now (or maybe not): http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200506\POL20050623a.html Now Representative Joe Wilson (R-SC) had this to say: "[It is] just inconceivable and truly incorrigible that, in the midst of the war, the Democratic leaders would be conducting guerrilla warfare on American troops." Anyone feel some irony in his response compared to Rove's? Rove was basically saying that liberals are wussies that prefer sympathizing with terrorists. Meanwhile, Wilson strikes me as saying here that Democratic leaders actually are angry soldier-killers. I don't know exactly how to react to this. Obviously, from a patriotic standpoint, I am appalled and believe he must apologize and is more of that inflammatory rhetoric Rove used the day before. I also feel that the conflicts of opinion between Rove and Wilson are revealing that more of the GOP are trying to adopt the notion that "liberals hate America" as their banner for the 2006 election season, but they've already confused the message and that they'll falter to persuade. So, I ask again........has there been an exhuming of McCarthyism in our culture beginning to take real form? Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
There's one other point I'd like to bring across here that's crucially important to understand. The words of Rove and Wilson make it seem like 100% of those serving in Iraq are Republicans. That's not true. The fact is, we don't know the exact terms of percentages serving in who are Republican, who are Democratic, who are independent, conservative, liberal, etc. I personally believe that's absolutely not important here. The point is, there are many serving in Iraq who are Democrats and liberals. I happen to be close to a number of them who were stationed at Fort Carson in Colorado Springs prior to being deployed, where one of my close friends Randy Meador is also enlisted in the National Guard, who works as a security guard there. Democrats, liberals and independents honor and respect our troops just as much as Republicans and conservatives do, and a good number of those serving overseas are them. Especially on behalf of them and of 9/11 families, but indeed to all of America, I believe Rove and Wilson must come out and apologize for attempting to divide our great nation with untrue, inflammatory remarks. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
I think not. Just people in positions of political power saying extremely inflammatory and daft things. McCarthyism was a trumped up witchhunt for Communists, which led to the blacklisting of thousands from every profession, from educators to actors. The reason for that firestorm was fear. Fear of Stalin, fear of Soviet expansion in Europe, fear of military buildup, fear of Communist expansion in Asia. Remember Korea? Same timeframe. With McCarthy, I feel it had less to do with rounding up supposed Communists and more with settling old scores. Not to mention a shameless power grab. Same thing happened during the early stages of Labor Unions, especially after the Haymarket Affair. At that time, it was Socialists and Bolsheviks who were hunted. Within the current mudslinging, there aren't witchhunts. People aren't being fired and destroyed on a massive scale. Democrats sling, Republicans sling, Conservatives sling, Progressives sling, Greens sling, Independants sling....everyone in politics sling....it's one of the longstanding traditions of our Republic. And when I say 'destroyed', I mean destroyed. Banned from industry, slapped with vile labels, ostracized from society, made into pariahs, bankrupted. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
(sigh) I guess perhaps, being young and new to these sorts of issues in general, I'm just still being very much acclimated to the reality that this sort of partisan mud-slinging is really nothing extraordinarily new and is almost natural and traditional in our nation. I guess I just hear from my parents and others all the time that it has only gotten uglier and nastier than ever and it's really not just competition anymore but there is almost a viciousness to it now. By the way, when I was asking that question, I didn't necessarily mean if it's the same form of McCarthyism, but rather, like things evolve or mutate in time, if it's taken on a whole new form, where instead of those not being loyal against communism, if it has become rather those not loyal on the war on terror are seen as traitors. I don't know if you'd still call it mCCarthyism or re-name it to Roveism or whatever the proper term would be. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
