Rove Should Apologize. He Went Way Too Easy on Them

OPINION EDITORIALS.COM
JUNE 27, 2005
JUSTIN DARR

After years of attacks from the Left on the War on Terror, Karl Rove has finally said it like it is. America’s Liberals have never approached the War on Terror with the seriousness it deserves.

Oblivious to the obvious irony of Illinois Senator Dick Durbin’s coerced and disingenuous apology for comparing the actions of American troops at Guantanamo Bay to those of the Nazis coming within the same week as Rove’s comments, Democrats in Congress rushed to the aid of their ideological brethren attacking Rove and demanding either his resignation or a similarly disingenuous apology to that of Durbin.

While Karl Rove was only intending to criticize Moveon.org and other radical Leftist groups, he hit far to close to the truth for the comfort of the Liberals on the Hill…

This is why the Liberals rolled out their venerable and well used “outrage machine” in response to Rove’s comments. If the voters knew what the real opinions of the Democrats are, the Democrats could look forward to being the minority party for the next 10 years. And for this Karl Rove should have criticized them.

Rove was far too soft on the Liberals. . .he should have condemned the entire Democratic Party leadership and Liberal establishment not for just seeing 9/11 as a crime rather than act of war, but for attempting to manipulate the tragedy for policial gain and the advance of their agenda at the expense of American lives.

Just as a quick reminder. Here are a few of the statements of prominent Liberals and Democrats that vividly demonstrate Rove’s point that Democrats are now trying to pretend do not exist.

Democrat Congressman Dennis Kucinich, “Afghanistan may be an incubator of terrorism, but it doesn’t follow that we bomb Afghanistan.” (“Offer the Hand of Peace,” “Cleveland Plain Dealer,” 9/30/01.)

Former Democratic Presidential Candidate Al Sharpton, “America is beginning to reap what it has sewn.” (“The New York Times” 12/1/02)

Democratic Congresswoman Marcy Kapur, “One could say that Osama bin Laden… [is] very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped to cast off the British crown.” (The Associated Press, 3/6/03).

**Democratic Senator Patty Murray, “[Bin Laden has been] out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads… and the people are very grateful. We haven’t done that.” **(World Net Daily, 5/17/05.)

Michael Moore, “Let’s examine our contribution to the unsafe world we live in.” (www.michaelmoore.com, 9/12/01.)

Democratic Senator Joseph Biden, the bombing campaign of Afganistan “reinforced existing stereotypes of the United States as a high tech bully.” (Associated Press, 10/23/01.)

Democratic Senator and Presidential Nominee John Kerry, “War on Terror is far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence gathering, law enforcement operation.” (Associated Press, 3/19/03.)

**The list can go on. But for a short cut you might want to read “Beyond September 11. An Anthology of Dissent,” edited by Phil Scranton, which highlights the writings of over 30 of the most prominant Liberal thinkers who in one voice state that not only is the United States wrong in protecting itself from terrorism, but responsible for the attack to begin. **

Then, after the Democratic leadership gives Michael Moore the seat of honor at the Democratic National Convention, they run around screaming, “How can you say we are soft on terror?”

. . .the Democratic leadership has gone far beyond just comments aimed at undermining the war effort and our safety, they have backed their words with actions.

Shortly after 9/11, nearly all Democrats supported military action in the War. . . Opposing military action in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 would have been political suicide and the Democrats knew it. . . .

The Democrats are faced with the prospect of remaining the minority party unless something drastic, like the War going poorly, happens . . . Democrats initiated a policy designed if not to actually limit our ability to fight the War, at least give the impression we cannot win.

Some of these policy decisions have been the opposition of the use of racial and religious profiling to identify security risks on airlines, demanding the closing on Gitmo and release of illegal terrorist combatants, and calling for a definite deadline for the pull out of American troops from Iraq. . .

Karl Rove should have talked about…(the) systematic deception of the American people and undermining of the War by the Democratic Party for nothing more than a few seats in the House and Senate.

…To the Liberals, gaining political power at the expense of another 9/11 and a few thousand more American civilans dead, is a price well worth paying.

“Let me repeat: the U.S. has demanded that Pakistan kill possibly millions of people who are themselves victims of the Taliban”–Noam Chomsky, fall of 2001.

Anyone else have a favorite?

[quote=David_Paul]“Let me repeat: the U.S. has demanded that Pakistan kill possibly millions of people who are themselves victims of the Taliban”–Noam Chomsky, fall of 2001.

Anyone else have a favorite?
[/quote]

Books can be written on the stuff of Noam Chomsky—come to think of it, I believe Buckley and two or three others jointly did at least one. What a piece of work – the stereotype for the anti-tenure crowd.

I have to put the comments of Michael Moore and his body of work right up there --and then Theodore Kennedy – -- the trouble is there is so much, it’s hard to just select one.:smiley: But as your article points up, they all speak with one voice anyway.

HagiaSophia . . .a buzz from a hive. There is no need for leadership commands. They are correct. There is no “conspiracy”. They all know what to do and say.

Chomsky is one of the best. Appears normal at first when he lectures. Plays to compassion and man’s innate desire for order and justice. By the end of it, he has students chasing their tails. They almost get it. They almost are as insightful as Chomsky. If they turn around quick one more time, they will understand it all.

Why in the world would Rove have to apologize to anyone or anything in this world? The man is obviously comfortable in the knowlege that “Ol’ Scratch” has got a special place of importance reserved for him in the afterlife.
In all honesty, I can’t see how the “father of lies” himself could be more effective than Karl.
I can’t wait to see how Hell suddenly becomes a good, desireable and legitimate destination after a post-Earth Rove gets his hands on the Acherontic PR book!

Peace.

[quote=CanonAlberic]Why in the world would Rove have to apologize to anyone or anything in this world? The man is obviously comfortable in the knowlege that “Ol’ Scratch” has got a special place of importance reserved for him in the afterlife.
In all honesty, I can’t see how the “father of lies” himself could be more effective than Karl.
[/quote]

Father Richard John Neuhaus doesn’t think Karl Rove is such a bad guy. He worked with Rove on several Republican position papers and assisted with Catholic outreach during the last election.

Did you know about 75% of those who describe themselves as “Traditional Catholics” voted for George W. Bush in 2004?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.