If you think this current climate is ugly, look in the Congressional Record, if you have access to Governement Documents. Check out the 1860's, 1880's, 1910's, 1950's, 1970's. For some giggles, check out the destruction of Dr. Robert Bork, who was nominated by Reagan for Inspector General (I think that was it...chief medical dude in the US). The reason he was trashed by Senate Democrats, who held power, was his pot use back when he was young and stupid. Not even a decade later, a pot user, who never inhaled when he was young and stupid, was elected President. By the by, Goverment Document Repositories are located in every state, often at Universities. If you think mudslinging and muckraking is bad here, watch British Parliment. Before it was banned by Senate rules, we had the same type of system. Boos, hisses, catcalls, and every now and then, fisticuffs. By that standard, Beltway politics is insufferably polite. Also, I really don't think most seriously think those who exercise their freedom of speech are traitors. Now, those who willingly give aide and support to terrorist organizations and insurgents, those would be traitors, and should be dealt with as such. Heh, I was called a traitor once, by a feisty old democrat when I was in high school. Due to my grades, I was allowed to attend a Democratic political rally when Benson was running for the 1988 election. I made and held up a Bush/Quail sign, which was stolen by that lady. She came back a moment later, and I asked her 'Don't you believe in the First Amendment?' Her response? 'We don't need no traitors here!' |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Complete transcript I prefer that instead of excerpts. Keep in mind the audience: Conservative Republicans at a fund raiser and award ceremony. How often has Dean attacked Conservatives, Republicans, and everyone he doesn't agree with while speaking at Democratic fund raisers? It's just what they do. Comparison to Durbin's remarks is apples and oranges. Now, had Rove made these same comments as an elected official sharing representation of a State, my view on his remarks would be very different. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Alicat, it's not so much what he said which is inflammatory here, it was the intent behind his words that is shameful. He made these statements at a venue just a few blocks north from Ground Zero, the site of where the World Trade Towers used to stand. He viciously took the issue of 9/11 and is using it as his own polarizing political statement. And...being the White House adviser, it is especially influential to his party and its constituents. I am currently under the impression that no apology is in order, because, how often does the White House apologize after all? Besides that, Rove probably meant exactly what he said in considering what he said the day before and on the Scarborough interview. Rove and the White House are desperate to defend this war in Iraq that's losing more and more support, with the anti-war movement argument that this war in Iraq is a diversion on the war on terror and because of that men are Iraqis are dying for illogical reasons. So what is Rove trying to do? He's trying to say that these critics of the war are more on the side of al-Qaeda than they are on America's, that they're subverting our troops, thus liberals are unpatriotic, and some may even go as far to say, hate America. Rove also mentioned Durbin's words in his speech, who he hasn't forgiven after apologizing, and you know what he said in response: "No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals." I'm saddened and ashamed that many are defending his words here. If he and Wilson won't publicly apologize, their words are only going to backfire on them and their party and their ability to govern come 2006 and beyond. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
This is an interesting analysis of Rove's words by a conservative, which I find pretty accurate: http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/6/24/9118/22996 And on the other side of the aisle, a left-leaning New York blogger expresses his take on Rove's Wednesday comments: http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2005/06/why-conservatives-are-useless.html Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/kristen-breitweiser/karl-roves-understandin_3103.html 9/11 family victim turned activist Kristen Breitweiser responds to Rove's words from Wednesday. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
The bottom line here is that Rove has exploited one of the most painful event's of our nation's history for nothing more than a partisan-fueled effort to polarize America further, while disgracing and disrespecting the memory of the victims, to their families, and to all Americans in general.....not just liberals. It's quite obvious that was his intention in that he delivered his speech just a few blocks north from Ground Zero. Approximately 3,000 Americans were lost on September 11th. Rove has no right to speak for their families, for the experience of 9/11 was shared among the likes of liberals, conservatives, independents of every party. Kerry was most right when he said in response to his comments that we were all Americans that day, not Republicans and Democrats. The bottom line is, he deliberately has used 9/11 in a desperate event to link 9/11 with this failing war by summoning a witch-hunt on those disapproving of the war in Iraq. I happen to believe myself that the tone of his speech does hearken back to the days of McCarthyism, where both Republicans and Democrats criminalized many left-wing activities and demonstrations, calling those who fought for social causes and opposed corporate domination and American militarism worldwide traitors and spies. I don't care what Bartlett said in that Rove was referring to MoveOn and Michael Moore when he meant "liberals". I want to hear Rove say that, or respond. I feel he was bashing liberalism in general when he said in his comments, "“Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said: we will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said: we must understand our enemies. Conservatives see the United States as a great nation engaged in a noble cause; liberals see the United States and they see ... Nazi concentration camps, Soviet gulags, and the killing fields of Cambodia." * It's also obvious to me that Rove made these statements in a desperate effort to change the subject, in hope to draw attention away from the growing opposition of Iraq, or to say, "Blame the liberals for what's wrong here!". Bush's own party has been speaking out or have become fearful of this war's consequences. Hagel has said Bush's view of Iraq is "detached from reality" and that we are in fact "losing the war". Lindsey Graham admitted, "I’m here to tell you sir, in the most patriotic state that I can imagine, people are beginning to question ... the public views this every day, Mr. Secretary, more and more like Vietnam.". John Ensign of Nevada said he believed the US military presence "inspires more insurgents" and also said, "The only way they can win is back here at home, defeating us politically if we lose the support of the American people." Rove and others in the administration are looking back at how Vietnam ended because of the strong anti-war movement, and hoping to avoid another Vietnam (which I believe already is) by believing all opposition is treasonous. * Rove's words were just that pre-emptive strike on all those in opposition to the war, it's their sort of counteroffensive leading up to Bush's speech on Tuesday, which he truly hopes can reverse the trends of disapproval. But Rove, Bush and others will find that words aren't going to shift the opinion or reverse the public disapproval of the war as Bush really hopes he can Thursday. Actions speak louder than words, and the ongoing bombs and cries in Iraq are going to ring louder than anything he says Tuesday. * The bottom line is, it saddens me deeply how anyone could support or defend what he has said here, defend anything that demeans the families of those who struggled through 9/11, and deliberately polarizes our great nation. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
***** http://takeittokarl.blogspot.com/ Military liberals express their resentment to Rove's remarks. http://airamericaradio.com/layout.asp?baseurl=RandiRhodes/6-23-05/RandiRhodes.wma A liberal who lost two sons in Iraq speaks on Thursday's edition of the Randi Rhodes Show. http://leonardclark.com/blog/ http://www.leonardclark.com/audio-files/Leonard-Clark-from-Iraq-(3).MP3 http://www.leonardclark.com/audio-files/Leonard-Clark-from-Iraq-(4).MP3] Leonard Clark, who serves in the 860th MP Company of the Arizona National Guard and recently was deployed to Iraq, who also desires being a Democratic candidate for the U.S Senate seat held by John Kyl, responds to Rove's speech and expresses his view on the reality of the conflict there. ***** Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Here's evidence that most liberals, and not just most conservatives, supported seeking revenge on those responsible for 9/11. National Journal article LATimes pdf article * I can honestly say I, myself, would have agreed with Barbara Lee's argument, being the only liberal who voted against the authorization of force, that the language of the authorization sounded too broad to me and had it been more specific at targeting and capturing al-Qaeda operatives, then I would have agreed to the authorization too, for I agree with the points the petitions were calling for, in disciplining our actions and seeing to it we can capture the terrorists without resorting to war. But the fact is that even liberals strongly supported action on those directly responsible for 9/11, thus Rove not only exploited 9/11 last week.....he also flat-out lied. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa [This message has been edited by Alicat (06-27-2005 01:51 PM).] |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Anyway, I feel I have made my full point on Rove's response here, and I believed from the beginning it was designed to be a distraction of sorts from other issues facing the administration, including the growing momentum of the Downing Street Memo and the war in Iraq. I only spent time focusing on this because his words are a prime example of how the current administration just can't govern themselves and that they will just exploit events or distort the reality in order to reverse the effects of public opposition. I also considered this incredibly noteworthy because, after all, Rove quoted himself before as Bush's "brain". I certainly hope that isn't true, for if it was, then it would be clear his administration's clear intent is to divide America rather than unite it, which the breaking of our nation's resolve and unification is what our enemies in the world would enjoy seeing. With that said, I want to push attention back to the Downing Street Memo and to the quagmire in Iraq, but I will remember what Rove has said here, and I believe it is just that kind of language and the White House's inability to control or discipline it that will backfire on their party in 2006, etc. even when the Democrats are still wandering in the woods. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
